Alani Henneman Todman v. Sheryl O'Bryan Johnson, Trustee, Elsa D. O'Bryan Revocable Trust

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

DIVISION OF ST THOMAS AND ST JOHN

****«***

ALAN] HENNEMAN TODMAN ) ) Case No ST 19 CV S83 Plaintiff, ) ) ACTION FOR DAMAGES BREACH OF v ) CONTRACT CONVERSION FRAUD ) NEGLIGENT MISREPRLSLNTATION SHERYL 0 BRYAN JOHNSON ) FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION TRUSTEE ELSA D O BRYAN ) UNJUSl LNKICHMENT REVOCABLE TRUST ) ) Delendants ) —_) APPEARANCES Joseph B Caines, Esquire Law Office Ofloseph B Caines 100 Blackbeard s Hill Suite 413 St Thomas, Virgin Islands For Plamtlfl

Jessica C Tully Esquire Law Office of Jessica C Tully 31D St Peter Mountain Road St Thomas Virgin Islands Far Defendants 2022 VI Super 56U

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

111 THIS MATTER is before the Court on the tollowing 1 Plaintiff s Complaint filed Octobel 16 2019

2 Defendant 5 Motion to Dismiss and Motion m Disqualify Attorney Joseph Caines as Plaintiff‘s Counsel filed December 16 2019

3 Plaintiffs Memorandum of Law in Suppon 0f Alani Henneman Todman 5 Motion in Opposition to Defendant 5 Motion to Dismiss Filed January 17 2020 and Todman v Johnson Tnlstee Elsa D 0 Bryan Revocable Trust Case No ST 2019 CV 0058] Motion to Disquallfy Attemey Joseph Caines as Plaintiff‘s Counsel Memorandum Opinion and Order June 9, 2022 Page 2 of9

2022 VI Super 56U

4 Defendant 5 Reply to Plaintiff‘s Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff‘s Motion in Opposition to Defendant 5 Motion to Dismiss filed Februaly 12 2020

112 This matter came before the Court on December 8, 2021 for a Motions Hearing Counsel for both parties appeared via Zoom and presented evidence and arguments on whether Plaintiff s counsel Attorney Joseph Caines Esq should be disqualified from representing Plaintiffdue to a conflict of interest While the parties motions also include arguments regarding Defendant 5 Motion to Dismiss the Court is only addressing Defendant 3 Motion to Disqualify Attorney Joseph Caines as Plaintiffs Counsel Afler reviewing the evidence arguments and motions before the Coun the Court will grant Defendant 5 Motion to Disqualify Attomey Joseph Gaines as Plaintiff‘s Counsel

I FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

113 Plaintiff Alani Henneman Todman ( Plaintiff or Todman ) a resident of St Thomas Virgin Islands is the granddaughter of the late Elsa D 0 Bryan ( 0 Bryan ) Defendant Sheryl 0 Bryan Johnson ( Defendant or Johnson ) a resident of Mooresville, North Carolina is the oldest child OfO Bryan and was allegedly responsible for hei financial affairs towards the end of her life 1 Prior to her death 0 Bryan was the owner of Parcel No 1 15 Estate Windberg St Thomas Virgin Islands( the Property ) which is divided into two units 1 15A and 1 15B 2

$14 In 2001 0 Bryan transferred the Property to a revocable living trust Attorney Caines who now represents Plaintiff in the present case drafted the Elsa D 0 Bryan Revocable Trust ( the Trust ) on December 18 2001 3 Attorney Caines drafted a deed transferring the Property from Elsa D 0 Bryan, an individual to Elsa D 0 Bryan as the Trustee of the Trust ‘1 0 Bryan was the sole Trustee during her lifetime 5 Johnson the Defendant in the present case was named as the Successor Trustee ofthe Trust and also a beneficiaiy of the Trust 6 The other two beneficiaiies of the TrustareO Bryan sother children CarolO Bryan Henneman and James A 0 Bryan Jr both residents of St Thomas Virgin Islands 7 The Trust provides that upon 0 Bryan s death the Trustee shall distribute the trust property outright to the beneficiaiies 8 0 Bryan died on April 27 2019 9

'Pl 5 Comp] 1 2 Pl 3 Compl 2 ‘Def 5 Mot Dismiss & Disqualify Pl 5 Counsel 2 11x A Ex B ‘ Def 5 Mot Dismiss & Disqualify Pl 5 Counsel 2 5 Def 5 Mot Dismiss&Disqualify Pl sCounscl 2 " Def 5 Mot Dismiss & Disqualify Pl 5 Counsel 2 7 Def 5 Mot Dismiss & Disqualify Pl 5 Counsel 2 Ex B 3 Def 5 Met Dismiss & Disqualify Pl 5 Counsel 2 Ex B 9P1 5Compl 4 Todmanv Johnson Tmstee Elsa D 0 Bryan Revocable Trust Case No ST 2019 CV 00583 Motion to Disquallfy Attorney Joseph Caines as Plaintiff‘s Counsel Memorandum Oplnlon and Order June 9 2022 Page 3 am 2022 VI Super 56U

115 Towards the end of her life 0 Bryan reportedly needed xound the clock care due to her age and physical condition '0 Todman and Johnson allegedly entered into an agreement that Todman would leave her condominiumll and move to the Property with O’Bryan to provide her with the care she needed on the condition that Todimn would continue to live in one of the Property 5 unite until 0 Bryan 5 death '2 Todman alleges that she agreed to move in to Parcel No l [SB in August 2014 but she could not physically move in until November 2014 due to safety hazards ‘3 Todman alleges that she and Johnson agreed that the property needed to be renovated and she funded and assisted with renovations from August 2014 through November 2014 ‘4 Todman continued to make home improvements on Parcel No 1 15B until Hurricane Irma struck St Thomas in 2017 '5 Todman claims Hulricane Irma damaged the p011i0n ofthe property whele her househeld items were located and the insurance adjuster included her losses in the property damage claim amount However Todman alleges Johnson has retained all the insurance proceeds '5 Upon 0 Bryan 5 death in 2019 Johnson as Successor Trustee placed the PIOperty for sale on the market ‘7 Todman alleges that Johnson did not allow her to live in the Property as they agreed and as such Johnson has breached their agreement

116 On October 16 2019, Todman filed a complaint against Johnson alleging beach of contract, conversion, fraud, negligent misreplesentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment Johnson filed a Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Disqualify Attomey Joseph Caines as Plaintist Counsel on December 16, 2019 In reply Todman filed a Memorandum of Law in Support of Alani chncman Todman 5 Motion in Opposition to Defendant s Motion to Dismiss on January 17 2020 Johnson filed Defendant 5 Reply to Plaintiffs Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion in Opposition to Defendant 5 Motion to Dismiss on February 12 2020 On the same day Defendant also filed an Eme1geney Motion to Stiike Lis Pendens “5 {[7 The mattei came before the Court for a Motions Hearing on December 8 2021 via Zoom The Court heard arguments from counsel for both parties on Johnson 5 Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Disqualify Attorney Caines as Plaintiff‘s Counsel Defendant s counsel Jessica Tully Esq , argued that Attorney Caines representation of Plaintiff presents a direct and extreme conflict of interest because he drafted 0 Bryan i trust agreement in his role as her family 5 longtime

'“ P] s Compl 1 " Pl ’5 Compl l (Todman is the owner ofa condominium located at Unit 33 Frenchman’s Condominium, St Thomas Virginlslands) ' P] s (.Dmpl 2 ” P] s Compl 2 (according to Todman the property was infested With termites mold and mildew) ”Pl sCDmpl 3 (the renovations reportedly included removing all furniture resurfaclng the perm tiles and replacing all of the exictmg electrical items) '5 Pl anmp1 4 " Pl anmp1 4 ”Pl :Cumpl 4 '3 This Court granted Defendant s Renewed Emergency Motion to Strike Lis Pendens Parcel No l 15 Estate Wlnlbcrg on March 24 2022 lodman v Johnson Tnistcc Elsa D 0 Bryan Revocable Trust Case No ST 2019 CV 00583 Motion to Disqualify Attorney Joseph Caincs as Plaintitf‘s counsel Memorandum Opinion and Order June 9 2022 Page 4 of9

attorney and he now represents a third party against the trust Attorney Tully asserted he Lould likely be called as a witness in the dispute and that his representation ofTodman is a clear violation ofhis duties to his former client 0 Bryan ‘9 Attorney Caines stated that it was his intention to sue Johnson individually and argued that Plaintiffis not seeking to invalidate or alter the trust she eimply wants to be compensated for costs incurred based on her agreement with Defendant Attomey Tully requested that Plaintiff file a release of the lis pendens Attomey Caines requested to amend the complaint to sue Johnson as an individual The Coun denied Attorney Cainei oral request to amend the complaint to sue Johnson as an individual and advised it would take the Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Disqualify under advisement and any ether requests or arguments should be made by filing the appropriate motions [1 LEGAL STANDARD

A Disqualification of an Attorney

118 In the Virgin Islands the Count is responsible tor supervising the conduct of attorneys that appear before it and has the power to disqualify any attorney if it determines such action is warranted 2” In considering motions to disqualify counsel the Court is tasked with safeguaiding the integrity of court proceedings and eliminating the threat of tainting the litigation 2' Disqualification motions are considered a drastic measure which courts should only impose when absolutely necessary because such motions seek to deprive an opposing party of their counsel of choice and could be motivated by tactical concerns 22 The party seeking disqualification must meet a high standatd ofproofbetore a lawyer is disqualified although doubts are resolved in favor of disqualification 23

1" Based on thaC oral arguments the Court questmned Defendant s counsel as to whether Defendant has met the standard for disqualification under V l S LT R 21 l 1 9 Duties t0 Former Clients Howevei Dcfcndwnt s Motion to Disqualify Attorney Calms argues a conflict ofinterest theory under Rule 211 l 7 Conflict of Inteicst Cuirent Clients The Court will therefore focus its analysis on Defendant s arguments under Rule 21 1 1 7 7” See Farrell v H25: 011 V1 57 V1 50 57 (V 1 Super Ct 2012) (citing McKenzie Cmm‘r v 51 (Jon Slomge Carp 961 F Supp 857 859 (D V I 1997) (providing that the Court has diseretion to decide whether diaqudlifiwuun is wmanlcd) 2‘ Sec Fumierv Declmbert Nu SX 16 CV 343 2017 VI LEXIS 149 at *4 (V1 Super CI Sept 27 2017) (citing Radnguezi Spanan Cancrete Pratt's LLC No l 12 cv 29 2017 U S Dist LEXIS 62923 at *5 (D VI Apr 25 2017) (quoting McKenzie Cam" 961 F Supp at 859) H St? Humed v Yum]; 6‘) V1 221, 224 (V1 Super Ct 2018) (quoting Nahum: v Grapenee Shares [ML , No 05 119 2013 U S Dist LEXIS 42717 at ‘12 (D V I 2013) (citing Lamb v Plale'Y Corp 46 V121.) 216(DVI 2004) (noting that disqualification motions are Viewed with disfavor ) 2’ Sec Farm“ 57 V1 at 57 (quoting Proxy v Nmmnal Rural UflIlTy Cnufuralzve Flmmuul Carp N0 1 08 cv 107 2009 U S Dist LEXIS 47744 at *6 (D VI 2009)) x22 [:le Fenmr 2017 V I LFXIS 149 at *5 (finding that vague and unsupported allegations are not sufficient to line! this standard ) Todman v Johnson, Trustee, Elsa D O'Bryan Revocable Trust Case No ST 2019 CV 00583 Motion to Disqualify Attorney Joseph Caincs as Plaintiffs Counsel Memorandum Opinion and Order June 9 2022 Page 5 of9

{[9 When resolving a motion to disqualify counsel couits typically apply a two step analysis 2" The first step is to determine Whether there has been a substantive violation of the Virgin Islands Rules of Professional Conduct which took effect on February 1 2014 25 1f the Court finds a substantive vioIation of the Virgin Islands Rules ofProfessional Conduct the Court then engages in the second step of the analysis which involves balancing the interests of the parties to determine Whether disqualification is appropriate 75 However, certain rule violations require that eaunsel withdraw or be disqualified,27 and in the case of such violations the court need not engage in the second step of the disqualification analysis

1 Conflict of Interest

1110 Generally attomcyi in the Virgin Islands shall not represent a client if the representation involves a conflict of interest 23 A conflict of interest arises “out of personal interests of counsel that are inconsistent diverse, or otherwise discordant with those of his client 2" Under Rule 211 l 7 of the Virgin Islands Rules of Professional Conduct a concurrent conflict of interest exists if there is a significant 115k that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer s responsibilities to a former client‘fi“ The tule allows an attorney to represent a client despite the existence of a concurrent conflict of interest if each affected client gives informed consent to the representation in writing 3‘ Additionally the rule requires that

1‘ See Cauhbean Offthe GrldPla a LLC v Ptdmm No ST 2020 CV 00179 2021 V1 SUPER 33U at 4‘22 (V 1 Super Ct 2020) See him Fewer 2017 VI LEXIS 149 at *14(outliningatwo Step mquin thatinvolves (1) determining whether a hubfl'dntivt. violation oeeufled; and (2) engaging in a balancing test to deten'nine whether diaquahfiealiun it cm apprupmtt runedy) 15 See Pedram 2021 V1 SUPER 33U at *22 (clarifying that prior to February 1 2014 the ABA 5 Model Rules of Piofessiunal Conduct govcmcd the conduct of Virgin Islands attorneys The Virgin Islands rules are substantively tdcnttcal t0 (1“. ABA rules so therefore previous decisions applying the ABA rules remain applicable in interpreting and applying the Virgin Islands rules) 2“ See 111,522 [1130 Farmer, 2017 V1 LEXIS 149 at “‘14 (citing Keith Swisher, Th; Prams and Theory afLawyer qutzaltfiwlwn 27 Geo J Legal Ethics 71 87 n 57 2014) (discussing tumors that courts should balance in resolving disqualifitattun munch: inL1udmg (1) the client 5 thterect in being represented by Lounhel of its Lhotce' (2) the opposing party 5 intereat in a trial free from prejudice and (3) the public 5 Interest in aelupuluus adminhtrattun ufjualiLe) 27 See V1 S CT R 211 1 7 see also Unnedszei I BLIlllle 962 F 3d 731 739 (3d Ctr 2020) (on appea1from the District Court ofthe Virgin Islands) (finding that if even one [ofthe four requirements DfVI S CT R 211 1 7 i: not met the Court must grant the motion to withdraw ) "V1 S CT R 21117(a) ” Merchant A Cmmrxercml Bank v VI FFO LLC No ST 18 CV 183 2018 VI LEXIS 99 at*12(V1 Super Ct Sept 17 2018] 30VI S CT R 21117(a)(2) 3‘ V1 S Cr R 211 1 7(1)) see (4130 Flamu v Virgm Island: 63 VI 724 749n 14(VI 2015) (noting that even where a conflict ofinterest exists an attorney may Lontinue with the representation amt obtaintng written consent from the aftected clients ) AU (1le 011v: t Dermgh No ST 09 CV 426 2012 V1 LEXIS 71 at *21 (V1 Super Todman v Johnson Tnlstcc, Elsa D O'Bryan Revocable Trust Case No ST 2019 CV 00583 Motion to Disqualify Attorney Joseph Caincs as Plaintiff‘s Counsel Memorandum Opmion and Order June 9, 2022 Page 6 mfg

(1) the lawyer reasonably believes that the lawyet will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client,

(2) the representation is not prohibited by law; and

(3) the representation does not involve the assertion of a claim by One client against another client represented by the lawyer in the same litigation or Other proceeding before a tribunal 17

1111 If any of the four requirements under Rule 211 1 7(1)) are not met then tlte conflicted counsel must withdraw or be disqualified 31 In determining whether a conflict of intetest will materially limit an attorney 5 representation ofa client the ethical consideration is the likelihood that a difference in the attorney 5 and client s interests will occur and if it does whether the difference will significantly intertcre with the attorney 5 independent professional judgment or prevent courses of action that reasonably should be pursued on the client’s behalf 3‘

[[1 ANALYSIS

A The Court will disqualify Atturney Gaines as Plaintiff’s counsel because Attorney Caines’ former representation of Elsa D O‘Bryan presents a conflict of interest with his current representation of Plaintiff

1 Attorney Caines’ representation of Plaintiffviolates Rule 211 1 7 the Virgin Islands Rules of Professional Conduct regarding concurrent conflicts of interest and requires disqualification

{[12 The Virgin Islands Rules of Professional Conduct aim to prevent conflicts of interest by prohibiting attorneys from representing a client if the representation of a former or current client will materially limit the anomey s ability to represent the client 3’ The Court finds that this case presents a conflict of interest and there has been a violation of Rule 211 1 7 Here Attorney Caines

Ct May 14, 2012) (concluding that concurrent conflicts can 0th be waived by informed consent confirmed 11] writing”) 32V1 S CT R 211 17(1)) B See Untied Stale; v 192111112 962 F 3d 731 739 (34 Cu- 2020) (on appeal from the Dimict Court ofthe Virgin Islands) 1‘ See Mucham s CummeIcIaIEank 2018 VI LEXIS 99 at ‘12 (citing MODEL R PROF LCONDU(T I 7 cmt 8)- set also Thumasv (Gage! No ST 15 (V 573 2018 VI LEXIS 132 at *5 6 (V1 Super Ct Mayl 2018) (finding that a lawyer 5 personal interest [in representing a client] is not sufficient to cleate a concurrent conflict of Interest and there must also be a significant nsk that the lawyer 5 personal interest will matenally 1mm the lawyer s representation 01 the chem) ‘ VI 5 CT R 211 17(1)(2) Todman v Johnson Trustee Elsa D 0 Bryan Revocable Trust Case No ST 2019 (V 00583 Motion to Dtsqualify Attomey Joseph Gaines as Plaintiff‘s Counsel Memorandum Opinion and Order June 9 2022 Pagc 7 of9

2022 VI Super 56!]

is representing the Plaintiff Todman against the interests of his former client 0 Bryan the suit is brought against Johnson as the successor trustee of 0 Bryan s trust Attorney Caines representation of Plaintiff is thus clearly discordant with his representation of his former client 0 Bryan 3" The conflict has not been waived by consent from the affected parties As 0 Bryan is deceased, she cannot consent to the current representatimt Johnson, as O’Bryan’s successor in interest, has not provided informed consent in writing tot Attorney Caines t0 lepresent Todman against her and 0 Bryan s trust Without consent from the affected patties the Court must therefme determine if Attomey Caines lepiesentation of Todman imposes a significant risk of being materially limited by his farther representation ofO Bryan 1113 At issue in this case is an agreement concerning the Property which is subject to a trust agreement that Attorney Caines drafted 37 The Trust arranged for 0 Bryan 5 property to be distributed to her children upon her death and if none of her children survived her the Property would be distributed to her grandchildren The Court agrees with the Defendant s assertion the Trust is a material part of the case and that as the attorney of record who drafted the trust agreement, Attomey Caines is aware of the contents of the t1 ust agreement which contain 0 Bryan s intention to distribute her property evenly amongst her Children and grandchildren Additionally since he sewed notice 0fthis suit on 0 Bryan 5 daughter Ms Johnson he is aware tint at least one of 0 Bryan s children is alive and entitled to her status as a beneficiary of 0 Bryan s trust As 0 Bryan s niece Todman is not entitled to the Property under the terms ofthe trust agreement Attorney Gaines representation of Todman against the Trust he helped create poses a significant risk that his intimate knowledge of the Trust could interfere with his decision making on Todman s behalf The potential ptejudice Johnson could face it the representation continues is also significant

1]14 In opposition to Defendant 5 Motion to Disqualify Attorney Caines asserts that there is no conflict of interest because Ms 0 Bryan is deceased and therefore cannot be a current client He aigues that there is no conflict because even though he previously represented 0 Bryan the contract at issue in this case is between his client and Johnson, Who he has never represented He also argues that Defendant is mistaken in the claim that Caines served as counsel to O’Bryan tor many years 1]15 The Court is not persuaded by these arguments Rule 21 1 1 7 clearly states that a concurrent conflict of interest can arise based on an attorney s representation of a former client 33 Although

’6 See Methan! : Cammerual Bank 2018 V I LEXIS 99 ‘12 (finding that a conflict ofinterest arises out of personal interests of counsel that are inconsistent diverse or otherwise discordant with those of his client ) ’7 Def 5 Met Dismiss & Disqualtfy Pl 5 Counsel 13 ”(VI S CT R 211 l 7(a)(2) Tndman v Johnson Trustee F152: 1') 0 Bryan Revocable Trust Case No ST 2019 (,V 00583 Motion to Disqualify Attorney Joseph Caines as Plaintiff’s Counsel Memorandum Opinion and Order June 9, 2022 Page 8 of9

Attorney Caines correctly assens that the agieement at issue is the agreement Todman and Johnson made regarding Todman 5 living arrangements at the Property the Trust agreement that Attorney Caines drafied is an integral part of the dispute The Trust agreement assigned the Defendant as the successor trustee and Property Because of the Trust agreement 0 Bryan and Todman clearly represent two opposing interests and there is a significant likelihood that Attorney Caines fomler representation of one party to the trust could interfere with his judgment in advising his current client against the trust

$1 16 Attorney Gaines argument that Plaintiff does not seek to modify 0r invalidate the Trust is also not persuasive Despite Attorney Gaines intention to sue Johnson as an individual in order to resolve a contract dispute between his client and Johnson Attomey Gaines sued Ms Johnson as a trustee He has not taken advantage of any opportunity to modify the complaint in the time or procedure allowed by Virgin Islands law As the case stands the case is against the trust in direct conflict with the interests of Attorney Caines former client The Court therefore finds a violation of Rule 211 1 7 and this violation requires disqualification 3" Because a violation of this ru1e requires disqualification the Couit does not need to engage in the second step of the typical disqualification analysis that involves balaneing the interests of both parties with the Court s interest in maintaining the integrity ofjudicial proceedings

IV CONCLUSION {117 Motions to disqualify counsel are viewed with distavor since they seek to deprive a party of their counsel of choice and may be motivated by tactical concerns 40 The party moving for disqualification bears a heavy bulden of proving disqualification is warranted “ However, if a party meets this burden and establishes that a substantive violatien of the rules of professional conduct has occurred doubts are resolved in favor of disqualification ‘2 Courts also typically balance the interests ofthe parties with the 001111 5 interest in preventing tainting the litigation but some rules require that counsel withdraw or be disqualified in the event of a substantive violation ‘3

$118 In this case the Court finds that Attorney Gaines former representation of 0 Bryan presents a concunent conflict of interest with his representation of the Plaintiff Todman in violation of Rule 211 1 7 ofthe Virgin Islands Rules of Professional Conduct His former and current clients interests are clearly discordant as to create a conflict of interest and the conflict has not been

1" See V I S CT R 211 17' :22 aim UnmdSm/u I BLHIIIE 962 F 3d 731 739 (3d Cir 2020) “7 See Hamedv Yusufi 69 V I 221 224 [V I Super Ct 2018) “ See 1d ‘ SeeFanelIv Hes; 011V! 57 VI 50 57 (VI Super Ct 2012) ‘1 Ste VI 5 CT R 211 1 7(a)(2) 52941150 Caribbean Q/f/he (7nd Fla :1 LLC t Pedram No ST 2020 CV 00179 2021 VI SUPER 33U at ”‘22 (VI Super (.t 2020) Todman v Johnson Trustee Elsa D 0 Bryan Revocable Trust Case No ST 2019 CV 00583 Motion to Disqualify Attorney Joseph Caines as Plaintiffs Counsel Memorandum Opinion and Order June 9 2022 Page 9 01")

waived by written consent of the affected parties Attorney Caines representation of a third party against a trust he drafted on behalf ofa former client poses a significant risk that his judgement could be materially limited Because ofthis substantive violation ofRule 211 1 7 disqualification is required 1119 Accordingly it is hereby

ORDERED that Defendant 5 Motion to Disqua1ify Attorney Joseph Caines as Plaintiffs Counsel filed December 16 2019 is GRANTED and it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have sixty (60) days to hire new counsel and it is further

ORDERED that a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order shall be directed to counsel of record

DATED June 9 2022 HON SIGR EJO Judge eri Court of the Virgin Islands

ATTEST TAMARA CHARLES Clerk of tléEéourt / /

By 4% LATOYA COMACHO Court Clerk Supervisor ah/ [j [M-