Beyond The Power

The Virgin Islands Supreme Court rejected an attorney’s petition for writ of mandamus

In his petition, Burns requests that this Court issue a writ mandating the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) to dismiss a grievance filed against him or, in the alternative, for the ODC to issue a scheduling order. Burns discloses in his petition, however, that the ODC had referred the grievance to the Preliminary Review Committee (“PRC”) of the Board on Professional Responsibility. Supreme Court Rule 207 grants the ODC the discretion to dismiss a grievance prior to its referral to the PRC. See V.I.S.CT.R. 207.9(a)-(b). However, the ODC lacks the discretion to unilaterally dismiss a grievance that it has elected to refer to the PRC—once such a referral occurs, the decision on how to proceed with the grievance belongs to the PRC, which is empowered to act on the grievance after reviewing the recommendation of the ODC and any written information submitted by the respondent. Such action may include dismissal, private probation or private admonition, offers of conditional diversion, a stay, or the filing of a petition for discipline with the Board, which would then result in a formal disciplinary proceeding. See V.I.S.CT.R. 207.9(b)(3). Importantly, the respondent is not entitled to appear at a meeting of the PRC, see V.I.S.Ct.R. 207.9(b)(1), and, because the PRC serves a similar function to a grand jury, it is not in any way bound by whatever recommendation the ODC may have made to it, see V.I.S.CT.R. 207.9(b)(3). Moreover, the PRC, as an entity independent of the ODC, possesses the authority to control its own proceedings, and thus the ODC lacks the authority to issue a scheduling order for the PRC or to otherwise dictate the course of the proceedings before the PRC.

(Mike Frisch)