In re Jackson ( 2023 )

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic
and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of
any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go
to press.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS
No. 23-BG-0554
IN RE DARLENE C. JACKSON, RESPONDENT.
A Suspended Member of the Bar
of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals
(Bar Registration No. 445931)
On Report and Recommendation
of the Board on Professional Responsibility
(BDN: 22-BD-020; DDN 2020-171)
(Decided August 31, 2023)
Before MCLEESE and DEAHL, Associate Judges, and WASHINGTON, Senior
Judge.
PER CURIAM: The Board on Professional Responsibility recommends that
Darlene C. Jackson be suspended from the practice of law for 60 days with
reinstatement conditioned upon a showing of fitness. Specifically, the Board found
that respondent issued a subpoena in a federal court civil action while discovery was
stayed; disclosed the contents of a sealed settlement agreement; and failed to comply
with local rules and court orders, violating D.C. R. Prof. Conduct 3.4(c). During the
course of the investigation into the charges, respondent failed to respond to
Disciplinary Counsel despite a Board order directing her to do so; therefore, the
2
Board also found that respondent violated D.C. R. Prof. Conduct 8.1(b) (knowing
failure to respond to Disciplinary Counsel), D.C. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(d) (serious
interference with the administration of justice), and D.C. Bar R. XI, § 2(b)(3) (failure
to comply with Board order). Respondent did not participate in the disciplinary
proceedings and has not filed any exceptions to the Board’s report and
recommendation. Respondent also has not yet filed the required D.C. Bar R. XI,
§ 14(g) affidavit after the court imposed an interim suspension on August 10, 2023.
Under D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9(h)(2), “if no exceptions are filed to the Board’s
report, the [c]ourt will enter an order imposing the discipline recommended by the
Board upon the expiration of the time permitted for filing exceptions.” See also In
re Viehe, 762 A.2d 542, 543 (D.C. 2000) (per curiam) (“When . . . there are no
exceptions to the Board’s report and recommendation, our deferential standard of
review becomes even more deferential.”). Because no exceptions have been filed
and we agree that the Board’s recommended sanction is reasonable and appropriate
for the violations presented here, 1 we accept the recommendation that respondent be
1
See, e.g., In re Padharia, 235 A.3d 747, 748-49 (D.C. 2020) (per curiam)
(imposing six-month suspension and conditioning reinstatement on the attorney’s
demonstrating his fitness to resume the practice of law for violating D.C. R. Prof.
Conduct 3.4(c), 8.1(b), and 8.4(d) where the attorney ignored filing deadlines in 30
3
suspended for sixty days with reinstatement conditioned on demonstrating fitness to
practice law.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that respondent Darlene C. Jackson is hereby suspended from the
practice of law in the District of Columbia for 60 days, with reinstatement
conditioned on demonstrating fitness to practice law. Respondent’s attention is
directed to the requirements of D.C. Bar. R. XI, § 14 and their effect on eligibility
for reinstatement. See D.C. Bar. R. XI, § 16(c).
So ordered.
immigration matters, resulting in dismissal of those actions, and failed to respond to
Disciplinary Counsel’s inquiries for nearly seven months); In re Wemhoff, 142 A.3d
573, 573-74 (D.C. 2016) (per curiam) (imposing 30-day suspension stayed with one-
year probation and additional conditions for violations of D.C. R. Prof. Conduct
3.4(c), 8.4(d) and 1.6(a) where the attorney disclosed client confidences while
withdrawing from representation and failed to attend a court-ordered status hearing,
but apparently cooperated with Disciplinary Counsel’s investigation); In re Cooper,
936 A.2d 832, 833 (D.C. 2007) (per curiam) (imposing 30-day suspension with
fitness requirement for violations of D.C. R. Prof. Conduct 8.1(b) and 8.4(d) and
D.C. Bar R. XI, § 2(b)(3)).