Case Caption: In Re: Warren Tavares BurnsCase Number: SCT-CIV-2023-0025Date: 06/07/2023Author: Per CuriamCitation: 2023 VI 7Summary: Considering a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) and/or the Board on Professional Responsibility (“BPR”) to dismiss a grievance filed against the petitioner or, in the alternative, to order them to take action to move the underlying proceeding forward to a timely resolution, including constituting a proper panel, resolving disputed discovery issues, and establishing deadlines for the disposition of the matter, the Court concludes that the petitioner has failed to establish an entitlement to mandamus relief on any of these grounds. Petitioner’s claims against the ODC fail because the ODC cannot provide him with any of the relief he seeks, since the ODC lacks the authority to unilaterally dismiss the grievance or to impose case-processing deadlines for the BPR. And, while the BPR could provide petitioner with such relief, petitioner has failed to meet his burden of proving that he has no other adequate means, other than a writ of mandamus, to attain it. Here, petitioner cannot claim to lack of other means to relief, since an appeal taken in due course after entry of a final judgment would provide an adequate alternative to mandamus. In addition, petitioner’s claim that the BPR has not taken sufficient action to resolve the underlying grievance is rejected, because the delays in resolving the grievance are not attributable to a refusal of the BPR to exercise jurisdiction over it, and the petition itself, along with the exhibits attached thereto, reveal substantial cause for the delay in issuance of a notice of a hearing. Accordingly, the petition is denied.Attachment: Open Document or Opinion