Springfield lawyer accused of making lewd comments, showing photographs of naked women

The Missouri Supreme Court has scheduled a disciplinary hearing Wednesday for a Springfield attorney who allegedly made lewd comments to a client and showed her pictures of naked women.

The brief filed by the chief disciplinary counsel against Darryl Johnson Jr. includes the following passage:

During the meeting, Respondent showed Danels photographs of naked women and made crude comments to Danels regarding his sexual preferences. According to Danels, Respondent explained as follows: 

“He mentioned the fact that it helped in the cases, that they were taken of, they were like from the internet. He told me if I had any internet pictures, if I could get any pictures of my soon-to-be-ex-husband and I together, that it would help my case, sexually together, it would help my case.”  

Respondent also showed Danels an autographed picture of a naked stripper that he had been given while at a strip club. The picture was signed “To Darryl.” 

Respondent admits showing Danels photographs of naked women and described the conduct as a “common practice” that he utilizes so that his clients will know what to expect during the course of a dissolution proceeding.

Respondent denies making any lewd statements to Danels and denies ever showing her a 

photograph of a stripper.

The following description is taken from the Missouri Supreme Court website:

A client who hired Springfield attorney Darryl Johnson Jr. to represent her in a case to dissolve her marriage later filed a complaint with the chief disciplinary counsel’s office, alleging Johnson made lewd comments, showed her photographs of naked women and did not obtain a satisfactory ruling. Another client filed a complaint alleging Johnson failed to file timely motions in a custody case and failed to notify him when the matter was set for hearing. A prospective client filed a complaint alleging that, at the time he scheduled an appointment with Johnson about representing him in a marriage dissolution case, Johnson’s staff failed to check for conflicts of interest, which would have revealed Johnson was already representing the prospective client’s wife. When the prospective client appeared for his appointment and staff learned who he was, they served him with his wife’s dissolution petition in the waiting room. A disciplinary hearing panel investigated the client complaints as well as Johnson’s trust account following an overdraft. The panel determined that Johnson had placed advance fee payments into his operating account instead of his trust account on several occasions and wrote checks from the operating account without regard as to whether they were from the appropriate client funds. The chief disciplinary counsel asks this Court to discipline Johnson’s law license.

The disciplinary counsel argues Johnson violated several rules of professional conduct and should be disciplined. Counsel contends, as to the first client, that Johnson violated Rule 4-1.7(a)(2), regarding conflicts, because having a sexual interest in his client could create a conflict of interest. Counsel asserts Johnson violated Rule 4-1.15(c) by commingling client funds with personal funds. Counsel argues Johnson violated Rules 4-1.1 and 4-1.3 by failing to represent his client competently and diligently by filing timely motions and communicating regarding the pending matter. Counsel claims Johnson violated Rules 4-5.3 and 4-8.4(a) by permitting his staff to use information from a prospective client against the prospective client. Counsel asserts that suspension is the appropriate sanction based on standards of the American Bar Association and because this Court previously has suspended attorneys who have engaged in misconduct similar to that present in this case.

Johnson responds he should not be disciplined for his conduct. He argues that he did not have a sexual interest in the first client and only showed her nude photographs as an example of what evidence can be presented in a marriage dissolution case. Johnson concedes he deposited advance fee payments into his operating account and commingled funds but denies that he misappropriated funds. He contends he provided clients with monthly statements identifying their balances. Johnson concedes that he failed to represent the second client diligently by not filing a response properly or by the due date. He asserts that he did not permit his staff to serve papers on a prospective client in his waiting room and that he did not have knowledge of their actions. Johnson argues an appropriate sanction would be admonishment or reprimand.