In the Matter of Dana Nicole Jackson

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to modification resulting from motions for reconsideration under Supreme Court
Rule 27, the Court’s reconsideration, and editorial revisions by the Reporter of Decisions. The version of the
opinion published in the Advance Sheets for the Georgia Reports, designated as the “Final Copy,” will replace any
prior version on the Court’s website and docket. A bound volume of the Georgia Reports will contain the final and
official text of the opinion.
In the Supreme Court of Georgia
Decided: March 7, 2023
S23Y0451. IN THE MATTER OF DANA NICOLE JACKSON.
PER CURIAM.
This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the report and
recommendation of Special Master Samuel Jeffrey Rusbridge who
recommends that the Court disbar Dana Nicole Jackson (State Bar
No. 781227), a member of the Bar since 2010, for her misconduct
related to her representation of clients in a consumer debt collection
matter. The State Bar filed a formal complaint in 2021, alleging that
Jackson had violated Rules 1.4 and 1.15 (I) (c) of the Georgia Rules
of Professional Conduct found in Bar Rule 4-102 (d). The State Bar’s
investigator attempted personal service at Jackson’s address on file
with the State Bar’s Membership Department, but issued a return
of service non est inventus1 because the address was located at a
UPS store. The State Bar then properly served Jackson by
publication pursuant to Bar Rule 4-203.1 (b) (3) (ii). Jackson failed
to file a Notice of Rejection or otherwise respond to the formal
complaint. The State Bar filed a motion for default, which the
Special Master granted, concluding that by virtue of her failure to
respond, Jackson had admitted the facts alleged and violations
charged in the formal complaint. See Bar Rule 4-208.1 (b). The
Special Master issued his report and recommendation after holding
a hearing on aggravating and mitigating factors.
The Special Master found the following facts to be undisputed
by virtue of Jackson’s default. In April 2018, Jackson was hired by
an attorney and her client, to collect a debt owed to the client in
exchange for a 25% fee on all funds collected. On March 14, 2019,
Jackson obtained a judgment for the client for $3,821 in principal
1 “The Latin term, sometimes shortened to ‘non est’ or abbreviated as
‘n.e.i.,’ means ‘he is not found,’ and is used to indicate that the person in
question could not be found within the jurisdiction.” In the Matter of Arrington,
314 Ga. 696, 697 n.3 (8778 SE2d 534) (2022) (citing “Non est inventus,” Black’s
Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019)).
2
and $162 in court costs. Jackson collected at least $3,750 from the
debtors but failed to send any of the money to the clients. She also
refused to communicate with the clients about the case, though they
sent several requests for status updates.
After concluding that Jackson was subject to this Court’s
disciplinary jurisdiction, the Special Master considered Jackson’s
conduct in relation to the Rules she allegedly violated. As to Rule
1.4, the Special Master determined that subsection (a) requires a
lawyer to 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 a matter; and promptly
comply with reasonable requests for information, and that
subsection (b) requires a lawyer to consult with the client to the
extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed
decisions regarding the representation. The Special Master
concluded that Jackson violated Rules 1.4 (a) and (b) by completely
failing to discuss the representation with her clients. The Special
Master determined that Jackson violated Rule 1.15 (I) (c) (requiring
3
a lawyer, upon receiving client funds, to “promptly notify the client
or third person” and deliver the funds that the client or third person
is entitled to receive) by failing to notify the clients of her receipt of
funds from the debtors and failing to deliver the funds to the clients.
The maximum penalty for a violation of Rule 1.4 is a public
reprimand, and the maximum penalty for a violation of Rule 1.15 (I)
(c) is disbarment.
The Special Master observed that “the primary purpose of a
disciplinary action is to protect the public from attorneys who are
not qualified to practice law due to incompetence or unprofessional
conduct,” In the Matter of Blitch, 288 Ga. 690, 692 (706 SE2d 461)
(2011), and that this Court is also concerned with the public’s
confidence in the profession. The Special Master then considered the
ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (“ABA Standards”)
for guidance in determining the appropriate sanction, see In the
Matter of Morse, 266 Ga. 652, 653 (470 SE2d 232) (1996), which
require (1) identification of the ethical duty violated by the lawyer;
(2) identification of the lawyer’s mental state; (3) the potential or
4
actual injury caused; and (4) examination of aggravating and
mitigating circumstances. The Special Master concluded that
Jackson violated her duties to communicate with her clients and to
preserve and keep her clients’ property safe, see ABA Standard 4.0;
and she acted knowingly and intentionally by refusing to
communicate with her clients and by admitting by default that she
stole her clients’ money, see ABA Standard 3.0. The Special Master
further concluded that ABA Standard 4.62 (“Suspension is generally
appropriate when a lawyer knowingly deceives a client, and causes
injury or potential injury to the client.”) was applicable due to her
complete failure to communicate with her clients, which showed
deceit rather than mere negligence; and that ABA Standard 4.11
(“Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly
converts client property and causes injury or potential injury to a
client.”) was applicable to her violation of Rule 1.15 (I) (c). Thus, the
Special Master concluded that disbarment was the presumptive
sanction under the ABA Standards, as Jackson knowingly converted
her clients’ property.
5
Next, the Special Master considered aggravating factors,
concluding that Jackson had a dishonest or selfish motive, see ABA
Standard 9.22 (b); that she refused to acknowledge the wrongful
nature of her conduct, see ABA Standard 9.22 (g); and that she was
indifferent to making restitution, see ABA Standard 9.22 (j). In
contrast, the Special Master concluded that only one mitigating
factor applied in that Jackson had no prior disciplinary record, see
ABA Standard 9.32 (a).
The Special Master considered this Court’s prior disciplinary
decisions, noting that, in the absence of remorse and restitution, the
Court normally disbars attorneys who misappropriate client funds
without explanation. See In the Matter of Harris, 301 Ga. 378, 379-
380 (801 SE2d 39) (2017) (disbarring attorney for violations of Rules
1.15 (I) and 1.15 (II) despite lack of prior disciplinary history when
attorney was in default and offered no mitigating circumstances
relating to his conduct); In the Matter of Rose, 299 Ga. 665, 666 (791
SE2d 1) (2016) (same); In the Matter of Jones, 296 Ga. 151, 151 (765
SE2d 360) (2014) (same). Because Jackson misappropriated client
6
funds, offered no restitution, expressed no remorse, and provided no
explanation, the Special Master concluded that disbarment was an
appropriate sanction for her violations of Rules 1.4 and 1.15 (I) (c).
Therefore, he recommended that Jackson be disbarred for her
violations of those Rules.
Neither Jackson nor the State Bar has filed exceptions to the
Special Master’s report and recommendation. Having reviewed the
record, we agree that disbarment is the appropriate sanction in this
matter, particularly in light of the fact that Jackson admitted to the
Rules violations by virtue of her default and offered no mitigating
explanation for her behavior. Accordingly, it is ordered that the
name of Dana Nicole Jackson be removed from the rolls of persons
authorized to practice law in the State of Georgia. Jackson is
reminded of her duties pursuant to Bar Rule 4-219 (b).
Disbarred. All the Justices concur.
7