Case Number(s): 03-O-1010-PEM, 03-O-01107, 04-N-10577, 05-O-04949, 06-O-11409
In the Matter of: Jon M. Alexander, Bar # 129207, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Cydney Batchelor, Deputy Trial Counsel
180 Howard St., 7th FI.
San Francisco, CA 94105
Tele: 415/538-2204
Bar # 114637,
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per
Jon M. Alexander, Esq.
162 West 9th St.
Crescent City, CA 95531
Tele: 707/465-6666
Bar# 129207
Submitted to: Program Judge – State Bar Court Clerk’s Office San Francisco.
Filed: March 1, 2010.
<<not >> checked. PREVIOUS STIPULATION REJECTED
Note: All information required by this form and any additional information which cannot be provided in the space provided, must be set forth in an attachment to this stipulation under specific headings, e.g., "Facts," "Dismissals," "Conclusions of Law," "Supporting Authority," etc.
1. Respondent is a member of the State Bar of California, admitted July 2, 1987.
2. The parties agree to be bound by the factual stipulations contained herein even if conclusions of law or disposition are rejected or changed by the Supreme Court. However, except as otherwise provided in rule 804.5(c) of the Rules of Procedure, if Respondent is not accepted into the Alternative Discipline Program, this stipulation will be rejected and will not be binding on the Respondent or the State Bar.
3. All investigations or proceedings listed by case number in the caption of this stipulation are entirely resolved by this stipulation and are deemed consolidated, except for Probation Revocation proceedings. Dismissed charge(s)/count(s) are listed under "Dismissals." The stipulation consists of 10 pages, not including the order.
4. A statement of acts or omissions acknowledged by Respondent as cause or causes for discipline is included under "Facts." - See attached.
5. Conclusions of law, drawn from and specifically referring to the facts are also included under "Conclusions of Law".- See attached
6. No more than 30 days prior to the filing of this stipulation, Respondent has been advised in writing of any pending investigation/proceeding not resolved by this stipulation, except for criminal investigations.
7. Payment of Disciplinary Costs-Respondent acknowledges the provisions of Bus. & Prof. Code §§6086.10 & 6140.7 and will pay timely any disciplinary costs imposed in this proceeding.
Additional aggravating circumstances:
Second prior: S118572 (02-O-15150); effective December 18, 2003, 6 months actual suspension; 2 years stayed suspension; violations of Bus. and Prof. Code sections 6068(i), 6068(j), 6106, 6125 and 6126, and Rules of Prof. Conduct 3-700(D)(2); matter proceeded by default.
Additional mitigating circumstances: – See attached.
IN THE MATTER OF: Jon M. Alexander, State Bar No. 129207
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 03-O-1010, 03-O-01107, 04-N-10577, 05-O-04949, 06-O-11409
DISMISSAL.
Upon the respondent’s acceptance into the State Bar Court’s alterative discipline program, the State Bar requests the Court to dismiss case number 04-N-10577, without prejudice. This case involves respondent’s 21 day in filing his rule 955 affidavit, and is reflected in "additional aggravating factors" below.
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Case No. 03-0-01010 (Raymond L. Buck):
Facts: On July 26, 2002, respondent was employed by Raymond Buck ("Mr. Buck") to represent Buck’s son, Raymond Lee Buck ("Lee Buck") in a state criminal matter. Mr. Buck paid respondent $6500.00 in advanced fees at that time. Respondent performed some legal services in the case. However, effective September 4, 2002, the California Supreme Court placed respondent on suspension for failing to pay his membership dues; he remained on suspension until September 23, 2002. Respondent received notice of the order; however, at no time did he inform the Buck family that he was not entitled to practice law. On September 10, 2002, respondent appeared in court on behalf of his client, and did not inform the court that he was not entitled to practice law. Although respondent performed some work on Lee Buck’s case, he failed to complete the legal services for which he was employed. Subsequent to October 2002, respondent also stopped communicating with Lee Buck and his family. Respondent also failed to appear at two scheduled court hearings in December 2002, although he had notice of them. In January 2003, since neither Mr. Buck nor Lee Buck was able to communicate with respondent, they were forced to employ subsequent counsel to complete the case. Although respondent was requested to provide the client file to subsequent counsel, he failed to do so.
Conclusions of Law: By repeatedly failing to appear at two court hearings, or to conclude Lee Buck’s case, respondent failed to perform competently the legal services for which he was employed, in violation of Rule of Professional Conduct 3-110(A). By wilfully failing to provide information to his client or his client’s family subsequent to December 2002, despite their repeated requests for information, respondent failed to respond to reasonable status inquiries from a client, in violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(m). By willfully failing to disclose to Lee Buck that he was not entitled to practice law, respondent failed to inform his client of a significant development in his case, in further violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(m). By willfully appearing in court while he was not entitled to practice law, and continuing to represent Lee Buck, when he knew he was not entitled to practice, respondent engaged in the unauthorized practiced law, in violation of Business and Professions Code sections 6068(a), 6125 and 6126. By willfully failing to return Lee Buck’s file as requested, respondent failed to promptly release a client file upon request, in violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(1). By willfully failing to refund the unearned advanced attorney fees to the Buck family promptly and until after the intervention of the State Bar, respondent failed to refund unearned attorney fees promptly, in violation of Rule of Professional Conduct 3-700(D)(2).
Case No. 03-O-01107 (State Bar Investigation):
Facts: Respondent’s license to practice law was placed on involuntary inactive status, effective February 10, 2003, after his default was entered in State Bar case number 02-O-15150. Respondent received actual notice of the default order. However, on February 14, 2003, he appeared at a pre-trial conference before Orange County Superior Court Judge Gregg L. Prickett, and failed to inform the court that he was not entitled to practice law.
Conclusions of Law: By engaging in the activities described above and appearing in court on February 10, 2003 while on involuntary inactive status, respondent practiced law while suspended, in wilful violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6068(a), and by advertising or holding himself out as practicing or entitled to practice law or otherwise practicing law when he was not an active member of the State Bar of California, in violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6125 and 6126.
Case No. 05-0-04949 (State Bar Investigation):
Facts: From January through June 10, 2005, respondent was employed as a deputy a deputy district attorney with the Del Norte County District Attorney s Office. On June 2, 2006, while he was suspended from his position, respondent wrote an eight page, handwritten letter to the sentencing judge in a criminal case to which he had previously been assigned, for the purpose of influencing the sentencing. It was an ex parte communication, and respondent did not provide a copy of the letter to the defendant’s counsel.
Conclusions of Law: By willfully sending an ex parte communication to the sentencing judge in a criminal case in order to influence the sentence, without providing a copy of the letter to the defendant’s attorney, respondent improperly communicated to a judge or judicial officer upon the merits of a contested matter pending before such judge or judicial officer, in violation of Rule of Professional Conduct 5-300(B).
Case No. 06-O-11409 (Pete Cockcroft):
Facts: On December 7, 2005, respondent was appointed by the Del Norte County Superior Court to represent Pete Cockcroft in a habeas matter in a criminal case. On January 9, 2006, respondent was also appointed to represent Mr. Cockcroft in a second habeas matter. Before the habeas matters could be heard, Mr. Cockcrofi was transferred to another correctional facility, thereby mooting his two habeas petitions against Pelican Bay State Prison. Respondent filed motions to dismiss in both matters, which were granted by the court. Mr. Cockcroft made numerous inquiries to respondent about the status of his matters. However, respondent did not respond to inquiries from his client about the matters, nor did respondent tell him that the matters had been dismissed.
Conclusions of Law: By willfully failing to respond to Mr. Cockcroft’s requests for status reports on his two habeas matters, respondent failed to respond promptly to reasonable status inquiries of a client, in violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(m). By willfully failing to inform Mr. Cockcroft that his habeas matters had been dismissed, respondent failed to inform a client of a significant development in a matter in which respondent had agreed to provide legal services, in further violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(m).
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page one, paragraph A.(6), was July 27, 2006.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Facts Supporting Aggravating Circumstances:
Prior Records of Discipline: As noted in the stipulation, respondent has two prior records of discipline. The first one, a private reproval in 1993, arose from his conviction for driving with a suspended driver’s license. The second prior, effective December 22, 2003, involved the same type of misconduct as stipulated to herein, and was imposed after respondent’s default was entered. The investigations regarding the cases herein were opened in March 2003, but they could not be completed in time to be included in December 2003 discipline.
Multiple Acts of Misconduct: The misconduct stipulated to herein involved multiple cases.
Significant Harm: Respondent’s failure to attend one of the court hearings in Lee Buck’s case resulted in an arrest warrant being issued for his client.
Additional Aggravating Circumstance:
Delay in filing rule 955 affidavit: Respondent was 21 days late in filing his rule 955 affidavit.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Facts Supporting Mitigating Circumstance:
Candor and Cooperation: Respondent has been completely candid and cooperative with the State Bar in resolving these cases.
Emotional/Family problems: Beginning in 1996, respondent’s mother suffered a stroke and suffered the early onset of Alzheimer’s Disease, and respondent became her care giver. From 1999 to 2001, respondent lived in his mother’s home and was her primary care giver, at the same time he was maintaining a law practice. The stress of trying to manage both situations exacerbated respondent’s chemical dependency. Respondent’s mother moved to Oregon to be near respondent’s sister in 2002; she died on March 24, 2006.
Financial problems: In July 2002, respondent suffered severe financial losses, including the loss of his home to foreclosure, and all of his other assets.
Physical Problems: After he lost his home in July 2002, respondent moved into a residential motel, and while living there, became the victim of a violent crime that resulted in his sustaining a broken neck in March 2003.
Pro bono and Community Service: Respondent has participated in numerous pro bono and community services, as attested to by Curry County Human Services (respondent served as the Keynote speaker at the Del Note County Methamphetamine Summit in October 2005; serves as Co-Chair of ongoing Community Action Committee which resulted from the methamphetamine summit; provides volunteer counseling services to residents at the residential Jordan Recovery Center; speaks on a bi-monthly basis to youth incarcerated at the Del Norte County Juvenile Hall; and acts as adviser and featured speaker for the Crescent City Police Department’s Crime-Free Housing Program), and by Jordan Recovery Center (for past 1-1/2 years, respondent has facilitated a group every Friday night for residents of both residential treatment facilities; has helped on a voluntary basis with legal assistance, housing, problem solving and mentoring).
Delay in Finalizing Stipulation: The investigations for the two cases herein, 03-0-1010 and 03-O-1107, were opened in the Los Angeles office of the State Bar in March 2003. Respondent’s prior discipline became effective on December 18, 2003, but the two investigations could not be completed prior to that date, although the misconduct herein is similar to the cases which were memorialized in the disciplinary prior. The two cases herein were assigned to Los Angeles investigators and deputy trial counsel until March 2005, when they were transferred to the San Francisco office. The notice of disciplinary charges memorializing these cases was filed in San Francisco on December 22, 2005. The delay in processing these cases is in no way attributable to respondent.
ADDITIONAL MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE
Treatment Programs before LAP: On his own volition, respondent voluntarily obtained residential treatment for his chemical dependency at the Salvation Army from April to July 2003. In addition, respondent has voluntarily participated in an outpatient treatment program through Curry County Mental Health Services from April 2004 to the present.
Participation in Lawyer’s Assistance Program. On July 10, 2003, respondent contacted the State Bar Lawyer Assistance Program ("LAP") and completed the intake process. Respondent signed an evaluation agreement with LAP, whereby he was assessed and monitored for a period of time. At the conclusion of the process, respondent entered into a long-term participation plan with LAP on September 30, 2003. He remains in full compliance with LAP.
Physical problems post-misconduct : Respondent suffered a severe back injury in February 2004, which necessitated surgery and extensive rehabilitation. However, respondent remains in full compliance with LAP.
Restitution and Remorse: Although he did not do so until after the intervention of the State Bar, respondent began paying restitution to the Buck family at the rate of $100.00 a month in December 2005, and has already paid a total of $1350.00. In addition, respondent has agreed to refund the advanced attorney fees to Mr. Buck in full, although he performed some legal services.
RESTITUTION.
Respondent waives any objection to immediate payment by the State Bar Client Security Fund upon a claim or claims for the principal amounts of restitution set forth below.
In accordance with the timetable set forth in the in the State Bar Court Alternative Discipline Program contract to be executed between the State Bar Court and respondent on the captioned cases, respondent must make restitution as follows:
Raymond L. Buck, or the Client Security Fund, if it has paid, in the principal amount of $6500.00 (less payments made by respondent to the Bucks), plus interest at the rate of 10% per annum from January 1, 2003, until paid in full and furnish satisfactory evidence of restitution to the State Bar Court.
Case Number(s): 03-O-1010-PEM
In the Matter of: Jon M. Alexander
By their signatures below, the parties and their counsel, as applicable, signify their agreement with each of the recitation and each of the terms and conditions of this Stipulation Re Facts, Conclusions of Law.
Respondent enters into this stipulation as a condition of his/her participation in the Program. Respondent understands that he/she must abide by all terms and conditions of Respondent’s Program Contract,
If the Respondent in not accepted into the Program or does not sign the Program contract, this Stipulation will be rejected and will not be binding on Respondent or the State Bar.
If the Respondent is accepted into the Program, upon Respondent’s successful completion of or termination from the Program, this Stipulation will be filed and the specified level of discipline for successful completion of or termination from the Program as set forth in the State Bar Court’s Statement Re: Discipline shall be imposed or recommended to the Supreme Court.
Signed by:
Respondent: Jon M. Alexander
Date: July 31, 2006
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Cydney Batchelor
Date: July 31, 2006
Case Number(s): 03-O-1010-PEM
In the Matter of: Jon M. Alexander
Finding the stipulation to be fair to the parties and that it adequately protects the public, IT IS ORDERED that the requested dismissal of counts/charges, if any is GRANTED without prejudice, and:
checked. The stipulated facts and conclusions of law is APPROVED.
<<not>> checked. The stipulated facts and conclusions of law is APPROVED AS MODIFIED as set forth below.
<<not>> checked. All dates in the Hearing Department are vacated.
The parties are bound by the stipulation as approved unless: 1) a motion to withdraw or modify the stipulation, filed within 15 days after service of this order, is granted; or 2) this court modifies or further modifies the approved stipulation; or 3) Respondent is not accepted for participation in the Program or does not sign the Program Contract the file date. (See rule 5.58(E) & (F) and 5.382(D), Rules of Procedure.)
Signed by:
Judge of the State Bar Court: Patricia McElroy
Date: November 6, 2006
[Rules Proc. of State Bar; Rule 5.27(B); Code Civ. Proc., § 1013a(4)]
I am a Case Administrator of the State Bar Court of California. I am over the age of eighteen and not a party to the within proceeding. Pursuant to standard court practice, in the City and
County of San Francisco, on November 6, 2006, I deposited a true copy of the following document(s):
CONFIDENTIAL STATEMENT OF ALTERNATIVE DISPOSITION AND ORDERS (RULES Proc. of State Bar, rule 803(a))
FIRST AMENDED STIPULATION RE FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
CONTRACT AND WAIVER FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE STATE BAR COURT’S ALTERNATIVE DISCIPLINE PROGRAM
in a sealed envelope for collection and mailing on that date as follows:
checked. By personal delivering such documents to the following individuals at 180 Howard Street, 6th Floor, San Francisco, California 94105-1639:
JON M. ALEXANDER, ESQ.
CYDNEY BATCHELOR, ESQ.
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in San Francisco, California, on November 6, 2006.
Signed by:
Bernadette C.O. Molina
Case Administrator
State Bar Court