Virgin Islands Upholds CLE Rules

The Virgin Islands Supreme Court rejected an attack by four attorneys on its Continuing Legal Education requirements

This matter comes before the Court pursuant to a document, captioned “Verified Petition for Extraordinary Writ,” filed by four members of the Virgin Islands Bar—Vincent A. Fuller, Esq., Walter G. Latimer, Esq., Renee D. Dowling, Esq., and Matthew D. Seymour, Esq. (collectively the “petitioners”)—which seeks to enjoin, on numerous grounds, the enforcement of Supreme Court Rule 208 by the Virgin Islands Bar Association (“VIBA”). For the reasons that follow, we deny the relief.

The court lays out the history of its CLE obligations and finds no basis to grant relief from the requirements

We conclude that the petitioners have failed to meet their burden. While the petitioners attribute the amendments to Rule 208 to the VIBA, it was this Court—and not the VIBA—that adopted those rules pursuant to its constitutional, inherent, and statutory rule-making authority and power to regulate the legal profession. That the VIBA suggested to this Court that it consider amending Rule 208 does not change the fact that it was this Court that exercised its independent judgment to draft the amended rule, release it for public comment, and adopt it as modified by the comment submitted.  And while the petitioners allege that the VIBA requested that this Court amend Rule 208 without a vote of its membership, the VIBA, like other bar associations, is not a direct democracy, but rather acts through its elected Board of Governors which is authorized to “direct through the President the general management of the affairs of the Bar,” V.I. BAR ASS’N BYLAWS art. III, and its elected President who may make statements on behalf of the VIBA and is expressly authorized to submit a report directly to the Chief Justice on a semiannual basis. V.I.S.CT.R. 205(c)(3). Accord, In re V.I. Bar Ass’n, 75 V.I. at 397 (“It is such a fundamental  principle of American government as to not require citation that while private citizens, organizations, and other stakeholders may certainly lobby a legislature and its members to enact certain legislation, such groups have no right to file their proposed legislation as a bill directly with the legislature, force the legislature to hold a hearing on the bill, and then mandate that the members of the legislature debate the bill and vote on it.”). Perhaps most importantly, the petitioners had the opportunity to file comments on the then-proposed amended Rule 208 with this Court but failed to do so. And while the petitioners assert they did not receive actual notice of the amended Rule 208—despite the amended Rule being distributed by both this Court and the VIBA on their respective websites—it is not the obligation of either this Court or the VIBA to provide each and every attorney with actual, personalized notice of each and every change to a court rule; on the contrary, all lawyers admitted to practice in this Court are “under a continuing obligation to keep apprised of current changes in the law, including changes in the [Court] Rules.” Roger v. First Health Corp., No. 09-1206, 2010 WL 11526799, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2010) (unpublished). Therefore, the petitioners have failed to make any showing—let alone a clear and indisputable entitlement—that the amended Rule 208 should be rescinded in whole or in part.

(Mike Frisch)