On Tuesday, August 19, 2025, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania suspended attorney Lisa Ann Johnson from practicing law for one year, with six months to be served actively and the remaining six months stayed in favor of probation. This decision follows the recommendations of the Disciplinary Board, which found Johnson had violated several rules of professional conduct during her representation of clients in environmental litigation.
The case is entitled “Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Lisa Ann Johnson,” with case no. 111 DB 2023.
Johnson faced disciplinary action stemming from her involvement in two cases where she represented clients alleging contamination of their water supply due to nearby fracking activities. The Board’s findings highlighted that Johnson failed to provide competent representation, made false statements in court documents, and engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
The disciplinary proceedings began in August 2023 when the Office of Disciplinary Counsel filed a petition against Johnson. Throughout the hearings, evidence was presented that suggested her lack of experience in litigation contributed to her professional misconduct. The Board noted that she had no prior history of disciplinary issues but cited her inexperience as a significant factor in her failure to meet the required standards of legal practice.
During the hearings, the Board reviewed numerous instances where Johnson’s actions fell short of expectations. Among these were her filing of frivolous motions, misinterpretation of communications from opposing counsel, and the inaccurate representation of facts regarding the use of certain chemicals in the fracking process. These missteps were deemed serious enough to warrant disciplinary action.
In a report submitted to the Supreme Court, the Disciplinary Board recommended a suspension of one year. However, the final ruling allowed for a portion of that suspension to be stayed, meaning Johnson will only serve six months actively, followed by a six-month probation period. This decision reflects the Board’s recognition of her previous commitment to pro bono work and her efforts to seek mentorship and improve her legal skills since the incidents that led to her suspension.
The Supreme Court also addressed several applications related to the case, including requests for corrections to the record, additional briefings, and oral arguments. All of these applications were denied.
As part of her suspension, Johnson is required to comply with the provisions outlined in Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement, specifically Rule 217, which governs the conditions under which an attorney may practice following a disciplinary action. Additionally, she must pay the costs incurred by the Disciplinary Board during the investigation and prosecution of her case.
According to the filing, Ms. Johnson acquired her law license in Pennsylvania in 2005.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
