Ernest v. Morris, 59 V.I. 862

Gonzalez sought pro hac vice admission to represent Ernest in STT cases; the court granted the motion in a July 15, 2013 order but stated admission would be effective upon execution of the oath, which never occurred.
Gonzalez did not execute the oath, so his pro hac vice admission never became effective.
After a final judgment in the STT case, Gonzalez attempted to file an appeal on Ernest’s behalf, but the appellate clerk rejected the filing since Gonzalez was not licensed in the Virgin Islands.
A September 4, 2013 transmittal showed Gonzalez appeared as Ernest’s attorney in the STT matter, filing several documents and participating in status conferences.
The court previously questioned possible unauthorized practice and asked for responses from Gonzalez and Rohn; both stated their positions regarding admission and authority to practice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether pro hac vice admission should be vacated and denied	Rohn argues admission wasn’t validly granted.	Gonzalez contends he relied on representations and friend-of-the-court permission.	Yes; admission vacated and denied.
Whether Gonzalez engaged in unauthorized practice of law in Virgin Islands	Gonzalez filed notices and appeared without proper admission.	Gonzalez claims prior arrangements allowed limited practice as Friend of the Court.	The matter warrants further action; potential unauthorized practice identified.
Whether matter should be referred to authorities for further action	Disciplinary considerations warranted investigation.	Not explicitly provided; party disputes propriety of referral.	Refer to AG, Unauthorized Practice Committee, and Office of Disciplinary Counsel.

In re Rogers, 56 V.I. 618 (V.I. 2012) (statutory/inherent authority to regulate practice and discipline attorneys)
In re Admission of Alvis, 54 V.I. 408 (V.I. 2010) (pro hac vice admission standards and discretion)
In re Suspension of Adams, 58 V.I. 356 (V.I. 2013) (disciplinary authority over attorneys)