Darryl Brent Johnson

ON APPLICATION FOR REINSTATEMENT FROM RECIPROCAL DISCIPLINEUNDERLYING FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORYOn March 25, 2014, the Supreme Court of Missouri entered an order finding respondent guilty of professional misconduct. The court ordered that respondent be suspended indefinitely from the practice of law and that no petition for reinstatement would be entertained for a period of six months from the date of the court's order. After receiving notice of the Missouri order of discipline, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) filed a petition to initiate reciprocal discipline in Louisiana, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 21. Ultimately, we imposed reciprocal discipline suspending petitioner from the practice of law in Louisiana on an indefinite basis. In re: Johnson, 15-0891 (La. 8/28/15), 177 So. 3d 116.On August 19, 2019, petitioner filed in this court a petition for reinstatement from reciprocal discipline, indicating that the Supreme Court of Missouri reinstated him to the practice of law on March 1, 2016. In response, the ODC acknowledged that it was unable to demonstrate any procedural irregularities in the Missouri reinstatement proceeding or present any compelling reason why petitioner's reciprocal reinstatement should be denied.DISCUSSIONReciprocal reinstatements are governed by Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 24(K), which states:Where the court has imposed a suspension or disbarment solely on the basis of imposition of discipline in another jurisdiction, and where the lawyer gives notice to the court that he or she has been reinstated or readmitted in the other jurisdiction, the court shall determine whether the lawyer should be reinstated or readmitted. Unless disciplinary counsel presents evidence demonstrating procedural irregularities in the other jurisdiction's proceeding or presents other compelling reasons, the court shall reinstate or readmit a lawyer who has been reinstated or readmitted in the jurisdiction where the misconduct occurred.Here, we imposed a suspension upon petitioner solely on the basis of the imposition of discipline in Missouri. After serving his suspension, petitioner was reinstated to the practice of law in Missouri. The ODC concedes that it cannot demonstrate any procedural irregularities in the Missouri reinstatement proceeding and that it is unable to present other compelling reasons why petitioner's reinstatement should be denied. Accordingly, petitioner shall be reinstated to the practice of law in Louisiana.DECREEUpon review of the record, it is ordered that Darryl Brent Johnson, Jr., Louisiana Bar Roll number 20884, be immediately reinstated to the practice of law in Louisiana. All costs of these proceedings are assessed against petitioner. PER CURIAM