The Supreme Court holds that misconduct in a judgeship may affect a bar applicant's fitness to practice law or provide evidence of lack of good moral character. However, to reflect adversely on an applicant's fitness to practice law or moral character, the misconduct that occurred as a judge should be of the nature that would constitute misconduct or be evidence of poor moral conduct if committed only by an attorney. Thus, the Supreme Court agrees that a public reprimand imposed for violating portions of the Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct that do not overlap with the Rules of Professional Conduct that govern attorneys is not, without more, evidence of moral turpitude. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court declines to adopt the Committee of Bar Examiners' ultimate recommendation that the applicant has satisfied the character and fitness requirement because the Committee failed to conduct a complete and full inquiry into the applicant's moral character. Specifically, while the Committee was aware that an unauthorized practice of law complaint had been filed against the applicant, it erred by failing to inquire into or investigate the allegation at the applicant's due process hearing. Therefore, the Supreme Court remands the matter to the Committee so that it may conduct a full and complete character and fitness investigation that includes an inquiry into the unauthorized practice of law complaint.
Supreme Court Of The Virgin Islands