| Archives:
September 1999 Listing of articles from the VBA Journal, 1975-98 |
October 1999
|
As the balmy days of late summer fade into the apple-crisp weather of autumn, The Virginia Bar Association staff’s attention turns from follow-up of the Summer Meeting toward all-out planning of the Annual Meeting.
Before we say goodbye to summer, however, the VBA News Journal would like to recognize our own summer sports heroes — the members and friends of the Association who took home prizes from the Summer Meeting’s recreational tournaments at The Greenbrier in July.
GOLF
John Epps of Richmond deserves special thanks for his efforts in organizing the 1999 golf tournament.
Championship:
Kevin Finto, Linda Finto, Allen Goolsby, Pete Johnson.
Runner-Up:
Bob Barry, Pat Devine, John Fletcher, David Ibbeken.
Longest Drive (Front 9):
John Fletcher.
Longest Drive (Back 9):
Kitsy Smith.
Closest to the Pin (Front 9):
Pat Devine III.
Closest to the Pin (Back 9):
Waverly Pulley.
TENNIS
Mixed Doubles, 1st Place:
Bob Seabolt, Shannon Summerlin.
Mixed Doubles, 2nd Place:
Shelton Horsley, Micki Stout.
Men’s Doubles, 1st Place:
Spiro Fotopoulos, Steve Robinson.
Men’s Doubles, 2nd Place:
Tom Knauer, Bruce Marshall.
Ladies’ Doubles, 1st Place:
Nancy Harrison, Micki Stout.
Ladies’ Doubles, 2nd Place:
Katie Goolsby, Sally McCormick.
SKEET, TRAP & CLAY
Men’s Skeet Championship:
Courtland Traver.
Ladies’ Skeet Championship:
Kelly Gwathmey.
Men’s Trap Championship:
Courtland Traver.
Ladies’ Trap Championship:
Kelly Gwathmey, Cyane Crump.
Men’s Clay Championship:
Courtland Traver.
CROQUET
Championship:
Urchie and Joyce Ellis.
FUN RUN
Men’s: Lewis Recher.
Ladies’: Sandy Worthy.
We offer congratulations to the winners and to all those who participated in
the tournaments. The camaraderie and sportsmanship displayed in the VBA’s
recreational tournaments is part of our overall effort to encourage civility
and collegiality among the members of the legal profession in Virginia. (And
a little healthy competitive spirit doesn’t hurt, either!)
With this farewell to summer, we look ahead to the VBA’s 110th Annual Meeting,
January 13-16 in Williamsburg. Watch for more details. Return
to Top
In our daily lives, each of us wears many hats — employee, employer, volunteer,
child, parent, sibling, spouse, citizen, consumer, and so forth.
The same is true of The Virginia Bar Association, and I have had numerous opportunities
during my term as Association President to see and appreciate the many hats
worn by the VBA.
Look at our mission statement. We serve the public and the profession by promoting
the highest standards of integrity, professionalism and civility in the legal
profession. We work to improve the law and the administration of justice. We
seek to foster collegial relations among lawyers.
And we do this in a myriad of ways — ways that even some of our members
may not realize are VBA-instigated — aided by our 19 strong substantive
law sections, our 18 active committees, and our award-winning Young Lawyers
Division with 40 committees of its own. (Not to mention the study and working
groups which arise as necessary.)
This issue includes mention of some of these activities: the analysis of professionalism
survey results by Judge Don Lemons and Tom Spahn; the account of Virginia lawyers’
fast response, coordinated by the VBA/YLD-VSB/YLC disaster assistance committees,
to legal needs caused by the devastation of Hurricanes Dennis and Floyd; Ted
Chandler’s practice pointers; a salute to those whose sportsmanship enlivened
the VBA Summer Meeting; and notices of upcoming VBA section-sponsored conferences.
Earlier this month, I participated in the 29th Annual Labor Relations and Employment
Law Conference at The Tides in Irvington — yet another well-attended conference
sponsored by a VBA group!
Our conferences are probably the Association’s most visible activities,
from the viewpoint of many Virginia lawyers. I am told that some attorneys will
call the VBA office months ahead of time to verify the date and location of
a particular conference, and to confirm that yes, they will receive registration
information!
Some VBA conferences, such as the Labor Law Conference, have been around for
several decades and have acquired a reputation for excellence in wider circles.
The Tax Practitioners’ Roundtable, which celebrates its 10th anniversary
later this month, continues to provide a forum for attorneys in an important
area of law, as does the five-year-old Administrative Law Conference.
Others, like the Bankruptcy Law Conference, are still new to the Association’s
calendar but are growing by word of mouth.
The Capital Defense Workshop, sponsored by the VBA Criminal Law Section with
financial assistance from the Virginia Law Foundation, has attracted nearly
standing-room-only participation throughout its seven-year existence. This year’s
workshop, to be held November 18-19 in Richmond, is proving no exception.
The Boyd-Graves Conference, that renowned annual gathering of Virginia lawyers,
judges and academics who convene each year to consider and recommend changes
in Virginia civil procedure, will meet in Williamsburg later this month. The
conclave was conceived in large part through the VBA Civil Litigation Section,
and continues to be nurtured by the VBA section.
Some signal VBA projects are now essentially stand-alone, such as the John Marshall
Foundation and the Capital Representation Resources Center, although we are
still very supportive of them. We are active also in such co-ventures with the
Virginia State Bar as the Virginia Law Foundation and its Joint CLE Committee.
We are fortunate to have so many dynamic groups within the ambit of the VBA,
each of which is a strong entity in itself. Yet while many of these groups and
activities could stand on its own, they draw strength from the Association —
and from each other.
So while the VBA may look different to you from the way it appears to fellow
members, depending on your areas of practice or interest, it’s still the
same Association underneath all the many hats. Return to
Top
Introduction
Then-President Phil Stone of The Virginia Bar Association established a Professionalism Task Force in 1997 to focus on the state of professionalism and civility among Virginia’s lawyers, and determine how the bar might improve professionalism and civility among its members. Chief Justice Harry Carrico agreed to act as Honorary Chairman of the Task Force, and Tom Spahn of the Richmond Bar has served as Chairman of the Task Force since its inception. The Task Force includes an impressive array of state and federal judges, private practitioners, academicians, government lawyers and in-house counsel.
The Professionalism Task Force has devoted its efforts to four main projects:
1. Professionalism Creed Project. David Anthony of Norfolk has headed an effort to analyze The Virginia Bar Association Creed, and determine whether it should be supplemented. David’s group reviewed scores of professionalism creeds from throughout the country, and the Task Force has settled on a relatively small number of changes that it recommends be made to The Virginia Bar Association Creed. The Task Force is exploring the possibility of having federal and state courts endorse or otherwise acknowledge the Creed as an aspirational code of conduct for lawyers practicing before them.
2. Local Bar CLE Project. The Task Force developed a “turnkey” CLE program for local bar groups. Local bars wishing to host a program on professionalism and civility pick from 60 hypotheticals developed by the Task Force, and the VBA arranges for copying, obtaining MCLE approval, etc. The program has a different focus from Chief Justice Carrico’s Professionalism Course, and is devoted exclusively to how lawyers interact with clients, adversaries, the courts and each other. The program’s goal is to encourage an active discussion of ways to improve professionalism and civility among lawyers. An important component of these programs is the involvement of local judges, who participate in the discussion and respond to a series of questions designed to explore the judiciary’s role in improving professionalism and civility. The Task Force encourages local bars to coordinate these CLE programs with a social gathering so that the discussions can continue (especially with the members of the bench) after the formal proceedings. So far, there have been more than 20 of these programs, and more are expected next year.
3. Professionals Coordination Project. Before becoming a Circuit Court judge, Catherine Hammond of Richmond headed this effort, which involves coordination with other professions (including doctors, accountants and lobbyists) in an effort to learn how they improve civility among their members. Catherine and Phil Stone ran an incisive program at the 1999 Annual Meeting in Williamsburg that included panelists from these other professions.
4. Judiciary Coordination Project. This program is designed to involve the judiciary in analyzing both the state of professionalism and civility among Virginia’s lawyers and how it might be improved. Although local bars have arranged bench-bar conferences for some time, nothing like this has been attempted on a statewide scale.
This report will focus on the Judiciary Coordination Project.
Professionalism and Civility Survey
The Judiciary Coordination Project first developed a survey that lawyers completed during some of the local bar programs discussed above. The same survey questions were posed to Circuit Court judges attending the Judicial Conference in Williamsburg on May 12, 1999, and to District Court and Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court judges attending the Judicial Conference in Virginia Beach on August 17.
Virginia CLE kindly lent its “responder” system for the Task Force’s use during these programs.1 This system allowed each judge to vote anonymously, which the Task Force felt would result in more useful data. We also asked demographic questions that explored regional differences and additional questions that allow an analysis of whether judges’ attitudes change as their tenure on the bench grows.
Judge Donald W. Lemons of the Court of Appeals of Virginia acted as the moderator at both of these Judicial Conferences. Freewheeling debate was encouraged, and it was suggested that judges in the audience propose additional areas of inquiry that would allow use of the responder system for an immediate vote.
The Task Force intends to continue building its database of attitudes among the bar and the bench. For instance, we used the responder system on September 9, 1999, to pose many of the same questions to the training program for guardians ad litem.
This article reports on the findings so far. The underlying data is available on The Virginia Bar Association website.2 Of course, the data is subject to a number of interpretations. Some points are obvious, while others are subtle and undoubtedly open to debate. We invite the Virginia bar and bench to analyze the underlying data and consider the trends that may be seen in the results of this survey.
General Status of Professionalism and Civility
A vast majority of lawyers (86%) think that there is a problem with Virginia lawyers’ professionalism and courtesy. Even a higher percentage of Circuit Court judges (91%) think so. A lower percentage of District Court judges (65%) and J&DR Court judges (69%) believe that there is a problem.3
The lower numbers among the District Court and J&DR Court judges might reflect what appears to be their more active role in trying to assure professional and civil behavior among lawyers appearing before them.
When asked about the magnitude of the problem, the lawyers and judges responded similarly. On a scale of 1-10 (with 10 being the more severe problem), the lawyers voted 5.39, the Circuit Court judges were higher (5.92) and the District Court judges (4.20) and J&DR Court judges (4.73) were lower.4
We asked all of the lawyers and judges whether the problem with professionalism and civility has grown worse over the past five to 10 years. Reflecting their other votes, 75% of lawyers and 92% of Circuit Court judges indicated that the problem was worsening. Interestingly, the District Court and J&DR Court judges voted the same way with numbers much higher than their general votes on the status of professionalism and civility (75% and 85% respectively). However, they did not think that the problem was growing worse at as rapid a rate as the lawyers and Circuit Court judges.5
It seems clear that according to judges and lawyers alike, there is a problem with Virginia lawyers’ professionalism and civility, and that it is growing worse. Although it will be interesting to debate why the District Court and J&DR Court judges perceive less of a problem than the lawyers and (especially) the Circuit Court judges see, these differences should not mask the general consensus that we have a problem that is worsening.
Severity of Problem with Different Types of Lawyers
We asked two series of questions focusing on how the professionalism and civility problem differs among different lawyer groups.
We asked first whether the problem was caused by a few “bad apples” or whether it was a widespread problem among all Virginia lawyers. All of the lawyers’ and judges’ groups tended to think that it was a “bad apple” problem, but to differing degrees. On a scale of 1-10 (with one being “bad apples” and 10 being “widespread,” the lawyers voted 4.35, the Circuit Court judges 4.18, the District Court judges 3.11 and the J&DR Court judges 3.36.6
As might be expected, the lawyers (70%) and the Circuit Court judges (81%) voted that the problem is worse among trial lawyers than among other lawyers. The lawyers and Circuit Court judges also shared the same general ranking of practice areas with the worst problem (in descending order of problem: domestic relations, personal injury, criminal, commercial and business litigation, and transactional lawyers).
Judges’ Role — General Issues
Our core questions focused on how judges and lawyers share responsibility for the perceived professionalism and civility problems among Virginia litigators.
When asked about judges’ responsibility for the problem (with one being “slight responsibility” and 10 being “large responsibility”), the lawyers indicated a higher degree of responsibility (5.28) than the Circuit Court judges (5.06) and much higher than the District Court judges (3.32) and the J&DR Court judges (3.80).
On the other hand, while all of the lawyers and judges assigned more of the responsibility to lawyers than to judges, the lawyers gave themselves only a slightly higher degree of responsibility (rising from 5.28 for judges to 7.43 for lawyers), while the Circuit Court judges had a dramatic shift in blame to lawyers (jumping from 5.06 for judges to 9.32 for lawyers), as did the District Court judges (from 3.32 for judges up to 8.58 for lawyers) and the J&DR Court judges (from 3.80 for judges up to 8.45 for lawyers). Lawyers and judges think lawyers are more responsible than judges for the problems with professionalism and civility, but judges are far more apt to blame lawyers and accept less responsibility for themselves.
Interestingly, the lawyers and judges gave almost exactly the same vote when asked whether judges can improve lawyers’ professionalism and courtesy. The lawyers, Circuit Court judges and J&DR Court judges had the identical “yes” vote (92%),7 while the District Court judges were only slightly behind with an 85% “yes” vote.
We asked all of the lawyers and judges who voted that judges could have a role in improving lawyers’ professionalism and civility how they thought the judges were currently doing. On a scale of one (“doing all they can do”) to 10 (“falling far short of what they can do”), the lawyers gave the judges far worse marks (7.41)8 than the Circuit Court judges (6.0), the District Court judges (5.84) and the J&DR Court judges (6.02) gave themselves.
Before turning to what judges might do to improve lawyers’ professionalism and civility, we first asked whether judges already had the tools they needed to improve lawyers’ behavior. Again, we noticed a fairly large discrepancy between the lawyers and judges. Ninety-two percent of the lawyers said “yes,” while only 65% of Circuit Court judges, 68% of District Court judges and a mere 52% of J&DR Court judges indicated that they already had the tools they needed.
The vote by the Circuit Court judges reflected the only dramatic difference by tenure on the bench. Of the six Circuit Court judges voting on this questions who have served on the bench one year or less, all six thought that they already have the tools they needed. Of the 39 judges voting on this question who have been on the bench more than 10 years, only half of the judges thought they already have the tools they need.
It would appear that lawyers believe that judges could do more to improve professionalism and civility without any additional tools, while many of the judges think that they need some additional remedies at their disposal for improving professionalism and civility.
Judges’ Role — Specific Issues
After discussing these issues generally, we turned to specifics. A majority of all of the lawyers’ and judges’ groups favored adopting formal court rules governing professionalism and civility (such as a rule requiring cooperation on setting hearing dates, etc.) A slightly higher number of lawyers (71%) favored such rules when compared to J&DR Court judges (64%), District Court judges (60%) and especially Circuit Court judges (only 55%).
A number of lawyers attending the local bar CLE programs indicated that judges could improve professionalism and civility by becoming more involved in the discovery process. Based on these comments, we asked the Circuit Court judges whether judges involved in the discovery process should provide more judicial access to lawyers with discovery disputes or instead primarily let the lawyers work the discovery disputes out themselves with court intervention as a last resort. Seventy-one percent of the Circuit Court judges felt that lawyers should be primarily left to work the discovery disputes out themselves. To a slight degree, the Circuit Court judges felt more strongly in favor of this approach the longer they serve on the bench.9
A general district court judge expressed concern about lawyers explaining their absences in district court because they had previous commitments in Circuit Court. We asked the participants at that Judicial Conference whether they had ever discussed this issue with the Circuit Court judge involved, and most of them had not (only 25% of the District Court judges and 39% of the J&DR Court judges had engaged in such discussions). When asked whether such discussions with a Circuit Court judge about a lawyer’s behavior would be fruitful, 75% of the J&DR Court judges voted “no” and an even higher percentage (80%) of the District Court judges believed that such discussions would not be fruitful.10
Judges’ Use of Existing Tools to Improve Professionalism and Civility
We asked all of the judges how many times in the past year they had made statements in court about a lawyer’s discourteous behavior. Many of the judges had not made any such statements in the past year,11 and only a small percentage had made five or more such comments.12 About the same percentage of judges believe that such statements disapproving of certain lawyer behavior had any salutary or long-lasting effect.13
Judges’ Use of Monetary Sanctions to Improve Professionalism and Civility
Our final group of questions focused on one particular kind of remedy that some judges employ to improve professionalism and civility in their courtrooms — monetary sanctions. When asked whether judges use monetary sanctions often enough to punish a lack of professionalism and civility, only 13% of lawyers voted “yes,”14 compared to 23% of Circuit Court judges, 32% of J&DR Court judges and 34% of District Court judges.
We next explored why judges do not use monetary sanctions more often if they think that such sanctions are not used with sufficient frequency. We first asked whether the judges’ decision whether or not to impose monetary sanctions was affected by appellate decisions on the imposition of such sanctions. Sixty-one percent of Circuit Court judges indicated that their decision was affected by appellate decisions, nearly three times the “yes” vote of District Court judges (23%) and J&DR Court judges (21%).
A participant in the District Court Judicial Conference indicated that he was reluctant to use monetary sanctions for fear that it would affect his reelection possibilities. Voting anonymously, 47% of the District Court judges agreed that reelection was a consideration in their decision about using monetary sanctions, and an even higher percentage (51%) of J&DR Court judges agreed. This concern over reelection did not decrease as the judges’ tenure grew. For instance, District Court judges who had been on the bench for less than one year voted “yes” by a 4-3 margin, while those who had been on the bench more than 10 years voted “no” by only a 23-17 margin. Similarly, of the 32 J&DR Court judges voting on this issue who have served for more than 10 years, 19 said that reelection was a consideration, while only 13 indicated that it was not.
We asked the District Court and J&DR Court judges whether they thought that their local formal bar organizations would support them in efforts to improve lawyer behavior in their courts. While more than 70% of both judges indicated that they felt they would be supported by the bar, a disturbingly large percentage of District Court judges (25%) and J&DR Court judges (29%) did not have such confidence in their local bar organizations.
Commentary on Survey Results
Understandably, the presentations sponsored by The Virginia Bar Association prompted much discussion among the bench and bar. Although comments from lawyers and judges were not subject to statistical analysis, certain themes were repeated often enough to deserve comment.
The survey reveals that a vast majority of lawyers and judges believe that “there is a problem with Virginia lawyers’ professionalism and courtesy.” An even higher percentage of those surveyed opine that the problem has grown worse over the past five to 10 years and that the problem is worse among trial lawyers than other practitioners. Both lawyers and judges acknowledge that lawyers and judges share responsibility for the current circumstances. Significantly, over 85% of judges and 92% of lawyers surveyed believe that judges can aid in the improvement of lawyers’ professionalism and courtesy.
The bar in Virginia has aggressively addressed issues of professionalism and courtesy through the Mandatory Professionalism Course, the disciplinary system, mandatory ethics CLE requirements and various task force and educational programs. The efforts of the bar are laudable, but the prevailing sentiment of the bar is that additional progress is not likely to be realized unless the bench becomes an active partner in the enterprise. Absent direct involvement and greater access on the part of judges, dilatory discovery tactics and offensive behavior appear to have some strategic benefit at least in the short term. Often such behavior is met with reciprocal behavior. Prompt intervention by the court removes the marginal benefits of improper behavior, decreases the cost of litigation, and improves lawyer professionalism and courtesy.
The survey reveals that lawyers and judges do not believe that monetary sanctions are utilized enough. However, when further discussion ensues, neither lawyers nor judges favor opening a new battleground for collateral litigation over sanctions. Although utilizing monetary sanctions for the most egregious conduct is encouraged by the bar, what attorneys prefer is a clear indication that the courts will not tolerate unprofessional conduct, prompt access to the courts for dispute resolution, and prompt decisions from judges. With this intervention, the bar is convinced that the need for monetary sanctions will be significantly reduced.
Although the courtroom is not free from incivility, most incidents of unprofessional conduct occur outside the presence of a judge. Such conduct includes lack of cooperation in providing available dates for hearings and depositions, lack of responsiveness to correspondence and phone calls, delayed amendment of discovery responses when required, and demeaning or abusive comments to counsel, litigants or deponents at depositions. Seemingly without dissent, the bar seeks the active intervention by the court when necessary in these pretrial events. Unequivocal communication of the court’s expectations of counsel must precede (and may prevent) intervention by the court. Prompt access and decision-making by the court must follow. The Rules of Court provide that during depositions, “examination and cross-examination of witnesses may proceed as permitted at the trial.” (Rule 4:5(b)(7).) The trial judge should not tolerate deposition conduct that would not be permitted before her at trial.
Sanctions for inappropriate conduct must be graduated to meet the circumstances. They may range from public or private rebuke, to costs or other remedies pursuant to the Rules, to monetary award pursuant to § 8.01-271.1, to contempt of court, to referral to the disciplinary system of the Virginia State Bar. Comments by members of the bar reveal a universal belief that early intervention with less drastic means will preclude the need for more drastic remedies.
Finally, members of the bar candidly observed that the judge will set the example for professionalism and courtesy. If a judge is rude or discourteous or allows court staff to behave in this manner, the conduct of lawyers and litigants quickly absorbs this dynamic.
Having surveyed the bench and bar, the Task Force is hopeful that the dialogue will continue and that a cooperative effort between bench and bar will contribute to higher standards of professionalism and civility in the Commonwealth.
Notes
1. We wish to thank Jeni Crockett of Virginia CLE
who set up the system the night before each conference and ran the “responder”
system.
2. We wish to thank McGuire Woods legal assistants
Sherry Hawa and Jonathan Neal for their assistance in compiling all of the data
collected by Virginia CLE.
3. Guardians ad litem voted in about the same
percentage.
4. Although we did not ask the Circuit Court judges
this question, we asked the District Court judges and J&DR Court judges
whether they had personally experienced unprofessional and uncivil conduct in
their courtrooms. Eighty-nine percent of the District Court judges and 87% of
the J&DR Court judges indicated that they had experienced such conduct.
5. When asked “how much worse” has the
problem grown over the past five to 10 years (with a vote of one being “somewhat”
worse and a vote of 10 being “much” worse), the lawyers voted 5.59,
Circuit Court judges 5.82, District Court judges 4.45 and J&DR Court judges
4.93.
6. The guardians ad litem had an even more
pronounced trend in this direction, voting 2.96.
7. The guardians ad litem voted “yes”
by a nearly identical 93%.
8. The guardians ad litem gave essentially
the same vote as the lawyers (7.24).
9. When the guardians ad litem were asked
whether they were confident that a judge reached by telephone would resolve
professionalism and civility disputes arising during a deposition, only 41%
had some confidence that a judge would solve the problem, while 59% believed
that the judge would not resolve the issue. Furthermore, of those voting “yes,”
over 60% practice in an area of the state served by more than one judge.
10. The vote was consistent across the judges’
tenure, which means that even District Court and J&DR Court judges who had
served on the bench more than 10 years did not believe that such discussions
would be fruitful.
11. Twenty-nine percent of Circuit Court judges,
30% of District Court judges and 24% of J&DR Court judges.
12. Eighteen percent of Circuit Court judges,10%
of District Court judges and 19% of J&DR Court judges. As might be expected,
the judges who have served on the bench longest tended to speak up more often
than new judges.
13. About one-third of the judges thought that such
statements always had a good effect, about half of them thought that such statements
infrequently had the desired effect and about 15% thought that such statements
had no effect.
14. The guardians ad litem voted “yes”
in a nearly identical percentage. Return to Top
Every law practice faces the need for growth. In most, the fundamental burden for business development falls to the partners or practitioner. However, associates who are trained in marketing techniques and who master some basic marketing tools can be a significant source of new client development.
A law firm does not need to be large to encourage associates to become adept at marketing, nor does it necessarily need an internal professional staff to shepherd this training. Many external sources (colleges, consultants, marketing firms and practitioners, for example) can bring the right information and encouragement to young lawyers and engage them in seeking and securing new business.
The most successful efforts, however, do rely on a strong firm commitment requiring that associates know and use marketing tactics, and that they share in the accountability for growing the practice. If your firm has that desire and focus, and if your career development and compensation system are tied into the measures for success, a sensible training program can be built on a few key fundamentals.
Clients Come from Relationships
Associates, well trained in the theory and practice of law in school, need more than rudimentary relationship skills to help acquire clients. Business development begins with having the confidence to talk about your work, having the scripts to describe your practice and practice area, projecting your personality and having the willingness to assert yourself diplomatically. Many components of successful networking rely on appropriate social behaviors: appearance, manners, tact and sociability. This is the first skill set that associate business development training needs to address.
Relationships Require Maintenance
Once established, relationships need to be nurtured. Trust and credibility come from personal attention and honesty. But there are some useful tools that assist, such as personal notes, social contact in groups and individually, recognition of personal events, passing along useful information and referrals. Associates can be shown these tactics, but they also need to have a system for using them. So, the second skill set for training might be personal contact management, or how to choose tools and bring order to using them to further client and prospect relationships.
You Have to Want New Business
Within the strict ethical standards of the bar, new business nevertheless invariably starts with the request — whether direct or by referral — that a matter be entrusted to a lawyer. While relationships set the stage for this inquiry, there is nothing that can take its place. Clearly, then, associates need to learn how to pose this question and how to prepare for the opportunity by portraying their capabilities and those of the firm in a way that supports the award of business.
Nothing Substitutes for Terrific Service
Clients deserve great service and good lawyering is its own powerful marketing
tool. Well-practiced law develops the pipeline of repeat and referral business
that, ultimately, sustains and grows the firm. Therefore, sharpening the legal
skills of associates (professional development) is also a key marketing strategy.
Along with that, broadening associate visibility through professional and civic
groups, seminar leadership and community service can spread the word about good
work.
This brief review of business development training topics for associates is
only a start. A comprehensive firm marketing program recognizes the value of
helping associates launch business development efforts in their own interests
as well as the firm’s. Return to Top
Question 1: Do you know what Pope John Paul I’s real name was?
Question 2: If a $500,000 prize was riding on the answer and you were on network television, could you give the correct answer?
The answer to the first question is Albiano Luciani. The answer to the second isyes — if you’re Michael Shutterly.
Shutterly, a VBA member who is employed by Capital One Financial Corporation
and lives in Richmond, scored the largest cash prize in the history of American
television on August 25, during his appearance on ABC-TV’s “Who Wants
to Be a Millionaire?”
This was not the first game-show foray for Shutterly, a graduate of the University
of Pennsylvania with a law degree from Boston University. He appeared on “Jeopardy!”
about 10 years ago, winning $19,200, and appeared on another show called “Trump
Card” several years ago.
He credits his mother-in-law with bringing “Millionaire” to his attention.
“She saw an ad for the show in Parade magazine and mentioned it
to my wife, Margaret. While we were on vacation, she showed me the article and
I decided to apply for the show, which involved calling a 900 number and answering
several levels of questions over the phone.”
While Shutterly perused such volumes as the Guinness Book of Records,
the Book of Lists and an almanac en route to the taping in New
York, he didn’t study very much in preparation for his appearance on the
show.
“Either you know it or you don’t,” he said. “It’s true
that most people who do this kind of thing read almanacs for fun, but studying
doesn’t really make that much difference. The main thing is ‘Will
the answer come to you onstage if you’re asked?’ So you just go out
there and enjoy yourself. The almanac, or the Book of Lists, is really more
of a security blanket.”
What was it like to work with Regis Philbin, host of the show?
“I really liked Regis,” said Shutterly. “He gets involved with
the contestants. Most game-show hosts come out only for the taping, do their
job, and leave without interacting with the contestants. Regis does the rehearsal
himself. He gets excited, almost like a little kid, and working with him is
like working with your favorite uncle. What you see is what you get. Yes, he
really is a great guy.
“Regis wants people to have fun while they’re doing the show,”
added Shutterly, who noted that a staff person was assigned to each contestant
as a “buddy.”
In addition to the question about Pope John Paul I, Shutterly correctly answered
such questions as “What is the proper way to address a letter to a foreign
ambassador?” (“His/Her Excellency.”)
Rather than answer the $1 million question — “On February 22, 1989,
what group won the first Grammy Award for Best Hard Rock/Metal Performance?”
— Shutterly, unsure of the correct answer (“Jethro Tull”), passed
on it and kept his $500,000 winnings.
While a certain amount of financial planning must take place in the afterglow
of Shutterly’s win, he has clear priorities as to how the money will be
used, even as he admits that the enormity “hasn’t yet sunk in. It
just boggles the mind. The ‘Jeopardy!’ win was exciting, but this
is more than 10 times as much!”
First and foremost, the Shutterlys will set aside college funds for their three
sons, ages 13, 11 and 8.
“That’s the best piece of all this,” Shutterly commented. “We
were already doing the state’s prepaid tuition plan, but we still had to
consider the costs of room and board several years down the line. Now if they
want to go out of state, or to a private college, it won’t be a problem.
They can do anything they want for college, and we won’t have to worry
about it.”
Shutterly also plans to give his mother, who emigrated to the U.S. from Lithuania
in 1949, a trip to Europe in 2000. “It’s always been very expensive
to travel over there, but now she can go wherever she likes and see her relatives
and friends. Whatever she wants to do, we can send her without worrying about
the costs.”
And the family’s going to Disney World next year at spring break.
“Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?” ended its two-week run on August
29, but ABC will bring it back for another two-week period in November.
“They’re looking to bring it back in sweeps months, like November,
February and May, so it can build excitement, then let it rest. Will they make
it a weekly show? Probably not, because of the logistics involved in taping
it. For each half-hour show, it takes two or two-and-a-half hours to tape it.
On the other hand, ‘Jeopardy!’ shoots five shows a day.”
Shutterly looks forward to future airings of “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?”
“Watching other people do it would be fun,” he said. “You do
get kind of caught up in it. The contestants are like a team. You want the person
who’s up there to do well.”
Just like the VBA’s own “quiz kid.” Return
to Top
Volunteer lawyers respond to hurricane-caused legal needs in eastern Virginia
As Hurricanes Dennis and Floyd struck southeastern Virginia with double-barreled
fury in September, the lawyers of Virginia unleashed a potent weapon of their
own: free legal assistance to disaster victims, organized jointly by The Virginia
Bar Association’s Young Lawyers Division and the Virginia State Bar’s
Young Lawyers Conference.
Together with the VSB/YLC Emergency Legal Services Committee, the VBA/YLD Disaster
Legal Assistance Committee, chaired by Stephen D. Otero (Mays & Valentine,
Richmond) trains and coordinates attorneys who are willing to volunteer their
time in order to assist individuals rendered needy by emergency situations such
as natural disasters. Shawn A. Copeland (Hunton & Williams, Richmond) chairs
the VSB/YLC Emergency Legal Services Committee (and is a VBA member).
The Committee works closely with the Virginia Department of Emergency Services
(VDES), the American Bar Association Young Lawyers Division Emergency Legal
Services Committee, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). When
an emergency arises, Committee members and volunteer attorneys they have trained
provide pro bono legal services to those affected by the crisis.
More than 90 volunteers from Danville, Roanoke, Richmond, Northern Virginia,
and eastern Virginia came forward to staff disaster recovery centers and/or
accept referrals through the Virginia Lawyer Referral Service (VLRS).
Thirty-one lawyers participated in emergency training sessions held in Norfolk
and Richmond on September 22, and others viewed the committees’ videotaped
training session. Forty-four trained volunteers were poised to accept calls
as necessary.
Nineteen attorneys staffed disaster recovery centers in Franklin and Newport
News, helping clients deal with such matters as landlord-tenant and insurance
issues.
Although a light flow of clients at Franklin and in Hampton (where a center
was opened after Hurricane Dennis’ foray over Labor Day weekend) led the
committees to stop staffing those sites on September 27, it was expected that
as more Franklin-area residents returned to their homes and more rain fell during
the last week of September, the need for legal assistance could increase once
more.
The VLRS hotline, 1-800-552-7977, remains operational for all hurricane-related
legal matters. For more information about the VBA Disaster Legal Assistance
Committee, please contact Stephen Otero at (804) 697-1236. Return
to Top
Capital Defense Workshop
Program topics and speakers have been announced for the Seventh Annual Capital
Defense Workshop, to be held November 18-19 at the Hyatt Richmond. The workshop
is sponsored by the VBA Criminal Law Section and financially assisted by the
Virginia Law Foundation.
The Virginia Code and Standards adopted by the Public Defender Commission require
current specialized training in capital litigation. The Capital Defense Workshop
is designed to provide defense attorneys with such training. Approval for 11
hours of CLE credit (1 ethics) will be obtained from the Virginia State Bar’s
MCLE Board.
Workshop topics will include such basics as “making the record,” discovery,
jury selection, examining and cross-examining psychiatric experts, recent developments,
jury perspectives, team defense, ethics and judicial perspectives.
Speakers will include Prof. Richard J. Bonnie, Richard Davis, Gary Hawk, Ph.D.,
and Rhonda E. Quagliana, all of Charlottesville; Hon. Robert R. Merhige Jr.
and Robert Lee, both of Richmond; Hon. Clifford R. Weckstein of Roanoke; Prof.
Roger D. Groot of Lexington; Christopher A. Tuck of Blacksburg; Sally L. Steel
of Bedford; Ruth Friedman of Washington, D.C.; Prof. Scott Sundby and Mark E.
Olive, both of Tallahassee, Fla.; Deborah J. Grohs of Colorado Springs, Colo.;
David I. Bruck of Columbia, S.C., and Jan Vogelsang, LCSW, of Greenville, S.C.
The Capital Defense Workshop Committee is co-chaired by Prof. Roger D. Groot
of Lexington and Overton P. Pollard of Richmond. Committee members include James
Hingeley, Robert Lee, Denise Lunsford, Andrew A. Protogyrou, Brenda Spry and
Gordon A. Wilkins.
The workshop is provided essentially without cost to attorneys who certify that
they will accept appointment in a capital case pursuant to Virginia Code Section
19.2-163.7 et seq. A nominal charge of $30, however, is required to cover
the cost of lunch and continental breakfast. For those attending who are unable
to certify that they will accept appointment, a registration fee of $150 is
required.
Pre-registration is required to ensure admission. The registration/cancellation
deadline is November 4. Walk-in registrants cannot be guaranteed admission.
Hotel reservations should be made directly with the Hyatt Richmond at (804)
285-1234.
Brochures were mailed to Criminal Law Section members in September. Details
are available on the Section’s activities
page. Return to Top
The Virginia Tax Practitioners’ Roundtable, sponsored by the VBA Taxation
Section, will mark its 10th anniversary on October 29, when tax lawyers from
around the state meet at Farmington in Charlottesville for the annual gathering,
which is expected to offer 2.5 CLE credits.
“I want to emphasize the continuance of the hallmark format for this roundtable
— that it will be discussion based and not merely lectures by the leaders,”
wrote Section Chair D. French Slaughter III in a letter to section members,
adding “We want to focus on making this a learning and sharing experience
in this rapidly developing area of the law.”
Discussions will include current developments in tax law, the merchants’
capital tax, Virginia’s new Tax Commission, and tax litigation from the
local government attorney’s perspective.
Space is limited and available on a first-come, first-served basis. Registration
information was mailed in September to Taxation Section members and is available
on the Section’s activities page
or by calling the VBA office at (804) 644-0041. Return
to Top
Virginia Law Foundation announces deadline for Letters of Intent for next grant cycle
(NOTE: The procedure described in this article refers to VBA-sponsored projects only.)
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 2000-01 grant cycle (July 1, 2000, through June 30, 2001).
Letters of Intent to be submitted by VBA sections and committees under the VBA umbrella, for VBA-sponsored projects, 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, VA 23219, by December 22, 1999.
Approximately $500,000 will 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.
For more information about the grants process, the Virginia Law Foundation may be reached at (804) 648-0112. Return to Top
Virginia Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth B. Lacy of Richmond, the judicial representative on the VBA Executive Committee and chair of the Supreme Court’s Gender Bias Task Force, spoke on “Women and the Law” at Montpelier, the Orange County home of James Madison, on September 18 in the keynote session of the 1999 Bill of Rights Series. The series is sponsored by the Montpelier Foundation in cooperation with the Virginia Foundation for the Humanities and Public Policy.
Marshall M. Curtis of Reston, chair of the VBA Intellectual Property Law Section, has been appointed to serve on Advisory Committee Five of the Virginia Joint Commission on Technology and Science. The committee is charged to examine selected topics in technology and law, including the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act and the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act. He is a partner in the law firm of Whitham, Curtis & Whitham.
W. Scott Street III of Richmond, president of the Virginia State Bar and a VBA member, was recently elected as a member of the Board of Trustees of the National Conference of Bar Examiners. A partner in the law firm of Williams, Mullen, Clark & Dobbins, he also serves as secretary of the Virginia Board of Bar Examiners.
The Honorable L. Neil Steverson of Richmond was sworn in as a judge of the Henrico General District Court at the Courthouse on July 29. Judge Steverson received a framed VBA Creed from VBA Executive Committee member Ed Betts during the investiture, just as his predecessor, The Honorable Gary A. Hicks, had received a framed Creed from VBA President David Craig Landin during his swearing-in as a Circuit Court judge on July 23.
The Honorable John R. Alderman was sworn in as a judge of the Fifteenth Circuit Court at Hanover Courthouse on September 20. During the ceremony, VBA Executive Vice President Breck Arrington presented Judge Alderman with a framed VBA Creed on behalf of the Association. (And you don’t have to be a new judge to have a VBA Creed on your office wall; framed Creeds are available from the VBA office. Call (804) 644-0041 for details.)
Leigh B. Middleditch Jr. of Charlottesville, a VBA member and a partner in the law firm of McGuire, Woods, Battle & Boothe, recently became a member of the American Bar Association Board of Governors. He will represent the Fourth District (Virginia and the District of Columbia) for a three-year term on the 37-member board.
The William & Mary Journal of Women & the Law will sponsor “How Women Get—And Use—Power in the Law,” a program in the McGlothlin Moot Court Room at the W&M School of Law on Friday, November12, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Prof. Jayne W. Barnard, law faculty representative on the VBA Executive Committee, serves as advisor to the Journal.
Do you have an e-mail address? If so, does the VBA office have it? More and more communication is being done electronically, and we don’t want you to slip through the (Inter)net. E-mail your address to us at thevba@vba.org. Return to Top
Copyright 1999 The Virginia Bar Association