Court Opinion

ID: 9961439
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-18 17:19:43.386671+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:44.623127
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION                    S. Ct. Civ. No. 2024-0012
FOR THE INTERIM SUSPENSION OF:

SEALED RESPONDENT

FROM THE VIRGIN ISLANDS BAR.

            NOTICE OF ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT/ORDER

TO: Justices of the Supreme Court
    Judges and Magistrate Judges of the Superior Court
    Sealed Respondent
    Kathryn Anne Donnelly, Esq., Special Designated Disciplinary Counsel
    Tanisha Bailey-Roka, Esq., Chief Disciplinary Counsel
    Veronica J. Handy, Esq., Clerk of the Supreme Court
    Supreme Court Law Clerks
    Supreme Court Secretaries
    Order Book

      Please take notice that on April 18, 2024 a(n) ORDER dated April 18, 2024, was
entered by the Clerk in the above-entitled matter.

      Dated: April 18, 2024

                                                          VERONICA J. HANDY,ESQ.
                                                              Clerk of the Court

                                                        By:
                                                                 Deputy Clerk II
For Publication.

            IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
    IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR                   ) S. Ct. Civ. No. 2024-0012
    THE INTERIM SUSPENSION OF:                          )
                                                        )
    SEALED RESPONDENT                                   )
                                                        )
    FROM THE VIRGIN ISLANDS BAR.                        )
                                                        )

                                On Petition for Interim Suspension

                               Considered and Filed: April 18, 2024

                                         Cite as 2024 VI 19

BEFORE:        RHYS S. HODGE, Chief Justice; MARIA M. CABRET, Associate Justice; and
               IVE ARLINGTON SWAN, Associate Justice.

                                 ORDER OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM.

¶1      THIS MATTER is before the Court pursuant to a motion, filed by the respondent attorney,

seeking the disqualification of Kathryn Anne Donnelly, Esq., Special Designated Disciplinary

Counsel, from representing the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) in this interim suspension

proceeding.1 According to the respondent, Attorney Donnelly cannot continue to represent the

1
 Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 207.16(a), the ODC may seek the immediate interim suspension
of an attorney from the practice of law in the Virgin Islands upon sufficient evidence that the
attorney

                (i) has been charged with or convicted of a felony,
                (ii) has been charged with or convicted of other criminal conduct which
        demonstrates that the lawyer poses a significant threat of substantial harm to the
        public or to the orderly administration of justice, or
                (iii) has otherwise engaged in professional misconduct which demonstrates
        that the lawyer poses a significant threat of substantial harm to the public or to the
        orderly administration of justice.
In re: Sealed Respondent                       2024 VI 19
S. Ct. Civ. No. 2024-0012
Order of the Court
Page 2 of 6

ODC in this matter because she serves as Special Designated Disciplinary Counsel on a part-time

basis while engaged in the part-time private practice of law in New York, which the respondent

asserts constitutes a violation of the prohibition on the private of practice of law by judicial officers

and court employees codified in title 4, section 288(a) of the Virgin Islands Code.

¶2      Attorney Donnelly filed an opposition to the motion on March 21, 2024, acknowledging

her ongoing part-time private practice, but failed to specifically respond to the respondent’s claim

that it is prohibited by section 288(a). However, Attorney Donnelly stated in that filing that she “is

clearly not an ‘employee’ of the Virgin Islands Judiciary.” This Court, in a March 24, 2024 order,

took judicial notice that Attorney Donnelly’s representation that she is not an “employee” of the

Virgin Islands Judiciary appeared to contradict sworn representations in her application for special

admission to the Virgin Islands Bar in which she swore, under oath, that “I am employed or about

to be employed as an attorney by: Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands;” “I am employed or about

to be employed as an attorney by Office of Disciplinary Counsel;” and “I acknowledge and

understand that an admission issued pursuant to this rule shall state its special nature and it shall

terminate automatically when the person ceases to be employed by the petitioning agency or

instrumentality of the Government of the Virgin Islands.” This Court, therefore, directed Attorney

Donnelly to file a response that addresses the seeming inconsistency between the representation in

her opposition and the sworn representations made in her application for special admission, and to

respond to the respondent’s claim that her maintenance of a private practice in New York violates

title 4, section 288 of the Virgin Islands Court.

The ODC has since moved to withdraw its petition for interim suspension, which this Court
granted. As such, because “[t]he ODC’s filing of a petition for interim suspension, and all
subsequent proceedings, shall be confidential unless otherwise ordered by the Court,” V.I.S.CT.R.
207.16(a), we do not identify the respondent attorney by name.
In re: Sealed Respondent                     2024 VI 19
S. Ct. Civ. No. 2024-0012
Order of the Court
Page 3 of 6

¶3      Attorney Donnelly filed a response with this Court on April 4, 2024. In that response,

Attorney Donnelly again states that “the Undersigned is an independent contractor, not an

employee,” that she works on a “per diem or contract basis,” and otherwise repeatedly emphasizes

that because she is not an “employee” the prohibition on the private practice of law by certain court

employees codified in section 288 does not apply to her.2 With respect to the seemingly contrary

representations made in her special admission application, Attorney Donnelly states that “[t]he

Undersigned was suitable for Special Admission status because she was about to be employed as

an attorney by the Judiciary Branch of the Government of the Virgin Islands. The rule does not

require the applicant to be employed as an employee, only employed.”

¶4      The respondent’s claim that Attorney Donnelly cannot lawfully serve as Special

Designated Disciplinary Counsel in either this or any other matter because she represents the ODC

on a part-time basis is entirely without merit. Supreme Court Rule 203, which establishes the

ODC, expressly provides that

               The Court may, as necessary or appropriate, appoint on a part-time basis
        one or more special disciplinary counsel for specific matters which cannot, for
        whatever reason, be handled by the Chief Disciplinary Counsel or Deputy
        Disciplinary Counsel. An attorney acting as special disciplinary counsel shall have
        the powers and duties as described in subsection (e) below and shall be subject to
        the supervision of the Court.

V.I.S.CT.R. 203(c)(4).

2
  Attorney Donnelly also requests that this Court strike the respondent’s reply to her opposition to
the motion to disqualification on grounds that his pleading “contains an insufficient defense or
contains redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter,” apparently because the
respondent “fails to allege how the Undersigned’s employment status meets the heavy burden
necessary to disqualify an attorney from a proceeding.” While we ultimately reject the
respondent’s claim that Attorney Donnelly’s private practice constitutes a violation of section 288,
we do not believe that the respondent’s argument is frivolous or otherwise so lacking in merit as
to warrant striking it from the sealed record.
In re: Sealed Respondent                      2024 VI 19
S. Ct. Civ. No. 2024-0012
Order of the Court
Page 4 of 6

¶5      To the extent the respondent maintains that Attorney Donnelly cannot engage in the private

practice of law while serving as a part-time Special Designated Disciplinary Counsel under Rule

203, the contention similarly lacks merit. Title 4, section 288 provides that “No justice, judge,

clerk of court, deputy, assistant or other officer or employee of a court shall practice law during

his continuance in office or be in partnership with a practicing attorney.” 4 V.I.C. § 288(a). We

strongly question whether this statute, which is among the original provisions of the Virgin Islands

Code drawn from the 1921 Codes, still remains valid, in that it bears characteristics similar to other

statutes we found implicitly repealed by the Legislature when it later created this Court and vested

it with the “supreme judicial power of the Territory,” 4 V.I.C. § 21, including “exclusive

jurisdiction to regulate the admission of persons to the practice of law and the discipline of persons

admitted to the practice of law,” 4 V.I.C. § 32(e), and to “adopt rules governing . . . admission to

and governance of the bar of the Virgin Islands,” 4 V.I.C. § 32(f)(3).

¶6      But even assuming—without deciding—that section 288(a) was not implicitly repealed, it

is nevertheless inapplicable to this case because Attorney Donnelly has sufficiently established

that she is not an “employee of a court.” Attorney Donnelly has provided this Court with

overwhelming evidence that she is not an employee, but an independent contractor. But even if

we were to disregard that evidence, section 288(a) does not prohibit the private practice of law by

an employee of the Judicial Branch; it prohibits the private practice of law by an “employee of a

court.” While the Judicial Branch consists of two courts—the Superior Court and the Supreme

Court—it does not consist of only two courts; most notably, it also consists of a Judicial Branch

Administrative Office, consisting of staff who provide services to the Judicial Branch and not to

an individual court. Compare 4 V.I.C. § 2 (identifying the Supreme Court and the Superior Court

as the “courts of local jurisdiction” of the Virgin Islands), with 4 V.I.C. § 4 (authorizing creation
In re: Sealed Respondent                      2024 VI 19
S. Ct. Civ. No. 2024-0012
Order of the Court
Page 5 of 6

of a Judicial Branch Administrative Office). Had the Legislature intended for this provision to

apply to all those who provide any services for the Judicial Branch, and not just to those employed

by one of its constituent courts, it certainly could have done so, as demonstrated by its use of

broader language in other parts of title 4. See, e.g., 4 V.I.C. § 88(a) (providing for “study leave to

personnel of the judicial branch”).

¶7       For these reasons, we conclude that the respondent provides no valid basis to disqualify

Attorney Donnelly as counsel for the ODC in this matter pursuant to section 288(a).3 Accordingly,

it is hereby

         ORDERED that the motion to disqualify Kathryn Anne Donnelly, Esq. as counsel for the

Office of Disciplinary Counsel pursuant to title 4, section 288 of the Virgin Islands Code is

DENIED. It is further

         ORDERED that the instant case is HEREBY CLOSED due to the withdrawal of the

petition for interim suspension and the resolution of all other substantive motions. It is further

         ORDERED that copies of this Order be served on the appropriate parties.

         SO ORDERED this 18th day of April, 2024.

ATTEST:
VERONICA J. HANDY, ESQ.
Clerk of the Court
By:         /s/ Reisha Corneiro
         Deputy Clerk
Dated:         April 18, 2024

3
  As this Court noted in its March 24, 2024 order, Attorney Donnelly’s repeated and unequivocal
representation that she is not an employee seemingly contradicts sworn statements she made in
support of her special admissions application. Because the respondent has not sought to disqualify
Attorney Donnelly on that basis, and would not have standing to do so as a non-party to her bar
admissions case, we do not address, as part of this attorney discipline proceeding, whether
Attorney Donnelly qualifies—or ever qualified—for special admission pursuant to Rule 202. This
Court, however, will address the Special Admission matter in that bar admissions case.
In re: Sealed Respondent                 2024 VI 19
S. Ct. Civ. No. 2024-0012
Order of the Court
Page 6 of 6

Copies to:
Justices of the Supreme Court
Judges and Magistrate Judges of the Superior Court
Sealed Respondent
Kathryn Anne Donnelly, Esq., Special Designated Disciplinary Counsel
Tanisha Bailey-Roka, Esq., Chief Disciplinary Counsel
Veronica J. Handy, Esq., Clerk of the Supreme Court
Supreme Court Law Clerks
Supreme Court Secretaries
Order Book