Twitter, now known as “X” has provided an avenue for many people to communicate with the wider world. But, too much communication can be a bad thing. Attorney Darlene Jackson in Washington, D.C. learned that lesson the hard way. Attorney Jackson filed suit on behalf of a passenger of the D.C. train in 2015. The train had an accident. Many passengers filed suit. The lawsuits were consolidated in Federal court in 2015. The court stayed some of the lawsuits, while resolving others. Ms. Jackson’s case was among those which were stayed. Ms. Jackson’s client then died in 2018.
Substitution
Attorney Jackson filed a defective Motion to Substitute parties. Trying to fix the error, Ms. Jackson filed more motions. She then filed a motion seeking to stay the lawsuit, even though it was already stayed. The court issued an order telling her not to file any more motions. She then filed another motion, saying she no longer had a client and was, therefore, no longer part of the lawsuit.
A second lawyer, Patrick Regan, represented many of the passengers. Regan offered to represent Ms. Jackson’s deceased client pro bono. In 2019, the court allowed the substitution of attorney Patrick Regan for Darlene Jackson in Jackson’s lawsuit. Soon afterward, Regan reached a settlement with the D.C. train authority. As part of the settlement, the Defendant agreed to pay Ms. Jackson $5,000 as her attorney fee. They indicated it would take some 30 days to issue the check.
The Tweet
A couple of weeks later, Ms. Jackson tired of the wait. She sent a tweet which displayed excerpts of the settlement agreement, emails from the attorney for the train authority, a picture of the train authority’s attorney, a news article about the death of her client, and ended with: “Where’s MY CA$H?” Ms. Jackson wanted her $5,000. Ms. Jackson tagged President. Trump, Melania Trump and Sen. Marsha Blackburn on the tweet. The tweet also tagged several news outlets. Ms. Jackson later said, she was anxious to receive her payment. (That is odd. Most experienced attorneys understand that public entities typically require weeks to issue a settlement check).
The Defendant field a motion with the court. The court then held a show cause hearing regarding her violation of a court order. The court did not discipline Ms. Jackson, but referred her to the Washington D.C. grievance committee.
Ms. Jackson did not cooperate with the committee. The bar association suspended her from the practice of law. That suspension was then affirmed on appeal to the D.C. Court of Appeals. See that decision in In Re Jackson, 300 A.3d 747 (D.C. Ct.App. 2023) here.