The 2001 Legislative Report
Breck Arrington

While the verities of death and taxes preoccupied public attention, despite them The Virginia Bar Association had a very good, craftsmanlike year in the 2001 session of the General Assembly of Virginia.

Budget-making, always important, this year perhaps blew out of proportion. Legislators were unable to agree on bridging an approximate $400 million gap in the $50 billion biennial state spending plan while keeping spending needs and pressures in line with escalating car tax refund requirements. The Governor finally became the balancer of last resort.

In contrast were outcomes of the concerns of many, including the VBA leadership, about squaring criminal penalties and procedures with advancing technology. The death penalty, the 21-day rule, DNA science and Virginia Supreme Court initiatives were all in the news.

But, in this issue complex, the State Crime Commission and a broad coalition of legislators led by State Senate Courts Committee Chair Ken Stolle (R-Virginia Beach) effectively determined 2001 action with a constitutional resolution and bill which offered some carefully limited modification of the 21-day rule. Proponents of wider relief were clearly preempted, at least for the time, but there was change.

Aside from political pyrotechnics, the 2001 session took final action on more than 2,600 bills and resolutions. Yet with the veto session, redistricting under the 2000 census figures and statewide elections this fall, much remains ahead for Virginia officials and citizens in 2001.

The VBA, operating at a somewhat higher profile than in some past years, pursued a section- and committee-founded agenda in a dozen or more subject areas with considerable success.

There were notable accomplishments for at least six substantive law sections, agonizing near-misses on two longer-shot initiatives, and useful defensive stands in a number of areas. The Association was also a reliable ally for others in several instances. Important priorities were, in the end, well met.

The hard work this year of VBA volunteer leaders, staff members and retained legislative counsel was exemplified by the direct and unflagging involvement of President Jeanne F. Franklin in H.B. 2653 (Delegate Karen Darner, D-Arlington). The bill failed at the very end of session in the Senate Finance Committee where budget concerns sidetracked many worthy proposals.

But the highly favorable votes in the House of Delegates and in the Senate Courts Committee demonstrated clear support for the substantive framework for establishing an insanity defense in juvenile proceedings as called for in the VBA-led study of a year earlier. Delegate Darner was a selfless and effective champion for the VBA effort.

A similar near-miss was the House-passed H.B. 1851 (Delegate Michele McQuigg, R-Woodbridge) to provide a limited interlocutory appeal possibility in Virginia. That initiative died in a closely split Senate Courts vote at session’s end. Introduced independent of past VBA-sponsored studies and legislative proposals, Delegate McQuigg’s measure was strongly embraced by the Association and took the concept further than in prior years, serving hopes for this particular law reform in the future.
As the legislative “scorecard” in this issue (pages 8-11) shows, good wins were registered by the VBA Sections on Business Law, Civil Litigation and Construction and Public Contracts Law, who each had a thoughtful agenda. For instance, Construction saw four bills pass, all sponsored by Delegate David Albo (R-Springfield).

In the Criminal Law area, the extensive General Assembly-requested study of redundant offenses completed by then Section Chair Professor Roger Groot last year led to H.B. 1837 (Delegate Bill Howell, R-Fredericksburg), which moved easily to final passage and represented a definite contribution to needed law reform.

House Courts Co-Chair Bill Howell also was the successful sponsor of some six Wills, Trusts & Estates Section initiatives. Past Section Chair Peter Huber and current Chair Howard Zaritsky labored effectively with Howell on these. Further, they developed a successful working relationship as a respected resource to the Courts Committees. This aided passage in acceptable form, for instance, of three other measures sponsored by Delegate Roger McClure (R-Centreville). In a year that again showed the importance of advance preparation and of being on site in legislative hearings, the Wills, Trusts & Estates Section was essentially successful across the board.

Similarly, the Domestic Relations Section, working through the VBA Coalition Committee on Family Law, accomplished striking results when all was said and done.

Perhaps the number one priority, that of addressing the new questions raised by remote access to court records via rapidly advancing electronic technology, was a vexing and difficult issue. Nonetheless, it was well resolved by the bill and study resolution patroned by Delegate Jack Rust (R-Fairfax). The spectre of unfettered remote intrusions into sensitive matters of record drove various parties interested in this volatile matter to a much-needed practicual result giving the Supreme Court and the Assembly time to work on the problems in a considered framework.

The Coalition also achieved other of its high priorities. One was winning amendments to § 20-109 clarifying problems from recent Court opinions regarding modification of alimony. Delegates Jim Almand (D-Arlington), Bob McDonnell (R-Virginia Beach) and Martin Williams (R-Newport News) were leaders in this effort. Another was to gain passage of amendments to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act carried over from last year in S.B. 426 (Senator Bill Mims, R-Leesburg). Likewise, Delegate Bill Barlow (D-Smithfield) saw through to passage his tireless sponsorship of amendments to the administration of support in H.B. 2290.

Just as important to the Coalition as those winning proposals was the defeat of any number of bills which attacked various pieces of the hard-won construct of family law built up over the last two decades or more. The defense in respect to the many negative proposals was a major part of the work of the Coalition and of the VBA section this year.

While activity in the area of intellectual property diminished considerably in 2001 after a hectic 1999-2000 pace, this year did see passage of the computer information transactions bill sponsored by former VBA president and Danville Delegate Whitt Clement (D) favored by the VBA Intellectual Property and Information Technology Section.

Similarly, Health Law issues receded somewhat, although the failure of COPN reform legislation disappointed many. However, negative amendments to Medical Records Standards were successfully rebuffed.

Cooperation with such traditional VBA allies as the Boyd-Graves Conference, Legal Services, the Office of the Executive Secretary of the Supreme Court, and elder rights groups continued in 2001.
Taken in all, 2001 ended as a valuable session from the VBA perspective, well in keeping with the priority accorded law reform in the mission of The Virginia Bar Association.

— Breck Arrington Return to Top

President’s Page: Righting Our Laws
Jeanne F. Franklin

The Virginia General Assembly is a world that Honore Daumier, the 19th-century artist who drew caricatures of lawyers and the law, would have loved to sketch. It is almost Shakespearean in its range of personalities, intrigues, humor, emotion and lessons in life. I’ll try to draw a picture of it for you with words, and then discuss The Virginia Bar Association’s involvement there.

My first impression of the General Assembly as a VBA volunteer was of an extremely fluid setting, unstructured, with large numbers of people milling about in the lobbies and hallways, engaged in conversations, or just waiting. (Legislative counsel and government relations specialists have certainly come by their name “lobbyist” honestly.) There is not a comforting sense of predictability. It was there I first heard the phrase, “hurry up and wait,” meaning that you might be notified in the afternoon to show up at 7:30 the following morning (or if you are lucky, 2:00 the following afternoon) for a hearing. You still will not know when your bill will be heard; you will not know whether someone might appear with an unanticipated, last-minute amendment calling for hurried lobby negotiations. Failure to adhere to the call could mean a missed opportunity, and a critical one at that. So, you “hurry up and wait.”

The waiting can become humorous as you move from an eager, prepared state, to an impatient one, and finally into a zen-like state of acceptance. As the hours slip by, the watchers and waiters seem to slouch more, while vending-machine soft drinks and bags of chips and candy are popped and ripped open, and consumed for energy or for diversion. It is almost as though you are settling in to watch a ball game or a good movie.

Faces of the other watchers and waiters become familiar over time; after a while you even strike up friendships with them. Conversation in the hearing rooms is light and more or less constant, with heavier conversation taken back into the corners or hallways; there is a steady hum of talk and movement that amazingly does not appear to distract the legislators or the witness at the podium. You observe with detachment, are even entertained by, testimony on other bills about which you know nothing, taking in technique and the committee members’ demeanor, wincing perhaps at a stumbled answer, knowing that your own one-minute turn to make a cogent statement or answer a legislator’s unexpected question will come. And knowing that maybe you’ll get it right, or maybe you won’t.

This little sketch is only of the surface, and it belies the real life of the General Assembly and its members who are dedicated public servants. In fact, below the surface, tightly scheduled, highly focused work by members of the General Assembly and its staff is unremitting as they in good faith strive to cope with a deluge of proposed legislation, some of it highly complex, some of it even highly politicized (which cannot make the legislators’ jobs easier). The skills of committee and subcommittee chairmen are repeatedly challenged to run tight ships, to keep agendas moving, while giving a fair hearing to all would-be speakers.

So, you ask, what is the VBA doing in this forum? The VBA is committed to assisting the General Assembly in its passage of laws that are sound, that will work well on a practical level, and that advance the cause of justice for all citizens. This commitment is in service of our mission to improve the administration of justice in Virginia.

What is distinctive about this, our self-chosen mission, is that we do not lobby to achieve gains that serve our own specific interests. Our job — our “interest” if you will — is to be an objective, credible resource to the General Assembly to the extent that we can be on the content of the laws.

This is a worthy focus of our energy and resources because it serves a vital need in the Commonwealth. The General Assembly members, as earlier stated, are dedicated individuals. But they are very, very busy. Fewer and fewer of them are lawyers. Although they are superbly assisted by Legislative Services, they do not have private legal staff available to them.

As lawyers, VBA volunteers are in a good position to advise them how well certain laws are working in everyday practice, to describe the context in which new laws will have to operate, to anticipate unintended consequences of a particular use of a word. We have benefit of client experiences from which we can predict how laws might affect people in their everyday lives. As VBA lawyers we also can, and do, reach out to other groups to improve our understanding of subject matter and of their needs, and to achieve consensus around proposed legislation. We bring that homework to the General Assembly.

We do not offer this assistance to the legislature in a haughty manner as though to say, “Let us tell you, Delegate or Senator, how this ought to be.” Rather, in a spirit of public service similar to that of the legislators themselves, we genuinely advocate for what we think will strengthen and improve Virginia’s statutes, and advise or advocate against what we think will be a mistake with harmful consequences.

So far we are doing a very good job of it. We have certainly come a long way from the VBA’s Committee on Legislation and Law Reform of 1890, once termed a “graveyard,” and abandoned, as noted by John O. Peters in “The Early Years,” as having been “miserably ineffectual!”

Over 100 years later, we can claim numbers of legislative landmarks, as well as regular, smaller legislative accomplishments. We can sit in a hearing room and observe VBA volunteers (such as those from our Wills, Trusts & Estates Section, or our Domestic Relations Coalition) being called upon or listened to carefully by the legislators for their opinions about some proposed legislation. It is edifying to hear a legislator present a bill to his or her colleagues with the opening statement, “This is a Virginia Bar Association bill.” Such implicit recognition of the quality and integrity of our work, respect for our opinions and representations as those that should be listened to, is as important an achievement as the annual tally of our specific legislative successes. While some years may be characterized as “trophy years” in terms of VBA legislative achievements, every year is a good year in which we have donated honest, studied work to the legislative arena. Attaining and maintaining our cachet in the legislature, particularly one not dominated by lawyers, is a goal we continue to pursue.

We have made this great progress in our legislative mission by relying on the invaluable work of our section and committee volunteers who study, comment upon and draft some of Virginia’s laws.
We have made this great progress by relying on our legislative consultants who guide our volunteers through the process, and who disseminate our educational information among legislators. (As an example, one of our bills that had required years of substantive work and arduous negotiation recently sailed through committee. With astonishment and some confusion, I had the sense I was sliding into home plate; then I looked over at our lobbyist, and realized in a split second that my legs had not been the ones doing the running.)

We have also made this great progress by relying on the central, coordinating role played by the VBA’s staff, especially our Executive Vice President whose significant time and skills have been dedicated to advancing the VBA’s standing in the General Assembly.

The Executive Committee is now giving careful consideration to the future of the Association’s legislative activities. There is increasing demand for the service we provide, and frankly there is increasing need for it. Enthusiasm for this unique contribution that the VBA makes to the Commonwealth is mounting.

So, questions we are trying to answer are: How can we work more efficiently to meet the increased need? How can we continue to grow our reputation and credibility among legislators? And with what issues should the VBA be associated, consulted as a resource? We are addressing these questions in our strategic work group on legislation, in conversation with our sections and committees begun at our March 7 Leadership Conference, and with advice from our legislative consultants as well as that gained in dialogue with legislative leaders.

The VBA accomplishes its legislative work only with the support of your membership and of our volunteers who donate their time and effort. Perhaps the many lawyers in Virginia who have not yet joined us simply do not understand what it is we are trying to do. I would like to believe that if they did, they too would value the VBA and its unique contribution to the laws of Virginia.

At the end of the day, our committee and section volunteers tell us that there is nothing much more satisfying than seeing hours of their work result in the passage of a good law or the averting of a bad one, with sure benefit ensuing to the many citizens who would be affected by it. We trust that you also share in that sense of satisfaction. Return to Top

The Virginia Bar Association
Strategic Work Plan for 2001-03

Do you have ideas to share in any of these areas?
Please contact the chair(s) and let your thoughts be known! Return to Top

The 2001 General Assembly:
Results from the VBA Perspective

The raucous, rambunctious, cantankerous 2001 session of the General Assembly adjourned on February 24, with legislators set to return to the Capitol for the veto session on April 4. In the intervening period, the surviving remnant of the more than 2,600 bills introduced in this year’s session made its way upstairs from the House and Senate chambers to Governor Gilmore’s office.

The Virginia Bar Association’s members, leaders and staff can reflect on a hectic and productive legislative session. While, as always, not all bills proposed or supported by the Association met with success, much was achieved in a number of areas.

The annual legislative “scorecard” is a VBA standard, and this year’s results are presented here for your review. While this does not claim to be a perfect or complete record of legislative activity, it should give the reader an overview of the Association’s law reform work during the 2001 session.

More details, of the bills and resolutions mentioned here and of other legislation, can be found on the Commonwealth’s legislative information system on the Internet at http://leg1.state.va.us. The VBA website, http://www.vba.org, has numerous links to this system through its main legislation page and pages for all VBA sections and select committees. For those who desire more detailed information, links to the state and federal legislative information systems and government agency websites may be found on the VBA’s legislation page.

For the average VBA member, much of the Association’s law reform work is unseen, except for articles in the VBA News Journal, legislative links on the VBA website, and the legislative summaries mailed to members of VBA sections and selected committees each spring. It is our hope that the material in this issue, from President Franklin’s behind-the-scenes view of law reform efforts, to this scorecard, to Breck Arrington’s chronicle of this year’s highlights, will illustrate for you the breadth and depth of VBA legislative work in 2001.

Return to Top

Multijurisdictional Issues:
Crossing the Line: How lawyers can avoid the unauthorized practice of law in D.C. with simple steps for compliance with Rule 49
Anthony C. Epstein

At our January 2001 Williamsburg meeting, the VBA was pleased to sponsor a CLE session on multijurisdictional practice issues. It was a thought-provoking session, leaving many of the attorneys who attended with strong concern about pressing, unresolved issues. In the spirit of providing useful information to our members as well as contributing information to productive consideration of professionalism issues, we hope to arrange a sequel CLE on this subject for our January 2002 Williamsburg meeting.

In the meantime, the article that follows was offered to us for dissemination among our members by the District of Columbia’s Court of Appeals Committee on Unauthorized Practice of Law. It is a sobering presentation on that jurisdiction’s UPL policy and procedure. We hope that those of our members who may have occasion to practice in the District of Columbia will find this information useful.
—Jeanne Franklin, VBA President

Why should a publication for lawyers include an article about the rule against the unauthorized practice of law? Shouldn’t this article be published where it will be read by the non-lawyers at whom the rule against unauthorized practice is aimed? The answer is simple, but perhaps surprising.

The incidence of non-lawyers trying to pass as lawyers in the District of Columbia is actually quite low, and such cases comprise only a very small portion of the docket of the Committee on Unauthorized Practice of Law of the D.C. Court of Appeals. The vast majority of the Committee’s docket involves complaints about lawyers admitted in other jurisdictions who practice in the District without becoming members of the D.C. Bar. These cases involve D.C. Court of Appeals Rule 49, which says what a lawyer can and cannot do in the District without being admitted to the D.C. Bar. Because almost all of the lawyers who run afoul of Rule 49 practice in partnership or association with D.C. Bar members, D.C. Bar members are concerned — and not least because they have an ethical obligation to ensure that their colleagues comply with the ethics rule against the unauthorized practice of law.

The fact that so many lawyers, with the knowing or unwitting concurrence of their law firms, violate Rule 49 is the bad news. The good news is that compliance with Rule 49 is not onerous, and it is generally a straightforward matter for lawyers and their firms to comply with the Rule and avoid the unauthorized practice of law.

Rule 49
Rule 49 of the D.C. Court of Appeals prohibits the unauthorized practice of law in the District of Columbia. The basic principle is that no one except an active member of the D.C. Bar may engage in the practice of law in the District or hold out himself or herself out as authorized or competent to practice law in the District. Lawyers who maintain an office in the District, alone or as part of a firm, are generally covered by the Rule. Lawyers not admitted to the D.C. Bar may not practice or hold themselves out as authorized to practice in the District, unless their activities fall within one of the exceptions of Rule 49 and are conducted consistent with the terms of the applicable exception.

The exceptions to Rule 49 are significant and apply to a sizeable number of lawyers practicing in the District. The exceptions that most frequently apply are those governing lawyers employed by the U.S. government, lawyers who limit their practice to certain federal or D.C. agencies, in-house lawyers employed by organizations and private companies, lawyers with pending applications to the D.C. Bar, and lawyers engaged in certain types of pro bono work. If a non-admitted lawyer intends to rely on an exception, all of that lawyer’s practice must fall within the exception. If, for example, 90 percent of the lawyer’s practice is before federal agencies, but 10 percent involves routine corporate work for a local client, the federal agency exception would not excuse the lawyer from the obligation to become a member of the D.C. Bar. In addition to limiting the practice to activities covered by an exception, the lawyer must meet the specific conditions of the exception. The most common of these conditions involves notice on all professional communications of the limited nature of the lawyer’s practice.

Rule 49 is accompanied by extensive official commentary. Among other things, the commentary explains the four general purposes of the Rule:

(1) To protect members of the public from persons who are not qualified by competence or fitness to provide professional legal advice or services;

(2) To ensure that any person who purports or holds himself or herself out to perform the services of a lawyer is subject to the disciplinary system of the District of Columbia Bar;

(3) To maintain the efficacy and integrity of the administration of justice and the system of regulation of practicing lawyers; and

(4) To ensure that the system and other activities of the Bar are appropriately supported financially by those exercising the privilege of members in the District of Columbia Bar.

Commentary to Rule 49(a). The commentary provides considerable guidance about the scope of both the basic rule (what is the “practice of law”? when is a lawyer practicing “in” the District?), and its exceptions. The text of Rule 49 and the commentary can be found on the D.C. Bar’s website: http://www.dcbar.org/public_consumer/opinion.html.

Rule 49 also provides for a Committee on Unauthorized Practice of Law. Like the Committee on Admissions, the Committee is a standing committee of the D.C. Court of Appeals, not part of the D.C. Bar. The Committee has two principal functions. The first is to provide guidance to lawyers and non-lawyers about the requirements of Rule 49. To that end, the Committee issues formal opinions (available on the D.C. Bar web site cited above) that answers some of the more frequently asked questions about compliance with Rule 49. Members of the Committee also routinely provide informal guidance in response to written and telephone inquiries.

The Committee’s other main function is to enforce Rule 49. The Committee investigates complaints about alleged violations of Rule 49 and, if possible, resolves them without litigation in a way that protects the public. In very rare cases, the Committee has been unable to reach a satisfactory negotiated resolution and has been forced to initiate a judicial proceeding to enforce Rule 49. Under Rule 49(d)(3)(B), the Committee keeps matters under investigation confidential unless and until it initiates formal proceedings. The complainant (and the course the subject) are notified of the results of the investigation or formal proceedings. See Rule 49(d)(3)(E).

Compliance with Rule 49
Three years ago, the Court of Appeals adopted major changes in Rule 49. Those amendments received widespread publicity and significantly increased awareness of the requirements of the Rule. Since these changes, the Court of Appeals has seen a substantial upsurge in bar applications as many non-member lawyers who practiced in the District realized they were practicing, at least to some degree, in violation of Rule 49.

Notwithstanding the increased level of awareness of the requirements of Rule 49 among lawyers, there are still a distressing number of violations. Perhaps the most common involve lawyers admitted in other jurisdictions whose practice falls within an exception to Rule 49 but who do not provide the required notice about the limitations on their practice. For example, lawyers who confine their practice exclusively to representation of clients before the Patent and Trademark Board, the Federal Communications Commission, or the Internal Revenue Service (and other conduct reasonably ancillary to such representation) may fit within section (c)(2) of Rule 49, the exception for U.S. government practitioners. However, Rule 49(c)(2) requires such lawyers to give “prominent notice in all business documents that his or her practice is ‘limited to matters and proceedings before federal courts and agencies.’” It is not enough for business documents to state “not admitted in D.C.” or “admitted only in [a specified state].” The Committee has found that a number of patent and trademark lawyers, communications lawyers, energy lawyers, and other government agency practitioners do not provide the required notice on letters, business cards, Internet sites, and other communications to the public.

A similar issue arises for lawyers covered by Rule 49(c)(8), the exception that allows lawyers admitted in another jurisdiction to practice in the District (under the supervision of a D.C. Bar member) for up to 360 days while their timely application for D.C. Bar membership is pending. Such individuals must, among other things, give notice to the public both of their bar status and of their supervision by a District of Columbia Bar member. The Committee has found that a number of lawyers, while relying on the exception, fail to give the required notice.

Less common, but more common than should be, are lawyers who practice in the District but do not fall within any Rule 49 exception. For example, some lawyers appear to labor under the misapprehension that they may maintain offices in the District if they generally limit their practice to federal courts (in some cases without even being admitted to the federal courts in all the districts where their clients reside or their clients’ legal problems arise). The seriousness of these violations varies, ranging from lawyers whose practice fits almost exclusively, but not completely, within an exception (for example, a patent lawyer who occasionally handles another type of matter), to lawyers who routinely practice out of offices in the District in non-exempt areas, providing questionable notice or no notice to the public that they are not members of the D.C. Bar.

These problems are not limited to sole practitioners or small law firms. Lawyers in some of the largest and best-known firms in the city and around the country have been the subject of recent Committee investigations and enforcement actions. The Washington offices of these firms often hire or transfer lateral partners and associates without paying sufficient attention to the restrictions of Rule 49. Failure to pay attention to the Rule 49’s requirements can put at risk not only the lawyer involved — often a young lawyer who may naively assume he or she is compliant with Rule 49 because no partner has said otherwise — but the reputation of the firm itself.

A substantial portion of the Committee’s docket consists of cases referred by the Committee on Admissions. These usually involve a lawyer admitted in another jurisdiction who has applied for admission to the D.C. Bar after having practiced law in the District for a substantial period, and who does not provide a satisfactory explanation of how that lawyer’s practice fits within an exception to Rule 49. In most of these cases, the Committee on Unauthorized Practice advises the Committee on Admissions that its investigation showed that a violation occurred but that it was not was not intentional or aggravated, and the Committee on Admissions ultimately recommends the lawyer’s admission to the D.C. Bar. However, even if the lawyer is eventually admitted to the D.C. Bar, such a referral can substantially delay admission and, as discussed below, may result in embarrassing future disclosure obligations by the lawyer who was the subject of the investigation.

In most cases investigated by the Committee, the subject of the complaint admits that he or she has not complied with the substance or notice requirements of Rule 49 but maintains that the violation was “technical” or “inadvertent.” Consistent with the general purposes of Rule 49 described above, the Committee views its primary goal as protecting consumers from persons who are not qualified to provide professional legal services in the District. To that end, the Committee focuses on compliance, not punishment for inadvertent or harmless violations of Rule 49. In cases where the Committee concludes that the violation is inadvertent and did not injure a client, the Committee will often resolve the matter with a written agreement that the lawyer will correct the violation and comply with Rule 49 in the future. That said, the Committee does not automatically or uncritically accept the excuse that a lawyer is ignorant of Rule 49, and it does not hesitate to take appropriate enforcement action for serious violations, particularly violations involving deception or harm to the lawyer’s client.

Even a violation that may be considered “minor” or “technical” may have significant ramifications for the lawyer and his firm. For example, clients may contend (with more or less justification) that they are not required to pay for work done by lawyers who do not practice in compliance with Rule 49, or that a presumption of incompetence should be drawn in malpractice litigation if a lawyer not admitted in D.C. practices in D.C. without full compliance with the Rule. Lawyers may be required to report any action taken by the Committee if they apply for admission to another bar or for admission pro hac vice in a federal or state court. Even the fact of an investigation may be required to be disclosed on future bar applications, security clearances, or job applications. Dissatisfied clients, aggressive opponents, disgruntled firm employees, and sometimes even unhappy spouses can and do submit complaints — sometimes anonymously — to the Committee that the Committee investigates. Even if the lawyer and the lawyer’s firm consider the complaint unjustified, responding to an inquiry from the Committee takes time and effort. More and more, lawyers and firms decide it is prudent to incur the cost of counselwhen they face an inquiry from the Committee.

What Lawyers and Law Firms Should Do
Why are we telling you this? This article is directed both at lawyers practicing in D.C. without D.C. Bar membership and at their colleagues — including the managing partners of their firms and partners responsible to ensure that a law firm complies with applicable ethics rules. Rule 5.5(b) of the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct makes it unethical for a lawyer to assist a person who is not a member of the Bar in any activity that constitutes the unauthorized practice of law. As a result, any lawyer in a firm has a responsibility to ensure that the lawyers with whom he or she practices comply with Rule 49. This responsibility belongs to the firm as well as individual attorneys. The Committee is increasingly concerned that law firms do not establish and enforce policies and procedures designed to ensure compliance with Rule 49 by their partners and associates. The lawyers and law firms that ignore this obligation risk embarrassment or worse. What to do?

First, any lawyer practicing in the District who is not a member of the D.C. Bar should read Rule 49 to determine whether he or she is in full compliance. Do not assume that you know what the Rule says. Many lawyers investigated by the Committee have learned the hard way that there is no substitute for reading and understanding Rule 49’s very specific requirements. And compliance means full compliance. Take an objective look at your practice and decide whether it fits cleanly and completely within an exception to Rule 49. If not, you should apply for membership in the D.C. Bar, assuming of course you meet the qualifications. While your application is pending, you should not engage in any practice not covered by an exemption, such as the exemption for federal or local agency practice. However, if you submit your application within 90 days after commencing practice in the District, you may be covered by the Rule 49(c)(8) exception, which permits eligible lawyers with pending applications to engage in the general practice of law, provided they meet the supervision and notice requirements. You should also make sure that you are providing to prospective and actual clients, as well as others with whom you have dealings, notice of your status in the form required by the Rule. Again, bare statements such as “not admitted in D.C.” do not by themselves satisfy these notice requirements.

The Committee also calls on law firms to audit their compliance with Rule 49 and take immediate steps to bring their lawyers into compliance, if they are not already. Prudent steps range from reviewing the firm’s practice with respect to new entry-level or lateral attorneys, to evaluating the adequacy of disclosures in the firm’s website and in retainer letters for new clients. The firm should determine whether lawyers who are not admitted in D.C. are currently satisfying the requirements of Rule 49. Because lawyers’ practices change over time, the firm may need to reassess compliance on a regular basis. You might consider, for example, an annual interview of each lawyer who is not a member of the D.C. Bar, or an annual certification that each such lawyer has read Rule 49 and has concluded in good faith that his or her practice falls within a specific exception to the Rule, with a brief explanation of that conclusion. Responsibility for ensuring firm-wide Rule 49 compliance should be given to an individual attorney (which could be the managing partner or the firm’s ethics officer, if it has one) or a small committee so that this task does not fall through the cracks. As in many other areas of law firm management, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Monitoring your law firm’s compliance will take only modest time and effort, particularly when compared to the time and effort required to deal with an issue of unauthorized practice.

The Committee urges all lawyers and law firms in the District to take these simple steps. Compliance with Rule 49 is good for clients, good for lawyers, and good for the Committee, which would be delighted to have an empty enforcement docket.

If you have any questions, please contact the Committee: District of Columbia Court of Appeals, Committee on Unauthorized Practice of Law, 500 Indiana Avenue, N.W., Room 4200, Washington, D.C. 20001. Return to Top

Summer Meeting Preview
Virginia’s gubernatorial candidates will debate at The Greenbrier, continuing a tradition

In what has emerged as a Virginia political tradition, the Commonwealth’s gubernatorial candidates will debate on Saturday, July 14, during The Virginia Bar Association’s 111th Summer Meeting, to be held July 12-15 at The Greenbrier in White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia. Because of the VBA meeting schedule, VBA Virginia gubernatorial debates technically take place in West Virginia (which until 1863 was part of Virginia, and in the minds of some, still is, including The Greenbrier in any case.) Democratic candidate Mark Warner, who is unopposed within his party, will face either Attorney General Mark Earley or Lieutenant Governor John Hager, who are competing for the Republican gubernatorial nomination, to be decided at a state convention at the Richmond Coliseum June 1-2. The full Democratic slate will be chosen in a primary on June 12. For more information about the candidates and their positions, visit their websites: www.markearley.com, www.johnhager.com, and www.markwarner2001.org. Program details are still being finalized, but strong general sessions are being planned by the Committee on Special Issues of National and State Importance and the Professionalism Task Force. Watch for more information about the Summer Meeting in the June issue of the VBA News Journal. A brochure with registration and hotel reservation information will be mailed to all members later this spring. Details will also be available on the VBA website, accessible by a special button on the home page.

We look forward to seeing you there! Return to Top

Spotlight on Sections
Elder Law and Transportation Law

A major purpose of the VBA Elder Law Section is to bring together VBA members who are dedicated to improving the quality of legal services provided to the elderly — no small task as the general population begins to age in record numbers. Since the section’s establishment, membership has steadily increased and is currently approaching a total of 150 members.

Many Elder Law Section members are well known for their expertise in this area of the law and regularly lecture at continuing legal education programs as well as to various organizations and groups of interested citizens throughout the Commonwealth.

The Elder Law Section has also sought to educate VBA members about various aspects of this area of the law, by sponsoring continuing legal education programs at VBA meetings. Some topics from recent years include “You Don’t Have to Take Them With You: The Legal and Personal Issues Facing Organ Donation,” “Medicare and Medicaid: What the Estate Planner and Every Other Practitioner Should Know,” “Senior Moments: New Perspectives on Elder Rights,” and “What Estate Planners Need to Know About Elder Rights.”

In recent years, various members of the Section Council have been instrumental in preparing the Conference on Elder Rights in the New Millennium in October 1999, attended by nearly 200 participants, and have been leading proponents of an effort to establish a legal hotline for the elderly in Virginia.

Paula L. Peaden of Parker, Pollard & Brown, P.C., in Richmond serves as chair of the VBA Elder Law Section.

Further, the goal of the Section was to have cooperation and interchange among clients and lawyers who perform and practice within the various modes. It has proven true for today's intermodal world that this approach has been successful and appreciated both within and outside the VBA.

One recent activity of the Air & Space Committee was a private tour of Reagan Washington National Airport, followed by a tour of the National Transportation Safety Board, where the group saw the actual cockpit voice recorders of several infamous airplane crashes and learned about the NTSB’s role in accident investigations. A visit to the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum added historical perspective!

Daniel R. Warman of Baker & Warman in Norfolk serves as chair of the VBA Transportation Law Section. Modal committee chairs are Bruce Rider of Norfolk Southern Corporation in Norfolk (Railroad), Patrick Brogan of Davey & Brogan in Norfolk (Maritime), and Matt Broughton (Air & Space) and Dan Frankl (Highway), both of Gentry Locke Rakes & Moore, L.L.P., in Roanoke. Return to Top

VBA Young Lawyers Division:
Why the VBA/YLD Is Relevant to Young Lawyers
David N. Anthony

I am honored to serve this year as the Chair of the VBA Young Lawyers Division (“VBA/YLD”). Frequently, I am asked why I became involved with the VBA/YLD. In my experience, there are four fundamental reasons why the VBA/YLD, as a voluntary bar organization, is quite relevant and valuable to young lawyers.

1. Professionalism and Mentoring
I will not rehash the debate concerning the decline in civility among lawyers over the past number of years. As a young lawyer, I am not in a position to say what the “good ole days” were like in the profession. I can say, however, that throughout my brief, yet challenging, legal career, I have been inspired by a number of exceptional lawyers and judges throughout Virginia who have committed themselves to the ideals and most noble aspirations of our profession. I firmly believe that many real-life examples of our partners, jurists and community leaders provide the best models for young lawyers.

Numerous older lawyers have taken me under their wings with a keen interest in my development as a practicing lawyer, professional and person. The Virginia Bar Association has an incredibly large number of such individuals, and VBA/YLD activities have opened the door to my meeting and working with a significantly greater number of these individuals. These opportunities have complemented the mentoring that I received and continue to receive from the Magistrate Judge for whom I clerked, the Honorable William T. Prince, lawyers at the former law firm of Williams, Kelly & Greer, and my present firm, Kaufman & Canoles, P.C.

2. Service to the Community
All lawyers recognize the present tension facing most young lawyers between billable hours and the donation of time for pro bono legal services. However, public service is and must be a role that lawyers, including young lawyers, fulfill in our communities. Over the years, the VBA/YLD has engaged in a wide variety of programs providing service to the public as well as providing leadership opportunities for young lawyers in these endeavors.

Past and present VBA/YLD pro bono programs include providing legal assistance to the needy in natural emergencies, assisting the Office of the Attorney General in collecting child support payments, staffing hotlines at legal aid societies throughout Virginia to ease the caseload of legal aid attorneys, training volunteer attorneys to represent victims of domestic violence in helping to obtain civil protective orders, disseminating information regarding the appeal of the denial of benefits by managed health care organizations, providing seminars on pertinent legal topics to the arts community, providing legal assistance to those with mental illnesses, working with local schools in mentoring and mock trial programs, providing information concerning National Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA”) compliance and regulations to Virginia high schools and conducting town hall meetings across Virginia educating the public on important legal, political and community issues.

Other organizations perform valuable public service projects; however, the wide range and depth of programs sponsored by the VBA/YLD are illustrative of the VBA/YLD mission and exemplary of how young lawyers can and should make a difference in their communities.

3. Service to the Bar
An equally important aspect of the VBA/YLD is its numerous programs designed to improve the legal profession.

Historically, the VBA/YLD has been integrally involved in the annual Bridge-the-Gap seminar to assist newly admitted members of the Bar with the transition to the practice of law. VBA/YLD members, such as Charlie Meyer at LeClair Ryan, have been very active in the Lawyers Helping Lawyers program which is designed to provide confidential assistance to lawyers suffering from substance abuse.
The VBA/YLD has long been active in efforts to recruit the best and brightest for the legal profession, including specific programs to encourage diversity. Similarly, a new VBA/YLD initiative will compile information about the specific practices and preferences of federal district court judges in Virginia, which should be of tremendous benefit to trial lawyers.

These programs have made a difference to the profession and demonstrate how VBA/YLD volunteer efforts improve our profession in a very tangible and meaningful way. If you are interested in improving the profession, I believe that the VBA and the VBA/YLD are uniquely positioned to make a lasting and substantial impact.

4. Collegiality and Fellowship
The practice of law is hard. Lawyers today are facing increasing pressures on their free time, and volunteer associations typically are the first to be eliminated from their radar screen.
I have enjoyed my work with the VBA/YLD as much for the quality of the people I have met as well as for the actual work we have done. Through meetings and programs, I have had the privilege to work with some of the finest young attorneys in the Commonwealth. I have no doubt that I would not have met all of these exceptional young leaders of the bar but for the VBA/YLD.

Most young lawyers are undergoing similar life changes with families, partnership tracks and career decisions. Many VBA/YLD members have been an extraordinary source of fellowship, guidance, camaraderie and business development to me.

On behalf of the VBA/YLD, I am excited about 2001, and I hope to continue the long tradition of success the VBA/YLD has fostered for over 40 years.

If you would like more information about our programs, please visit the VBA’s website at www.vba.org.

If you would like to become involved in VBA/YLD activities or programs, please call me at (757) 624-3004 or e-mail me at dnanthon@kaufcan.com.

VBA/YLD Liaisons to VBA Sections and Committees
Bankruptcy Law Section: Karen M. Crowley, Portsmouth; Marcus, Santoro, Kozak & Melvin, P.C.
Business Law Section: Cyane B. Crump, Richmond; Hunton & Williams.
Civil Litigation Section: John Valdivielso, Newport News; Kaufman & Canoles, P.C.
Construction & Public Contracts Law Section: Steven M. Meade, Newport News; Patten, Wornom, Hatten & Diamonstein, L.C.
Corporate Counsel Section: Rudolph “Dutch” Bumgardner IV, Richmond; Dominion Resources, Inc.
Criminal Law Section: John S. West, Richmond; Troutman Sanders Mays & Valentine, L.L.P.
Domestic Relations Section: Jill A. Roseland, Virginia Beach; Kaufman & Canoles, P.C.
Environment, Natural Resources & Energy Law Section: Lance M. High, Washington, D.C.; Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, L.L.P.
Health Law Section: Molly E. Shuttleworth, Norfolk; Kaufman & Canoles, P.C.
Intellectual Property & Information Technology Law Section: Kristan B. Burch; Kaufman & Canoles, P.C.
Labor Relations & Employment Law Section: Thomas M. Winn III, Roanoke; Woods, Rogers & Hazlegrove, P.L.C.
Real Estate Section: Russell T. Aaronson, Richmond; McGuireWoods, L.L.P.
Taxation Section: David Kamer, Norfolk; Kaufman & Canoles, P.C.
Wills, Trusts & Estates Section: Anne H. Bumgardner, Richmond; Troutman Sanders Mays & Valentine, L.L.P.
Commission on the Needs of Children: Erica S. Beardsley, McLean; Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, L.L.P.
Committee on the Needs of the Mentally Disabled: King F. Tower, Richmond; Williams, Mullen, Clark & Dobbins.
Federal Judgeships/Eastern District of Virginia: Beth V. McMahon, Norfolk; Kaufman & Canoles, P.C.
Federal Judgeships/Western District of Virginia: Richard D. Scott, Roanoke; Woods, Rogers & Hazlegrove, P.L.C.
John Marshall Foundation: David I. Meyers, Richmond; Hunton & Williams.
Judiciary: Mary Catherine Zinsner, McLean; Troutman Sanders Mays & Valentine, L.L.P.
Legal Education & Admission to the Bar: Christopher E. Vinyard, Richmond; Troutman Sanders Mays & Valentine, L.L.P.
Membership Group: Anne H. Bumgardner, Richmond; Troutman Sanders Mays & Valentine, L.L.P.
Nominations to Virginia Commissions & Appellate Courts: Monica L. Taylor, Roanoke; Gentry, Locke, Rakes & Moore, L.L.P.
Professionalism Group: Robert A. Angle, Richmond; Troutman Sanders Mays & Valentine, L.L.P.
Substance Abuse: Charles G. Meyer III, Richmond; LeClair Ryan, P.C.

At press time, liaison positions for the Administrative Law, Elder Law, Law Practice Management and Transportation Law Sections were open. Return to Top

Across the Commonwealth

2001 Leadership Conference

Each year, The Virginia Bar Association holds a one-day conference for its leadership, in order to discuss VBA goals, policies and procedures, and to orient new leaders to the programs and activities of the Association.

This year’s Leadership Conference, held on March 7 at the Omni Richmond, focused primarily on the VBA’s law reform efforts and the strategic work plan for 2001-03 (see above for an overview).

Conference Chair Ted Ellett greeted attendees with an explanation of the day’s agenda.
“There are commonalities here, things that all sections and committees need to do to be effective. You’ll find information and advice directly relevant to you. Each of you brings a wealth of experience and talent to the table.”

President Jeanne Franklin described the Leadership Conference as “New Year’s Day” for the VBA, as she presented an overview of the strategic planning effort: “This is the warm-up act for the rest of this program, and it will set the context for the day and for this year’s activity.”

The strategic plan calls for enhanced legislative activity, expansion of professionalism-related efforts to meet 21st-century trends and issues, and new emphases on law practice management, balanced lifestyles and community service. Improvement of public understanding of and confidence in the legal system is also part of the plan, as is more in-depth consideration of finance and development issues.

“We want to create tools to achieve these ideals and offer our members these things,” Franklin said. “As you plan your year, think: is there anything we can do a little differently to achieve these objectives of the strategic plan?”

Franklin suggested that VBA sections and committees can collaborate in various activities. The traditional division of “senior” lawyers participating in law reform and the Young Lawyers Division acting as the public service arm of the VBA will blur, with sections and committees performing more public service and young lawyers becoming more active in law reform.

“Think in terms of outreach and the future,” Franklin urged. “Get interested people involved. Think of publicity—how can we tell our story?”

Legislative activities were high on the day’s agenda. Panelists Butch Davies, Frank Thomas and Breck Arrington presented an overview of VBA legislative activity in the 2001 General Assembly. Meetings with the House and Senate Courts Committees were well received and produced a number of concepts for strengthening the VBA’s presence and visibility as a legislative resource. A particular request from legislators, for instance, was for more VBA involvement in study committees.

“With the decrease in the number of lawyers in the legislature, there is a real need for activism on our part,” said Davies. “We can provide assistance, direct input on specific pieces of legislation, and help with making laws and understanding the system.”

After discussing the VBA’s “legislative year” and levels of involvement by VBA entities, Breck Arrington encouraged sections and committees to consider becoming more involved in law reform. “You’re the best judge of where you are on the [legislative involvement] spectrum,” he concluded. “Identify, in your talks with your council or committee: where are you? And what can you do?”

Frank Thomas suggested that sections and committees should spend time with legislators interested in their areas of law, and seek to anticipate and deal with problems that may arise.

From the audience, Wills, Trusts & Estates Section Chair Howard Zaritsky drew chuckles with his description of the Assembly as “an awful lot of boredom followed by moments of terror,” during his comments on that section’s on-site, in-person “tactical sweep” efforts.

Business Law Section Chair David Greenberg and Needs of Children Commission Chair Bob Shepherd both achieved strategic success by using e-mail to contact legislators.

The VBA’s efforts in the area of professionalism will take on new dimensions as part of the strategic work plan. President-elect Ed Betts introduced a session on the three-part area, joined by Professor Jayne Barnard, who described Executive Committee discussions of professionalism issues; Heman Marshall, who featured lifestyle balance and law practice management considerations; and Ted Ellett, whose segment dealt with community service and pro bono activities.

VBA Young Lawyers Division Chair David Anthony presented an overview of VBA/YLD programs, including several new activities, and issued a call for volunteers. In describing the various service projects carried out by the VBA/YLD in recent years, and the hopes for newly created initiatives, he commented that the activities offer ways to “make a meaningful impact in the lives of people, be it a small or a large group.”

One could say that is what the VBA Leadership Conference was all about. Return to Top

VBA/YLD participates in Southeastern Regional Conference

Representatives of The Virginia Bar Association’s Young Lawyers Division attended the Southeastern Regional Conference on March 30 at the Grove Park Inn in Asheville, North Carolina.

The conference, a gathering of young lawyer groups from Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, provided a forum for fellowship and idea-sharing.

Each state’s bar organization presented successful projects its young lawyers have implemented to serve the bar and the public. The VBA/YLD chose to highlight its Law School Forum and Legal Services for the Mentally Ill Project.

For more details and contact information for these and other programs conducted by the VBA Young Lawyers Division, visit the VBA website and click on the “Young Lawyers Division” link. Return to Top

Sections hold spring conferences

Next month will be highlighted by two VBA sections’ annual conferences.

The VBA Bankruptcy Law Section will gather May 4-5 at Wintergreen, and the VBA Administrative Law Conference will convene at the Omni Richmond on May 17.

The Bankruptcy Law Conference, first held in 1998, provides participants with four hours of intensive CLE focusing on recent developments in bankruptcy law, in addition to social activities geared to promote collegiality and professional exchange.

The Administrative Law Conference, a joint effort of the VBA Administrative Law Section and the Administrative Law Advisory Committee, is now in its seventh year. It focuses on current issues and developments in administrative law and public policy.

Mailings with all details will be sent to section members. Information on each conference, including registration forms, will be available at www.vba.org. Return to Top

Elder Rights Coalition receives grant

The Virginia Elder Rights Coalition has been awarded one of the 10 Partnerships in Law and Aging Program grants. These grants are co-sponsored by the Albert and Elaine Borchard Foundation Center on Law and Aging and the Marie Walsh Sharpe Endowment of the American Bar Association Fund for Justice and Education. The American Bar Association (ABA) Commission on Legal Problems of the Elderly administers these grants. The ABA received 109 grant proposals “from 31 states and a wide range of applicants.”

This grant award will fund the Virginia Elder Rights Coalition’s development of a Virginia-specific, elder rights notebook and website to provide readily accessible and replicable information on elder rights to professionals in the legal and aging network in Virginia in order to enhance the quality of life for present and future generations of older adults.

The project will be administered by the Virginia Poverty Law Center and the Virginia Association of Area Agencies on Aging on behalf of the Elder Rights Coalition.

This project has broad-based support from the legal and aging communities, as well as other organizations, including The Virginia Bar Association, Virginia Center on Aging, School of Social Work at Virginia Commonwealth University, local legal services offices, the United States Department of Justice (Eastern District of Virginia) and the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia. Additionally, DynCorp, a Reston-based international corporation, will provide a significant portion of the manual production. Return to Top

DeMallie Award nominations sought

Nominations are invited for the Fourth Gardener G. DeMallie Jr. Continuing Legal Education Award, to be presented during the 111th VBA Summer Meeting, July 12-15 at The Greenbrier.

The award recognizes an individual who demonstrates a strong commitment and dedication to the highest ideals of professionalism in the practice of law, the administration of justice and the competence of the legal profession in Virginia; represents dedication to excellence and collegiality in the profession and conducts herself or himself with unquestionable integrity; exhibits a deep commitment to legal learning through post-admission legal education and to a love of the law; and has made an outstanding contribution to continuing legal education in Virginia in the form of publications, lectures, or the creation or administration of programs.

Recent specific contributions, contributions over a period of time, or career achievements will be considered. Current members of the Virginia CLE Committee and the staff of Virginia CLE are ineligible for consideration.

Nominations should be submitted on the nomination form (available at www.vba.org or from the VBA office), with an attachment describing specifically the manner in which the nominee meets the criteria established for the award.

Nominations should be addressed to Peter J. Kenny, Gardener G. DeMallie Award, P.O. Box 4468, Charlottesville, VA 22905, or by fax to (804) 979-3147, prior to May 31, 2001, and should include the name and phone number of the nominator and the full name, address and phone number of the nominee. Return to Top

High-schoolers participate in Model Judiciary Program

Twenty-five Virginia high school students appeared before the Supreme Court of Virginia when they participated in the final round of the Virginia Model Judiciary Program at the Supreme Court Building in Richmond on Thursday, March 1.

The students appearing before the high court to present their cases were as follows: Amanda Ruiz, Bayside High School, Virginia Beach; Ryan Maietta and Caitlyn Molino, Kellam High School, Virginia Beach; Erik Kiewiet de Jonge, Prince Edward County High School, Farmville; Caitlin Radek and Alice Stutts, Robert E. Lee High School, Springfield; Christopher Koves and Thais Pietrangelo, Hayfield Secondary School, Alexandria; David Williams and Keith Fuller, Ocean Lakes High School, Virginia Beach; Amanda Jo Doherty and Daniel Hogan, Bishop Ireton High School, Alexandria; Christopher Jay, Ryan O’Bar, Andrew Nichols and Giovanni DiSandro, Paul VI High School, Fairfax; Shelley Klein and Michael Davis, Norfolk Collegiate School, Norfolk; Corinne Savides, Brian Leung, Timothy Quayle and Ryan Kenrick, Western Branch High School, Chesapeake; Patrice Green, T.C. Williams High School, Alexandria; and Nadia Aljabri and Jessica Craft, Prince George High School, Prince George. Each student participating in the final round received a certificate of recognition.

The Model Judiciary Program was established in 1975 and is co-sponsored by The Virginia Bar Association Young Lawyers Division and the Virginia YMCA. Its purpose is to provide high school students with an opportunity to learn about Virginia’s judicial system by playing the citizenship roles of attorneys, jurors and witnesses in a trial simulation.

Approximately 2,000 Virginia students annually participate in the Model Judiciary Program. The program begins on the local level each September, with students participating in mock trials before actual judges in November and December. Student-attorneys may then appeal to one of three panels of Virginia Court of Appeals judges, who hear students’ appellate arguments in January. At the conclusion of those arguments, teams are chosen to argue their cases before the Supreme Court of Virginia.

David J. Ervin, an associate in the law firm of Collier Shannon Scott, P.C., in Washington, D.C., chairs the VBA/YLD Model Judiciary Program Committee. Hon. Harry L. Carrico, chief justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, is the honorary chairman of the committee.

Committee members include former chair Attison L. Barnes III, Washington, D.C.; Dan Campbell, Norfolk; Joyce Ellingsworth, Hampton; Bryan A. Fratkin, Glen Allen; Michael J. Holleran, McLean; Benjamin D. Leigh, Leesburg; Suzanne M. Perka, Winchester; Ann Powell, Fredericksburg; John Robertson, Christiansburg; Dawn Wine Ruple, Harrisonburg; Keith Shiner, Roanoke; and Elizabeth L. White, Newport News. Mark Coward, executive director, and Eric Maschal, program director, of the Virginia YMCA in Lynchburg also serve on the committee. Return to Top

Legal professionals to meet in Norfolk

VALS...the association for legal professionals will hold its 39th Annual Meeting May 4-6 at the Sheraton Norfolk Waterside, 777 Waterside Drive in Norfolk.

The theme for the “paraprofessionals” weekend is “Charting a Course Through the New Millennium.”
A half-day medical malpractice mock trial/seminar will be presented on May 4 by Jason R. Davis of Kaufman & Canoles, with “real time” reporting by Tayloe & Associates Court Reporters. The seminar will begin at 9 a.m. Cost for the seminar only is $15 for non-members of VALS. For more information, contact Alice Moore at (757) 624-3180 or Virginia Vernon at (757) 624-3151, or visit the VALS website at www.geocities.com/eureka/boardroom/4608. Return to Top

News in Brief

It’s good to be King: VBA member Donald H. Clark of Virginia Beach, president of the law firm of Williams, Mullen, Clark & Dobbins, will reign over the 28th annual Neptune Festival in Virginia Beach this September as “King Neptune XXVIII, King of the Misty Isles.” Clark was selected for the honor based on his involvement and contributions to the quality of life in Virginia Beach, active participation in community life, and an understanding of the spirit of the Neptune Festival. For more details, visit www.hrtide.com/partners/neptunefest.

Among the new leaders of the Virginia Public Safety Foundation, Inc., are VBA member Dennis I. Belcher of McGuireWoods, L.L.P., and former VBA Executive Committee member Thomas F. Farrell II of Dominion Energy, both of Richmond. Belcher is the foundation’s secretary, while Farrell serves as a director.

Support VBA activities by becoming a Patron in 2001. By contributing $100 in addition to your membership and section dues, you will provide invaluable support for the many public and professional services offered by the Association. Check the box on your membership dues statement, or mail your check separately if you’ve already sent in your dues. Call (804) 644-0041 for more information.

The Virginia Lawyer, successor to The Virginia Lawyer's Basic Practice Handbook, was first published in 1966 by the VBA Young Lawyers Division in conjunction with the Joint Committee on Continuing Education of the Virginia State Bar and The Virginia Bar Association. In 2000, Virginia CLE and the VBA Young Lawyers Division joined in a cooperative effort to produce a new two-volume guide for practitioners designed to assist attorneys, particularly young lawyers and those of all ages and levels of experience, in dealing with unfamiliar areas. The main title, The Virginia Lawyer, has been retained. Details are available at http://www.vacle.org/wn111.htm#valawyer.

The Virginia Mediation Network will hold its annual spring training conference April 22-23 at the Holiday Inn Select in Fredericksburg. For details, contact the VMN administrative office at 1-888-506-4VMN, by fax at (804) 285-3377, or on the Internet at www.vamediation.org. Return to Top

Copyright 2007 The Virginia Bar Association