IN THE MATTER OF JEFFREY JACKSON

In the
Supreme Court of Georgia
No. S26Y1385
In the Matter of Jeffrey Jackson.
Decided: October 14, 2026
PER CURIAM.
This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the petition
for voluntary discipline filed before the issuance of a formal com-
plaint by Jeffrey Jackson (State Bar No. 779477), who has been a
member of the State Bar since 2018. See Bar Rule 4-227(b). This
is Jackson’s second petition for voluntary discipline filed in this
Court in connection with eight client grievances filed against him.
In his first petition, Jackson asserted that an ongoing mental
health crisis forced him to close his private law practice and that,
in the process of doing so, he failed to adequately communicate
with and properly withdraw from his representation of some of
his clients; admitted violating three Rules of the Georgia Rules of
Professional Conduct (“GRPC”) found in Bar Rule 4-102(d); and
requested that we impose a State Disciplinary Review Board rep-
rimand but agreed to accept up to a public reprimand. We rejected
the petition, explaining that it was unclear “how [Jackson] alleg-
edly advised his clients of his decision to terminate his practice,”
whether he “violated more serious rules,” and “whether a repri-
mand is appropriate discipline given the allegations of miscon-
duct.” In the Matter of Jackson, 320 Ga. 318, 319 (2024). In the
instant petition for voluntary discipline, Jackson provides evi-
dence of the mental health crisis that he was experiencing at the
time of his misconduct and of the restitution he has provided to

2
his clients; expands on how and when he communicated with his
clients regarding the termination of his practice; admits that he
violated Rules 1.1, 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4(a), 1.16(a), 1.16(c), 1.16(d), and
3.2; admits that his conduct implicated Rule 4-104; and requests
that this Court accept the proposed voluntary discipline of a six-
month suspension, nunc pro tunc to October 20, 2023, the date
that he took a 22-month voluntary break from the practice of law.
The State Bar supports the petitioner for voluntary discipline and
request for a six-month suspension to be imposed nunc pro tunc.
Because Jackson has sufficiently addressed the deficiencies in his
first petition and because we agree that a six-month nunc pro
tunc suspension is appropriate and consistent with similar cases,
we accept Jackson’s amended petition for voluntary discipline.
1. 	Factual Admissions
Jackson was admitted to the Georgia Bar in 2018. He
joined another attorney in a partnership named Jackson-Bru-
baker Law P.C. in 2020. This partnership ended in January 2022.
Shortly thereafter, Jackson established Jeffrey A. Jackson, Attor-
ney at Law LLC and represented about 45 to 50 clients, some of
whom he began representing during his partnership. However,
during this time, Jackson was suffering from mental health is-
sues. Jackson contacted the State Bar, and, per its guidance, took
an emergency 90-day leave of absence from the practice of law.
However, as Jackson needed more time to resolve his mental
health crisis, he suspended his law practice indefinitely. At the
time he terminated his practice, he believed that his staff had in-
formed his clients that they needed to seek new counsel. Not all
clients were properly notified, which resulted in the following
eight grievances filed against him.
State Disciplinary Board Docket (“SDBD”) No. 7851: In De-

3
cember 2021, the client hired Jackson to represent her in a crim-
inal matter and paid him a $1,500 retainer. When Jackson took
his emergency medical leave in May 2022, no hearings or other
actions had been scheduled and, while Jackson was on medical
leave, the client was noticed for a hearing. The client attempted
to communicate with Jackson but had difficulties because Jack-
son’s practice had been shut down. In August 2022, Jackson and
the client exchanged emails, at which time Jackson confirmed
that he had terminated his practice. The client subsequently re-
tained new counsel who had the case against her dismissed. Jack-
son states that he regrets that he failed to communicate his intent
to withdraw earlier, which forced the client to rush to obtain new
counsel, and he regrets that he could not refund the client her
retainer sooner. However, in June 2023, he provided the client a
full refund.
SDBD No. 7852: The client initially retained a partner at
Jackson’s previous law firm to handle a name change petition for
her son, and a petition was filed in June 2021. The matter was
subsequently transferred to Jackson. In May 2022, Jackson’s as-
sistant texted the client to inform her that Jackson would be tak-
ing a leave of absence due to mental health issues but would re-
turn by August 3, 2022. However, in early August 2022, the client
was informed via text message that Jackson was leaving the prac-
tice of law indefinitely, which resulted in the client having to sud-
denly and unexpectedly find new counsel. During this time, Jack-
son blocked further communication with the client. Jackson
states that he regrets not informing the client of his departure
from the practice of law in a proper manner and for blocking fur-
ther communication with her.
SDBD No. 7853: The client retained Jackson in April 2022

4
to represent her in a custody dispute and paid him a $2,500 re-
tainer. A hearing was scheduled for May 3, 2022, but the day be-
fore the hearing, Jackson filed the emergency leave of absence
and informed the client that the hearing would be rescheduled.
After Jackson’s 90-day leave of absence expired in early August,
the client tried to contact him. On August 18, 2022, Jackson
texted the client informing her that he could no longer represent
her and that a hearing was scheduled for August 23, 2022. The
court ultimately delayed the hearing until October 6, 2022, in or-
der to give the client time to find new counsel. However, Jackson
failed to ensure that a formal motion to withdraw was filed. To
Jackson’s knowledge, the client proceeded pro se at the hearing
and for the remainder of the matter. A final order was granted in
the case in November 2022. Jackson states that he regrets his
sudden withdrawal and poor communication, that he was not able
to refund the client sooner, and the inconvenience he caused the
court system and the other parties in having to reschedule the
hearing. Further, Jackson admits that his late withdrawal may
have prejudiced the case. The client was fully refunded on June
9, 2023.
SDBD No. 7854: On December 10, 2021, the client hired
Jackson to represent him in a child support matter and paid him
a $3,000 retainer. Jackson filed an entry of appearance that same
day and attended a hearing in March 2022. In April 2022, the
court entered a consent temporary order setting the client’s
monthly child support obligations at $800 and requiring him to
pay a past-due lump sum of $1,500 and complete a hair follicle
drug test. On May 4, 2022, Jackson filed his emergency leave of
absence in this case. On May 10, 2022, opposing counsel filed a
motion for contempt, alleging that the client failed to comply with
the order. The court initially scheduled a hearing on this motion

5
for June 14, 2022, but delayed it until August 8, 2022, to accom-
modate Jackson’s emergency leave of absence. On August 2, 2022,
Jackson informed the court that he would not be returning to the
practice of law and on August 8, 2022, the client failed to appear
at the hearing. The court subsequently scheduled another hear-
ing for August 25, 2022, at which the court granted Jackson’s
withdrawal from the case and held the client in contempt for fail-
ure to pay child support and to submit to the drug test. The client
was incarcerated for five days until he paid $5,000 to the court.
Jackson states that he “deeply regrets the distress that his late
withdrawal and failure to properly communicate caused” his cli-
ent and the trouble caused to the court and opposing counsel by
having to reschedule the hearing. Jackson also regrets that he
was unable to return to the client his unearned portion of the in-
itial retainer sooner. However, on June 28, 2023, Jackson sent the
client a check for $500, reflecting the return of the unearned por-
tion of the initial retainer.
SDBD No. 7855: The client hired Jackson to represent her
in a criminal matter in June 2021, paying Jackson a $5,000 fee.
On May 9, 2022, Jackson filed his emergency medical leave in this
case and on August 8, 2022, Jackson texted the client to inform
her that he was no longer practicing law due to his mental health
troubles. However, Jackson failed to file a motion to withdraw un-
til January 30, 2023, such that the client was unable to obtain a
public defender while Jackson was still her counsel of record. The
client subsequently obtained new counsel and her case was dis-
posed of on October 25, 2024. Although Jackson regrets that he
could not refund the client sooner, on August 29, 2023, he sent
the client a check for the entire $5,000.
SDBD No. 7856: In December 2021, the client paid Jackson
$5,000 to represent her in a custody dispute. Jackson worked on

6
the matter until he filed his emergency motion for leave on May
5, 2022. After that leave ended, Jackson did not return to the
practice of law, but he failed to move to withdraw from the repre-
sentation. As a result, his client appeared pro se at a hearing. On
April 27, 2023, the trial court issued an order granting the oppos-
ing party primary custody. Jackson regrets how his failure to
properly withdraw inconvenienced the court and prejudiced his
client, potentially resulting in an adverse outcome that she oth-
erwise would not have received. Although he regrets that he could
not reimburse the client sooner, he sent her a check for $3,500 on
July 25, 2023, reflecting the unearned portion of the retainer.
SDBD No. 7857: In September 2020, the client hired Jack-
son to represent her son in a felony drug trafficking case and a
probation revocation and paid him $3,000. Jackson performed
some work in the revocation matter, but the State had not yet
sent him discovery in the drug trafficking case when he filed his
notice of emergency leave of absence in May 2022. Jackson noti-
fied the client and her son of his decision not to return to the prac-
tice of law and gave them referrals to other attorneys. Eventually,
a public defender was assigned to defend the son. Although Jack-
son believed that his work justified the $3,000 fee, in recognition
of how abrupt his withdrawal was, Jackson offered the client $500
as a partial refund on June 26, 2023. However, the client never
responded to any of Jackson’s attempts at communication regard-
ing the refund.
SDBD No. 7892: On February 10, 2021, the client hired
Jackson to defend her in a criminal case, paying him $800. Jack-
son performed some work in the case until filing his emergency
leave of absence on May 4, 2022. On July 14, 2022, the trial court
set a pretrial conference for August 5, 2022. On August 2, 2022,
Jackson emailed the client, informing her that he was no longer

7
able to practice law and that she would need to retain a new at-
torney. However, subsequently, the prosecutor offered her a plea
deal to a lesser charge, which he stated would be his offer regard-
less of whether she hired new counsel, and the client accepted this
offer. Jackson states that he deeply regrets how this last-minute
withdrawal left the client without counsel for the hearing. And
while the prosecutor stated that the deal would have been the
same regardless, Jackson acknowledges that it remains possible
that his actions prejudiced the client and could have led to worse
consequences. Although he regrets that he failed to respond to the
client’s initial inquiries about her refund, he gave her a complete
refund on June 6, 2024.
2. 	Admitted Rule Violations
Based on the conduct described above, Jackson admits that
he violated Rule 1.1 1 by not providing competent representation
to his clients during his mental health crisis; Rule 1.2 2 by failing
to consult with his clients to ensure that they had a plan to obtain
new counsel or otherwise continue to pursue their objectives once
1 Rule 1.1 provides that “[a] lawyer shall provide competent represen-
tation to a client.” The maximum sanction for a violation of this Rule is disbar-
ment. 2 Rule 1.2(a) provides, in pertinent part, that “a lawyer shall abide by
a client’s decisions concerning the scope and objectives of representation and
... shall consult with the client as to the means by which they are to be pur-
sued.” The maximum sanction for a violation of this Rule is disbarment.

8
he withdrew his representation; Rule 1.33 by improperly with-
drawing from representing his clients; Rule 1.4(a)4 by abruptly
cutting off communications with his clients and blocking commu-
nications; Rule 1.16(a)5 because his ability to practice law was
likely impaired before he withdrew from representation; Rule
1.16(c)6 due to his abrupt and immediate withdrawals; Rule
1.16(d)7 because his abrupt withdrawal provided insufficient no-
tice to his clients and he did not take reasonable steps to protect
his clients’ interests; and Rule 3.28 because his improper with-
drawal led to unreasonable delays. Additionally, Jackson admits
3 Rule 1.3 provides, in pertinent part, that “[a] lawyer shall act with
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.” The maximum
sanction for a violation of this Rule is disbarment.
4 Rule 1.4(a) provides, in pertinent part, that a lawyer shall “reasona-
bly 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
the matter,” and “promptly comply with reasonable requests for information.”
The maximum sanction for a violation of this Rule is a public reprimand.
5 Rule 1.16(a) provides, in relevant part, that a lawyer shall withdraw
from representation if “the lawyer’s physical or mental condition materially
impairs the lawyer’s ability to represent the client.” The maximum sanction
for a violation of this Rule is a public reprimand.
6 Rule 1.16(c) provides, in relevant part, that “[w]hen a lawyer with-
draws it shall be done in compliance with applicable laws and rules.” The max-
imum sanction for a violation of this Rule is a public reprimand.
7 Rule 1.16(d) provides that “[u]pon termination of representation, a
lawyer shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client’s
interests, such as giving reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for em-
ployment of other counsel, surrendering papers and property to which the cli-
ent is entitled and refunding any advance payment of fee that has not been
earned.” The maximum sanction for a violation of this Rule is a public repri-
mand. 8 Rule 3.2 provides that “[a] lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to
expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client.” The maximum
sanction for a violation of this Rule is a public reprimand.

9
that Rule 4-1049 is applicable, because his mental health had
reached a point where he could no longer competently practice
law.
3. 	ABA Standards
Regarding the framework set out in the ABA Standards for
Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (1992) (“ABA Standards”), 10 Jackson
admits that he violated his duty of diligence and his duty owed as
a professional; that his conduct was negligent due to his mental
health crisis and not intentional attempts to harm his clients; and
that his sudden withdrawals and poor communication injured his
clients by causing them stress and potentially prejudicing them
regarding their cases. As for aggravating factors, Jackson admit-
ted that a pattern of misconduct and multiple offenses are appli-
cable. See ABA Standard 9.22(c) and (d). As for mitigating factors,
Jackson alleged that the following are applicable: absence of a
disciplinary record; absence of a dishonest motive, personal or
emotional problems; cooperative attitude towards disciplinary
proceedings; inexperience in the practice of law; character or rep-
utation; mental illness or addiction; imposition of other penalties
or sanctions 11; and remorse. See ABA Standard 9.32(a), (b), (c),
9 Rule 4-104 provides, in relevant part, that “[m]ental illness, cognitive
impairment, alcohol abuse, or substance abuse, to the extent of impairing com-
petency as a lawyer, shall constitute grounds for removing a lawyer from the
practice of law.”
10 See ABA Standard 3.0 (when imposing a sanction, “a court should
consider the following factors: (a) the duty violated; (b) the lawyer’s mental
state; (c) the potential or actual injury caused by the lawyer’s misconduct; and
(d) the existence of aggravating or mitigating factors”).
11 Jackson states that he voluntarily ceased the practice of law, fore-
going a substantial amount of potential income for a period of 22 months. How-
ever, we decline to consider this factor in mitigation. See In the Matter of

10
(e), (f), (g), (i), (k), and (l). Jackson provided some evidentiary sup-
port for his claimed mitigation involving personal or emotional
problems and mental illness or addiction. Jackson included with
his petition letters from his psychiatrist, his counselor, and from
Dr. Matthew W. Norman, who evaluated Jackson in May 2025 at
the Bar’s request and found him fit to practice law. Those letters
supported that Jackson’s misconduct was caused by his declining
mental health and that he has since sought treatment. In support
of his character and reputation, Jackson included with his peti-
tion several letters of support from community members, attest-
ing to his honesty, competency as an attorney, and commitment
to his recovery.
4. 	Requested Discipline
Jackson requests a six-month suspension, nunc pro tunc to
his voluntary cessation of the practice of law on October 20, 2023.
In support of the nunc pro tunc request, Jackson included with
his petition an affidavit, in which he states that he voluntarily
stopped practicing law on October 20, 2023 “to focus on overcom-
ing the personal health challenges that interfered with [his] abil-
ity to practice law” and resumed the practice of law in August
2025, several months after being declared fit to practice law by
Dr. Norman. Along with his affidavit, Jackson attached the Octo-
ber 19, 2023, order entered in his final case, unrelated to any of
the cases forming the basis of this matter, before his hiatus from
the practice of law began.
Tucker, 295 Ga. 357, 359 (2014) (Nahmias, J., concurring) (“[T]he ‘imposition
of other penalties or sanctions’ mitigating circumstance[] … is properly inter-
preted, and has been interpreted by this Court, as applying only to other pen-
alties arising during the disciplinary proceeding itself.”) (citations omitted).

11
5. 	Analysis
Having reviewed the record in this case—specifically the
documentation 	provided 	by 	Jackson’s 	psychiatrist, 	Jackson’s
counselor, and Dr. Norman—we agree that the imposition of a six-
month suspension is appropriate under these circumstances and
that such a sanction has been imposed in similar matters. See In
the Matter of Kirby, 312 Ga. 341 (2021) (on petition for voluntary
discipline, accepting attorney’s request for a six-month suspen-
sion for his violations of Rules 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.16 in connection
with four client matters where attorney abandoned his clients due
to mental health challenges and where attorney submitted the
report of a psychologist who found him to be fit to practice law);
In the Matter of Johnson, 303 Ga. 795 (2018) (on petition for vol-
untary discipline, accepting attorney’s request for a six-month
suspension for his violations of Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.15(I), 1.16(d),
and 5.5 in connection with six separate client matters where at-
torney—with a prior disciplinary offense and substantial experi-
ence in the practice of law—neglected his clients and stopped com-
municating with them due to emotional and personal problems
but since refunded unearned fees to clients, lacked a dishonest or
selfish motive, cooperated with disciplinary authorities, had a
good reputation, and expressed remorse); In the Matter of Brant-
ley, 299 Ga. 732, 735 (2016) (on report and recommendation of
Special Master, imposing 180-day suspension for attorney’s viola-
tions of Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.15(c)(1), 1.16(d), 5.5(a), 8.1, and 9.3 in
connection with five client matters where attorney with prior dis-
ciplinary history engaged in improper or incomplete communica-
tion with her clients and, in mitigation, attorney’s violations were
“the result of negligence as opposed to willful behavior[] and most
arose at a time of great emotional stress and/or physical impair-
ment”); In the Matter of Huggins, 291 Ga. 92, 93 (2012) (on peti-
tion for voluntary discipline, accepting attorney’s request for a

12
six-month suspension for his violations of Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.15(I),
1.15(II), 1.16, and 9.3 in connection with five client matters where
attorney had no prior disciplinary record, had a good reputation,
and, at the time of the misconduct, was struggling with mental
health issues and addiction “which impaired his judgment and ef-
fectiveness” and had since sought treatment).
Jackson has requested that his suspension be imposed
nunc pro tunc to October 20, 2023, when he voluntarily stopped
practicing law. When an attorney requests that discipline be im-
posed nunc pro tunc, it is his responsibility to show that he vol-
untarily stopped practicing law and the date on which he did so,
and that he has complied with all ethical obligations involved in
such a decision, such as helping clients secure new counsel and
working to transfer the client’s case to a new lawyer. See In the
Matter of Onipede, 288 Ga. 156, 157 (2010). While Jackson has
not complied with all ethical obligations arising from the cessa-
tion of his law practice, he has presented evidence that his non-
compliance resulted, at least in substantial part, from his mental
health crisis that he sought treatment for. This evidence, along
with the other mitigating evidence above, leads us to conclude
that nunc pro tunc suspension is appropriate. Therefore, we con-
clude that Jackson has made the required showing to have disci-
pline imposed nunc pro tunc. We further note that because Jack-
son has sufficiently shown that he voluntarily stopped practicing
law from October 2023 until August 2025, he has completed his
suspension. See In the Matter of Matteson, 316 Ga. 879 (2023) (on
petition for voluntary discipline, accepting attorney’s request for
a six-month suspension imposed nunc pro tunc where attorney
voluntarily stopped practicing law from April 1, 2019 through
September 30, 2019).

13
For these reasons, Jeffrey Jackson is hereby suspended
from the practice of law for six months nunc pro tunc as of October
20, 2023, and he is hereby reinstated.
Petition for voluntary discipline accepted. Six-month sus-
pension nunc pro tunc. Reinstated. All the Justices concur.