Charna R Johnson

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT, LAWYER OF THE DAY, LEGAL ETHICS, SEX Lawyer Tells Client She Can Talk to Dead Spouse — But That’s Not What Got Her in Trouble Please note: people get Academy Awards for acting like they can talk to dead people. Full disclosure: I belong to the South Park school of thought, w...hich says that claiming you can speak to dead people makes you a candidate for Biggest Douche in the Universe. Even my priest, who believes that the will of an omniscient and all-powerful being can be easily flummoxed by a thin film of latex, doesn’t believe that he has a direct line of communication with the dead. One would think that telling a client you are “channeling” his dead wife would violate multiple rules of legal ethics. But not so in Arizona. Nope, in Arizona you can get away with this, reports the ABA Journal: [Lawyer Charna Johnson] began representing the client during his divorce proceedings in 1999. The client’s wife committed suicide the following year, and Johnson later co-represented him in probate proceedings. Johnson and the client both testified that they genuinely believed the client’s wife was within Johnson. Two witnesses agreed. The client felt his wife had come back to heal some of the damage from her prescription drug use. Yeah, that’s perfectly cool in ‘Zona. Remember, this is the state where Bryan Cave lawyers conducted an exorcism. Obviously they’re down with the supernatural in Arizona, so long as the spirits are American-born. But still, having an inappropriate sexual relationship with a client is a no-no. Luckily for Charna Johnson, the client’s dead wife apparently no longer wanted to have sex with the client. Whew. Johnson really dodged a bullet there… The Arizona bar looked into two ethics issues with Johnson: (1) did she have a sexual relationship with the client, Chad Lakridis, and (2) did she lie when asked if she ever told Lakridis she “channeled” his dead wife.. * Johnson represented Lakridis in his divorce from his then-alive wife. Lakridis met Johnson while teaching her ballroom dancing. (Circumstantial shadiness.) * With the divorce proceedings now concluded, Johnson accompanied Lakridis to the funeral home to help Lakridis with the arrangements. It was there that she first became able to channel Lakridis’s wife. (You’ve-got-to-be-kidding-me shadiness.) * Johnson continued to represent Lakridis in various estate matters, but in personal communications and emails would refer to herself in the first person as Lakridis’s wife, Jan, or use the pronoun “we” when telling Lakridis what to do. (Just get a room already shadiness.) * Johnson claims that all references to sex in these communications and emails were from Lakridis’s wife. (Glad to see that, in death, my wife is finally on board with my “open marriage” plan shadiness.) But hey, the hearing officer couldn’t pin any actual sex on the couple (or would it have been a threesome?), so that issue is closed. Still, Johnson isn’t walking away unscathed. The hearing officer recommended a six-month suspension for Johnson, because she got a little too cute when directly asked about all of this channeling business: [T]he hearing officer dismissed Johnson’s testimony that she was confused by questions about channeling in the previous disciplinary hearing. Johnson said she was possessed by the woman’s spirit, and she was not technically channeling. “To pretend that she did not understand the common vernacular of what channeling is,” the report said, “cannot be believed.”

As Ms. Johnson is no longer practicing, it does not make a difference whether I would recommend her. However, my experience with her office, and the experience of several friends and their friends, has always been positive. Her staff were knowledgeable and helpful, and I always felt that I received h...er full attention and a high level of service. Individuals that I referred to her were always positive and satisfied with their experience, and outcome of their case. I am sorry that she is not practicing any longer, as I would not hesitate to call upon her if needed.

She did nothing!!! She was no help at all. However, her charges did not reflect that, if you talked to her on the phone for 2 min. your statement said 15, and if you talked to her 10 min her statement said 40min. She spent more time padding the bill that working on the case. I couldn't believe t...he statements, everytime I got a statement there was huge charges on it (totally padded) and she had done nothing She even charged 5 plus dollars for postage and handling in each bill.....so I guess she charged for her time in writing up the statements too an you can see that she put a lot of time & thought into that much padding. And again, she did nothing to help us.