On Tuesday, January 14, 2025, the Supreme Court of New Jersey reprimanded attorney Edward Glen Johnson for multiple violations of professional conduct rules.
The case is entitled “In the Matter of Edward Glen Johnson,” with case no. 089935.
The charges cited New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3, 1.4(b), and 1.5(b).
The case involved Johnson’s representation of Derrick Griffin, a longtime friend and fellow attorney, who had retained Johnson to recover a security deposit from a former landlord. Johnson agreed to represent Griffin for a flat fee of $750 but failed to document this fee arrangement in writing, which is a requirement under RPC 1.5(b). This initial oversight set the stage for further issues in the handling of Griffin’s case.
During the course of the representation, Johnson demonstrated a lack of diligence, as outlined in RPC 1.3. Specifically, Johnson delayed filing the lawsuit on Griffin’s behalf for eight months after their initial conversation in February 2019. When he finally submitted the case in October 2019, the court rejected the filing due to procedural errors, including the failure to use the electronic filing system, known as eCourts, and the omission of a required small claims summons.
After the rejection, Johnson re-filed the lawsuit in February 2020, but it was dismissed again when the court could not serve the landlord due to an incorrect address provided by Johnson. Following this dismissal, Johnson did not take appropriate steps to re-file the case or communicate effectively with Griffin about the status of the lawsuit.
Griffin made several attempts to contact Johnson regarding the case status but reported that he received no responses. In January 2020, Griffin sent a letter to Johnson’s former office address requesting updates. Although the letter was eventually redirected to Johnson’s current office, he failed to reply. Johnson’s lack of communication constituted a violation of RPC 1.4(b), which requires attorneys to keep clients reasonably informed about the status of their matters.
In December 2020, Griffin filed an ethics grievance against Johnson, citing his lack of communication and mishandling of the case. The hearing panel found that Johnson’s failure to keep Griffin informed about significant developments, including the dismissals of the lawsuit, demonstrated a clear violation of his professional obligations.
The Disciplinary Review Board ultimately concluded that Johnson’s history of prior disciplinary actions further warranted a reprimand. He had previously received an admonition in 2009 for failing to safeguard client funds in a real estate transaction and a reprimand in 2018 for negligently misappropriating client funds. This history was taken into account when determining the appropriate discipline for his latest violations.
In its final decision, the Supreme Court of New Jersey ordered that Johnson be reprimanded and that the entire record of the case be maintained permanently in his attorney file. Additionally, he was instructed to reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for the administrative costs and expenses incurred during the proceedings, in accordance with Rule 1:20-17.
According to the filing, Mr. Johnson acquired his law license in New Jersey in 1989.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
