On Thursday, September 4, 2025, the Presiding Disciplinary Judge of the Supreme Court of Arizona suspended attorney Stephen M. Johnson for 60 days following an Agreement for Discipline by Consent. The agreement addresses complaints filed under State Bar Nos. 24-1381 and 24-2407.
The disciplinary action stems from Johnson’s conduct in two separate post-conviction criminal matters where he represented criminal defendants. According to court documents, Johnson violated Rule 42 of the Arizona Rules of the Supreme Court, specifically Ethical Rules 1.3 (diligence), 1.4 (communication), and 3.2 (expediting litigation).
The State Bar’s formal complaint, initially filed on April 22, 2025, alleged a lack of diligence and failure to perform services in a timely and intentional manner. These failures included repeated requests for extensions after court deadlines, inaccurate language in extension requests, and a failure to promptly communicate crucial case developments to his clients.
As part of the agreement, the State Bar dismissed allegations regarding violations of Ethical Rules 1.1 (competence), 3.3 (candor toward the tribunal), 8.4(c) (dishonest conduct), and 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice).
Upon reinstatement, Johnson will be placed on probation for two years. The terms of probation include a full assessment by the Law Office Management Assistance Program (LOMAP). Johnson is required to contact the State Bar Compliance Monitor within ten days of the order to schedule an initial LOMAP assessment meeting and complete all follow-up actions deemed necessary by LOMAP. He will also be responsible for any costs associated with LOMAP. Furthermore, Johnson is prohibited from committing any further violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct during his probation.
The court also ordered Johnson to pay $1,200 to cover the costs and expenses incurred by the State Bar of Arizona within 30 days of the order. No costs or expenses were incurred by the Office of the Presiding Disciplinary Judge.
The Presiding Disciplinary Judge considered the American Bar Association’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions in reaching the decision, noting Johnson’s negligent violation of his duty to clients, the profession, the legal system, and the public. The agreement acknowledged actual prejudice to one client due to delays in filing a Post-Conviction Relief (PCR) petition, although the client’s PCR case is ongoing, and he remains ineligible for release due to other convictions. The other client experienced undue anxiety due to a missed filing deadline.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
