59 V.I. 701
Supreme Court of The Virgin Is...2013Background
- Campbell, a New Jersey attorney, was employed as Chief of the Virgin Islands (VI) Department of Justice Criminal Division and sought special admission to the VI Bar under Rule 202 in 2009.
- UPLC alleged Campbell engaged in unauthorized practice of law while employed Oct. 2009–Aug. 2011, including plea control, charging decisions, and court appearances.
- Court previously held VI Rule 203 allows Model Rules for VI bar members but upheld Section 443 as governing unauthorized practice by nonmembers; CBE investigation was ongoing.
- Campbell resigned Aug. 2011; UPLC completed investigation and filed petition; Court issued decision in 2013 granting petition as modified, with injunctive relief and a $1,500 fine plus costs.
- Court directed transmission of the opinion and judgment to New Jersey authorities; the matter involved interpretation of Section 443 and its relation to Rule 203 and Model Rules.
- Remedies included declaratory judgment, permanent injunction against unauthorized practice, and monetary sanction; other aspects referred to Ethics and Grievance Committee proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §443 governs unauthorized practice in the VI. | UPLC: §443 controls unauthorized practice; Model Rules do not override §443. | Campbell: Model Rules apply to members; §443 may be overridden by Rule 203. | §443 governs unauthorized practice by nonmembers; Rules do not modify §443. |
| What burden of proof applies and standard of review. | UPLC: clear and convincing standard; rigorous evaluation warranted. | VI Court should rely on preponderance or balanced standard. | Clear and convincing standard applies; de novo review with no deference to UPLC findings. |
| Did Campbell engage in unauthorized practice in specific acts (plea control, appearances, legal advice, holding out). | Evidence shows Campbell controlled plea offers, directed contacts, and appeared as Chief of the Criminal Division. | Campbell did not admit to all facts; he relied on privileges and status claims. | Yes; engaged in unauthorized practice in multiple categories, including plea control, court appearances, and giving legal advice. |
| What remedies are appropriate given the violations; sanctions. | Petition seeks injunction, declaratory relief, costs, and up to $500 per violation. | Leniency warranted; prior guidance and good faith consideration. | Permanent injunction; $1,500 fine; costs payable; no disgorgement; post-judgment interest as provided. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Rogers, 57 V.I. 553 ((V.I. 2012)) (courts have exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the practice of law in the VI; EGC referrals)
- Rogers, 56 V.I. 618 ((V.I. 2012)) (discusses VI bar admissions and jurisdictional framework)
- Brusch, 49 V.I. 409 ((V.I. 2008)) (establishes clear and convincing standard in attorney discipline)
- Coggin, 49 V.I. 432 ((V.I. 2008)) (concurrent jurisdiction between VI Bar Association and UPLC; framework for proceedings)
- In re Lexington County Transfer Court, 512 S.E.2d 791 ((S.C. 1999)) (plea negotiations and attorney conduct limitations cited for context on practice of law)