USA v. TAPIA et al

DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
RAYMOND BROWN,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
) 	Criminal No. 2013-22
)
)
)
)
)
ATTORNEYS:
Ronald Sharpe, United States Attorney
Kelly B. Lake, AUSA
St. Thomas, U.S.V.I.
Kim Lindquist, AUSA
St. Thomas, U.S.V.I.
For the plaintiff,
Arturo R. Watlington, Jr.
Law Offices of Arturo Watlington
St. Thomas, U.S.V.I.
For the defendant Raymond Brown,
ORDER
Before the Court is United States motion to disqualify
Attorney Arturo Watlington as counsel for defendant Raymond
Brown.
This order is written primarily for the parties, and thus
assumes familiarity with the facts underlying this motion. On
February 10, 2014, the Court held a hearing on a motion to
withdraw filed by Attorney Watlington (the “first motion”). 	At
the hearing, the Court inquired as to the bases for the first
Case: 3:13-cr-00022-CVG-RM Document #: 606 Filed: 03/19/14 Page 1 of 3

United States v. Brown
Crim. No. 2013-22
Order
Page 2
motion. 	Attorney Watlington indicated that he believed there
was a conflict which ran afoul of Model Rule of Professional
Conduct 1.7.
Specifically, Attorney Watlington indicated he had a
recurring attorney-client relationship with Raymond Brown’s
father, Omar Brown. 	Attorney Watlington indicated that he was
representing Omar Brown in a real estate transaction in which
Omar Brown and Raymond Brown had adverse interests. On that
basis, Attorney Watlington asked to withdraw. 	The United States
did not oppose the first motion, advising that out of an
abundance of caution the United States was in favor of
disqualification. The Court denied the first motion. The Court
found that there was not sufficient evidence on the record to
conclude that there even was an ongoing real estate transaction,
that Omar Brown and Raymond Brown had adverse interests in such
a transaction, or that any such interests would materially limit
Attorney Watlington in his representation of either individual
in these unrelated cases.
The United States filed the instant motion to disqualify on
March 3, 2014. 	In it, the United States requests that Attorney
Watlington be disqualified from representing Raymond Brown. 	The
United States alleges that there is reason to believe there is a
conflict of interest between Omar Brown and Raymond Brown.
Case: 3:13-cr-00022-CVG-RM Document #: 606 Filed: 03/19/14 Page 2 of 3

United States v. Brown
Crim. No. 2013-22
Order
Page 3
Thereafter, the Court referred the motion to disqualify to
Magistrate Judge Ruth Miller for a Report and Recommendation.
The Magistrate Judge found she could not conclude, based on the
record or the law, that there was a significant risk that the
representation of any of Attorney Watlington’s clients would be
materially limited by his representation of Raymond Brown in
this case.
The Court has undertaken a de novo review of the complete
record and relevant law, and must agree with the Magistrate
Judge’s conclusions.
The premises considered, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation is ADOPTED; and it is further
ORDERED that the motion to disqualify is DENIED.
S\
CURTIS V. GÓMEZ
District Judge
Case: 3:13-cr-00022-CVG-RM Document #: 606 Filed: 03/19/14 Page 3 of 3