A Voluntary Surrender

The Georgia Supreme Court has accepted a voluntary license surrender

The petition concerns four underlying disciplinary matters, and Van Johnson admits to the following facts. With regard to State Disciplinary Board Docket (“SDBD”) Nos. 7777 and 7778, Client One retained Van Johnson to represent her in connection with a personal injury action in November 2021. During the course of that representation, Van Johnson was suspended from the practice of law for six months beginning in February 2022 related to a different disciplinary matter. See In the Matter of Van Johnson, 313 Ga. 151 (868 SE2d 794) (2022). Van Johnson failed to inform Client One of his suspension and continued to represent her. During his suspension, Van Johnson settled Client One’s claims in April of 2022 but falsely told the client in May 2022 that he was still engaged in negotiations with the insurer even after receiving a settlement check for $47,000 from the insurer. The check was made jointly payable to Client One and Van Johnson, and Van Johnson forged Client One’s signature on the check and cashed it, retaining the funds for himself.  After receiving no communication from Van Johnson, Client One contacted the insurer directly and learned that her case had been settled and a check had been issued. Client One confronted Van Johnson, who wrote a check to Client One for $28,759. Client One deposited the check, but Van Johnson had put a stop-payment order on it, so her bank was unable to honor the check. Client One has not received any payment from Van Johnson, nor has Van Johnson paid any of Client One’s medical liens, which have negatively affected Client One’s credit.

With regard to SDBD No. 7811, in October 2022, Client Two paid Van Johnson a $3,000 retainer to represent her in a divorce case. Client Two met with Van Johnson in November or December 2022 to review a draft of her divorce petition. Van Johnson promised to correct errors pointed out by Client Two, but he never contacted her again and never filed her divorce petition. Client Two was forced to hire a new attorney to handle her divorce. Van Johnson sent a letter to the State Bar in December 2022 stating his intention to refund Client Two’s $3,000 retainer, but had not done so by the time he filed his petition.

With regard to State Disciplinary Board File No. 230071, in October 2021, Client Three hired Van Johnson to represent her in a criminal matter and paid him in installments. On the same day she made her final payment, Client Three turned herself in for arrest. Van Johnson assured her that he would attend her bond hearing, which was scheduled for the following day, but he failed to do so. Client Three did not hear from him again until December 2021, when he told her that he had been out of the country. Van Johnson promised to follow up with her the next day, but he did not. Despite taking $3,500 from Client Three and promising to represent her in her criminal case, Van Johnson never filed an entry of appearance or took any other action on Client Three’s behalf.

On or about December 23, 2021, Client Three informed Van Johnson in an email that there was a new case pending in juvenile court related to her criminal charges. Van Johnson responded that that it would cost $4,500 for his representation in that case. Client Three paid Van Johnson $1,500 in January 2022, but a few days after she paid him, the Georgia Division of Family & Children Services (“DFCS”) returned Client Three’s children to her custody. The juvenile court case was later dismissed. Client Three advised Van Johnson accordingly and requested a refund of her $1,500 payment because her case had been resolved. In February 2022, Client Three received a folder from Van Johnson containing her file and a letter stating that he was no longer practicing law. The letter advised her to find another attorney. Van Johnson promised to refund her money, but he never did. Van Johnson denied to the State Bar that he was ever retained for the juvenile court case, but he is listed as Client Three’s counsel in court documents filed in January 2022, and the juvenile court judge confirmed that Van Johnson had contacted the court on Client Three’s behalf.

Sanction

it is ordered that the name of Anthony O. Van Johnson be removed from the rolls of persons authorized to practice law in the State of Georgia. Van Johnson is reminded of his duties pursuant to Bar Rule 4-219 (b).

(Mike Frisch)