Title: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Anthony M. Johnson, Attorney at Law
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 1986AP000607-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: September 15, 1998

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
86-0607-D 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
In the Matter of the Reinstatement 
of the License of 
Anthony M. Johnson, 
to Practice Law in Wisconsin. 
 
 
 
REINSTATEMENT OF JOHNSON 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
September 15, 1998 
Submitted on Briefs: 
 
Oral Argument: 
 
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
 
 
COUNTY: 
 
 
JUDGE: 
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
 
 
Dissented: 
 
 
Not Participating:  
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
No. 
86-0607-D 
 
1 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further editing and 
modification.  The final version will appear in 
the bound volume of the official reports. 
 
 
No. 86-0607-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN               :        
        
 
 
 
 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of the Reinstatement of the 
License of ANTHONY M. JOHNSON to Practice 
Law in Wisconsin. 
FILED 
 
SEP 15, 1998 
 
Marilyn L. Graves 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding;  reinstatement denied.  
¶1 
PER CURIAM   In July, 1994, the Board of Attorneys 
Professional 
Responsibility 
(Board) 
recommended 
that 
the 
petition of Anthony M. Johnson for reinstatement of his license 
to practice law in Wisconsin be granted. That license had been 
suspended for three years as discipline for Attorney Johnson’s 
having made a fraudulent claim against an insurance company on 
behalf of clients. Disciplinary Proceedings Against Johnson, 133 
Wis. 2d 42, 393 N.W.2d 295 (1986). Notwithstanding the favorable 
recommendations of the Board and the district professional 
responsibility committee to which the reinstatement petition had 
been referred for investigation and the holding of a public 
hearing, the court remanded the matter to the Board on January 
4, 1995 with directions to supplement the record with the 
results of an investigation that had been conducted by the 
district 
committee, 
together 
with 
the 
Milwaukee 
Police 
Department and the Milwaukee County District Attorney, to 
No. 
86-0607-D 
 
2 
determine whether any criminal complaints had been filed in 
regard to Mr. Johnson or his businesses and to obtain all 
records of his businesses in his accountant’s possession. The 
court also directed the Board to obtain Mr. Johnson’s income tax 
records and returns filed in respect to those businesses during 
the period his license remained suspended -– 1987 through 1993.  
¶2 
The Board filed a supplemental report May 19, 1998, in 
which it concluded that Mr. Johnson did not meet his burden 
under 22.28(6)1 of proving by clear and convincing evidence that 
he possesses the moral character to practice law in this state 
and that his resumption of practice will not be detrimental to 
the integrity and standing of the bar or the administration of 
justice or subversive of the public interest. Accordingly, the 
Board recommended that the petition for reinstatement be denied. 
By memorandum of May 21, 1998, the Board of Bar Examiners 
withdrew the favorable recommendation on the reinstatement 
petition it had made in 1995 until such time as Mr. Johnson has 
met a specified continuing legal education requirement for 
reinstatement.  
                     
1 SCR 22.28 provides, in pertinent part: Reinstatement.  
 . . .  
(6) The petitioner has the burden of demonstrating by clear 
and convincing evidence that the petitioner has the moral 
character 
to 
practice 
law 
in 
this 
state 
and 
that 
the 
petitioner’s resumption of the practice of law will not be 
detrimental to the integrity and standing of the bar or the 
administration of justice or subversive of the public interest. 
The petitioner shall also demonstrate by clear and convincing 
evidence full compliance with the terms of the order of 
suspension or revocation and the requirements of SCR 22.26.  
No. 
86-0607-D 
 
3 
¶3 
In 
its 
report, 
the 
Board 
discussed 
the 
facts 
underlying a criminal charge filed April 6, 1995 in Milwaukee 
against Mr. Johnson and his wife alleging two counts of 
possession of drug paraphernalia at one of his stores with 
intent to deliver. The trial court suppressed the paraphernalia 
evidence, and that ruling was overturned on appeal. Ultimately, 
the case against Mr. Johnson was dismissed upon his completion 
of community service. At the first of two public hearings before 
the district committee, Mr. Johnson answered in the negative 
when asked March 15, 1995 whether there ever had been problems 
with the police, police referrals, or complaints because of 
selling 
drug 
paraphernalia. 
On 
further 
questioning, 
Mr. 
Johnson’s attorney told the committee that a police inquiry was 
pending in regard to an incident that had occurred some 60 days 
prior to the hearing.  
¶4 
The Board also noted in its report Mr. Johnson’s 
inconsistent testimony in respect to who was responsible for 
operating his business. At times he stated that it was he who 
was in charge of the store and did the hiring and firing. He 
stated on his tax returns filed since 1989 that he participated 
in the store’s management. On other occasions, however, he 
testified that it was his wife who operated the store by 
herself.  
¶5 
Based on his failure to reveal existing problems with 
the police when initially asked by the district committee in 
1995, his denial that items found in his store were drug 
paraphernalia, and his claim that he had no control over how the 
No. 
86-0607-D 
 
4 
store was operated, the Board asserted that Mr. Johnson’s 
testimony “lacked candor and credibility.” The Board also found 
that his conduct in selling items he knew could and probably 
would be used to promote the use of illegal drugs was not 
exemplary and above reproach, as required by SCR 22.28(4)(e),2 
whether 
or 
not 
the 
items 
were 
properly 
labeled 
drug 
paraphernalia.  
¶6 
In respect to his income and tax records, the Board 
found that Mr. Johnson failed to file tax returns for 1996, 
thereby demonstrating a continuing pattern of noncompliance with 
tax obligations. From that the Board concluded that he has not 
shown he can safely be recommended to the public as a person fit 
to act in matters of trust and confidence, as required by SCR 
22.28(4)(g),3 or that his conduct since the suspension of his 
license has been exemplary and above reproach.  
                     
2 SCR 22.28 (4) provides, in pertinent part:  
(4) The petition for reinstatement shall show that:  
 . . .  
(e) The petitioner’s conduct since the suspension or 
revocation has been exemplary and above reproach.  
3 SCR 22.28 (4) provides, in pertinent part:  
(4) The petition for reinstatement shall show that:  
 . . .  
(g) The petitioner can safely be recommended to the legal 
profession, the courts and the public as a person fit to be 
consulted by others and to represent them and otherwise act in 
matters of trust and confidence and in general to aid in the 
administration of justice as a member of the bar and as an 
officer of the courts.  
No. 
86-0607-D 
 
5 
¶7 
The district committee that conducted a supplemental 
investigation and held additional public hearings in this matter 
following remand recommended by majority vote that Mr. Johnson’s 
reinstatement petition be denied. The Board, too, recommended 
that the petition be denied. Based on the report submitted to 
the court and the findings and conclusions set forth in it, we 
determine that Mr. Johnson is not entitled to the reinstatement 
of his license to practice law.  
¶8 
IT IS ORDERED that the petition for the reinstatement 
of the license of Anthony M. Johnson to practice law in 
Wisconsin is denied.  
¶9 
SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, C.J., and DAVID T. PROSSER, J., 
did not participate.  
 
 
1