Insufficient Information

An attorney who alleged that a mental health crisis caused him to withdraw from practice sought a reprimand in the face of disciplinary charges.

In his petition, Jackson asserts that an ongoing mental health crisis forced him to close his private law practice—first temporarily and then permanently—and that, in the process of doing so, he failed to adequately communicate with and to properly withdraw from his representation of some of his clients. Asserting that he has now successfully navigated the crisis, he seeks to resolve eight client grievances filed against him by admitting only that he violated Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct (“GRPC”) 1.41 and 1.16 (c) and (d), found in Bar Rule 4-102 (d).

The Georgia Supreme Court rejected the request

Unfortunately, Jackson’s petition leaves open some significant questions about when and how he allegedly advised his clients of his decision to terminate his practice; whether, and, if so, to what extent, Jackson may have violated more serious rules in addition to GRPC 1.4 and 1.16 (c) and (d); and whether a reprimand is appropriate discipline given the allegations of misconduct. We are hesitant to overlook the fact that Jackson’s conduct may have caused fairly serious harm to one or more of his clients and may also have negatively affected the public’s perception of the legal profession in general, among other ramifications. For these reasons, this Court is not inclined to impose a State Disciplinary Review Board reprimand or public reprimand to resolve the eight client grievances alleging abandonment without more factual development from additional proceedings.

The State Bar had opposed the proposed resolution. (Mike Frisch)