Home > Rule Changes > amendments to Rules 7.1-7.5 of regarding lawyer advertisingRevisions to Clients’ Protection Fund Rules of Procedureamendment to Rule 5.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct regarding professional entitiesCorrection to Paragraph 13-16 DDAmendments to Rules 7.1-7.5 of regarding lawyer advertisingBylaws revisions to election procedures for president-elect and councilAmendment to Bylaws to give Diversity Conference chair a seat on the Executive Committeeamendments to Paragraph 13-13 regarding Participation and Disqualification of Counselamendment to Paragraph 13 regarding VSB Disciplinary Boardamendments to Rule 1.11 of the Rules of Professional Conduct regarding special conflicts of interestamendments to Paragraph 13-26 regarding appeals from Disciplinary Board determinationsamendment to Paragraph 13 regarding the definition of “Bar Counsel”amendment to Rule 1.15 of the Rules of Professional Conduct regarding safekeeping propertyRule 1A:3 Regarding Reciprocity AdmissionsAmendments to Rule 1.15 of Rules of Professional Conduct and Paragraph 20 of Part 6, § IVnew Rule 1.18 defining a prospective clientAmendments to Virginia Supreme Court Rule 1A:5 regarding corporate counselamendments to bylaws for VSB standing committeesAmendments to Virginia Supreme Court Rule 1A:5 regarding corporate counsel pro bono workAmendments to Paragraph 11, regarding VSB annual duesAmendments to Paragraph 13 regarding multijurisdictional practiceAmendments to Paragraph 17 regarding MCLE RuleRule 4.2 amendment addressing defendant waiving rightsAmendments to Parts 5 and 5A, Rules of Virginia Supreme Court, regarding appellate proceduresAmendment to Paragraph 13-22, Board Proceedings Upon a Guilty Plea or an Adjudication of a CrimeAmendment to Paragraph 13-10, Processing of Complaints by Bar CounselAmendments to Paragraph 13, dealing with the use of the phrase “Charge of Misconduct”Amendments to Paragraph 10 governing legal ethics and unauthorized practice of lawAmendments to the MCLE Regulations include a limitation on pre-recorded CLE programsnew rule: provision of legal services following determination of major disasterRule 7.4(d) certification as a specialistParagraph 17 mailing the annual certification formRule 8.4 allowing undisclosed recording under certain circumstances
Adopted | amendments to Rules 7.1-7.5 of regarding lawyer advertising (Approved by the Supreme Court of Virginia April 15, 2013. Effective July 1, 2013)
Effective July 1, 2013, the Supreme Court of Virginia has approved amendments to Rules 7.1-7.5 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The amendments move specific examples of lawyer advertising statements or claims from the body of rules to the comment sections. They also remove unnecessary and redundant language.
view amended Rules 7.1-7.5 (PDF file)
Here is how the approved amendments change the current rules.
- The terms “fraudulent” and “deceptive” are removed from Rule 7.1. A communication that is “false or misleading” violates the rule.
-
The disclaimer required for advertising specific or cumulative case results has been removed from Rule 7.2—which has been eliminated in its entirety—and is now Rule 7.1(b). The disclaimer shall:
- (i) put the case results in a context that is not misleading; (ii) state that case results depend upon a variety of factors unique to each case; and (iii) further state that case results do not guarantee or predict a similar result in any future case undertaken by the lawyer.
- The disclaimer shall precede the communication of the case results.
- When the communication is in writing, the disclaimer shall be in bold type face and uppercase letters in a font size that is at least as large as the largest text used to advertise the specific or cumulative case results and in the same color and against the same colored background as the text used to advertise the specific or cumulative case results.
- Other than specific or cumulative case results, examples of statements or claims considered to be “false or misleading” have been taken out of Rule 7.1 and placed in the comments. Former subparagraphs (1)-(4) were deleted.
- Comment [1] to Rule 7.1 was substantially rewritten to describe the types of communications subject to regulation under Rule 7.1and to exclude other forms of non-commercial speech.
- Rule 7.2 was eliminated in its entirety, although the specific and cumulative case results disclaimer requirement is now Rule 7.1(b) and provisions in Rule 7.2 regulating written solicitation and paying others to recommend a lawyer have been incorporated within Rule 7.3.
-
Rule 7.3 addresses in-person and written solicitation of potential clients. The amendments to Rule 7.3 remove the current per se prohibition of in-person solicitation in personal injury and wrongful death cases. Effective July 1, 2013, in-person and written solicitation will be improper only if:
- the potential client has made known to the lawyer a desire not to be solicited by the lawyer; or
- the solicitation involves harassment, undue influence, coercion, duress, compulsion, intimidation, threats or unwarranted promises of benefits.
-
Rule 7.3 also regulates payment or rewards to persons for recommending employment, prohibiting a lawyer from giving anything of value to a referral source except that the lawyer may:
- pay the reasonable costs of advertisements or communications permitted by this Rule and Rule 7.1;
- pay the usual charges of a legal service plan or a not-for-profit qualified lawyer referral service (note that the lawyer referral service must be a non-profit entity);
- pay for a law practice in accordance with Rule 1.17; and
- give nominal gifts of gratitude that are neither intended nor reasonably expected to be a form of compensation for recommending a lawyer's services.
- Rule 7.3’s regulation of written solicitations has been simplified with regard to the “ADVERTISING MATERIAL” labeling requirement.
- Rule 7.4 regulates claims of specialization and expertise and the current rule is substantially unchanged by the amendments.
- Rule 7.5 is substantially unchanged with the exception of a new Comment [3] that states that lawyers should practice using the official name under which they are licensed or seek an appropriate and legal change of name from the Supreme Court of Virginia. The lawyer’s use of a name other than the lawyer's name on record with the Virginia State Bar may be a misleading communication about the lawyer's services to the public in violation of Rule 7.1.
Updated: April 17, 2013
Adopted | Revisions to Clients’ Protection Fund Rules of Procedure (Approved by VSB Council February 23, 2013. Effective immediately.)
At its meeting on February 23, 2013, the Virginia State Bar Council approved the Clients’ Protection Fund Board's proposal that the Rules of Procedure of the Clients’ Protection Fund be amended to clarify how the Board processes claims for reimbursement.
Updated: March 4, 2013
Proposed | amendment to Rule 5.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct regarding professional entities (comments due by April 19, 2013)
view proposed rule (PDF)
Pursuant to Part Six: Section IV, Paragraph 10-2(C) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia, the Virginia State Bar’s Standing Committee on Legal Ethics (“Committee”) is seeking public comment on a proposed amendment to Rule 5.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
RULE 5.4
This proposed rule amendment is intended to bring Rule 5.4, Professional Independence of a Lawyer, into alignment with Va. Code §54.1-3902(B)(1), which permits a nonlawyer to serve as the secretary, treasurer, office manager, or business manager of a professional entity that is authorized to practice law, notwithstanding the rule’s prohibition against a lawyer practicing in a law firm in which a nonlawyer serves as a corporate officer.
Inspection and Comment
The proposed amendments may be inspected at the offices of the Virginia State Bar, 707 East Main Street, Suite 1500, Richmond, Virginia 23219-2800, between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. Copies of the proposed amendments can be obtained from the offices of the Virginia State Bar by contacting the Office of Ethics Counsel at (804) 775-0557, or can be found at the Virginia State Bar’s website at http://www.vsb.org/site/regulation/proposed-rule-changes/.
Any individual, business, or other entity may file or submit written comments in support of or in opposition to the proposed amendments with Karen A. Gould, the Executive Director of the Virginia State Bar, not later than April 19, 2013. Comments may be submitted via email to publiccomment@vsb.org.
Updated: January 23, 2013
Adopted | Correction to Paragraph 13-16 DD (Approved by Supreme Court of Virginia December 14, 2012. Effective immediately.)
Friday 14th December, 2012.
For reasons appearing to the Court, it is ordered that the following version of Section DD of Paragraph 13-16, Part Six, Section IV, of the Rules of Court, be substituted for the version included in this Court’s order dated February 27, 2009; effective immediately.
view Supreme Court of Virginia Order regarding Paragraph 13-16 DD (PDF file)
Updated: December 18, 2012
Vacated | Amendments to Rules 7.1-7.5 of regarding lawyer advertising (By order of the Supreme Court of Virginia November 29, 2012.)
view Supreme Court of Virginia Order (PDF file)
On November 29, 2012, the Supreme Court of Virginia vacated amendments to Rules 7.1-7.5 of the Rules of Professional Conduct that would have gone into effect December 1, 2012.
Updated: November 30, 2012
Adopted | Bylaws revisions to election procedures for president-elect and council (Adopted by Council October 19, 2012, effective immediately.)
At its meeting on October 19, 2012, the Virginia State Bar Council approved the Membership Task Force’s proposal that the VSB bylaws be amended to permit the use of means, other than U.S. mail, for election notification and balloting.
Amendments to Bylaws of the Virginia State Bar and Council
Part I, Article III
Election of President-Elect
and
Part II, Article II
Election of Council
Updated: October 24, 2012
Proposed | Amendment to Bylaws to give Diversity Conference chair a seat on the Executive Committee (pending review by VSB Council)
The Diversity Conference of the Virginia State Bar proposes an amendment to the bylaws to place its chair on the Executive Committee.
Comments or questions should be submitted in writing to the Executive Director, Virginia State Bar, 707 East Main Street, Suite 1500, Richmond, Virginia 23219, no later than January 15, 2013. The Virginia State Bar Council will consider the proposed amendments at its meeting on February 23, 2013.
Updated: February 28, 2013
Proposed | amendments to Paragraph 13-13 regarding Participation and Disqualification of Counsel (pending review by VSB Council)
On September 5, 2012, the Committee on Lawyer Discipline (COLD) approved the proposed amendments to Part 6, Section IV, Paragraph 13-13 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia. These amendments ease the restrictions involving imputation of conflicts of interest for attorneys representing Respondents in bar disciplinary actions. These revisions will allow more attorneys to participate in the disciplinary system as counsel for Respondents.
Comments or questions should be submitted in writing to the Executive Director, Virginia State Bar, 707 East Main Street, Suite 1500, Richmond, Virginia 23219, no later than January 15, 2013. The Virginia State Bar Council will consider the proposed amendments at its meeting on February 23, 2013.
view proposed rule changes (PDF file)
Updated: February 28, 2013
Adopted | amendment to Paragraph 13 regarding VSB Disciplinary Board (Approved by the Supreme Court of Virginia April 13, 2012. Effective immediately.)
view amended Paragraph 13-6 (PDF file)
Updated: April 16, 2012
Proposed | amendments to Rule 1.11 of the Rules of Professional Conduct regarding special conflicts of interest (pending review by VSB Council)
VSB Standing Committee on Legal Ethics Seeks Public Comment on Proposed Amendments to Rule 1.11 of the Rules of Professional Conduct
view proposed rule (PDF)
Pursuant to Part Six: Section IV, Paragraph 10-2(C) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia, the Virginia State Bar’s Standing Committee on Legal Ethics (“Committee”) is seeking public comment on proposed amendments to Rule 1.11 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
RULE 1.11
The amendment to Rule 1.11(d)(1) parallels the existing provision in paragraph (b)(1) and provides that a conflict created by a move from private to public employment can be cured with the consent of both the private client and the appropriate government agency. Currently, a lawyer may represent a private client in connection with a matter in which the lawyer participated personally and substantially as a public employee with the consent of the private client and the government agency, but the reverse conflict cannot be cured with consent from both affected clients. The Committee proposes to address this disparity by providing for waiver of the conflict in both situations.
Second, the proposed amendment moves the definition of “confidential government information” from paragraph (g) to section (c), which is the only place in the Rule where the term is used. The Committee also made minor grammatical changes to that definition. Finally, the proposal adopts ABA Model Rule Comment [3], to explain why paragraphs (b) and (d) are not limited to circumstances in which the lawyer would be adverse to a former client, but rather apply to any matter in which the lawyer was involved prior to her move to or from government employment.
Inspection and Comment
The proposed amendments may be inspected at the offices of the Virginia State Bar, 707 East Main Street, Suite 1500, Richmond, Virginia 23219-2800, between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. Copies of the proposed amendments can be obtained from the offices of the Virginia State Bar by contacting the Office of Ethics Counsel at 804-775-0557, or can be found at the Virginia State Bar’s website.
(pending review by VSB Council)
Updated: August 9, 2012
Proposed | amendments to Paragraph 13-26 regarding appeals from Disciplinary Board determinations (pending review by VSB Council)
On March 7, 2012, the Committee on Lawyer Discipline (COLD) approved the proposed amendments. New language adds a cross-reference to Rule 5:28 of the Rules of Court which allows the Virginia State Bar to file assignments of cross-error in the event that a respondent appeals a disciplinary action to the Supreme Court of Virginia. Also added is a cross-reference to Rule 5:21(b) of the Rules of Court which sets forth specific procedures for perfecting and prosecuting appeals from the Disciplinary Board and three-judge circuit courts. Because Supreme Court Rule 5:21(b) overrides existing language in Paragraph 13-26, that language has been removed.
view proposed rule changes (PDF)
13. PROCEDURE FOR DISCIPLINING, SUSPENDING, AND DISBARRING ATTORNEYS
13-26 APPEAL FROM BOARD DETERMINATIONS
A. Right of Appeal. As a matter of right any Respondent may appeal to this Court from an order of Admonition, Public Reprimand, Suspension, or Disbarment imposed by the Board using the procedures outlined in Rule 5:21(b) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia. An appeal shall lie once the Memorandum Order described in this Paragraph has been served on the Respondent. No appeal shall lie from a Summary Order. If a Respondent appeals to the Supreme Court, then the Bar may file assignments of cross-error pursuant to Rule 5:28 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia.
B. Notice of Appeal. The Respondent shall file with the Clerk of the Disciplinary System a notice of appeal and assignments of error within 30 days after the Memorandum Order of the Board is served on the Respondent. This action within the time prescribed is jurisdictional.
C. Further Proceedings. Further proceedings shall be as provided in this Court’s procedure for filing an appeal from a trial court and procedure following perfection of appeal. For the purposes of determining dates of filing, the date of filing the record with the clerk of this Court shall be deemed to be the date of the issuance of the certificate of the clerk of this Court under Rule 5:23. The Clerk of the Disciplinary System shall immediately notify the Respondent and his counsel, if any, by certified mail, of the date on which the record is filed.
D. Determination. This Court shall hear the case and make such determination in connection therewith as it shall deem right and proper.
E. Office of the Attorney General. In all appeals to this Court, the Office of the Attorney General, or the Bar Counsel, if so requested by the Attorney General, shall represent the interests of the Commonwealth and its citizens as appellees.
F. Stay Pending Appeal. Upon the entry by the Board of either a Summary or Memorandum Order of Suspension, this Court may, upon petition of the Respondent, stay the effect of such an order of Suspension prior to or during the pendency of the appeal. Any order of Admonition or Public Reprimand shall be automatically stayed prior to or during the pendency
of an appeal therefrom. No stay shall be granted in cases where the Respondent’s License has been revoked by either the Summary or Memorandum Order of the Board.
* * *
pending review by VSB Council
Updated: August 9, 2012
Proposed | amendment to Paragraph 13 regarding the definition of “Bar Counsel” (pending review by VSB Council)
On March 7, 2012, the Committee on Lawyer Discipline (COLD) approved the proposed amendment which corrects the cite to the Code of Virginia, concerning appointment of Bar Counsel.
view proposed rule change (PDF file)
13. PROCEDURE FOR DISCIPLING, SUSPENDING, AND DISBARRING ATTORNEYS
13-1 DEFINITIONS
* * *
“Bar Counsel” means the Attorney who is appointed as such by Council and who is approved by the Attorney General pursuant to Va. Code §2.1-122(c) 2.2-510, and such deputies, assistants, and Investigators as may be necessary to carry out the duties of the office, except where the duties must specifically be performed by the individual appointed pursuant to Va. Code §2.1-122(c) 2.2-510.
* * *
pending review by VSB Council
Updated: August 9, 2012
Proposed | amendment to Rule 1.15 of the Rules of Professional Conduct regarding safekeeping property (pending review by VSB Council)
Virginia State Bar’s Standing Committee on Legal Ethics Is Seeking Public Comment on a Proposed Amendment to Rule 1.15 of the Rules of Professional Conduct
Pursuant to Part Six: Section IV, Paragraph 10-2(C) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia, the Virginia State Bar’s Standing Committee on Legal Ethics (“Committee”) is seeking public comment on a proposed amendment to Rule 1.15 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
view proposed rule (PDF)
RULE 1.15
The Committee proposes an amendment to Rule 1.15 to clarify that all funds held by a lawyer on behalf of others must be held in a trust account, while other property should be held in a safe deposit box or other place of safekeeping. As written, the Rule currently could be read to permit a lawyer to keep client funds in a safe deposit box rather than in a trust account. The amendment also replaces the word “monies” in Comment [1] with the word “funds,” in order to make Comment [1] consistent with the Rule and other comments.
Inspection and Comment
The proposed amendments may be inspected at the offices of the Virginia State Bar, 707 East Main Street, Suite 1500, Richmond, Virginia 23219-2800, between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. Copies of the proposed amendments can be obtained from the offices of the Virginia State Bar by contacting the Office of Ethics Counsel at 804-775-0557, or can be found at the Virginia State Bar’s website at http://www.vsb.org/pro-guidelines/index.php/rule_changes/.
pending review by VSB Council
Updated: August 9, 2012
Proposed | Rule 1A:3 Regarding Reciprocity Admissions
The Rule 1A:3 Study Committee received numerous comments in response to the proposed revisions to Virginia Supreme Court Rule 1A:3 and Part 6, § IV, ¶ 13-6(F) that would change the current procedure for revoking certificates issued to lawyers admitted to practice under the reciprocity rule. Many of those comments addressed admissions issues within the jurisdiction of the Court. The committee referred the comments to the Court and will wait for further direction.
Updated: October 24, 2011
Adopted | Amendments to Rule 1.15 of Rules of Professional Conduct and Paragraph 20 of Part 6, § IV (Approved by Supreme Court of Virginia June 21, 2011. Effective immediately.)
view amended Rule 1.15 and Paragraph 20 order (PDF file)
Updated: June 24, 2011
Adopted | new Rule 1.18 defining a prospective client (Approved by the Supreme Court of Virginia June 21, 2011. Effective immediately.)
view adopted Rule 1.18 (PDF file)
Updated: June 24, 2011
Adopted | Amendments to Virginia Supreme Court Rule 1A:5 regarding corporate counsel (Adopted by Supreme Court of Virginia June 10, 2011. Effective immediately.)
view amended rule 1:A5 (PDF file)
Updated: June 24, 2011
Adopted | amendments to bylaws for VSB standing committees (Adopted by Council June 16, 2011, effective immediately)
Amendments to Bylaws of the Virginia State Bar and Council
Part II, Article VIII
Standing Committees
view amended bylaws (PDF file)
Updated: June 22, 2011
Adopted | Amendments to Virginia Supreme Court Rule 1A:5 regarding corporate counsel pro bono work (Approved by Supreme Court of Virginia April 15, 2011. Effective immediately.)
The Virginia Supreme Court Approved Proposal By The Joint Virginia State Bar And Virginia Bar Association Corporate Counsel Pro Bono Task Force To Amend Virginia Supreme Court Rule 1A:5
view amended rule 1:A5 (PDF file)
The Supreme Court of Virginia approved April 15, 2011, effectively immediately, a proposed amendment to Supreme Court Rule 1A:5, Corporate Counsel & Corporate Counsel Registrants, which allows Virginia corporate counsel admitted in States other than Virginia to do pro bono work. This proposal came at the recommendation of the Joint Virginia State Bar and Virginia Bar Association Corporate Counsel Pro Bono Task Force (Task Force), with the hope of increasing the number of lawyers eligible to provide pro bono public services while ensuring that such lawyers are subject to adequate professional guidelines regarding competence in the handling of such matters.
The approved changes to Supreme Court Rule 1A:5 revise paragraph (h) of the rule to state: “All legal services provided in Virginia by a lawyer certified pursuant to Part I shall be deemed the practice of law in Virginia…” Any lawyer doing any legal work in Virginia, whether he/she is covered under Part I of the rule or whether he/she works for an employer or for a pro bono client, is now subject to all rules governing the practice of law in Virginia. The approved changes also revise paragraph (g) of the rule in three respects: (1) removes the requirement for Part I corporate counsel registrants to participate only in pro bono programs operated and controlled by any Virginia licensed Legal Aid Society; (2) removes the requirement that the Part I corporate counsel work under the “direct supervision” of a legal aid lawyer or a pro bono volunteer who is a regular active member of the Virginia State Bar; and (3) removes limitations on the specific services that can be performed by the corporate counsel volunteer. These changes broaden the scope of appropriate pro bono legal services for specific clients over other legal aid services, thereby creating additional opportunities for pro bono services for Part I corporate counsel. Even though the approved changes eliminate the provisions in the Rule pertaining to supervision, Part I corporate counsel are required by Rule 1.1, like all lawyers who practice law in Virginia, to serve their clients competently and have an ethical duty to make sure they received proper and sufficient training to handle a pro bono matter.
Copies of the rule change can be obtained from the offices of the Virginia State Bar by contacting the Office of Ethics Counsel at (804) 775-0557, or can be found at the Virginia State Bar’s website.
Updated: April 15, 2011
Adopted | Amendments to Paragraph 11, regarding VSB annual dues (Supreme Court of Virginia March 9, 2011. Effective immediately.)
view amended Paragraph 11 (PDF file)
Updated: March 17, 2011
Adopted | Amendments to Paragraph 13 regarding multijurisdictional practice (Approved by the Supreme Court of Virginia February 17, 2011. Effective immediately.)
view amended Paragraph 13 (PDF file)
Updated: February 24, 2011
Adopted | Amendments to Paragraph 17 regarding MCLE Rule (Approved by the Supreme Court of Virginia January 7, 2011. Effective immediately.)
Report of the Task Force on Paragraph 17
view amended Paragraph 17 (PDF file)
Updated: January 10, 2011
Adopted | Rule 4.2 amendment addressing defendant waiving rights (Effective November 1, 2010)
Supreme Court of Virginia approved amendment to Rule 4.2
view adopted amendment to Rule 4.2 (PDF file)
The Supreme Court of Virginia approved the Virginia State Bar’s Rule 4.2 Task Force’s proposed amendment to Comment [5] of Rule 4.2 of the Rules of Professional Conduct to address the situation in which a defendant who is in custody, formally charged, and represented by counsel waives his/her rights under Miranda v. Arizona and wants to give a statement to a law enforcement officer without his/her counsel present.
The question addressed by the task force was: “If the law enforcement officer seeks legal advice from a commonwealth’s attorney regarding whether the officer may obtain a statement from the defendant under these circumstances, may the commonwealth’s attorney advise the police officer without violating Rule 4.2?”
Rule 4.2 had previously prohibited a lawyer from communicating with a person the lawyer knew to be represented by counsel unless the counsel for the represented person consented or the communication was authorized by law.
Rule 8.4 (a) states that a lawyer cannot violate a professional rule through the agency or actions of another. A reading of the rule led to the conclusion that the commonwealth’s attorney could not ethically advise law enforcement officers to proceed with the custodial interview without notice to or consent from the accused’s lawyer.
The task force determined that the defendant’s waiver of his/her right to have his/her lawyer present when the accused desires to talk to a law enforcement officer presents a constitutional legal issue on which the commonwealth’s attorney should be permitted to give advice without fear of violating the cited rules. The amendment to Rule 4.2, Comment [5] clarifies that the commonwealth’s attorney can advise the law enforcement officer regarding the legality of an interrogation or the legality of other investigative conduct. The amendment to Comment [5] does not, however, authorize the commonwealth’s attorney to script or mastermind the police’s interrogation of the defendant.
Updated: November 30, 2010
Adopted | Amendments to Parts 5 and 5A, Rules of Virginia Supreme Court, regarding appellate procedures (Effective July 1, 2010)
On April 30, 2010, the Supreme Court of Virginia entered amendments to Parts 5 and 5A of its rules governing appellate procedure.
Memo by University of Virginia Law Professor Kent Sinclair outlining some of the important changes.
Updated: May 5, 2010
Adopted | Amendment to Paragraph 13-22, Board Proceedings Upon a Guilty Plea or an Adjudication of a Crime (Approved by the Supreme Court of Virginia March 19, 2010. Effective immediately.)
view amended Paragraph 13-10 (PDF)
Updated: March 23, 2010
Adopted | Amendment to Paragraph 13-10, Processing of Complaints by Bar Counsel Approved by the Supreme Court of Virginia March 19, 2010. Effective immediately.
view amended Paragraph 13-10 (PDF)
Updated: March 23, 2010
Adopted | Amendments to Paragraph 13, dealing with the use of the phrase “Charge of Misconduct” (Approved by the Supreme Court of Virginia March 19, 2010. Effective immediately.)
view amended Paragraph 13 (PDF file)
Updated: March 23, 2010
Adopted | Amendments to Paragraph 10 governing legal ethics and unauthorized practice of law (Approved by the Supreme Court of Virginia March 19, 2010. Effective immediately.)
view amended Paragraph 10 (PDF file)
Updated: March 23, 2010
Adopted | Amendments to the MCLE Regulations include a limitation on pre-recorded CLE programs (Effective November 1, 2011)
view MCLE Regulations effective through October 31, 2011 (PDF file)
view amended MCLE Regulations effective November 1, 2011 (PDF file)
MCLE Board Postpones Effective Date of Amended Regulations
Updated: November 10, 2011
Proposed | new rule: provision of legal services following determination of major disaster (Pending with the Supreme Court of Virginia as of July 11, 2008)
Supreme Court of Virginia to review proposed Supreme Court Rule regarding the Provision of Legal Services Following Determination of Major Disaster
view proposed rule (PDF file)
view SC Petition – July 11, 2008 (PDF file)
The Supreme Court of Virginia is expected to consider for approval, disapproval, or modification, a new Supreme Court Rule regarding the Provision of Legal Services Following Determination of Major Disaster that was proposed by the Virginia State Bar’s Task Force on Emergency Legal Services (“ELS Task Force”) and unanimously adopted by the Council of the Virginia State Bar on June 19, 2008.This proposed rule was developed as a result of the American Bar Association’s (“ABA”) actions to help address the problem of the provision of legal services following a disaster or emergency, such as existed following Katrina and Rita. Beyond the physical damage and devastation caused by those hurricanes, there was also a crippling effect on the legal systems in the affected states. In response, the ABA formed a task force that advocated for the suspension of unauthorized practice of law rules in the various states impacted by these hurricanes because, while lawyers from other jurisdictions would have liked to help staff disaster assistance centers or otherwise advise hurricane victims, they were deterred from doing so because of a lack of clarity about whether they would be violating any unauthorized practice of law rules.The ABA task force recognized the need for a model rule that would allow out-of-state lawyers to provide pro bono legal services in an affected jurisdiction and that would allow lawyers in the affected jurisdiction whose legal practices had been disrupted by a major disaster to practice law on a temporary basis in an unaffected jurisdiction. Since both the highest court of a jurisdiction affected by the major disaster and the highest courts of jurisdictions not affected by the disaster could implement the rule on an emergency basis, the ABA determined that this rule should be a Model Court Rule.
The ABA then asked that each state consider the adoption of this or an equivalent rule. In response, the Virginia State Bar formed the ELS Task Force to study the ABA’s Model Court Rule. After deliberations the ELS Task Force agreed that a similar court rule should be adopted in Virginia with minor amendments.
The proposed rule provides that the Virginia Supreme Court shall determine when, as a result of a disaster, an emergency affecting the justice system has occurred in Virginia that would trigger the provisions of this rule. Additionally, if that emergency extends to another jurisdiction the determination of the existence of a major disaster will be made in conjunction with the highest court of that jurisdiction. Under this rule, the Court may allow:
1. Out-of-state lawyers to provide pro bono legal services to the citizens of Virginia within certain constraints described in the model rule, and;
2. Displaced lawyers from an affected state can provide legal services in Virginia on a temporary basis if these services are reasonably related to the lawyer’s practice in the affected jurisdiction.
Inspection and Comment
The proposed rule may be inspected at the office of the Virginia State Bar, 707 East Main Street, Suite 1500, Richmond, Virginia 23219-2800, between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. Copies of the proposed rule can be obtained from the offices of the Virginia State Bar by contacting the Office of Ethics Counsel at 804-775-0557, or can be found at the Virginia State Bar’s Web Page at http://www.vsb.org.
Any individual, business or other entity may file or submit written comments in support of, or in opposition to, the proposed rule by filing nine copies with the Clerk of the Court and three copies with Karen A. Gould, the Executive Director of the Virginia State Bar, not later than August 21, 2008.
Updated: March 16, 2010
Rejected | Rule 7.4(d) certification as a specialist
Supreme Court of Virginia rejects proposed amendment to Rule 7.4(d) that would have allowed lawyers to communicate the fact the lawyer has been certified as a specialist in a field of law by a named organization without the rule’s required disclaimer. (view order PDF file).
Updated: March 15, 2010
Rejected | Paragraph 17 mailing the annual certification form
Supreme Court of Virginia rejects proposed amendment to Paragraph 17 that would have removed the requirement to mail the annual certification form (view order PDF file)
Updated: March 15, 2010
Rejected | Rule 8.4 allowing undisclosed recording under certain circumstances
Supreme Court of Virginia rejects proposed amendment to Rule 8.4 that would have allowed undisclosed recording under certain circumstances. (view order PDF file)
Updated: March 15, 2010