In re Drue, 57 V.I. 517

Attorney Kerry Drue refused to proceed to trial for Rey and was held in contempt with $100 daily fines.
Drue argued a concurrent conflict of interest due to needing to call the prosecutor as a defense witness in Rey’s case and a civil client in a separate matter.
Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands denied Drue’s motion to withdraw; Drue renewed it alleging a conflict and lack of inquiry.
The court conducted no evidentiary inquiry into the alleged conflict; it reaffirmed denial and later held Drue in contempt.
Appellate review determined jurisdiction over nonparty attorney contempt and improper denial of withdrawal without proper conflict inquiry.
The court remanded for a constitutionally required factual inquiry and vacated the withdrawal-denial orders and civil contempt sanctions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Superior Court abused discretion by not conducting a conflict inquiry	Drue contends conflict exists requiring inquiry and withdrawal.	People argue no conflict since no attorney-client relationship with prosecutor; no inquiry needed.	Yes, abuse; court must conduct factual inquiry into potential conflict.
Whether concurrent or potential conflicts implicate Sixth Amendment rights	Sixth Amendment right to unconflicted counsel is implicated if conflict exists.	No conflict if no attorney-client relationship and no actual interference.	Yes, conflict potential triggers Sixth Amendment safeguards and requires inquiry.
Whether the contempt sanctions were civil or criminal and their validity on remand	Contempt measured to coerce compliance; civil contempt but invalid if underlying order voided.	Contempt should stand if underlying order legitimate and Drue disobeyed.	Contempt treated as civil; sanctions vacated pending proper conflict inquiry.
Whether Rey waived any conflict and the need for further proceedings	Potential waiver by Rey; inquiry should assess waiver and scope.	No waiver or ineffective waiver; court did not assess waiver due to lack of inquiry.	Remand for inquiry into waiver and conflict.

Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475 (1978) (conflict inquiries required when risk to counsel’s loyalty is identified)
Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (1980) (reversals for failure to inquire when conflict exists)
Zepp v. United States, 748 F.2d 125 (3d Cir. 1984) (case law addressing conflict inquiry and disqualification)
Atley v. Ault, 191 F.3d 865 (8th Cir. 1999) (necessity of factual inquiry when conflicts are raised broadly)
Voigt v. United States, 89 F.3d 1050 (3d Cir. 1996) (record sufficiency for determining conflict without an evidentiary hearing)
In re Rogers, 56 V.I. 325 (2012) (appellate review of nonparty attorney contempt and abuse of discretion standard)