In the Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided: February 1, 2022

S22Y0282. IN THE MATTER OF ANTHONY O. VAN JOHNSON.

PER CURIAM.

This disciplinary matter is before the Court pursuant to the 

report and recommendation issued by Special Master S. Jeffrey 

Rusbridge, who recommends that the Court accept the petition for 

voluntary discipline filed by Anthony O. Van Johnson (Bar No. 

392232) and impose a six-month suspension from the practice of law

and conditions for reinstatement for Van Johnson’s multiple 

violations of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct set forth in 

Bar Rule 4-102 (d) in conjunction with his representation of two 

clients in civil matters. The Bar filed a formal complaint as to each 

client. Pursuant to Bar Rule 4-227 (c) (1), Van Johnson filed a 

petition for voluntary discipline, which he amended, admitting 

certain violations and agreeing to accept a suspension of three to six 
2

months. The Bar responded by recommending acceptance of Van 

Johnson’s amended petition for voluntary discipline and that Van 

Johnson receive a suspension of three to six months. The parties 

consented to entry of a final report and recommendation as to both 

complaints, which the Special Master entered. 

The Special Master found the following facts to be established 

by the record, and we agree that the record supports his findings. 

Van Johnson has been a member of the State Bar since 1996. In 

State Disciplinary Board Docket (“SDBD”) No. 7295, after settling a 

personal-injury client’s case for $9,000 and depositing the 

settlement proceeds in his Lawyers Trust Account, Van Johnson did 

not, at that time, notify his client that he had received the funds and 

did not deliver to his client and to his client’s medical-care providers 

the funds they were entitled to. Instead, Van Johnson paid himself 

$3,000 as his representation fee and transferred all the remaining 

funds in his trust account (except $1) to his law firm operating 

account, despite his client’s making numerous requests for his 

portion of the settlement funds. Van Johnson responded to some of 
3

those requests with inaccurate information and did not respond at 

all to others. After the client filed a grievance with the Bar, Van 

Johnson responded by filing this petition and admitting a violation 

of Rule 1.15, explaining that he had been dealing with public 

allegations of sexual assault that had negatively impacted his law 

practice, and stating that he would waive his representation fee and 

make the client whole by January 31, 2019. On or around February 

27, 2019, Van Johnson paid the client and the client’s medical-care 

providers the amounts they were owed, and Van Johnson has since 

refunded his $3,000 representation fee to the client.

In SDBD No. 7315, a client paid Van Johnson $1,500 in 

November 2018 to represent her in a contempt action against her 

ex-husband and to obtain a name change for her eldest son. Van 

Johnson delayed filing the contempt action on his client’s behalf 

until March 2019, and did not file the name-change petition until 

April 2019. In the interim, Van Johnson failed to adequately 

communicate with his client regarding the status of her matters. 
4

Van Johnson has since refunded his $1,500 representation fee to the 

client.

Based on these facts, the Special Master found that Van 

Johnson had violated Rules 1.3, 1.4 (a), and 1.15 (I) and (II). The 

maximum punishment for a violation of Rule 1.3 or 1.15 is 

disbarment, whereas the maximum punishment for a violation of 

Rule 1.4 is a public reprimand.

The Special Master considered the ABA Standards for 

Imposing Lawyer Sanctions. See In the Matter of Morse, 266 Ga. 652

(470 SE2d 232) (1996); ABA Standard 4.0 and 4.41. The Special 

Master then considered the existence of mitigating or aggravating 

factors. See ABA Standard 9.0 et seq. The Special Master found in 

mitigation that Van Johnson did not have a prior disciplinary 

record, had experienced personal or emotional problems that 

negatively impacted his law practice, and exhibited a cooperative 

attitude toward the proceedings.

1 See ABA Standard 9.32 (a), (c), 

 

1 The mitigating factor that Van Johnson experienced personal or 

emotional problems that negatively impacted his law practice refers to the 
5

and (e). The Special Master found in aggravation that Van Johnson 

had multiple offenses as part of this case and substantial experience 

in the practice of law. See ABA Standard 9.22 (c) and (i). 

After acknowledging that an attorney’s misuse of a client’s 

funds is punishable by a maximum penalty of disbarment and that 

under the ABA Standards, disbarment is appropriate for a knowing 

conversion of client property that causes potential injury to the 

client, the Special Master noted that penalties in Georgia cases for 

misusing client funds range from reprimands to various lengths of 

suspension to the ultimate penalty of disbarment. Compare In the 

 

sexual assault allegations he faced. In his original and amended petitions for 

voluntary discipline, Van Johnson stated that the sexual assault allegations 

were false allegations, and that he was later charged with a felony for improper 

administration of a drug, which charge was dismissed. According to his 

deposition testimony, a former employee falsely accused him of drugging her 

and sexually assaulting her. He testified that the district attorney dismissed 

the single charge which stemmed from these false allegations. He testified that 

the ordeal traumatized him and impacted his ability to represent the clients 

involved in this case, and that these matters are what caused him to suffer 

from personal and emotional distress that contributed to his behavior in this 

case. In the State Bar’s response to Van Johnson’s Amended Petition for 

Voluntary Discipline, the State Bar noted that the mitigating factor of personal 

or emotional problems “applies with significant weight.” The Special Master 

appears to have credited Van Johnson’s assertions that these allegations were 

false and that enduring these false allegations caused the personal and 

emotional problems that contributed to his professional misconduct. There is 

evidence in the record to support findings to that effect.
6

Matter of Turner, 289 Ga. 563, 564 (713 SE2d 867) (2011) (imposing 

Review Panel reprimand for lawyer who admitted to unauthorized 

manipulation of client contract and funds, but who was remorseful, 

cooperated with disciplinary proceedings, had no prior disciplinary 

history, made restitution, and provided evidence of good character),

with In the Matter of Storrs, 300 Ga. 68, 68-69 (792 SE2d 664) (2016) 

(imposing three-month suspension for lawyer who misappropriated

$11,150 of client funds and had one prior disciplinary matter, but 

suffered from emotional and mental distress, cooperated with 

disciplinary proceedings, made restitution, and had a record of 

community service), In the Matter of Freeman, 269 Ga. 906, 906-909 

(506 SE2d 872) (1998) (imposing three-month suspension for lawyer 

who misappropriated $5,736.04 of client funds, but suffered from 

depression, provided evidence of good character and community and 

professional service, had no prior disciplinary record, and reported 

his own misconduct to the Bar), In the Matter of Duncan, 301 Ga. 

898, 898-901 (804 SE2d 342) (2017) (imposing six-month suspension 

for lawyer who misappropriated $14,800 of client funds and had 
7

multiple disciplinary matters, but who had no prior disciplinary 

history, made restitution, and suffered from mental and emotional 

difficulties), In the Matter of Terrell, 291 Ga. 91, 91-92 (727 SE2d 

499) (2012) (imposing six-month suspension for lawyer who 

misappropriated client funds, but suffered from personal and 

emotional problems, made restitution, had no prior disciplinary 

history, and exhibited good character), In the Matter of Champion, 

275 Ga. 140, 140 (562 SE2d 179) (2002) (imposing 12-month 

suspension for lawyer who misappropriated client funds and did not 

initially admit wrongdoing, but who was remorseful, made 

restitution, sought treatment for mental and emotional problems, 

and had no prior disciplinary history), In the Matter of Veach, 310 

Ga. 470, 470-473 (851 SE2d 590) (2020) (imposing 18-month 

suspension for lawyer who misappropriated $27,443.23 of client 

funds, but had no prior disciplinary history, suffered from mental 

and emotional problems, made restitution, and was remorseful), and

In the Matter of Sydnor, 306 Ga. 383, 384-385 (830 SE2d 732) (2019) 

(disbarring lawyer who misappropriated settlement check of $8,300 
8

by depositing it into his operating account, never informed or 

responded to client, never made restitution, and who was found to 

have acted with a dishonest and selfish motive without mitigating 

factors). 

The Special Master concluded that Van Johnson’s case was 

most similar to Duncan and Terrell, in which this Court imposed sixmonth suspensions, because those cases involved similar facts and 

rule violations. The Special Master noted that Van Johnson has 

made full restitution to his clients, has no prior disciplinary record, 

was experiencing significant mental and emotional distress, and 

admitted his inappropriate conduct in an early and cooperative 

manner. Accordingly, the Special Master concluded that a six-month 

suspension from the practice of law was the appropriate sanction, 

with reinstatement to be conditioned upon Van Johnson’s

completing an assessment of his law practice as directed by the Law 

Practice Management Program of the State Bar and providing a 

certification of compliance with the assessment and any 

recommendations resulting therefrom.
9

Having considered the record, we agree that a six-month 

suspension with conditions for reinstatement constitutes an 

appropriate sanction in this case. At the conclusion of the six-month 

suspension, Johnson may seek reinstatement by demonstrating to 

the State Bar’s Office of General Counsel that he has met the 

conditions on reinstatement. If the State Bar agrees that the 

conditions have been met, it will submit a notice of compliance to 

this Court, and this Court will issue an order granting or denying 

reinstatement. Accordingly, we hereby accept Van Johnson’s 

petition for voluntary discipline and order that he be suspended 

from the practice of law for a period of six months from the date of 

this opinion, with the conditions for readmission set forth above.

Van Johnson is reminded of his duties under Bar Rule 4-219 (b).

Petition for voluntary discipline accepted. Six-month 

suspension with conditions for reinstatement. All the Justices concur.