ODC May Defend Itself
The Virgin Islands Supreme Court granted a petition to disclose otherwise confidential disciplinary records concerning an attorney who had filed multiple lawsuits against the bar prosecutor’s office and staff
This matter is before the Court on a petition filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) requesting that this Court authorize the release of all otherwise-confidential disciplinary records pertaining to Peter J. Lynch, Esq. According to the ODC, Lynch has filed seven different lawsuits against the ODC and its staff in various courts, and it requests that it be permitted to disclose information from its records to defend itself both in those proceedings as well as to correct false or misleading public statements pertaining to the ODC and its work. In support of its request, the ODC has provided this Court with a certification from the Chair of the Board on Professional Responsibility finding good cause to grant the ODC’s request for the release of this information.
The attorney objected to the petition
We disagree that the ODC’s request is overbroad. By filing a lawsuit against the ODC, Lynch has through his actions waived the confidentiality protections afforded by Rule 207.13, and to hold otherwise and require that the ODC remain silent on his disciplinary record would allow Lynch to wield the confidentiality protection “as a sword rather than a shield.” Green v. Montgomery, 746 N.E.2d 1036, 1041 (N.Y. 2001). While Lynch maintains that the ODC only needs to rely on the records of the single proceeding that gave rise to his most recent lawsuit, we fail to see why Lynch should get to unilaterally dictate the scope of the ODC’s defense or what evidence the ODC relies upon in a lawsuit against the ODC that he initiated. Moreover, since Lynch devotes many pages of his opposition to disparage the ODC and its attorneys for alleged failings entirely unrelated to the instant petition, we find it highly unlikely that Lynch will so narrowly tailor all filings in his most recently filed lawsuit to make only disclosure of the records of one case necessary for the ODC to properly respond.
For these reasons, we grant the petition, and decree that the ODC may disclose the pendency, subject matter, and status of all disciplinary proceedings involving Lynch, which if appropriate may include disclosure of underlying motions and filings. Such disclosures, however, must be for the purpose of (1) addressing litigation brought by or involving Lynch in which the ODC is a defendant or interested party, which may include not just court filings but also responding to media inquiries; or (2) correcting false or misleading public statements or to otherwise prevent public confidence in the disciplinary system from being undermined.
A March 2025 decision of the Virgin Island District Court denied ODC’s request for attorneys’ fees in litigation brought against it
Peter J. Lynch practices law full time in St. Thomas, Virgin Islands after being admitted as a member of the Virgin Islands Bar subject to self-discipline. The Bar and public rely upon lawyers disciplining themselves. The enforcement of this discipline through the Virgin Islands Supreme Court’s authority to supervise the members of its Bar includes review by the lawyers and investigators paid by the Territory to ensure ethical conduct by its barred attorneys.
Attorney Lynch is no stranger to the Virgin Islands disciplinary process. Kathryn Anne Donnelly, Virgin Islands Special Designated Disciplinary Counsel, and Tanisha Bailey-Roka, Chief Disciplinary Counsel for the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands have, and continue to, investigate Attorney Lynch for a variety of concerns over the past seven years. Disciplinary Counsel are now proceeding with an investigation of his conduct under the Virgin Islands Rules of Professional Conduct begun in October 2023. This investigation is another chapter in a long and acrimonious history between Attorney Lynch and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel marked by litigation in three different federal district courts and the Virgin Islands territorial courts since at least 2018.
Denied
The parties’ mutual frustration with one another comes through loud and clear in the briefing. Disciplinary Counsel’s frustration with the history of Attorney Lynch’s litigation does not make his claim today frivolous or without foundation. We deny Disciplinary Counsel’s motion for fees.
Our decision should not be taken by the parties as anything other than an application of the stringent standard for an award of section 1988 attorney’s fees to a prevailing defendant. Our November 19, 2024 Order dismissing Attorney Lynch’s amended Complaint remains our reasoned decision which Attorney Lynch chose to challenge on appeal.
(Mike Frisch)