Disciplinary Case Summaries
| Publication year | 2022 |
| Pages | 72 |
FROM THE COURTS OFFICE OF THE PRESIDING DISCIPLINARY JUDGE
No. 22PDI033. People v. Payne. 9/21/2022.
Stipulation to Discipline.
The Presiding Disciplinary Judge approved the parties' stipulation to discipline and disbarred Alonzo Christopher Payne (attorney registration number 38366). The disbarment was effective on October 26, 2022.
Payne was the elected district attorney in the 12th Judicial District from January 2021 to July 2022, when he resigned. While in office, Payne failed to diligently supervise his employees, including an assistant district attorney whom Payne later fired because of complaints about the lawyer's conduct when performing his job duties. In mid-2021, a Victim Rights Act (VRA) subcommittee began investigating Payne's office, citing concerns that the office failed to keep victims informed about their cases and failed to consult with victims about plea deals and dismissals. The investigation also identified instances in which employees from Payne's office ignored, belittled, and shouted at victims. The VRA subcommittee recommended that Payne's office take actions, including VRA training. During the training, Payne's employees were unruly, directing foul language at the presenters and walking out of the training. Payne's office did not resolve the VRA complaints, which were ultimately referred to the governor, who appointed the office of the attorney general to investigate. In July 2022, the attorney general appointed a monitor to determine whether Payne's office was meeting its responsibilities under the VRA.
Under Payne, the 12th Judicial District Attorney's office accumulated a significant backlog of cases and failed to act for months on warrants involving serious crimes and domestic violence. Payne's failure to prosecute defendants had a negative effect on law enforcement's and the public's willingness to report crimes, harming law enforcement efforts and the community.
Days before a jury trial in early 2022, Payne told a named victim that his office had been unable to serve a police officer to appear at trial. Payne told the victim that pursuing the case would be futile without the officer's testimony, and the victim acquiesced to Payne dismissing the case. But Payne's representation was false: his office had served the officer that morning. In the motion to dismiss, Payne falsely stated that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial