IN RE: DISCIPLINE OF WILLIAM H. JACKSON (2026)

ORDER APPROVING CONDITIONAL ADMISSION AGREEMENT

This is an automatic review of a Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board hearing panel's recommendation that this court approve, pursuant to SCR 113, a conditional admission agreement in exchange for a stated form of discipline for attorney William H. Jackson, III. Under the agreement, Jackson admitted to violating RPC 5.4(a) (professional independence of a lawyer) and RPC 7.2(a) (advertising). Jackson agreed to a six-month-and-one-day suspension, stayed for twenty-four months subject to certain conditions.

Jackson admitted to sharing fees with a nonlawyer, Hernando Alberto Heredia, through Heredia's business Tus Defensores, for referring a personal injury case to Jackson. Jackson paid Heredia from the attorney fees Jackson earned from the client's settlement. The payment exceeded the reasonable cost of advertising for a single personal injury matter.

The issue for this court is whether the agreed-upon discipline sufficiently protects the public, the courts, and the legal profession. See In re Discipline of Arabia, 137 Nev. 568, 571, 495 P.3d 1103, 1109 (2021) (stating the purpose of attorney discipline). In determining the appropriate discipline, we weigh four factors: “the duty violated, the lawyer's mental state, the potential or actual injury caused by the lawyer's misconduct, and the existence of aggravating or mitigating factors.” In re Discipline of Lerner, 124 Nev. 1232, 1246, 197 P.3d 1067, 1077 (2008); see also SCR 102.5(1).

Jackson admitted to knowingly violating duties owed to the profession (professional independence of a lawyer and advertising). Jackson further admitted the misconduct caused actual moderate injury to the profession. The baseline sanction for such violations, before considering the aggravating or mitigating circumstances, is suspension. See Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, Compendium of Professional Responsibility Rules and Standards, Standard 7.2 (Am. Bar Ass'n 2023) (providing that suspension is appropriate “when a lawyer knowingly engages in conduct that is a violation of a duty owed as a professional and causes injury or potential injury to a client, the public, or the legal system”). The record supports three aggravating circumstances (prior disciplinary offense, selfish motive, and substantial experience in the practice of law) and three mitigating circumstances (remoteness of prior disciplinary offense, full and free disclosure to disciplinary authority or cooperative attitude toward the proceeding, and remorse). Considering all four factors, we conclude that the agreed-upon discipline is appropriate.

Accordingly, we hereby suspend attorney William H. Jackson, III from the practice of law in Nevada for six months and one day from the date of this order, with the suspension stayed for twenty-four months, subject to the conditions outlined in the conditional admission agreement. Those conditions include requirements that Jackson complete twelve additional hours of CLE in legal ethics before the end of the probation period, have no professional association with Hernando Alberto Heredia or any entity associated or affiliated with him, maintain current contact information with the Office of Bar Counsel, remain in good standing with the State Bar and not engage in any future misconduct, engage a law practice mentor who will submit monthly reports to the State Bar, and pay a $1,000 fine within 30 days from the date of this order. Jackson shall also pay the cost of the disciplinary proceedings, including $2,500 under SCR 120, within 30 days from the date of this order. The State Bar shall comply with SCR 121.1.

It is so ORDERED.

Bell, J.

Stiglich, J.

Cadish, J.