On Friday, March 31, 2023, the Supreme Court of Iowa suspended attorney Scott A. Johnson for his misconduct that involved him forging his client’s signature to pursue his self-interest. The case is entitled “Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Scott A. Johnson,” with case no. 22-2003.
The charges cited Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct 32:1.2(a), 32:1.3, 32:1.4(a)(2) – (3), 32:1.5(a), 32: 3.2, 32 : 3.3(a)(1), 32:8.1(b), and 32 : 8.4(b)–(d) which state:
A lawyer shall abide by a client’s decisions concerning the objectives of representation.
A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.
Lawyers must reasonably consult with their clients about the means by which the client’s objectives are to be accomplished and must keep their clients reasonably informed about the status of their matters.
A lawyer shall not make an agreement for, charge, or collect an unreasonable fee or an unreasonable amount for expenses, or violate any restrictions imposed by law.
A lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client.
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.
A lawyer shall not, in connection with a disciplinary matter knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand for information from an admissions or disciplinary authority.
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to interalia commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects.
It is also professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
It is professional misconduct for an attorney to engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration on of justice.
The Rules of Professional Conduct can be found here.
The respondent was charged with 19 violations of the Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct involving six different clients. The majority stemmed from neglect of cases and clients, but the most serious involved forgery and deception related to his representation with criminal defendants where he lied to the courts in furtherance of his own self-interests.
The filing states:
“From February through August 2020, Johnson represented Mandelo Lowery — a criminal defendant charged with two serious misdemeanors involving an assault and interference with official acts. The district court set a plea hearing in the matter for June after Johnson emailed the court stating that he had reached a plea agreement with the prosecutor. Johnson did not get Lowery’s signature on the plea agreement prior to the hearing, however — or, indeed, prior to the next two dates to which the court rescheduled the hearing. After missing those deadlines, Johnson attempted to renegotiate the plea with the prosecutor, who stood firm on the initial agreement.”
The filing continues:
“Finally, on August 5, Johnson filed a written guilty plea purportedly signed by Lowery. The district court adjudicated Lowery guilty of the interference charge and dismissed the assault charge as provided by the agreement, imposing a suspended fine and a surcharge. As it was later revealed, however, Lowery did not in fact sign the plea agreement; Johnson had placed Lowery’s signature from another court document onto the agreement without Lowery’s knowledge or consent. When Lowery filed a PCR petition to have the conviction reversed, he was able to reach an agreement with the State in which 8 of 34 the State agreed to dismiss the criminal case and Lowery agreed to dismiss his PCR case.”
According to the court, cases that involve forgery has ranged anywhere from public admonition to revocation. The respondent’s misconduct which ranged across six different representations involved an extensive pattern of client neglect — which itself was a continuation of his prior history of discipline — and included dishonesty not only in forging the client’s guilty plea but also in submitting a false time and expense claims. Based on these reasons, the court decided to suspend the respondent.
The disposition states:
“We hereby suspend Johnson’s license to practice law in Iowa indefinitely, with no possibility of reinstatement for three years from the date of this opinion. This suspension applies to all facets of the practice of law. Iowa Ct. R. 34.23(3).We further direct Johnson to comply with the requirements set forth in IowaCourt Rule 34.24 and assess the costs of the instant disciplinary action to him.”
As of today, Mr. Johnson is listed in the law firm, Johnson & Association., PLC as a practicing attorney. He practices in Des Moines, Iowa. He is licensed in Iowa. His info can be found on Linkedin.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
