Court Opinion

ID: 9894581
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-02 13:11:52.104664+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:01.040597
License: Public Domain

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,                                     FILED
          Complainant-Respondent,                            NOV 2, 2023
    v.                                                       Samuel A. Christensen
                                                            Clerk of Supreme Court
Steven D. Johnson,

          Respondent-Appellant.

     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

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."

                                2
                                                                               No.     2022AP11-D

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

      7At 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.

      8Electronic           copy           available           at
https://compendium.wicourts.gov/app/54621f3d2a71043b345c4c516a74
3019494e1732.continue?action=detail&detailOffset=13.

                                               3
                                                                               No.   2022AP11-D

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,

       Electronic
       9                    copy           available           at
https://compendium.wicourts.gov/app/280d26380115475582510c652e62
7c1c456d1251.continue?action=detail&detailOffset=1.

                                                  4
                                                                   No.   2022AP11-D

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
                                          5
                                                                      No.    2022AP11-D

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;
                                            6
                                                                No.   2022AP11-D

           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
                                       7
                                                                    No.   2022AP11-D

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.
                                           8
                                                                           No.    2022AP11-D

      ¶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).
                                              9
                                                                        No.    2022AP11-D

           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).

                                          10
                                                                                  No.    2022AP11-D

    ¶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
                                           11
                                                                          No.     2022AP11-D

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.

                                              12
                                                                               No.     2022AP11-D

      ¶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
                                               13
                                                                                     No.     2022AP11-D

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
                                                  14
                                                                                 No.     2022AP11-D

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.
                                                 15
                                                                        No.     2022AP11-D

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
                                             16
                                                                              No.      2022AP11-D

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
                                              17
                                                                            No.     2022AP11-D

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
                                           18
                                                                                 No.        2022AP11-D

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
                                                   19
                                                                                No.     2022AP11-D

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

       Given this constellation of misconduct, it is not
      10

surprising there is no precedent that is precisely on all fours
with this case.

                                               20
                                                                      No.     2022AP11-D

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.

                                        21
                                                       No.   2022AP11-D

    ¶47   IT   IS   FURTHER   ORDERED   that   compliance    with   all

conditions with this order is required for reinstatement.           See

SCR 22.29(4)(c).

                                 22
    No.   2022AP11-D

1