Free for All: Fourth Quarter Notes

With less than one quarter of the year 2000 left, we must agree that the premillennial panic we were feeling this time last year (c’mon, admit it) was generally unfounded. Many of us hailed the New Year with bells, fireworks and parties, and someday we’ll use up all the beans, batteries and bottled water we hoarded in anticipation of the “Y2K crisis.” (And keep in mind that this year does mark the change of the millennium. Maybe we’d better stock the shelves again before the holiday rush.)

2000 has not been a bad year, even if rising gas prices are causing our hackles to rise and the upcoming elections are forcing us to think about the directions in which our Commonwealth, our nation and our world are going.

We’ve certainly had plenty of spectacles, good and bad, to watch this year. Most recently, the competitors at the Sydney Olympics have entertained millions of couch potatoes, and while the exhaustive TV coverage has helped us understand rules of competition, most of us still don’t understand the importance of vegemite in the Australian diet. (And don’t want to, either.)

There have been political primaries, debates (in particular, the VBA’s own) and conventions. We’re now in the campaign commercial season, which seems endless but is thankfully short. Next month, we vote and move on to the real business of law reform. (And if your VBA section hasn’t gotten its legislative agenda together, please do it now.)

We’ve stared at the flaming Concorde as it crashed into the Paris suburbs, agonized over the fate of the Kursk submariners, rejoiced with Britons at the Queen Mother’s 100th birthday and followed the saga of “Survivor” to its predictably commercialized conclusion. Many of us were intrigued by the Microsoft antitrust case, unnerved by the Firestone tire recall, and surprised by Gloria Steinem’s late-to-the-altar marriage. There have been personal milestones this year for all of us, if not as spectacular: births, deaths, marriages, illnesses, joys and concerns.

For the VBA, this year has been the first with a woman president; next year will be the second. A century ago, the concept of women in Association leadership, even women as lawyers, would have been considered as outlandish as a space shuttle or handheld computer. Women are now firmly entrenched not only as lawyers, but as leaders of the legal profession. This year, as the 20th century really draws to a close, VBA leaders have focused on planning for the 21st century. More about the Association’s emerging priorities for the coming years will be available in the December issue.

If there is one thing to be learned from the Y2K fracas — beyond not investing in cheap mementoes to go with leftover emergency supplies — it is that life, good and bad, happy and sad, goes on no matter what happens around us. Our job is to live it, planning around things we can foresee and want to accomplish, and dealing with unexpected crises and serendipities. And to move forward, always. Return to Top

The VBA in History, 1890:
Some thoughts on the study and practice of law
Colonel R.T.W. Duke

Colonel Duke prepared and read this paper at the 1890 Annual Meeting of the Association, held that July at the Hygeia Hotel at Old Point Comfort. This abridged version of his work illustrates that modern concerns about legal education, professionalism, practice and “real life” were already present more than a century ago.—The Editor

We will suppose that our young student desires to become a finished lawyer. What course of study shall he pursue?

I say that he should have acquired at school all the knowledge of Latin and Greek that is necessary. The age in which we live is too intensely alive to waste much time in dissecting dead languages. I say study first, and above all, English — good strong, wholesome English — and in studying let him learn to read English; for it is surprising to know how few of our lawyers and public speakers know how to read. Other languages than his own then invite his earnest attention.

While pursuing these studies, let him not neglect the vast field of scientific knowledge. In this age of wonderful material development, the importance of a thorough scientific education for members of our profession cannot be overestimated. The old subjects of litigation have been steadily becoming of less importance. The fields of operation, in which [corporations] find their most profitable employment, are in the great country of the inventive and scientific.

Let our student attend for one term a law school, not with a view to gain a diploma, but to lay broad and deep the foundations of your subsequent legal knowledge. After a year, enter the office of a lawyer in full practice, not with the hope or expectation that he will afford you any instruction, but to see how business is conducted in a lawyer’s office. Attend the courts regularly, not so much to listen to the arguments of learned counsel as to note how the ordinary and routine business of the courts is conducted. Perhaps one of the most trying ordeals to the young practitioner is to undertake the conduct of business in open court, and nothing will give him greater confidence than to familiarize himself with its details in advance.

Having thus spent a year reenter the law school and take the entire course. Strive now to acquire a thorough knowledge of the law. Aim for the diploma, but remember all the time that it is not the diploma, but the knowledge that it represents, which gives it its true value.

Let the young lawyer not think that with the commencement of his practice ends his study of the law. If at this time one study should be made much of, I would say let him read and reread again the best works on the law of evidence. Indeed, no lawyer, old or young, should neglect to read at least once a year some book on that subject. In the outset let the practitioner be deeply impressed with the ethics of his profession.

The lawyer can show a record for his profession that no other profession in the world can equal, and we have not far to go to find the cause of this high standing. Methods which are constantly used, and which are legitimate in extending business in other callings, are wholly inadmissible in the practice of the law.

I come now to submit a few thoughts on a subject not much thought of, but of great importance to the members of our profession. I allude to proper rest and recreation. I think it probable that the members of the English Bar are, on an average, much more long-lived than ours, attributable to their custom of regular rest at some time during the year. I suggest that we abolish all courts during July and August, then let each member of the Bar select that mode of recreation most suitable to his tastes.

One might prefer to buy a worn-out Virginia farm and seek to improve it. He who has never tried the experiment has no idea of the exquisite pleasure of causing two blades of grass to grow where but one grew before, and of spending two dollars now, where he spent one before.

If, however, you want real rest then go a-fishing. Let some congenial spirits charter a sailing vessel, store it with good supplies, have it towed out and drop anchor. But if you will take my advice you will employ some one or two local fishermen. If you fail to do so the chances are you will be without fish.

If you desire to combine rest and recreation with healthful exercise, come with me to the mountains for a morning’s fishing. He who can angle well for trout can fish well for verdicts. For both require patience, skill and wit, labor and knowledge. Capture as many of the speckled beauties as will suffice, then stop, for to kill more is not sport but murder.

Then return to the camp and rest and read. Let newspapers go. The lighter the literature the better. I must confess that in the mountains a little clean, honest vulgarity is refreshing. Eschew law books or law thoughts, unless it be that insomnia follows you. Then try a few doses of Fearne on Remainders, and if you do not sleep send for a physician or perhaps a confessor. Your case is desperate. Return to Top

Legal Focus:
Substance Abuse Treatment Records:
A Special Corner of Medical Privacy
Paul A. Lombardo, Ph.D., J.D.

Media coverage of health law issues regularly highlights public concerns about fragile promises of medical confidentiality and the need for more protection of the privacy of health related information. Recent statutory and judicial developments amplify our attention to those concerns. Virginia Code provisions on medical record privacy have been completely revised.1

The first sentence of the Virginia Patient Health Records Act of 1997 now endorses a patient’s right to privacy with the declaration that “There is hereby recognized a patient’s right of privacy in the content of a patient’s medical record.” Emphasizing the need of patients “to communicate freely without the fear of public disclosure,” the U.S. Supreme Court has established a federal privilege for records of psychotherapy.2 In a similar vein, the Supreme Court of Virginia has recognized unlawful disclosure of medical information as a new civil cause of action.3 The Department of Health and Human Services has written extensive new federal record privacy regulations; they await approval.4 Despite these legal changes and generally heightened attention to medical record privacy, an almost 30-year-old federal law that provides expansive protection for substance abuse treatment records remains among the best-kept secrets in the health law arena.

A panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals recently interpreted this law in a case5 involving a police detective who, as part of a criminal investigation, sought the patient records of a substance abuse clinic. The Court’s ruling clarifies the reach of the federal statute, which severely restricts access to substance abuse patient records, even when they are sought for law enforcement purposes. Despite the Court’s decision that the federal statute does not provide a private cause of action to a patient whose records were seized in contravention of its provisions, the law still represents a clear signpost that a patient’s expectation of privacy in such records is reasonable. That expectation can form the basis of a civil rights action brought in response to a police search carried out in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Circuit decision is a signal that ignorance or intentional disregard of the federal law, and the principle of medical record privacy it embodies, can generate personal liability for members of the law enforcement community.

Doe v. Broderick

In the late summer of 1998, a jewelry store owner contacted the Fairfax County Police Department to report the theft of a diamond ring. Upon investigation, police determined that a car in which the thief fled had been stolen from a parking garage located near the Fairfax Methadone Treatment Center, a clinic offering substance abuse treatment. The proximity of the clinic and the parking garage, along with “his belief that drug addicts often engage in criminal activity to support their habits” led Fairfax Detective Garrett Broderick to conclude that clinic patients were likely suspects in the jewel theft. Broderick called the clinic in an attempt to get patient records that might establish who was on the premises near the time of the crime, but was rebuffed by clinic staff who informed him that a court order was needed before information could be disclosed.

The detective then consulted an Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney, who advised that a warrant would be required before the clinic logbook could be examined. Broderick drafted a search warrant and a supporting affidavit that proposed a search of “…the full names of all patients, dates of birth, social security numbers, photographs, home addresses and work locations . . . .” The search was meant to extend to “the opening of any file cabinets, desks, closets, locked safes, boxes, bags, compartments . . .and all electronically stored computer data.”

After circulating the proposed warrant and accompanying affidavit to his colleagues for feedback, Broderick submitted the material to a magistrate, who issued a search warrant. Warrant in hand, Broderick and five other officers entered the clinic prepared to search the premises. An employee of the clinic refused to open the room where files were kept but eventually acquiesced when the officers threatened to charge her with obstruction of justice. They then seized files of some 79 patients, containing material such as biographical details, photos, medical treatment data, and notes of confidential therapeutic conversations. The files were held for review at the Police Department, and ultimately returned to the clinic.

An anonymous (John Doe) patient whose records had been seized subsequently filed a civil rights action under 42 USC Sec. 1983. Doe alleged that the detective violated the Fourth Amendment by conducting a search of his records without probable cause. Doe also argued that Broderick failed to comply with the requirements of the federal statute on the Confidentiality of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Patient Records. A federal district court denied the assertion of qualified liability on the part of Detective Broderick and allowed the claims under Section 1983 and the record privacy statute to proceed.

The Federal Law on Drug Abuse Record Confidentiality

The federal statute establishing protections for the privacy of alcohol and drug abuse patient records was enacted as part of the 1972 Drug Abuse Office and Treatment Act6 following recommendations of a Presidential Commission studying drug treatment policy. Extensive regulations implementing the statute were issued in 1975 and revised in 1987.7 At hearings that preceded the law’s enactment, evidence surfaced suggesting that recovering substance abuse patients were often the victims of discrimination — in employment or housing, for example. Congressional intent in combating that discrimination was absolutely clear when the confidentiality provisions were enacted:

Every patient and former patient must be assured that his right to privacy will be protected. Without that assurance, fear of public disclosure or of records that will attach for life will discourage thousands from seeking the treatment they must have if this tragic national problem is to be overcome.8

Thus the law was meant to insure that patients who sought treatment would fare no worse than other people who abused controlled substances but avoided treatment. The policy behind the law was unmistakable: to remove disincentives that stand in the way of substance abuse treatment.

General Provisions

The law prohibits federally assisted substance abuse programs from disclosing patient identifying information or patient records unless specific conditions have been met. Disclosures are allowed with the written consent of the patient, but only for the purposes and within the circumstances to which the patient agrees. Disclosures may be made without patient consent in a few other instances: to medical personnel in the case of a bona fide medical emergency, to law enforcement officers when a patient has committed a crime on program premises or against program personnel, and to qualified personnel for the purposes of financial audits, research or evaluation, provided that individual patient identities are not subsequently revealed. The law does not prevent the reports of suspected child abuse or neglect required under state law, but restrictions on disclosure continue to apply to the original records maintained by the provider. Absent a court order, they may not be disclosed or used for criminal proceedings that may arise out of a report of suspected child abuse.

Certain court orders create a significant exception to the nondisclosure rule, but the orders must be specifically crafted to meet regulatory conditions. Blanket orders to release records are not allowed, nor is an ex-parte order valid in most cases. A properly crafted order will follow an in-camera hearing where the patient’s identity remains protected and an opportunity to be represented by counsel has been made available to the record holder. Subpoenas or warrants alone issued in the absence of a court order do not constitute adequate authorization under the federal law for a substance abuse program to disclose the records or identities of patients.

People who disclose patient records or reveal patient identity in violation of the law may be liable for criminal fines ranging from $500 to $5000 per violation, in addition to loss of federal assistance.

Scope of the Law

To be subject to the law, a program must provide alcohol or drug abuse diagnosis, treatment or referral for treatment. General medical care facilities are covered if they have an identified unit providing substance abuse treatment services or personnel whose primary function and identity within the facility is to provide such services.

A “federally assisted” program must hold the protected records. The definition of “federally assisted” is very broad and encompasses any direct or indirect federal financial assistance and several types of government recognition. Examples of direct assistance include government grants or contracts to provide services. Licensure, registration, certification or other official authorization by a federal agency will also subject a program to the law’s restrictions. Indirect assistance could take the form of federal block grant or revenue sharing funds received by programs, or any other type of federal financial assistance, such as maintaining provider status under the Medicare or Medicaid programs. Exemption from federal taxes under the not-for-profit provisions of the Internal Revenue Code may also trigger the provisions of the confidentiality law.

The law protects “records of the identity, diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment” of any current or former patient. Virtually anything that would indicate a patient’s identity must be maintained in confidence by the program and its personnel. Specific examples of “patient identifying information” include name, address, social security number, fingerprints or photographs.

The regulations that accompany the federal law require that all programs must communicate the existence of the federal confidentiality provisions to patients; it is common for substance abuse treatment centers to post visible notices containing that information. Every person who enters a program must also receive written notice that summarizes the confidentiality requirements of the law, and indicates that violation of those provisions is a reportable crime.

The regulations require “unconditional compliance.” Breaches of confidentiality are forbidden even if the person seeking information already knows the identity of a patient, is a law enforcement officer or has a subpoena. As a federal law, the statute preempts parallel state laws that might allow disclosure.

The Fourth Circuit Decision

In its review of the district court decision in the Broderick case, the Fourth Circuit panel noted that the law in question lists criminal penalties for record custodians and others who defy its prohibitions. Yet it contains no clear indication that private citizens can use the law as the basis for a civil suit to breaches of confidentiality. The Fourth Circuit concluded that a private cause of action for wrongful record disclosure was not available to plaintiff Doe under the federal confidentiality law.

The Court went on to analyze Doe’s rights under the Fourth Amendment. Characterizing Broderick’s affidavit in support of a search warrant as “nothing more than a guess” and “a mere hunch that illegal activity is afoot,” the Court declared that the warrant was issued in the absence of probable cause. The Court then determined that the very existence of the federal confidentiality statute demonstrated that “society is willing to recognize” Doe’s expectation of privacy in his treatment records as “objectively reasonable” and therefore protected by the Fourth Amendment. But police officers are insulated from lawsuits by qualified immunity if they reasonably believe their conduct does not violate federal law or constitutional norms. Was Broderick’s conduct so obviously unlawful that he should surrender the immunity normally available to police officers acting in the line of duty?

Broderick was aware that on previous occasions clinic personnel had told the police that they were not welcome, and the clinic would not provide information about patients. When Broderick called the clinic before he obtained a search warrant, clinic employees who were obviously attempting to follow the federal law told him that they would not surrender information without a court order. When the warrant was executed, an employee went so far as to lock herself inside the record room to shield confidential material, yielding finally only to the officer’s threats of arrest.

At the time of the search, both Fourth Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court decisions had settled the principle that searches of private areas on business premises without probable cause were Constitutionally prohibited. “It was obvious that the files were not public,” said the Court, and it “would have been apparent to a reasonable officer” that such a search was unlawful. The Court concluded that by conducting the search in disregard of the clear privacy rights of clinic patients, Broderick forfeited the qualified immunity that might have protected him from liability. By pursuing the records in a way that he knew or should have known was “unacceptable and violative of the Fourth Amendment” Broderick exposed himself to suit. The case was remanded to the trial court for a determination of Broderick’s liability in light of the facts of the case.

Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit’s decision in the Broderick case shines a bright light on a federal law that has previously drawn little attention outside of the substance abuse treatment community. People in the business of providing help to recovering addicts have had little assistance in attempting to comply with the law, whose policy rationale is unappreciated, and whose beneficiaries—recovering substance abusers — are widely despised. Despite both professional ethics and criminal penalties that motivate doctors and others to obey the law, attempts to abide by its provisions — even when they conflict with the desires of prosecutors, police officers and judges — have regularly been met with threats of arrest or contempt citations. Coercing private citizens to breach professional confidentiality and ignore a criminal statute constitutes a most egregious abuse of the power of law enforcement. Threatening arrest as a means of accomplishing an unlawful, unconstitutional, deprivation of rights — even the rights of a recovering substance abuser — should have more of a cost. After the Broderick case, perhaps it will.

NOTES

1. Va. Code § 32.1-127.1:03. Patient Health Records Privacy Act (1997).
2. Jaffee v. Redmond, 116 S. Ct. 1923, 64 USLW 4490 (1996).
3. Fairfax Hospital v. Curtis, 492 S.E.2d 642 (Va. 1997).
4. The regulations were authorized by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, (Pub.L. 104-191, Aug. 21, 1996, 110 Stat. 1978) (see 64 FR 59918 (Nov. 3, 1999) for the text of the proposed regulations).
5. Doe v. Broderick, 2000 WL 1224160 (4th Cir. (Va.)).
6. Pub. L. No. 92-255, 86 Stat. 6521 USC sec. 1101-91 (Supp. II, 1972). Current statutory provisions may be found at 42 USC 290dd-2 (West Supp. 2000).
7. 42 C.F.R. Part 2.
8. Rep. No. 92-700, 92nd Cong., 2d Sess. 33 (1972).
© Paul A. Lombardo, 2000 Return to Top

Just the Facts, Please:
Guidelines for working with reporters

In our information-hungry age, many lawyers, at one time or another, will be contacted by reporters seeking information about high-profile cases, points of law, law firm activities or other related matters. To help you meet the press with confidence, and to present yourself, your law firm, and the legal profession in the best light possible, here are some tried-and-true basic tips for working with journalists.

DO be cooperative, calm and honest. Remember, the reporter has a job to do, too. If you work with the reporter, he/she will be more likely to write an accurate story.

DO respect journalistic deadlines. This, above all, is the key to good media relations.

DO be available. Take a reporter’s call if you possibly can do so. If you are unprepared, say so, but give a time when you will be available and prepared. Always ask when the reporter’s deadline is, and respect that deadline. If you are not available to take a reporter’s call, or cannot speak to the reporter before his/her deadline, let the reporter know that and offer an alternative source of information he/she can contact.

DO return calls from reporters as soon as possible. If you can’t call them back, designate someone else to respond.

DO answer questions to the best of your ability, unless law or ethics restrict or prohibit your response. If that is the case, be honest and explain why you cannot speak on a particular matter.

DO be willing to admit it if you don’t know an answer, but then offer to locate the information or a more knowledgeable colleague for the reporter to consult (in time for the reporter to meet his/her deadline, of course).

DO be concise and straightforward. Avoid “legalese” wherever possible. Be prepared to explain and spell out any law-related information. The reporter will want to present the information accurately and will appreciate whatever help you can provide.

DON’T be evasive, belligerent, abrupt or inaccurate. It’s better to admit at the first contact that you are unprepared, professionally restricted from speaking with a reporter, or do not have the information requested.

DON’T speak “off the record.” When you talk with a reporter, assume that anything and everything you say could wind up in print or on the air. (Remember that infamous on-camera interview with a prominent politician’s mother: “Come on, you can tell me... just whisper it?”) Don’t share confidential information and expect it to remain confidential.

DON’T reply to a question with “No comment.” Sure, Hollywood movies may show characters responding to the press with a crisp “No comment!” But film characters don’t have to deal with the media fallout. Saying “no comment” is like waving a red flag in front of a reporter. Journalists view it as stonewalling and as a tacit confirmation of whatever information they’re seeking. If you can’t comment, explain why you can’t comment.

DON’T try to “wine and dine” reporters in hope of favorable coverage. While journalists, unlike lawyers and doctors, are not subject to a licensing board, traditional journalistic ethics forbid reporters and editors from accepting “freebies.”

DON’T let yourself divulge information you are not prepared to share. Some reporters will try to catch you off-guard and hope that you will share facts they need. Remember, that’s part of their job. Your job is to provide what information you can professionally and ethically offer. Period. So stay calm and in control.

DON’T leave sensitive documents orother papers lying around in open view during an in-person interview. Reporters are trained to be observant.

DON’T expect a social friendship with a reporter to produce favorable coverage. As the old song goes, “It ain’t necessarily so.” Keep your social life separate from your professional dealings with journalists, and keep your interaction with journalists businesslike and correct. If your best friend or neighbor is a journalist, it’s wise to keep your professional life and opinions out of the conversation.

DON’T complain about a particular reporter’s work to the editor, unless you want to assure yourself of everlasting unfavorable coverage and unrelenting enmity from all journalists concerned. If a reporter miswrites a key bit of information, call the reporter immediately and point out the mistake in a courteous manner. We are all human, and news organizations do print corrections. Return to Top

Cyberlawyering

•Are you searching for that one amazing, stupendous website? The Fount of All Information? The Mother of All Resources? And you just can’t find it, regardless of which search engines you use? Help is here! If you are a regular visitor to www.vba.org, you’re aware that the VBA’s website boasts a links page, http://www.vba.org/links.htm, with connections to other bar organizations, Virginia’s law schools, state and federal government information networks, news and financial websites, legal-oriented sites and even international sources. The VBA Law Practice Management Section has added a special resources page to their area of the VBA website. There, you’ll find all sorts of links to practice-oriented and legal technology websites. This page, which can be found at http://www.vba.org/lpm/resources.htm, is periodically updated and is accessible to all VBA members as a professional service. Coming this fall is the VBA Civil Litigation Section’s page of links for litigators, currently under development. Watch for an announcement of the new listing on the Civil Litigation Section’s homepage, located at http://www.vba.org/civil.htm.

•Ninety-nine percent of lawyers who responded to the 1999 Legal Technology Survey Report access the Internet from their law firms or corporate law departments. General legal research is their most common online activity, followed by non-legal research and communication with clients and colleagues. The survey, conducted by the American Bar Association Legal Technology Resource Center, polled lawyers from solo, small, medium and large law firms and corporate law departments about their use of technology, including the Internet, e-mail, legal research, remote access, and software and hardware preferences. In addition to accessing the Internet, 71 percent of large firms and 32 percent of small firms reported having a firm homepage on the Internet, up from 58 percent and 11 percent in 1998. More than 40 percent of large firms and 15 percent of small firms said the Internet has expanded their firm’s practice areas, especially in the areas of technology and intellectual property law. Away from the office, more than 85 percent of all respondents report they use a computer for business when away from the office, with 41 percent having remote access to their firm’s internal systems. In addition to home computer use, respondents indicate they use computers during client meetings, in courtrooms, in depositions, and while traveling. Only nine percent stated they do not use a computer when out of the office. Lawyers’ use of personal digital assistants (PDAs) has grown dramatically over the past year, with 57 percent of large firm lawyers and 18 percent of those in small firms reporting their use, compared to 42 percent and six percent, respectively, in 1998. Calendars, calculators and databases are the most-used PDA software, and only 20 percent of respondents said they could easily manage their personal and business affairs without their PDAs.

•Want to do a good deed without leaving your desk or spending a dime? Armed with a computer, you can now donate staple food to the hungry, save the rainforests, provide care to the ill, or support other worthy causes simply by clicking “buttons” on charity websites. Sponsors pay for the actual donation; your clicks determine how much actually goes to the charity. Only one click per day is allowable. For links to several such sites, visit http://clickandsave.8k.com. Return to Top

Across the Commonwealth

Center for Elder Rights offers its services to Virginia & the nation

With encouragement from numerous sources, including The Virginia Bar Association, the long-awaited Center for Elder Rights opened in Richmond on September 14.

Located within the offices of the Virginia Department for the Aging, the Center for Elder Rights will bring together legal, consumer, aging and long-term care information and assistance for older Virginians and their families. The Center will expand the Department’s toll-free information number (1-800-552-3402 Voice/TTY) to become an elder rights hotline for nationwide access to the Center’s services.

As the Center evolves, it will include such services as counseling for persons with concerns about Medicare, Medicaid, and health insurance, and on pensions and retirement benefits; a public guardianship program for indigent and incapacitated people who have no other person suitable to serve as a guardian; and an ombudsman program to resolve problems encountered in long-term care facilities and community-based programs serving older Virginians.

Plans also call for a National Resource Center to develop strategies for educating rural and geographically isolated older citizens and their families about fraud, waste and abuse in the Medicare and Medicaid programs; an attorney who would prepare public and professional education and training materials, and cooperate with legal services provided by Virginia’s Area Agencies on Aging, and a registry of more than 100 attorneys from throughout the Commonwealth who can provide legal services to indigent and low-income older Virginians; staff who could provide information, guidance and counseling on aging and long-term care issues; and partnerships with other organizations to ensure the rights of older Virginians.

The Center is located at 1600 Forest Avenue, Suite 100, in Richmond. Return to Top

Deadlines for ’01-02 grant cycle announced by Va. Law Foundation

The Virginia Law Foundation (VLF), a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization, is now accepting Letters of Intent from organizations wishing to request grant support for the 2001-02 grant cycle (July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2002). Letters of Intent to be submitted under the VBA umbrella should be prepared in the name of The Virginia Bar Association Foundation and must reach the VBA office at 701 East Franklin Street, Suite 1120, Richmond, Virginia 23219, no later than December 20, 2000.

An estimated $500,000 is expected to be awarded to support programs which promote or provide improvements in the administration of justice, legal services to the poor, education of the public about the law and the legal profession, and public service internships for Virginia law students. Letters of intent should be no more than three pages and should (1) state the applicant organization’s name, tax exemption status, and FEIN; (2) briefly explain the organization’s mission; (3) describe the proposed project; and (4) summarize expense and income items for the total project, indicating the amount of funding to be requested from the Virginia Law Foundation.

From among letters received, the Foundation Grants Committee will select for further consideration projects for which a fully developed proposal will be invited. VBA staff can be reached to assist with basic information about The Virginia Bar Association Foundation by calling (804) 644-0041. Return to Top

VBA/YLD Nominating Committee announces slate for 2001 term

The Nominating Committee of the VBA Young Lawyers Division is pleased to announce the following nominees for the 2001 slate of officers:

Chair: David N. Anthony, Norfolk, Kaufman & Canoles
Chair-elect: C. Vaughan Gibson, McLean, Mays & Valentine
Secretary-Treasurer: Stephen D. Otero, Richmond, Mays & Valentine

Barry T. Meek of Richmond, an associate with Hunton & Williams, has been nominated for election to an at-large seat on the VBA/YLD Executive Committee. Other nominations for the Executive Committee may be made by any VBA/YLD member by notifying the chair of the Nominating Committee in writing: Mary C. Zinsner, Mays & Valentine, 1660 International Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102. Elections will take place during the VBA/YLD’s annual business meeting on January 19, 2001. Return to Top

News in Brief

On February 3, 2001, Justice Antonin Scalia of the U.S. Supreme Court will address the “John Marshall 200” gala dinner at The Library of Virginia in Richmond. The VBA is among the sponsors of the event, which is a fundraiser for the John Marshall Foundation. For more details, please call Julie Plunkett at (804) 648-7833.

The VBA Young Lawyers Division and Legal Services of Northern Virginia co-sponsor "Stop the Violence: A Training Program for Legal Advocates of Victims of Domestic Violence," on October 17 at The Massey Building, 4100 Chain Bridge Road in Fairfax with Alexandria Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court Judge Nolan B. Dawkins as the featured speaker. Training is held in the spring and fall of each year; information on upcoming sessions is available at www.vba.org.

State Sen. Ed Schrock (R-Virginia Beach) and attorney and Democrat Jody Wagner of Virginia Beach, candidates for the Second Congressional District seat, debate October 18 during the Hampton Roads Town Hall Meeting at the Contemporary Art Center of Virginia in Virginia Beach. This year, the VBA/YLD Hampton Roads Town Hall Meeting Committee joined with the Youth Leadership Initiative of the University of Virginia to produce the debate.

VBA Health Law Section Chair Richard L. Grier of Richmond, a partner in the firm of Mays & Valentine, was recently reelected chair of the Virginia Health Care Foundation. uVBA member Walter D. Kelley Jr. of Norfolk, a partner in the firm of Willcox & Savage, became the rector of the board of visitors at Old Dominion University in mid-September.

From the Old Dominion to the Land Down Under: Congratulations to swimmer Tom Dolan of Arlington on winning gold (and breaking his own world record) in the men’s 400-meter individual medley, and receiving silver for the men’s 200 IM, at the 2000 Sydney Olympics. His father, William D. Dolan, is a VBA member and partner in Venable Attorneys at Law in McLean.

If you’ve been hearing a new voice on the phone when you call the VBA office, it belongs to Karen Willis, who joined the VBA staff this summer as staff assistant for administration.

Have you registered to vote in November’s general elections? Election Day is November 7. If you’ll be away from home that day, you can apply for an absentee ballot by mail until November 2 and in person until November 4. See www.sbe.state.va.us for election information from the State Board of Elections.

The VBA News Journal seeks articles on a variety of legal topics from Association members for upcoming issues in 2000-01. For more information, visit the “Writers’ Guide” on the VBA website at www.vba.org/guide.htm.

Is your address up-to-date with the VBA? Please keep the VBA staff informed of any changes to your name, employer, postal address, telephone, fax or e-mail listings. Changes may be faxed to (804) 644-0052 or e-mailed to thevba@vba.org.
Return to Top

Copyright 2000 The Virginia Bar Association