In the Matter of Dell Jackson

In the Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided: March 4, 2025

S25Y0221. IN THE MATTER OF DELL JACKSON.

PER CURIAM.

This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the report and

recommendation of Special Master Adam M. Hames, who

recommends that respondent Dell Jackson (State Bar No. 386329),

who was admitted to the State Bar in 1993 and currently has

emeritus status,1 be disbarred in connection with a single client

matter. Jackson filed no exceptions to the Special Master’s report,

and the time has run for her to do so. See Bar Rule 4-218.

Accordingly, this matter is now ripe for the Court’s consideration.

The record before us shows that the State Bar filed its Formal

Complaint on December 15, 2023. On December 18, 2023, the State

1 An emeritus member is subject to discipline in Georgia. See In the
Matter of Wayman, 307 Ga. 586 (837 SE2d 261) (2019). The record does not
disclose when Jackson became an emeritus member of the Bar.
Bar sent a copy of the complaint to Jackson’s official Bar address, a

post office box, requesting that she acknowledge service. Having

received no answer, Jackson was served by publication pursuant to

Bar Rule 4-203.1 (b) (3) (ii). After receiving no response, the Bar filed

a motion for default, which the Special Master granted. Thus, the

factual allegations and the disciplinary violations charged in the

Formal Complaint were deemed admitted by default. See Bar Rule

4-212 (a). In the motion, the Bar also asked for a hearing where the

parties could present evidence in aggravation and mitigation. And

while notice of the hearing was sent to Jackson’s address she had

listed with the Bar, Jackson did not appear at the hearing. The Bar

called no witnesses and offered no documents for the record, only

making a brief argument and answering questions from the Special

Master. The Special Master’s report then followed.

The facts, as deemed admitted by Jackson’s default, show that

Jackson represented a client in his direct appeal before this Court.2

In doing so, Jackson failed to provide the client with a copy of his

2 Thomas v. State, 300 Ga. 433 (796 SE2d 242) (2017).

2
trial transcript upon his request; refused to communicate with him

regarding the status of his appeal or the issues to be raised; failed

to notify him of the status of the appeal; and failed to provide him

with a copy of the Court’s opinion once it issued. Jackson stopped

communicating with the client and never resumed communications.

Based on this conduct, Jackson admitted by default to violations of

Rules 1.2 (a),3 1.3,4 and 1.4 (a),5 of the Georgia Rules of Professional

3 Rule 1.2 (a) provides in relevant part that “a lawyer shall abide by a

client’s decisions concerning the scope and objectives of representation, and, as
required by Rule 1.4, shall consult with the client as to the means by which
they are to be pursued.” While the Special Master indicated in his report that
he was “not entirely convinced” that Jackson violated this Bar Rule, the record
indicates that Jackson made no attempt to contact her client after being
assigned to his case to discuss the scope of the matters to be raised on appeal.
And, while Rule 1.2, Comment 3 provides that “[a]t the outset of a
representation, the client may authorize the lawyer to take specific action on
the client’s behalf without further consultation,” there is no indication that is
what occurred here; indeed, at the hearing on this matter, the State Bar stated
the client “wanted to participate in the discussion about the issues, and he
requested the trial transcript so he could go over them” but “she never
discussed the issues to be raised.”
4 Rule 1.3 provides, “A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and

promptness in representing a client. Reasonable diligence as used in this rule
means that a lawyer shall not without just cause to the detriment of the client
in effect willfully abandon or willfully disregard a legal matter entrusted to the
lawyer.”
5 Rule 1.4 (a) provides in relevant part that a lawyer shall “reasonably

consult with the client about the means by which the client’s objectives are to
be accomplished; []keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the
matter; [and] promptly comply with reasonable requests for information.”
3
Conduct found in Bar Rule 4-102 (d).

In considering the appropriate level of discipline, the Special

Master considered the American Bar Association Standards for

Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (“ABA Standards”). In the Matter of

Morse, 266 Ga. 652 (470 SE2d 232) (1996). See also ABA Standard

3.0 (when imposing a sanction, a court should consider the duty

violated, the lawyer’s mental state, the potential or actual injury

caused by the lawyer’s misconduct, and the existence of aggravating

or mitigating factors). However, it also noted that while the ABA

Standards are generally instructive, each case must be decided on

its own facts and the level of punishment “rests in the sound

discretion of” this Court. In the Matter of Cook, 311 Ga. 206, 213 (857

SE2d 212) (2021). The Special Master then noted that the duty

violated here is to the client, and that ABA Standard 4.4 lays out a

wide range of possible penalties for lack of diligence and

abandonment of a client, including disbarment, which the Standard

provides is generally appropriate when “a lawyer abandons the

practice and causes serious or potentially serious injury to a

4
client[.]” See ABA Standard 4.41 (a).

The Special Master then determined that there are several

aggravating factors that apply to Jackson, including that she

committed multiple offenses as related to this client; that she had

substantial experience in the practice of law, having been admitted

to the Bar in 1993; and that the client was vulnerable, in that he did

not have any legal training or understanding of the judicial system

and had to rely on Jackson to perform her function as an appellate

attorney and she failed to perform that duty. See ABA Standards

9.22 (d), (h) and (i).6 As for mitigating factors, the Special Master

found that Jackson had no other disciplinary history. See ABA

Standard 9.32 (a).

The Special Master also determined that Jackson owed the

6 The Special Master also stated that her failure to participate in the

disciplinary process was an aggravating factor, but ABA Standard 9.22 (e)
provides that “bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by
intentionally failing to comply with rules or orders of the disciplinary agency”
is an aggravating factor, and, here, there is no indication that Jackson acted
in bad faith or intentionally in failing to respond to the disciplinary authorities.
Cf. In the Matter of McCalep, 318 Ga. 260, 263 (897 SE2d 846) (2024) (listing
9.22 (e) as an aggravating factor in default case where attorney did
acknowledge service but showed “a marked unwillingness to participate in the
disciplinary process”).
5
client the duties of communication and diligence and that Jackson’s

failures resulted in the client’s potential serious injury in foreclosing

available legal remedies, including his ability to file a timely federal

or state habeas petition. See 28 USC § 2244 (d); OCGA § 9-14-42 (c)

(1). Accordingly, the Special Master held that our precedent

addressing discipline under similar circumstances leaves little

doubt as to the proper sanction, where Jackson abandoned her client

and failed to respond to the disciplinary authorities. See In the

Matter of Lawrence, 315 Ga. 723, 723 (884 SE2d 377) (2023); In the

Matter of Blain, 315 Ga. 475, 477 (883 SE2d 315) (2023); In the

Matter of Powell, 310 Ga. 859, 860 (854 SE2d 731) (2021).

Having reviewed the record, we agree that disbarment is the

appropriate sanction, and that disbarment is consistent with prior

cases in which an attorney admitted, by virtue of default, to

violating similar provisions of the GRPC that carry disbarment as a

sanction and failed to participate fully in the disciplinary process.

Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that the name of Dell Jackson be

removed from the rolls of persons authorized to practice law in the

6
State of Georgia. Jackson is reminded of her duties pursuant to Bar

Rule 4-219 (b).

Disbarred. All the Justices concur.

7