100 years of juvenile courts in America are honored at UR
Frank Flippin leaves his mark on 1998
The Year 2000 Information and Readiness Disclosure Act:
Antidote for the Millennium Bug's Bite
Restatement of Appealability in Virginia
Family at Law: The Taylors of Augusta County
Nominations sought for Gardener G. DeMallie Jr. Award
David Craig Landin becomes VBA president this month
ANLIR contributes $15K to Lawyers Helping Lawyers
Carolina teams take Moot Court honors
VBA and VSB young lawyers join forces to fight domestic violence
The first juvenile court in America - and in the world - was established in Cook County, Illinois, in 1899.
1999 will be the centennial year of America's juvenile courts, and The Virginia Bar Association will be in the thick of the celebration.
Former VBA Executive Committee member Prof. Robert E. Shepherd Jr., who chairs the VBA Commission on the Needs of Children and is a former chair of the American Bar Association's Juvenile Justice Committee, is the catalyst for bringing together a number of groups for a 100-day-long observance of the first century of the American juvenile court system.
Shepherd, professor of law at the University of Richmond's T.C. Williams School of Law, has united the law school, the Richmond Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court and the Richmond Juvenile Court Advisory Council as sponsors of the 1999 Juvenile Court Centennial Symposium, to be held in the law school's Moot Court Room.
Juvenile courts came to Virginia in 1914, when legislation was passed establishing such courts in the Commonwealth. The first full-time juvenile court judge in Virginia was Hon. J. Hoge Ricks, a T.C. Williams graduate.
The Symposium will include programs on January 26, February 23, March 16 and April 20. Each of the symposia will begin at 7 p.m. with a principal address, remarks by reactors, audience participation and a reception.
The text of the Symposium addresses will be published by the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges in a special centennial issue of the Juvenile and Family Court Journal later this year.
Speakers and reactors are as follows:
January 26. Speaker: Hon. J. Dean Lewis of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court (15th District), President of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. Reactors: Hon. Harry L. Carrico, chief justice of Virginia; Rep. Robert C. Scott (D-Virginia, 3rd District), co-chair of the Agendas Task Force on Crime/Juvenile Justice of the House Democratic Caucus; Hon. Johanna Fitzpatrick, chief judge of the Court of Appeals of Virginia.
February 23. Speaker: Prof. Robert E. Shepherd. Reactors: Dr. Paul Keve, professor emeritus of criminal justice at Virginia Commonwealth University and Virginia's first adult probation officer; Hon. James W. Benton Jr. of the Court of Appeals of Virginia.
March 16. Speaker: Hunter Hurst III, director of the National Center for Juvenile Justice. Reactors: Del. Jerrauld Jones (D-Norfolk), former chair of the Virginia Commission on Youth and chair of the Commission's studies on violent youth crime and juvenile justice reform; Del. Robert McDonnell (R-Virginia Beach), a former juvenile court prosecutor and a member of the Governor's Task Force on Juvenile Justice Reform.
April 20. Speaker: Hon. Ernestine S. Gray of the Orleans Parish (La.) Juvenile Court, co-chair of the ABA Juvenile Justice Committee and second vice president of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. Reactors: Sharon England, chair of the Richmond Juvenile Court Citizens Advisory Council; F.G. Rockwell IV, student at the Governor's School in Richmond. Return to Top
At the beginning of his year as president of The Virginia Bar Association, Frank Flippin promised members that "1998 will be an exciting year for The Virginia Bar Association." This month, Flippin passes the presidential gavel to David Craig Landin, and as he does so can reflect on a year marked by a number of notable achievements:
In the second year of a three-year professionalism initiative, the VBA's efforts intensified with the unveiling of ethics programs to be offered in partnership with local and specialty bars in Virginia. A number of such presentations were made in 1998, and 13 are already booked around the state for 1999.
VBA communications were marked by great changes in 1998. The VBA Journal and News & Views were discontinued, to be replaced by the VBA News Journal, and the VBA website, VBA Online, underwent a major (and continuing) expansion.
The Association enjoyed a surprisingly successful legislative program in 1998, raising its profile even higher in Capitol Square.
Membership efforts proceeded apace without ill effects from the dues increase. New approaches to recruitment and retention were explored during the year.
VBA sections and committees continued to gain ground in 1998.
Collegiality remained a major focus of highly regarded Annual and Summer Meetings, marked with traditional VBA camaraderie.
President Flippin represented the VBA not only at bar events in Virginia, but at meetings of the American Bar Association and the Southern Conference of Bar Presidents.
All in all, 1998 was a memorable year for the man from Roanoke and for the Association he led. Return to Top
by G. Michael Pace Jr.
With less than 365 days remaining before the dawn of the new century, businesses and others are scrambling to become Year 2000 ("Y2K") ready, and to confirm the Y2K readiness of their strategic business partners.
Formal requests for Y2K compliance statements pervade the business community. These statements generally take the form of detailed questionnaires asking for specific responses about Y2K readiness efforts. Responses to such inquiries may amount to broad warranties and representations by the issuer with respect to its ability to process dated information by, through and after January 1, 2000. These responses are being relied upon by the recipients and, if damage is caused as a result of inaccuracies contained in such statements, they may form the basis of a claim for liability asserted against the maker in order to recover all or a portion of the loss.
Companies are also seeking such assurances in order to attempt to establish a defense to claims made by their shareholders, the Federal Trade Commission, other federal and state regulatory agencies and third parties, that the officers and directors failed to take appropriate steps to protect the company against or to minimize the effect of Y2K issues.
The Act
The proliferation of these requests has created great concern in the business community and has, in some cases, altered existing business relationships. To address these concerns, The Year 2000 Information Readiness Disclosure Act (the "Act"), Pub. Law 105-271, became law on October 19, 1998. The purpose of the Act is to promote "prompt, candid and thorough disclosure and exchange of information related to Year 2000 readiness of entities, products, and services," and "to lessen burdens on interstate commerce by establishing certain uniform legal principles in connection with the disclosure or exchange of information related to Year 2000 readiness."
Definitions
The Act provides a maker of a Y2K statement with certain significant protections. The Act defines a "maker" as a person or entity who issues or publishes, develops or prepares a Y2K statement or who assists, reviews, or contributes to the issuance or publication of a Y2K statement.
The Act makes a distinction between a "Year 2000 Statement" and a "Year 2000 Readiness Disclosure." A Year 2000 Statement (a "Y2K Statement") is essentially any statement made by a person or entity concerning its Y2K processing capabilities. A Year 2000 Readiness Disclosure (a "Y2K Disclosure"), however, is any Y2K Statement that is (a) clearly identified on its face as a Y2K Disclosure; (b) inscribed on a tangible or other medium (including posting on an Internet website); and (c) is issued by or with the approval of the maker.
The Act applies only to Y2K Statements made between July 14, 1998, and July 14, 2001, and to Y2K Disclosures made between October 19, 1998, and July 14, 2001. The Act provides for the conversion of Y2K Statements made prior to October 15, 1998, to Y2K Disclosures if made on or before December 3, 1998, and as prescribed by the Act.
Protection
Generally, under the Act, a Y2K Disclosure is inadmissible as evidence in civil actions against the maker to prove the truthfulness of any matter asserted therein. This general rule, however, is subject to two exceptions. First, a Y2K Disclosure may be admissible to serve as the basis for a claim for anticipatory breach or repudiation of a contract. Second, a court has the discretion to admit a Y2K Disclosure into evidence in circumstances where the court concludes that the maker's uttering of the Y2K Disclosure amounts to bad faith or fraud, or in circumstances where "it is otherwise beyond what is reasonable to achieve" under the purposes of the Act. It is also significant that a Y2K Statement will be deemed inadmissible under the Act only if it is a Y2K Disclosure. Also, a Y2K Disclosure is admissible as evidence to prove matters other than its truth or accuracy.
The Act makes it more difficult to hold a maker liable under federal or state law for an allegedly false or misleading Y2K Statement. For liability to attach, the plaintiff must establish, in addition to the other requisite elements of the particular action, key additional elements by clear and convincing evidence. Those are: (a) that the Y2K Statement was material, and (b) that the maker made it (i) with actual knowledge that the Y2K Statement was false, inaccurate or misleading, (ii) with intent to deceive or mislead, or (iii) with a reckless disregard for its accuracy. In order to foster the free exchange of Y2K information, similar protections are afforded those who republish a Y2K Statement made by another.
The Act prevents a Y2K Statement from being construed as an amendment to or an alteration of a contract or a warranty except in certain specific circumstances. Also, the Act provides that until July 14, 2001, federal antitrust laws do not apply to business agreements made in order to undertake collective responses to avoid failures of computer systems because of the Y2K problem.
Exclusions
The Act provides that it is not to be construed as precluding a claim not based exclusively on a Y2K Statement.
The Act also does not constrain, in any manner, regulatory or enforcement actions brought by federal or state administrative agencies, requiring or prohibiting the disclosure of information.
The Act's evidentiary exclusion does not apply to Y2K Statements incorporated into an advertisement or sales solicitation. Accordingly, such Y2K Statements are admissible in various actions brought by consumers.
Likewise, the Act does not reach Y2K Statements contained in any documents or materials filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or with federal banking regulators, or to disclosures or writings which accompany the solicitation of an offer or sale of securities.
Conclusion
The Act is intended to grant significant protection from liability to makers of Y2K Statements and Y2K Disclosures, while concomitantly limiting the ability of recipients of such information to seek the legal redress otherwise available to them for false and misleading Y2K readiness statements.
As a matter of public policy, Congress believes that the promotion and free exchange of Y2K information will minimize the adverse effect of the Y2K problem on commerce and reduce litigation over Y2K Disclosure issues. This is a laudable objective, given the fact that the Y2K problem was not created by those who now find themselves in the position of having to issue statements about their Y2K readiness to those with whom they do business.
As with much of the uncertainty surrounding the Y2K, the result remains to be seen. Given the
exclusions contained in the Act, it is likely that a claim related to Y2K issues will be made under legal theories not affected by the Act. Notwithstanding, the Act, on the whole, is a good, even if imperfect, start in addressing the concerns created by the Y2K problem.
A number of questions remain unanswered about the applicability of the Act. Is the definition of the term "maker" broad enough to include lawyers and other professional advisors who assist their clients in the preparation of Y2K Statements or Y2K Disclosures? What is the applicability of the Act in circumstances where a claim is not based solely on the issuance of a Y2K Statement? The courts, Congress, and those directly affected will continue to grapple with these and other issues until we find out how big the millennium bug's bite will be.
LinkUp:
A summary of the Act is available on the United States Congress website
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/Z?c105:S.2392.ENR:
About the Author: G. Michael Pace Jr. is the Managing Partner of Gentry Locke Rakes & Moore in Roanoke. Mr. Pace practices in the areas of banking, finance, commercial real estate development, franchising and general business matters. He is a member of the VBA Business Law Section Council and is a past president of the Board of Governors of the VSB Real Property Section. Mr. Pace received his B.A. degree from Hampden-Sydney College and his J.D. degree from Washington & Lee University School of Law. Mr. Pace acknowledges with gratitude the contributions of Kevin W. Holt to this article. Mr. Holt is an associate at Gentry Locke Rakes & Moore, having formerly served as a clerk for Hon. James H. Michael Jr. in Charlottesville. Mr. Holt received his B.A. and J.D. degrees from the University of Virginia. Return to Top
The VBA Judiciary Committee
Since the dissemination of reports by the Judiciary Committee of The Virginia Bar Association concerning interlocutory appeal in Virginia, efforts have continued to meet with interested participants in the Virginia legal system and to learn more about both the operation of interlocutory review under the present system and the impacts of changes in that system.
It has been pointed out to the Committee by those who have studied the prior reports on these topics that the present system relating to interlocutory appeals is complex, and sometimes uncertain. However, it also has many known elements that could benefit from a clear restatement. Indeed, we have been advised that the "final judgment rule" - in actual operation - means something rather different in Virginia than it does in other jurisdictions. The Committee therefore has undertaken to summarize the current operation of the Virginia system of interlocutory review.
Comments and suggestions about improving the following summary are invited.
§1.1 Complete Dispositions.
A. General Rule.
All judgments that end a case with prejudice are appealable.
Application: A decree is final and hence generally appealable when it either refuses or grants the relief sought by the party complaining.1 A final order has been defined, therefore, as one that disposes of the entire action and leaves nothing to be done except the ministerial superintendence of execution of the order.2 If it appears upon the face of the proceedings that further action in the cause is necessary to give completely the relief contemplated by the court, then the judgment is not final.3
B. Specific Situations.
(1) Nonsuits. The grant of a nonsuit is not an appealable event, even if all of the claims in a proceeding are nonsuited, unless the aggrieved defendant argues that the nonsuit was not properly available under the standards of Code § 8.01-380. Denials of motions for nonsuit are not appealable unless the aggrieved plaintiff argues that the trial court was required to grant the nonsuit under Code § 8.01-380.
(2) Demurrer. The sustaining of a demurrer with leave to amend is not a final order until 21 days after the period allowed for amendment has passed. The sustaining of a demurrer without leave to amend is a final disposition, and is appealable.
§2.1 Partial Dispositions Appealable by Statute in Virginia.
Judgments, orders or decrees that resolve fewer than all of the claims in a litigation, or the liability of fewer than all of the parties, are appealable in Virginia today only as follows:
A. Equity Proceedings.
As expressly provided by statute - orders granting, dissolving or denying an injunction, requiring money to be paid or title to property to be changed, and adjudications of the principles of a cause are expressly made appealable by the Code.4
B. Actions At Law.
(1) Cases Involving Fewer than Six Plaintiffs. By statute, an order refusing a writ of quo warranto is appealable.5 There is no other statutory authority for interlocutory appeals in civil cases on the law side of court.
(2) Multiple Claimant Cases. In cases involving six or more plaintiffs arising out of a common occurrence, decisions that would in other cases be merely interlocutory may be appealed if the appellate court grants a petition for appeal.6
§2.2 Partial Dispositions Appealable Under Virginia Case Law.
A. Generally: Final Judgment Rule.
In the vast majority of cases, only one appeal is permitted - after a final judgment disposing of all of the claims for relief in the litigation.
B. Exception for Distinctly Collateral or Severable Rulings.
Judgments, orders or decrees that resolve fewer than all of the claims in a litigation, or the liability of fewer than all of the parties, are appealable under Virginia case law if the adjudication resolves a collateral matter, separate and distinct from the general subject of the litigation and affecting only particular parties to the controversy.7
§2.3 Time for Seeking Review of Appealable Interlocutory Dispositions.
A party aggrieved by the decision of a circuit court in a partial case disposition that is appealable on an interlocutory basis pursuant to statutory or common law authority may either file a notice of appeal within 30 days of the ruling complained of, or await termination of the remainder of the litigation.8
Example: Plaintiff brings an action with three counts. Count I is dismissed by the sustaining of a demurrer without leave to amend in January. Count II is dismissed in a ruling on a motion for summary judgment in May. Trial is held on Count III and judgment entered in September. Plaintiff may appeal all rulings within 30 days of the September judgment. If the subject matter of Count I is severable from the rest of the case in the sense required by Leggett and the cases there discussed, appeal of the dismissal of that count could be pursued within 30 days of the January ruling, or may await final disposition of the other claims. Similarly, if Count II is severable from the other claims in the case, plaintiff could appeal the summary disposition of that count within 30 days from the May ruling, or may await final disposition of the remaining issues in the case.u
NOTES
1. Jones v. Buckingham Slate Co., 116 Va. 120, 81 S.E. 28 (1914).
2. Daniels v. Truck Corporation, 205 Va. 579, 585, 139 S.E.2d 31, 35 (1964); Marchant v. Mathews Co., 139 Va. 723, 734, 124 S.E. 420, 423 (1924).
3. Salem Loan & Trust Co. v. Kelsey, 115 Va. 382, 79 S.E. 329 (1913). See Gills v. Gills, 126 Va. 526, 101 S.E. 900 (1920); Johnson v. Merrit, 125 Va. 162, 99 S.E. 785 (1919).
4. Code §§ 8.01-670 and 17-116.05.
5. Code § 8.01-670(A)(2).
6. Code § 8.01-267.8. To date, this provision has not been used in any reported Virginia case.
7. The doctrine is spelled out in Leggett v. Caudill, 247 Va. 130, 133, 439 S.E.2d 350, 351 (1994), and the pertinent cases are discussed in the report of the Judiciary Committee on a proposed rule of court for entry of partial final judgments in Virginia.
8. Dalloul v. Agbey, 255 Va. 511, 499 S.E.2d 279 (1998). Footnote * of this opinion, at p. 515 of the official reports, reads:
We also note that an order which is final as to some, but not all, parties may in some circumstances be appealed before the case is concluded as to all defendants, under the "severable" interest rule set forth in Wells v. Whitaker, 207 Va. 616, 628-29, 151 S.E.2d 422, 432-33 (1966). See also Leggett v. Caudill, 247 Va. 130, 134, 439 S.E.2d 350, 352 (1994). In such instances, the order may be appealed either at the time of its entry or when the trial court enters a final order disposing of the remainder of the case. See Code § 8.01-670(A)(3); see e.g., Hinchey v. Ogden, 226 Va. 234, 236-37, and n.1, 307 S.E.2d 891, 892 and n.1 (1983).
Thus, there is no longer any fear that a party losing a decision prior to the termination of a case as a whole must file a protective notice of appeal or run the risk of waiving appellate review. It appears, therefore, that the language of Code§8.01-67(B), not deemed controlling in Dalloul, merely means that an order from which an interlocutory appeal would be permitted may nonetheless be appealed in the final judgment. Return to Top
While taxes and schools may dominate the concerns of many legislators as the 1999 session of the General Assembly gets underway, The Virginia Bar Association has a typical full load of legislative issues, crossing the spectrum of legal subjects.
Led by the Wills, Trusts and Estates Section with a dozen proposals, 10 VBA sections and committees will have offerings to put before the General Assembly. Another half-dozen units will be closely following and reacting to legislative developments.
As in recent years, the Association staff and its legislative representatives will be active in seeking sponsorship and support for VBA bills. Through special mailings and data posted on VBA Online, section activity will be bolstered onsite in Richmond.
Each VBA section has its own legislative home page on VBA Online, and the Association has an overall legislative information page as well. If you're setting your bookmarks for the session, you may also want to note the General Assembly's legislative information site (http://www.legis.state.va.us) for up-to-the-minute coverage of bill activity, complete bill language, legislators' addresses and numbers, and other helpful details.
Some specific priority items include domain name legislation championed by the Intellectual Property Law Section, four Construction and Public Contracts Law Section bills, and a major Health Law Section proposal.
The VBA Judiciary Committee is pursuing legislation on interlocutory appeals for the first time, as well as continuing its slow progress toward merit selection of judges and adequate appropriations for judicial salaries.
The Domestic Relations Section has an important proposal to clarify the definition of a "day" in child custody cases.
The Criminal Law Section is backing state Crime Commission recommendations with respect to capital representation.
The Commission on the Needs of the Mentally Disabled and the Civil Litigation Section will also have proposals on the VBA's legislative agenda.
On a more ceremonial matter, the VBA, through its Commission on the Needs of Children, will be involved in the 1999 celebration of the centennial of juvenile courts in the United States and Virginia.
This year's session will be a short one, ending February 27, but from all appearances, it will be action-packed for the VBA. Stay tuned. Return to Top
by Catherine C. Hammond
"She had a diamond in her front tooth and was famous for being able to drive as fast in reverse as she could in forward."
That's how Staunton attorney Forester Taylor recalls one of his father's clients in the days of prohibition.
Although I've never defended a bootlegger who can outrun federal agents on mountain roads, I like to think about my grandfather, my two great-uncles and my uncle Forester, all lawyers, whose careers in Augusta County span 70-odd years.
Born on July 4, 1926, my uncle's calling may have been foretold. At that time his father, J. Wesley Taylor (known as 'Wes"), and his two uncles, Earl and Forest Taylor, all practiced law nearby. Earl Taylor served as Clerk of the Corporations Court (now the Circuit Court) for the city of Staunton, and Forest Taylor served as Commonwealth's Attorney for Augusta County for over 20 years. Wes Taylor built a thriving general practice, and was well-known at the criminal defense bar until his early death in 1946.
Today, at 72, Forester Taylor can compare "now and then" and tell some history that's not in the books.
For one thing, three years of law school used to be more optional than essential. Both Earl and Forest "read law," a training recognized by Virginia and only seven other states.* After Wes Taylor fought in France during World War I, and worked at a steel mill to save money, he did attend law school at Washington and Lee. But one year was enough. He passed the bar exam in 1925, married my grandmother, Anna Compton Patterson, and hung out his shingle.
Besides representing "a famous lady rumrunner," Wes had some success as a plaintiff's attorney in personal injury cases. So much so that several insurance companies got together and offered him their business instead. According to my grandmother, he couldn't see their reasoning when he was making more money winning verdicts against them. After his untimely death the Augusta County Bar Association adopted a memorial resolution describing Wes as "an excellent trial lawyer . characterized by lucidity and fearlessness."
Waynesboro attorney Carter Allen (W&L Law '48) remembers Forest Taylor as "firm, diligent, an immensely capable and highly respected Commonwealth's Attorney." Allen, who was Commonwealth's Attorney for Waynesboro (and the former City Attorney) took over Forest's duties between his death in 1959 and the next election. This created the unique situation of having one prosecutor represent both Waynesboro and Augusta County.
Allen also recalls Forest Taylor as a keen horseman. He operated a horse farm off the Springhill Road, now the site of a housing subdivision, and was longtime Master of the Fox Hounds for the Glenmore Hunt Club. His passion for horses passed straight to his nephew, Forester, who recalls spending his childhood either at the stables or reading books. No soccer, no television, no video games - can you imagine?
In 1951, the year after my uncle was admitted to the Virginia State Bar, horses even influenced his choice of jobs. Today's young lawyers, who more and more lace their career discussions with "quality of life" issues, may be interested to hear that recreation, family and small-town life were bona fide choices, even in the old days.
Ranked first in his law school class, Taylor was recruited by Mr. Pascoe to join Hunton & Williams in Richmond. Asked why he turned that down to practice solo in Staunton, Taylor recalls a way of life when professional excellence was one of several ambitions an attorney could pursue, not the preoccupation that absorbs so many of my contemporaries.
"My uncle Forest and I had made a deal for me to buy a horse that was being schooled, 'Sir Rival.' I had managed to make a small downpayment on him and then, for law school graduation, Forest gave me the Jockey Club papers showing me as owner. He made the rest of the horse a gift. I wanted a chance to work with 'Sir Rival,' spend time with my family, and enjoy small-town life; and I thought the professional opportunities were considerable."
As an afterthought, Taylor adds "it also seemed to me that Richmond would be too far from The Homestead." Perhaps this viewpoint explains the fact that Taylor did not marry until he was 41!
The Dean of the Washington and Lee Law School in 1950 was Clayton Williams, affectionately known as "Uncle Skinny." Taylor recalls Dean Williams as "six feet five inches tall and probably not over 150 pounds." And one of Taylor's most popular professors was Charles McDowell, father of the respected journalist, who served on the law faculty from 1927 to 1968. Taylor remembers Professor McDowell for his wit and his habit of drawing complex diagrams to explain lectures on contracts and negotiable instruments.
When Taylor sat for the bar exam at the Hotel Roanoke in June 1950, the pass rate was low. He remembers that "Uncle Skinny was really frosted because only six W&L boys passed, and of the six who passed only one was a third-year, the other five just had two years."
A noticeable change in our profession is the status of pro bono work, Taylor advises. "It used to be expected," he says, "not something the organized bar had to push." And Carter Allen says that "attorneys knew they had a built-in responsibility to do pro bono work. If the judge called me, I would stop whatever I was doing and go over to take the appointment."
One thing that hasn't changed, at least in small towns, is that clients care most about the help you provide, not titles or awards.
In Taylor's most recent argument before the Virginia Supreme Court, in 1993, he represented a woman from a small town near Staunton. She was very happy with the result and expressed admiration for Taylor over and over.
Months later Taylor crossed paths with her and inquired after a lawyer they
both knew.
The client replied that she thought he was still in town but offered that, unlike
Taylor, "he might have stepped down to become a judge." Return
to Top
The Gardener G. DeMallie Jr. Award was created by the Virginia Continuing Legal Education Committee to honor the late Assistant Director of Virginia CLE and to recognize on a regular basis someone who has contributed outstanding service to continuing legal education in Virginia.
Nominations are invited for the second Gardener G. DeMallie Jr. Continuing Legal Education Award. It will be presented next at the 1999 Summer Meeting of The Virginia Bar Association.
CRITERIA
The award will recognize an individual who meets the following criteria:
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.
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.
NOMINATION PROCESS
Nominations should be submitted on the form below, with an attachment describing specifically the manner in which the nominee meets the criteria established for the award. Nominations should be addressed to Dexter C. Rumsey, III, Chair, Virginia CLE Committee, P.O. Box 4468, Charlottesville, VA 22905, or by facsimile to (804) 979-3147, prior to May 15, 1999, and should include the name and phone number of the nominator and the full name, address, and phone number of the nominee.
NOMINATION FORM (May be photocopied for your convenience)
Name of Nominee____________________________________________________________
Profession__________________________________________________________________
Employer/Firm/Affiliation_______________________________________________________
Address of Nominee__________________________________________________________
City_______________________State_______ Zip_________Telephone_________________
Name of person making nomination__________________________Telephone_____________
Signature___________________________________________________________________
(Please attach an additional sheet describing how the nominee meets the Gardener G. DeMallie Jr. Award criteria.) Return to Top
No one can accuse The Virginia Bar Association of having tunnel vision.
The Association has long been known for its hard-hitting continuing legal education programs on current legal issues-church-state relations, the Y2K situation, juvenile justice issues, and cloning among them.
It is renowned for its sponsorship of debates for statewide political candidates, and for town hall meetings that bring citizens together to discuss subjects of concern.
The VBA has, over the years, invited persons of statewide, national and international fame to address attendees at its summer and winter meetings.
Now, the VBA has a blue-ribbon panel of respected lawyers, judges, educators and business leaders dedicated to researching and examining issues with an impact on not only the Association, but on Virginia and the nation at large.
The VBA Committee on Special Issues of State and National Importance is chaired by former Virginia Governor Gerald L. Baliles of Richmond, now a partner in the law firm of Hunton & Williams.
Its 30 members include, in addition to Baliles, two former congressmen (one a former Secretary of the Army), four college and university presidents, two judges, one U.S. attorney, the chair of the American Bar Association House of Delegates, a former chief executive officer of Dominion Resources, Inc., a private school headmaster, and a host of attorneys from various areas of law practice and geographical regions of the Commonwealth. (See list of committee members at left.)
While the committee is not new to the VBA, it was made inactive and restructured during 1997. VBA President-elect David Craig Landin, a former chair of the Committee and its chief supporter, advocated that it be rejuvenated as an Association forum.
The Committee is divided into six subcommittees-citizenship, education and environment, financial, globalization, infrastructure, national security-which will explore and develop topics.
The Committee plans to work with Virginia law schools to develop writing seminars for third-year law students, focusing on topics identified by Committee members. The students would produce articles worthy of publication in legal journals (including the VBA News Journal). The material produced by the students could also be adapted as "speeches" for use by local and specialty bar associations throughout Virginia.
Another duty of the Committee will be to identify high-profile speakers for the VBA's Annual and Summer Meetings, and to suggest topics for panels and programs at those meetings.
The Committee's ultimate goal is not merely to educate and inform members of The Virginia Bar Association, or even the legal community in Virginia, but to reach out to a much wider audience.
The VBA Special Issues Committee already appears to have become a "hot appointment" among Association members.
In October, Chairman Baliles wrote committee members that "the word has gotten out in the legal community about our activities and there are multiple inquiries being made about how others can 'sign up.' That may be an indication of the interest in examining broader issues of societal impact than has been the case in the past." (The Committee has no open seats at this time.)
While the Committee's work is just beginning, it has already established itself as a group of consequence. If, as some pundits say, we live in an issues-driven society, then the VBA Special Issues Committee will put the Association in the driver's seat.
VBA Committee on Special Issues of State and National Importance
Hon. Gerald L. Baliles, Chair
Carole M. Agee
Edward D. Barnes
William W. Berry
Thomas C. Brown Jr.
Ann T. Burks
Hon. M. Caldwell Butler
R. Harvey Chappell Jr.
Rev. George E. Conway
James A.L. Daniel
Darragh Davis
Dr. James A. Davis
Dr. Deborah M. DiCroce
C. Thomas Ebel
Hon. Helen Fahey
Hon. V. Thomas Forehand Jr.
Robert J. Grey Jr.
Hon. Randall G. Johnson
Alexander Macaulay
Hon. John O. Marsh
Dr. Thomas R. Morris
Hon. W. Tayloe Murphy Jr.
Hon. Sharon E. Pandak
John R. Reilly
Frank W. Rogers Jr.
C. Edward Russell Jr.
Anne B. Shumadine
Deanis L. Simmons
Dr. Timothy J. Sullivan
F. Blair Wimbush Return to Top
In 1979, David Craig Landin of Richmond served as chair of the VBA Young Lawyers Section.
On January 16, 1999, he becomes president of The Virginia Bar Association.
A partner in the firm of Hunton & Williams, where his practice focuses on product, toxic tort, and environmental liability, he is no stranger to leadership roles.
He chaired the VBA Executive Committee in 1997 before becoming president-elect in 1998. Other VBA chairmanships he has held include those of the Judiciary and Membership Committees and the Committee on Issues of State and National Importance. He is the sixth former Young Lawyers chair to become Association president.
Landin is a past president of the Virginia Law Foundation (1987-88) and of the Virginia Association of Defense Attorneys (1987-89). He is a Fellow of the Virginia Law Foundation, a former chair and vice chair of American Bar Association committees, and is a former member of the board of trustees of the National Conference of Bar Foundations.
He received his undergraduate and law degrees from the University of Virginia. Return to Top
The Lawyers Helping Lawyers Program got an early holiday gift from the American National Lawyers Insurance Reciprocal in November, when ANLIR made a contribution of $15,000 toward the Program's 1999 operating expenses. In 1998, ANLIR donated $20,000 to the Program's Stephen C. Chapple Recovery Assistance Fund, which assists legal professionals with expenses of treatment for alcohol or drug addiction or with similar expenses related to rehabilitation agreements. Return to Top
For the second consecutive year, the Montgomery-Floyd-Radford Bar Association has made a donation of $300 to the Stephen C. Chapple Memorial Scholarship Fund of the Lawyers Helping Lawyers Program. The fund was established to assist attorneys with the expense of treatment for alcohol or drug addiction or with similar expenses related to rehabilitation agreements. "We hope this will be an inspirational example for other local and specialty bars," said Lawyers Helping Lawyers Program Director Susan D. Pauley.
The late Ronald D. Hodges, a VBA member and partner in the Harrisonburg law firm of Wharton, Aldhizer & Weaver, was recognized recently with the Virginia Association of Defense Attorneys' Award for Excellence in Civil Litigation. The award is based on ethics, demeanor and temperament; conduct inside and outside the courtroom; courtesy and fairness in dealing with others; and work production of the highest quality.
John W. Bates III, a VBA member and partner at McGuire, Woods, Battle & Boothe, L.L.P., in Richmond, has been inducted into the Virginia Commonwealth University Real Estate Circle of Excellence, which recognizes executives in the fields of real estate marketing, development, mortgage lending, law and other related fields.
Partners of Mays & Valentine, L.L.P., recently honored five of their colleagues. The partnership dedicated the Virginia Collection Room of the William Muse Law Library at the T.C. Williams School of Law of the University of Richmond to senior partner James C. Roberts, and the room will now be called the "James C. Roberts Room." The firm's policy committee presented "Mays & Valentine Founders Awards" in recognition of extraordinary achievement by four partners. Recipients and awards were George A. Sommerville, David Mays Award for Legal Scholarship; Thomas Frank Betz Jr., Charles Valentine Award for Contributions to Internal Unity; C. Cotesworth Pinckney, John Davenport Award for Community Service; and Jane L. Schwarzschild, Richmond Moore Award for Client Service.
Are you a business owner as well as a lawyer? If so, you may be interested in a Business Owners Package Policy, offered by the VBA in conjunction with The Reciprocal Insurance Agency, Ltd., and underwritten by The Hartford Insurance Company. Coverages available in this program include building, personal property, loss of income, general liability, computer and media, valuable papers, accounts receivable, employee dishonesty and systems breakdown. Other available coverages include workers' compensation, umbrella, and commercial automobile. For more information, or to receive an application for insurance, please call The Reciprocal Insurance Agency, Ltd., at 1-800-934-8847. Return to Top
Campbell University won top honors for Region IV at this year's National Moot Court Competition, held at the United States Courts Building in Richmond November 20-21.
Campbell's win led a sweep for North Carolina law schools, as Wake Forest took second place and the University of North Carolina received the Best Brief Award. First- and second-place teams will advance to the national competition in New York City in early 1999.
The 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 Region IV competition, which includes law schools in Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina and Kentucky.
In addition to Campbell, Wake Forest and UNC, participating law schools included William and Mary, Duke, Kentucky, Louisville, Richmond, Virginia, Washington & Lee, and West Virginia.
Semifinal and quarterfinal rounds were judged by Fellows of the American College of Trial Lawyers.
The list of final-round judges read like a Who's Who of the mid-Atlantic judiciary: Virginia's Chief Justice Harry L. Carrico; Delaware's Chief Justice E. Norman Veasey; Justices Sarah Parker and James A. Wynn Jr. of the North Carolina Supreme Court; Hon. Larry V. Starcher of the West Virginia Supreme Court; Hon. Charles R. Simpson III, chief judge of the U.S. District Court (W.D. Ky.); Hon. Frank W. Bullock, chief judge of the U.S. District Court (M.D. N.C.); Hon. Richard L. Voorhees, chief judge of the U.S. District Court (W.D. N.C.); Hon. Robert E. Payne of the U.S. District Court (E.D. Va.); Hon. Joseph R. Goodwin (S.D. W.Va.); and Hon. William T. Prince, magistrate judge for the U.S. District Court (E.D. Va.).
Members of the VBA/YLD National Moot Court Committee, which is chaired by Brian Geschickter and Sherrill Wood, include D. Edward Coryell III, Terrence L. Graves, Kerry L. Grey, Steven F. Helm, Brian K. Jackson, Chandra D. Lantz, Elizabeth P. Mason, Thomas W. Smith III and Dale Webb.
Sponsors of the Region IV Moot Court Competition are as follows:
Brault, Palmer, Grove, Zimmerman, White & Mims; Chandler & Halasz; Christian & Barton, L.L.P.; Cohen, Gettings & Dunham, P.C.; Crews & Hancock, P.L.C.; Dave Jones & Associates, Ltd.; Gentry Locke Rakes & Moore; Hazel & Thomas, P.C.; Hirschler, Fleischer, Weinberg, Cox & Allen, P.C.; Hall, Fox & Atlee, P.C.; Hofheimer Nusbaum, P.C.; Hogan & Hartson, L.L.P.; Hunton & Williams; Jackson & Kelley; Little, Parsley & Cluverius, P.C.; Mays & Valentine, L.L.P.; McCandlish & Lillard, P.C.; McGuire Woods Battle & Boothe, L.L.P.; McSweeney, Burtch & Crump, P.C.; Morris & Morris; Mundy Rogers & Frith; Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, P.C.; Odin, Feldman & Pittleman, P.C.; Sixbey, Friedman, Leedom & Ferguson, P.C.; Smith, Pachter, McWhorter & D'Ambrosio, P.L.C.; Taylor Hazen Kauffman & Pinchbeck, P.L.C.; The Lex Group; Trichilo, Bancroft, McGavin, Horvath & Judkins, P.C.; Venable, Baetjer & Howard, P.C.; VBA Foundation-GEICO Philanthropic Foundation; Walsh, Colucci, Stackhouse, Emrich & Lubeley, P.C.; Williamson & Lavecchia, L.C. Return to Top
The VBA Young Lawyers Division has joined forces with the Virginia State Bar Young Lawyers Conference to combat domestic violence in Virginia.
The Virginia Family Violence Safety Project was announced on November 18 during a press conference at the State Capitol in Richmond, with Attorney General Mark Earley, Secretary of Public Safety Gary Aronhalt, ABA House of Delegates Chair Robert J. Grey Jr., and family violence survivor Claire Sheppard joining young lawyer leaders Harry M. "Pete" Johnson III (VBA/YLD) and Julie D. McClellan (VSB/YLC), among others, for the kickoff.
The initiative includes a public education campaign, designed to teach physical
and legal self-protection to victims of domestic violence, and free seminars
to instruct lawyers in helping domestic violence victims. Organizers also plan
to develop a pamphlet with information on temporary restraining orders, temporary
child support orders and divorce and separation issues.
Project sponsors are the Virginia Commission on Family Violence Prevention,
Virginians Against Domestic Violence, Family and Children Trust Fund, Richmond
YWCA and Boddie Noell Enterprises Inc. (operator of Hardee's restaurants), which
will place brochures, with details on self-protection from domestic violence
and how to obtain legal assistance, in its Virginia restaurants. Return
to Top
Copyright 1999 The Virginia Bar Association