Prosecutor Disbarred; Claim Of Malicious Prosecution Rejected

A sanction reported in the February 2015 California Bar Journal

JON M. ALEXANDER [#129207], 66, of Crescent City, was disbarred Nov. 21, 2014 and ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

A hearing judge recommended Alexander’s disbarment finding that while serving as the district attorney of Del Norte County he engaged in an ex parte meeting with a defendant who was represented by counsel in a pending criminal matter. Alexander appealed to the Review Department, claiming among other things that he was the victim of malicious prosecution by the Office of Chief Trial Counsel and that the judge was biased.

In upholding the hearing judge’s recommendation, a three-judge review panel wrote that Alexander did not prove judicial bias and that “the high standard of conduct expected of prosecutors, who act as the gatekeepers to the fair administration of justice, was lacking in this case.”

In addition to finding that Alexander engaged in an ex parte meeting with the defendant without the permission of the defendant’s attorney, the hearing judge concluded that Alexander committed acts of moral turpitude because he didn’t tell anyone about the meeting and denied it occurred when a prosecutor asked him about it. When presented with a surreptitious recording made of his communication with the defendant, he then claimed to have forgotten about the conversation.

In mitigation, Alexander submitted extensive evidence of his good character and involvement in community service.

Alexander had three prior records of discipline. In 1996, he received a private reproval for failing to comply with the terms of an Agreement in Lieu of Discipline that followed misdemeanor convictions for driving without a driver’s license and driving with a suspended license. In 2003, in default matters in two cases, Alexander was found to have practiced law while not entitled, committed an act of moral turpitude and failed to return unearned fees, cooperate with the bar’s investigation or maintain a current address with the bar.

In 2011, he was suspended for misconduct in three matters, including failures to perform legal services competently, respond to reasonable client status inquiries, return a client file, refund unearned fees or to inform a client of significant developments in his case. He also improperly communicated with a judge and engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.

(Mike Frisch)