President's Page:
Thanks for a Wonderful Year, Balanced in Lifestyle or Not
J. Edward Betts

Since this is my last column as VBA President, I want to thank the membership for allowing me the great privilege of serving in this office. At the same time, I want to describe how such service relates to one of the themes of the VBA this year, the lawyer’s quest for a balanced life.

In connection with the launching of our new Law Practice Management Division, in my first President’s Page I offered the insights of Thomas Jefferson, Justice Brandeis and Senator Spong to emphasize just how important this quest is. Although I recognized that achieving such balance is a formidable task since “the greatest lawyers I have known have been prodigious, sometimes exhausting, workers,” I also mentioned that the program presented at the Annual Meeting last January entitled “21st-Century Professionalism: A Balanced Life vs. The Bottom Line” had demonstrated “the possibility of positive bottom-line effects, as well as positive psychological impacts on lawyers and law firms that accommodate the needs of 21st-century lawyers.” Serving as your President this year has allowed me to put some of my earlier theorizing to the test.

When I was given the opportunity to become the VBA’s President, I was thrilled with the opportunity, even though I knew I could not give up my work as my firm’s managing partner and as a lawyer. I anticipated correctly that the extra nights and weekends I would have to work (and there were many) would be well worth it. Indeed, I will always treasure this year for the wonderful people I have met and worked with, the varied experiences I have had and, most of all, having had the opportunity to lead a lawyers’ organization that is truly dedicated to public service. Yet because of the extra work on top of an already busy schedule, and the consequent loss of time with family and for other pleasures, I suppose my life has been out of balance this year. Or has it?

To define lifestyle balance is a real challenge for each of us as what is appropriate for one lawyer may not work for another. I am reminded of a column by Daniel Akst in The New York Times on Sunday, May 6, 2001, entitled “Workaholics Arise. Now Get Back to Work.” It stated:

We live, after all, in a time that is obsessed with balance.... The dogma of balance is fine as far as it goes, but it doesn’t apply to everyone. For those who passionately love their work, it’s a lot of guilt-inducing folderol. And even for the rest of us, it is rhetoric that doesn’t quite equal the reality, because the world would be a lot poorer without people willing to throw themselves heart and soul into whatever they’re doing. Balance doesn’t build businesses, cure diseases or change the direction of history.

Of course, we must all protect our health and family relationships from the consequences of obsessive, slavish work, but inconvenient as it may be, a lawyer’s life is generally not one of equipoise, particularly if he has a passion for what he does. The law is indeed a “jealous mistress!”

Yet the quest for balance must go on for each of us. As I become the past President of the VBA, I will be striving with the rest of the Law Practice Management Division to come closer to equilibrium in my own life. My guess is, however, that as new challenges present themselves, it will prove a worthwhile quest, the goal of which may never be fully realized.

In the meantime, I thank you so very much for allowing me to spend this year as the VBA President. Whether it was a year of lifestyle balance or not, it is one I will always treasure. As my term nears its end, it will soon be time to move on. The Roman poet and satirist Horace said it well: “Dismiss the old horse in good times lest he fail in the lists and the spectators laugh.”

Return to Top

In Tribute :
Honoring the Chief Justice of Virginia
Hon. Gerald L. Baliles

The following remarks were delivered by Hon. Gerald Baliles, former Governor of Virginia and head of the International Practice Group at Hunton & Williams, during the Virginia legal profession’s retirement tribute to Hon. Harry L. Carrico, Chief Justice of Virginia, at The Jefferson Hotel on December 5, 2002.

Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen. We are confronted with a pleasant but daunting challenge this evening — how to recognize, honor and thank an individual who has served his profession and Commonwealth with such distinction … for centuries.

Here is my challenge: I was asked to draw attention to Chief Justice Carrico’s personal qualities, review his educational background, highlight his early days at the bar, his appointment to the bench in Fairfax County, his ascension to the Supreme Court and his long tenure as Chief Justice.

In addition, I was requested to review 10 of the Chief’s most significant opinions on the Court, identify and explain one of his most important dissents, and mention, in passing, all of his leadership positions in national judicial organizations.

And, if time permitted, I was told I could also outline his commitment to many civic and social organizations, especially family violence prevention, 4-H education, student and teaching leadership awards, and — let’s not forget — the Chief’s swift rise to a leadership position in the Rollerblading Society of the Western World.

Ladies and gentlemen, I will do all that — and what is more — I will perform this feat of oratorical dexterity in less than 14 minutes!

What a delightful evening, what an impressive collection of notables, all gathered to reflect upon one of the great figures of our Commonwealth’s judicial history.

Various bar organizations are here tonight to salute him through their resolutions; others have commended him in recent months and years on various occasions, such as the one marking his 40th year on the court, where one of his former colleagues noted the Chief’s lengthy working hours, while another one immortalized him in song and verse as “the Energizer Bunny of the Court.”
All of these tributes have noted the Chief Justice’s commitment to the rule of law, his dedication to the administration of justice and quiet insistence upon the independence and integrity of the judicial branch of government.

Clearly, he has been a man for our time and, perhaps, even longer. I have it on good authority that someone on his Court has referred to the Chief Justice, out of earshot, of course, as … Moses.

Now, I do not interpret that as a sign of his longevity, but of his stature! “Moses the Lawgiver” has a certain ring to it, and no one can say that our honoree has not looked the part … a distinguished and quiet demeanor, a keen and inquiring mind and an able administrator looking for ways to guide our legal system through the wilderness.

In fact, I do not think that Chief Justice Carrico has received the recognition he deserves for administrative and procedural reforms during his tenure.

His annual reports on the State of the Judiciary are insightful, informative and impressive. During his tenure as Chief Justice, we have seen the expansion of the appellate capacity of our legal system in a growing Commonwealth. He has focused on the “electronic transformation of the world and of our own court system” as the “driving force of the last 20 years” and has seen the need to incorporate new technology at all levels “without the loss of traditional values” of legal services. He has guided Virginia’s judicial response to the enlarging intersection of science and justice.

And there is more.

Pilot projects to establish family courts and drug courts are other indicators of his reform efforts, not to mention voluntary sentencing guidelines, jury management standards, trial court performance standards, diversity training programs, alternative dispute resolution initiatives and efforts to facilitate the system’s work with pro se litigants. These are significant initiatives. No wonder he has been Chief for so long.

In short, he has focused the Court’s attention on the importance of a strategic planning process, especially in light of significant demographic changes in Virginia and their impact on the demand for court services. The Chief’s biennial Strategic Plan, with its myriad of new and continuing issues coalesced into five crosscutting themes, is increasingly recognized as our road-map through the wilderness of legal and societal change. The other Moses would have been proud of our Chief Justice.

Sometimes, we take the good works of our good people for granted, but observers around the nation and throughout legal circles have long noted and admired the work, the reforms and the results of the man we salute tonight. National organizations have sought out this jurist. Distinctions conferred upon him have been many and significant — and well-deserved. He was selected by his peers to serve as president of the Chief Justices of the United States, and chairman of the National Center for State Courts, and co-chairman of the National Council of State and Federal Courts. Ladies and gentlemen, this is tall cotton!

There is one distinction that he might wish to go unnoticed in an environment sometimes critical of a “world of too many lawyers”: as the longest-serving Chief Justice in the history of the Court, he has presided over the “swearing-in” of new Virginia lawyers since 1981 — some 30,000 of them! So, the next time someone complains about too many lawyers … tell them to call the Chief!

Well, so much for what others have said and conferred upon this man, who now enters the history books as the longest-serving member of the Supreme Court of Virginia, 42 years, and its longest-serving Chief Justice, 22 years.

Let me tell you something about the Chief Justice I admire and respect.

 I first appeared before our honoree not long after I was out of law school, He had black hair then … as I did … and he was the junior member of the Supreme Court by at least 75 years!

After arguing an appeal, I approached then-Justice Carrico about a joint project of the Young Lawyers Section of The Virginia Bar Association with the Virginia YMCA to establish a Model Judiciary Program for the high school students of the Commonwealth. Much to our delight, he endorsed the idea, gave us guidance, secured the opening of the Supreme Court Chamber to the final arguments and permitted cameras in the Courtroom. Nearly three decades later, thousands of Virginia’s high school students have benefited from this program’s introduction to mock trials and appeals.

I have never forgotten that generous hand of the Chief’s, nor have I forgotten one of my favorite stories about the Chief and one of my predecessors.

According to Bill Broaddus, my longtime friend and successor as Attorney General, who also clerked two years for Justice Carrico, in 1961 Governor Almond called State Senator Gray of Chesterfield about the appointment of a certain local judge to fill the court vacancy and asked the Senator how he thought the appointment would be received. Senator Gray is reported to have said: “Governor, everyone will say it’s a fine appointment, but if, at the end of a lifetime, you want someone to say it was an excellent appointment, appoint Harry Carrico of Fairfax.”

The Governor did just that . . . and it did not take a lifetime for everyone to conclude that it was an excellent appointment.
I wish time permitted the recounting of other examples and stories of this man’s human — and humane —qualities, the warmth of his wit and wisdom, the depth of his intelligence and integrity.

But, then, my clock tonight is ticking.

Over the years, suffice it to say, I conferred with him as a legislator, Attorney General and Governor. I always found him courteous, interested and informed, an able administrator as well as a good writer of legal opinions. I respected his quiet advocacy for a better system for choosing Virginia judges, and for pay increases commensurate with salaries for federal district judges in order to attract qualified candidates for Virginia’s judiciary.

 What I like and admire most about our Chief Justice, however, is his personification of the qualities of the model judge.
Socrates once said that “four things belong to a judge: to hear courteously, to answer wisely, to consider soberly, and to decide impartially.” Clearly, the Chief Justice has been described here tonight — and elsewhere — as a jurist who has met the Socratic test.

But, in an article he authored 40 years ago for Virginia’s young lawyers, then-Associate Justice Carrico suggested two additional qualities for making a good judge. Listen to his proposition that a judge must also possess humility. This is what he said:

“When you consider what power and what responsibility is placed in the hands of a judge, the need for [humility] becomes acutely obvious. A judge has the authority to order a man’s death, to take away his freedom, to terminate his marriage, to wipe out his estate and to annul his will. A judge can destroy human hopes and aspirations, break hearts, disrupt lives and make paupers out of the rich.
“With all this control, no judge should approach his task without a deep sense of humility — a humility that makes him keenly aware of his inadequacy to do those things which can only be done with the help of some guiding hand.”

Then, there is this additional quality that then-Associate Justice Carrico suggested — judicial restraint. Listen to these words:

“If a judge has this attribute [of judicial restraint] and every judge should possess it, he then has the ability to forego the temptation of injecting his personal ideas of the law and his own private notions of justice into the conduct of his judicial affairs. If he lacks this quality, a judge will not be able to recognize and respect judicial precedent. He will abandon the principles of law that wiser and more learned judges have charted for him, he will embark upon a course of deciding cases because of expediency, pressure and hope of self-gain. Without this restraint, this golden judicial quality, he may do great harm to fundamental ideals, he will destroy faith in our system of justice.”

Who among us could have said it better?

Let me note, in closing, that the mixture of solemnity and celebration of such a storied judicial career requires us, I would submit, a tip of the hat to some fundamental truths.

Under our constitutional form of government, the judiciary is a separate, less visible, but co-equal branch of government.

While the executive branch may propose and the legislative one may dispose, the judicial branch interprets.

While the executive and legislative branches are inherently political, the judiciary must remain independent of political pressure or lose its integrity and public trust.

It is the legal profession’s responsibility to “preserve, protect and defend” the judicial system from political interference in order that our form of government may endure.

It is also the bar’s duty to continue to offer judicial candidates with the qualities of the individual we recognize and honor tonight, someone who loves and lives the law, someone with soul, “someone willing to accept and bear the awesome responsibility, and who, with alert and constant vigilance, will keep alive the highest principles of justice,” someone like the jurist we admire, respect and thank tonight, Chief Justice Harry L. Carrico, the Moses and Socrates of our time and our Court.

Long live the Chief.

Thank you. Return to Top

Work and Life/Public Speaking:
Lie, Cheat and Steal
Paul B. Terpak

You know the 10 greatest fears in life — I won’t go through them all, but

•Number 7 is snakes;

•Number 3 is being buried alive;

•Number 1 is speaking in public.

Judges and lawyers have a lot more skill and training and practice than most in the art of public speaking, but even lawyers and judges can have a tough time when it comes to non-legal public speaking. We know how to make an argument — how to “talk like a lawyer” — but we sometimes have difficulty with other types of public speech. Well, we do need to make speeches sometimes — at bar events, to business groups, in community associations, and we need to think about the difference between legal argument and public speaking.

Those of you who went to UVA, remember the honor code? Well, I’ve got to tell you: there’s a modified honor code when you make speeches. To be a good speaker, the fact is that you’ve got to LIE, CHEAT and STEAL.

Rule No. 1: Lie.

Lawyers and judges do get a chance to speak more than most people, but we have a special problem. We — or rather, most of us — always feel some nagging obligation to tell the truth and the whole truth.

The funniest guy I know is a college friend who can take almost any mildly amusing event and exaggerate and twist the facts until it’s a lifetime story to be told over and over again every time old friends get together for a beer. All fishermen are great liars; so was Mark Twain. Life rarely makes a perfect story without a little embellishment, and stories are the best way to make a point to your audience. Good storytellers are good liars.

Sometimes real-life stories have the opposite problem. George Will once wrote, “A little inaccuracy sometimes saves a lot of explanation.” Sometimes too much detail kills the point of a story.

“Recall the lilies of the field; they neither sow, nor do they reap. Well, actually they do play a vital role in our ecosystem. In a sense, they do sow because they provide food for a variety of insects and yes, maybe, they do reap nutrients from the soil, and carbon dioxide from the air, but the basic premise is accurate.”

Boy, too much accuracy sure kills the point. Exaggerate when it’s called for and simplify when needed to keep the point clear.

Remember, you are not writing a brief or an opinion. Perfect fidelity to the facts can make for pretty dry stuff. Go ahead and use a little “artistic license” (the polite term for lying) to tell a good story which makes your point.

Rule No. 2: Cheat.

They say — you know who they are — never read a speech. Just have some “talking points and talk to your audience.”

Boy, is that scary!

What if you freeze? Everyone freezes! Even Winston Churchill. Churchill was known as one of the greatest speakers in Parliament. Did he use an outline or notes? No way! When he rose, members would run out into the hall and yell, “Winston is up.” Well, once, just once in his early years, he froze — he had nothing to say. He sat down in confusion and left the chamber in embarrassment. One of the greatest speakers of the age. From then on, he wrote every speech out word for word. You can still see his scratched-up drafts of those classic World War II speeches in his biographies. Now, some folks pull it off without notes, but I have no such confidence. I always write it out, even if I end up not using my notes. Underline, use boldface, use exclamation points — things which would look silly in a brief help cue your verbal presentation.

There’s an old story about a politician who walked up to the podium and said, “I have some remarks prepared here, but you don’t want to hear a canned speech, my friends, so let me just have a talk with you, neighbor to neighbor.” At which time he folded up his speech, putit in his pocket, and gave the very same speech from memory!

After you’ve practiced, it’s all in there, but still cheat. It’s OK. Have the notes, just in case. At a minimum, have the first paragraph written out. Once you get rolling, amybe you can do better than some of the rest of us, and won’t need notes, but it really helps to know that no matter what, at least you know where you’re going to start.

We’ve been through lying and cheating — now on to stealing.

Rule No. 3: Steal mercilessly.

I stole that story about snakes and being buried alive from a guy who spoke at the ABA Bar Leadership Conference a few years ago, and he probably stole it from someone else. Steal ideas, steal jokes, steal stories and remember, most of your old jokes, stories and speech tricks will be new to most of your audience. Those who have heard the joke before will (hopefully) laugh too, just to be polite.

Ten Commandments for Public Speaking: my second Biblical allusion.

#1: Practice. How do you get to Carnegie Hall? Practice, practice, practice. BUT lots of people practiced and practiced, got to Carnegie Hall, and never got invited back! Why? Because they practiced silently all by themselves in a closed room sitting at a desk, and when they got to the real thing, they flipped out. Lots of folks, including my young associates, practice their opening statements holding their heads, sitting at a desk speaking silently to themselves. When it’s time to say it out loud, they stumble over their words. What to do? Practice out loud. Even better: practice standing up. Simulate your speech conditions as much as possible. Practice runs out loud also will let you see what language is awkward and maybe help create a nice turn of phrase. You know the game you play after a trial or a fight with your spouse: “I wish I’d said...” You always think of wonderful things you’d wish you said — after it’s too late. Practicing out loud, with a couple of days to think about it, will help you think of “I wish I’d saids” before your speech rather than after.

#2: Use visual aids whenever you can. They are great — most of all because they make all those people stop looking at you. Even better, sometimes they turn the lights out — and we all dance better in the dark. (See #10 below.) Use your imagination. Take a chance. In a speech on how to maintain trust account records, I slipped in some Greek and Egyptian hieroglyphics... and it worked! (Actually, no one noticed the difference.)

#3: Use contractions. Spoken English and written English can be very different. Don’t talk like you are worried about how the transcript will look. Use contractions. Use slang. Don’t worry — there won’t be a court reporter in the room. (By the way, this article is written in spoken English. I do write my briefs a little differently.)

#4: Before your talk, go to the front of the room and survey your audience. Your first view of the room and the crowd should never be the fateful moment when you step up to the podium, look up from your notes and (GASP) my God, there are 300 people out there! Go stand up front while the person speaking before you is talking.

#5: Smile! Babies smile at people who smile at them. So do audiences. Even if you don’t feel like it, fake it. Pretend you’re enjoying yourself, and maybe you will enjoy yourself, and your audience will respond.

#6: Slow down! When you’re under stress, everyone knows that your defense mechanism kicks in — fight or flight. I’m either going to kill that mastodon or run away. Only the best can avoid the accelerated mental pace and thumping heartbeat that changes your own perceptions. Most of us speed up without realizing it. Slow to you will sound about right to the crows. By the way, don’t have that second cup of coffee if you’re giving a morning speech.

#7: Don’t stay too slow. Vary your volume and pace. A monotone, steady pace is how you put babies to sleep — and audiences too. Speed up. Slow down. Raise and lower your voice, and ...

#8: Interrupt yourself. My Italian mother-in-law always says, “Interruption is the essence of conversation — otherwise it’s just two people making speeches at each other.” And we know how boring that can be. When I say, “Interrupt yourself,” I mean “use ordinary speech patterns.” Don’t speak like a flow chart or a legal brief. (Roman numeral I, Sub A, Sub 1.) Digress, interrupt, make side comments — it will be a lot livelier.

#9: Ignore errors. Most people miff a minor flub. Most people miss a minor flub and the rest don’t care. Move on and don’t apologize.

#10: Move. Remember in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid that the Sundance Kid couldn’t shoot straight unless he was moving? You can’t speak unless you move. If you hang on to the podium for dear life, you will look like a robot, or at least like you’re not having any fun. MOVE like a real person. Move your head, your arms and your body. Don’t “use your hands.” Al Gore “uses his hands.” (Chop, chop.) At least he used to. Hand motions can be tough, but try to loosen your spine, your neck. When you practice speaking, practice your moves too. Visualize your moves like a luger before a race. (Remember how they close their eyes and move back and forth like a luger before a race. (Remember how they close their eyes and move back and forth like Stevie Wonder.) Be yourself... unless, of course, you’re a stiff in real life. In that case, don’t be yourself, be someone else.

Conclusion

I think a lot of bad speaking comes from the days before microphones. You had to fill your chest and speak in a bombastic style to be heard by the crowd. You still hear this style at political conventions, and boy, can it be awful. The great speakers of our age have all recognized that you don’t make speeches to a crowd anymore — in the age of high-fidelity sound systems, you talk to the people of the crowd. Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton are both masters. Talk to your audience, tell them some stories, act like you’re with a bunch of friends — and I think you’ll find it works out better than making a speech to them.

Well, that’s about it. To those readers who have heard me speak, remember what my Dad always used to say: “Don’t do what I do... do what I say.” I’m no great orator, but maybe I’ve given you a few ideas you can use.

About the Author: Paul B. Terpak is past president of the Fairfax Bar Association, past chair of the Virginia State Bar Committee on Lawyer Discipline and presently serves on the board of Virginia CLE. He is a partner in the firm of Blankingship & Keith in Fairfax and serves on the VBA Outreach Committee. This article is based upon his speech on the art of public speaking to the faculty of the Virginia State Bar Professionalism Course.

Return to Top

THE VBA 113th ANNUAL MEETING Click here to access schedule and meeting information.

“Perils and Pitfalls of Law Firm Mergers and Acquisitions” will be the topic of the Managing Partners Roundtable Luncheon at the VBA Annual Meeting on Friday, January 17.

Sponsored by the VBA Law Practice Management Division, the program will feature William G. Johnston, a Director of Hildebrandt International, a management consulting firm specializing in professional service firms, with a particular focus on the legal industry Hildebrandt consultants work with law firms on a wide range of financial, management, governance, strategic planning, merger and other issues.

Johnston is a member of Hildebrandt’s Strategy Implementation practice and leads the company’s financial/crisis management sub-group. He has significant experience in a wide variety of consulting matters, including law firm merger and acquisition analysis, partner compensation, strategic planning, crisis management and general firm counseling. He has contributed the following short article for this issue as a preview of his remarks in Williamsburg.

Why do firms merge? For many, the decision to merge is in response to one or more of the following: to serve expanding client needs, to build niche expertise, to resolve internal issues (e.g., succession), to build geographic presence, to improve the firm’s ability to recruit, to gain access to a larger capital base, or to compete with non-traditional competitors (non-legal consultants, advisors, and the like).

In 2002, we witnessed another year with a very high level of merger activity. Through November, there were well over 60 completed law firm mergers. This comes on top of 78 mergers in 2001 and 66 in 2000. For comparison purposes, in 1994 there were just four law firm mergers.

In the overwhelming majority of mergers in both 2001 and 2002, the smaller firm had fewer than 50 lawyers. Still, there are always some mergers between two large law firms and 2002 is no exception. In fact, the number of “large firm” mergers in 2002 (10 so far) is higher than in years past. Already this year, we have seen McKenna & Cuneo combine with Long Aldridge, Hogan & Hartson add Squadron & Ellenoff, Reed Smith merge with Crosby Heafey, and Bingham Dana combine with McCutchen Doyle, to name just a handful. In contrast, in 2001, in only four of the year’s 78 mergers did both firms have in excess of 100 lawyers.

One other merger trend involves the rapid disappearance of IP boutiques. Over the past six years, well over 40 IP boutiques have merged into larger firms (others have disbanded). Consequently, a number of the country’s largest law firms now have significant IP practices; many with well over 100 IP lawyers.

Looking ahead to 2003, we expect the merger trend to continue. Firms of all sizes are continuing to grapple with the “why merge?” question and, as in the past few years, many firms will decide that a merger or acquisition is the right decision in order to help the firm meet its strategic goals.

Don’t miss...
Whose water is it, anyway?
Virginia’s drought has brought about much discussion in recent months. The VBA Committee on Special Issues of National and State Importance has organized a timely presentation offering several perspectives on who actually has the rights to Virginia’s waters. Participants will have the opportunity to make their positions known through the use of a transponder system which allows audience members to vote on specific questions which will be tallied and analyzed onsite. “...And Not a Drop to Drink—Who Owns Virginia’s Water As We Face the Continuing Drought?” will be presented from 11 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. on Friday, January 17.

Polish your professional skills
The VBA Law Practice Management Division has put together a unique three-hour program, to be offered from 2 to 5 p.m. on Friday, January 17, designed specifically to build your professional skills. Experts in the fields of psychology, marketing and personal organization will demonstrate cutting-edge professional skills training programs developed specifically for lawyers. Three concurrent program tracks will allow participants to sample from up to seven separate training programs.

Litigators on track for CLE
Litigators will have a three-program CLE track during the Annual Meeting: “Expert Witness: An Update on Daubert, Discovery, Bias and Related Issues,” offered by the VBA Civil Litigation Section on Friday, January 17, 9:30-11 a.m.; “Advocacy in Mediation: Beyond the Basics” presented by the Joint Committee on Alternative Dispute Resolution on Saturday, January 18, 9:30-11 a.m.; and “Contributory Negligence: Is It Time for Virginia to Adopt Some Form of Comparative Fault?” presented by the Civil Litigation Section on Saturday, 11 a.m.-12:30 p.m.

See you there!

Practicing Law Smarter Not Harder:
The VBA Law Practice Management Division Newsletter

Legal Focus/Cyberlaw:
Combating Cyber-Torts: Protections and Pitfalls of the Virginia Computer Crimes Act
Gordon A. Coffee and Charles B. Klein1

Cyber-torts are now a fact of life for computer users. A recent report by Riptech, Inc. projects an annual growth rate of 64 percent for Internet attacks against private and public organizations worldwide.2 At this rate, no organization or individual relying on the Internet can honestly claim to be safe from computer theft, trespass and harassment.

Fortunately, however, users are not defenseless. The Virginia Computer Crimes Act (VCCA)3 supplements conventional criminal statutes and authorizes private causes of action for various cyber-torts. The VCCA may be 18 years old, but it has never been more relevant in combating misuses of technology. In this Internet Age, every litigator — even those who practice outside the Commonwealth of Virginia — should be aware of the VCCA, including its protections and pitfalls.

Summary of VCCA Provisions
Five years ago, the United States Supreme Court recognized that the Internet introduced “a unique and wholly new medium of worldwide human communication”5 that has undergone “extraordinary growth.”6 While the Internet has not fulfilled the commercial promises envisioned by many, it has provided a new tool for the crooks, sociopaths and vandals of our age. In fact, computers are now as ubiquitous in crime as they are in our workplaces and homes. The skill with which criminals have refined their computer skills over the past two decades to commit wrongdoing has rendered conventional criminal and civil statutes outdated. The VCCA was designed to provide prosecutors and civil litigants with the necessary tools to curtail computer-related misconduct. It has become even more needed in this so-called Internet Age.

Perhaps the most notorious cyber-torts are computer fraud and computer trespass. The VCCA criminalizes both. Under the VCCA, a person commits computer fraud when he uses a computer or computer network without authority and with the intent to: “(1) obtain property or services by false pretenses, (2) embezzle, (3) commit larceny, or (4) convert the property of another.”7 A person commits computer trespass, more popularly known as “hacking,” by using a computer or computer network without authority, among other things, to: (1) temporarily or permanently disable, alter or erase computer information; (2) effect the creation or alteration of a financial instrument or of an electronic fund transfer; (3) cause physical injury to another’s property; or (4) falsify or forge electronic mail transmission information or other routing information in any manner in connection with the transmission of an unsolicited bulk electronic mail (or “spam”) through or into the computer network of an electronic mail service provider or its subscribers.8 The VCCA thus protects computer users from the electronic manipulation of financial records by a competitor or vandal as well as the theft of proprietary information.

The VCCA also creates what one might think of as untraditional cyber-crimes. “Computer invasion of privacy” involves the use of a computer or computer network to examine intentionally, and without authority, another person’s employment and financial information.9 “Theft of computer services” occurs when one uses a computer or computer network to obtain computer services, such as e-mail or database access, without authority.10 “Personal trespass by computer” involves the use of a computer or computer network without authority to intentionally cause physical injury to another.11 “Harassment by computer” is the intentional coercing, intimidating or harassing of another through a computer or computer network to communicate obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, or indecent language, or make any suggestion or proposal of an obscene nature, or threaten any illegal or immoral act.12 Moreover, the VCCA contains provisions that criminalize the embezzlement of computer hardware, software and services,13 the use of a computer as an instrument of forgery,14 and the use of encryption in criminal activity.15 These provisions protect organizations and individuals from cyber-spying, spamming and other forms of harassment made possible by the Internet.

Jurisdiction and Venue Under the VCCA
Cyber-criminals are not immune from the VCCA merely because they use their computers outside of Virginia. In fact, a defendant with no traditional contacts with the Commonwealth may nonetheless become subject to the jurisdiction of a Virginia court by using a Virginia-based Internet service provider—such as America Online (AOL), Erols or Verizon Online Services—to commit one or more cyber-torts.

The Virginia long-arm statute states that “using a computer or computer network located in the Commonwealth shall constitute an act in the Commonwealth”16 for personal jurisdiction purposes. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia interprets this provision liberally. In Bochan v. La Fontaine,17 the court addressed whether the defendants (who resided in Texas and New Mexico) committed libel in Virginia by posting messages to an Internet newsgroup through an AOL service.18 The Bochan court found that the plaintiff made a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction due to the defendants’ “use of the AOL account, a Virginia-based service, to publish the allegedly defamatory statements.”19 The Eastern District of Virginia recently confirmed this analysis in Verizon Online Services, Inc. v. Ralsky when holding that the intentional use of Verizon’s Virginia Internet server by Michigan residents to transmit spam bulk e-mail satisfied the personal jurisdiction minimum contacts inquiry.20

The VCCA also contains a broad venue provision. For venue purposes, a VCCA violation is deemed to have been committed in any county or city “[f]rom which, to which, or through which any access to a computer or computer network was made whether by wires, electromagnetic waves, microwaves, or any other means of communication[.]”21 As a result, many VCCA cases are brought in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, which has jurisdiction over Internet service providers located in the Northern Virginia technology corridor.

Practical Difficulties in Identifying Perpetrators Under the VCCA
The VCCA has a broad scope, encompassing most forms of dishonest or outrageous behavior seen on the Internet. Unfortunately, the VCCA does not provide any separate tools for catching culprits who violate its provisions. Victims thus are left largely to their own devices in identifying and locating those responsible for the crimes.

Determining the true identity of those who use the Internet for criminal purposes can be daunting. While Internet anonymity fosters free speech, it also provides unprecedented cover for criminal conduct. Unlike conventional criminals, the computer criminal has the luxury of acting through an anonymous e-mail account from behind a computer screen miles, if not states or countries, away from the crime scene. Moreover, he can act without fear of leaving fingerprints or DNA evidence.

The United States Supreme Court recognized that “[a]nyone with access to the Internet may take advantage of a wide variety of communication and information retrieval methods.”22 Perhaps the most common form of Internet communication is e-mail, which “enables an individual to send an electronic message — generally akin to a note or letter — to another individual or to a group of addresses.”23 As the Court explained, however, e-mail addresses frequently do not identify the person who actually sent the e-mail: “An e-mail address provides no authoritative information about the addressee, who may use an e-mail ‘alias’ or an anonymous remailer. There is also no universal or reliable listing of e-mail addresses and corresponding names or telephone numbers, and any such listing would be or rapidly become incomplete.”24 The difficulties in identifying a perpetrator increase when the computer crime victim cannot even identify the criminal’s e-mail address.

Many Internet service providers create chat rooms that allow users to cloak further their identities with so-called “screen names.” Screen names often fail even to identify the users’ respective e-mail addresses, thus rendering the author of a particular electronic message at least two steps removed from the reader. In most cases, therefore, a potential plaintiff may need to make formal requests or, if necessary, issue subpoenas, to Internet service providers to match a particular screen name to a particular e-mail and further match that e-mail to a particular individual.

But even making such a match does not necessarily end the search for the VCCA perpetrator. At best, an Internet service provider can identify only the name of the individual who created a particular e-mail account. The provider cannot identify who used the e-mail account at the time in question. The issue gets more complicated when a perpetrator of a cyber-tort intentionally uses sophisticated means to avoid detection.25

In response to these complications, some victims of VCCA crimes initiate a “John Doe” lawsuit to serve subpoenas and take initial discovery.26 Others retain a technology expert who can identify the perpetrator(s). The remaining victims, however, usually have to rely on the criminal authorities to find the persons responsible for the crimes.

First Amendment Implications and Federal Preemption Cautions
Courts take computer tort cases seriously and are not shy about punishing this latest generation of criminals.27 Moreover, the VCCA not only criminalizes cyber-crimes, it also provides a civil cause of action under which plaintiffs can recover statutory damages, attorneys’ fees and costs for transmissions of spam.28 Notwithstanding this broad array of weapons, however, a potential plaintiff seeking to invoke the VCCA must be careful not to use them in a manner that runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution or federal statutes.

Defendants may invoke the First Amendment in response to many claims under the VCCA. The “harassment by computer” provision is probably the most vulnerable to a “free speech” defense. This provision states: “If any person, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, or harass any person, shall use a computer or computer network to communicate obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, or indecent language, or make any suggestion or proposal of an obscene nature, or threaten any illegal or immoral act, he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.”29 Although “obscene speech ... can be banned,”30 the Supreme Court in Reno struck provisions of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA) pertaining to minors because the terms “indecent” and “patently offensive” used in the statute were unconstitutionally vague.31 The Court did, however, invoke the CDA’s severability clause and, through “textual surgery,” saved one of the unconstitutional provisions by severing the term “or indecent” from the statute.32

In addition to treading carefully around the First Amendment, any plaintiff considering whether to bring a VCCA action must not cast its litigation net too widely. The most tempting targets are the Internet service providers who supply a forum for cyber-crooks or miscreants. The CDA, however, immunizes Internet service providers from liability even if they allow others to use their services to harass or deceive. As the Fourth Circuit explained, Congress enacted § 230 of the CDA to immunize service providers that perform “traditional editorial functions,” such as moderating and editing:

By its plain language, § 230 creates a federal immunity to any cause of action that would make service providers liable for information originating with a third-party user of the service. Specifically, § 230 precludes courts from entertaining claims that would place a computer service provider in a publisher’s role. Thus, lawsuits seeking to hold a service provider liable for its exercise of a publisher’s traditional editorial functions — such as deciding whether to publish, withdraw, postpone or alter content — are barred.33

Through this immunization, the CDA encourages individuals and companies to “self-regulate the dissemination of offensive material over their services.”34 The CDA, therefore, prevents plaintiffs from holding service providers liable in tort under the VCCA merely because the self-regulation allegedly was not perfect.

Conclusion
Attorneys, wherever they practice, and companies, wherever located, should be familiar with the VCCA’s broad protections. When properly invoked, the VCCA provides ordinary citizens and companies with a valuable tool to deter and punish cyber-torts.

NOTES
1. Messrs. Coffee and Klein are with Winston & Strawn’s Washington, D.C., office.
2. Symantec (formerly Riptech) Internet Security Threat Report, Vol. II available at http://enterprisesecurity.symantec.com (July 2002).
3. Va. Code Ann. §§ 18.2-152.15 (2002).
4. Id. at §18.2-152.12.
5. Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844, 850 (1997) (quotation omitted.)
6. Id. (quotation omitted).
7. Va. Code Ann. §§ 18.2-152.3 (2002).
8. Id. at §18.2-152.4. “Electronic mail service provider” means any person who (i) is an intermediary in sending or receiving electronic mail and (ii) provides to end-users of electronic mail services the ability to send or receive electronic mail. Id. at § 18.2-152.2.
9. Id. at §18.2-152.5; see also S.R. v. INOCA Healthcare Servs., 49 Va. Cir. 119 (Va.Cir.Ct. 1999).
10. Va. Code Ann. §§ 18.2-152.6 (2002).
11. Id. at §18.2-152.7.
12. Id. at §18.2-152.7:1.
13. Id. at §18.2-152.8.
14. Id. at §18.2-152.14.
15. Id. at §18.2-152.15.
16. Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-328.1(B). (2002).
17. 68 F.Supp. 2d 692 (E.D.Va. 1999).
18. Id. at 698.
19. Id. at 699.
20. 203 F.Supp. 2d 601, 609-23 (E.D.Va. 2002) But see America Online v. Huang, 106 F.Supp. 848, 857-58 (2000) (holding that personal jurisdiction was inappropriate under the Virginia long-arm statute where the defendant’s actions in Virginia were limited to domain name registration).
21. Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-152.10(4) (2002).
22. Reno, 521 U.S. at 851.
23. Id.
24. Id. at 855 n.20 (quotation omitted).
25. See Ralsky, 203 F.Supp. 2d at 608 n.4 (citing methods used by defendant “to cloak their identities and remain anonymous”).
26. See id. at 608.
27. See America Online, Inc. v. CN Prods., Inc., 272 B.R. 879 (E.D. Va. 1999) (awarding AOL $1.9 million in damages and attorneys’ fees for violations of VCCA among other statutes).
28. See Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-152.12 (2002).
29. Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-152.7:1 (2002).
30. Reno, 521 U.S. at 883.
31. See id. at 870-85 (striking provisions of 47 U.S.C.§ 223); see also id. at 874 (“Given the vague contours of the coverage of the statute, it unquestionably silences some speakers whose messages would be entitled to constitutional protection.”)
32. 521 U.S. at 883; cf. Va. Code. Ann; § 18.2-152.13 (VCCA severability provision).
33. Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327, 330 (4th Cir. 1997)(emphasis added) (citation omitted); see also U.S.C. § 230 (2000).
34. Id.

Return to Top

Young Lawyers Division
Many Thanks
Vaughan Gibson Aaronson

It is hard to believe that almost a year has passed since the official VBA/YLD year began back in January. And thanks to all of the hard work and dedication of many young lawyers across the state, this year has been a tremendous one.

Members of the 2002 VBA/YLD Executive Committee have exhibited great leadership over the past 12 months. Melissa Amos Young provided guidance to our pro bono hotlines (including presiding over our Pro Bono Roundtable) and minority recruitment projects and led the initial effort to re-draft our Working Parents Handbook. Monica Taylor Monday chaired our Bridge the Gap program and was a major force behind our membership efforts. Charlie Meyer, who was also tapped this year to lead the VBA Substance Abuse Committee, coordinated our grants process and played an important role in the kickoff of our Nonprofit Legal Support Project. King Tower, in addition to chairing the Committee on Legal Services for the Mentally Ill, initiated our communications efforts and chaired the Nominating Committee. Ashley Taylor, working closely with the Virginia Attorney General’s office, spearheaded the publication of our Special Education Handbook and helped coordinate our Child Support Enforcement Project. Kathy Harman-Stokes, always a leader in efforts in Northern Virginia, led our membership efforts in that area, helped to develop new projects, and continued her hard work with our Domestic Violence Projects. Chris Boynton worked with various committee chairs to coordinate our Town Hall Meetings and also aided membership efforts in Hampton Roads. Brack Hill, next year’s Secretary/Treasurer, provided strong leadership and support to the DMV Projects, our Community Law Week efforts and the Immigrant Assistance Project. Lori Thompson, in addition to her work with our Mentor programs, co-chaired the DMV Project in Roanoke, worked closely with the Law School Councils and led the effort to start a VBA/YLD Council at the University of Virginia. Matt Cheek enthusiastically assisted several projects, including Project Focus and the New Associates Survival Guide, and planned our Law School Liaison Roundtable at the VBA Annual Meeting. Finally, Nicole Daniel, who always volunteered to pitch in when most needed, not only put together our ABA Award application, which won several awards, but also coordinated our liaisons to the VBA’s sections and committees and worked with Melissa Amos Young to update the Working Parents Handbook. These strong efforts put forth by the members of this year’s Executive Committee are to be commended, and I thank each of them for the incredible amount of support they have given me over this past year.

In addition to the Executive Committee, the members of our 2002 Executive Council, all of whom chaired committees this year, contributed countless volunteer hours towards our many initiatives. Perhaps our largest new undertaking this year was the production of a video entitled “Protecting Children: A Mandated Reporter’s Guide to Recognizing and Reporting Child Abuse and Neglect” which will be distributed to hundreds of organizations throughout the Commonwealth. Mike Walton undertook this project with great enthusiasm and assembled a coalition of statewide child abuse prevention groups to produce a top-quality video that educates mandatory reporters of child abuse on the signs of abuse and the procedures for reporting it.

Also produced and distributed this year was our Special Education Handbook which helps parents of special needs children navigate through the educational system and an updated version of our Working Parents Handbook which provides helpful information to families of all income levels looking for child care. Our final publication, the New Associates Survival Guide, provides advice to new lawyers on a number of topics and was initiated and, with the help of her committee, produced by Erica Beardsley. Erica also helped out this year with our Domestic Violence Projects and with the development of new projects and expansion of existing ones.

Two additional areas of great focus this year have been recruiting new young lawyers to the VBA/YLD and increasing communications not only within the Division but with the public at large. Enough cannot be said about the efforts this year of Elizabeth Horsley and Anne Wood, our Membership chairs. Elizabeth and Anne enlisted the help of a number of other active VBA/YLD members to conduct lunches all across the Commonwealth with the intent (and results!) of encouraging young lawyers to join our community service efforts.. A great deal of thanks goes to Elizabeth and Anne as well as our other members who contributed to this strong effort this year.

Cabell Youell and Livy Haskell led our efforts in increasing communications through more articles in the VBA News Journal, informative e-mails within our organization and increased press coverage of events. Through their hard work, the word got out about the VBA/YLD and as a result, more people benefited from our projects.

Turner Broughton continued his work with the Attorney General’s Office to further strengthen our Child Support Enforcement Project in Richmond and expand it to other jurisdictions. Tom Connally coordinated our long-standing poster contest in Northern Virginia as part of the Community Law Week and Law Day Project and with the help of Brian Greene and Lori Thompson, worked with our Mentor Programs to present an ABA-produced video on racial tolerance entitled “The Child In Me” to third- and fourth-grade students in Roanoke.

Richard Ottinger and Val Long, in addition to their help with membership efforts in Hampton Roads and Charlottesville, respectively, recruited and trained new volunteers for the Disaster Legal Assistance Project in preparation for quick response to disasters. Our DMV project, led in Richmond by Julie Childress and in Roanoke by Wallace Brittle and Lori Thompson, educated new drivers on the significant responsibilities associated with driving privileges.

The Domestic Violence Project in Northern Virginia, led by Susanne Carnell and Marli Kerrigan, and in Richmond, led by Sharon Cox and Erin McDonald, continued to assist even more victims of domestic violence. Molly Evans, through her work on our Health Law Project, made presentations on appeals of managed care decisions. Cathryn Le and Kim Welsh worked in collaboration with the VSB Young Lawyers Conference to draft an Immigrant Assistance Handbook which will ultimately be distributed to judges throughout the Commonwealth to assist them with issues relating to immigrants.

David Meyers represented the VBA/YLD on the board of The John Marshall Foundation and Mike Graff and Donna Bryant represented the Division with the Lawyers Helping Lawyers Program.

Our Law School Councils presented a number of different programs at Virginia’s law schools. Cooper Youell led the effort at Washington and Lee, Katja Hill (also our ABA liaison) and Megan Rahman at Richmond and Kristan Burch at William & Mary. The Lawyers for the Arts/Nonprofits committee led by Leigh Hudgins and Jennifer McClellan held a series of legal clinics for artists throughout the Commonwealth in collaboration with the Washington Area Lawyers for the Arts organization.

Our Mentor Programs visited hundreds of elementary school students across Virginia through efforts led in Richmond by Rudene Bascomb and Andy Sherrod, in Roanoke by Beth Colling and in Lynchburg by Chris Billias. Our Minority Recruitment Committees led by Aisha Bullard and Greg Habeeb in Richmond and Jimmy Robinson in Roanoke worked to encourage interest in the legal profession among minorities. David Ervin conducted yet another successful Model Judiciary program this year and Chris Jones organized our annual Moot Court Competition bringing together students from a number of law schools. Lucas Hobbs took over this year as chair of our Pre-law Counseling committee and coordinated programs at various law schools.

Our Nonprofit Legal Support Project was kicked off this year under the able leadership of Becky Kuehn and is now matching volunteer attorneys with non-profits in need of legal services in Northern Virginia.

Our Pro Bono Hotlines, one of our “flagship” projects, continued to reach thousands of people most in need of legal services all over Virginia. Cyane Crump, Agustin Rodriguez and Coby Beck led the Central Virginia Pro Bono Hotline through many changes this year and recruited a record number of volunteers. The Northern Virginia Hotline led by Renee Esfandiary and the Roanoke Hotline led by Dinny Skaff continued to attract new volunteers and reached even more citizens. Tidewater chairs Brian Sykes and Jim Harvey worked to expand their Hotline to even more areas of eastern Virginia. Beth McMahon also deserves recognition for serving as our statewide coordinator of the Pro Bono Hotlines as well as working with the VBA Law Practice Management Division as our VBA/YLD representative.

Robert Angle worked to promote professionalism in the legal community through his work with our Professionalism and Civility in Practice committee, including making a presentation at the VSB/YLC Professional Development Conference. Dutch Bumgardner and the Project Focus committee spent the year identifying several community needs in Richmond and will soon begin presenting landlord/tenant programs to residents of economically disadvantaged neighborhoods in Richmond.

Our Town Hall Meetings committees presented a number of successful and interesting programs around the Commonwealth. Those efforts were led in Richmond by Brian Greene and Henry Willett, in Roanoke by Jim Cowan, in Hampton Roads by Brandon Ziegler and Jeff Miller, in Northern Virginia by Dan Collins and Jeff Harvey, and in Charlottesville by Mike Derdeyn and Don Long.

John Bristow and Heather Dawson coordinated with members of the ABA Young Lawyers Division, the VSB/YLC and the Arlington County Bar Association to lay the groundwork for a program that will give firefighters, policemen and other public safety officials an opportunity to have wills, powers of attorney and advanced medical directives drafted free of charge. Ellsworth Summers and David Sullivan worked with high school athletes to educate them on NCAA rules and regulations through the Collegiate Athletic Advisory Committee. Rod Simmons coordinated updates to The Virginia Lawyer and John Valdivielso worked with former VBA/YLD Chair David Anthony to establish a litigation project.

In addition to all of these young lawyers, I also want to thank the members of the VBA leadership, particularly Ed Betts, Frank Thomas, Ted Ellett and Heman Marshall, for their support of the VBA/YLD this year, including their collaboration with us on our lifestyle balance program last January which won a first-place award from the ABA. The entire VBA staff and especially Breck Arrington, Sandy Thompson, VBA/YLD Coordinator Regina Moss, and Communications Coordinator Caroline Cardwell were instrumental in our success this year as well, and I cannot thank them enough.

Two VBA/YLD leaders that I have not mentioned are Chair-Elect Steve Otero and Secretary/Treasurer Stacy Colvin. I could not have asked for two better people with whom to serve as officers this year. Stacy lent her support to a number of projects and committees in addition to performing her duties as Secretary/Treasurer. Steve also provided his leadership to a number of committees and also took the lead on several new initiatives. He has been my “sounding board” and a person to whom I could always turn for help. Steve is a tremendous leader and the Division will be well served by him next year. Thanks to both Steve and Stacy for their support and friendship and for making this year so much fun for me.

In addition to all of the wonderful people within the YLD and VBA, I must also thank some “non-bar” people. I could not have performed my duties as Chair this year without the personal support of my family, friends and colleagues. Thanks to my partners at Troutman Sanders and particularly the Multifamily Housing Group for their support and for backing me up particularly during times of heavy VBA commitments. Special thanks, also, to my parents, Bob and Mary Vaughan Gibson, who encouraged my pursuit of a legal career and who instilled in me the desire to balance my life and to give back when, where and however I could.

Finally, words cannot express the great appreciation I feel for my husband, Rusty Aaronson, for his unending support through this very hectic year. Although a lawyer and VBA member himself, he “married” into the YLD family and found himself editing my columns, traveling all over Virginia with me to attend meetings and events, and serving as the unofficial VBA/YLD “social chairman.” I am so grateful for his love and support and thank him for all that he does.

This year was a successful one for the Division due to all of the hard work of our many volunteers. These volunteers made my job easy. The YLD is strong and with all of the talent in our ranks, will achieve even greater things in the future. I have enjoyed my involvement with the YLD over the last 10 years and as Rusty and I move on to the next great adventure of our lives with the birth of our first child in February, I will look back on this year fondly. Thank you for the opportunity to serve this organization. Return to Top

Click here for the VBA/YLD page and current volunteer opportunities. Return to Top

Across the Commonwealth

"Legal Elite" announced for 2002
“Long the butt of usually unfair jokes about supposed avarice, lawyers these days may seem more like Atticus Finch in To Kill a Mockingbird,” wrote Virginia Business Executive Editor Peter Galuszka in his introduction of the 2002 “Legal Elite” in the magazine’s December issue.

“Virginia needs legally adept men and women to bring a semblance of justice and sanity to what has been a very rough world in the past year.”

First published in December 2000, the “Legal Elite” consists of Virginia attorneys selected by their peers as the top lawyers in the Commonwealth. Nearly 300 lawyers, representing 10 areas of law practice, made the first list, and the number has continued to increase each year.

The Virginia Bar Association, while not a sponsor of the survey, provides advice and assistance to the Virginia Business staff, such as suggesting a broadening of the survey population even further beyond the confines of VBA membership and distributing surveys in areas outside of major metropolitan centers.

As with any such initiative, strict rules were imposed. Lawyers could not nominate themselves. They could nominate attorneys in their own law firms, but better scores were given to lawyers they nominated from other firms. While numerous VBA leaders and members made the list, a sizable number of non-member lawyers were also named by their peers to the list. The list of practice categories changes each year to offer more diversity to the list.

Space precludes the VBA News Journal from recognizing all attorneys of the 2002 Virginia Business “Legal Elite”; we are, however, pleased to publish the names of the lawyers who received the highest votes in each of the 10 categories.

BUSINESS LAW: F. Claiborne Johnston Jr., Richmond; Nicholas C. Conte, Roanoke; Robert L. Burrus Jr., Richmond; James L. Weinberg, Richmond; Douglas W. Densmore, Roanoke.
CIVIL LITIGATION: John T. Jessee, Roanoke; Michael Urbanski, Roanoke; Everette G. Allen Jr., Richmond; William D. Bayliss, Richmond; Kevin P. Oddo, Roanoke.
CRIMINAL LAW: Steven D. Benjamin, Richmond; John Martin, White Stone; Richard Brydges, Virginia Beach; Peter Greenspun, Fairfax; John McLees, Richmond.
FAMILY/DOMESTIC RELATIONS: Donald K. Butler, Richmond; Terrence R. Batzli, Glen Allen; Carl F. Bowmer, Richmond; Edward D. Barnes, Richmond; Mona Schapiro Flax, Virginia Beach.
IMMIGRATION/NATURALIZATION: Eliot Norman, Richmond; William J. Benos, Richmond; Patrick O. Gottschalk, Richmond; Debra J.C. Dowd, Richmond; Jacquelyn E. Stone, Richmond.
LABOR/EMPLOYMENT: Thomas Bagby, Richmond; Harris D. Butler III, Richmond; Elaine Charlson Bredehoft, Reston; Jack W. Burtch Jr., Richmond; John M. Bredehoft, Vienna.
LOBBYING/REGULATORY: Ralph L. Axselle Jr., Richmond; Heidi Abbott, Richmond; Reginald N. Jones, Richmond; William G. Thomas, Falls Church; W. Scott Johnson, Richmond.
REAL ESTATE/CONSTRUCTION: Brian Marron, Richmond; Philip J. Bagley III, Richmond; John Sills, Staunton; Philip C. Baxa, Richmond; George W. Rowe, Richmond.
TAXES/ESTATES/TRUSTS: Dennis Belcher, Richmond; David E. Perry, Roanoke; David D. Addison, Richmond; Waller H. Horsley, Richmond; Neal P. Brodsky, Norfolk.
TRANSPORT/ADMIRALTY/INTERMODAL: John E. Holloway, Norfolk; Hon. Gerald L. Baliles, Richmond; Daniel R. Warman, Norfolk; David Sump, Norfolk; R. Arthur Jett, Norfolk. Return to Top

General Assembly starts this month
Expect to see rivulets of red (ink, we hope) running from Capitol Square during the next two months as lawmakers hack away at the state’s already-slashed budget during the 2003 General Assembly.

Court matters will also be in the forefront as the Assembly considers the selection of a new Virginia Supreme Court justice.

The Virginia Bar Association has prepared its legislative agenda over the summer and fall of 2002 and is ready for action, with the help of retained representatives Tony Troy, David Shuford, Rob Jones and Anne Leigh Kerr.

Sections and committees with particular interest in Assembly activities this year include Business Law, Civil Litigation, Construction & Public Contracts Law, Domestic Relations, Elder Law, Health Law, Intellectual Property & Information Technology Law, Judicial, Real Estate, Wills, Trusts & Estates, Judiciary, Needs of Children, Needs of the Mentally Disabled, Substance Abuse and The Virginia ADR Joint Committee.

Information about bills of interest to VBA sections and committees will be posted on their pertinent pages within the website, with links to more details through the Virginia Legislative Information System (LIS), located at leg1.state.va.us. VBA members are encouraged to visit the LIS website for its abundance of information.

A complete list of Assembly deadline dates is posted on the VBA website at www.vba.org, along with links to the LIS and other key sites.

VBA members are encouraged to check the Association website periodically during the session, in order to monitor bill status and any other postings of information.

Section and committee chairs will receive periodic mailings of bills from the VBA office throughout the session, and all paid VBA section members will receive legislative summaries after the session is over and results are finalized. A comprehensive status report will be published in the VBA News Journal in March and a final wrap-up will be published in April. Return to Top

VBA offers judicial recommendations
On December 10, The Virginia Bar Association submitted its recommendations for the pending vacancy on the Supreme Court of Virginia to the General Assembly Courts of Justice Committees.

On the same day, the VBA’s recommendations for the vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia were forwarded to the offices of Senators John Warner and George Allen.

Hon. G. Steven Agee of the Court of Appeals of Virginia and Hon. R. Terrence Ney of the 19th Circuit Court (a VBA past president and current Judicial Section chair) were recommended for the pending Supreme Court vacancy caused by the retirement of Chief Justice Harry L. Carrico on January 31, 2003.

U.S. Magistrates B. Waugh Crigler and Glen E. Conrad and attorneys Douglas Guynn and Maryellen Goodlatte were the recommended candidates for the Western District vacancy, caused by the recent announcement of senior status by Hon. James C. Turk Sr.

The VBA Committee on Nominations to Virginia Commissions and Appellate Courts is chaired by Thomas F. Farrell II of Richmond. The VBA Committee on Federal Judgeships/Western District is chaired by Wilson F. Vellines Jr. of Staunton.Return to Top

Frank Thomas will become VBA President
President-elect Frank A. Thomas III of Orange will succeed J. Edward Betts as president of The Virginia Bar Association during the VBA’s annual breakfast business meeting on Saturday, January 18, at the Williamsburg Lodge & Conference Center. Thomas is a partner in the law firm of Shackelford, Thomas & Gregg, P.L.C., in Orange. He received B.A., M.A. and J.D. degrees from the University of Virginia, where he was a member of the Order of the Coif and was a member of the Board of Editors (1972-73) and Notes Editor (1973-74), of the Virginia Law Review. He was admitted to the Virginia State Bar, the U.S. Tax Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, in 1974. He chaired the VBA Wills, Trusts and Estates Section from 1997 to 1999 and is a past chair of the Virginia State Bar Trusts and Estates Section. He is also a member of the VBA Taxation Section. He is a Fellow of the American College of Trust and Estate Counsel and a member of the American Bar Association. Return to Top

Virginia Law Foundation taps Fellows
The Virginia Law Foundation will induct its newest class of Fellows on Thursday, January 16, in Williamsburg during The Virginia Bar Association’s 113th Annual Meeting.

Guest speaker for the occasion will be the Honorable Harry L. Carrico, Chief Justice of Virginia.

Induction as a Fellow of the Virginia Law Foundation is a special honor conferred by the VLF Board on selected Virginia attorneys, law professors, and retired members of the judiciary who are deemed to be outstanding in their profession and in their community. Total membership is limited to one percent of the active and associate membership of the Virginia State Bar.

Inductees of the 2003 Class of Fellows are Thomas G. Bell of Staunton; Richard G. Brydges of Virginia Beach; William D. Cremins of Fairfax; Hon. B.A. Davis III of Rocky Mount; Hon. Paul D. Fraim, Michael A. Glasser and William E. Rachels Jr. of Norfolk; Jeanne F. Franklin of Alexandria; James W. Korman of Arlington; Hon. Kenneth E. Trabue of Penhook; and John V. Cogbill III, Hon. Sam W. Coleman III, Mark S. Dray, James M. McCauley, Nancy N. Rogers, and Mark E. Rubin, all of Richmond.

Return to Top

Duke, UVA take Moot Court honors
Duke University won Region IV honors and the University of Virginia took second place in the National Moot Court Competition for law students in Richmond November 15-16. Both teams will advance to the final rounds in New York City later this winter.

The winning Duke “B” team (respondent) included Meredith Turner, Jacquelyn Sumer and Dhamian Blue. The UVA team (petitioner) included Scott Nilsen, Bret Winterle and Best Oralist Hiren Patel. Wake Forest University’s “A” team of Catherine Caniglia, Kyle Deak and Amy DeWitt won the “Best Brief” award.

Final-round judges included Virginia’s Chief Justice Harry L. Carrico; Hon. Elliott E. Maynard and Hon. Larry V. Starcher, justices of the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals; Hon. Robert E. Payne of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia; and Hon. James C. Turk of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia.

The national competition is sponsored by the Young Lawyers Committee of the Bar of the City of New York and the American College of Trial Lawyers. The VBA Young Lawyers Division sponsors the regional contest for 11 law schools in Virginia, North Carolina, West Virginia and Kentucky. Christopher Jones of LeClair Ryan, P.C., chairs the competition organizing committee for the VBA/YLD.

Competition sponsors were as follows: Chandler & Halasz, Inc.; Christian & Barton, L.L.P.; Crane-Snead & Associates, Inc.; Crews & Hancock; Hunton & Williams; LeClair Ryan, P.C.; McGuireWoods, L.L.P.; Midkiff, Muncie & Ross, P.C.; Morchower, Luxton & Whaley; Mundy, Rogers & Frith, L.L.P.; Smith, Pachter, McWhorter & D’Ambrosio, P.L.C.; Taylor, Hazen, Kauffman & Pinchbeck, P.L.C.; Troutman Sanders L.L.P.; Walsh, Colucci, Stackhouse, Emrich & Lubely, P.C.; Yost Associates; Zahn, Hall & Zahn. Return to Top

News in Brief

VBA Past President Thomas C. Brown Jr., a partner in the law firm of McGuireWoods LLP in McLean, has been selected for membership in The Warren E. Burger Society of the National Center for State Courts (NCSC), which honors individuals who have demonstrated an exemplary commitment to improving the administration of justice through extraordinary contributions of service or support to the National Center. Brown has served on the NCSC’s Lawyers Committee and has been a longtime supporter of the Center’s work and mission, in addition to holding numerous professional leadership positions.

VBA Administrative Law Section Chair Jay Holloway, Business Law Section Council member Randall Parks, Real Estate Section Council member David DuVal, and VBA/YLD members Seth Ginther and Jamie Baskerville Martin were among those named to Inside Business’s “Top Forty Under 40” list of rising Richmond-area leaders for 2002.

The VBA Labor Relations & Employment Law Section will co-sponsor the 21st Annual National Multi-State Labor & Employment Law Seminar with the SMU Dedman School of Law June 11-14 at The Homestead. Watch for more details.

VBA annual dues statements will be mailed this month. Is your contact information in VBA records up-to-date? If not, please submit any changes to your listing to the VBA by e-mail to Judy King at jking@vba.org or by fax at (804) 644-0052.

The Virginia Lawyer was first published in 1966 by the VBA Young Lawyers Division. In 2000, Virginia CLE and the VBA/YLD joined in a cooperative effort to produce a new version of the two-volume guide for practitioners designed to assist attorneys in dealing with unfamiliar areas. Details are available on the Internet at http://www.vacle.org/wn111.htm#valawyer.

Return to Top

Classifieds

Experts
FORENSIC PSYCHIATRIST: Mental injury, TBI, Nursing homes, Malpractice, Guardianships, Will contests, Criminal matters, Child custody. Karl Sieg, M.D., Board Certified in Adult, Child, Geriatric, Addiction & Forensic Psychiatry, (757) 532-7016 — Williamsburg.

The VBA News Journal now offers classified advertising. Categories available are as follows: positions available, positions wanted, books and software, office equipment/furnishings, office space, experts, consulting services, business services, vacation rentals, and educational opportunities. Rates are $1 per word for VBA members and $1.50 per word for non-members, with a $35 minimum, payable at the time of submission. Ad costs must be paid in advance. The VBA News Journal reserves the right to review all ad copy before publication and to reject material deemed unsuitable. Deadlines will be one month in advance of the date of publication (February 1 for March, etc.). Information is available online at www.vba.org, or call for details at (804) 644-0041.

Return to Top

Copyright 2007 The Virginia Bar Association