In Re: Anna M. Jackson

Supreme Court of Louisiana
January 12, 2022
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
IN RE: ANNA M. JACKSON
No. 2021-B-01488
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Disciplinary Counsel - Applicant Other; Findings and Recommendations
(Formal Charges);
_ _ _ _ _ _
January 12, 2022
Suspension imposed. See per curiam.
Crichton, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.
JLW
JDH
SJC
JTG
WJC
JBM
PDG
01/12/2022 "See News Release 002 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

S
UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NO. 20
21-B-1488
I
N RE: ANNA M. JACKSON
AT
TORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING
P
ER CURIAM
This disciplinary matter arises from formal charges filed by the Office of
Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) against respondent, Anna M. Jackson, an attorney
licensed to practice law in Louisiana, but currently ineligible to practice.1
PRO
CEDURAL HISTORY
The ODC filed two sets of formal charges against respondent under
disciplinary board docket numbers 18-DB-044 and 19-DB-073. Respondent failed
to answer either set of formal charges. Accor dingly, the factual allegations
contained therein were deemed admitted and proven by clear and convincing
evidence pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 11(E)(3).
The matters were then considered by separate hearing committees. No formal
hearings were held, but the parties were given an opportunity to file with the hearing
committees written arguments and documentary evidence on the issue of sanctions.
Respondent filed nothing for the hearing committee’s consideration in either matter.
Following their consideration by the hearing committees, the matters were
consolidated by order of the disciplinary board. The board then filed in this court a
single recommendation of discipline encompassing both sets of formal charges.
1 On May 31, 2019, respondent was declared ineligible to practice law for failure to comply with
the mandatory continuing legal education requirements. She is also ineligible for failure to pay
her bar dues and the disciplinary assessment and for failure to file her trust account registration
statement.
01/12/22

2

FORMAL CHARGES
18-DB-044
In 2008, respondent’s uncle, Ronnie Jackson, and one of his coworkers
retained respondent to represent them in a racial discrimination suit against their
employer. On several occasions, Mr. Jackson asked respondent if she was able to
handle this type of case, and respondent confirmed to him that she could.
Respondent also agreed to handle the case on a contingency fee basis, but she never
reduced the agreement to writing.
Thereafter, Mr. Jackson contacted respondent numerous times to request an
update about the case, to no avail. In his sworn statement to the ODC, Mr. Jackson
stated that respondent never informed him whether she had filed a suit or if she had
furthered the case in any other respect. Mr. Jackson indicated that he has had no
contact with respondent since approximately 2016.
Mr. Jackson attempted to secure additional counsel to pursue his claim.
However, Mr. Jackson testified that he could not find another attorney to take the
case because the matter was “too old.”
In June 2017, Mr. Jackson file d a complaint against respondent with the
ODC. Respondent failed to answer the complaint, necessitating the issuance of a
subpoena for her sworn statement. Despite repeated efforts, the ODC was unable
to contact respondent and was unable to serve the subpoena.
The ODC alleged respondent’s conduct violated the following provisions of
the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.3 (failure to act with reasonable diligence
and promptness in representing a client), 1.4 (failure to communicate with a client),
1.5(c) (contingency fee agreements), and 8.1(c)
(failure to cooperate with the ODC
in its investigation).

3

Hearing Committee Report
After considering the ODC’s submission, the hearing committee determined
that the factual allegations in the formal charges were deemed admitted and proven
by clear and convincing evidence. Based on these facts, the committee determined
that respondent violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as charged.
The committee determined respondent violated duties owed to her client and
the legal profession. She acted both knowingly and intentionally. She caused actual
harm to her client by accepting the representation and performing minimal legal
work, if any, before completely abandoning the matter. Her failure to reduce t he
contingency fee agreement to writing violated duties owed to the client and the legal
profession but did not cause significant harm to her client. She caused actual harm
to the legal profession by forcing the ODC to unnecessarily expend its limited
resources in an attempt to sufficiently investigate the matter. Based on the ABA’s
Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, the committee determined the applicable
baseline sanction is suspension.
In aggravation, the committee cited respondent’s bad faith obstruction of the
disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing to comply with the rules or orders of
the disciplinary agency, refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of the conduct,
and substantial experience in the practice of law (admitted 1997). The committee
found that no mitigating factors are present.
After further considering the jurisprudence of the court, the committee
recommended respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year and
one day. The committee further recommended that she be assessed with the costs
and expenses of this proceeding.
Neither respondent nor the ODC filed an objection to the hearing committee’s
report.

4

19-DB-073
In February 2018, Carl Burd retained respondent to represent him in an
interdiction proceeding concerning his brother. Mr. Burd explained to respondent
that due to several exigent medical circumstances, the interdiction process needed to
begin as soon as possible. Mr. Burd paid respondent $1,000 to begin the process.
In April 2018, Mr. Burd began contacting respondent to request the status of
the interdiction. By letter dated April 20, 2018 , respondent thanked Mr. Burd for
retaining her services, but she failed to provide him with an update regarding the
status of the case. Thereafter, Mr. Burd continued to leave messages for respondent
requesting information about his case, but she did not respond to these requests.
In October 2018, Mr. Burd went to the courthouse and requested a copy of the
interdiction petition. At that time, he learned that no petition had been filed. Mr.
Burd continued to attempt to contact respondent, to no avail.
In November 2018, Mr. Burd fi led a complaint against respondent with the
ODC. Respondent failed to answer the complaint, despite numerous efforts by the
ODC to contact her regarding the matter.
During his sworn statement to the ODC, Mr. Burd testified that he was forced
to hire additional counsel to complete the interdiction. At the time of hiring new
counsel, Mr. Burd sent correspondence to respondent terminating her services. The
correspondence was returned as unable to forward. Respondent has not responded
to the termination letter or provided any refund of the $1,000 fee paid by Mr. Burd.
The ODC alleged respondent’s conduct violated the following provisions of
the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.5(f)(5) (failure to refund an
unearned fee), 8.1(c), and 8.4(a) (violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct).

5

Hearing Committee Report
After considering the ODC’s submission, the hearing committee determined
that the factual allegations in the formal charges were deemed admitted and proven
by clear and convincing evidence. Based on these facts, the committee determined
that respondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.5(f)(5), and 8.1(c) of the Rules of
Professional Conduct.
The committee determined respondent violated duties owed to her client, the
public, and the legal system. Her knowing, if not intentional, failure to perform
services for her client and abandonment of the representation caused actual harm to
her client, precluding him from potential relief in the underlying litigation. She
caused significan t harm to her client by collecting fees from him and failing to
complete the work for which she was hired, and then by failing to return the unearned
fee. She caused actual harm to the legal profession by forcing the ODC to
unnecessarily expend its limite d resources in an attempt to sufficiently investigate
the matter. Based on the ABA’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions , the
committee determined the applicable baseline sanction is suspension.
In aggravation, the committee noted respondent’s “failur e to comply [with]
the ODC…” The committee found that no mitigating factors are present.
After further considering the jurisprudence of the court, the committee
recommended respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year and
one day. The committee further recommended that she be assessed with the costs
and expenses of this proceeding.
Neither respondent nor the ODC filed an objection to the hearing committee’s
report.

6

Disciplinary Board Recommendation
18-DB-044 and 19-DB-073
After reviewing these consolidated matters, the disciplinary board determined
that the factual allegations in the formal charges were deemed admitted and proven.
The board also determined that the legal conclusions of the committees are supported
by the factual allegations asserted in the formal charges and/or by the evidence
submitted in support of the factual allegations. Based on these findings, the board
agreed with the committees that respondent violat ed the Rules of Professional
Conduct as charged, with one exception.
In 19-DB-073, the board agreed that the deemed admitted facts establish that
respondent failed to perform any meaningful work in Mr. Burd’s legal matter and
failed to refund the $1,000 fee he paid. The deemed admitted facts and evidence
also prove that Mr. Burd sent correspondence to respondent terminating her services,
which correspondence was returned as undeliverable. However, this
correspondence is not in the record, and therefore the board found the facts do not
establish that Mr. Burd requested a refund of the unearned fees. Accordingly, the
board concluded that the ODC failed to establish a violation by respondent of Rule
1.5(f)(5).
The board determined respondent violated duties owed to her clients, the legal
system, and the legal profession. Respondent acted negligently, knowingly, and
intentionally. She caused injury to Mr. Jackson by neglecting his legal matter which
has languished since 2008 and may have prescribed. She caused injury to Mr. Burd
by failing to properly pursue his legal matter and delaying his case, requiring Mr.
Burd to hire a new lawyer, and by failing to return the $1,000 legal fee. By failing
to cooperate with the investigation of these matters, respondent caused actual harm
to the ODC and the legal system. Based on the ABA’s Standards for Imposing

7

Lawyer Sanctions, the board determined the applicable baseline sanction is
suspension.
In aggravation, the board found a pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses,
bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing to
comply with the rules or orders of the disciplinary agency, refusal to acknowledge
the wrongful nature of the conduct, substantial experience in the practice of law, and
indifference to making restitution. The board declined to adopt the aggravating
factor of “failure to comply” with the ODC, which is not specifically included in the
ABA Standards. The sole mitigating factor found by the board was the absence of
a prior disciplinary record.
After considering this court’s j urisprudence addressing similar misconduct,
the board recommended respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one
year and one day. The board further recommended respondent be ordered to make
restitution to Mr. Burd in the amount of $1,000, and that she be assessed with the
costs and expenses of this proceeding.
Neither respondent nor the ODC filed an objection to the disciplinary board’s
recommendation.

DISCUSSION
Bar disciplinary matters fall within the original jurisdiction of this court. La.
Const. art. V, § 5(B). Consequently, we act as triers of fact and conduct an
independent review of the record to determine whether the alleged misconduct has
been proven by clear and convincing evidence. In re: Banks, 09-1212 (La. 10/2/09),
18 So. 3d 57.
In cases in which the lawyer does not answer the formal charges, the factual
allegations of those charges are deemed admitted. Supr eme Court Rule XIX, §
11(E)(3). Thus, the ODC bears no additional burden to prove the factual allegations

8

contained in the formal charges after those cha rges have been deemed admitted.
However, the language of § 11(E)(3) does not encompass legal conclusions that flow
from the factual allegations. If the legal conclusion the ODC seeks to prove (i.e., a
violation of a specific rule) is not readily apparent from the deemed admitted facts,
additional evidence may need to be submitted in order to prove the legal conclusions
that flow from the admitted factual allegations. In re: Donnan , 01 -3058 (La.
1/10/03), 838 So. 2d 715.
The evidence in the record of these deemed admitted matters supports a
finding that respondent neglected client matters, failed to communicate with her
clients, failed to reduce a contingency fee agreement to writing, and failed to
cooperate with the ODC in its investigation. Based on these facts, respondent has
violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as found by the disciplinary board.
Having found evidence of professional misconduct, we now turn to a
determination of the appropriate sanction for respondent’s actions. In determining
a sanction, we are mindful that disciplinary proceedings are designed to maintain
high standards of conduct, protect the public, preserve the integrity of the profession,
and deter future misconduct. Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Reis, 513 So. 2d 1173
(La. 1987). The discipline to be imposed depends upon the facts of each case and
the seriousness of the offenses involved considered in light of any aggravating and
mitigating circumstances. Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Whittington, 459 So. 2d 520
(La. 1984).
The record also supports a finding that respondent knowingly violated duties
owed to her clients, the legal system, and the legal profession, causing potential and
actual harm. The aggravating and mitigating factors found by the disciplinary board
are supported by the record. The applicable baseline sanction is suspension.
Turning to the issue of an appropriate sanction, the disciplinary board cited
two recent cases in which a one year and one day suspension was imposed for similar

9

misconduct. We agree that these cases provide guidance here. In In re:
Montgomery, 18-0637 (La. 8/31/18), 251 So. 3d 401, an attorney neglected two legal
matters, failed to communicate with two clients, failed to account for fees, and failed
to cooperate with the ODC in two investigations. In In re: Brown-Manning , 15-
2342 (La. 3/4/16), 185 So. 3d 728, an attorney neglected two legal matters, failed to
communicate with two clients, failed to refund unearned fees, and failed to cooperate
with the ODC in two investigations.
Based on this case law, a one year and one day suspension is appropriate.
Accordingly, we will adopt the disciplinary board’s recommendation and suspend
respondent from the practice of law for one year and one day. We will also order
respondent to pay restitution to Mr. Burd in the amount of $1,000.

DECREE
Upon review of the findings and recommendations of the hearing committees
and disciplinary board, and considering the record, it is ordered that Anna M.
Jackson, Louisiana Bar Roll number 25104, be and s he hereby is suspended from
the practice of law for one year and one day . It is further ordered that respondent
pay restitution to Carl Burd in the amount of $1,000. All costs and expenses in the
matter are assessed against respondent in accordance with Supreme Court Rule XIX,
§ 10.1, with legal interest to commence thirty days from the date of finality of this
court’s judgment until paid.