In re the Motion of the Virgin Islands Bar Ass'n

758 F. Supp. 1088, 26 V.I. 216, 1991 WL 35672, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7646
CourtDistrict Court, Virgin Islands
DecidedFebruary 14, 1991
DocketCivil No. 1990/106
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 758 F. Supp. 1088 (In re the Motion of the Virgin Islands Bar Ass'n) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, Virgin Islands primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re the Motion of the Virgin Islands Bar Ass'n, 758 F. Supp. 1088, 26 V.I. 216, 1991 WL 35672, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7646 (vid 1991).

Opinion

BROTMAN, Acting Chief Judge,

Sitting by Designation

OPINION

Presently before the court is the motion of the Treasurer of the Virgin Islands Bar Association brought pursuant to 5 V.I.C. App. V R. 51(d) to suspend Thurston T. McKelvin, Esq. and Mark H. Bonner, Esq. from the practice of law in the Virgin Islands for failure to pay dues to the Virgin Islands Bar Association.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The Virgin Islands has an integrated bar association. Title 5, Appendix V of the Virgin Islands Code sets forth the Rules of the District Court of the Virgin Islands (“local rules”). Pursuant to the local rules of the District Court, all attorneys admitted to practice in the District Court of the Virgin Islands pursuant to either Local Rule 56 or by special admission by virtue of employment in the Virgin Islands with the United States Government, the Government of the Virgin Islands, and Legal Services of the Virgin Islands, Inc., are members of the Virgin Islands Bar Association. 5 V.I.C. App. V R. 51(a). Only those attorneys who are active or government members of the Virgin Islands Bar Association (with a few narrow exceptions) may practice law in the Virgin Islands. Local Rule 51(b). Local Rule 31(c) grants the Virgin Islands Bar Association the power to adopt by-laws consistent with the local rules.

The by-laws of the Virgin Islands Bar Association provide that all attorneys “who have been specially admitted to practice law in the Virgin Islands on behalf of the Government of the United States, the Government of the Virgin Islands, Office of the Public Defender, or Legal Services of the Virgin Islands shall be eligible to be Government members of the Virgin Islands Bar.... Government members shall pay annual membership dues of $100.00. . .” By-laws of the Virgin Islands Bar Association (“By-laws”), Art. I, §§ 4-5 (1990). Article I, § 10 of the By-laws establishes that it is the duty of the Treasurer of the Virgin Islands Bar to move for the suspension of all delinquent members.

The Treasurer of the Bar Association moved for the suspension of respondents, among others, in June of 1990. Respondent Thurston T. McKelvin, Esq. is employed as a Federal Public Defender in the Virgin Islands. Respondent Mark H. Bonner, is employed in the Justice Department in Washington, D.C. He was employed as an Assistant [218]*218United States Attorney in St. Thomas for two years. At the present time, it is unclear from his submissions to the court whether he continues to appear in the District Court of the Virgin Islands on official government business. Respondents object to their suspension, contending that the Virgin Islands Bar Association does not have the authority to require them to pay territorial bar dues as they practice law in the courts of the Virgin Islands only in their capacity as federal officers practicing in federal court.

II. DISCUSSION

As an initial matter, Attorney Bonner argues that the by-laws of the Virgin Islands Bar Association make him eligible to be a government member of the Bar Association, but do not mandate his membership. If the local rules do not mandate his membership in the Bar Association, then he declines to belong to the Bar Association, and cannot be suspended from practice in the Virgin Islands for the failure to pay bar dues. While the language of the by-laws themselves supports Attorney Bonner’s interpretation, such an interpretation contradicts that portion of the Virgin Islands Code establishing an integrated bar. Compare By-laws Art. I, § 4 (attorneys specially admitted to practice law on behalf of Government of United States “shall be eligible to be Government members of the Virgin Islands Bar....”) with 5 V.I.C., Appendix V R. 51(a) (all attorneys admitted to practice in District Court of the Virgin Islands shall be members of Virgin Islands Bar Association). As a result, the rule established by the District Court, that government attorneys shall be members of the Virgin Islands Bar Association must prevail over any contrary language in the by-laws as the local rules expressly provide that the Bar Association has the power to enact “by-laws not inconsistent with these rules”. 5 V.I.C. App.V R. 51(c).

Hence, the narrow issue before the court is whether respondents, who are employed by the federal government and practice only in the federal district court, can be suspended from practicing law in the courts of the Virgin Islands for their failure to pay bar dues to the Virgin Islands Bar Association. At oral argument, this court asked the parties to determine whether other jurisdictions require attorneys who practice exclusively in federal court on the behalf of the United States, and who are not licensed in the state in question, to pay local bar dues. Each side submitted the results of its own telephone survey of those states with integrated bar associations. [219]*219Each found that the states with integrated bar associations do as it advocates in this situation. Hence, the Virgin Islands Bar Association informs the court that the vast majority of states with integrated bars require federal attorneys to be members of the bar and pay annual membership dues, and Attorneys McKelvin and Bonner inform the court that the vast majority of jurisdictions do not require federal attorneys to pay local bar dues. This information is not illuminating. Not having the benefit of knowing what other jurisdictions do in this situation, this court must rely upon its own research to determine whether the Bar Association can suspend federal attorneys who are not licensed in Virgin Islands, and who practice only in federal court on official government business, from the practice of law in the Virgin Islands for the failure to pay bar dues to the Bar Association.

The court notes that this issue appears one of first impression. The court’s own research has uncovered no authority on point. As a result, the court must determine whether it is permissible, constitutionally or otherwise, for the Bar Association to require federal attorneys to pay bar dues.

Respondents argue that the Supremacy clause of the United States Constitution prohibits a local bar association, in this case, the Virgin Islands Bar Association, from imposing fees on federal attorneys practicing in federal court. Respondents certainly must be correct that a territorial bar association cannot require federal officials to pay dues to it in order to practice law in federal court independent of any federal authorization for that imposition of dues. Here, however, an entirely different situation exists. The District Court of the Virgin Islands is simultaneously a court of original and appellate jurisdiction for the United States Territory of the Virgin Islands and a federal district court. The Supremacy Clause does not come into play when it is a federal authority regulating another federal authority. See United States v. Klubock, 832 F.2d 664, 667 (1st Cir. 1987) (en banc), aff’g, 832 F.2d 649, 651 (supremacy clause not implicated when district court enacts federal local rule).

As the supremacy clause is not implicated, the court must determine whether the District Court may require federal attorneys to pay local bar dues. Mandatory state bar membership requiring the payment of bar dues is not unconstitutional. See Keller v. State Bar of California, — U.S.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In re the Motion of the Virgin Islands Bar Ass'n
913 F. Supp. 415 (Virgin Islands, 1995)
Virgin Islands Bar Ass'n v. Bonner
79 F.3d 354 (Third Circuit, 1995)
In re Moorhead
27 V.I. 74 (Supreme Court of The Virgin Islands, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
758 F. Supp. 1088, 26 V.I. 216, 1991 WL 35672, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7646, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-motion-of-the-virgin-islands-bar-assn-vid-1991.