In the Matter of Dell Jackson

Dell Jackson, an attorney admitted to the Georgia Bar in 1993 who held emeritus status, represented a man in his direct appeal to the Supreme Court of Georgia. She never gave him a copy of his trial transcript despite his request, never discussed the issues to be raised on appeal, never told him the status of his case, and never sent him the court's opinion once it was decided. She then stopped communicating with him entirely. When the State Bar filed formal disciplinary charges, Jackson did not respond, so the allegations were deemed admitted by default. She also did not show up for the hearing where the Bar asked the Special Master to weigh aggravating and mitigating factors. The Special Master recommended disbarment, finding Jackson violated rules on client communication and diligence, and the Supreme Court of Georgia agreed, ordering her removed from the rolls of Georgia attorneys.

An attorney who abandons a client during a criminal appeal by failing to communicate, failing to provide requested documents, and failing to keep the client informed, and who then fails to participate in the resulting disciplinary proceedings, violates Georgia's Rules of Professional Conduct on diligence and communication and warrants disbarment.

The decision reinforces that Georgia lawyers, including those with emeritus status, must communicate with and diligently represent clients or face disbarment. It also protects clients like the appellant here, whose silence from his lawyer jeopardized his ability to pursue timely habeas relief.

Disbarred

1. The court adopted the Special Master's finding that Jackson's failure to respond to the Bar's formal complaint meant the factual allegations and rule violations were deemed admitted under Bar Rule 4-212 (a), a default rule treating unanswered charges as true.
2. Applying the American Bar Association Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, which direct courts to weigh the duty violated, the lawyer's mental state, potential injury, and aggravating or mitigating factors, the court found Jackson violated her duty of diligence and communication to her client.
3. The court identified aggravating factors, including that Jackson committed multiple offenses against this one client, had substantial legal experience since her 1993 admission, and took advantage of a vulnerable client who lacked legal training and depended entirely on her to handle his appeal.
4. The court weighed the lone mitigating factor, that Jackson had no prior disciplinary history, but found it insufficient to outweigh the seriousness of her abandonment, which risked the client's ability to timely pursue federal or state habeas relief.
5. Because ABA Standard 4.41 (a) states disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer abandons practice and causes serious or potentially serious injury to a client, and because prior Georgia cases with similar default admissions resulted in disbarment, the court concluded disbarment was the proper sanction here.

• attorney disbarment
• State Bar of Georgia
• client abandonment
• default disciplinary proceeding