In Re: Lynn Plaisance Johnson

Supreme Court of Louisiana
January 26, 2022
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
IN RE: LYNN PLAISANCE JOHNSON
No. 2021-B-01580
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Disciplinary Counsel - Applicant Other; Notice of Discipline in Another
Jurisdiction Pursuant to Rule XIX, Section 21 and Motion to Initiate Reciprocal
Discipline Proceedings;
_ _ _ _ _ _
January 26, 2022
Reciprocal discipline imposed. See per curiam.
JBM
JLW
JDH
SJC
JTG
WJC
PDG
01/26/2022 "See News Release 004 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NO. 20
21-B-1580
I
N RE: LYNN PLAISANCE JOHNSON
AT
TORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING
P
ER CURIAM
T
his matter arises from a Petition to Initiate Reciprocal Discipline
Proceedings filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) against
respondent, Lynn Plaisance Johnson, 1 an attorney licensed to practice law in
Louisiana and Missouri, based upon discipline imposed by the Supreme Court of
Missouri.
UNDE
RLYING FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On October 13, 2021, the Supreme Court of Missouri disbarred respondent
for violating the following provisions of the Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct:
Rules 4-1.1 (competence), 4-1.3 (diligence), 4-1.4 (communication), 4-1.5 (fees), 4-
1.15(a)(c) (safekeeping property ), 4-1.16(d) ( declining or terminating
representation), 4-3.4(c) (duties to opposing party and counsel and ethical obligation
to follow court orders and rules ), 4-4.4(a) (respect for rights of third persons), 4-
8.1(c) (failure to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation), 4 -8.4(c) (engaging in
conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) and 4-8.4(d)
(engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice) .2 In re: Lynn
1 In 2015, this court imposed reciprocal discipline upon respondent in the form of a public
reprimand based on discipline imposed by the Supreme Court of Missouri in 2014. In re: Johnson,
15-0203 (La. 4/10/15), 164 So. 3d 826.
2 The details of respondent’s misconduct are not set forth in the court’s order.
01/26/22

2

Plaisance Johnson , Supreme Court of Missouri Docket No.: SC9 9241; MBE #
44073.
After receiving notice of the Missouri order of discipline, the ODC filed a
motion to initiate reciprocal discipline proceedings in Louisiana, pursuant to
Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 21. A certified copy of the decision issued by the
Supreme Court of Missouri was attached to the motion. On October 29, 2021, this
court rendered an order giving respondent thirty days to demonstrate why the
imposition of identical discipline in this state would be unwarranted. Respondent
failed to file any response in this court.

DISCUSSION
The standard for imposition of discipline on a reciprocal basis is set forth in
Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 21(D). That rule provides:
Discipline to be Imposed. Upon the expiration of thirty
days from service of the notice pursuant to the provisions
of paragraph B, this court shall impose the identical
discipline … unless disciplinary counsel or the lawyer
demonstrates, or this court finds that it clearly appears
upon the face of the record from which the discipline is
predicated, that:

(1) The procedure was so lacking in notice or opportunity
to be heard as to constitute a deprivation of due
process; or
(2) Based on the record created by the jurisdiction that
imposed the discipline, there was such infirmity of
proof establishing the misconduct as to give rise to the
clear conviction that the court could not, consistent
with its duty, accept as final the conclusion on that
subject; or
(3) The imposition of the same discipline by the court
would result in grave injustice or be off ensive to the
public policy of the jurisdiction; or
(4) The misconduct established warrants substantially
different discipline in this state; …

If this court determines that any of those elements exists,
this court shall enter such other order as it deems
appropriate. The burden is on the party seeking different

3

discipline in this jurisdiction to demonstrate that the
imposition of the same discipline is not appropriate.

In the instant case, respondent has made no showing of infirmities in the
Missouri proce eding, nor do we discern any from our review of the record.
Furthermore, we feel there is no reason to deviate from the sanction imposed in
Missouri, as only under extraordinary circumstances should there be a significant
variance from the sanction impose d by the other jurisdiction. In re: Aulston, 05 -
1546 (La. 1/13/06), 918 So. 2d 461. See also In re Zdravkovich, 831 A. 2d 964, 968-
69 (D.C. 2003) (“there is merit in according deference, for its own sake, to the
actions of other jurisdictions with respec t to the attorneys over whom we share
supervisory authority”).
Under these circumstances, it is appropriate to defer to the Missouri judgment
imposing discipline upon respondent. Accordingly, we will impose reciprocal
discipline in the form of disbarment.

DECREE
Considering the Petition to Initiate Reciprocal Discipline Proceedings filed by
the Office of Disciplinary Counsel and the record filed herein, it is ordered that
respondent, Lynn Plaisance Johnson, Louisiana Bar Roll number 20330, be and she
hereby is disbarred. Her name shall be stricken f rom the roll of attorneys, and her
license to practice law in the State of Louisiana shall be revoked.