|
Archives: Articles
in the following issues are available from the VBA office: NOTE: Certain links in past issues' text may no longer be active.
|
February/March
2005
|
| Statutory cap | Applied cap | |
| Felony, 20 years to life
|
$1,235 | $1,096 |
| Felony, less than 20 years | $445 | $395 |
| Misdemeanor | $120 | $112 |
| Juvenile | $120 | $112 |
Fees for appointed appellate counsel
are set by statute, Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-326, at “not less than
$300.” There is no cap; the usual fee appears to be $400. TSR at
47.
These fees are the lowest in the United States; that fact has been consistently
true and well-known for many years. TSR at 46, App. A passim.
Training and Oversight
Prior to 2004 there were neither formal training programs for PDs or court-appointed
counsel, TSR at 33-34, 40, nor were there minimum qualification standards.
TSR at 32-33, 4041.1
Caseload2
Public Defenders: In fiscal year 2002 the average annual caseload
per PD was 507 (low of 364 [Halifax]; high of 674 [Winchester]). TSR at
27-28. A “case” is all charges against a single defendant in
a single proceeding. “Caseload” is the total number of cases
(felony, misdemeanor, juvenile) handled by an attorney in a specified
period.
“Caseload” and “workload” are different. The latter
is derived by segregating cases by type and assigning a number of each
type that an attorney can effectively handle in a specific period. If
an attorney handles different types of cases, the number of each is pro
tanto reduced to reach workload. Assume a workload standard of 150 felonies
or 300 misdemeanors per year. An attorney who handles 75 felonies (50
percent of 150) and 150 misdemeanors (50 percent of 300) has met his workload.
Because TSR reports only caseload, comparison of the Virginia data with
external data is imperfect. Nonetheless, it appears the task of a Virginia
PD is excessive. Even if all 507 cases annually handled by a Virginia
PD were misdemeanors, the workload is excessive. TSR sets out a table
of PD workload in other states. TSR at 31. The highest workload for misdemeanors
only is 450. Perhaps more telling, the 1990 Report of the Department of
Planning and Budget [hereafter 1990 Report] utilized a consultant to establish
workload. 1990 Report at 16. The consultant recommended 400 misdemeanors
or 185 felonies as a workload. For reasons not specified, the 1990 Report
rejected those recommendations and established what it called “adjusted
workload.” The 1990 Report’s adjusted workload is 520 misdemeanors
or 240 felonies. Thus, a Virginia PD who handled 507 misdemeanors in a
year would be right at adjusted workload. But the Virginia caseload average
of 507 includes felonies and so exceeds the adjusted workload, which itself
substantially exceeded the consultant’s recommendation.
Appointed Counsel : Caseloads (or workloads) carried by court-appointed
counsel cannot be definitively established. However, the data on court-appointed
fees obtained from the Virginia Supreme Court shed some light. That data
report fees paid in four categories: capital, felony, guardian ad litem
[hereafter GAL] and other. The “other” category is principally
misdemeanors and juvenile cases. The data is reported by payee. In many
instances the payee is a law firm rather than an individual. The examples
that follow are selected from among the individual payees:
| Wells |
234 felonies | 5 GAL | 311 other |
| Fantl |
298 felonies | l GAL | 533 other |
| Carmody | 1168 other |
Even discounting the “other” figure to account
for non-criminal, non-GAL appointments, it is clear that the number of
appointments exceeds any published workload standard. If it is assumed
that these attorneys had additional paying clients, the excessiveness
becomes more pronounced. This raises a quality-of-representation issue
that is similar to the PD case-overload issue and that is distinct from
the compensation issue.
On August 3, 2004, the Virginia State Bar released Legal Ethics Opinion
1798 [hereafter LEO 1798]. The Opinion is directed at questions raised
by excessive prosecutorial caseload; it states that “a Commonwealth’s
Attorney who operates with a caseload so overly large as to preclude competent,
diligent representation in each case is in violation of the ethics rules.”
LEO 1798 at 3 (note call omitted). The Opinion includes this footnote:
“Although this opinion addresses workload for prosecutors, excessive
caseloads for public defenders and court appointed counsel raise the same
ethical problems if each client’s case cannot be attended with reasonable
diligence and competence.” LEO 1798 at 2, n.2.
Whether one focuses on the numbers or the anecdotal evidence, TSR at 27-32,
many PDs currently have these “ethical problems.” The caseload
numbers for some court-appointed counsel likely mean that those attorneys
have the same “ethical problems”
Indigency
The basic scheme for indigency determinations is found in Va. Code Ann.
§ 19.2-159, 159.1. Section 19.2-159 requires the judge to “determine
from oral examination of the accused or other competent evidence”
whether the defendant meets the indigency guidelines set out in the statute.
If the defendant meets the guidelines, he is required to execute a statement
of indigency. Section 19.2-159.1 requires that the court “thoroughly
interrogate” a defendant who executes the statement of indigency.
A defendant determined to be indigent is then appointed a PD or court-appointed
counsel.
Anecdotal evidence strongly suggests that indigency determinations are,
in general, not thoroughly conducted.
Litigation
There is one reported case in Virginia in which the compensation system
for court-appointed counsel was challenged. In Webb v. Commonwealth, 32
Va. App. 337, 528 S.E.2d 138 (2000), the defendant asserted that he had
been denied his right to conflict-free counsel because the low fee paid
his attorney created a financial disincentive to effective representation.
A panel of the Court of Appeals rejected this argument, in part, because
Webb was effectively represented and, thus, could not show prejudice.
The Virginia Supreme Court, in an unreported order, rejected Webb’s
petition for appeal, and the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari.
Webb v. Virginia, 534 U.S. 945 (2001). The result in Webb effectively
precludes further litigation in state court, because the only way an attorney
can pursue the issue is by providing ineffective assistance.
In addition, at the time of Webb, other attorneys were threatened with
removal from the list of appointed attorneys if they pursued a similar
claim.
At present, federal litigation is contemplated and is in the planning
stages. Steve Benjamin, the defense attorney in Webb, has the support
of a Washington, D.C., law firm for such litigation. If that litigation
materializes, the Board of Governors of The Virginia Bar Association will
decide at that time whether the Association should support it, as amicus
curiae or in other ways.
Publicity
Since TSR was published, the terribly deficient state of indigent defense
in Virginia has been reported on or editorialized about by virtually every
major newspaper serving the Commonwealth. At least the following appeared
during 2004:
• The Washington Post: “Va. Defense of Indigent Denounced,”
February 4; “Pay the Attorneys More,” May 21; “Courts of
No Appeal,” July 4; “Inexcusable Delay,” July 5; “Attention:
Virginia Bar,” July 6; “Fixing Virginia’s System,”
July 7; “A Lawyer’s Tale,” August 6.
• Richmond Times-Dispatch: “Va. cited for weak counsel for poor,”
February 2.
• The Virginian-Pilot: “Justice on the cheap is justice denied,”
May 14; “Discount justice is inadequate justice,” July 12.
• The Roanoke Times: “Va.’s court-appointed defense attorneys
are lowest paid in U.S.,” May 24; “Commission hoped to revamp,
bring more fairness to system,” May 24; “Where’s the justice?”
July 3.
• Lynchburg News & Advance: “A greater degree ‘of justice
for all,’ ” June 2.
Resource Distribution
The fiscal year 2004 data obtained from the Virginia Supreme Court include
all firms/attorneys who received $100,000 or more in court-appointed fees
in that fiscal year. Those firms/attorneys received $6,347,919 for representing
99953 defendants charged with felonies.
The allocation of fees within this data set is as follows:
| Total fees paid |
No. of defendants | |
| Non-capital felonies | $4,379,764 |
9942 |
| Capital felonies | $1,968,155 | 53 |
Thus, court-appointed fees paid for defense of capital defendants — 0.5 percent of all felony defendants — accounted for 31percent of court-appointed fees paid for defense of all felonies. The Virginia Bar Association believes that this allocation of scarce resources should be carefully considered as policy is developed in this area.
THE VIRGINIA INDIGENT DEFENSE COMMISSION
The Virginia Indigent Defense Commission [hereafter VIDC], created by
the 2004 General Assembly, Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-163.01, superseded
the Virginia Public Defender Commission [hereafter VPDC] on July 1, 2004.
The VIDC will oversee all indigent defense services, PD and court-appointed.
The duties of the VIDC are:
1. to operate the PD offices, including creation of caseload standards;
2. to “enforce the qualification standards” for attorneys seeking
to be court-appointed;
3. to create training programs and training courses for court-appointed
counsel;
4. to maintain a list of qualified court-appointed counsel (the qualifications
are set out in Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-163.03);
5. to “establish official standards of practice” for court-appointed
counsel and to establish guidelines for removal of attorneys from the
list of qualified attorneys;
6. to establish (with the Virginia Supreme Court, Virginia State Bar and
Virginia Crime Commission) “standards of conduct” for indigent
defenders;
7. to require collection of caseload data by PD offices; and,
8. to report annually to the Crime Commission and Committees of the General
Assembly on the “state of indigent defense in the Commonwealth, including
Virginia’s ranking amongst the 50 states in terms of pay allowed
for court-appointed counsel....”
The immediate effect of the VIDC’s creation is that attorneys who
want to be court-appointed must attend six hours (10 hours for juvenile
cases) of specific continuing legal education. Of course, that means that
those attorneys must forego time from their practices and pay for the
courses while continuing to be inadequately compensated for the cases
to which they are appointed.
Two groupings of the VIDC’s statutory duties need special mention.
The first grouping includes the duties to “establish official standards
of practice” and removal guidelines for court-appointed counsel and
to establish “standards of conduct” for all indigent defenders.
Virginia had not previously had any formal mechanism for oversight of
court-appointed counsel, and supervision of attorneys within VPDC was
minimal. TSR at 2, 32. The Virginia Bar Association understands the terms
“standards of practice” and “standards of conduct”
to be qualitative and to be broader in content than the Rules of Professional
Conduct. The Association also assumes that such standards will include
caseload limitations for court-appointed counsel.
The second grouping includes the caseload-data-collection requirement
for PDs and the annual report of ranking of compensation for court-appointed
counsel. The General Assembly has known for many years that PD caseloads
in Virginia are excessive and that Virginia is 50th in compensation for
court-appointed counsel. When the VIDC reports in 2005, it presumably
will once again report those two facts. The General Assembly will have
learned nothing new. Unless the General Assembly is able to generate the
legislative will to act upon that information (and The Virginia Bar Association
stands ready to assist the General Assembly and other state leaders in
this regard), nothing will have changed. Unless such action is taken,
the VIDC’s annual report will simply be added to the list of the
many unheeded reports and studies identified in TSR, App. A.
The VPDC has been sharply criticized for its timidity in failing or refusing
to seek resources for its attorneys. TSR at 25. The Virginia Bar Association
very much hopes that the VIDC will resist such timidity, and will instead
become an effective voice for quality indigent representation. The Association
is committed to strongly encouraging and supporting the VIDC to become
such an effective voice.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The state of indigent defense in Virginia has long been, and continues
to be, deplorable.
2. That fact is well-known to all three branches of state government.
3. Drastic remedial action to increase compensation for court-appointed
counsel and resources for PDs is necessary.
4. Increases in compensation and resources must be accompanied by quality
controls.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Because of the deplorable state of indigent defense in Virginia, The Virginia
Bar Association recommends the several urgent steps listed below. The
Association recognizes that these recommendations will require the Commonwealth
either to acquire new resources or reallocate existing resources. Either
approach will raise extraordinarily difficult issues of policy. The Association
does not presume to resolve those issues in this Report, but it is ready
and willing to assist Virginia’s policymakers in grappling with those
issues.
The Virginia Bar Association recommends the following:
1. Compensation for court-appointed counsel should be brought at least
to the median among the 50 states.
2. Compensation, resources and numbers of PDs should be brought into parity
with their prosecutorial counterparts.
3. Mechanisms should be found to alleviate the strain on existing indigent
defense resources. For example, stricter scrutiny of claims of indigency
should be imposed, and the federal model for court-appointed counsel partially
paid by the defendant should be adopted. Such measures alone will not
meet the goal of bringing Virginia’s indigent defense system to an
acceptable standard, but they can marginally improve it.
4. The VIDC mandate should be clarified to stress the creation and monitoring
of qualitative standards, including caseload standards for indigent defense
in Virginia.
E. Tazewell Ellett
President
The Virginia Bar Association
January 14, 2005
NOTES
1. Specialized training for capital defenders, whether
court-appointed or PDs, has been mandated by statute since 1991. See Va.
Code Ann. § 19.2-163.7, 163.8.
2. There are many published standards for caseload/workload.
The Committee did not find an empirical basis for any of them and believes
such data do not exist.
3. The original data received from the Virginia Supreme
Court included 10,004 felony defendants — 9942 non-capital defendants
and 62 capital defendants. That data was in error. An attorney listed
as having represented 10 capital defendants, in fact, represented only
one capital defendant. E-mail from Kathy Mays, Supreme Court of Virginia,
September 1, 2004.
This is the first formal Report to the VBA Membership
from the Community Service Program Council. This report is brief, perhaps
thereby less than elegant, in the hopes that you will be better able to
take time to read it. I hope you will do so.
As you know, we launched the Community Service Program at the VBA’s
January 2004 Annual Meeting. We have opened it to all lawyers and judges
in the Commonwealth regardless of whether they are VBA members or not,
because the VBA believes so strongly in the importance of lawyers providing
public service, including pro bono publico legal service.
However, because this is administered by the VBA and represents a serious
and sizable commitment by this organization, we believe our members should
receive a report as to its progress.
This Report will consist of these general subjects: a brief reminder of
the purpose of the program; a summary of our activity in 2004 (a list
of expenditures of our resources if you will); an accounting of results
to date; an evaluation of our progress; a statement of projected 2005
activity; and our conclusions.
Summary of Mission
The Community Service Program is established to motivate and facilitate
as many lawyers and judges as possible to perform a minimum of 50 hours
each year of public service including community service and pro bono publico
legal service.
2004 Efforts
• Program launch in January with first full Council Meeting in Williamsburg,
drafting of bylaws, creation of Council committees with work goals, and
opening of VBA Community Servant and Pro Bono Servant Programs;
• Creation of a separate page on the VBA website to convey updated
information about the program including forms that may be downloaded from
the website for easy registration as a Community or Pro Bono Servant;
• Creation of a package of information materials about the program,
called the “Outreach Package,” and wide distribution of it through
various channels, including e-mail to anyone requesting it;
• Establishment of a regular presence of the Program in each VBA
News Journal;
• Clarification of lawyer public service policies, and use of committee
mechanisms to answer policy questions on an ongoing basis;
• Creation of a Law School Liaison Committee, with faculty/administrator
and student representation from each of Virginia’s law schools, to
facilitate and encourage that community’s participation in the Program,
including allowing participation by law school students as Community Servants
and Pro Bono Servants beginning no later than January 2006;
• Personal outreach activities, such as inviting lawyer and judge
participation as Community Servants and Pro Bono Servants through contacts
with and presentations for more than 40 legal associations, committees
and CLE programs;
• Growth of the Council’s Programs Committee plans, to provide
informative and motivating programs for lawyers and judges about public
service, such as the session at the VBA Annual Meeting on Friday, January
21, about how to serve effectively as a nonprofit board member;
• Development of partnership with various legal services programs
to help lawyers learn how to provide pro bono publico legal assistance
in the Commonwealth; the mini service fair at this meeting and a survey
by the Council’s Public Service Lawyer Committee of legal aid offices
around the state to identify and post pro bono opportunities on our website
are initiatives of that effort;
• Support by the Council’s Public Service Lawyer Committee for
approval by the Supreme Court of Virginia of the new Virginia State Bar
“Emeritus Membership Status” for senior lawyers which went into
effect on September 1, 2004;
• Creation of the CSP Charter Club to include all lawyers and judges
who make the commitment beginning in 2004 or in 2005 to be a VBA Community
Servant or Pro Bono Servant;
• Development of a 2005 “Make the Commitment” drive to
recruit many more lawyers and judges to participate in 2005.
Accounting of Results
The foregoing list is evidence that the VBA’s commitment to this
program has been quite large in terms of volunteer and staff time resources.
As a result of this first-year effort, more than 400 lawyers and judges
made the commitment in 2004. Certification forms that they have completed
their 2004 commitment will be provided in early 2005. The list of those
so certifying will be publicized and sent to the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court of Virginia as well as to the American Bar Association for
noting and commendation.
This represents more than 20,000 hours of public service by lawyers and
judges in 2004.
A large percentage of the participants are VBA members.
Evaluation
A question is whether the results justify the commitment of resources.
Is the percentage of VBA member participation and the percentage of licensed
attorneys participating a sufficient achievement?
Our conclusion is that the first results are both a success and a wake-up
call.
We thank the many who have helped to get this program going in its first
year, those who have pledged to be 2004 Community Servants or Pro Bono
Servants, those who have hosted our outreach presentations, and who have
publicized the program in their own publications.
400-plus is a good place to start. But we also think a much higher percentage
of our own membership should be VBA Community Servants and Pro Bono Servants,
and we think a much larger percentage of licensed attorneys in the Commonwealth
should also participate. We know that so many of you are performing the
50 hours or more a year and many others are “teetering on the brink”
and just need that encouraging push to make the commitment. Please do
not wait another year.
2005 Phase
We have formed the Charter Club and invite all of you, all lawyers and
judges, to join and make the commitment as a Community Servant or Pro
Bono Servant in 2005. You will receive extra recognition, appropriately
so, because any lawyer or judge making the annual commitment in 2004 or
2005 is giving this program a vital lift. You will have been the “wind
beneath the wings” of this program, creating critical mass, and thereby
motivating others to participate.
We will also run a “Make the Commitment” drive in 2005, bring
in the law school communities, and with increasing numbers plan to evaluate
at the end of 2005 what should happen next for this program.
Conclusion
Is it worth it? We continue to think so. The VBA’s belief in complete
professionalism is that such professionalism must include community and
pro bono publico legal assistance. Indeed lawyers and judges do well by
doing good.
It serves those who need the help, it serves ourselves in personal ways,
and it serves the image of the profession.
I invite you to read Co-Chairman Senior Justice Carrico’s Letter
of Challenge to the Profession (published in the December/January
issue of the VBA News Journal). Please read it, become a Charter Club
member, and urge a colleague to become a VBA Community Servant or VBA
Pro Bono Servant.
Do it now. Return to Top
Successes abound in the ‘short session’ for VBA legislative
efforts, although some goals remain elusive
The 2005 General Assembly convened in Richmond on January 12 and adjourned
46 days later, tackling its usual mass of legislation amid the morass
of renovation-related construction in Capitol Square. While the infamous
“droopy drawers” bill garnered worldwide attention and other
proposals touched off various controversies, The Virginia Bar Association’s
proposals generally passed with little or no hoopla.
The quest for increased funding of indigent defense in Virginia met with
obstacles, as several House of Delegates bills dealing with the issue
were tabled in committee meetings, despite strong efforts by the VBA and
other groups. Supporters of increased indigent defense funding participated
in the first annual Indigent Defense Day at the Capitol on February 15,
and pledged to continue their efforts to increase funding levels and raise
awareness of the need for more indigent defense funding.
The VBA’s traditional “legislative scorecard” will appear
in the next issue of the VBA News Journal and will be posted on
the legislation page of the VBA website
at www.vba.org. Members of VBA substantive law sections will shortly receive
summaries of legislative actions pertinent to their areas of practice.
Current information on all bills from the 2005 session (and for all sessions
from 1994 to the present) is available on the Virginia Legislative Information
System at leg1.state.va.us. Here, we offer a brief overview of some highlights
of interest to VBA members:
Business Law: Revisions to the Virginia Stock Corporation Act (SB
1228) and technical changes pertaining to limited liability companies
(SB 933) passed both houses. Both were patroned by Sen. Walter Stosch,
R-Henrico.
Children’s Issues: Revisions to standards for guardians ad
litem (HB 2246, Del. Robert Bell, R-Albemarle) were opposed by the VBA
and the bill was tabled.
Civil Litigation/Boyd-Graves Conference: Of the Civil Litigation
Section’s proposals, SB 1018 (Sen. William Mims, R-Leesburg), regarding
a general verdict accompanied by answers to interrogatories, passed both
houses, as did HB 2010 (Del. Ward Armstrong, D-Martinsville), clarifying
the impact of changes in the statutory judgment interest rate on existing
judgments.
Several amendments to the Code of Virginia were proposed by the Boyd-Graves
Conference and passed both houses. These were patroned by Sen. Mims; Sen.
Mark Obenshain, R-Harrisonburg; Del. Robert Hurt, R-Chatham; and Del.
Joseph Johnson, D-Abingdon.
Construction and Public Contracts Law: Amendments to the Virginia
Public Procurement Act regarding contractual disputes (HB 2283, Del. William
Janis, R-Glen Allen) passed both houses.
Domestic Relations/Family Law Coalition: No new initiatives were
introduced this year, but close monitoring of family law-related legislation
kept a number of bills opposed by the coalition from passing.
Health Law: Clarification of the Virginia Self Referral Act (HB
2237) and revision of the Certificate of Public Need (HB 2243), both patroned
by Del. John O’Bannon, R-Henrico, passed both houses.
Real Estate: HB 2821, which would allow title insurance companies
to charge negotiated risk rates and was patroned by Del. Terrie Suit,
R-Virginia Beach, passed both houses; the bill was supported by the VBA.
Taxation: Elimination of the local tax “pay to play”
rule (HB 2769, Del. Scott Lingamfelter, R-Woodbridge) passed both houses
with a Senate substitute.
Wills, Trusts and Estates: Lifting of restrictions on family members
as witnesses of advance medical directives (HB 2584), passed both houses,
as did investment protection restriction of the “legal list”
of securities afforded fiduciaries (HB 1715), both patroned by Del. Terry
Kilgore, R-Gate City. Sen. Mims’ major bill with revisions to the
Uniform Trust Code, SB 891, also passed both houses.
A number of bills opposed by the Association were tabled or failed outright,
thanks to the efforts of the VBA legislative team and lawyer-volunteers
working on behalf of VBA sections and committees. Several other bills
will be studied over the course of the year for possible modification,
clarification and introduction in the 2006 General Assembly.
With the close of the legislative session, attention turned to statewide
elections in November. Attorney General Kilgore resigned in early February
to pursue his gubernatorial campaign and was succeeded by Judith W. Jagdmann.
His likely challenger, Lieutenant Governor Tim Kaine, remained in office.
More to come... to paraphrase Bette Davis’ famous line in All
About Eve, “Fasten your seatbelts — it’s going to be
an election year!” Return
to Top
ADR Joint Committee starts 2005
with a busy schedule
The Virginia Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Joint Committee met
on January 20 during the VBA Annual Meeting in Williamsburg. The agenda
included a discussion of upcoming programs, website and newsletter updates,
subcommittee activities, pending legislation, and ADR-related projects
throughout the state. A networking reception followed the meeting. The
Joint Committee also co-sponsored two well-attended CLE programs, “A
New ADR Model for the 21st Century: An Introduction to the Collaborative
Family Law Process,” and “Arbitration: A Welcome ADR Compromise
or An Uninvited Guest?”
The Governor of Virginia has declared March as Mediation
Month. In observance, the Council of The Virginia ADR Joint Committee
has supported a number of programs in locations around Virginia.
Virginia ADR Joint Committee members offered their help as supporters
and mediators for peer mediation conferences held at George Mason University
on March 15 (for elementary students) and March 16 (for middle school
students). Joint Committee members also provided support for the mediation
competition held February 26-27 at the Regent University School of Law.
Public information booths are set up at various courts throughout the
Commonwealth during March to inform the public about mediation as an alternative
dispute resolution option. A program for senior citizens, caregivers,
guardians ad litem, and other professionals providing services to seniors
will be offered in Richmond, Tidewater and Northern Virginia, and will
address the appropriate use and potential benefits of mediation in addressing
issues of concern to senior citizens.
The Joint Committee, in collaboration with Virginia CLE and the Virginia
Mediation Network, plans a one-day program titled “Skills and Strategies
for Lawyers Representing Clients in Mediation.” This program will
be offered on May 12 in Richmond and on May 13 in Northern Virginia.
Karen Keyes of Arlington is the chair of the Virginia
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Joint Committee. Return
to Top
Virginia Law Foundation inducts 2005 Fellows
The Virginia Law Foundation inducted its newest Fellows
on January 20 in a ceremony held during the annual Fellows Council dinner
in Willliamsburg.
VBA Executive Vice President Breck Arrington, who chairs the VLF Fellows
Council, presided at the event. Former Virginia Attorney General Mark
Earley of Reston, now president of Prison Fellowship, was the after-dinner
speaker. The program also included remarks from VLF President Scott Street
and a presentation on the VLF Fellows Mentor Program by Howard McElroy
and Melissa Carrico of Abingdon.
The Fellows program was created in 1983 by the VLF Board of Directors
to encourage and recognize excellence in the practice of law and public
service, and to support the programs and objectives of the Foundation.
The Foundation’s bylaws state that Fellows shall be “persons
of integrity and character who have maintained and upheld the highest
standards of their profession and who shall be deemed outstanding in their
profession and in their community.” Selection is limited to one percent
of the active and associate membership of the Virginia State Bar and is
comprised of outstanding lawyers, law professors, and retired members
of the judiciary who are nominated by the Fellows Council and elected
by the Foundation’s Board.
The Virginia Law Foundation Fellows Class of 2005 includes
the following lawyers of distinction:
Benjamin C. Ackerly, Richmond;
Mark L. Earley, Reston;
Jeannie P. Dahnk, Fredericksburg;
Benjamin R. Gardner, Martinsville;
Alex R. Gulotta, Charlottesville;
James M. Hingeley, Charlottesville;
Lawrence H. Hoover Jr., Harrisonburg;
Joseph C. Kearfott, Richmond;
Vincent J. Mastracco Jr., Norfolk;
David S. Mercer, McLean;
Gordon F. Rainey Jr., Richmond;
Robert D. Seabolt, Richmond;
George Warren Shanks, Luray;
Hunter W. Sims Jr., Norfolk;
Diane McQuade Strickland, Roanoke;
Frank A. Thomas III, Orange; and
Alda L. White, Stafford. Return
to Top
With Lodge under renovation, VBA to meet at Kingsmill
As late-staying VBA members checked out of the Williamsburg
Lodge on January 23, hotel staffers prepared to close the Lodge for a
two-year renovation, the early stages of which were already apparent to
Annual Meeting participants, with the East and West Wings demolished and
walkways to the Tazewell Wing skirting construction areas.
The Lodge will reopen in an enhanced state (see www.history.org,
the Colonial Williamsburg website, for more information) in time for festivities
honoring the 400th anniversary of Jamestown in 2007.
VBA members and guests will gather at Kingsmill Resort for the 116th Annual
Meeting (January 19-22, 2006) and plan a return to the renovated Lodge
for the 2007 Annual Meeting, which will also mark the 50th anniversary
of the VBA Young Lawyers Division.
The VBA Summer Meeting will be held July 14-17 at The Greenbrier. Watch
for more details! Return to Top
Nominations sought for DeMallie Award
The Committee on Continuing Legal Education of the Virginia
Law Foundation seeks nominations for its eighth Gardener G. DeMallie Jr.
Award. The award was established in 1998 to honor DeMallie, a Seminar
Director for Virginia Continuing Legal Education from 1975 until his untimely
death in October 1996. It 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. Prior recipients include Peter C. Manson (1998), Thomas
E. Spahn (1999), Courtland L. Traver (2000), Lawrence D. Diehl (2001),
Benjamin C. Ackerly (2002), Louis A. Mezzullo (2003) and Frank E. Brown
(2004). The award will be presented at the 67th Annual Meeting of the
Virginia State Bar in Virginia Beach on June 18, 2005. Return
to Top
EDITOR’S NOTE: Congratulations to all attorneys
selected for the 2004 “Legal Elite” list, published by Virginia
Business magazine. While space precludes our publishing all names,
the full list is available online at www.virginiabusiness.com.
Frank Green of the Richmond Times-Dispatch and Brandon
Walters of Style Weekly, also of Richmond, are the 2004 recipients
of The Virginia Bar Association Award for Journalism in the Field of Law
and Justice.
Ashley L. Taylor Jr. of Troutman Sanders LLP in Richmond has been
appointed by President Bush to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. The
Commission is composed of eight individuals, four of whom are appointed
by the President and four by Congress. The commissioners serve terms of
six years. Taylor is a member of the Troutman Sanders Executive Committee
and a partner in Complex Litigation practice group in the firm’s
Richmond office. Before joining Troutman Sanders in 2001, he served as
Deputy Attorney General in the Division of Health, Education and Social
Services. In 1999, he was named the American Bar Association (State and
Local Government Section) “Up and Comer.”
Julious P. Smith Jr., chairman and CEO of
Williams Mullen, recently received the Richmond Bar Association’s
Hill-Tucker Public Service Award. The award, which is named for its first
recipients, Oliver Hill and Samuel Tucker, honors members of the legal
profession who “render conspicuous public service and otherwise distinguish
themselves in service to society beyond the practice of law.” A member
of The Salvation Army Boys and Girls Club Hall of Fame, he has previously
received the Richmond Touchdown Club’s Micheli Award and the Patrick
Henry Public Service Award from the Wilson Center for Leadership in the
Public Interest at Hampden-Sydney College. A member of the board of trustees
of the Virginia Foundation for Independent Colleges, he also serves on
the board of directors of Richmond Renaissance, was a co-chair of the
2004 CCA American Cancer Society Golf Tournament, is a past chairman of
the Greater Richmond United Way Campaign and of its “de Tocqueville”
effort, served as chair of the 2002 Annual Dinner for the Multiple Sclerosis
Society and as a former Virginia state chairman for the U.S. Olympic Committee.
Return to Top
Copyright 2007 The Virginia Bar Association
