Loading

Disciplinary Reporter Case Digest

Attorney ID 35596
Attorney Name Jackson, Anthony Dennis
DBP Docket No. 145 DB 2007
Supreme Court Docket No. 1446 DD No. 3
County Philadelphia
Disciplinary Counsel Harriet R. Brumberg
Counsel for Respondent Self
Decision Date 2009-04-03
Effective Date 2009-05-03
Case Digest Respondent mishandled three client matters. In the Chestnut matter, Respondent failed to communicate with his client, file a timely EEOC lawsuit in federal court, and refund his unearned fee; in the Richardson matter, Respondent failed to communicate with his client, file a timely appeal of his client’s criminal conviction, comply with court orders, and refund his unearned fee; in the Willis matter, Respondent failed to protect a doctor’s lien and hold his client’s funds in escrow. Respondent engaged in misrepresentations in all three matters. As a result of Respondent’s misconduct, Chestnut lost his right to pursue his employment discrimination matter in federal court, Richardson lost his right to file a direct appeal, and Dr. Willis lost money that his patient owed him for medical services. The Disciplinary Board found aggravating factors, including Respondent’s evasive and incredible testimony; lack of recognition of his wrongdoing and remorse for his misconduct; failure to refund money owed to his clients; and multiple lawsuits, which portrayed Respondent as unable to effectively manage his personal and professional matters. In addition, at the time of the Disciplinary Board’s decision, Respondent was serving a five-year suspension for conversion and neglect.
Rule Violation(s) 1.3; 1.4(a)(3); 1.4(a)(4); 1.4(b); 1.15(b); 1.16(d); 8.4(c); and 8.4(d)
Discipline Imposed Disbarment
Points of Law Although ODC and the Hearing Committee recommended a three-year suspension consecutive to the five-year suspension Respondent was currently serving, the Board determined that the matter “should be resolved by disbarment.” The Board reasoned that “[i]t makes little sense to pile on another lengthy suspension. Disbarment will send a stronger message to the public that attorneys who commit serial acts of misconduct will not be tolerated. In order to practice law in the future, Respondent will be required to petition for reinstatement under the heavier burden of disbarment demonstrating that his acts are not so egregious as to prohibit him from practice and that he has spent a lengthy time engaged in qualitative rehabilitation so as to dissipate the breach of trust he committed.”
Report/Opinion Download