Case Caption: In re: Micol L. Morgan, Esq.Case Number: S. Ct. Civ. No. 2019-0087Date: 03/04/2020Author: Per CuriamCitation: 2020 VI 1USummary: On a petition for writ of prohibition, requesting that a Superior Court judge be enjoined from requiring an attorney to personally appear as counsel for an indigent juvenile even though another attorney entered an appearance on the juvenile’s behalf, the petition is denied. The petitioning attorney may have attempted to comply with the appointment order by having other counsel file a notice of appearance and then appearing as counsel for the juvenile at all subsequent proceedings. However, since the petitioning attorney did not file the stipulated notice provided for in the appointment order, or successfully move for and obtain permission to substitute in accordance with Rule 210.2(e), the filing of a notice of appearance by the other attorney did not displace the petitioner from her role as appointed counsel. The procedure utilized in this case resulted in the juvenile being represented simultaneously by the petitioner as appointed counsel and the second attorney as retained counsel. It has not been demonstrated that the right to the writ is clear and indisputable, in that petitioner failed to comply with either the provisions of the appointment order or Supreme Court Rule 210 pertaining to substitution of appointed counsel. Accordingly, the petition is denied.Attachment: Open Document or Opinion