Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Steven D. Johnson

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2023 WI 73 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2022AP11-D 
 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against  
Steven D. Johnson, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
     v. 
Steven D. Johnson, 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST JOHNSON  
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
November 2, 2023   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Per curiam.  
  
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2023 WI 73
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2022AP11-D 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Steven D. Johnson, Attorney at Law: 
 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
Steven D. Johnson, 
 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
FILED 
 
NOV 2, 2023 
 
Samuel A. Christensen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding.    Attorney's license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   This disciplinary matter comes to the 
court on Attorney Steven D. Johnson's appeal of a report and 
recommendation of Referee Sue E. Bischel. After holding an 
evidentiary hearing, the referee concluded that the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation (OLR) had proven the five misconduct charges 
asserted in its complaint; namely, one count of engaging in 
offensive personality, in violation of Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 
No. 
2022AP11-D   
 
2 
 
20:8.4(g)1 and SCR 40.15;2 one count of failing to adequately 
supervise nonlawyer staff members, in violation of SCR 20:5.3(a)3 
and (b);4 two counts of violating the duty of candor toward a 
tribunal, in violation of SCR 20:3.3(a)(1);5 and one count of 
failing to properly communicate with his client in violation of 
SCR 20:1.4(b).6  As a sanction, the referee recommended that the 
court suspend Attorney Johnson's Wisconsin law license for six 
months and order him to pay the full costs of this disciplinary 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:8.4(g) provides:  "It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to violate the attorney's oath." 
2 SCR 40.15 provides, in pertinent part:  "I will abstain 
from all offensive personality and advance no fact prejudicial 
to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless 
required by the justice of the cause with which I am charged." 
3 SCR 20:5.3(a) provides:  "With respect to a nonlawyer 
employed or retained by or associated with a lawyer a partner, 
and a lawyer who individually or together with other lawyers 
possesses comparable managerial authority in a law firm shall 
make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm has in effect 
measures giving reasonable assurance that the person's conduct 
is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer." 
4 SCR 20:5.3(b) provides:  "With respect to a nonlawyer 
employed or retained by or associated with a lawyer a lawyer 
having direct supervisory authority over the nonlawyer shall 
make reasonable efforts to ensure that the person's conduct is 
compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer." 
5 SCR 20:3.3(a)(1) provides:  "A lawyer shall not knowingly 
make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to 
correct a false statement of material fact or law previously 
made to the tribunal by the lawyer." 
6 SCR 20:1.4(b) provides:  "A lawyer shall explain a matter 
to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make 
informed decisions regarding the representation." 
No. 
2022AP11-D   
 
3 
 
matter, 
which, 
as 
of 
June 
14, 
2023, 
total 
$33,001.74.  
Restitution is not at issue.   
¶2 
Attorney Johnson has appealed the referee's report and 
recommendation.  In his appellate briefing, Attorney Johnson 
argues that the referee made certain incorrect factual findings; 
that the OLR failed to meet its burden of proof; and that a six-
month suspension of his license to practice law is an excessive 
sanction.7   
¶3 
After reviewing this matter and considering Attorney 
Johnson's appeal, we accept the referee's factual findings, and 
we agree with the referee that Attorney Johnson committed the 
charged violations.  We further agree with the referee that 
Attorney Johnson's misconduct warrants a six-month license 
suspension.  We impose full costs. 
 
¶4 
Attorney Johnson was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in July 2005 and practices in Appleton, Wisconsin.  He 
has a disciplinary history.  In August 2008, he received a 
private 
reprimand 
for 
being 
convicted 
of 
one 
count 
of 
misdemeanor battery as a domestic abuse incident. Private 
Reprimand No. 2008-21.8  In May 2010, he received a public 
                                                 
7 At oral argument, Attorney Johnson modified his argument 
regarding the factual accuracy of the referee's report.  While 
registering general disagreement with the referee's findings, he 
argued that even if all of the findings are accepted, they are 
insufficient to justify the recommended six-month suspension. 
   
8 Electronic 
copy 
available 
at 
https://compendium.wicourts.gov/app/54621f3d2a71043b345c4c516a74
3019494e1732.continue?action=detail&detailOffset=13. 
No. 
2022AP11-D   
 
4 
 
reprimand for being convicted of one count of felony child abuse 
(recklessly 
causing 
harm), 
which 
related 
to 
an 
incident 
occurring at Attorney Johnson's home involving his 12-year-old 
son.  Public Reprimand of Steven D. Johnson, No. 2010-4.9 
 
¶5 
Attorney Johnson has been a solo practitioner at 
Johnson Law Firm SC in Appleton, Wisconsin during his entire 
legal 
career. 
 
All 
of 
Attorney 
Johnson's 
employees 
are 
nonlawyers.  His areas of practice are criminal defense, family 
law, personal injury, and bankruptcy.  He takes public defender 
appointments in certain types of cases.  
 
¶6 
The behavior in question took place from late 2018 to 
late 2020.  As mentioned above, Attorney Johnson's behavior gave 
rise to five counts of misconduct.  
 Count One 
 
¶7 
In Count One, the OLR alleged that Attorney Johnson 
engaged in offensive personality toward his staff in violation 
of the Attorney's Oath in SCR 40.15, which is enforced via SCR 
20:8.4(g). 
 
Several 
members 
of 
Attorney 
Johnson's 
staff 
testified at the evidentiary hearing regarding his office 
conduct.  Attorney Johnson also testified regarding his office 
conduct.  After hearing competing testimony on the issue, the 
referee chose to believe the version of events to which several 
of his staff members testified.  Specifically, the referee found 
that, starting in late 2018 and continuing to April 2020, 
                                                 
9 Electronic 
copy 
available 
at 
https://compendium.wicourts.gov/app/280d26380115475582510c652e62
7c1c456d1251.continue?action=detail&detailOffset=1. 
No. 
2022AP11-D   
 
5 
 
Attorney Johnson repeatedly used the words "bitches," "stupid 
bitches," "whores," "idiots," "retard," and "retarded" when 
addressing staff.  The referee further found that Attorney 
Johnson yelled at staff, sometimes for an extended period of 
time, and occasionally hit the counter or wall when upset.  The 
referee further found that Attorney Johnson yelled at three of 
his staff members, "I hope you and all your fucking children 
die," causing one staff member to quit immediately because she 
had a young child suffering from cancer.  The referee further 
found that on one occasion, Attorney Johnson uttered a racial 
slur that was overheard by two employees.  Finally, the referee 
found that at least five of Attorney Johnson's staff members 
left their employment primarily because of Attorney Johnson's 
behavior. 
 
¶8 
Based on these findings, the referee concluded that 
Attorney 
Johnson 
failed 
to 
refrain 
from 
all 
offensive 
personality in his interactions with his employees from late 
2018 through April 2020, and therefore violated the Attorney's 
Oath in SCR 40.15, which is enforced via SCR 20:8.4(g). 
 
Count Two 
 
¶9 
Count Two concerns Attorney Johnson's alleged failure 
to review documents prepared by his staff prior to those 
documents being filed with the court, and alleged failure to 
adequately supervise and train his staff, in violation of SCR 
20:5.3(a) and (b).  Several members of Attorney Johnson's staff 
testified at the evidentiary hearing regarding his supervisory 
and training efforts.  Attorney Johnson also testified regarding 
No. 
2022AP11-D   
 
6 
 
his supervisory and training efforts.  After hearing competing 
testimony on the issue, the referee chose to believe the version 
of events to which several of his staff members testified.  
Specifically, the referee found that in criminal matters, which 
constituted the majority of Attorney Johnson's work, one or more 
of Attorney Johnson's nonlawyer staff performed the following 
duties without Attorney Johnson's participation and with his 
permission:   
 
met with clients and completed fee agreements;  
 
drafted various motions, affixed Attorney Johnson's 
signature, and filed them with the court;  
 
reviewed discovery materials and discussed them with 
clients;  
 
completed preliminary hearing waiver forms and plea 
questionnaires 
with 
clients, 
including 
answering 
clients' 
questions 
about 
the 
process, 
affixing 
Attorney Johnson's signature, and filing them with the 
court;  
 
negotiated plea agreements with prosecutors using 
Attorney Johnson's email;  
 
watched discovery videos to identify improper police 
procedures or possible defenses;  
 
prepared materials for trial (e.g. opening statements, 
witness lists, witness questions, cross-examination 
questions, and voir dire questions);  
 
automatically prepared and filed a substitution of 
judge request for one particular judge;  
No. 
2022AP11-D   
 
7 
 
 
drafted, electronically signed, and filed motions for 
continuance because Attorney Johnson had a conflict or 
the court date was not convenient for him; and 
 
drafted, electronically signed, and filed motions for 
modification of bond.   
The referee noted that it was very uncommon for Attorney Johnson 
to review the documents his staff prepared in criminal cases 
before they affixed his signature and e-filed them.   
 
¶10 Regarding Attorney Johnson's personal injury caseload, 
the referee found that he instructed nonlawyer staff to draft 
demand letters——which he did not review——and negotiate with 
insurance companies.   
 
¶11 Describing 
Attorney 
Johnson's 
work 
habits 
more 
generally, the referee found that he knew his staff was engaging 
in all the above-referenced activities and did not tell them to 
stop.  He rarely drafted documents himself.  He was in the 
office a few times a week in 2018-2019——approximately 15% of his 
work week.  He was reluctant to accept phone calls from clients, 
told his staff to bring their questions to him, and instructed 
staff what to say to the client.   
¶12 Based on these findings, the referee concluded that 
Attorney Johnson's conduct violated the rules requiring his 
supervision of nonlawyer assistants, SCR 20:5.3 (a) and (b). 
 
Count Three 
¶13 Count Three concerns Attorney Johnson's lack of candor 
toward a small claims court commissioner.  The referee found the 
following facts with regard to this count.  In two small claims 
No. 
2022AP11-D   
 
8 
 
cases, Attorney Johnson had sought and received reimbursement 
from his insurance company for the damages he was seeking in 
small claims court.  Both small claims actions were against 
Attorney Johnson's former employee, F.W., and her husband; both 
actions concerned money spent on an expert in a case brought by 
Attorney Johnson on F.W.'s husband's behalf.  F.W. had written a 
$1,500 check on the law firm account to pay the expert.  F.W. 
claimed that Attorney Johnson had authorized her to write the 
check; he claimed otherwise.  F.W. agreed to reimburse Attorney 
Johnson for that amount but paid only $200.  Attorney Johnson 
filed a small claims action against F.W. and her husband in 
November 2019, shortly after F.W. quit working for him.  Soon 
thereafter, Attorney Johnson retained a lawyer to represent him 
in this small claims matter.  Attorney Johnson obtained a 
default judgment against F.W. and her husband for $1,300 plus 
costs.   
¶14 Attorney Johnson subsequently received an invoice from 
the expert for an additional $2,877.90.  In February 2020, 
Attorney Johnson, through Attorney C.F., filed a second small 
claims action against F.W. and her husband for the additional 
amount invoiced.   
¶15 On May 11, 2020, Attorney Johnson filed a claim with 
his insurance company, claiming that F.W. had stolen from him 
all the money for the expert.  On May 20, 2020, Attorney 
Johnson's insurer issued a check to him for the entire amount 
less his deductible.  Attorney Johnson did not pay the expert's 
second invoice until August 4, 2020. 
No. 
2022AP11-D   
 
9 
 
¶16 On October 6, 2020, Attorney Johnson's second small 
claims action went to trial.  During direct examination, 
Attorney Johnson never disclosed that he had been reimbursed by 
his insurer.  F.W. then testified that she thought Attorney 
Johnson had been reimbursed by his insurer.  The court 
commissioner asked Attorney Johnson if that was true, and he 
ultimately confirmed it was.  The court commissioner asked 
Attorney Johnson's lawyer, Attorney C.F., if he was aware of the 
insurance payment, and he stated he had become aware of the 
payment only within the previous five minutes.  The court 
commissioner dismissed the case.  Later, with Attorney Johnson's 
consent, the court commissioner dismissed the default judgment 
against F.W. and her husband that had been entered in Attorney 
Johnson's first small claims case. 
¶17 At 
the 
disciplinary 
hearing, 
Attorney 
Johnson 
testified that he had told Attorney C.F. about the insurance 
payment many times before the small claims trial, and that he 
had mentioned the insurance payment in a text to Attorney C.F. a 
few days before trial.  Attorney C.F. testified that he could 
not specifically recall a conversation with Attorney Johnson 
about the insurance reimbursement prior to the text, and that he 
did not read Attorney Johnson's entire text before the small 
claims trial.  The referee deemed Attorney C.F.'s testimony more 
credible than that of Attorney Johnson, and determined that 
Attorney Johnson knowingly omitted material facts in his 
testimony at the small claims trial in violation of SCR 20:3.3 
(a)(1).   
No. 
2022AP11-D   
 
10 
 
 
Counts Four and Five 
¶18 Counts Four and Five both concern Attorney Johnson's 
representation of D.P.  The referee found the following facts 
regarding these counts.  Attorney Johnson represented D.P. in a 
felony matter in circuit court.  One of Attorney Johnson's 
nonlawyer staff reviewed a waiver of preliminary examination 
form with D.P.  D.P. signed the waiver form on October 9, 2020.  
Attorney Johnson's electronic signature was affixed to the 
waiver form, which attested that Attorney Johnson had personally 
explained and discussed the form with D.P., answered D.P.'s 
questions, and observed D.P. sign the form.  In fact, Attorney 
Johnson did not do any of those things before D.P. signed the 
waiver form on October 9, 2020, or before the form was filed 
later that day, or before the October 12, 2020 waiver hearing 
before a court commissioner.  
 
¶19 In Count Four, the OLR alleged, and the referee agreed 
in a summary judgment order, that by failing to discuss the 
defendant's waiver of preliminary examination form with D.P. 
prior to having D.P. sign the document, Attorney Johnson failed 
to explain matters to his client in violation of SCR 20:1.4(b).   
¶20 In Count Five, the OLR alleged, and the referee 
determined in her report, that by filing with the court a waiver 
of preliminary examination form on which he falsely attested 
that he had personally explained and discussed the waiver with 
D.P. and answered his questions, Attorney Johnson made a false 
statement to the court in violation of SCR 20:3.3(a)(1). 
No. 
2022AP11-D   
 
11 
 
¶21 The referee next addressed the issue of sanctions.  
The referee considered all of Attorney Johnson's violations to 
be very serious.  Regarding Count One, the referee noted that 
Attorney 
Johnson's 
offensive 
behavior 
and 
language 
was 
persistent and directed to his entire staff; that his comment 
about wishing his staff's children would die was "simply 
unconscionable"; and that the only relief staff could find was 
to quit.  As to Count Two, the referee wrote that she was 
"particularly struck with the seriousness and extent" of 
Attorney Johnson's failure to adequately supervise his nonlawyer 
staff.  His violation of this rule was "egregious," the referee 
wrote, for "[i]n many respects, [Attorney Johnson] was demanding 
or encouraging all of his nonlawyer staff to essentially engage 
in the practice of law.  The potential consequences of that are 
particularly alarming in criminal cases."  Regarding Counts 
Three and Five, the referee noted that Attorney Johnson's lack 
of candor toward the tribunal was particularly concerning given 
that he made false statements to a tribunal as both an attorney 
and a witness.  Regarding Count Four, the referee characterized 
Attorney Johnson's failure to explain the waiver of preliminary 
hearing 
form 
to 
his 
client 
as 
a 
very 
serious 
matter, 
notwithstanding Attorney Johnson's claim that his client was not 
harmed and was happy with his representation. 
¶22 The referee noted there are a number of aggravating 
factors that affect the level of recommended discipline.  
Attorney Johnson's disciplinary history arose out of two 
previous criminal matters——one concerning a domestic abuse 
No. 
2022AP11-D   
 
12 
 
incident, and another involving child abuse.  His misbehavior 
here included a selfish motive, in that he tried to collect 
money in his small claims cases despite the fact he had been 
reimbursed already by his insurer.  His various forms of 
misbehavior went on for some time, stretching over a two-year 
period.  His expressions of remorse were questionable.  And he 
was untruthful during his sworn disciplinary hearing testimony.   
¶23 The referee found few mitigating factors in play.  
Attorney 
Johnson 
was 
cooperative 
during 
the 
disciplinary 
process, though this factor was diminished by what the referee 
deemed to be his "false" testimony during the disciplinary 
hearing.  His prior reprimands, from 2008 and 2010, are remote 
in time.  Although Attorney Johnson claimed that stress caused 
by certain personal events——particularly his ex-wife's illness 
and death in 2019——should be viewed as a mitigating factor, 
especially with regard to the offensive personality count, the 
referee was unconvinced, finding that the primary cause of his 
misbehavior in this regard was frustration over staff error and 
matters not going as planned in court.  The referee noted that 
Attorney Johnson's claim that stress caused his poor behavior 
toward staff might be more persuasive if he had admitted to even 
some of the allegations of poor behavior——which he didn't, 
choosing instead to deny them all outright. 
¶24 Ultimately, 
the 
referee 
determined 
that 
Attorney 
Johnson's conduct merited a six-month suspension, as the OLR had 
requested. 
No. 
2022AP11-D   
 
13 
 
¶25 Attorney Johnson appeals.  In conducting our review, 
we will affirm the referee's findings of fact unless they are 
found to be clearly erroneous, but we will review the referee's 
conclusions of law on a de novo basis.  See In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Inglimo, 2007 WI 126, ¶ 5, 305 Wis. 2d 71, 
740 N.W.2d 125. The court may impose whatever sanction it sees 
fit regardless of the referee's recommendation.  See In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶ 44, 261 
Wis.2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686. 
¶26 As to Count One (offensive personality), Attorney 
Johnson claims that the referee seemed to place the burden of 
proof on him, requiring him to disprove the testimony of 
individuals who had mischaracterized his conduct due to their 
own agendas and hostility toward him.  He admits he used swear 
words in the office and uttered a racial slur when greeting a 
friend, 
but 
he 
insists 
that 
his 
poor 
language 
choices, 
considered contextually and in light of the stress he was under, 
should not constitute offensive personality.  He specifically 
denies using the more vulgar language that employees attributed 
to him.  As to his former employees' claim that he stated he 
wished their children would die, he insists their testimony on 
this point was inconsistent and should not be believed over his 
testimony denying making that comment. 
 
¶27 As to Count Two (failure to supervise nonlawyer 
staff), Attorney Johnson claims he did not violate SCR 20:5.3(a) 
and (b) because these provisions do not require him to 
personally perform training, nor do they prohibit him from 
No. 
2022AP11-D   
 
14 
 
delegating these functions.  The rule only requires that an 
attorney ensure his or her employees are properly trained.  
Attorney Johnson insists he made sure his staff was properly 
trained——by him, by more experienced employees, and by use of a 
detailed employee handbook.  He claims that he "had many 
different active forms of communication and document review" 
that he and his staff used daily, and the fact that the system 
wasn't perfect doesn't render the system nonexistent.  After 
all, Attorney Johnson says, SCR 20:5.3(a) and (b) requires 
"reasonable efforts," not perfection.   
 
¶28 As for Count Three (lack of candor toward the 
tribunal), Attorney Johnson takes issue with the referee's 
factual findings.  He insists that in advance of the small 
claims trial, he told his lawyer, Attorney C.F., about the 
reimbursement he had received from his insurer, and he left it 
up to Attorney C.F. to decide what to do with this information.  
The referee's determination that Attorney C.F. was not aware of 
the insurance reimbursement until Attorney Johnson admitted to 
the reimbursement during the disciplinary hearing is incorrect.  
And in any event, Attorney Johnson argues, to the extent he 
knowingly omitted a material fact from his representations to 
the court, any such error was fleeting:  he truthfully testified 
at the small claims trial, after he was asked, that he had 
received an insurance reimbursement.  
 
¶29 As to Count Four, concerning his failure to discuss 
with D.P. the waiver of preliminary examination form in 
violation of SCR 20:1.4(b), Attorney Johnson insists that he did 
No. 
2022AP11-D   
 
15 
 
not violate the rule because D.P. did not testify in this 
disciplinary matter.  Thus, it is unknown what D.P. understood, 
or didn't understand, at the time of the hearing in question, or 
whether he truly had enough information to make an informed 
decision regarding the preliminary examination waiver.  And 
there is no evidence that D.P. was harmed or otherwise unhappy 
with Attorney Johnson's representation. 
 
¶30 Finally, as to Count Five, Attorney Johnson claims 
that the OLR did not prove by clear, satisfactory, and 
convincing evidence that he knowingly made a false statement on 
D.P.'s waiver of preliminary hearing form.  Attorney Johnson 
insists that his paralegal completed the form, and because he 
did not review it, he was not aware of the incorrect statement 
it contained.  This was sloppy work, he concedes, but not 
unethical work.  Thus, the report's conclusion as to this count 
should be rejected. 
 
¶31 As to the appropriate length of suspension——the topic 
to which Attorney Johnson devoted most of his oral argument 
time——he submits that a suspension short of six months is 
merited.  He suggests a 90-day suspension would be most 
appropriate.  In recommending a longer suspension, Attorney 
Johnson insists the referee gave insufficient weight to the 
difficulties that he was experiencing in his personal life at 
the relevant time, including his ex-wife's sickness and death, 
the impact these events had on their child, and the stress of 
the COVID-19 pandemic.  He says that lesser discipline has been 
imposed for what he deems to be far more egregious behavior.  
No. 
2022AP11-D   
 
16 
 
See, e.g., In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Kratz, 2014 WI 
31, 353 Wis. 2d 696, 851 N.W.2d 219 (four-month suspension for 
sending unsolicited, sexually suggestive text messages to a 
domestic abuse crime victim, as well as for making sexually 
suggestive statements to two social workers before or during 
court proceedings); In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Blask, 216 Wis. 2d 129, 573 N.W.2d 835 (1998) (public reprimand 
following two physical altercations and the provision of false 
information to the police regarding one of the altercations).  
Finally, Attorney Johnson notes that, given the time involved in 
the 
reinstatement 
process, 
a 
six-month 
suspension 
would 
effectively stretch into a much longer period, which is "a 
professional death sentence" for a solo practitioner like 
himself.   
 
¶32 The OLR disputes Attorney Johnson's claims.  The OLR 
notes, regarding Count One, that all conflicts in the testimony 
as to the facts necessary to determine whether Attorney Johnson 
engaged in offensive personality have been resolved by the 
referee and are supported by the evidence.  The referee is the 
ultimate arbiter of credibility, and the referee determined that 
the testimony of several of Attorney Johnson's former staff 
members was more credible than Attorney Johnson's testimony.  
This 
credibility 
determination 
should 
not 
be 
disturbed.  
Attorney Johnson's proven, chronic, ill-tempered conduct toward 
his staff plainly violates the offensive personality rule. 
 
¶33 As to Count Two, the OLR submits that the facts, as 
found by the referee, speak for themselves.  The referee found 
No. 
2022AP11-D   
 
17 
 
that Attorney Johnson did very minimal training of his nonlawyer 
staff regardless of their education and experience.  The referee 
further found that Attorney Johnson permitted his staff to 
perform a number of legal duties that he should have been 
performing himself——again, with nearly nonexistent supervision 
by him.  Finally, the OLR notes, the referee did not merely 
conclude that Attorney Johnson's conduct violated SCR 20:5.3 (a) 
and (b); she concluded that Attorney Johnson's violations of the 
rule were "rampant."  There is no reason to question the 
referee's determinations regarding this count. 
 
¶34 As to Count Three, the OLR again submits that the 
facts speak for themselves.  Attorney Johnson's primary argument 
is that Attorney C.F. was well aware of the insurance payment 
prior to the small claims trial and was responsible for what to 
do with that information.  The referee found otherwise, 
believing Attorney C.F.'s testimony that he did not fully read 
Attorney 
Johnson's 
text 
that 
mentioned 
the 
insurance 
reimbursement, and that he first became aware of the insurance 
reimbursement during the small claims trial.  The referee 
disbelieved Attorney Johnson's testimony that he told Attorney 
C.F. many times about the insurance reimbursement.  As the 
ultimate arbiter of credibility, the referee's determinations 
should not be disturbed. 
 
¶35 Regarding Count Four, the OLR once again submits that 
the facts speak for themselves.  The plain language of SCR 
20:1.4(b) states that a lawyer "shall explain a matter" to the 
client, and the referee specifically found that there was no 
No. 
2022AP11-D   
 
18 
 
evidence that Attorney Johnson explained anything at all to D.P. 
about the waiver of preliminary examination form prior to having 
D.P. sign the form.  Attorney Johnson's failure to produce any 
evidence that he explained anything to D.P. makes it clear that 
the OLR was entitled to summary judgment on this count. 
 
¶36 Regarding Count Five, the OLR again relies on the 
facts found by the referee.  The referee found that one of 
Attorney Johnson's nonlawyer employees reviewed a waiver of 
preliminary examination form with D.P., who then signed the 
form.  The referee further found that Attorney Johnson's 
nonlawyer employee electronically signed Attorney Johnson's name 
on the waiver form and e-filed it, just as staff had done on a 
regular basis with other documents.  The waiver form falsely 
stated that Attorney Johnson had personally explained and 
discussed the form with D.P. and had personally observed D.P. 
sign the form.  And, the referee found, Attorney Johnson knew 
about all of these things.  In light of these non-clearly-
erroneous factual findings, the OLR says, Attorney Johnson's 
denials about his intent and knowledge merit little or no 
weight. 
 
¶37 Regarding 
the 
referee's 
recommended 
six-month 
suspension, the OLR says that this suspension length is 
supported by the evidence and is commensurate with the degree, 
extent, and nature of Attorney Johnson's misconduct. 
 
¶38 As we view it, the OLR has the better of the two sets 
of arguments.  Most of Attorney Johnson's arguments rely on 
challenges to the referee's factual determinations.  These are 
No. 
2022AP11-D   
 
19 
 
long-shot arguments, as this court defers to the referee's 
determination of historical facts and assessments of witness 
credibility.  See In re Disciplinary Proc. Against Boyle, 2013 
WI 103, ¶ 40, 351 Wis. 2d 713, 840 N.W.2d 694; In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Polich, 2005 WI 36, ¶ 25, 279 
Wis. 2d 266, 694 N.W.2d 367.  The referee heard two days of 
testimony, saw the witnesses, gauged their credibility, and 
wrote a lengthy report discussing her findings in detail.  
Attorney Johnson offers nothing that would cause this court to 
second-guess the referee's well-explained factual findings or 
the legal conclusions that follow from them. 
 
¶39 As 
for 
Attorney 
Johnson's 
argument 
that 
the 
recommended six-month suspension is excessive, we disagree.  
Attorney Johnson's first category of misconduct——his pervasive 
verbal abuse of his staff members, compelling many of them to 
quit——alone justifies a not-inconsequential suspension.  In 
Kratz, 
this 
court 
imposed 
a 
four-month 
suspension 
on 
a 
prosecutor——who, unlike Attorney Johnson, had 
no previous 
disciplinary history——for sending inappropriate text messages to 
a domestic abuse crime victim, and for making inappropriate 
verbal statements to two social workers before or during court 
proceedings.  A four-month suspension might be a reasonable 
suspension length for Attorney Johnson's long course of highly 
inappropriate verbal behavior toward his staff members if this 
were the only category of his misconduct. 
 
¶40 But 
there 
are 
several 
additional 
categories 
of 
misconduct to consider.  First, the court must consider Attorney 
No. 
2022AP11-D   
 
20 
 
Johnson's "rampant," "egregious," and "appalling" (in the 
referee's words) violation of his duty to supervise nonlawyer 
staff, in which he demanded or encouraged his nonlawyer staff to 
essentially 
engage 
in 
the 
practice 
of 
law 
without 
any 
supervision by him.  Second, the court must consider Attorney 
Johnson's lack of candor with tribunals——both as a lawyer and a 
litigant.  And third, the court must consider Attorney Johnson's 
failure to explain anything at all to his client about the 
waiver of his right of preliminary examination.10  To these 
categories of misconduct, the court must also add to its 
consideration the various aggravating factors presented here; 
i.e., Attorney Johnson's disciplinary history, the referee's 
determination that he was untruthful during portions of his 
disciplinary hearing testimony, his questionable ability to 
acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct, the selfish 
nature of certain of his acts, and the length of time his 
misconduct spanned.   
 
¶41 Considering all of these factors, the recommended six-
month suspension is merited.  Although we are not unsympathetic 
to the personal difficulties Attorney Johnson has faced in 
recent years, these circumstances cannot serve as carte blanche 
for him to disregard his professional obligations in the manner 
proven here.  His misconduct is blatant; his two prior 
reprimands clearly failed to have their intended effect.  We 
                                                 
10 Given this constellation of misconduct, it is not 
surprising there is no precedent that is precisely on all fours 
with this case. 
No. 
2022AP11-D   
 
21 
 
agree with the referee that a more severe sanction is warranted 
this time around.  And the fact that a six-month suspension will 
require him to go through a formal reinstatement proceeding is a 
plus, not a minus.  See SCR 22.28(3).  For the benefit of the 
public and the bar, it is important that Attorney Johnson be 
fully vetted before being allowed to practice law again. 
 
¶42 We turn now to the issue of costs.  They are 
considerable ($33,001.74 as of June 14, 2023), but Attorney 
Johnson does not dispute them, and we see no reason on this 
record to shift them away from Attorney Johnson and towards 
other members of the bar.  We impose them in full.  See SCR 
22.24(1m). 
 
¶43 Finally, 
we 
note 
that 
the 
OLR 
does 
not 
seek 
restitution. None is ordered. 
 
¶44 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Steven D. Johnson is 
suspended for a period of six months, beginning December 7, 
2023. 
 
¶45 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Steven D. Johnson must pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the amount of this proceeding totaling 
$33,001.74. 
 
¶46 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Steven D. Johnson shall 
comply with the requirements of SCR 22.26 pertaining to the 
duties of a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin 
has been suspended. 
No. 
2022AP11-D   
 
22 
 
 
¶47 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions with this order is required for reinstatement.  See 
SCR 22.29(4)(c). 
No. 
2022AP11-D   
 
 
 
1