A Reader Writes in Regarding Jay Jackson

Excerpts from a reader's email (who happens to have some experience with the law) on the pros and cons of Jackson's disciplinary history:

The firm I work for has like 25 attorneys, and I am almost absolutely positive that not one of them has even one disciplinary action on their record. And I work with some very busy attorneys who have been practicing for a long time. One violation might be a fluke, but Jackson has had three! Not someone I'd want representing me!

...

[Disciplinary actions] really just are [a big deal]. An attorney holds a fiduciary duty to their clients. It requires diligence and care. Expecting that an attorney gets back to their client within a reasonable time is not an impossible standard. It just seems like Jackson doesn't get it. All attorneys I know have other things going on in their lives- but when a client contacts you, you get back to them. If you can't represent them, you resign as counsel, return the files, and move on.

To play the devil's advocate - it does appear that Jackson had some difficulties with his family over a relatively short span of time. Because the violations are so close in time, and since he hasn't had any since, maybe I'm being a little hard. And, if there is one thing I've learned over the last couple of years...it's that findings, cases, and police reports always make the situation look much worse than it was. When you hear the people explain the situation it is usually at least somewhat less egregious than the record reflects.

There you have it.