In the Matter of Discipline of William H. Jackson, III (Nev. 2026)
Background
The Nevada Supreme Court approved a conditional admission agreement disciplining attorney William H. Jackson, III for sharing legal fees with a nonlawyer. Jackson paid Hernando Alberto Heredia — operating through a business called “Tus Defensores” — for referring a personal injury case to Jackson. The payment came out of Jackson’s attorney fees from the client’s settlement and exceeded the reasonable cost of advertising for a single matter.
Rules Violated
- RPC 5.4(a) — Professional independence of a lawyer (fee-sharing with nonlawyers)
- RPC 7.2(a) — Attorney advertising
Analytical Framework
The Court applied a four-factor test drawn from In re Discipline of Lerner, 124 Nev. 1232 (2008):
- Duty violated — Duties owed to the profession
- Mental state — Knowing violation
- Injury — Actual, moderate injury to the profession
- Aggravating/mitigating factors (see below)
Aggravating and Mitigating Factors
The court found several aggravating factors, (1) a prior disciplinary offense; (2) the selfish motive; and (3) the fact that the lawyer had substantial experience in his practice. In mitigation, the lawyer was cooperative and made full disclosure and was remorseful. The prior offense occurred a long time ago.
Discipline Imposed
- Six-month-and-one-day suspension, stayed for 24 months, conditioned on:
- 12 additional CLE hours in legal ethics
- No professional association with Heredia or his entities
- Engagement of a law practice mentor with monthly State Bar reports
- Maintaining good standing and no future misconduct
- $1,000 fine (due within 30 days)
- $2,500 in disciplinary proceeding costs (due within 30 days)
Key Takeaway
This case illustrates that Nevada treats referral fee arrangements with nonlawyer lead-generation businesses as serious professional misconduct. Even where mitigating factors exist, a knowing violation of the fee-sharing prohibition warrants suspension as the baseline sanction. Practitioners should be particularly cautious about payments to nonlawyer referral sources that exceed what would constitute legitimate advertising costs, as that distinction appeared to be a critical fact here.
If you have a question about something related to legal ethics, contact us. It is always better to get advice before proceeding into questionable territory. We can often help.
Ed Clinton, Jr.