In Re: Myles Julian Johnson

Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
IN RE: MYLES JULIAN JOHNSON
No. 2023-B-00480
_ _ _ _ _ _
I
N RE: Office of Disciplinary Counsel - Applicant Other; Notice of Discipline in
An
other Jurisdiction Pursuant to Rule XIX, Section 21 and Motion to Initiate
R
eciprocal Discipline Proceedings;
_ _
_ _ _ _
June 26, 202 3
Reciprocal discipline imposed. Se e p er curiam.
JBM
JLW
JDH
SJC
JTG
WJC
PDG
Supreme Court of Louisiana
June
26, 2023
06/26/2023 "See News Release 030 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NO. 20
23-B-0480
I
N RE: MYLES JULIAN 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, Myles Julian Johnson, an attorney licensed to practice law in Louisiana
and Washington, based upon discipline imposed by the Supreme Court of
Washington.
UNDE
RLYING FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The Scholoff Matter
On March 7, 2022, the Washington State Bar Association’s Office of
Disciplinary Counsel (“WODC”) received a grievance from respondent’s former
client Donald Scholoff. According to the grievance, Mr. Scholoff paid respondent
$15,000 for representation in a federal criminal matter. Thereafter, respondent
neglected the matter, eventually withdrew due to health reasons, and failed to refund
the unearned fee after promising to do so.
The WODC sent respondent notice of the grievance, but respondent failed to
timely respond. When respondent finally did respond, he claimed he had earned the
entire fee. On April 27, 2022, the WODC requested additional information and
documents to support this contention, but respondent failed to provide any of the
requested information or documents.
06/26/23

2

On June 15, 2022, the WODC issued a subpoena to respondent to provide a
deposition and to produce the previously -requested records. Respondent accepted
service of the subpoena and appeared for the deposition on August 3, 2022, but he
did not produce any records. The deposition ended early when respondent requested
an opportunity to hire counsel. After numerous continuanc es, respondent finally
obtained counsel. Although his counsel advised the WODC respondent would
provide the requested records by December 16, 2022, respondent failed to do so.
On December 21, 2022, respondent’s counsel informed the WODC that
respondent would not be providing the requested records due to health reasons and
would provide a letter from his doctor. The WODC never received a letter from
respondent’s doctor. On February 3, 2023, respondent informed the WODC he
planned to hire new counsel and would sign medical release forms. Respondent
failed to do either.

The Simms Matter
On September 26, 2022, the WODC received a grievance from respondent’s
former client Keon Simms. According to the grievance, respondent accepted
payment and agreed to represent Mr. Simms in two separate criminal matters but
then neglected the matters. Mr. Simms further alleged that respondent failed to
disclose his suspension from the practice of law 1 and failed to provide Mr. Simms
with a refund or a copy of his client file.
The WODC sent respondent two notices of the grievance, but he failed to
respond. On November 15, 2022, the WODC issued a subpoena to respondent to

1 Respondent was under reciprocal discipline in Washington for discipline imposed in Louisiana
in In re: Johnson, 21- 1558 (La. 1/26/22), 331 So. 3d 902, wherein he was suspended from the
practice of law for six months for neglecting a legal matter, failing to communicate with a client,
failing to properly withdraw from a representation, failing to fulfill his professional oblig ations,
and failing to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation. Respondent’s Louisiana suspension
ended on November 9, 2022.

3

provide a deposition on January 5, 2023 and to produce all records related to his
representation of Mr. Simms. Although respondent accepted service of the subpoena
on December 7, 2022, he emailed the WODC on January 4, 2023 to advise he would
be unable to appear for his deposition the next day due to health issues. Respondent
also indicated he would provide the WODC with a letter from his doctor. The
WODC requested that respondent sign medical release forms. Respondent failed to
provide the WODC with any medical records from his doctor or signed medical
release forms. On February 3, 2023, respondent informed the WODC he intended
to hire counsel and would sign the medical release forms. The WODC never
received a notice of appearance from an attorney on respondent’s behalf, and
respondent never answered Mr. Simms’ grievance or signed the requested medical
release forms.

The Morrison Matter
On September 24, 2022, the WODC received a grievance from Robert
Morrison. According to the grievance, respondent agreed to represent Mr. Morrison
in a civil matter but then neglected the matter, failed to communicate with him, and
lied to him. Mr. Morrison further alleged that respondent failed to disclose his
suspension from the practice of law.
The WODC sent respondent two notices of the grievance, but he failed to
respond. On November 15, 2022, the WODC issu ed a subpoena to respondent to
provide a deposition on January 5, 2023 and to produce certain records. Although
respondent accepted service of the subpoena on December 7, 2022, he emailed the
WODC on January 4, 2023 to advise he would be unable to appear for his deposition
the next day due to health issues. Respondent also indicated he would provide the
WODC with a letter from his doctor. The WODC requested that respondent sign
medical release forms. Respondent failed to provide the WODC with any medica l

4

records from his doctor or signed medical release forms. On February 3, 2023,
respondent informed the WODC he intended to hire counsel and would sign the
medical release forms. The WODC never received a notice of appearance from an
attorney on responde nt’s behalf, and respondent never answered Mr. Morrison’s
grievance or signed the requested medical release forms.

Additional Matters
A review committee of the Washington State Bar Association’s Disciplinary
Board has ordered a public hearing on four other grievances involving allegations
that respondent failed to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation. In each matter,
respondent failed to respond to the WODC’s requests for information and records,
necessitating the issuance of a subpoena to take hi s deposition. In each matter,
respondent failed to comply with the subpoena to produce records. In two of the
matters, respondent failed to appear for his deposition.

Disciplinary Proceedings
On February 9, 2023, the WODC filed with the Supreme Court of Washington
a petition for respondent’s interim suspension, pursuant to Rule 7.2(a)(3) of the
Rules for Enfor cement of Lawyer Conduct .2 Upon respondent’s failure to appear
for a show cause hearing on March 14, 2023, the Supreme Court of Washington
considered the WODC’s petition without oral argument and interimly suspended
respondent from the practice of law.
After receiving notice of the Washington 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

2 Under Washington’s Rule 7.2(a)(3), a respondent lawyer may be immediately suspended from
the practice of law when the lawyer fails without good cause to comply with a request f rom the
WODC for information or documents or fails without good cause to comply with a subpoena.

5

Supreme Court of Washington was attached to the motion. On April 3, 2023, this
court rendered an order giving respondent thirty days to demonstrate why the
imposition of identical discipline in this state would be unwarranted. Respondent
filed an opposition to the ODC’s motion to initiate reciprocal disciplinary
proceedings in Louisiana.

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

In the instant case, respondent’s sole objection to reciprocal discipline rests
on his contention that the interim suspension ordered by the Supreme Court of

6

Washington is not a disciplinary sanction. Therefore, he submits this court should
not impose reciprocal discipline.
Rule 7.2(a)(3) of the Washington Rules for Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct
provides for an interim suspension when a lawyer fails to cooperate in a disciplinary
investigation:
Failure To Cooperate with Investigation. When any
lawyer fails without good cause to comply with a request
under rule 5.3(g) or rule 15.2(a) for information or
documents, or with a subpoena issued under rule 5.3(h) or
rule 15.2(b), or fails to comply with disability proceedings
as specified in rule 8.2(d), disciplinary counsel may
petition the Court for an order suspending the lawyer
pending compliance with the request or subpoena . A
petition may not be filed if the request or subpoena is the
subject of a timely objection under rule 5.5(e) and the
hearing officer has not yet ruled on that objection. If a
lawyer has been suspended for failure to cooperate and
thereafter complies with the request or subpoena, the
lawyer may petition the Court to terminate the suspension
on terms the Court deems appropriate. [emphasis added].

Notably, nothing in this rule expressly provides that the suspension for failure
to cooperate is not deemed to be a disciplinary suspension, as respondent argues.
Instead, respondent relies on a notice issued by the Washington State Bar
Association, which states:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that by order of the Washington
Supreme Court entered the 14th day of March 2023, a
copy of which is attached, lawyer Myles Julian Johnson,
who practices in the City of Tukwila, WA, was suspended
from the practice of law in the State of Washington,
pursuant to ELC 7.2(a)(3), effective March 14, 2023
Myles Julian Johnson is suspended from the practice of
law pending compliance with the request or subpoena.
This suspension is not a disciplinary sanction .
[emphasis added].

Despite the Washington State Bar Association’s characterization, we believe
the suspension is in fact in the nature of a disciplinary sanction. While it is not final
discipline, it is similar to the sanction of civil contempt insofar as it has the effect of
removing respondent from practice unless and until he complies with the

7

disciplinary counsel’s request. From a reciprocal discipline standpoint, we believe
it would undermine the Washington Supreme Court’s order if we were to allow
respondent to continue to practice in Louisiana while he flouts the authority of the
Washington Supreme Court. See, e.g., 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 respect to the attorneys over whom we share supervisory
authority”).
Moreover, Rule 7.2( a)(3) of the Washington Rules for Enforcement of
Lawyer Conduct provides that if the lawyer “complies with the request or subpoena,
the lawyer may petition the Court to terminate the suspension on terms the Court
deems appropriate.” In the event the Washington Supreme Court terminates the
suspension, respondent may file notice in this cou rt and seek reinstatement in
Louisiana pursuant to the provisions of Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 24(K).
In sum, we find it is appropriate to defer to the Washington judgment
imposing discipline upon respondent. Accordingly, we will impose reciprocal
discipline and interimly suspend respondent from the practice of law.

DECREE
Considering the Petition to Initiate Reciprocal Discipline Proceedings filed by
the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, respondent’s opposition filed thereto, and the
record filed herein, it is ordered that respondent, Myles Julian Johnson, Louisiana
Bar Roll number 29921, be and he hereby is suspended from the practice of law on
an interim basis pending further orders of this court. Pursuant to Supreme Court
Rule XIX, § 26(E), this order is effective immediately.