STEPHEN M. JOHNSON (Suspension) On January 12, 2026, the Idaho Supreme Court entered a Disciplinary Order suspending attorney Stephen M. Johnson from the practice of law for a period of sixty (60) days, effective retroactively to October 3, 2025, the date Mr. Johnson's reciprocal sanction of suspension was imposed in Arizona. The Idaho Supreme Court Disciplinary Order followed a stipulated resolution of an Idaho State Bar (ISB) reciprocal disciplinary proceeding. On September 4, 2025, the Presiding Disciplinary Judge of the State Bar of Arizona (PDJ) entered a Final Judgment and Order accepting an Agreement for Discipline by Consent by which Mr. Johnson received a sixty (60) day suspension and, upon reinstatement, two (2) years' probation. Mr. Johnson was also ordered to pay the State Bar of Arizona's costs and expenses. Mr. Johnson was found to have violated Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 [Diligence], 1.4 [Communication], and 3.2 [Expediting Litigation]. Those Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct correspond to the same Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct. The suspension relates to the following facts and circumstances. Mr. Johnson was appointed to represent two criminal defendants, Mr. Norfleet and Mr. Spink, in separate post-conviction matters. Mr. Johnson negligently failed to diligently perform services for his clients through a pattern of neglect that included repeatedly filing extension requests after court deadlines and negligently failing to notice that the language for his extension requests was inaccurate for the Norfleet case. Mr. Johnson's conduct resulted in significant delays in Mr. Norfleet's post-conviction relief matter. Mr. Johnson also failed to promptly communicate crucial case developments to Mr. Spink due to inadvertent administrative oversights. The parties agreed that there was actual prejudice to Mr. Norfleet due to Mr. Johnson's delay in filing a Post-Conviction Relief (PCR) petition. However, Mr. Norfleet had not suffered from the prejudice as his PCR case was ongoing, and he was not eligible for release from the Arizona Department of Corrections due to other unrelated convictions. As to Mr. Spink, the delay caused Mr. Spink undue anxiety about missing a filing deadline, indicating potential injury. Aggravating factors considered by the State Bar of Arizona were prior disciplinary offenses and Mr. Johnson's substantial experience in the practice of law. Mitigating factors considered were Mr. Johnson's timely good faith effort to make restitution or rectify consequences of the misconduct, remorse, full and free disclosure to the disciplinary board or cooperative attitude toward proceedings, absence of a dishonest or selfish motive, character or reputation, and the imposition of other sanctions, including Mr. Johnson's payment of costs and expenses. The Disciplinary Order provided that upon reinstatement after the sixty (60) day suspension, Mr. Johnson will serve a two-year period of probation with terms and conditions that include participation in the Law Office Management Program (LOMAP). Inquiries about this matter may be directed to: Bar Counsel, Idaho State Bar, P.O. Box 895, Boise, Idaho 83701, (208) 334-4500. IPL0310720 Feb 6 2026