## Facts

- Willard Johnson faced federal drug-trafficking charges in the Southern District of Illinois and was represented by appointed counsel.
- National Legal Professional Associates (NLPA), an Ohio-based criminal consulting service, marketed its services directly to defendants and families, while asserting it operated as support for defense counsel.
- H. Wesley Robinson served as NLPA’s administrative director and case-analysis director and had been permanently disbarred in Ohio after a federal mail-fraud conviction; he was not licensed elsewhere.
- In Johnson’s case, after counsel declined Johnson’s request to retain NLPA, Johnson filed a disciplinary complaint against counsel and counsel sought to withdraw.
- The district court found a broader pattern in multiple cases of NLPA/Robinson advising defendants, recommending specific actions for counsel, and encouraging distrust of lawyers who did not follow NLPA’s recommendations.
- Relying on inherent authority, the district court initiated contempt/sanctions proceedings, found unauthorized practice of law, entered an injunction restricting NLPA/Robinson’s activities, and imposed monetary sanctions including an order directing certain fees to be returned and paid to a court-selected charity.

## Issues

1. Whether a federal district court may use its inherent powers to investigate and sanction non-lawyer consultants and a disbarred individual for conduct amounting to unauthorized practice of law affecting cases before the court.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion in crafting sanctions, particularly by ordering returned fees to be paid to a charity chosen by the court.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit held the district court properly invoked inherent authority to protect proceedings and regulate conduct connected to cases before it.
- The court upheld the finding that NLPA/Robinson’s conduct went beyond permissible support services and constituted unauthorized practice of law, including interference with attorney–client relationships.
- The court largely affirmed the injunction restricting solicitation and requiring counsel authorization and disclosure of NLPA’s non-lawyer role.
- The court vacated the portion of the monetary sanction requiring fees to be paid to a court-selected charity, holding that component exceeded permissible inherent-power sanctions.

## Legal Principles

- Federal courts have inherent power to regulate practice and protect the administration of justice, including investigating and sanctioning conduct that interferes with proceedings or constitutes unauthorized practice of law connected to matters before the court.
- Injunctive relief may restrict non-lawyer consultants from direct solicitation of represented defendants, providing services absent a bona fide request from counsel, and purporting to supervise or direct counsel’s legal decisions; courts may require written attorney authorization and clear disclosure of a consultant’s limited role.
- Monetary sanctions imposed under inherent powers must serve legitimate remedial or coercive purposes (e.g., compensation for harm or securing compliance) and must be tethered to the misconduct’s effects; directing funds to unrelated third parties (such as a charity unconnected to the harm) is an abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit confirmed that district courts may use inherent authority to curb unauthorized legal practice and protect attorney–client relationships in criminal cases, but it rejected a sanctions structure that redirected returned fees to a court-chosen charity because it was not tied to compensating victims, coercing compliance, or protecting the court’s processes.


United States v. Johnson, 327 F.3d 554 (7th Cir. 2003)