On Thursday, May 15, 2025, the Supreme Court of Florida approved a referee’s report suspending attorney T. Lorraine Johns from practicing law for ten days, effective 30 days from the order, to allow her to wind down her practice and protect her clients’ interests. The court also ordered Johns to pay $1,630 in costs to The Florida Bar. The suspension stems from a disciplinary case involving Johns’ neglect of two client matters and her failure to respond promptly to The Florida Bar’s inquiries.
The case is entitled “The Florida v. T. Lorraine Johns,” with case no. SC2024-1019
The Florida Bar filed a complaint against Johns on July 11, 2024, alleging misconduct in her representation of two clients, Gary Keiser and Fran Harvey, in probate matters. According to the referee’s report, Johns was hired by Keiser in 2021 to handle his father’s estate, which included a house and a bank account. She opened the estate in Pasco County but faced a foreclosure action on the property. Johns informed Keiser she did not handle foreclosure cases and advised him to hire another attorney. As a courtesy, she filed an initial response in the foreclosure case, becoming the attorney of record, but took no further action. When Keiser hired new counsel, Johns signed a stipulation to substitute counsel but included the foreclosure case number, which the new attorney declined to take on. Johns failed to re-sign the corrected stipulation, provide Keiser’s file, or answer the new attorney’s questions.
In the second case, Johns was hired by Fran Harvey in February 2022 to manage her husband’s probate matter and received a $3,500 payment. While she provided extensive consultation, Johns did not initiate the probate case in court. She later closed her private practice to join the public defender’s office, leaving Harvey’s matter unresolved. Harvey hired new counsel, who completed the probate process.
During the bar’s investigation, Johns repeatedly failed to respond to inquiries, prompting the Supreme Court to issue orders to show cause. She was held in contempt and publicly reprimanded on October 10, 2023, for her initial failure to respond. Following a court-ordered response, Johns again failed to reply to further inquiries, resulting in a 29-day suspension until she complied. The referee found Johns violated Rules Regulating The Florida Bar 4-1.4 (Communication) and 4-8.4(g) (Misconduct).
At a sanctions hearing on January 31, 2025, Johns testified that her conduct occurred during a period of significant personal turmoil due to her daughter’s life-threatening situation, which led to financial and emotional distress and a diagnosis of chronic post-traumatic stress disorder. She expressed remorse, sought counseling through the Florida Lawyers Assistance program, and presented character reference letters from colleagues praising her dedication as an assistant public defender. These letters highlighted her mentorship, compassion, and commitment to indigent clients, noting her receipt of the Gideon Award from the Public Defender’s Office for her exemplary work.
The referee considered mitigating factors, including Johns’ lack of dishonest motives, emotional challenges, strong professional reputation, and remorse, as well as aggravating factors like her prior disciplinary record and pattern of misconduct. The referee recommended a ten-day suspension, deeming it sufficient to address the violations while not unduly depriving the public of Johns’ services as a qualified attorney.
The Supreme Court accepted the recommendation and ordered Johns to comply with all the terms of the referee’s report.
The Disposition states:
“The uncontested report of the referee is approved and Respondent is suspended from the practice of law for ten days, effective thirty days from the date of this order so that Respondent can close out her practice and protect the interests of existing clients.”
Conclusion:
This case underscores the importance of diligent communication and responsiveness in legal practice. Attorneys are reminded of their ethical obligations to manage client matters promptly and to cooperate with regulatory authorities. Failure to do so can result in disciplinary actions that affect their professional standing and client trust.
Want more legal ethics breakdown like this?
Subscribe to blog or follow us for weekly case summaries, rules analyses, and disciplinary updates.