Opinion
2021-B-01488
01-13-2022
IN RE: ANNA M. JACKSON
Attorney Disciplinary Proceeding
CRICHTON, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons:
As I have previously observed, an attorney's failure to meaningfully participate in disciplinary proceedings is alarming, as it leaves little opportunity for this Court to consider mitigating evidence and provides this Court with no viable option other than to impose serious sanctions. See In re: David Harvey, 19-1820 (La. 2/28/20), 289 So.3d 1000 (Crichton, J. additionally concurring, noting respondent's grave lack of concern for the disciplinary process warranted suspension, citing In re: Quiana Marie Hunt, 19-1412 (La. 11/12/19), 282 So.3d 213 (Crichton, J., dissenting, finding that because respondent failed to cooperate in disciplinary proceedings, a period of actual suspension should be imposed); In Re: Jennifer Gaubert, 18-1980 (La. 2/11/19), 263 So.3d 408 (Crichton, J., additionally concurring, noting the troublesome nature of an attorney refusing to participate meaningfully in disciplinary proceedings); In re: Reid, 18-0849 (La. 12/5/18), 319 So.3d 252 (Crichton, J., dissenting, noting that "lack of cooperation with ODC, the Hearing Committee, the Disciplinary Board, and this Court demonstrates (a) stunning indifference to this noble profession"); In Re: Neil Dennis William Montgomery, 18-0637 (La. 8/31/18), 251 So.3d 401 (Crichton, J., dissenting, finding disbarment appropriate where respondent made "zero effort" to respond to any of the accusations against him); In re: Klaila, 18-0093 (La. 3/23/18), 238 So.3d 949 (Crichton, J., additionally concurring, emphasizing respondent's failure to cooperate warranted the suspension imposed); and In Re: Mendy, 16-B-0456 (La. 10/19/16), 217 So.3d 260 (2016) (Crichton, J., dissenting in part and assigning reasons, stating respondent's evident lack of interest in defending these serious charges against him, coupled with his past sanctions)).
Respondent, currently ineligible to practice law, has not only failed to even acknowledge either set of formal charges against her, she has neglected to avail herself of the opportunity to submit argument or documentary evidence on her behalf. Her utter disregard for the clients she agreed to represent and her indifference to the disciplinary process is, at best, astounding. Accordingly, I concur in the Court's suspension of respondent for one year and one day.