Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic 

and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of 

any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go 

to press. 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 23-BG-0554

IN RE DARLENE C. JACKSON, RESPONDENT.

A Suspended Member of the Bar

of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals

(Bar Registration No. 445931)

On Report and Recommendation

of the Board on Professional Responsibility

(BDN: 22-BD-020; DDN 2020-171)

(Decided August 31, 2023)

Before MCLEESE and DEAHL, Associate Judges, and WASHINGTON, Senior 

Judge.

PER CURIAM: The Board on Professional Responsibility recommends that 

Darlene C. Jackson be suspended from the practice of law for 60 days with 

reinstatement conditioned upon a showing of fitness. Specifically, the Board found 

that respondent issued a subpoena in a federal court civil action while discovery was 

stayed; disclosed the contents of a sealed settlement agreement; and failed to comply 

with local rules and court orders, violating D.C. R. Prof. Conduct 3.4(c). During the 

course of the investigation into the charges, respondent failed to respond to 

Disciplinary Counsel despite a Board order directing her to do so; therefore, the 
2

Board also found that respondent violated D.C. R. Prof. Conduct 8.1(b) (knowing 

failure to respond to Disciplinary Counsel), D.C. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(d) (serious 

interference with the administration of justice), and D.C. Bar R. XI, § 2(b)(3) (failure 

to comply with Board order). Respondent did not participate in the disciplinary 

proceedings and has not filed any exceptions to the Board’s report and

recommendation. Respondent also has not yet filed the required D.C. Bar R. XI, 

§ 14(g) affidavit after the court imposed an interim suspension on August 10, 2023. 

Under D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9(h)(2), “if no exceptions are filed to the Board’s 

report, the [c]ourt will enter an order imposing the discipline recommended by the 

Board upon the expiration of the time permitted for filing exceptions.” See also In 

re Viehe, 762 A.2d 542, 543 (D.C. 2000) (per curiam) (“When . . . there are no 

exceptions to the Board’s report and recommendation, our deferential standard of 

review becomes even more deferential.”). Because no exceptions have been filed

and we agree that the Board’s recommended sanction is reasonable and appropriate 

for the violations presented here,

1 we accept the recommendation that respondent be 

 

1 See, e.g., In re Padharia, 235 A.3d 747, 748-49 (D.C. 2020) (per curiam) 

(imposing six-month suspension and conditioning reinstatement on the attorney’s 

demonstrating his fitness to resume the practice of law for violating D.C. R. Prof. 

Conduct 3.4(c), 8.1(b), and 8.4(d) where the attorney ignored filing deadlines in 30 
3

suspended for sixty days with reinstatement conditioned on demonstrating fitness to 

practice law.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that respondent Darlene C. Jackson is hereby suspended from the 

practice of law in the District of Columbia for 60 days, with reinstatement 

conditioned on demonstrating fitness to practice law. Respondent’s attention is 

directed to the requirements of D.C. Bar. R. XI, § 14 and their effect on eligibility 

for reinstatement. See D.C. Bar. R. XI, § 16(c). 

So ordered.

 

immigration matters, resulting in dismissal of those actions, and failed to respond to 

Disciplinary Counsel’s inquiries for nearly seven months); In re Wemhoff, 142 A.3d 

573, 573-74 (D.C. 2016) (per curiam) (imposing 30-day suspension stayed with oneyear probation and additional conditions for violations of D.C. R. Prof. Conduct 

3.4(c), 8.4(d) and 1.6(a) where the attorney disclosed client confidences while 

withdrawing from representation and failed to attend a court-ordered status hearing, 

but apparently cooperated with Disciplinary Counsel’s investigation); In re Cooper, 

936 A.2d 832, 833 (D.C. 2007) (per curiam) (imposing 30-day suspension with 

fitness requirement for violations of D.C. R. Prof. Conduct 8.1(b) and 8.4(d) and 

D.C. Bar R. XI, § 2(b)(3)).