May/June 2007 - The Virginia Bar Association

Transcription

VBA News Journal
•
•
THE OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE VIRGINIA BAR ASSOCIATION • VOL. XXXIII, NO. 2 • MAY/JUNE 2007
You still have half a year to fulfill
those resolutions...
2007! 2006
4—
0
0
2
r
o
f
2005
s
n
o
i
t
u
l
o
s
e
ar’s R
eeds
N
y
l
i
m
My New Ye
a
F
r
nce fo
a
r
u
s
n
I
e
f
i
e Plans
c
· Evaluate L
n
a
r
u
s
n
I
ealth
H
e
r
a
p
m
o
C
·
ing
d
n
u
F
e
g
e
l
l
· Start Co
are
C
m
r
e
T
g
n
tegy
a
r
t
S
· Review Lo
t
n
e
m
etire
as part of R
injured
r
o
k
c
i
s
f
i
come
n
I
t
c
e
t
o
r
P
·
ance
r
u
s
n
I
y
t
i
l
i
und
with Disab
f
o
t
e
c
n
a
r
e Insu
f
i
L
e
s
a
h
ent
c
r
m
e
e
· Pu
r
g
A
l
l
uy/Se
B
s
ce,
r
n
e
a
n
i
l
t
l
r
A
a
P
s
r
e
Barrist
a
i
n
i
g
r
i
V
· Contact
diary
i
s
b
u
s
e
c
n
ion,
t
a
i
c
your insura
o
s
s
A
ia Bar
n
i
g
r
i
V
e
h
of T
above!
e
h
t
f
o
l
l
for a
To start our conversation, please complete this form
and fax it to us at (804) 762-4192 or 1-800-947-2796.
Without obligation, I would like to receive more information about products and services available
to members of The Virginia Bar Association. Item(s) of special interest: ___________________________.
Here’s how you can reach me:
Name:
_______________________________________________________________________
Address:
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
E-mail:
_______________________________________________________________________
Area Code (
) Phone: ___________________________________ ____ Day ____ Evening
Virginia Barristers Alliance, Inc.
THE INSURANCE AGENCY SUBSIDIARY OF THE VIRGINIA BAR ASSOCIATION
Dean Hardy and Howard DiSavino Jr. • 4880 Sadler Road, Suite 110, Glen Allen, Virginia 23060
(804) 290-8720 direct line • 1-800-358-7987 toll-free • (804) 762-4192 fax • email: hdisavino@finsvcs.com
VBA
News Journal
•
701 East Franklin Street, Suite 1120
Richmond, VA 23219
(804) 644-0041
FAX (804) 644-0052
E-mail: thevba@vba.org
Web: www.vba.org
4•
President
Glenn C. Lewis, Washington, D.C.
President -elect
G. Michael Pace Jr., Roanoke
Chair, Board of Governors
John D. Epps, Richmond
6•
Even in Virginia?
Same-sex cohabitation as termination for spousal support
Lynne Marie Kohm
8•
Abraham’s Law: A New Exception to Virginia’s Medical
Neglect Statute
Nathaniel Lyle Story
11 •
Pensions, Divorce, Medicaid and Advance Directives
Sandra L. Smith, CELA
13 •
VBA establishes Commission on Professionalism
14 •
Forgotten Children?
Why Virginia’s ‘Angelina Jolies’ should consider
foster-care adoption
Jessica Ralsten
16 •
A Basic Divorce Practice Primer for New Attorneys:
Avoiding Some Early Pitfalls
Beth Ann Lawson
19 •
VBA Summer Meeting Updates and Overview
20 •
Across the Commonwealth
22 •
Classifieds
23 •
VBA Foundation Patrons
24 •
Calendar of Events
Young Lawyers Division Chair
Matthew E. Cheek, Richmond
Young Lawyers Division Chair-elect
E. Livingston B. Haskell, Toano
Board of Governors
The Officers and
Prof. Margaret I. Bacigal, Richmond
Stephen D. Busch, Richmond
Hon. Rodham T. Delk Jr., Suffolk
C. Thomas Ebel, Richmond
Cheshire I. Eveleigh, Virginia Beach
Hon. Robert Hurt, Chatham
William R. Mauck Jr., Richmond
Karen Turner McWilliams, Reston
Steven R. Minor, Bristol
J. Lee E. Osborne, Roanoke
Stephen C. Price, Leesburg
Richard C. Sullivan Jr., Falls Church
Lucia Anna Trigiani, Tysons Corner
Robert C. Wood III, Lynchburg
Member of ABA House of Delegates
E. Tazewell Ellett, Alexandria
Legislative Counsel
Hon. Anthony F. Troy, Richmond
Hon. Robert B. Jones Jr., Richmond
Anne Leigh Kerr, Richmond
Executive Director
Guy K. Tower
Assistant Executive Director
Brenda J. Dillard
VBA News Journal Editor
Caroline B. Cardwell
OUR MISSION
The Virginia Bar Association is a voluntary
organization of Virginia lawyers
committed to serving the public and the
legal profession by promoting the highest
standards of integrity, professionalism,
and excellence in the legal profession;
working to improve the law and the
administration of justice; and advancing
collegial relations among lawyers.
President’s Page
VBA: Looking Good
Glenn C. Lewis
Legal Focus/Domestic Relations
Immediate Past President
William R. Van Buren III, Norfolk
Law Practice Management Division Chair
David H. Sump, Norfolk
•
THE VIRGINIA BAR ASSOCIATION
VOLUME XXXIII, ISSUE 2
MAY/JUNE 2007
On the Cover: The Homestead and Casino, photograph by Caroline Cardwell.
One hundred forty photographs of Virginia courthouses are contained in Virginia’s
Historic Courthouses, written by John O. and Margaret T. Peters with a foreword
by the late Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr.; photographs by John O. Peters; published
by University Press of Charlottesville; and sponsored by The Virginia Bar
Association. To order the book, call the VBA at (804) 644-0041 or 1-800-644-0987.
VBA NEWS JOURNAL, the official publication of The Virginia Bar Association (ISSN 15220974, USPS 093-110), is published six times per year (January/February, March/April, May/
June, July/August, September/October and November/December). Membership dues
include the cost of one subscription to each member of the Association. Subscription price
to others, $30 per year. Statements or expressions of opinion appearing herein are those
of the authors and not necessarily those of the Association, and likewise the publication
of any advertisement is not to be construed as an endorsement of the product or service
unless specifically stated in the advertisement that there is such approval or endorsement.
Periodicals postage paid at Richmond, VA 23232. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to
The Virginia Bar Association, 701 East Franklin Street, Suite 1120, Richmond, VA 23219.
PRESIDENT’S PAGE
VBA: Looking Good
BY GLENN C. LEWIS
Appearances can deceive. Too often,
what is first alluring and appealing,
is less so on closer inspection. Not so,
with The Virginia Bar Association.
When it comes to the VBA, the closer
you get, the better it looks.
For more than 20 years, I have
served as a bar junkie, working on
myriad committees and groups for
one mission or another. Service was a
virtue instilled at an early age, and
serving with lawyers is the pinnacle
of service.
While earlier efforts were directed
at teaching or working toward
improvements in law or procedures,
the great majority of such time has
been consumed with working on a
few, discrete areas I considered most
rewarding and worthwhile.
Five years ago, while chairing the
Virginia State Bar Special Committee
on Access to Legal Services, I received
a call from a very distinguished legal
aid lawyer, Jeanne Franklin. I fully
expected she was calling on any one
of several matters of mutual interest.
We fought many battles back then,
seeking to improve justice for the
disadvantaged. There were efforts to
gain or to preserve funding, to protect
or preserve rights of representation
for migrant farm workers and
minimum wage food employees. We
worked with the Courts, addressing
rising tides of pro se litigation and to
ensure effective pro bono child custody
representation.
Our group had just prevailed in a
decade long struggle to honor Oliver
W. Hill Jr. with an appropriate award
befitting his stature. Bar Council
unanimously passed a motion I was
privileged to present, establishing an
annual law student award in the
name of Mr. Hill, Virginia’s favorite
son and legendary civil rights lawyer.
Weeks earlier at William & Mary, I
introduced Mr. Hill in a ceremony to
present the first such award to Reco
Thomas, a deserving William & Mary
student.
We had also joined progressive
states in amicus briefs, supporting
LSNY and others against LSC
4/THE VIRGINIA BAR ASSOCIATION NEWS JOURNAL
My reasons for being here are already summed
up by the very mission of the VBA: legal reform;
diversity and inclusion, indigent defense, pro
bono publico and access, judicial independence
and selection, specialty and local bar
connections; professionalism and excellence in
the profession; fellowship and education.
administrative subpoenas aimed at
invading attorney-client privilege for
the poor, thereby chilling indigent
access to legal counsel.
During those years, we held
numerous pro bono conferences; we
highlighted and discussed remedies
to begin plugging shameful holes in
Virginia’s justice safety net. We sought
to raise both awareness and passion
by educating the bar and the
community on urgently needed
reforms.
With all our victories, the greatest
challenge proved the most elusive to
address. Despite all the great and good
works of lawyers and other volunteers
in every corner of the state and the
system of justice, we could never
achieve the political solution to redress
one of Virginia’s greatest social
shortcomings: Utter abdication of the
Constitutional responsibility to ensure
a basic defense for indigents accused of
crimes. From the moment the Supreme
Court had set the standard, Gideon’s
Trumpet had barely squeaked in this
Commonwealth.
So, when Jeanne Franklin rang me,
I smiled and assumed I knew why.
As it turned out, Jeanne Franklin was
not calling about legal aid, or even
indigent defense. This day she wore the
hat of VBA past president and
nominating committee representative.
Jeanne called to invite my candidacy
for the VBA Board of Governors.
Though having done a good bit of
work for years under the VBA
umbrella, I had very little prior
contact with its inner workings or
hierarchy. To that point, I had a
mostly positive, though distant, sense
of the VBA. While greatly admiring a
few people who had held leadership
positions, until then, the VBA did not
represent a calling to me.
As I soon learned, other lawyers
not closely involved in its leadership,
shared this general view. Particularly
in Northern Virginia, rightly or
wrongly, the VBA seemed an
essentially “Richmond” activity, the
province of its storied, large firms.
Populated with legendary lawyers
of great reputation and ability, I
ignorantly presumed its constituency
unlikely to share my own priorities
or a focus on what most ignited my
passion for bar work and reform.
Appearances can be deceiving. I
was wrong. Very wrong.
It took but a few moments into my
first Board meeting. Instantly I noted
a good feeling, a caring and joyous
spirit, and a passion for doing exactly
what needs to be done. This was a
family, a dedicated and spirited
group of professionals, devoted to
enhancing and bettering our
profession and our system of laws
and justice.
My early Boards were led by
Presidents Ed Betts and Frank
Thomas. They were populated with
the very best and the brightest our
profession has to offer. These were
lawyers of stature, goodwill, good
cheer and unquestioned judgment
and character.
Once ensconced and certain of its
noble intentions, I checked in with
MAY/JUNE 2007
each member on the group on
perceptions earlier held and seeming
to permeate traditionally disaffected
bar constituencies. I was delighted
though not surprised that each
member seemed ready to take on that
perception and any underlying basis
for it, straight away.
In preparation for his presidency,
Ted Ellett attended a legal aid summit
at Hofstra University in New York. A
brilliant lawyer, no one could care
more than Ted about justice or doing
what is right. He came back shocked
and embarrassed by the blast of
reality greeting him at the conference.
Ted had encountered what many
Virginia delegates faced when
traveling to and interacting with
others in legal aid or pro bono
conferences around the country. We
are securely placed at 50th among the
50 states in resources allocated to
indigent defense. Our national
standing is so low in comparison to
all other states, outside comments are
less about justice and more about how
far we would have to progress, to
even come close to State # 49!
Stoked by that event and his moral
convictions, Ted launched a series of
steps as VBA president that have
started something wonderful. He
quickly obtained Board consensus to
form work forces committed to
studying and reporting on matters of
urgency, first being the state of our
indigent defense.
Our indigent defense group met
immediately. Led by a moral force
of nature, the late great W&L
Professor Roger Groot, we quickly
moved to study, then issue a
devastating report card on
Virginia’s system. With that report
card was a bullet list of needed
changes. Due to the speed and force
of this report, the public took note.
Editorial pages and commentators
across the state widely praised and
embraced our findings and
recommendations. Given our
respected station and influential
standing, consensus built in
support of our findings and critique,
calling for strong responsive
measures.
As membership chair and under
Ted’s presidential leadership, focus
groups were organized and candid
surveys and recommendations
were obtained from leaders of
underrepresented bar constituencies.
These eloquent, thoughtful and noholds-barred reports were gifts of the
highest order. Such unvarnished
MAY/JUNE 2007
feedback is essential to successful
governance. The Board approved
action to implement the consensus
recommendations arrived at, to help
the VBA to better resonate with all
lawyer constituencies.
Ted also kicked off our initial
Community Service Program, after
nurturing it through its development.
With the Chief Justice signed up as a
volunteer and the former Chief Justice
as honorary co-chair, the CSP offers
all Virginia lawyers (yes, even nonVBA members) a convenient outlet
for pledging, organizing and sharing
commitments to pro bono publico and
community service participation.
Of course, no meaningful change
can take place in only one year. As in
every great organization, the work of
the VBA occurs on a continuum with
evolving Board members, presidents,
chairpersons and staffers.
In pursuing his presidential
agenda, Ted also sowed and nurtured
the seedlings of programmatic
agendas from earlier administrations.
And so it goes.
Jim Meath followed and was
barely sitting down when a wave
of administrative challenges and
other issues washed over his desk.
He tackled this work in his
customary direct fashion. In the
process, he donated countless hours
of his expert and exceptional
services to preside over a true
strategic planning effort, making
us face current challenges to the bar
and legal system and forcing us to
look inside the organization to see
what works and what could work
better, and to scrap what did not
work. In a series of transformative
strategic sessions, Jim revisited and
helped revitalize our mission,
introducing strategic pillars that
will serve us well for many years to
come.
He also ushered in a new era of
outreach and collaboration with
other bar partners in Virginia. The
metaphor of Jim’s joint presentation
with VSB President Phil Anderson at
our 2006 Annual Meeting will long
serve as a guiding light for everything
right with the Virginia lawyer and
for how we can do so much more
when pulling in the same direction.
My immediate predecessor, Bill
Van Buren, announced a commitment
to refocus on the best of us, the Young
Lawyers Division, and for his year to
culminate in an Annual Meeting
commemorating the 50th year of the
VBA/YLD.
Well, anyone in Williamsburg this
January knows how that went. Wow!
The good feelings, goodwill and
revitalized connections and messages
between the junior bar and the “OLD”
have reverberated with positive
energy and production ever since.
Bill continued to carry forward
earlier efforts at real reform on
indigent defense. He nurtured earlier
seeds, immeasurably strengthened
the VBA’s relationships with its
longtime partners and sponsors,
most notably Norfolk Southern, and
was a spectacular VBA president.
As a new item, Bill promoted
adoption of a set of Principles of
Professionalism for lawyers.
Though the VSB Mandatory Course
well addresses those starting out in
the profession, Bill identified the
need and benefit of a program aimed
at
the
more
experienced
practitioner. He enlisted the best
and brightest among us to serve and
I eagerly appointed him to chair his
creation. [See page 13 of this issue for
more information.]
As president, Bill then sat down
with other stakeholders as the
indigent defense issue was seriously
addressed for the first time in years.
A historic funding first, surviving the
2007 General Assembly and veto
session, was directly attributable to
his work in that group. Though a first
step, the achievements won in great
measure due to Bill’s efforts will now
finally permit the data collection
needed to reform the system and pave
the way for future resources.
Finally, Bill has started a promising
dialogue with legislative leaders to
consider fair and bipartisan
mechanisms to ensure bar
participation in judicial screening
and recommendations and to
reinvigorate judicial independence.
Now, it is for me to preside. Many
of you already know my passions in
the bar.
And so, I smile. For, as you have
read, and as you undoubtedly have
seen, my reasons for being here are
already summed up by the very
mission of the VBA: Legal reform;
diversity and inclusion, indigent
defense, pro bono publico and access,
judicial independence and selection,
specialty and local bar connections;
professionalism and excellence in the
profession, fellowship and education.
This is a distinct honor. I am
blessed and humbled at your trust
and confidence and will work hard to
see it is richly earned.
THE VIRGINIA BAR ASSOCIATION NEWS JOURNAL/5
LEGAL FOCUS
Domestic Relations
Even in Virginia?
Same-sex cohabitation as termination for spousal support
BY LYNNE MARIE KOHM, 8 2007
Every good family law attorney
knows that under Va. Code § 20109(A) continuous cohabitation in a
marriage-like relationship can be
grounds to terminate spousal
support when the standard of
evidence is met. The Virginia Court
of Appeals heard and ruled on an
important case this spring named
Stroud v. Stroud1 that rested on this
basic rule. A review of the case and
the court’s reasoning sheds some
light on how Virginia courts will
rule on same-sex cohabitation in the
future and how that cohabitation
could affect spousal support
agreements. The case caused quite a
stir, generating excitement at least
among the press. One headline read
“Even though same-sex couples
can’t get married in Virginia, they
can live together in a situation that’s
comparable to marriage in the eyes
of the law…”2
Regarding cohabitation operating
to terminate spousal support, Stroud
is both instructive and important for
same-sex relationships. Stroud
involved an action to enforce a
contract, namely a Property
Settlement Agreement (PSA) between
the original parties to a divorce. The
ruling by the Court of Appeals
overturned a Fairfax Circuit Court
decision that denied an ex-husband’s
action to terminate spousal support.3
The husband had provided
undisputed evidence that his ex-wife
had resided with her girlfriend in a
consensual sexual relationship for at
least the prior year. The wife admitted
that she and her girlfriend Robyn
shared a home (on average five nights
per week), finances, vacations, beds,
consensual sex acts, and had
exchanged rings, that Robyn drove
wife’s car, and was listed as the
emergency contact for wife’s children,
among other things. Robyn also
considered herself a co-parent to
husband and wife’s children.4
The terms of their PSA stated that
support payments would end upon
death, the wife’s remarriage “and/
or her cohabitation with any person
to whom she is not related by blood
or marriage in a situation analogous
to marriage for a period of thirty (30)
or more continuous days.…”5 The
parties argued over construction and
meaning in the language of the PSA.
The court ruled that “person” was
intended to include individuals of
both sexes.
Particularly relevant (and
convincing) to the court in this
contract interpretation was the wife’s
testimony on direct examination by
her own counsel, that the two women
would live together for several days
at a time, but would separate for a
weekend or so to meet the terms of
the agreement. The husband testified
that he remembered scratching out
“male” in the original PSA draft,
inserting “person” instead, which
became part of the final agreement
between the parties. The trial court
ruled that same-sex cohabitation
could not be “a situation analogous
to marriage” under Virginia law,6
but the appellate court disagreed,
finding that this situation indeed was
cohabitation analogous to marriage.
“A relationship ‘analogous to
marriage’ does not mean a ‘marriage.’
Rather, ‘analogous’ is defined as
‘similar in some way,’” but not
identical in form and substance.7
This is a case of particular
importance in light of one of the most
recent amendments to Virginia’s
Constitution which defines marriage
as between a man and a woman only,
clarifying that the Commonwealth
will not give legal authority to
marriage-like relationships not fitting
that definition.8
The record shows clearly the
conundrum the trial court judge felt
he was in regarding definitions and
standards of review, relying on
Virginia’s constitutional limit of
marriage to a man and a woman, and
a 1994 attorney general’s opinion
letter about same-sex cohabitation.9
“At the conclusion of this
undisputed evidence and
argument, the trial court stated:
And so I keep finding myself in
equipoise… it’s cohabitation,
analogous to a marriage, and the
other, it’s not cohabitation,
analogous to a marriage, and it
seems to me that’s the classic
definition of a failure to prove
something by the preponderance
of the evidence.”10
The
court
also
upheld
preponderance of the evidence as the
applicable standard of review for
proof of cohabitation, citing O’Hara
v. O’Hara, 45 Va. App. 788 (2005),
despite the standard required under
Va. Code § 20-109(A) being clear and
convincing evidence, as O’Hara
involved an action to enforce a
contract between the parties, as did
Stroud.
The language in the Stroud PSA
tracked the Virginia Code regarding
termination of spousal support for
cohabitation, but made the time
requirement more stringent, as 30
days rather than one year. The parties
argued over construction and
meaning in the language of the PSA,
and the court ruled that “person” was
intended to include individuals of
both sexes. Particularly relevant (and
convincing) to the court in this
MAY/JUNE 2007
contract interpretation was the wife’s
testimony on direct examination by
her own counsel, that the two women
would live together for several days
at a time, but would separate for a
weekend or so as to meet the terms of
the agreement.
“Q. You testified a moment ago
that you don’t live with [Robyn]
in a relationship analogous to a
marriage. Are there reasons for
that?
“A. Yeah. The most important
reason is the fact that I signed an
agreement with [husband] in
1999 that said that I would not
cohabit with anyone in a
situation analogous to marriage
for 30 consecutive days, and I
was very aware of that and I
kept track.”11
The husband testified that he
remembered scratching out “male”
in the original PSA draft and
inserting “person” instead, which
became part of the final agreement
between the parties.
The Court of Appeals noted that
wife’s reliance on the code prohibiting
same-sex marriages, civil unions or
domestic partnerships under
Virginia law was misplaced, as the
court’s holding here did not grant
legal status to the relationship as a
matter of public policy. Rather, it
merely ruled on the facts of the
relationship as they pertained to the
PSA prohibition. 12 “Cohabitation
analogous to marriage” in Stroud
under the agreement between the
parties meant like a marriage, but not
a marriage itself.
This
case
has
differing
prospective thoughts from various
attorneys. Some argue that this case
could mean an evolution of Virginia
law toward favoring rights to samesex relationships, while some argue
it upholds termination of spousal
support by cohabitation. Past Chair
of the VBA Domestic Relations
Section and American University
Adjunct Professor David Spratt
suggested that recognition of samesex cohabitation is important to
other Virginia law definitions such
as adultery covering homosexual
acts. 13 Others suggest the case
reflects a contract law analysis that
does not limit same-sex relationships.
Both University of Richmond
Professor Carl Tobias and Virginia
MAY/JUNE 2007
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Lynne Marie Kohm is vice chair of The Virginia Bar Association Domestic Relations
Section Council. She is the John Brown McCarty Professor of Family Law at the Regent
University School of Law in Virginia Beach.
Family Foundation Chris Freund
took the position that Stroud is about
a contract between two people and
its application in same-sex
relationships.14
Facts about same-sex relationships
in Virginia can be judicially noted
without making new public policy
on marriage. The Court of Appeals in
Stroud did not make any new law but
held to customary standards of
judicial restraint.
Prospectively, this means that
Virginia lawyers can rely on the
courts to uphold both the public
policy of laws on marriage, as well
as the spirit of laws designed to
protect abuse of spousal support.
Courts will always look to the
agreement between the parties and
apply contract law accordingly.
Manipulation of a set of rules for
personal benefit is neither good law
nor good public policy. Such actions
will likely not carry weight with a
court adjudicating such matters.
Same-sex cohabitation could
indeed affect spousal support
agreements, as Stroud clearly
indicates. So in the end the press is
right. Even though same-sex couples
can’t get married in Virginia, they
can live together in a situation that’s
comparable to marriage in the eyes
of the law… Such cohabitation
could result in termination of
spousal support.
NOTES
1. 2007 WL 581833 (Va. App.)
2. Larry O’Dell, Virginia News, Court: Law
recognizes same-sex relationships similar
to marriage, dailypress.com, Feb. 27, 2007.
3. 2007 WL 581833, at *1.
4. Id. at *3.
5. Id. at *1-2.
6. Id. at *8.
7. Id. at *8, citing and quoting BLACK’S LAW
DICTIONARY as used in Frederick Fire & Rescue
v. Dodson, 20 Va. App. 440, 446 (1995).
8. VA. CONST. ART. I,§15 a.
The full text of the amendment is:
Article I, Section 15-A. Marriage.
That only a union between one man and
one woman may be a marriage valid in
or recognized by this Commonwealth
and its political subdivisions.
This Commonwealth and its political
subdivisions shall not create or
recognize a legal status for relationships
of unmarried individuals that intends to
approximate the design, qualities,
significance, or effects of marriage. Nor
shall this Commonwealth or its political
subdivisions create or recognize another
union, partnership, or other legal status
to which is assigned the rights, benefits,
obligations, qualities, or effects of
marriage.
For further information on the ballot question
and its explanation see Final Copy, Proposed
Constitutional Amendment, available at http:/
/www.sbe.state.va.us/cms/documents/
2006_Constitutional_Amendments/2006que.
9. 1994 Op. Atty Gen. Va. 60.
10. 2007 WL 581833, at *5.
11. Id.
12. Id. at *8-9. See VA. CODE §20-45.2 and VA.
CODE §20-45.3.
13. O’Dell, supra note iii, at 2.
14. Id.
Teaching anyone about the court system can be difficult. Therefore, the Supreme
Court of Virginia will produce a PBS documentary — “Virginia’s Judicial History,
The Blueprint for Our Country” — in partnership with the Library of Virginia and
the Community Idea Stations. This will provide viewers with a clear understanding
of the origins, structure and foundations of our court system and will also highlight
the little-known fact that most of the court systems in the country are actually
patterned after the Virginia Supreme Court. Produced by WCVE Richmond, the
program will be scheduled to air during the 2007 broadcast season. After multiple
local airings, the program will be made available to PBS stations for broadcast
across the country. In addition, a DVD of the program will be distributed to more
than 500 schools across Virginia. Segments will be aligned with applicable
Standards of Learning and made accessible to teachers through a website, so
that they may use the program to augment their lessons in judicial history. VBA
members and others who wish to support this project may make checks payable
to the VBA Foundation (note Attn: Judicial Documentary) and send gifts to the
VBA Foundation, 701 East Franklin Street, Suite 1120, Richmond, VA 23219.
More information is available at www.vba.org.
LEGAL FOCUS
Domestic Relations
Abraham’s Law: A New Exception
to Virginia’s Medical Neglect Statute
BY NATHANIEL LYLE STORY
The very definition of a neglected
child changed this March. In response
to the nationally-publicized legal
battle involving the family of
Abraham Cherrix, the Virginia
General Assembly amended the
definition to exempt from state
intervention certain decisions made
as a family regarding treatment of a
child’s life-threatening medical
condition.
While the type of family decisions
covered by the amended statute are
still rare, an increasing number of
these emotional medical decisions
have risen to the national stage in the
past few years. Since 2004 three cases
in Virginia, Texas, and Utah involving
parents who were threatened with
jail time and loss of all custody rights
for refusing or choosing alternative
medical treatment for their children
have consumed national attention.
Though these emotional struggles for
decisionmaking authority between
the family and state raise the most
complex ethical and constitutional
questions, until now the law has
mainly left the solution to judicial
discretion.
In passing Abraham’s Law,
Virginia becomes only the second
state to provide judges with guidance
in deciding whether to allow the state
to supersede a family’s decision for
their seriously ill child. Previously,
Va. Code. Ann. § 16.1-228(2) defined a
neglected child as one “[w]hose
parents or other person responsible
for his care neglects or refuses to
provide care necessary for his health.”
However, Abraham’s Law exempts
from judicial review certain family
decisions involving this “necessary”
care:
Further, a decision by . . . any
person with legal authority for the
child, who refuses a particular
medical treatment for a child
with a life-threatening condition
shall not be deemed a refusal to
provide necessary care if
(i) such decision is made jointly
by the parents ... and child;
(ii) the child has reached 14 years
of age and is sufficiently mature
to have an informed opinion on
the subject of his medical
treatment;
(iii) the parents or other person
with legal authority and the child
have considered alternative
treatment options; and
(iv) the parents ... and the child
believe in good faith that such
decision is in the child’s best
interest.1
At first glance this four-pronged
addition to a previously concise
statute seems curious. Why the
requirements of “a particular medical
treatment,” “joint decision,”
“alternative options,” or the age 14?
The apparent answer is that the
Assembly was attempting to create a
statute that would exempt future cases
like Abraham’s while maintaining
legitimate state review of parental
decisions. The statute may be
imperfect, but it is a step in the right
direction towards a proper balance of
family and state rights. Abraham’s case
and the constitutional questions it
raised provide the explanation for
Virginia’s pioneering reform and aid
in its interpretation.
Fifteen-year-old Abraham Cherrix
was diagnosed with Hodgkin’s disease
in the summer of 2005. His family
quickly pursued the recommended
chemotherapy. Although he would
lose weight, health, and hair through
the treatment, it offered an 85 percent
chance of eradicating the disease.
Unfortunately, after three months of
chemotherapy, the cancer returned.
Abraham’s doctors then proposed a
more intense regimen of higher-dose
chemotherapy, stem cell treatment,
and radiation. This new treatment
offered him at best a 50 percent chance
of long-term survival and had its own
risks of sterility and leukemia.
Disheartened by the prospect of
more severe side effects of
chemotherapy, Abraham and his
parents researched alternative
treatments. Instead of following their
doctor’s recommendations, the
Cherrix family traveled to Mexico to
pursue a controversial alternative
treatment aimed at rebuilding his
immune system. For this decision
alone the Chincoteague parents
were found neglectful, lost custody
of their son, and were ordered to
force their then16-year-old son to
undergo the conventional treatment
in Norfolk. As the parents and child
battled Social Services and the
guardian ad litem in the national
spotlight for authority to make this
life or death decision, the juvenile
court judge had to decide this ethical
dilemma with virtually no binding
authority.
Within this formerly broad
definition of neglect, judges could issue
orders requiring parents to comply
with doctors’ recommendations under
Va. Code Ann. § 16.1-252, or to remove
the child from the parents’ custody
under § 16.1-253. By a preponderance
of the evidence, juvenile court judges
could find that parents were refusing
necessary care under § 16.1-228 and
immediately displace parents’
decisions.
MAY/JUNE 2007
In the Cherrix case, no Virginia case
law offered precedent. The case closest
on the facts, Winchester DSS v. Roberts,
involved a two-year-old with a
serious heart defect.2 The parents in
Roberts pursued the recommended
treatment, but at a point decided to
simply pray for their child rather
than allow moderately safe heart
surgery. Because the child would die
within a few years without the
surgery, the court found the child
“neglected” within the meaning of the
statute and removed the child from
the parents for the purpose of surgery.
The specific facts involved in the
Cherrix case differed quite
substantially. The age of the child, his
decision, the family’s pursuit of
alternative treatment instead of
simply relying on prayer, and the
details of the medical condition all
required the court to look outside
Roberts for guidance.
Roberts is similar to the Cherrix case,
however, in that the court should
have reached beyond state statutes
and case law, and into the realm of
constitutional presumptions to
identify the specific decisionmaking
party. When interpreting how neglect
statutes cover medical decisions of
this type, courts must note the
constitutional balance of the rights of
the parents, child, and state.
Parents hold primary decisionmaking power over the care of their
children; a long line of Supreme Court
precedent vests them with this
power. In Meyer v. Nebraska, Stanley v.
Illinois, and most recently in Troxel v.
Granville, the Court has upheld the
rights of parents to raise and make
decisions for their children in the
strongest language.3 This right is the
“oldest of the fundamental liberty
interests recognized by this Court.”4
In Prince v. Massachusetts, the Court
reinforced the need that the “care... of
the child reside first in the parents.”5
In Parham v. J.R. the Court stated that
parents are presumed to act in their
children’s best interests. 6 Most
specifically, parents normally enjoy
the right to choose between
professionally-accepted treatment
options. In Bowen v. American Hospital
Association, the Court noted the lack of
case law on the subject and articulated
the rebuttable presumption that
parents are the best-suited
decisionmakers for their children. The
MAY/JUNE 2007
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Nathaniel Lyle Story, as a summer associate, worked closely with the firm of Lentz,
Stepanovich, & Bergethon in Virginia Beach representing the parents of Abraham
Cherrix. He is a member of the Regent University Law Review and Trial Advocacy Boards
and will graduate in May 2008. He is currently working as a summer associate with
Hirschler Fleischer in Richmond.
Court recognized the national trend
that “... [as] long as parents choose
from professionally accepted
treatment options the choice is rarely
reviewed in court and even less
frequently supervened.”7
However, parents’ rights are not
unchecked; at the grey line where
parents’ action or inaction endangers
their children the state’s parens patriae
authority (the state’s duty to protect
those who cannot protect themselves)
begins. In Prince v. Massachusetts, the
Court declared the state’s interest is
“the interest of the youth itself.”8 The
state’s parens patriae authority justifies
judicial review of parental decisions.
For if the state does not review
parents’ action, few other parties will.
Finally, while parents and state
battle for decisionmaking authority,
the child’s voice remains barely
audible under the law. The Court has
paid homage to the value and rights
of children in dicta; however, it has
hardly granted to children the
independent right of decision making.
Children maintain the reciprocal right
to have their parents make decisions
for them. While an adult has the right
to refuse medical treatment under
Cruzan,9 unless deemed a “mature
minor” or emancipated, a child does
not. As an ironic exception to this
general rule, under Va. Code Ann. §
16.1-241, girls can make life or death
decisions for their unborn children
through abortion, but cannot make
those similar decisions regarding
their own medical treatment. The
Court has embraced only two other
exceptions—the “mature minor”
doctrine, and emancipation.
Currently, while three states have
accepted the doctrine, most treat
maturity as a persuasive factor only.
The few national courts of record
to address parental decisions similar
to the Cherrixes’ have done so with
hopelessly conflicting analysis and
results. The leading cases—In re
Hoffbauer, Custody of a Minor, Newmark
v. Wiliams, and In re Phillip, have used
ad hoc inquiry, tripartite balancing
tests, seven-factor analysis, and
various presumptions to find the line
where the state should intervene.10
Many of these courts cloud the issue
by incorrectly interpreting the state’s
burden of proof.
Judges can assure that the
appropriate party makes this mostdifficult medical decision by requiring
a heightened burden of proof on the
state and a thorough review of the
factors involved in the decision.
Emergency protective orders require
only a preponderance of the evidence to
allow the court to efficiently protect
the child’s welfare. However, to
terminate parental rights, the state
needs to prove by clear and convincing
evidence that parents are unfit and the
child’s best interests will be served
by providing a different caretaker.
Typical statutory language allows
judges the room to displace otherwise
valid parental decisions by a
preponderance of the evidence—but
Supreme Court decisions do not.
When the juvenile court issues a
protective order mandating certain
medical treatment is usually does so
in response to an emergency, but in
effect it also terminates parental
rights. To terminate parents’ rights
to make medical decisions for their
children requires more than a
preponderance of the evidence to
properly override constitutional
presumptions in the parents’ favor.
Simply because a judge agrees more
with the state’s decision does not
give him constitutional authority to
terminate parental rights as to this
possibly final decision over the
child’s life. To uphold the state’s
responsibility, the court needs to
thoroughly review questionable
parental decisions, but only override
them by an objective standard of some
standard higher than a preponderance.
A thorough review of all factors
involved in the decision provides
judges with the subjective ability to
decide these fact-based, individual
cases. To determine whether the
parents’ decision does not provide the
child with necessary care, the court
should weigh three multi-element
factors—the child’s condition, the
proposed treatment of both sides, and
the rationale behind the parents’ and
child’s decision. This duty is arduous,
but necessary in determining the
reasonableness of the decisions
presented.
Utah has followed this reasoning
in response to its own famous case in
2005 involving Parker Jenson, a teen
kidnapped by his own parents after
they lost custody of their child to the
state for purposes of treating his
cancer. After hearing how DSS and
hospital workers responded, the
public pressured the legislature to
pass Utah Code Ann. § 62A-4a101(18)d, which provides that:
[N]otwithstanding [a failure or
refusal to provide medical care
necessary for the child’s health]
a health care decision made for a
child by the child’s parent . . .
does not constitute neglect
unless the state... shows, by clear
and convincing evidence, that
the health care decision is not
reasonable and informed.
Utah’s statute provides an
appropriate and concise framework
for judicial analysis. The clear and
convincing standard objectively
upholds parents’ constitutional
rights. The subjective requirement of
a “reasonable” decision upholds the
state’s interest in the child’s wellbeing by enabling the state to override
a clearly unreasonable or uninformed
medical decision.
Virginia’s “Abraham’s Law” meets
the same constitutional goals, but as
it is a reaction to the specific facts of
Abraham’s case may be too narrow
for later cases. Most notably, it
requires the court to review the
wishes of a sufficiently mature child
of 14—a first of its kind. It also
provides protection to family
decisions. However, the statute also
presents some problems. First, it may
prove overbroad. It totally exempts
decisions meeting its four-part test
from any type of judicial review. With
the unique medical situations of today
this over breadth is unacceptable and
negates the state’s interest in the
child’s health. A heightened burden
of proof upon the state would more
appropriately provide a balance
between family and state. Second, it
is too narrow. The statute only
protects decisions made regarding
Are you a recent graduate?
Alleviate the burden of student loans
with VBA member benefits.
If you have recently graduated, now is the time to take
advantage of the partnership between The Virginia Bar
Association and SunTrust Bank. The partnership can help alleviate the burden of student
loans student loan consolidation at a fixed rate with partnership incentives. Members can
also consolidate their private student loans. The SunTrust student loan consolidation
programs may reduce a borrower's debt-to-income ratio by lowering monthly payments,
which can help them qualify for larger purchases such as a home or car.
Those with federal student loans may lock in a fixed interest rate. Recent graduates may
qualify for a grace period discount. In addition, members of The Virginia Bar Association
whose consolidation is greater than $10,000 are eligible to reduce the interest rate by 1%
for making the first 24 consecutive monthly payments on-time* and .5% for having
payments automatically deducted from a personal bank account.
For students with private loans, they may earn a 0.50% interest rate reduction by making
their first 48 minimum monthly payments on-time plus an additional 0.25% interest rate
reduction when the monthly loan payments are automatically deducted from a personal
bank account.
To take advantage of these offers available to Virginia Bar Association members, call
SunTrust at 888.403.5027 or visit suntrusteducation.com/VABAR.
*Borrower must stay current for the remaining term of the loan to keep the 1% rate reduction in
effect.
**Student loans advertised are offered in cooperation with SunTrust. Members receive
enhanced borrower benefits due to the relationship between SunTrust and The Virginia Bar
Association, and The Virginia Bar Association may receive a fee for each completed application.
“life-threatening conditions.” It
requires a “joint” decision by families.
It requires a consideration of
“alternative treatment options.” In
Abraham’s case, all of these factors
were the bedrock of the family’s
argument; however, later cases will
present situations where the family
has a valid argument, but cannot
avail themselves of statutory
protection by not meeting one of these
requirements.
Abraham’s Law may have
ramifications upon other areas of the
law as well. Most notably, the statute
seems to codify the common law
“mature minor” doctrine, at least in
regards to medical decisions. Children
arguing for a voice in other areas may
be able to use this statute for support.
As medical technology advances these
cases will arise more frequently
across the nation. Other states may
soon follow Virginia’s lead in revising
their neglect statutes.
Abraham Cherrix continues to be
involved as an advocate for legal
reform. And fortunately, despite his
bleak prognosis after his first round
of chemotherapy, almost two years
later he is in remission under
treatment combining alternative,
unproven therapy and conventional
radiation. View his personal site at
www.abrahamsjourney.com.
NOTES
1. S.B. 905 (as passed by Senate, March 20,
2007), at http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/
legp504.exe?071+sum+SB905.
2. Winchester DSS v. Roberts, 26 Va. Cir. 314,
318 (City of Winchester 1992).
3. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923);
Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651 (1972);
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000).
4. Troxel, 530 U.S. at 65.
5. Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166
(1944).
6. Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584, 602-03 (1979)
(citing Blackstone and Kent: “[T]he natural
bonds of affection lead parents to act in the
best interests of their children.” 1 W. BLACKSTONE,
COMMENTARIES *447; 2 J. KENT, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN
LAW *190).
7. Bowen v. American Hospital Assoc., 476
U.S. 610, 628 n.13 (1986) (citing the 1983
President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical
Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and
Behavioral Research).
8. Prince, 321 U.S. at 165.
9. Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of
Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990).
10. In re Hoffbauer, 47 N.Y.2d 648 (1989);
Custody of a Minor, 379 N.E.2d 1053 (Mass.
1978); Newmark v. Williams, 588 A.2d 1108
(Del. 1989); In re Phillip, 156 Cal.Rptr. 48, 92
(1979).
MAY/JUNE 2007
LEGAL FOCUS
Domestic Relations
Pensions, Divorce, Medicaid
and Advance Directives
BY SANDRA L. SMITH, CELA
Many couples facing divorce may also be facing the
cost of long-term care for one or both spouses. They may
feel trapped by the ill timing of so many critical events
happening all at once in their lives. Attorneys should
consider the effect of the division of retirement pensions
on the ability of their clients to pay for long-term care, or
to become eligible for Medicaid assistance for those costs.
They are well advised to consider using a Qualified
Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to provide the best
solution for both parties. Further, clients should review
and revise their estate plans after divorce, and in
particular, ensure that they have an Advance Medical
Directive in place.
The division of assets in divorce can have an unintended
and devastating effect when one spouse needs to qualify
for Medicaid to help with the cost of long-term care. For
example, in one case, a Medicaid applicant’s Civil Service
retirement pension was divided in a divorce action, and
part of the pension was payable to the applicant’s former
spouse. The Medicaid eligibility worker said that the part
of the pension payable to the former spouse was income
to the Medicaid applicant. This may have been an incorrect
application of the Medicaid eligibility rules.
In Virginia, Medicaid Manual § S0830.160 addresses
broad categories of unearned income, including annuities,
pensions, retirement or disability income. Generally, these
payments are considered unearned income. There is,
however, an exception under S0830.160(B)(2), which
pertains to qualified domestic relations orders (QDRO). A
QDRO is the result of a divorce proceeding that changes
the ownership of a pension and the payment of the pension
benefits between husband and wife. Virginia courts
address the ownership and division of such assets
pursuant to Virginia Code § 20-107.3 (A)(3)(b) and (G)(1).
Virginia Code § 20-107.3 (G)(1) permits a court to direct
payment of a percentage of the marital share of any
pension, profit-sharing or deferred compensation plan,
or retirement benefits by direct assignment to a party
from the employer, trustee, plan administrator or other
holder of the benefits.
To be valid for purposes of the Medicaid income
exception, a QDRO must be a decree issued by a state
court, provide the names and addresses of the participants
and the amount or percentage of the benefit, and be
approved by the pension plan administrator. The
exception states that “[w]hen a QDRO splits the income
between a Medicaid applicant/recipient and the spouse,
MAY/JUNE 2007
count only the income that is ordered to go to the Medicaid
recipient as his income. If the plan administrator has not
approved the QDRO or disapproved it, the income should
be calculated without regard to the court order.”
Private pension and retirement plans are covered under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
(ERISA), as amended, and QDROs are to be submitted to
the plan administrator for approval. Federal Civil Service
plans are covered under the Civil Service Retirement
System (CSRS) or Federal Employees Retirement System
(FERS). The Federal regulations covering both programs
are contained in Title 5, Part 838, of the Code of Federal
Regulations. The former spouse must file a certified copy
of the QDRO with the Office of Personnel Management
(OPM) for approval, and then the QDRO must be classified
as a Court Order Acceptable for Processing (COAP) before
benefits can be paid. The retiree and the former spouse are
both notified that the QDRO has been approved. The
QDRO must expressly direct OPM to pay a portion of the
monthly CSRS or FERS benefit to the former spouse. The
former spouse’s share must be stated as a fixed amount, a
percentage, or a fraction of the annuity, or by a formula.
The amount cannot exceed the amount payable to the
retiree after deductions for taxes and insurance.
Military retirement plans in divorce situations are
another concern. They are not covered under ERISA, but
instead are covered under the Uniformed Services Former
Spouse Protection Act. The QDRO must direct the Defense
Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) to apportion the
retirement pay when the military member retires, and
the order must be submitted to DFAS for approval and
payment.
Likewise, state and local plans are not covered under
ERISA, but are administered pursuant to state and local
law and regulations, and QDROs must be submitted to
the plan administrators for approval.
Medicaid applicants should provide copies of the final
decree of divorce, the QDRO, and the plan administrator’s
approval with the Medicaid application and cite the
exception in Medicaid Manual § S0830.160(B)(2) so that
only the portion of the pension actually payable to the
applicant is counted as income. It is important that the
QDRO makes clear that the pension apportionment is
pursuant to a division of property and is not spousal
support or alimony.
There are some useful websites to assist the
attorney and his or her client in determining what
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Sandra L. Smith has been certified as an Elder Law Attorney by
the National Elder Law Foundation. She is a partner with Oast &
Hook, P.C., an elder law firm representing older persons, disabled
persons, their families, and their advocates. For more information
about Oast & Hook, please visit their website at
www.oasthook.com. Oast & Hook is also a Virginia member of
the Special Needs Alliance, a nationwide network of disability
attorneys. Ms. Smith is the editor of the Elder Law News, available
via eln@oasthook.com, or by telephone at (757) 399-7506.
might be the best avenue to a smooth transition
through retirement and divorce when Medicaid is
involved. Pension Appraisers, Inc., is a website that
offers comprehensive information regarding the
issues surrounding pensions and divorce, and can be
accessed at www.pensionappraisers.com/pensionstory/
ocontents.shtml. For more information on military
retirement concerns, the Department of the Army has an
excellent pamphlet on Court-Ordered Benefits for Former
Spouses Under CSRS, FERS, FEHB, and FEGLI, and is
accessible at cpol.army.mil/library/docs_misc/ri84001.pdf.
With the process of divorce, it is imperative that clients
review and update their estate planning documents. One
of the critical elements of any estate plan is an Advance
Medical Directive. In April 2007 Governor Timothy Kaine
signed a Certificate of Recognition recognizing April 17,
2007, as Advance Directives Day in the Commonwealth
of Virginia. The purpose of this day was to raise public
awareness of the importance of planning ahead for
healthcare decisions related to end-of-life care and medical
decision-making in the event that patients are unable to
speak for themselves, and to encourage the specific use of
advanced directives to communicate these important
healthcare decisions.
In Virginia, the Health Care Decisions Act provides the
specifics of the Commonwealth’s advance directives law.
It is estimated, however, that only about 15 percent of all
Virginians have executed an advance directive, and it is
estimated that less than 50 percent of severely or
terminally ill patients have an advance directive. One of
the primary goals of Advance Directives Day is to
encourage hospitals, nursing homes, assisted living
facilities, continuing care retirement communities, and
hospices to participate in a Commonwealth-wide effort
to provide clear and consistent information to the public
about advance directives.
All adults in Virginia have the right to prepare an
advance directive in order to put their wishes regarding
medical care in writing. There are two components to the
advance directive. The first component is the living will.
This permits an individual to state what kind of lifeprolonging treatment the individual wants or does not
want if diagnosed with a terminal illness and is unable to
express his or her wishes. Life-prolonging treatment
includes using machines, medicines and other artificial
means to help individuals breathe, eat, get fluids into
their bodies, have a heartbeat, and otherwise stay alive
when the body cannot do these things on its own.
Medications used to keep an individual comfortable are
not considered life-prolonging treatment. Life-prolonging
treatment will not help an individual recover. Another
way to look at the living will is that if an individual is in
the dying process, then the individual does not want
artificial means to prolonging the dying process, but the
individual might want pain-relieving medications to be
administered, even if it accelerates the dying process.
The other component of the advance directive is often
called a power of attorney for healthcare. This allows an
individual to appoint an agent or agents to make medical
decisions for the individual if the individual becomes
incapable of making medical decisions. The document can
specifically tell the agent what kind of care the individual
does or does not want. For example, the document can
give the agent the authority to work with a physician for
the physician to enter a do not resuscitate order (DNR) on
the individual’s behalf, but the advance directive itself is
not as a DNR order. The agent can only make medical
decisions if the individual’s physician and another
physician or licensed clinical psychologist examine the
individual, and determine in writing that the individual
cannot make medical decisions for himself or herself. As
soon as the individual is capable of speaking again,
decisionmaking authority of the agent ceases.
It is important for people to put their wishes in writing,
because oral advance directives can only be created if an
individual has a terminal condition and can tell his or her
wishes directly to his or her physician. Unfortunately,
many terminally ill individuals may no longer be
competent to discuss their wishes with their physicians.
Putting the wishes in writing reduces confusion about
the patient’s desires, and also establishes clear lines of
authority for decisionmaking. This is important for
blended families where there may be second spouses and
adult children, and for younger couples where conflicts
can arise between parents and spouses. Everyone over 18
years of age should sign an advance directive; it is not just
for the elderly. Everyone may need an agent to make
medical decisions in case of a sudden illness or injury,
such as an auto accident.
Anyone over age 18 can be named as an agent in an
advance directive; the agent does not have to be a Virginia
resident. An alternate agent should be named in case the
primary agent is unavailable to serve. Advance directives
must be witnessed by two individuals over 18 years of
age; the agents should not witness the document.
Attorneys will assure the accurate execution of this and
other estate planning documents, which are absolutely
critical to get in order after a divorce. Although Virginia
advance directives are designed to be valid in any state,
for those who spend a considerable amount of time in
another state, then they should prepare an advance
directive for the other state. Advance directives can also
be registered with the U.S. Living Will Registry. Attorneys
should work with clients on preparing advance directives
as part of their estate, financial, and long-term care
planning process.
Useful websites include the U.S. Living Will Registry,
accessible at www.uslivingwillregistry.com; or the Virginia
Advance Directives Day website, accessible at
www.vsb.org/sections/hl/ advancedirectivesday2007.html.
MAY/JUNE 2007
VBA establishes Commission on Professionalism
The Virginia Bar Association has announced the
establishment of a special blue-ribbon Commission on
Professionalism, to be chaired by legal ethics authority
Thomas E. Spahn, a partner at McGuireWoods LLP in
McLean.
This action is a key step in a continuing effort by the
VBA, led by Immediate Past President William R. Van
Buren III of Norfolk, to enlist support from the Virginia
judiciary and members of the bar for the creation of a set
of aspirational principles of lawyer professionalism.
The Commission has been charged with developing
proposed principles of professionalism to be submitted to
the Supreme Court of Virginia for consideration. If
approved by the Supreme Court, the principles would be
expected to serve as a teaching tool for law students and
new attorneys, a guide and reference for practicing
lawyers and as a public statement of the importance
Virginia lawyers attach to professional integrity and
civility. More than a dozen states have adopted similar
principles with reported beneficial effects for the legal
profession and the public in those jurisdictions.
Members of the Commission, listed at right, represent
the diversity of the legal profession in Virginia, including
representatives of the judiciary, statewide bar
organizations, educational institutions and law firms of
varying sizes from multiple geographical regions of the
Commonwealth.
MAY/JUNE 2007
Thomas E. Spahn, chair, McGuireWoods LLP, McLean; David N.
Anthony, Kaufman & Canoles, PC, Richmond; Hon. Gerald L. Baliles,
director of the Miller Center of Public Affairs, University of Virginia,
Charlottesville; Reginald Barley, Old Dominion Bar Association, Law
Office of Reginald Barley, Richmond; Irving M. Blank, ParisBlank,
LLP, Richmond; Hon. B. Waugh Crigler, U.S. Magistrate Judge,
Charlottesville; Hon. Joel C. Cunningham, General District Court of
Halifax County, Halifax; Patricia K. Epps, Hunton & Williams LLP,
Richmond; Cheshire I'Anson Eveleigh, Wolcott Rivers Gates, P.C.,
Virginia Beach; H. Duncan Garnett Jr., Virginia Trial Lawyers
Association, Patten, Wornom, Hatten & Diamonstein, Newport News;
Robert J. Grey Jr., Hunton & Williams LLP, Richmond; Michael N.
Herring, Commonwealth’s Attorney, Richmond; Manuel E. Leiva,
Hispanic Bar Association of Virginia, Fairfax; Hon. Donald W. Lemons,
Supreme Court of Virginia, Richmond; Heman A. Marshall III, Woods
Rogers PLC, Roanoke; Dana D. McDaniel, Virginia State Bar, Spotts
Fain PC, Richmond; Howard C. McElroy, McElroy, Hodges & Fields,
Abingdon; Martha W. Medley, Daniel, Medley & Kirby, P.C., Danville;
C. Kailani Memmer, Virginia Women Attorneys Association, Guynn,
Memmer & Dillon, P.C., Salem; Hon. R. Terrence Ney, Fairfax Circuit
Court, Fairfax; Anita O. Poston, Vandeventer Black LLP, Norfolk;
Rodney A. Smolla, Dean of the Washington and Lee University School
of Law, Lexington (effective July 1); Phillip C. Stone, President of
Bridgewater College, Bridgewater; Frank A. Thomas III, Shackelford,
Thomas & Gregg, P.L.C., Orange; Hon. Winship C. Tower, Virginia
Beach Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court, Virginia Beach; John
M. Tran, Asian American Bar Association, DiMuroGinsberg, PC,
Alexandria; William R. Van Buren III, Kaufman & Canoles, PC, Norfolk;
and Stanley Wellman, Virginia Association of Defense Attorneys,
Harman, Claytor, Corrigan & Wellman, Richmond.
LEGAL FOCUS
Domestic Relations
Forgotten Children?
Why Virginia’s ‘Angelina Jolies’ should consider
foster-care adoption
BY JESSICA RALSTEN
In 2004 there were 1,611 children
waiting to be adopted in Virginia; 774
of them were black (48 percent). 4.8
percent of those children were
Hispanic and .03 percent were Asian/
Pacific Islander, native American or
Alaskan native.1 That means that 53
percent of the children waiting to be
adopted in Virginia were of a minority
race (as compared to 55 percent
nationally). There are a lot of kids
waiting to be adopted in Virginia.
It is also the case that the majority
of children in foster care are of a
minority race. In 2004, of the 6,869
children in foster care in Virginia,
2,997 (44 percent) were black
children. Additionally, in Virginia,
386 (six percent) of the children in
foster care were Hispanic, five (.07
percent) were American Indian or
Alaskan native, and 22 (0.3 percent)
were Asian/Pacific Islander. All
combined, 50 percent of children in
foster care in Virginia are minorities.2
Many of these await adoption. Yet
foster-care adoption is not the most
popular way to build a family.
International adoption is, on the
other hand, quite popular. Media
accounts of Angelina Jolie’s many
foreign adoptions are held in very
high esteem. 3 Children adopted
internationally are almost always
minorities in the United States.
Similarly, the children in the foster
care system and those waiting to be
adopted are more often of a minority
race as well.4 Might it be prudent for
attorneys to encourage their clients
interested in building a family
through adoption to strongly
consider adopting a child waiting in
Virginia foster care in lieu of adopting
a minority child from another
country? The child they may be
seeking might just be right around
the corner.
Many families adopt a child from
a foreign nation because they want
a baby or a very young child.
However, of the 1,611 total children
waiting to be adopted in Virginia in
2004, 546 were under five years old
and 50 of those children were under
one year old. 5 Young children are
the largest growing population
entering into foster care. 6 Over
39,000 infants enter care each year.
According to a recent study the
number of children under age five
entering foster care was twice the
number of children age five through
17.7 There are a large number of very
young children waiting for someone
to adopt them right here in Virginia.
Yet so many families choose to adopt
a child of similar age from a foreign
nation.
While Virginia’s foster care
numbers do not seem to be reducing,
the number of international
adoptions seems to be rising. By
1992 the number of international
adoptions had reached the level of
11,000 per year. In fact, international
adoptions now contribute to a
significant portion of adoptions in
America each year.8 While some of
the young children available for
adoption in America may have
some mental or health problems, the
children available for intercountry
adoption also “often have a variety
of health problems…they often
arrive with some combination of the
following: eye infections, ear
infections, tuberculosis, hepatitis B,
malnutrition, lice, intestinal
parasites and skin disorders.” 9
While these health problems are
minor, a significant number of the
children will have serious damage
because of poor prenatal care, poor
care during childbirth, or poor care
during the early parts of their
lives.10 In light of this fact, children
adopted internationally have very
similar health problems as children
awaiting adoption in foster care.
Virginia’s laws on adoption are
fairly straightforward, and easily
navigated by a good family law
attorney. If a child is to be adopted
from another state a family’s attorney
and adoption agency can easily
comply with the procedures set forth
in the Interstate Compact on the
Placement of Children (the Compact)
found in VA. CODE ANN. § 63.2-1000
(2006), even if the agency is in a state
or country that is not a party to the
compact.11
International adoption is a much
more difficult procedure. Not only are
there social problems, but there are
also laws that make the process
difficult. In most instances the
adoptive parents are from a relatively
wealthy class and the child to be
adopted is from a poorer class, who,
through an international adoption, is
removed from the culture of his/her
birth and “people whose racial and
ethnic characteristics they share.”12
On a procedural level, many countries
do not allow adoption at all and others
do not allow adoption between
nations. In countries that do allow
adoption, a large number of homeless
children are not available for
adoption because they are not
MAY/JUNE 2007
“abandoned or surrendered in a way
that frees them for adoption.” 13
Additionally, these countries have
laws that cause great difficulty for
prospective parents that, when added
to the laws of the United States and
those of the prospective families’ home
state, provide for a great barrier that
these parents must get past. This can
cause only a privileged few to be
successful in doing so. That is
reinforced by the fact that an
international adoption can cost
anywhere from $10,000 to $30,000, in
addition to travel costs and
expenses.14
In addition, an international
adoption has to comply with the
Hague Convention on Protection of
Children and Co-operation in
Respect of Intercountry Adoption.15
In order to provide a Convention
adoption, a person or agency must
be accredited or acting under the
supervision of an accredited
agency.16
Children need to be adopted from
foster care as early as possible to avoid
impairment to their psychological
development.17 Children who enter the
system very young are more likely to
develop mental health problems, as
it is during the first three to four years
of life that the brain is most active
and anatomic brain structures that
govern personality traits, learning
processes, and coping with stress
and emotions are established,
strengthened, and made permanent.
These children are in need of
continuity, which comes from a stable
placement that provides a primary
attachment figure. If that continuity
is not present, optimal cognitive,
language, and personal socialization
skills will not develop properly.18
Adoption for that foster child,
however, results in a stable
attachment to his or her parent, which
is essential to a child’s development
and self-worth.19
When young children enter the
foster care system, they are usually
placed in more than one foster home
throughout their stay in the system,
contributing to the development of
mental health issues.20 Children who
are already affected by mental health
concerns due to abuse or neglect also
are best served by stability in one
family, having an adult love him or
her to rebuild lost trust and selfesteem.21 In addition to all of the
MAY/JUNE 2007
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Jessica Ralsten is a 2008 J.D. candidate from Regent University, and expects to
practice law within the Commonwealth of Virginia upon licensing. Ms. Ralsten
researched this issue much more extensively than space here allows, but has condensed
her work for purposes of this issue of the VBA News Journal.
above, studies show that children left
in foster care are more likely to enter
the criminal justice system than
children who reside with their
parents.22
All this information may seem
detrimental to encouraging
adoption from foster care. Yet those
prospective parents who know they
can properly care for these children
should strongly consider adopting
from the American foster care
system
before
turning
to
international adoption. For
example, Angelina Jolie has adopted
more than one child from another
nation that manifested or had the
potential of having many of the
above mentioned concerns. 23
Instead of continuing to adopt
children from foreign nations, The
Angelinas of Virginia should
consider looking to adoption of
foster children. Children awaiting
adoption in Virginia and all of
America are in just as much need of
relief from the instability of the
foster care system as children
adopted from another country are
for relief from their respective
nation’s concerns. The children of
Virginia’s foster care system don’t
need to continue to be forgotten.
Adoption is their best hope.
9. Id. at § 10.03.
10. Id.
11. VA. CODE ANN. §63.2-1104 (2006).
12. Elizabeth Bartholet & Joan Heifetz
Hollinger, Adoption Law and Practice § 10.01
(2006).
13. Id.
14. Id. at § 10.03. Not only does a potential
family looking toward an international
adoption have to comply with Virginia’s rules
(mentioned above), they must also comply
with United States laws and the laws of the
country of origin of the child which are hard
to research and even harder to comply with.
Id.
15. 42 U.S.C.S. § 14901 (LexisNexis 2006).
16. 42 U.S.C.S. § 14921 (LexisNexis 2007).
The laws concerning how an agency gets
accredited are found at 42 U.S.C.S. § 1492224 (LexisNexis 2007).
17. Developmental Issues for Young Children
in Foster Care, 106 J. OF AM. ACAD. OF PEDIATRICS
1145
(2000),
also
available
at
pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/
full/106/5/1145.
18. Id.
19. Id.
20. Special Needs of Infants and Toddlers,
supra note 6.
21. Id.
22. Crime and Punishment: The U.S. Criminal
Justice System and Punitive Drug Laws,
available at www.drugpolicy.org/docUploads/
fact_sheet_crime_punishment.pdf (visited April
3, 2007).
23. Thomas, supra note 3.
NOTES
How do you define success? What have
been your greatest accomplishments?
What values do you hold in highest regard?
Name one of your heroes. What is your
biggest concern about life on the planet?
What is fun? What especially galls you?
What do you want to make sure you
accomplish before you die? Read Dean
Taylor Reveley's answers to these and a
dozen more questions designed to give
you a look at what makes him a successful
lawyer in the upcoming edition of TCL.
1. Child Welfare League of America, Special
tabulation of the Adoption and Foster Care
Analysis Reporting System, (2006),
ndas.cwla.org.
2. Id.
3. Karen Thomas, Jolie at peace with names,
USA TODAY, Mar. 16, 2007, at 2E.
4. Forty-two percent of the American population
under age 18 are of a minority race while 57%
of the children in foster care are of a minority
race. See also Children of Color 2004, (2004),
available at ndas.cwla.org/research_info/
minority_child/home.asp.
5. Id.
6. The Special Needs of Infants and Toddlers in
Foster
Care
(2006),
available
at
www.vakids.org/pubs/early_childhood
_and_foster_ care_issue_ brief3_05.pdf.
7. Id.
8. Elizabeth Bartholet & Joan Heifetz
Hollinger, Adoption Law and Practice § 10.02
(2006).
What makes
lawyers successful?
virginia.thecompletelawyer.com
TCL is a collaborative effort
of The Virginia Bar Association in cooperation with
The Complete Lawyer, LLC, Copyright 2007
LEGAL FOCUS
Domestic Relations
A Basic Divorce Practice Primer for New
Attorneys: Avoiding Some Early Pitfalls
BY BETH ANN LAWSON
A basic premise of new divorce
attorneys may be that they learned
everything they needed to know
about divorce in law school. Case law
and actual procedure on the ground,
however, can be worlds apart.
As fate would have it, a few days
after I joined my first law firm, the
firm’s family law attorney relocated
to another firm. Until a new senior
family law attorney could be retained,
maintenance work on divorce files
became my assigned task. A new
attorney was never hired, and in
default, I became the firm’s assigned
attorney for divorce. What I
desperately needed was a mentor and
a list of legal pitfalls to avoid. Perhaps
some of my moments of truth will
facilitate the movement of other new
attorneys into the practice of family
law with far greater grace than I
enjoyed. And just perhaps, this article
will encourage veteran family law
attorneys to take on the vital task of
patiently mentoring new attorneys
toward confidence, competence and
client service. What follows are just
the some of the necessary truths and
basic pitfalls in family law practice.
1. Know that the truth lies
somewhere in between.
The “facts” stated by your client
can be most convincing. Even today,
I still experience mild surprise each
time I speak with opposing counsel
for the first time and discover that I
represent both Jekyll and Hyde
when I am only charging Jekyll. A
good intake sheet with a broad array
of questions is helpful when trying
to interview a client and create a
comprehensive, factual picture with
a minimal number of future
surprises.
It is important to use a first meeting
with opposing counsel as an
information-gathering opportunity
rather than a contest to show that
your client has the only side to this
story. Leave behind the defensive
mindset that your client has told you
everything and has been 100 percent
forthcoming. The actual truth that
will further your client’s position in
the divorce lies somewhere between
opposing counsel’s facts and your
client’s story. Practice active
listening. Allow opposing counsel to
speak
without
interruption.
Opposing counsel is stating the facts
as they have been told. New
information will allow you to identify
uncertainties in your client’s position
which will require additional
discussion with and verification by
your client.
2. Virginia courts have diverse
divorce procedures.
Do not count on any two Virginia
courts having similar divorce
procedures. This assumption will
cause needless error and may result
in having your documents returned.
From city to city or county to county,
procedures vary. If you practice in a
larger metropolitan area, you will
need to know the procedures from
one city or county to the next. Never
will this be more evident that when
you are filing at the last minute to
make a statutory deadline. Know the
various filing fees of the court in
question including whether there is a
charge for making certified copies.
Forcing your clients to execute
documents a second time due to
procedural filing errors does not
promote a professional image of a
court-savvy attorney.
For each court in which you intend
to practice, get a copy of their rules
and procedures and follow them. If
you practice in one of the
metropolitan areas, you may have 10
or more different courts within your
practice area. Many metropolitan
courts are Internet-friendly and post
their contested, uncontested and pro
se divorce rules and procedures
online. If your locality does have web
postings and you choose the
approach of constantly calling the
clerk’s office about procedure, expect
to encounter comments such as,
“Have you visited our website? Did
you know that all of our procedures
are posted on the web?” Clerks
hearing the same question many
times on a given day tend to remind
attorneys that they have full access
to the same information online and
are being less than diligent in their
legal research by calling the clerk’s
office.
There are several procedural
filing questions you will want to
document for each separate court.
Is a civil cover sheet required for
filing? Does the locality have its own
cover sheet or should you go the
Virginia judicial system’s website at
www.courts.state.va.us and use one
of the many available forms which
can be prepared on line and printed?
How many copies of the complaint
do you submit? Are you required to
submit an original copy of the
separation agreement? How do you
submit a privacy addendum in a
manner that guarantees client
privacy? Is the privacy addendum
submitted in a separate envelope to
protect it from public records? What
types of payment are accepted from
an attorney? May an attorney submit
MAY/JUNE 2007
a private check if cash or a corporate
check are unavailable? What service
of process options exist?
It is particularly important to
know a how long service of process
takes if you use your local sheriff’s
office. Ask for general timelines. This
is not meant to be an offensive
question to the clerk. Adequate service
of process is critical to your case. If a
sheriff’s office cannot meet your
deadline, hire a private service or
process server. If you use a private
process server, ask your local clerk
how you may obtain notice from the
court that an item is ready to be picked
up by a private server. Know the
answers to these questions prior to
filing.
Service of process can be a pitfall
in itself. Interview potential process
servers and get references. You are
relying on these individuals to get
papers served in a timely fashion to
allow you to proceed in court. Put
in writing to the process server your
expected dates of service and any
specific deadlines. If your process
server has to hire an out-of-state
server, get the name and number
and speak to that individual
personally. You have no guarantee
that your local process server has
conveyed your deadlines to the outof-state server or that your local
server mailed the papers to the new
server in a timely fashion. Be a
watchdog on out-of-state service if
your deadlines are tight.
Pendente lite hearings also offer a
prime example of the differences for
which you need to prepare. Some
courts hold closed session hearings
for pendente lite hearings while others
schedule the hearing on an open
motions day and hear the matter in
open court. Some judges like to handle
all questioning. Some judges prefer
that the attorney question the parties.
You must be prepared to question
your witness on the stand if the judge
so desires.
It is also very important to know
that some judges will hear some
custody issues in the pendente lite
hearing while others will not. For
example, if you have a hearing where
one parent has taken the child out of
state during the school year and is
refusing to return that child, some
judges will hear the issue while others
refer it to a guardian ad litem — which
MAY/JUNE 2007
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Beth Ann Lawson is a partner with Lawson, Bryan, Johnson, Edwards-Talbot t/a
Virginia Beach Law Group, 629 Wesley Drive, Suite 200, Virginia Beach, VA 23452. She
received her B.A. from Virginia Tech, her M.P.A. from Golden Gate University and her J.D.
from Regent University. She can be contacted at (757) 486-4529 or
balawson@vabeachlawgroup.com.
could take several months to resolve
when the child is out of state.
Get to know the guardians ad litem
for children in your local court
system. Go to court, introduce
yourself to these individuals, and ask
them about the procedures used in
these types of cases. Keep an active
list and contact information of those
with whom you work well for easy
reference.
3. No two judges are alike.
Judges have procedural preferences.
Learn them. It is helpful to ask court
clerks and other attorneys about the
preferences of the various judges.
This is smart lawyering. To effectively
represent their client to the best of
their ability, an attorney needs to
learn how to present a client’s case
to any judge assigned to their case.
This entails learning what is
expected in each courtroom and
delivering it.
Network with other attorneys and
ask about their experiences with the
various judges. Many colleagues will
share some interesting horror stories
about how they learned that a certain
judge did not like things done in a
particular fashion. These judicial
preferences include such areas as how
to approach the bench, how to
address the court, how to handle two
or three cases in different courtrooms
on the same day, paperwork
requirements, etc.
Many bar associations host events
for new attorneys to meet and greet
with the local judges. Do not skip any
event where you have an opportunity
to speak with a judge and gain insight
into local area judicial procedure.
4. Understand the different uses of a
non-suit.
I was pleased the first time
opposing counsel asked to nonsuit a
highly contested divorce action.
Changing venue appeared to be a
smart move and the nonsuit would
produce an opportunity to do so.
Opposing counsel had another trick
up his sleeve. It is important for a
new divorce practitioner to learn
how to effectively use nonsuits to
stop legal actions which are not
proceeding according to plan and
how to use the nonsuit to gain better
position. The Code of Virginia
explains the dismissal of action by a
nonsuit in § 8.01-830, including
information on a first nonsuit as a
matter of right if the provisions of the
statute are met.
Virginia plaintiffs have a right to
“nonsuit,” or voluntarily dismiss
their case before their case is
submitted to the judge or jury for a
decision if the. This safety net
provides plaintiff attorneys with a
window in which to test their legal
strategy. Attorneys can initiate
their lawsuit, view opposing
counsels’ pleadings, discovery, trial
preparation and trial strategies and
then dismiss the case should an
adverse judgment be anticipated.
Lawyering skills and analysis will
be called into play when you are
representing the defendant and have
to determine whether to agree to a
second or third request for a nonsuit
by plaintiff’s counsel. Would your
client be in a better position if you
proceed with the current suit? Would
a different court provide a better
outcome? Are all the necessary facts
available to proceed? Has new
information presented a better legal
strategy? Do you have an edge in your
current position which might topple
opposing counsel’s seemingly
stronger case which could be lost if
you agree to the nonsuit?
A strategic legal tactic to remember
is that while opposing counsel Snidely
Whiplash’s nonsuit is being signed
by the judge in Court Room A,
Attorney Whiplash may be down the
hall twirling his long handlebar
mustache waiting to file a new
complaint on the same matter.
Whatever new strategic advantage
opposing counsel will gain by the
nonsuit will not be designed to make
your day. Client costs may double as
work is repeated in jockeying for new
position in a new suit. Nonetheless, a
nonsuit is a valid legal tool in Virginia
and is essential in repositioning one’s
legal strategy as needed.
5. Court personnel are blessed
individuals.
Get to know everyone involved in
the divorce process of the local courts.
Meet all of the clerks. Get to know the
deputy clerks who are a wealth of
procedural knowledge and assistance.
Give everyone you meet your card.
These court individuals control the
flow of your paperwork and
information. When you have
emergencies or make mistakes (which
you will!), these individuals pull you
out of the fire.
Court personnel take a great deal
of abuse from lawyers and the general
public. Most people approaching a
court clerk are under stress. And to
be fair, court personnel can also do
their fair share of dishing out abuse.
One of the best pieces of advice I
received from a colleague early on was
that, “Court clerks are your best
friends. Get to know them.” Many, if
not most, of these clerks are lifetime
employees. These people will see you
time and time again. If you are feeling
that “I am the LAWYER; you are the
clerk,” I suggest you take yourself
outside for a moment and get some
fresh air. The truth of the matter is
that “he or she is the CLERK; you are
the lawyer”; and you need his or her
assistance to succeed.
6. Experienced family law paralegals
are worth their weight in gold.
As mentioned earlier, understanding
and following correct court procedure
is important in the successful
management of divorce cases. File
management is critical. Deadline
management is even more critical to
the protection of your license.
Tracking pleadings and managing
response deadlines will prevent gross
practice errors. If you are a poor paper
organizer, offset your weakness by
hiring an obsessive-compulsive
organizer of a paralegal. It may save
your career.
Choosing which pleading will be
the most effective tool to file from
among multiple possibilities comes
with both knowledge and
experience. When you are a new
practitioner, each case brings its
own unique perspective. Each case
seems similar to a previous case but
each has a twist requiring more
research. The immeasurable value
of an experienced paralegal is her
or his wealth of knowledge of
previous cases and scenarios which
can help rapidly focus your
research. An experienced paralegal
also brings to the table a wealth of
knowledge of forms and drafting.
Look for a paralegal who has his or
her own copy of the Virginia Forms
books. If it is falling apart with dogeared pages and yellow sticky
notes, give that person an
interview. If you hire them, buy
them the newest version of the state
forms manual.
In additional to forms and
procedures, an experienced paralegal
can provide immediate value to a
new practitioner simply from
experience gained from years of
interaction with various courts and
court personnel. Having a paralegal
who displays excellent people skills
may help a new practitioner. This
may be hard to read, but not all
attorneys are blessed with a warm
and nurturing persona. Hiring an
alter ego with warmth and good
people skills may grease squeaky
wheels allowing the attorney to
travel down roads heretofore closed
to him or her.
7. Military divorce requirements.
Attend continuing legal education
training on military divorce. Military
divorce requires specialized
procedures and knowledge. There are
complex issues of jurisdiction. There
are pension calculations which
require knowledge of specific
formulas. Any new attorney
handling his or her first military
divorce should seriously consider
finding a seasoned colleague to help
navigate the first walk through the
jungle of military divorce. Add new
terminology to your computer’s spell
check for Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP)
and Thrift Retirement Savings Plans.
Military divorce requires that an
attorney become familiar with the
Uniformed Services Former Spouses’
Protection Act found at 10 U.S.C.
§1408 (1982). Writing a Qualified
Domestic Relations Orders (QDRO)
to divide military retirement plans is
a different process than dividing
private company pension QDROs.
Military QDROs must include specific
wording directing the Defense Finance
Accounting Service (DFAS) to
apportion the retirement pay upon
the servicemember’s retirement. The
order must be submitted to DFAS for
approval and payment. In my
experience, DFAS is most helpful to
attorneys with questions. DFAS
maintains an excellent informational
website, found at www.dfas.mil,
which can be invaluable in navigating
all the potential hazards of a military
divorce. There are a number of
excellent articles on this site relating
to the division of military pension.
Two extremely valuable resources
I frequently reference are 1) The Military
Divorce Handbook by Mark E. Sullivan
and 2) The Silent Partner, a lawyer-tolawyer resource for military legal
assistance attorneys and civilian
lawyers. The Silent Partner is a
publication of the Military Committee,
Section of Family Law, of the American
Bar Association prepared by COL.
Mark E. Sullivan (USAR, Ret). There
are a number of informative internet
sites and other fine written materials
on military divorce. Keep some handy
in your office if you intend to handle
military matters.
Form an association with another
attorney in your area who specializes
in military divorce. As mentioned
above, the American Bar Association
maintains a Military Committee in
the Section of Family Law, and would
be an excellent place to start in finding
other local attorneys who might
mentor your efforts in this specialized
area.
8. Mediation is here to stay.
Mediation has rapidly become a
standard part of a contested divorce
where issues of support arise. Many
retired judges are now mediators.
Mediation has become a key judicial
tool in settling opposing party
differences where the parties cannot
come to an agreement while in the
courtroom. Mediation gives parties an
opportunity to reach an agreement in
a setting where each party may
exercise more direct control over
designing the solution to their
problem.
To learn more about mediation,
contact a mediation center or the
MAY/JUNE 2007
family court in your area to get
information on the process. Inquire
on how mediation is used in your
local judicial proceedings. Attend an
introduction to mediation training
seminar. Understand when mediation
can be used for the benefit of your
client.
It is important to note that any and
all parties may participate in a
mediation session, including the
lawyers. Mediation does not preclude
the use of a lawyer and should not be
perceived as a threat to the legal
industry. Many of the best mediators
are licensed attorneys and retired
judges who have found a new forum
in which to apply their love of the
law.
SUMMARY
As divorce statistics continue to
advertise that one out of two
marriages end in divorce in the
United States, divorce attorneys are
and will continue to be in high
demand. Becoming familiar with the
finer points of divorce law and
procedure will enable new attorneys
to provide effective representation to
divorce clients. Learning how to
overcome some of the described
pitfalls will be time well spent. Please
note that due to space limitations, the
issues described in this article do not
begin to provide a new attorney with
a complete catalogue of practice
pitfalls. However, this article may
provide a place for you to begin in
compiling your own research. As you
progress, keep your own list of
practice pitfalls and be a mentor to
the next new attorney who comes
behind you.
Lawyers can enhance the quality
of the legal profession by mentoring
new practitioners. Due to space
limitations, this basic primer details
just a few of the pitfalls a new
practitioner may encounter in a
divorce practice. May the information
contained herein encourage new
practitioners to gain additional
knowledge in these areas to enhance
both their confidence and their service
delivery to clients, and may it prod
some seasoned family law attorneys
toward mentorship of new lawyers
of the firm.
MAY/JUNE 2007
SUMMER MEETING
!
s
e
t
a
d
Up
JULY 19-22, 2007, THE HOMESTEAD
U.S. Solicitor General Paul
Clement will review recent
Supreme Court decisions
United States Solicitor General Paul D.Clement
will present an insightful view of recent decisions
of the nation’s highest court in “U.S. Supreme
Court Review: October Term 2006,” a general
session sponsored by theVBA Civil Litigation
Section and the Committee on Special Issues of
National and State Importance on Friday, July 20,
from 10:30 a.m. to noon. (1.5 CLE credits)
NEW! Learn about planning for retirement
Planning ahead? Get valuable tips when The Retirement Journey Series presents
“401(k)s, IRAs and Other Qualified Plans: GettingYour Money Out,”
presented by Dave Keister of SunTrust from 2 to 3:30 p.m. on Friday, July 20.
Spouses and guests will also find this program useful!
NEW! LPMD offers life balance program
From 2 to 3:30 p.m. on Friday, July 20, the VBA Law Practice Management
Division will present “Meeting the Life Balance Challenges Facing
Lawyers Today.” A panel of law firm representatives and in-house counsel
throughoutVirginia share what their firms and companies are doing to
recognize and address life balance issues faced by lawyers, their spouses and
families in today’s society. Spouses and guests are welcomed and encouraged
to attend!
NEW! ‘Jogging for Justice,’ a 5K walk/run
TheVirginia Bar Association Community Service
Program will present “Jogging for Justice,” a 5K
walk/run, at 2 p.m. on Saturday, July 21. Participants
will start at the hotel entrance and walk/run a 5K
course on The Homestead’s beautiful hiking trails.
The cost is $15 per person, with proceeds to benefit
Blue Ridge Legal Services, Inc. Persons who cannot
participate directly in“Jogging for Justice” can still
support the effort as boosters by paying the $15 fee.
T-shirts will be available to runners, walkers and boosters. See www.vba.org for
more details and online registration!
Plan ahead for special services and activities!
Advance reservations are suggested, particularly for golf,spa appointments
and babysitting services.Dinner reservations for Thursday and Saturday
evenings should also be made well in advance of your arrival by calling The
Homestead’s Activities Department at 1-800-838-1766, option 3.
Schedule, registration and reservations
Online registration for the Summer Meeting is available at www.vba.org;the
form can also be printed out and mailed with your registration fee to the VBA
office. A printable room reservation form is also available at www.vba.org, as is
a PDF version of the meeting brochure.
VBA SUMMER MEETING
117th
JULY 19-22, 2007 • THE HOMESTEAD • AN OVERVIEW
THURSDAY, JULY 19
Noon-4:30 p.m.
Board of Governors Meeting/Luncheon
2-6 p.m.
Registration/Hospitality
Courtesy of SunTrust Bank
6-7 p.m.
Opening Reception (Children welcome.)
Courtesy of The Homestead
FRIDAY, JULY 20
8:30 a.m.-6 p.m.
9-10:30 a.m. CONCURRENT CLE PROGRAMS
• “Virginia Business Entities as Special Purpose Vehicles: New
Developments and Another Round with Delaware,” Business
Law Section.
• “E-Discovery in Litigation and Health Care — Rules, Policies,
Protections and Professional Guidelines: A Primer for Virginia
Attorneys,” Civil Litigation Section and Health Law Section.
• “Recent Developments in Elder Law,” Elder Law Section.
• “A Way to Support Troubled Lawyers: Issues with Substance
Abuse and Mental Health,” Lawyers Helping Lawyers.
10:30 a.m.-Noon GENERAL SESSION
“U.S. Supreme Court Review: October Term 2006.”
9:15-10:30 a.m.
Spouse/Guest Program: A Culinary Demonstration,
“Accessorizing a Meal From Appetizer to Dessert.”
(Separate registration and fee required.)
12:10-1:40 p.m.
Legacy Series Luncheon: “Virginia: Catalyst of Commerce for
Four Centuries.” (For members and guests—separate registration
and fee for lunch required.)
Courtesy of Hunton & Williams LLP
12:30-5 p.m.
18-Hole Golf Tournament
Prizes courtesy of Minnesota Lawyers Mutual Insurance Co. and
Phillip S. Griffin II, PC
2-3:30 p.m.
The Retirement Journey Series
“401(k)s, IRAs and Other Qualified Plans: Getting Your Money
Out.”
2-3:30 p.m.
Law Practice Management: “Meeting the Life Balance
Challenges Facing Lawyers Today.”
3:30-5:30 p.m. GENERAL SESSION
“Litigation Ethics: Part II.”
Courtesy of BB&T Corporation
6:30-7:30 p.m.
Reception (black tie)
Courtesy of CSX Corporation and Norfolk Southern Corporation
7:30-9:30 p.m.
Banquet (black tie)
Presentation of VBA Honors
Presentation of Virginia CLE Award
Recognition of 2007 VBA Life Members
Dancing and Entertainment: “Off the Record”
Entertainment Courtesy of Dominion Resources
Decor Design Courtesy of Equity Concepts, LLC and U.S. Bank
Corporate Trust Services
After-Dinner Presidents’ Reception
Courtesy of The Lewis Law Firm and Gentry Locke Rakes &
Moore LLP
SATURDAY, JULY 21
8-10 a.m.
YLD Executive Council Breakfast Meeting
8:30 a.m.-1 p.m.
9-10:30 a.m. CONCURRENT CLE PROGRAMS
• “What . . . ? The Debtor Entity Has No Assets?! Potential
Insider and Related Recoveries (With a Focus on Virginia
Law),” Bankruptcy Law Section.
• “Surviving the High Visibility, Complex Case,” Civil Litigation
Section.
• “Up the Down Stairs: Construction Price Escalation and Deescalation Clauses,” Construction and Public Contracts Law
Section.
• “Protecting Trade Secrets,” Intellectual Property and
Information Technology Law Section.
• “Recent Developments in Labor Relations and Employment
Law,” Labor Relations and Employment Law Section.
10:30 a.m.-Noon CONCURRENT CLE PROGRAMS
• “Ninth Annual Review of Civil Decisions of the Virginia
Supreme Court,” Civil Litigation Section and Judicial Section.
• “Crime and Punishment in the Trial Court of the Future:
Effective Access to Justice in the 21st Century,” Criminal Law
Section and Judicial Section.
• “New Title Insurance Policy Forms: Comparison and Analysis
for Virginia Title Insurance Claims,” Real Estate Section.
• “Airport-Airlines Law on the Cutting Edge: Sour Fees and Ripe
Airports—Airport-Airline Fee Disputes, Privatization of Airports,
Airline Bankruptcies and Airline Passenger Rights,”
Transportation Law Section.
1/1:30 p.m.
Golf Scramble/Tennis Round Robin (Advance sign-up required.)
Prizes courtesy of Minnesota Lawyers Mutual Insurance Co. and
Phillip S. Griffin, II, PC
2 p.m.
Jogging for Justice 5K Walk/Run (Separate fee required.)
6:30-7:30 p.m.
Reception (business attire)
Courtesy of LexisNexis
9:30-11:30 p.m.
YLD Social (All lawyers and their families welcome.)
Courtesy of Williams Mullen
See www.vba.org for schedule,
registration and reservation information!
MAY/JUNE 2007
ACROSS THE COMMONWEALTH
VBA will recognize Life
Members for 2007
at Summer Meeting
Ten members of The Virginia Bar
Association will be recognized as VBA
Life Members for 2007 on Friday, July
20, during the 117th Summer Meeting
at The Homestead in Hot Springs. Life
Members are those persons who have
been members of the VBA for at least
40 consecutive years and will have
attained the age of 70 years no later
than this year.
The 2007 VBA Life Members are as
follows: Hon. H. Harrison Braxton Jr.,
Stafford; Charles E. Duke, Alexandria;
William M. Sokol, Fredericksburg;
Russell H. Roberts, Fredericksburg;
Michael Armstrong, Richmond;
Bowlman T. Bowles Jr., Richmond;
Thomas F. Betz Jr., Virginia Beach;
Alexander H. Slaughter, Richmond; S.
D. Roberts Moore, Roanoke; Robert
W. Mann, Martinsville; and Prof. Albert
R. Turnbull, Charlottesville.
Justice Lacy to take senior status in August
as needed, through service
Justice Elizabeth B. Lacy
as a senior justice,” said
of the Supreme Court of
Virginia, the current
Governor Timothy M.
Kaine.
court’s longest-serving
“As I contemplate the
member and a former
member of the VBA
nomination of a successor,
I intend to consider
Executive Committee (now
individuals who can be in
the Board of Governors),
announced June 8 that she
position on the Supreme
Court to hear cases in the
will take senior status in
fall. I intend to consult with
August.
Justice Lacy
She will be remembered
many interested parties,
as a trailblazer for women in the legal including legislative leaders, in order
profession in Virginia, having become to select an individual who can
the Supreme Court’s first female continue the fine example of service
justice in 1988, after serving three set by Justice Lacy.”
The VBA will assist Governor
years as the first woman member of
the State Corporation Commission.
Kaine by offering recommendations
“I want to express the gratitude of of candidates to fill the pending
all Virginians for the public service of vacancy. See www.vba.org for
Justice Elizabeth Lacy... I am pleased details.
Justice Lacy intends to continue
making a contribution by offering her
time, legal talent, and analytical skills,
On April 29, the Virginia Law Foundation Board of Directors approved 36 grant
awards totaling $425,000 for law-related projects benefiting the people of Virginia,
including a $19,000 grant to the Capital Defense Workshop, a program of The
Virginia Bar Association Foundation, which covers training requirements in forensics and litigation for attorneys appointed to represent defendants charged with
capital murder cases. VLF funds are provided in support of selected projects for a
one-year period beginning July 1, 2007.
Midyear appointments
to CLE committee
announced by VBA
Nominations for the 2008 Class of Virginia Law Foundation Fellows
will be accepted through September 10, 2007. The 2008 Class will be
inducted at a dinner meeting in Williamsburg on January 17, 2008, during
The Virginia Bar Association’s 118th Annual Meeting.
Candidates must (1) be an active or associate member of the Virginia
State Bar for at least 10 years; (2) be a resident of Virginia; (3) be a person of
integrity and character; (4) have maintained and upheld the highest
standards of the profession; (5) be outstanding in the community; and (6)
be distinguished in the practice of law. Retired and senior status judges
are eligible. Sitting full-time judges and constitutional office holders are
not eligible during their tenures.
Nominations must be received by September 10 and should be submitted
on a nomination form provided by the Virginia Law Foundation. To obtain
a nomination form, please contact the Virginia Law Foundation at 700
East Main Street, Suite 1501, Richmond, VA 23219. You may also call (804)
648-0112, email mprichard@virginialawfoundation.org, or visit the
foundation’s website at www.virginialawfoundation.org to obtain a
nomination form online and see a complete listing of current Fellows.
The following members of The
Virginia Bar Association have been
nominated for membership on the
Virginia Law Foundation Committee
on Continuing Legal Education for a
one-year term commencing July 1,
2007:
Cyane B. Crump, Hunton &
Williams LLP, Richmond;
Cheshire I’Anson Eveleigh,
Wolcott Rivers Gates, PC, Virginia
Beach;
Douglas M. Nabhan, Williams
Mullen, Richmond;
Aubrey J. Rosser Jr., Altavista;
E. Ford Stephens, Christian &
Barton, LLP, Richmond; and
Paul B. Terpak, Blankingship &
Keith, PC, Fairfax.
In addition, VBA President Glenn
C. Lewis has nominated Cathryn A.
Le Regulski of Cooley Godward
Kronish LLP in Reston to continue to
serve as the representative of the VBA
Young Lawyers Division and E. Ford
Stephens to serve as chairman of the
committee.
For more details, visit Virginia CLE
online at www.vacle.org.
MAY/JUNE 2007
Virginia Law Foundation seeks
nominations for Fellows Class of 2008
Higgs, Roberts receive honors CLASSIFIED ADS
at VSB Annual Meeting
VBA members Steven L. Higgs of Roanoke and James C.
Roberts of Richmond received special honors during the
Virginia State Bar Annual Meeting in June.
Higgs, past president of the Roanoke Bar Association
and a charter servant of the VBA Community Service
Program, was named Local Bar Leader of the Year by the
VSB Conference of Local Bar Associations. The award
recognizes lawyers who have served the bench, bar and
public through their bar associations.
Under Higgs’ leadership, the Roanoke Bar Association
instituted numerous changes that resulted in more
programs and member recognition. He formed a service
committee that coordinates the association’s community
services projects, which include the Barrister Book
Buddies, Youth Court, Wills for Heroes and Senior
Citizen’s Law Day. He expanded members’ access to free
or low-cost continuing legal education programs. In
addition, the RBA established the Frank W. “Bo” Rogers
Jr. Lifetime Achievement Award and a Young Lawyer of
the Year Award, which were presented in 2006 at the first
annual RBA Foundation Gala and Law Day Celebration,
where scholarships for future lawyers also were awarded.
He is the current chair of the Roanoke Bar Association
Foundation.
In his community, Higgs is a past president of the Blue
Ridge Zoological Society of Virginia Inc. and chair of
Roanoke’s Mill Mountain Advisory Committee. He is an
assistant scoutmaster for a local Boy Scout troop, he
volunteers with Girl Scouts and he has coached soccer for
the past 10 years. He received the President’s Volunteer
Service Gold Award for community service in 2004, 2006
and 2007. Higgs started his own solo practice, The Higgs
Law Firm, while he was president-elect of the RBA. He is
a graduate Washington and Lee University and the
University of Richmond School of Law.
Roberts, a VBA Life Member and VBA Foundation
Sustaining Patron, received the Tradition of Excellence
Award from the VSB General Practice Section. The award
recognizes a lawyer who embodies the highest tradition
of personal and professional excellence and enhances the
image of attorneys in Virginia.
Roberts, a partner with Troutman Sanders LLP, has
cultivated a general practice during the 50 years since he
was admitted to the Virginia bar. His talents were
recognized early by Richmond judges, who appointed
him to defend indigent persons charged with crimes. His
dedication to pro bono service has continued—he helped
found a predecessor to Richmond’s legal aid system, which
drew on the talents of young lawyers to represent those
without means to pay.
A graduate of Hampden-Sydney College, Roberts
almost had to leave law school at the University of
Richmond for lack of funds. An anonymous alumnus
donated the $500 tuition, and Roberts graduated first in his
class. He is now a leading fundraiser for the law school.
CONSULTING SERVICES
Hosted Computer Network Solutions for Law Firms: Are you
setting up a new law office? Should you hire a network
administrator at full salary? We can set up your new office and
deploy a hosted computer network solution that is a better value,
more efficient and more secure than doing it on your own. Call:
(703) 472-6927. Email: david.netadmin@gmail.com or Internet:
www.interesIT.com. Let us handle your computer network so
you can get back to practicing law!
OFFICE SPACE
Richmond/Glen Allen: Innsbrook, 4200 Innslake Drive.
Executive Suite — gracious space in Class A Building, 4 large
offices + conference room or 5th office. Separate support staff
and storage areas + work and file rooms. Inquire with Ingram
Haley, (804) 965-1229 or ihaley@vhha.com.
POSITIONS AVAILABLE
Associate Tax Attorney. Tax firm seeks associate attorney with
up to three years experience and LL.M., Taxation or Estate
Planning from top law school. Attorney will practice in: estate
planning, planning involving trusts, partnership & corporate
planning, asset protection planning and creative income tax
planning techniques. Immediate client contact. Outstanding
opportunity to work for a firm having a proven record of solving
the most challenging legal and tax problems. Respond to:
Recruiter; Culp, Elliott & Carpenter, P.L.L.C.; 4401 Barclay Downs
Drive, Suite 200; Charlotte, NC 28209 or via email to
rda@ceclaw.com.
AV Virginia Beach firm seeks attorney with 2-4 years experience
in civil litigation. Familiarity with real estate and/or
condemnation law would be beneficial. Send resume to John
Norris at Norris, St. Clair & Lotkin at 2840 S. Lynnhaven Rd., Va.
Beachm VA 23452 or fax to 757-498-7744.
The VBA News Journal offers classified advertising. Categories
available are as follows: positions available, positions wanted,
books and software, office equipment/furnishings, office
space, experts, consulting services, business services,
vacation rentals, and educational opportunities.
Rates are $1 per word for VBA members and $1.50 per word
for non-members, with a $35 minimum, payable at the time
of submission. Ad costs must be paid in advance. The VBA
News Journal reserves the right to review all copy before
publication and to reject material deemed unsuitable.
Professional announcements may be printed; the cost per
announcement is $15 and text may be edited for style and
space limitations. Deadlines are one month in advance of the
date of publication. Information is available online at
www.vba.org, or call for details at (804) 644-0041.
Information about display advertising is available online at
www.vba.org. A variety of sizes may be purchased and special
rates are available for multiple insertions. As with other forms
of advertising, costs must be paid in advance. The VBA News
Journal reserves the right to review all copy before publication
and to reject material deemed unsuitable.
The VBA offers great benefits to our members! Visit www.vba.org/benefits.htm for more details.
MAY/JUNE 2007
LEADERSHIP PATRONS (Gifts of $500 or more): Charles B. Arrington Jr. Edward D. Barnes David P. Bobzien Thomas C. Brown Jr. Hon.
Rudolph Bumgardner III Stephen D. Busch Marshall M. Curtis Hon. Rodham T. Delk Jr. E. Tazewell Ellett John D. Epps Patricia K. Epps
Kevin L. Fast Allen C. Goolsby Virginia H. Hackney F. Claiborne Johnston Jr. David Craig Landin Glenn C. Lewis James V. Meath Steven
R. Minor J. Lee E. Osborne G. Michael Pace Jr. Gordon P. Peyton Jr. Stephen C. Price Gant Redmon Douglas P. Rucker Jr. Dexter C. Rumsey
III Frank A. Thomas III Guy K. Tower Lucia Anna Trigiani William R. Van Buren III G. William Watkins Robert B. Webb III Anne Marie
Whittemore Gary L. Wilbert SUSTAINING PATRONS (Gifts of $250-499): Hon. Samuel W. Coleman III John G. Dicks III Jeanne F. Franklin
Lane R. Gabeler-Millner Ilona E. Grenadier Hon. Robert Hurt Elaine R. Jordan Heman A. Marshall III Christopher C. North Hon. Daniel F.
O’Flaherty Philip W. Parker Anita O. Poston George H. Roberts Jr. James C. Roberts Charles F. Seabolt John S. Shannon Roy D. Snyder
Jr. Hon. F. Bradford Stillman Raymond H. Suttle F. Blair Wimbush Robert C. Wood III PATRONS (Gifts of $100-249): Benjamin C. Ackerly
Hon. David H. Adams Hon. William N. Alexander II Ashby B. Allen Hon. James F. Almand Hon. Thomas M. Ammons III Hon. Rosemarie P. Annunziata
Hugh T. Antrim Hon. Jonathan M. Apgar Michael Armstrong Adam J. August Kyle F. Bartol Ronald C. Barusch William M. Baskin Dennis I. Belcher
Sidney L. Berz Guenet M.M. Beshah James C. Bishop Jr. Jonathan T. Blank Albert M. Bonin Lewis T. Booker Hon. Daniel R. Bouton Robert F.
Boyd Evans B. Brasfield Hon. Adelard L. Brault Hon. H. Harrison Braxton Jr. Louis Brenner Hon. William G. Broaddus Robert L. Brooke James
F. Brown Richard Brown Hon. Albert V. Bryan Jr. Francis L. Buck Robert P. Buford Jr. Kristina L. Burgard Ann T. Burks Robert L. Burrus Jr. Jack
W. Burtch Jr. Harris D. Butler III Hon. M. Caldwell Butler Hon. Robert L. Calhoun Hon. Samuel E. Campbell Hon. Harry L. Carrico Joseph C. Carter
Jr. Miles Cary Jr. Richard H. Catlett Jr. Hon. Edward T. Caton III Edward L. Chambers Jr. L.B. Chandler Jr. Wallace L. Chandler James L.
Chapman IV Matthew E. Cheek Malcolm M. Christian Hon. Mark C. Christie Randolph W. Church Henry C. Clark Hon. John E. Clarkson Hon.
George M. Cochran John V. Cogbill III I. Mark Cohen Stacy M. Colvin C. Lacey Compton Jr. Hon. Glen E. Conrad Hon. H. Vincent Conway
Jr. Anthony E. Cooch Jr. Hon. Talmage N. Cooley James E. Cornwell Jr. James R. Cottrell Timothy A. Coyle James Smyth Cremins Ann
K. Crenshaw James A.L. Daniel Hon. John W. Daniel II Hon. John J. Davies III Hon. Mark S. Davis Terry H. Davis Jr. Christian E. DeLuke Robert
B. Delano Jr. Prof. John E. Donaldson Benjamin R. Dorsey IV Elizabeth P. Doucette Mark S. Dray Richard W. Driscoll Carroll Dubuc Benton S.
Duffett III S. Miles Dumville J. Burns Earle III C. Thomas Ebel R. Craig Evans Cheshire I. Eveleigh Bernard M. Fagelson Hugh M. Fain III
Thomas F. Farrell II Nancy L. Feldman Hon. Walter S. Felton Jr. Clyde E. Findley Hon. Johanna L. Fitzpatrick Brian N. Fletcher John R.
Fletcher George M. Foote James H. Ford Hon. Dixon L. Foster Hon. Paul D. Fraim William E. Franczek Hon. Humes J. Franklin Jr. Malcolm
P. Friddell Hon. Junius P. Fulton III Martin A. Gannon R. Jefferson Garnett Byrum L. Geisler Ernest K. Geisler Jr. Jonathan A. George Joseph
E. Gibson Gerald E. Gilbert Paul G. Gill Hon. J. Samuel Glasscock Alan S. Goldberg Barbara W. Goshorn Steven B. Gould Michael W.
Graff Jr. John L. Gregory III Richard L. Grier Hon. Charles D. Griffith Jr. Michael C. Guanzon Robin C. Gulick Richard D. Guy Douglas L.
Guynn Ira B. Hall Gary C. Hancock Grayson P. Hanes Kathleen O’Brien Hanes John W. Hanifin Reno S. Harp III Ashley P. Harris Audrey
L. Harris Hon. Dale H. Harris Joseph E. Hartman Hon. James H. Harvell III Steven J. Harwood James W. Haskins Q. Russell Hatchl Sandra
L. Havrilak John T. Hazel Jr. Hon. William D. Heatwole John B. Hemmings George H. Hettrick C. Flippo Hicks C. Thomas Hicks III Hon. Marvin
C. Hillsman Jr. Saundra R. Hirth Hon. Richard R.G. Hobson Hon. A. Linwood Holton Jr. Richard H. Howard-Smith Richard W. Hudgins James
V. Ingold Harry M. Johnson III W.A. Johnston III Hugh J.M. Jones III Hon. James P. Jones Hon. Robert B. Jones Jr. Hon. W. Wellington Jones
Alan M. Kagen Amy G. Kales Jonathan L. Kales Jesse P. Kanach John F. Kay Jr. Hon. M. Langhorne Keith Herbert V. Kelly Peter J. Kenny
Hon. Donald H. Kent Hon. Edward S. Kidd Jr. Donald E. King Hon. Jackson L. Kiser Lee C. Kitchin Richard W. Klein Jr. H. Lane Kneedler III
Otto W. Konrad J. Sloan Kuykendall III D. Patrick Lacy Jr. Hon. Elizabeth B. Lacy Hon. James V. Lane Chiswell D. Langhorne Jr. Victor W.
Lavenstein Thomas T. Lawson Hon. Joseph A. Leafe Benjamin D. Leigh William J. Lemon Hon. Louis R. Lerner Michael H. Levinson Hon.
Charles F. Lincoln Thomson Lipscomb George B. Little Hon. James A. Luke Harvey S. Lutins Benjamin P. Lynch Jr. Matthew J. MacLean
J. Madison Macon Marcia M. Maddox Donald J. Maher Jr. R. Shawn Majette James L. Malone III Steve A. Mandell Robert W. Mann R.
Hunter Manson Wade W. Massie Vincent J. Mastracco
Jr. William R. Mauck Jr. Ronald M. Maupin J. Robert
McAllister III Steven C. McCallum F. Sheild McCandlish
Eugene W. McCaul William J. McConnell Howard C.
McElroy James R. McGarry John D. McGavin Hon. John Patrons and donors to The Virginia Bar Association Foundation
J. McGrath Jr. James R. McKenry Hon. Dennis F. provide valuable financial support for the Foundation’s
McMurran James S. McNider III William E. McRorie
David S. Mercer Hon. Thomas J. Michie Jr. Charles F. involvement in public service activities that benefit all Virginians.
Midkiff Teddy J. Midkiff Hon. Joseph W. Milam Jr. Add your name to this roster of distinguished leaders of the legal
Daniel J. Miller James B. Miller James L. Miller Hon. profession in Virginia! To learn more about the VBA Foundation
Nathan H. Miller Philip H. Miller Edward C. Minor
and how you can become a Patron, please visit www.vba.org.
Philip J. Mirarchi Douglas B. Mishkin Eugene J. Molinelli
Robert L. Montague III Thurston R. Moore Tyler Moore
Hon. Henry C. Morgan Jr. Donald R. Morin Hon. Joan T. Morris Frank W. Morrison Gregory L. Murphy Hon. W. Tayloe Murphy Jr. L.C.
Musgrove E. Carter Nettles Jr. Hon. R. Terrence Ney Allen R. Norris Robert C. Nusbaum Charles W. O’Donnell William P. Oberndorfer
Hon. Norman Olitsky Stephen D. Otero Aubrey J. Owen Fred W. Palmore III Sharon E. Pandak David W. Parrish Jr. Hon. Carleton Penn
Frank N. Perkinson Jr. C. Cotesworth Pinckney Allan R. Plumley Jr. Hon. Gammiel G. Poindexter Hon. Charles E. Poston John R. Powell Lisa
A. Price Glenn W. Pulley Gordon F. Rainey Jr. Alfred M. Randolph Jr. William M. Richardson Hon. Stephen W. Rideout Michael L. Rigsby
Hon. John F. Rixey Cheryl L. Roberts Hon. Joshua L. Robinson William F. Roeder Jr. Nancy N. Rogers Thomas H. Rose Jr. Hon. Jane Marum
Roush Hon. Harry P. Rowlett Joshua C. Rubin C. Edward Russell Jr. Jack B. Russell John F. Rutledge Hon. Stanley E. Sacks Hon. Pamela
Meade Sargent Bradford B. Sauer Steven G. Schwartz Virginius R. Shackelford III George W. Shanks Joseph M. Sharnoff Hon. William
H. Shaw III Prof. Robert E. Shepherd Jr. Hon. Paul F. Sheridan Harriette H. Shivers Robert E. Shoun Prof. Kent Sinclair Alexander H. Slaughter
Edward R. Slaughter Jr. Hon. Franklin M. Slayton David S. Smith Hon. Dennis J. Smith R. Gordon Smith Margaret H. Smither Paul R. Smollar
Jamila D. Smoot Hon. Beverly W. Snukals Henry C. Spalding III Hon. Joseph E. Spruill Jr. Thomas Stark III Harold E. Starke Jr. Hon. J. Warren
Stephens Hon. Roscoe B. Stephenson Jr. Hon. L. Neil Steverson Phillip C. Stone Hon. William F. Stone Jr. Lewis T. Stoneburner Hon. Diane
M. Strickland Robert E. Stroud G.R.C. Stuart William J. Sturgill Richard C. Sullivan Jr. Prof. Timothy J. Sullivan Frank L. Summers Jr. David
H. Sump Hon. James R. Swanson Hon. Harry T. Taliaferro III Jon M. Talotta Paul B. Terpak Anthony M. Thiel Betty A. Thompson T. Huntley
Thorpe III Hon. Douglas O. Tice Jr. Hon. Wenda K. Travers Benjamin J. Trichilo Hon. Alfred M. Tripp Hon. Anthony F. Troy John W. Truban
Stephanie L. Trunk Hon. James C. Turk Robert T. Vaughan Jr. Edward B. Walker Scott C. Wall M. Bruce Wallinger Edmund L. Walton Jr.
Fletcher D. Watson Donald L. Wetherington Hon. John E. Wetsel Jr. Samuel I. White Hon. Gordon A. Wilkins Doreen S. Williams Hon.
Richard L. Williams J. Paul Williamson Sara Redding Wilson William F. Wong Clifton A. Woodrum III Roland C. Woodward Hon. Dean S.
Worcester Hon. Wiley R. Wright Jr. Hon. Archer L. Yeatts III Hon. James S. Yoffy Paul A. Zucker DONORS (Gifts of $1-99): Hon. Calvin H.
Childress Frances F. Goldman John H. Graham Hon. Melvin R. Hughes Jr. Wendy F. Inge Shirley B. Jamison Hugh S. Meredith Alexandra M. Reams
Hon. Louis A. Sherman John C. Smuck J. Raymond Sparrow Jr. Elizabeth P. Williams R. Allan Wimbish (June 10, 2007)
Thank you, VBA Foundation Patrons!
CALENDAR OF EVENTS
October 26, 2007
VBA Virginia Tax Practitioners’ Roundtable
Farmington, Charlottesville
July 19-22, 2007
VBA Summer Meeting
The Homestead, Hot Springs
October 26-27, 2007
Boyd-Graves Conference
Westfields/Hyatt Regency Reston
August 9-11, 2007
National Conference of Bar Presidents
San Francisco, California
November 6, 2007
VBA Virginia Healthcare Practitioners' Roundtable
Omni Richmond
August 12-15, 2007
Judicial Conference of Virginia for District Courts
Virginia Beach
November 13, 2007
VBA Legislative Day
Omni Richmond
August 18, 2007
VBA/YLD Diversity Job Fair
Embassy Suites, Richmond
November 15-16, 2007
VBA Capital Defense Workshop
Richmond Marriott
October 5-7, 2007
VBA/YLD Executive Committee & Council Meeting
Wintergreen
November 16-17, 2007
Region IV National Moot Court Competition
Omni Richmond
October 11-14, 2007
Southern Conference of Bar Presidents
Little Rock, Arkansas
November 30, 2007
VBA Administrative Law Conference
Omni Richmond
October 19-21, 2007
VBA Board of Governors
Hotel Stonewall Jackson, Staunton
January 17-20, 2008
VBA Annual Meeting
Colonial Williamsburg
October 23, 2007
VBA Corporate Counsel Fall Forum
Omni Richmond
For more details on specific events, visit our website at
www.vba.org or call the VBA office at (804) 644-0041.
Register online at www.vba.org for the VBA Summer Meeting!
VBA
•
•
The Virginia Bar Association
701 East Franklin Street, Suite 1120
Richmond, Virginia 23219

May/June 2007 - The Virginia Bar Association

Transcription

Similar documents

Preschool Pufferbellies - Virginia Museum Of Transportation

Graduation Announcement Order Form - Printing Services

- Virginia Beach City Public Schools

Sherando Flyer - Virginia Hemophilia

ALEX LEBENSTEIN T

Welcome to 225 Fairglen Avenue

V irginia Native Americans built homes, called longhouses (yehakin

see brochure preview here - vareal

12 New England Dwelling House copy

VLTA membership application - Virginia Land Title Association