In re Doe
2013 V.I. Supreme LEXIS 3
Supreme Court of The Virgin Is...2013Background
- Doe filed a November 28, 2012 petition for writ of prohibition to stop two Ethics and Grievance Committee proceedings.
- First grievance: contention that investigation was initiated sua sponte by Disciplinary Counsel, not properly before the Committee.
- Second grievance: referral from a Superior Court magistrate; magistrate allegedly did not allege a Rule 8.3 violation and thus may have lacked standing.
- Court applies the same test for writs of prohibition as for writs of mandamus, requiring no adequate alternative relief, clear entitlement, and discretionary appropriateness.
- Court concludes Doe has an adequate alternative remedy and that Doe does not have a clear, indisputable right to enjoin the Committee’s proceedings in this case.
- Court notes anonymity of Attorney Doe but exercises discretion to entertain the petition anyway and denies it being granted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a writ of prohibition is appropriate given available relief | Doe may need only await outcome or appeal adverse decision | There is an adequate alternative remedy; writ not necessary | Denied; adequate alternative relief exists |
| Whether Doe has a clear and indisputable right to enjoin the proceedings | Committee exceeded its authority by proceeding with matters | Rule 207.1.3 authorizes investigation even without a grievant complaint | Denied; Committee did not exceed authority in allowing both matters to proceed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Rogers, 56 V.I. 618 (V.I. 2012) (court authoritative procedures for ethics matters; rules guidance cited)
- In re Le Blanc, 49 V.I. 508 (V.I. 2008) (standard for extraordinary writs and review of committee actions)
- In re People of the V.I., 51 V.I. 374 (V.I. 2009) (writs of prohibition and mandamus standards in Virgin Islands context)
- In re Gov’t of the V.I., 55 V.I. 851 (V.I. 2011) (structure of writs and authority of committees; procedural standards)
- United States v. Santtini, 963 F.2d 585 (3d Cir. 1992) (analogous standards for prohibitions/mandamus relief in federal context)
- Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for the D.C., 542 U.S. 367 (U.S. 2004) (general framework for extraordinary writs and discretion)