Report of the Executive Director/Chief Operating Officer

Report of the Executive Director/Chief Operating Officer

Karen A. Gould

Membership in the Virginia State Bar grew slowly this year.  Active “in good standing” membership increased to 32,782 as of June 1, 2017, compared to 32,378 last year.







Corporate Counsel Admittees



Corporate Counsel Registrants






Judicial (includes active and retired)





















Bar Activities, Officers, and Council During 2017-2018

Karen A. Gould has served as executive director since January 1, 2008.

Doris Henderson Causey of Richmond served as president of the bar from June 18, 2017, until June 17, 2018.  President Causey, originally from Oxford, Mississippi, made history in Virginia in 2017 by being inducted as the Virginia State Bar’s first African American president and first president from the legal aid community.  She was the managing attorney of the Central Virginia Legal Aid Society.  During her tenure as president, she advanced the mission of the Virginia State Bar by promoting the advancement of minorities in the legal profession, maintaining harmonious relationships with other statewide bar organizations, and by speaking eloquently and forcefully whenever called upon regarding the importance of pro bono service and closing the justice gap.  She welcomed over 1000 new attorneys to the practice of law in Virginia at the Professionalism Courses and traversed the Commonwealth of Virginia from Kilmarnock to Big Stone Gap in support of solo and small firm practitioners.

Leonard C. Heath, Jr. became president of the VSB at the conclusion of the 2018 Annual Meeting. 

Executive Committee members 2017-2018

Ex-Officio Members

President                                                         Doris H. Causey

President-elect                                                Leonard C. Heath, Jr.

Immediate Past President                               Michael W. Robinson

Conference of Local Bars Chair                     B. Alan McGraw             

Diversity Conference  Chair                           Carole H. Capsalis

Senior Lawyers Conference Chair                  Robert E. Hawthorne

Young Lawyers Conference President           Christopher R. Fortier


At-large members

Brian L. Buniva                                       Richmond

Marni E. Byrum                                       Alexandria

Eugene M. Elliott, Jr.                              Roanoke

Nancy C. Dickenson                                Abingdon

Beverly P. Leatherbury                            Eastville

Jay B. Myerson                                        Reston

In summary, Council consists of the three officers, four conference chairs, nine at-large members appointed by the Supreme Court of Virginia, and sixty-five elected members.

The following persons were elected in the Spring of 2018 to three-year terms on the Virginia State Bar Council.  Their terms begin July 1, 2018.

Winners of contested Council elections concluded April 27, 2018:

13th Circuit (4 vacancies)

Dabney J. Carr, IV (2nd term)

Leah A. Darron (2nd term)

Susheela Varky

Henry I. Willett, III


14th Circuit (1 vacancy)

Stephanie E. Grana


17th Circuit (2 vacancies)

Jennifer S. Golden

William H. Miller (2nd term)


19th Circuit (6 vacancies)

Chidi I. James (2nd term)

Daniel B. Krisky

David L. Marks (2nd term)

Nathan J. Olson

Wayne G. Travell

Michael M. York


Uncontested Council election winners were as follows:

Circuit 4          Gary A. Bryant (2nd term)

Circuit 6          J. Daniel Vinson (elected by circuit meeting)

Circuit 8          Marqueta N. Tyson (2nd term)

Circuit 12        P. George Eliades

Circuit 16        R. Lee Livingston (2nd term)

Circuit 18        Barbara S. Anderson (2nd term) and John Zwerling

Circuit 21        G. Andrew Hall (Martinsville)

Circuit 23        Eugene M. Elliott, Jr. (2nd term)

Circuit 28        William M. Moffet (2nd term)

Circuit 30        Gregory D. Edwards


New Council at-large appointments (SCV) effective 7/1/2018:

B. Alan McGraw, Tazewell

Lenard T. Myers, Jr., Norfolk


Significant VSB Rule and Statutory Developments 2017-2018

Clients’ Protection Fund

The Supreme Court of Virginia entered an order on September 28, 2017, reducing the amount Virginia’s active lawyers pay into the Clients’ Protection Fund from $25 to $10, effective July 1, 2018. 

The VSB received permission from Council and the Supreme Court of Virginia to ask the General Assembly to extend the Clients’ Protection Fund assessment contained in Va. Code § 54.1-3913.1 for another three years and was successful in having that measure pass and be signed into law, effective July 1, 2018.  This means that the assessment will no longer terminate on July 1, 2020, but will terminate on July 1, 2023, if no further action is taken.

The Clients’ Protection Fund was established in 1976 to make monetary awards to persons who suffered financial losses due to the dishonest conduct of Virginia lawyers.  The total amount paid during FY2017-2018 was $103,130.58 for 27 claims.  Fifteen petitions were denied, and 11 petitions were rejected for not meeting the CPF rule requirements.  The fund balance as of June 30, 2018, was $9,765,666. The CPF assessment paid by active VSB members raised $813,060 in FY2017-2018.

Voluntary Pro Bono Reporting

Effective December 1, 2018, the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia, Part 6, Section IV, will include a new provision, Paragraph 22, that requests each active VSB member report their pro bono hours and/or financial contribution in support of pro bono legal services on their annual dues statement.  The reporting complements the aspirational goal of Virginia Rule of Professional Conduct 6.1 that each lawyer should render at least two percent of professional time annually to pro bono legal services.  


Emeritus Status Rule Change

Effective March 1, 2018, the Supreme Court of Virginia approved changes to the rules governing emeritus status in the Virginia State Bar. Among other things, the amendments to Paragraph 3(e) of Part 6, Section IV of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia alter the number of years an attorney must have been engaged in active practice before becoming an emeritus member, and they abolish the requirement to practice under the direct supervision of legal aid attorneys.

Specifically, Paragraph 3(e) was changed to enable members who have practiced law for 20 years or more and who are an active, associate, or retired member in good standing of the Virginia State Bar to become emeritus members  (Paragraph 3(e)(1)(B)(ii) of Part 6, Section IV of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia).  The member must not have been the subject of discipline by any bar or court within the past 15 years (Paragraph 3(e)(1)(B)(iii)).  The member must have been engaged in the active practice of law for a minimum of five out of the seven years immediately preceding the application to become an emeritus member (Paragraph 3(e)(1)(B)(iv)).  The changes allow those who qualify as emeritus members under the new rule to provide pro bono services without being under the direct supervision of a supervising attorney after certifying annually his or her affiliation with a qualified legal services provider (Paragraph 3(e)(4)(B)). 


National Report on Lawyer Well-Being

The Report of the National Task Force on Lawyer Well-Being was issued in the Fall of 2017, which has started a profession-wide discussion regarding the problems of lawyer depression, substance abuse and addiction and how to address them.  The Honorable Donald W. Lemons, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, appointed a Well-Being Committee to investigate and discuss these issues.  As a result of the Well-Being Report, the VSB undertook an initiative to address various issues raised by the Report and proposed various rule changes.

Proposed Rule Changes to Deal with Well-Being Issues

Council approved rule changes at its June 14, 2018 meeting, dealing with disciplinary and membership processes that may be helpful to attorney well-being.  The proposed rule changes were presented after the meeting to the Supreme Court of Virginia for approval.

  • Proposed revisions to Rule 1.1, Competence

The amendment would add Comment [7] to Rule 1.1:

[7] A lawyer’s mental, emotional, and physical well-being impacts the lawyer’s ability to represent clients and to make responsible choices in the practice of law.  Maintaining the mental, emotional and physical ability necessary for the representation of a client is an important aspect of maintaining competence to practice law. See also Rule 1.16(a)(2).

Proposed revisions to Paragraph 13-1 and 13-30 regarding a Lawyer Assistance Program.

The amendments would address the following changes (additions denoted by underlining and deletions by stippling):


13-1     Definitions

* * *

“Lawyer Assistance Program” means a mental health and/or substance abuse treatment program for Attorneys that is approved by the Bar.

* * *

13-30   Confidentiality of Disciplinary Records and Proceedings

* * *

M.  Disclosure of Information to Lawyer Assistance Program.  If Bar Counsel believes that an Attorney may benefit from the services of a Lawyer Assistance Program, Bar Counsel may make an informal referral to a Lawyer Assistance Program and may share information deemed confidential under this Paragraph as part of that referral.  Bar Counsel shall not share information that is protected from disclosure by other state or federal privacy laws.  Bar Counsel may, but shall not be required to notify the subject Attorney of the informal referral or transmission of confidential information to the Lawyer Assistance Program. Unless the subject Attorney has signed a release allowing the Lawyer Assistance Program to share information with Bar Counsel, the Lawyer Assistance Program shall not report information about the subject Attorney to Bar Counsel, and Bar Counsel shall not receive such information from the Lawyer Assistance Program.


  • Proposed revisions to Paragraph 13-23 and Paragraph 3 regarding change of membership for impaired attorneys.


* * *

13-23  Board Proceedings Upon Impairment

A.  Suspension for Impairment. The Board shall have the power to issue an order of Suspension to a Respondent who has an Impairment. The term of such Suspension shall be indefinite, and, except as provided below, shall be terminated only upon determination by the Board that Respondent no longer has the Impairment. A Respondent who intends to rely upon evidence of an Impairment in mitigation of Misconduct shall, absent good cause excusing his or her failure to do so, provide notice not less than 14 days prior to the hearing to Bar Counsel and the District Committee or Board of his or her intention to do so. A finding of Impairment or transfer to the Disabled and Retired class of membership under Paragraph 13-23.K may be utilized by Bar Counsel to dismiss any pending Complaints or allegations of Misconduct on the basis of the existence of exceptional circumstances a finding of Impairment or a transfer to the Disabled and Retired class of membership militating against further proceedings, which circumstances of Impairment shall be set forth in the Dismissal. 

* * *

K.        Bar Counsel may terminate and close an Impairment Proceeding if the Respondent transfers to the Disabled and Retired class of membership pursuant to Part 6, Section IV, Paragraph 3 of the Rules of Court and files a declaration with the Clerk of the Disciplinary System and the Virginia State Bar’s Membership Department that the Respondent will not seek transfer from the Disabled and Retired class of membership. The declaration shall be endorsed by the Respondent and the Respondent’s counsel or Guardian Ad Litem. Termination of the Impairment Proceeding shall not be considered a final order in an Impairment Proceeding under Paragraph 13-30.  The Respondent’s transfer to the Disabled and Retired class of membership and filing of the declaration pursuant to this subparagraph may be utilized by Bar Counsel to dismiss any pending Complaints or allegations of Misconduct on the basis of transfer to the Disabled and Retired class of membership, militating against further proceedings, which shall be set forth in the Dismissal.

*   *   *


* * *

(d) Disabled and Retired Members—Any member of the Virginia State Bar upon attaining the age of 70 or on the basis of a permanent disability, may submit to the executive director of the Virginia State Bar a written request to be transferred to the disabled and retired class of membership.  Members who are electing this status based on a permanent disability must submit adequate medical and/or psychological documentation with the request.  Members qualifying for transfer to the disabled and retired class shall not be entitled to practice law.  Further, such members shall not be eligible to vote or hold office in the Virginia State Bar.  Disabled and retired members who have not filed a declaration with the Clerk of the Disciplinary System and the Virginia State Bar’s Membership Department that the member will not seek transfer from the Disabled and Retired class of membership pursuant to Paragraph 13-23 may submit a petition to the executive director in writing for reinstatement to active or associate membership and state in the petition each circumstance that has changed since the member elected disabled or retired status.  Adequate medical and/or psychological documentation must be submitted with the petition showing that the member is fit and capable of practicing law.  If there are any misconduct complaints or proceedings pending when the executive director receives a petition for reinstatement, or if the member appears to suffer from a disability, the executive director shall defer consideration of the petition until the misconduct or disability issues are resolved.  The Executive Committee of the Virginia State Bar shall consider and act on any such petition, taking into account the recommendation of the executive director.  The Executive Committee may deny a petition for reinstatement if the member is publicly disciplined or is determined to have a disability raising a serious question as to the member’s fitness or capacity to practice law.  If the Executive Committee approves the petition, the member shall be returned to active or associate status upon payment of the appropriate dues, satisfaction of any other required membership obligations, and payment of any outstanding financial obligations to the barVirginia State Bar.  Medical and/or psychological information provided pursuant to this subparagraph (d) is confidential and shall not be disclosed by the barVirginia State Bar.

*   *   *

Opinion 19

The MCLE Board has amended Opinion 19.  Revised Opinion 19 makes clear that lawyer well-being topics will be considered for CLE credit, so long as other MCLE requirements are satisfied. The opinion provides examples of topics and programs that may receive regular CLE and ethics/professionalism credit.


MCLE Opinion #19 – Programs Promoting Lawyer Well-Being.

In 2009, the MCLE Board issued the first edition of this Opinion, which was entitled “Substance Abuse, Mental Health Disorders, Stress, and Work/Life Balance Topics.”  In that edition of this Opinion the MCLE Board noted the following:

The MCLE Board is concerned about the effects of substance abuse, mental health disorders, stress and work/life balance on legal practitioners in the Commonwealth of Virginia and on the quality of legal services provided to the public. Because the MCLE Board believes that education on these topics will be beneficial in addressing these issues, it will consider topics pertaining to substance abuse, mental health disorders, stress management and work/life balance for CLE credit under certain circumstances.

In August 2017 the ABA National Task Force on Lawyer Well-Being (the “Task Force”) issued a report entitled “The Path to Lawyer Well-Being:  Practical Recommendations for Positive Change” (the “Lawyer Well-Being Report”).  In the Report, the Task Force correctly found the following:

To be a good lawyer, one has to be a healthy lawyer.  Sadly, our profession is falling short when it comes to well-being. . . [T]he current state of lawyers’ health cannot support a profession dedicated to client service and dependent on the public trust.

While the MCLE Board has in the past granted credit for lawyer well-being programs, the MCLE Board hereby emphasizes that programs promoting lawyer well-being may be approvable for CLE credit, so long as other requirements applicable to all CLE programs are met.  In addition, programs must be clearly and primarily designed, directed to, and intended for attorneys, not a general audience.

By way of example, and not limitation, topics that may be approvable for CLE credit include the following:

  • Substance abuse
  • Mental health disorders
  • Stress, sources of stress, recognizing stress, the effects of stress, minimizing stress, and stress avoidance
  • Work/life balance
  • Navigating the practice of law in a healthy manner
  • Cognitive impairment
  • Process addictions
  • Burnout
  • Depression
  • Suicide awareness and prevention
  • Promotion of civility in the profession[1]
  • Promotion of mentoring
  • Promotion of lawyer autonomy and control over lawyers’ schedules and lives
  • Enhancement of optimism
  • Promotion of resilience
  • Promotion of diversity in the profession

As in the general population, the legal profession is aging and lawyers are practicing longer, which raises unique lawyer well-being issues.  In order to promote the profession and provide quality legal services, the following programs are examples of topics that may be approvable for CLE credit when dealing with aging attorneys:

  • Programming for detecting and addressing cognitive decline in oneself and colleagues
  • Development of succession plans
  • Options available to guide and support transitioning lawyers

Training for the legal profession in identifying, addressing, and supporting fellow professionals with mental health and substance abuse disorders is vital.  Acknowledging this, the following topics are examples that may be approvable for CLE credit:

  • The warning signs of substance abuse or mental health disorders, including suicidal thinking
  • How, why, and where to seek help at the first signs of difficulty
  • The relationship between substance abuse, depression, anxiety, and suicide
  • How to approach a colleague who may be experiencing problems with mental health, depression, or substance abuse
  • How to thrive in practice and manage stress without reliance on alcohol or drugs
  • Self-assessment or assessment of others of mental health or substance abuse risk
  • Lawyer assistance programs

The Task Force has further found the following:

[G]enuine efforts to enhance lawyer well-being must extend beyond disorder detection and treatment.  Efforts aimed at remodeling institutional and organizational features that breed stress are as crucial, as are those designed to cultivate lawyers’ personal resources to boost resilience.  All stakeholders should participate in the development and delivery of educational materials and programming that go beyond detection to include causes and consequences of distress.

Such topics may be appropriate for CLE credit, among others.

Programs on lawyer well-being that focus the presentation and written instruction materials on ethics or professionalism may receive ethics credit.  By way of example, and not limitation, ethics credit may be provided for the following topics:

  • Well-being presentations that focus on ethical considerations addressed in the Rules of Professional Conduct
  • Lawyer well-being programs that address issues that may trigger the reporting requirements of the Rules of Professional Conduct
  • Programs designed to help lawyers reconnect with, strengthen, and apply their values, strengths of character, and sense of purpose toward achieving outstanding professionalism
  • Programs designed to support the development of organizational cultures within firms, law departments, and legal agencies that recognize, support, and encourage outstanding professionalism

Credit will only be provided for programs clearly and primarily designed, directed to, and intended for attorneys, not a general audience.

[1] The ABA National Task Force on Lawyer Well-Being has correctly concluded that [c]hronic incivility is corrosive.  Report at Page 15.


Revision of the Definition of the Practice of Law and UPL Rules

The Study Committee to Study the UPL Rules, appointed by then president Michael Robinson in June 2017, issued its recommendations, which are now posted for comment,  These amendments will go to Council for approval at its October 2018 meeting.


From the website:

Specifically, following a year-long review by a Virginia State Bar Study Committee to Revise the Unauthorized Practice of Law Rules (“the Study Committee”), the Study Committee recommended revisions to the definition of the practice of law and the deletion of Unauthorized Practice of Law Rules 1-9 with replacement by an entirely different format. The Study Committee reviewed the existing definition of the practice of law and the nine existing individual UPL rules. It reviewed other jurisdictions’ UPL definitions and rules and reviewed state and federal law that create exceptions to the UPL Rules for certain activities performed by non-lawyers. The Study Committee determined that a better format was necessary, including a general definition of the practice of law followed by sections describing exceptions to and exclusions from that definition and finally comments and annotations explaining and providing examples of these exceptions and exclusions. Some content from the existing rules was included in the proposed revisions. All of the revisions include conduct or activity that has been and continues to be the subject of UPL complaints and the current rules and UPL Opinions.       

The proposed definition more succinctly and clearly sets out the general prohibition against the unauthorized practice of law, a definition of the practice of law, exceptions (i.e., activity that is the practice of law but which nonlawyers and foreign lawyers may perform), exclusions (i.e., activity that is not considered the practice of law), commentary, and annotations.

At its May 16, 2018 meeting, the Standing Committee on Legal Ethics unanimously approved the Study Committee’s proposal and determined that it addresses regulation of unauthorized practice of law in Virginia more comprehensively, clearly and concisely than the existing definition and rules.    

Criminal Discovery Reform

In January 2018, the VSB’s Criminal Discovery Reform Task Force announced it had unanimously approved proposals addressing rules for reciprocal disclosure of witness lists and expert witness information, as well as exchanging witness statements, and sharing police reports and witness statements with defense counsel. The proposals are pending with the Judicial Council’s Advisory Committee.

Specifically, proposals were forwarded to the Judicial Council’s Advisory Committee on Rules of Court for consideration at its meeting in April 2018, which then posted them for comment. the proposed reform would expand the scope of the limited discovery currently permitted under Rule 3A:11. The most significant proposal would permit the accused or defense counsel to inspect reports prepared by law enforcement officers. The proposed amendments would also require the reciprocal exchange of witness lists by defense counsel and the commonwealth’s attorney and require defense counsel to provide expert witness information as required of commonwealth attorneys under the current rule.


LEO Approvals

LEO 1887, Duties when a lawyer over whom no one has supervisory authority is impaired, was approved by the Court on August 30, 2017, effective immediately.

LEO 1887 concludes that evidence of a lawyer’s possible impairment, standing alone, does not necessarily trigger the duty to report misconduct under Rule 8.3(a).  The impairment needs to be reported if the lawyer has reliable information about a violation of the Rules that raises a substantial question as to the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness to practice law. Rule 8.3(a).  The opinion also encourages lawyers to contact Lawyers Helping Lawyers (LHL) or another lawyer assistance program, or to suggest that the possibly-impaired lawyer contact LHL, for guidance on how to address the underlying impairment regardless of whether a bar complaint is filed. The opinion also acknowledges that many lawyers feel a professional obligation to proactively report or address another lawyer’s impairment, even though that obligation does not arise from the Rules of Professional Conduct.

LEO 1750, Solicitation and Advertising Issues, was approved by the Court on April 20, 2018, effective immediately. 

LEO 1750 is a compendium opinion on advertising issues, in light of the significant updates to Rules 7.1 and 7.3 that took effect on July 1, 2017. Throughout the opinion, references to the Rules of Professional Conduct have been updated with the current “false or misleading” language of Rule 7.1, and references to since-withdrawn or modified LEOs have been removed or updated. Other revisions to the opinion include:

*Updating section C, Firm Names and Offices, with the current standard for firm names, and to incorporate the discussion of office rentals and other potentially-misleading firm addresses from LEO 1872;

*Revising section E, Participation in Lawyer Referral Services, to define the parameters of an appropriate lawyer referral service in light of the fact that many prior opinions on lawyer referral services have been withdrawn;

*Revising section F, Advertising Specific or Cumulative Case Results/Jury Verdicts/Comparative Statements, to reflect the fact that Rule 7.1 no longer requires a specific disclaimer when advertising case results, and to give examples of the context in which case results must be placed in order to avoid misleading the public; and

*Updating section I, Use of “Specialist” or “Specializing In,” to include the current standard for advertising claims that a lawyer is certified as a specialist in a particular area of law.

LEO 1889 was approved by Council on June 14, 2018, and was forwarded to the Court for approval on June __, 2018.  This proposed opinion addresses whether a court-appointed lawyer has duty to appeal or continue representing a parent when that parent’s parental rights have been terminated by a Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court if the attorney has lost contact with the parent, the parent has not directed the attorney to appeal the matter, and the parent fails to appear in court or otherwise participate with the attorney in the course of the representation.  In this proposed opinion, the Committee concluded that although the parent/client may have a right to court-appointed counsel and a right to appeal, the parent must communicate with the lawyer in order to exercise that right.  The lawyer cannot exercise that right without the client’s knowledge and consent.


Amendment of Disciplinary Proceeding Rules

The Supreme Court of Virginia approved the following amendments on 4/16/2018, effective 6/16/2018:

  1. Amended Paragraph 13 to correct CRESPA to RESA.
  2. Amended Paragraph 13-1 definition to clarify that administration and Impairment Suspensions are not part of a lawyer’s Disciplinary Record.

3.   Added Paragraph 13-1.1 to define the burden of proof in all Disciplinary Proceedings as clear and convincing evidence.


SALARIED EMPLOYMENT CHANGES IN FY2018 (July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018)

  • Barbara Lanier (Clerk of the Disciplinary System) retirement 10/1/17
  • DaVida Davis (Clerk of the Disciplinary System) hired to replace Barbara 7/17/17
  • Michelle Jamison (Professional Regulation) separated 7/28/17
  • Natalie Thatcher  (Member Compliance) separated 8/24/17
  • Mike Wickham (Information Technology) separated 9/22/17

(Charles Troy promoted to replace Mike 12/25/17)

(Spencer Hall promoted to replace Charles 12/25/17)

  • Charles Hundley (Professional Regulation) separated 10/24/17
  • Cassidy Revelo (Professional Regulation) hired 10/25/17
  • Celeste Morris (Member Compliance) hired 10/25/17
  • Jackie Kruszewski (Communications) hired 11/10/17
  • Mark Arnold (Information Technology) separated 11/24/17
  • Andrew Barber (Bar Services) hired 11/25/17
  • Crista Gantz (Access to Legal Services) hired to replace Karl Doss 11/25/17
  • Joy Harvey (Clerks Office/Client Protection Fund) retirement 12/1/17

(Vivian Byrd promoted to Client Protection Fund Administrator 8/25/17)

  • Bet Keller  (Bar Services) retirement 12/1/17

(Maureen Stengel promoted to replace Bet 9/25/17)

  • Karl Doss (Access to Legal Services) separated 12/24/17
  • Katie Byrd (Member Compliance) separated12/29/17
  • Terry Patrick (Bar Services) retirement 1/1/18

(Dolly Shaffner promoted to replace Terry 9/25/17)

(Lauren Parrish promoted to replace Dolly 12/10/17)

  • Regina Potis (Member Compliance) hired 1/10/18
  • Alexa Carroll (Member Compliance) hired 1/10/18
  • Kelly Armentrout (Professional Regulation) hired 1/10/18
  • Tiffany Harris promoted to Senior Organizational Support Specialist 01/25/18
  • Gordon Hickey (Communications) retirement 2/1/18

(Caryn Persinger promoted to replace Gordon as Director 12/25/17)

(Dee Norman promoted to replace Gordon as Editor 11/10/17)

  • Kaitlyn McClure (Professional Regulation) separated 2/24/18
  • Sakhiah Smith (HR/Facilities) hired 2/25/18
  • Sakhiah Smith (HR/Facilities) separated 5/4/18
  • Suzette Walker (Professional Regulation) hired 05/25/18
  • Celeste Morris (Member Compliance) separated 5/31/18
  • Alanna McCann (HR/Facilities) hired 6/10/18
  • Demetrios Melis (Member Compliance) hired 6/18/18 to replace Gale Cartwright (retirement 8/1/18)

Positions Filled as of June 30, 2018:  90

FTE FOR FY18:         94

FTE FOR FY19:         92

Relationship between the Virginia Law Foundation and the Virginia State Bar

On June 26, 2018, the Virginia State Bar was notified by Ray White, Executive Director of the Virginia Law Foundation, that its long standing relationship with the Virginia Law Foundation was at an end.  The bylaw requiring the Virginia State Bar and the Virginia Bar Association nominating members to the Virginia Law Foundation is to be eliminated because of a conflict of an interest created by both organizations receiving grants. 

Updated: Jul 23, 2018