Robert F. Johnson III (2026)

ADO and of the volunteers of the hearing panel and PCC. ADO and of the volunteers of the hearing panel and PCC. engage Attorney Johnson and the investigation of this matter has involved hours of time of the engage Attorney Johnson and the investigation of this matter has involved hours o f time of the profession's integrity is harmed. The efforts of the Attorney Discipline Office (ADO) staff to profession’s integrity is harmed. The efforts of the Attorney Discipline Office (ADO) staff to disciplinary authority, the ability of the profession to govern itself and assure the public of the disciplinary authorit y, the ability of the profession to govern itself and assure the public of the was injured by Attorney Johnson's misconduct. When an attorney fails to respond to the was injured by Attorney Johnson’s misconduct. When an attorney fails to respond to the whether to respond, his failures to respond were at least done knowingly. The legal profession whether to respond, his failures to respond were at least done knowingly. The legal profession maintain the integrity of the legal profession. Because Attorney Johnson clearly chose when and maintain the integrity of the legal profession. Because Attorney Johnson clearly chose when and By failing to respond to the disciplinary authority, Attorney Johnson violated his duty to By failing to respond to the disciplinary authority, Attorney Johnson violated his duty to

determine the baseline sanction. We then consider aggravating and mitigating factors. determine the baseline sanction. We then consider aggravating and mitigating factors. the lawyer's mental state, and the potential or actual injury caused by the lawyer's misconduct to the lawyer’s mental state, and the potential or actual injury cause d by the lawyer’s misconduct to our decision, they are a helpful framework. Under the our decision, they are a helpful framework. Under the Standards, Standards, we consider the duty violated, we consider the duty violated, (2005) (2 005) (“("Standards") Standards”) to determine an appropriate sanction. to determine an appropriate sanction. While the While the Standards Standards do not control do not control We look to the We look to the American Bar Association's Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions American Bar Association’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions

hearing on sanction. hearing on sanction. Charges, resulting in a deemed admission of the alleged rule violation. He failed to attend the Charges, resulting in a deemed admission of the alleged rule violation. He failed to attend the demands for information from the disciplinary authority. He failed to answer the Notice of demands for information from the discip linary authority. He failed to answer the Notice of Mr. Johnson violated Rule of Professional Conduct 8.1(b) for failing to respond to lawful Mr. Johnson violated Rule of Professional Conduct 8.1(b) for failing to respond to lawful

Lawyers Assistance Program. Lawyers Assistance Program. showing that Attorney Johnson has sought treatment and/or proof of an agreement with the showing that Attorney Johnson has sought treatment and/or proof of an agreement with the appropriate sanction is a two-year suspension, one year of which may be suspended upon a appropriate sanction is a two - year suspension, one year of which may be suspende d upon a panel report issuing a sanction of a one-year suspension. The Committee decided that the panel report issuing a sanction of a one - year suspension. The Committee decided that the On January 20, 2026, the Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) deliberated the hearing On January 20, 2026, the Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) deliberated the hearing

Johnson, Robert F., III advs. Attorney Discipline Office Johnson, Robert F., III advs. Attorney Discipline Office - #23-024 - #23 - 024

*non-lawyer member *non - lawyer member

*Everett S. Grass *Everett S. Gras s Richard C. Gagliuso, Esq. Richard C. Gagliuso, Esq. Trudy Renfors, Admin. Asst. Trudy Renfors, Admin. Asst. Oliver D. Bloom, Esq. Oliver D. Bloom, Esq. Eric R. Wilson, Esq. Eric R. Wilson, Esq. *Ronald K. Ace *Ronald K. Ace Sally H. Mulhern, Esq. Sally H. Mulhern, Esq. Mitchell M. Simon, Esq., Vice Chair Mitchell M. Simon, Esq., Vice Chair. Robin D. Melone, Esq. Robin D. Melone, Esq. *Kathleen M. Ames, Vice Chair *Kathleen M. Ames, Vice Chair Karyl R. Martin, Esq. Karyl R. Martin, Esq. Stephanie C. Hausman, Esq., Chair Stephanie C. Hausman, Esq., Chair *Peter J. Kiriakoutsos *Peter J. Kiriakoutsos

the Rules of Professional Conduct. the Rules of Professional Conduct. Attorney Johnson is working on the issues or issues that brought him into non-compliance with Attorney Johnson is working on the issues or issues that brought him into non - compliance with appropriate, but that one year of the suspension may be suspended upon reassurance that appropriate, but that one year of the suspension m ay be suspended upon reassurance that practice of law. For these reasons, the Committee concluded that a two-year suspension was practice of law. For these reasons, the Committee concluded that a two - year suspension was public that he will be accountable to the disciplinary authority and make him fit for the future public that he will be accountable to the disciplinary authority and make him fit for the future unclear to what extent Attorney Johnson will engage in rehabilitation that would assure the unclear to what extent Attorney Johnson will engage in rehabilitation that would assure the disciplinary authority hampered its ability to bring other, underlying rule violations. It is also disciplinary authority hampered its ability to bring other, underlying rule violations. It is also In this case, it is unclear whether Attorney Johnson’s failure to respond to the In this case, it is unclear whether Attorney Johnson's failure to respond to the

suspension. suspension. 2017-0017 (May 6, 2019). In each of those cases, the respondents received a two-year 2017 - 0017 (May 6, 2019). In each of those cases, the respondents received a two - year Anna Roulston, Esq., Anna Roulston, Esq., LD LD-15-0011 (October 2, 2015); - 15 - 0011 (O ctober 2, 2015); In the Matter of James Michalik, Esq., In the Matter of James Michalik, Esq., LD LD- paired with underlying rule violations. paired with underlying rule violations. Coddington’s Case Coddington's Case,, 155 N.H. 66 (2007); 155 N.H. 66 (2007); In the Matter of In the Matter of The case law cited by the ADO all involve respondents whose failure to cooperate was The case law cited by the ADO all involve respondents whose failure to cooperate was

disciplinary process, so his fitness to continue to practice as a lawyer is currently unknown. disciplinary process, so his fitness to continue to pra ctice as a lawyer is currently unknown. violations. But it is also unusual in that Attorney Johnson has had almost no contact with the violations. But it is also unusual in that Attorney Johnson has had almost no contact with the disciplinary authority, which is more commonly seen in addition to other, underlying rule disciplinary authority, which is more commonly seen in addition to other, underlying rule This is a unique case in which the only rule violation is failure to coop This is a unique case in which the only rule violation is failure to cooperate with the erate with the

reflects that there may be other mitigating factors as well. reflects that there may be other mitigating factors as well. law. In mitigation, Attorney Johnson does not have a prior disciplinary record. The scant record law. In mitigation, Attorney Johnson does not have a prior disciplinary record. The scant record failure to cooperate with the disciplinary process, and substantial experience in the practice of failure to cooperate with the disciplinary process, and substantial experie nce in the practice of Aggravating factors include a pattern of misconduct (multiple failures to cooperate), Aggravating factors include a pattern of misconduct (multiple failures to cooperate),

violation of a duty as a professional and causes injury or potential injury to the legal system. vio lation of a duty as a professional and causes injury or potential injury to the legal system. 7.2, suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engages in conduct that is a 7.2, suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engages in conduct that is a Attorney Johnson's Rule 8.1(b) violation implicates Section 7.0 of the Attorney Johnson’s Rule 8.1(b) violation implicates Section 7.0 of the Standards. Standards. Under Under

Page 2 Page 2 p. 3 Page 1 of 8

Bar.

June 16, 2014. He is currently on active status for the Massachusetts

2. Mr. Johnson was also admitted to practice law in Massachusetts on

November 17, 2014.

law in New Hampshire. Mr. Johnson was admitted to practice on

1. Robert F. Johnson, III ("Mr. Johnson") is an attorney licensed to practice

The Hearing Panel finds by clear and convincing evidence the following:

Background

Elaine Holden Susan Chollet Mona Movafaghi, Esquire Stephanie Annunziata, Hearing Panel Chair

appointed: Supreme Court Rule 37A(III)(b)(4) on April 21, 2024. The following Panel was A complaint was referred to this Panel pursuant to New Hampshire

provides in relevant part: "(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) make a

10. The Referral implicated Rule 3.3: Candor Toward the Tribunal, which

be.

"Criminal Action"), and, more specifically, how that disposition came to

Court-South (the "Superior Court"), Case No.: 226-2023-CR-00277 (the

Johnson entitled State v. Gina Johnson, Hillsborough County Superior

Divorce Action concerned the disposition of a criminal case against Gina

9. The alleged false statements made by Mr. Johnson in a hearing in his

Gina Johnson is Mr. Johnson's estranged spouse.

"Circuit Court"), Case No.: 657-2022-DM-00103 (the "Divorce Action").

Robert Johnson, III, 9th Circuit Court-Family Division-Merrimack (the

Johnson's divorce proceeding entitled In the Matter of Gina Johnson and

statements to the Court during a hearing that took place in Mr.

8. The Referral alleged that on July 19, 2023, Mr. Johnson made false

County Attorney Ryan Dill dated August 28, 2023 (the "Referral").

7. This matter arises from a referral from Hillsborough County Assistant

6. Mr. Johnson does not have a prior discipline history.

the ADO.

New Hampshire Bar Association but did not provide this information to

5. On or about July 12, 2024, Mr. Johnson provided a home address to the

4. Mr. Johnson left that firm on or about July 12, 2024.

at Goulden Law Offices, 253 Main Street, Nashua, NH 03060.

3. At all times material to the underlying matter, Mr. Johnson practiced law p. 5 Page 3 of 8

that was applicable.

ADO also requested that Mr. Johnson provide new contact information if

requested that Mr. Johnson call the ADO to schedule a meeting. The

rjohnsoniiilawgmail.com ) forwarding the May 6, 2024 letter and

17. On June 11, 2024, the ADO emailed Mr. Johnson (email address:

16. Mr. Johnson did not respond to the May 6, 2024 letter.

schedule a meeting.

requesting that Mr. Johnson contact the ADO by May 16, 2024 to

address at Goulden Law Offices, 253 Main Street, Nashua, NH 03060,

15. On May 6, 2024, a letter was sent via U.S. Mail to Mr. Johnson's law firm

referred for formal proceedings on January 19, 2024.

14. Mr. Johnson has not cooperated or responded since the matter was

Q. Labonte's investigation of this matter.

13. Mr. Johnson initially cooperated with Assistant General Counsel Andrea

Conduct.

12. This failure is an independent violation of the Rules of Professional

several months.

failed to respond to the ADO's requests for information and a meeting for

11. Although initially cooperative with the ADO investigation, Mr. Johnson

lawyer[.]

statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the

false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false p. 6 Page 4 of 8

27. The August 21 email, in relevant part, stated:

Follow-up (3rd Request)" and attached the July 1, 2024 letter.

26. On August 21, 2024, the ADO sent Mr. Johnson an email titled: "ADO

New Hampshire Bar Association to a home address.

25. On or about July 12, 2024, Mr. Johnson changed his address with the

24. Mr. Johnson did not respond to the letter or the telephone calls.

at the cell phone number.

numbers. Mr. Johnson's office number just rang but a voicemail was left

23. On July 2, 2024, the ADO called Mr. Johnson at his office and cell phone

22. Mr. Johnson did not respond.

(Emphasis in original.) Exhibit 39 be grounds for summary suspension under Rule 37(9-B). charges for failure to cooperate (Rule 8.1(b ►), and could authority. Failure to do so can result in additional respond to requests for information from the disciplinary Please know that pursuant to Rule 8.1(b), you have a duty to

21. In relevant part, the letter stated:

by July 9, 2024.

letter requested that Mr. Johnson contact the ADO to schedule a meeting

Johnson's office address at Goulden Law Offices and via email. The

20. On July 1, 2024, the ADO sent a second letter via U.S. Mail to Mr.

calls.

19. Mr. Johnson did not respond and did not return the ADO telephone

but was unable to leave a message.

18. ADO counsel also called Mr. Johnson at two separate phone numbers p. 7 Page 5 of 8

part:

34. On February 1, 2025, Mr. Johnson sent another email that states in

part:

33. On January 25, 2025, Mr. Johnson responded by email and stated in

well as by email containing the same information.

of Charges to Mr. Johnson by certified mail return receipt requested, as

32. On January 6, 2025, the ADO sent a letter including a copy of the Notice

not contact the ADO by October 28, 2024.

31. Mr. Johnson was advised that a Notice of Charges would issue if he did

office address, at his home address, and via email.

30. On October 21, 2024, the ADO sent another letter to Mr. Johnson at his

29. Mr. Johnson did not respond.

Johnson's cell phone number.

message was left at one of the telephone numbers, believed to be Mr.

28. On August 21, 2024, the ADO again called Mr. Johnson. A voice

39, 40 schedule a mutually convenient time for a meeting. Exhibit call my office no later than Monday, August 26, 2024 to previously sent to you. I would respectfully request that you Please see the attached letter dated July 1, 2024 which I p. 8 Page 6 of 8

ADO, including a request for a meeting to discuss the matter.

41. Mr. Johnson had a duty to respond to requests for information from the

disciplinary authority. (c) fail to attend a hearing when ordered to do so by a Rule 1.6; or require disclosure of information otherwise protected by disciplinary authority, except that this Rule does not demand for information from an admissions or the matter, or knowingly fail to respond to a lawful misapprehension known by the person to have arisen in (b) fail to disclose a fact necessary to correct a (a) knowingly make a false statement of material fact; or disciplinary matter, shall not: with a bar admission application or in connection with a An applicant for admission to the bar, or a lawyer in connection

40. Rule 8.1 states as follows:

Rule 8.1: Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters

Rules of Professional Conduct.

39. Mr. Johnson's conduct in this case violates the following New Hampshire

38. Mr. Johnson did not attend the hearing.

in this matter scheduled for October 23, 2025.

37. On October 9, 2025, by letter, the ADO notified Mr. Johnson of a hearing

36. There has been no response from Mr. Johnson since that time.

Answer the Notice of Charges (NOC).

deliberate the sole issue of sanction because Mr. Johnson failed to

35. On April 11, the ADO requested a Hearing Panel be appointed to p. 9 Page 7 of 8

investigation and prosecution of this matter. the Professional Conduct Committee for all costs associated with the 46. The panel also recommends that Mr. Johnson be ordered to reimburse

re-instatement process should he seek to practice law in New Hampshire. In addition, Mr. Johnson will have to undergo the Mr. Johnson has no disciplinary history and is currently experiencing of Professional Conduct. This one-year suspension is recommended, as suspension upon Mr. Johnson for violation of the New Hampshire Rules request the New Hampshire Supreme Court impose a one-year the Hearing Panel recommends that the Professional Conduct Committee 45. In accordance with New Hampshire Supreme Court Rule 37(A) (III)(d)(1),

N.H. Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(a).

Johnson violated Rule 8.1(a). This violation constitutes a violation of

44. The Hearing Panel found by clear and convincing evidence that Mr.

of Rule 8.1(b).

breached his duty to cooperate with the ADO's investigation in violation

43. As such, there is clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Johnson

emails, and telephone calls requesting his cooperation.

42. Mr. Johnson breached that duty when he failed to respond to letters, p. 10 Page 8 of 8

Robert F. Johnson Assistant Disciplinary Counsel Elizabeth M. Murphy, Distribution: