Lawfare Practioner Earns Recommendation for Law License Suspension Over Dimock Matters
The Dimock story is one long saga involving lawfare from beginning to end. Multiple lawyers who looked upon Dimock as a lawsuit rainmaker have left with the area with their reputations shattered and their own butts in the courthouse hot seats. I've written about many of these legal fails over the years but some of the most interesting cases have involved an attorney named Lisa Johnson, a former cop, who represented Senator Katie Muth, of all people, and some others. I wrote about the Muth case and Johnson's involvement in it here and here, if you're interested.
What I learned today, though, is that the Office of Disciplinary Counsel has petitioned the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to act against Johnson, and a Hearing Committee has recommended the suspension of her law license for one year. The following is summary of the case from the Hearing Committee's Report and Recommendation (Lisa Johnson is the “Respondent”):
This matter arises out of Respondent’s representation of three clients in interrelated proceedings before the Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board (“EHB”). In each of those matters, Respondent sought relief in the form of clean water for clients who claimed that the water source supplying their homes had been contaminated by fracking operations.
Respondent had no experience litigating before the EHB and did not avail herself of sufficient resources to competently represent her clients in that forum. When faced with various challenges in the course of the litigation, Respondent doubled down, became combative, and leveled accusations at the other parties and the Judge.
While Respondent credibly appears to have believed that she was fighting the “good fight” on behalf of people with limited means in desperate circumstances, she lost sight of her professional responsibilities in the heat of the dispute. Respondent appears to have learned and grown from this experience and has taken active steps to secure appropriate mentorship to practice appropriately moving forward.
Due to the number of Rules implicated by Respondent’s Conduct, and the underlying events taken as a whole, the Hearing Committee recommends suspension for a period of one year as appropriate discipline.
I have added paragraphing and emphasis to bring out the most importand points from this recommendation, which are simply stunning. But, even more stunning is what Johnson did to earn that recommendation, including this set of allegations regarding Environmental Hearing Board Judge Bernard A. Labuskes, Jr. (emphasis added):
Judge Labuskes’ documented history and violations of Landowners’ free speech and due process rights are the most serious violations of constitutional rights in this country and have no room in an American tribunal. Judge Labuskes’ ongoing retaliatory misconduct reveals, among other things, that Judge Labuskes is punishing Landowners for exercising their First Amendment rights of free speech against the Department of Environmental Protection and the Environmental Hearing Board.
Judge Labuskes’ sudden and urgent desire to hold oral arguments over a phone call regarding Coterra’s SLAPP Motion that was filed three months ago within hours of Landowners’ filing of the Brief is clearly meant to punish Landowners’ [sic] and Landowners’ counsel for exercising their free speech rights against the DEP and for continuing to seek Judge Labuskes’ recusal. Landowners and I will not tolerate it. Oral arguments are not necessary for an impartial fact finder to determine that Coterra’s SLAPP Motion was an improper use of these proceedings in an attempt to intimidate and deter Landowners and Land-owners’ counsel from pursuing this matter in accordance with the patterns and practices of the oil and gas industry to silence victims. In this matter, the government has joined those efforts to silence Landowners.
Landowners repeat their demand that Judge Labuskes file on this docket a copy of his statement of financial interests, together with any interests that Judge Labuskes holds in oil and gas investments, shared positions on charitable boards, or any other interest that could impair Judge Labuskes’ obligations to be fair and impartial. This demand is appropriate under the Ethics Act, the Rules of Professional Conduct, the Rules of Judicial Conduct and in equity. Any further communications from Judge Labuskes to Landowners’ counsel shall be made publicly through the Board’s electronic filing system.
This latest attack on Landowners’ free speech rights by Judge Labuskes does not just endanger Landowners’ rights and, in fact their lives, it sets an extremely dangerous precedent going forward that Judge Labuskes can call for improper proceedings or remove any pleading or evidence from the docket on a whim.
Judge Labuskes does not have the temperament to hold such a sacred position in an American justice system and, as he has not properly recused himself, Judge Labuskes should be removed from this matter. The Board belongs to the people where they can be safe to exercise their First Amendment rights to free speech against the government.
I'm a free speech absolutist and what we've witnessed in recent months shows us some judges and courts are, indeed, very guilty of these sins. But that’s hardly the case here, as a quick perusal of the lengthy list of facts cited in the report will substantiate. But, here is a summation of the relevant particulars:
As discussed more fully hereinafter, based upon the evidence presented, the Hearing Committee finds that Respondent’s conduct violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct:
Dibble Proceeding:
COMPETENCE, RPC 1.1.: Respondent acknowledges a violation of Rule 1.1 in her conduct throughout the Dibble proceeding. Specifically, the Hearing Committee finds Respondent’s conduct to have been violative of her duty of competence in: failure to conduct appropriate discovery and investigation, failure to adequately familiarize herself with the litigation process and EHB rules and procedures, failure to comply with the applicable procedural rules and deadlines, failure to competently submit an adequate Pre- Hearing Memorandum, and failure to adequately respond to the opposing party’s Motions in Limine.
MISREPRESENTATIONS AND FRIVOLOUS ASSERTIONS, RPC 3.1, 3.3(a)(1), 4.1(a), 8.4(c):
The Braymer Email: The Hearing Committee finds that Respondent misrepresented, and perpetuated a misrepresentation, in continuing to assert that the DEP, through Mr. Braymer’s April 2, 2021 email, admitted to TEG usage at the well site at issue. Although Respondent’s initial characterization of this email could be tolerated as erroneous, once Respondent was put on notice of this mischaracterization by the DEP’s Response to Motion for Summary Judgment (ODC-12), Respondent acted in reckless disregard for the truth in continuing to repeat her mischaracterization, without any further investigation and despite being notified of its falsity. The repetition of these statements in her filings in February of 2022 (ODC-48) and May of 2022 (ODC-51) constitute violations of these rules.
Motions to Stay and Extend Discovery: The Hearing Committee finds that Respondent further engaged in factual misrepresentations by affirmatively representing to the tribunal in her August 2021 Motion to Extend Discovery that consent order negotiations between the DEP and Coterra were ongoing (ODC-18) and representing in her February 2022 Motion to Stay that conversations between Coterra, the DEP and the Attorney General’s office “will” take place (ODC-40). No such negotiations or conversations existed. Respondent’s hopes for the same, or off-the-record discussions with other entities, are not substitutes for non-existent events that Respondent affirmatively represented to the tribunal.
MISREPRESENTATIONS, FRIVOLOUS ASSERTIONS AND IMPUGNING THE INTEGRITY OF THE COURT:
Motion for Nonsuit and Demand for the Judge’s Removal: Respondent engaged in further factual misrepresentations, as well as violations of RPC 8.2(a) and 8.4(d) in her unproven attacks upon the integrity of the EHB and Judge Labuskes in the May 9, 2022 opposition to the DEP and Coterra’s Motions for Nonsuit (ODC-51) and May 10, 2022 Demand for the Board’s Removal of Judge Labuskes (ODC-53). The Respondent was attempting to practice an unfamiliar area of law in an unfamiliar forum. Instead of corralling the efforts and resources necessary to comply with her duties of competence, she instead baselessly cast every adverse ruling as bias, retaliation, or corruption. While the Hearing Committee found Respondent’s testimony that her thinking in the Dibble litigation was informed by the 2020 Grand Jury Report and Justice Castille’s expert report in the Speer litigation, neither of those documents constituted facts or evidence specific to the Dibble case. Respondent’s accusations against the Judge and opposing counsel were factually unsupported and intolerable, given her duties of Professional Conduct.
So, there it is; another lawyer drawn into the Dimock lawfare debacle and suffering greatly for it. The sad part is that Lisa Johnson was pulled into this matter and others by folks such as Senator Katie Muth and we truly have no idea why. Did they pick her because she was vulnerable and would create noise? And, who financed this pitiful venture? Those are the real questions and once you ask them you imediately know some outside parties were up their ears in dirty work in an attempt to slander the oil and gas industry. They used local people, they used troubled lawyers and they used the press to advance a false narrative for their own purposes. Sad, sad, sad.
#Lawyers #EHB #Dimock #SupremeCourt
