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 (which includes corporate counsel admittees), compared to 32,378 last year.







Corporate Counsel Admittees



Corporate Counsel Registrants






Judicial (includes active and retired)





















Bar Activities, Officers, and Council During 2016-2017

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

Michael W. Robinson of Tysons Corner served as president of the bar from June 18, 2016, until June 17, 2017.  President Robinson’s leadership as president of the Virginia State Bar was exemplified by his unwavering commitment to improving the profession and to protecting and informing the public, by supporting the staff of the Virginia State Bar in a myriad of ways, including its budget discussions, his insightful analysis of difficult constitutional issues and assisting during the legislative effort to amend Va. Code § 54.1-3935.  He provided wise leadership and direction at Executive Committee and Bar Council meetings, for example, the Council debate on mandatory pro bono reporting was a debate conducted under his leadership that was orderly, thoughtful, did not extend beyond reasonable time parameters, and yet there was never an issue of whether Council members had the opportunity to hear the ideas and concerns of a broad group of engaged members.

Doris Henderson Causey became president of the VSB at the conclusion of the 2017 Annual Meeting. 

Ms. Causey served ex-officio on the VSB Executive Committee during 2016-2017 as president-elect.  Ed Weiner served ex-officio as immediate past president.  Marni E. Byrum, Nancy C. Dickenson, and Leonard C. Heath, Jr. continued to serve on the Executive Committee during the 2016-2017 bar year. William E. Glover, Eugene M. Elliott, Jr. and Todd A. Pilot were elected by the council as new members of the 2016-17 executive committee, replacing Michael HuYoung, Brian L. Buniva and Daniel L. Rosenthal.  Barbara S. Anderson, Latoya Asia Capers, and Bruce E. Robinson, the new chairs of the Conference of Local Bar Associations, the Diversity Conference, and the Senior Lawyers Conference, respectively, and Dean E. Lhospital, the incoming president of the Young Lawyers Conference, completed the 2016-17 roster of the executive committee.

Newly Appointed Council Members-at-Large effective July 1, 2016

Eva N. Juncker, Falls Church

2016-2017 Conference Chairs

CLBA Chair – Barbara S. Anderson, Alexandria                                           

Diversity Conference Chair – Latoya Asia Capers,

Senior Lawyers Conference  Chair – Bruce E. Robinson,

Young Lawyers Conference President – Dean E. Lhospital, Charlottesville     

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.

Highlights from the FY2016-2017 Council Meetings

1.October 7, 2016 Meeting

This meeting took place during a torrential downpour in Roanoke, Virginia, while a hurricane bore down on Virginia Beach.  Attendance was reduced as a result of the weather conditions.  (a) Only 54 of the 81 eligible Council members were present and voted during the first action item, which dealt with whether to adopt mandatory reporting of pro bono hours.  After a vigorous two-hour debate, the proposal was rejected 29-25.  (b) Council unanimously approved the proposed amendments to Paragraph 13-24 of Part 6, Section IV of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia dealing with reciprocal discipline, which went on to be approved by the Supreme Court of Virginia, effective March 1, 2017,  (c) Council also unanimously approved proposed amendments to Va. Code Va. Code § 54.1-3935 and authorized the Virginia State Bar to seek the legislative changes, subject to the approval of the Supreme Court of Virginia.  The Court subsequently approved the changes.  The legislative changes proposed made their way in HB1479.   The revisions to § 54.1-3935, patroned as identical bills in both houses of the General Assembly, HB 1479 by Delegate James A. Leftwich and SB 874 by Senator Thomas K. Norment, unanimously passed both houses and were approved by Governor McAuliffe on February 17, 2017.  The changes become effective July 1, 2017.  (d) In addition to these action items, Council approved changes to Paragraph 13.1, permitting the executive director to take action on professional course extension requests in between meetings of the executive committee.  The changes to Paragraph 13.1 were approved by the Supreme Court and became effective March 1, 2017,  (e) LEO 1866 was approved by Council and was subsequently approved by the Supreme Court of Virginia on December 15, 2016, effective immediately,  LEO 1886 covers the ethical duty of partners and supervisory lawyers in a law firm when another lawyer in the firm suffers from significant impairment.

2.February 25, 2017 Meeting

(a) Council unanimously approved revisions to the Clients’ Protection Fund Rules, which combined two sets of rules previously governing operation of the Fund.  The amendments outline the purpose, funding, authority, and administration of the CPF.  The amendments also improve the structure and organization of the rules of procedure that outline the administration of the CPF, including the procedure for processing claims. The purpose of the amendments is to clarify the authority for the CPF as well as to facilitate understanding of the CPF for both VSB members and the public,  (b) Council also voted 65-1 to send proposed amendments to Rules of Professional Conduct 7.1 to 7.5 (the advertising rules) to the Supreme Court of Virginia for approval.  The amendments simplify and modernize the lawyer advertising rules in light of changes caused by the rise of Internet marketing and communications. The Supreme Court approved the advertising rule changes as submitted, effective July 1, 2017,

3.  June 15, 2017 Meeting

(a) Council approved a $ 14.9 million budget for FY2017-18.  This is a decrease of $10,000 from the 2016-17 operating budget.  The budget includes a 3 percent raise for VSB employees as authorized by the General Assembly.  The Standing Committee on Budget & Finance recommended in this budget that executive committee meetings not associated with council meetings be held in Richmond so that they could be cancelled without any cancellation fees being assessed.  The budget was sent to the Supreme Court of Virginia for consideration at its August business meeting.  The Court had provisionally approved the budget until it could be reviewed at that meeting.  (b) Council approved amendments to the VSB Social Media Policy; and (c) Council approved proposed LEO 1887, which deals with the situation presented by a sole partner in a firm or solo lawyer who is impaired and what duty is owed by an attorney who has knowledge of this impairment.  A petition asking for approval of LEO 1887 has been sent to the Supreme Court of Virginia.

2017 Annual Meeting

The VSB 2017 Annual Meeting was hosted for the third time at three hotels:  the Holiday Inn & Suites North Beach; the Sheraton Virginia Beach Oceanfront Hotel; and the Hilton Virginia Beach Oceanfront.  Room blocks were arranged at those three hotels, in addition to five additional hotels in an eight-block radius. An online app was available to download and was helpful in orienting members to their meetings' locations.  The 2017 meeting went very well, with few complaints.

Judicial Candidate Evaluation Committee Evaluations

The JCEC did not interview or evaluate candidates in FY2016-2017. 

FY2016 Audit Report

The audit report for FY2016, was being conducted but had not been not finalized as of June 30, 2017. 

Clients’ Protection Fund

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 FY2016-2017 was $343,428.86 for 50 claims.  Fourteen petitions were denied, and thirteen petitions were rejected for not meeting the CPF rule requirements.  The fund balance as of June 30, 2017, was $8,911,684. The CPF assessment paid by active VSB members raised $805,600 in FY2016-2017. 

Enterprise Client Management Project

During FY2016-2017, the ECRM project continued with the implementation of ECRM in several departments including MCLE, VLRS, and Access to Legal Services. Software upgrades along with a new development and testing environment were completed and put into production. At this point the ECRM implementation project is nearing completion with almost all major departments running under our new document management system. The remaining departmental implementations include Bar Services and Fiscal, which have been delayed until the coming FY2017-2018 fiscal year due to scheduling conflicts and personnel changes. Moving forward, any new ECRM implementations and updating will be completed by VSB staff with the IQ Consulting firm being used only on a time and materials contingency basis.   


ALPS has been the VSB's endorsed lawyers' professional liability carrier since October 2000.  ALPS became an admitted carrier in Virginia on February 1, 2015.  ALPS is now subject to SCC regulation and in the event of insolvency, ALPS insureds would have access to the Virginia Guarantee Fund. The VSB Special Committee on Lawyer Malpractice Insurance continued its work during FY2016-2017 in implementation of the 3% risk management fund created from gross written premium as part of the ALPS endorsement agreement permitted by statute.  This fund is maintained and utilized by ALPS as agreed by the committee and the ALPS management team in CLE programs held throughout Virginia.  For additional details about the Special Committee on Lawyer Insurance (formerly known as the Lawyer Malpractice Insurance Committee), see that annual report for that committee.

Regulatory Changes

Changes to the Rules of Professional Conduct

Rules of Professional Conduct 7.1-7.5 as amended by the Supreme Court of Virginia, effective July 1, 2017:


RULE 7.1.  Communications Concerning A Lawyer's Services.

A lawyer shall not make a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer’s services. A communication is false or misleading if it contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or omits a fact necessary to make the statement considered as a whole not materially misleading.


[1] Truthful statements that are misleading are also prohibited by this Rule. A truthful statement is misleading if it omits a fact necessary to make the lawyer’s communication considered as a whole not materially misleading. A truthful statement is also misleading if there is a substantial likelihood that it will lead a reasonable person to formulate a specific conclusion about the lawyer or the lawyer’s services for which there is no reasonable factual foundation.

[2] A communication that truthfully reports a lawyer’s achievements on behalf of clients or former clients may be misleading if presented so as to lead a reasonable person to form an unjustified expectation that the same results could be obtained for other clients in similar matters without reference to the specific factual and legal circumstances of each client’s case. Similarly, an unsubstantiated comparison of the lawyer’s services or fees with the services or fees of other lawyers may be misleading if presented with such specificity as would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the comparison can be substantiated. The inclusion of an appropriate disclaimer or qualifying language may preclude a finding that a statement is likely to create unjustified expectations or otherwise mislead the public.

[3] In communications about a lawyer’s services, as in all other contexts, it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation which reflects adversely on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law. Rule 8.4(c). See also Rule 8.4(d) for the prohibition against stating or implying an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official or to achieve results by means that violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law.

Areas of Expertise/Specialization

[4] A lawyer may communicate the fact that the lawyer does or does not practice in particular fields of law. A lawyer who is a specialist in a particular field of law by experience, specialized training, or education, or is certified by a named professional entity, may communicate such specialty or certification so long as the statement is not false or misleading.

Firm Names

            [5] A firm may be designated by the names of all or some of its members, by the names of deceased members where there has been a continuing succession in the firm’s identity or by a trade name such as the “ABC Legal Clinic.” A lawyer or law firm may also be designated by a distinctive website address or comparable professional designation. Although the United States Supreme Court has held that legislation may prohibit the use of trade names in professional practice, use of such names in law practice is acceptable so long as it is not misleading. If a private firm uses a trade name such as “clinic” that also includes a geographical name such as “Springfield Legal Clinic,” an express disclaimer that it is not a public legal aid agency may be required to avoid a misleading implication. It may be observed that any firm name including the name of a deceased partner is, strictly speaking, a trade name. The use of such names to designate law firms has proven a useful means of identification. However, it is misleading to use the name of a lawyer not associated with the firm or a predecessor of the firm, or the name of a nonlawyer.

            [6] Lawyers may state or imply that they practice in a partnership or other organization only when that is the fact. Lawyers sharing office facilities, but who are not in fact associated
with each other in a law firm, may not denominate themselves as, for example, “Smith and Jones,” for that title suggests that they are practicing law together in a firm.

RULE 7.2.  Advertising [DELETED].

RULE 7.3.  Solicitation of Clients.

(a) A solicitation is a communication initiated by or on behalf of a lawyer that is directed to a specific person known to be in need of legal services in a particular matter and that offers to provide, or can reasonably be understood as offering to provide, legal services for that matter.

(b) A lawyer shall not solicit employment from a potential client if:

(1) the potential client has made known to the lawyer a desire not to be solicited by the lawyer; or

(2) the solicitation involves harassment, undue influence, coercion, duress, compulsion, intimidation, threats or unwarranted promises of benefits.

(c) Every written, recorded or electronic solicitation from a lawyer shall conspicuously include the words “ADVERTISING MATERIAL” on the outside envelope, if any, and at the beginning and ending of any recorded or electronic solicitation, unless the recipient of the solicitation:

(1) is a lawyer; or

(2) has a familial, personal, or prior professional relationship with the lawyer; or

(3) is one who has had prior contact with the lawyer; or

(4) is contacted pursuant to court-ordered notification.

(d) A lawyer shall not compensate, give, or promise anything of value to a person who is not an employee or lawyer in the same law firm for recommending the lawyer’s services except that a lawyer may:

(1) pay the reasonable costs of advertisements or communications permitted by this Rule and Rule 7.1, including online group advertising;

(2) pay the usual charges of a legal service plan or a not-for-profit qualified lawyer referral service;

(3) pay for a law practice in accordance with Rule 1.17; and

(4) give nominal gifts of gratitude that are neither intended nor reasonably expected to be a form of compensation for recommending a lawyer’s services.


Direct Contact between Lawyers and Laypersons

[1] A lawyer’s communication typically does not constitute a solicitation if it is directed to the general public, such as through a billboard, an Internet banner advertisement, a website or a television commercial, or if it is in response to a request for information or is automatically generated in response to Internet searches.

[2] There is far less likelihood that a lawyer would engage in abusive practices against an individual who is a former client, or with whom the lawyer has a close personal or family relationship; nor is there a serious potential for abuse when the person contacted is a lawyer or when the person has already initiated contact with the lawyer. Consequently, the requirements of Rule 7.3(c) are not applicable in those situations.

[2a] The requirement in Rule 7.3(c) that certain communications include “ADVERTISING MATERIAL” does not apply to communications sent in response to requests of potential clients or their spokespersons or sponsors; however, prior contact from the lawyer in the form of advertising material does not circumvent the need to include the words “ADVERTISING MATERIAL” in future contacts. General announcements by lawyers, including changes in personnel or office location, do not constitute communications soliciting professional employment from a potential client known to be in need of legal services within the meaning of this Rule.

[3] Even permitted forms of solicitation can be abused; thus, any solicitation that contains information that is false or misleading within the meaning of Rule 7.1, which involves coercion, duress or harassment within the meaning of Rule 7.3(b), or which involves contact with a potential client who has made known to the lawyer a desire not to be solicited by the lawyer within the meaning of Rule 7.3(b), is prohibited. Moreover, if after sending a letter or other communication to a potential client the lawyer receives no response, continued repeated efforts to communicate with the potential client may constitute harassment and therefore violate the provisions of Rule 7.3(b).  Regardless of the form of the communication, its propriety will be judged by the totality of the circumstances under which it is made, including the potential client’s sophistication and physical, emotional, and mental state, the nature and characterization of the legal matter, the parties’ previous relationship, the lawyer’s conduct, and the words spoken.

Paying Others to Recommend a Lawyer

[4] Lawyers are not permitted to pay others for recommending the lawyer’s services or for channeling professional work in a manner that violates Rule 7.1 and this Rule. A communication contains a recommendation if it endorses or vouches for a lawyer’s credentials, abilities, competence, character, or other professional qualities.  However, Paragraph (d)(1) allows a lawyer to pay for advertising and communications permitted by this Rule, including the costs of print directory listings, on-line directory listings, newspaper ads, television and radio airtime, domain-name registrations, sponsorship fees, banner ads, and group advertising. A lawyer may compensate employees, agents, and vendors who are engaged to provide marketing or client-development services, such as publicists, public-relations personnel, business-development staff, and website designers, as long as the employees, agents, and vendors do not direct or control the lawyer’s professional judgment in violation of Rule 5.4(c).  See Rule 5.3 for the duties of lawyers and law firms with respect to the conduct of nonlawyers who prepare marketing materials for them. Moreover, a lawyer may pay others for generating client leads, such as internet-based client leads, as long as the lead generator does not recommend the lawyer, any payment to the lead generator is consistent with Rule 5.4, and the lead generator’s communications are consistent with Rule 7.1. To comply with Rule 7.1, a lawyer must not pay a lead generator that states, implies, or creates a reasonable impression that it is recommending the lawyer, is making the referral without payment from the lawyer, or has analyzed a person’s legal problems when determining which lawyer should receive the referral.

[5] Selection of a lawyer by a layperson should be made on an informed basis. Advice and recommendation of third parties—relatives, friends, acquaintances, business associates, or other lawyers—and publicity and personal communications from lawyers may help to make this possible.  A lawyer should not compensate another person for recommending him or her, for influencing a potential client to employ him or her, or to encourage future recommendations. 

[6] A lawyer may pay the usual charges of a legal service plan or a not-for-profit lawyer referral service. A legal service plan is a prepaid or group legal service plan or a similar delivery system that assists potential clients to secure legal representation. Not-for-profit lawyer referral services are consumer-oriented organizations that provide unbiased referrals to lawyers with appropriate experience in the subject matter of the representation and afford other client protections, such as complaint procedures or malpractice insurance requirements. Consequently, this Rule permits a lawyer to pay only the usual charges of a not-for-profit lawyer referral service.

RULE 7.4.  Communication Of Fields Of Practice And Certification [DELETED].

RULE 7.5.  Lawyer and Firm Names And Letterheads [DELETED].

Paragraph 13-24 as amended by the Supreme Court of Virginia, effective March 1, 2017:


A.        Definitions Specific to Paragraph 13-24.  The following terms shall have the meaning set forth below unless the content clearly requires otherwise:

1.         “State Jurisdiction” means any state, United States Territory, or District of Columbia law licensing or attorney disciplinary authority, including the highest court of any such Jurisdiction, authorized to impose attorney discipline effective throughout the Jurisdiction.

2.         “Jurisdiction” shall refer to either a “State Jurisdiction” or any federal court or agency authorized to discipline attorneys, including the United States military.

B.        Initiation of Proceedings.  Upon receipt of a notice from the Clerk of the Disciplinary System that another Jurisdiction has, as a disciplinary measure, suspended or revoked the law license of an Attorney (“Respondent”) or has suspended or revoked Respondent’s privilege to practice law in that Jurisdiction, and that such action has become final (the “Suspension or Revocation Notice”), any Board member shall enter on behalf of the Board an order requiring Respondent to show cause why discipline that is the same or equivalent to the discipline imposed in the other Jurisdiction should not be imposed by the Board.  If the Suspension or Revocation Notice is from a State Jurisdiction and the suspension or revocation has not been suspended or stayed, then the Board’s order shall suspend Respondent’s License pending final disposition of the Proceeding hereunder. The Board shall serve upon Respondent by certified mail the following:  a copy of the Suspension or Revocation Notice; a copy of the Board’s order; and a notice fixing the date, time and place of the hearing before the Board to determine what action should be taken in response to the Suspension or Revocation Notice and stating that the purpose of the hearing is to provide Respondent an opportunity to show cause why the same or equivalent discipline that was imposed in the other Jurisdiction should not be imposed by the Board.  Notwithstanding the above, notice of a suspension or revocation for merely administrative reasons, such as the failure to pay dues or the failure to complete required continuing legal education, shall not be considered a Suspension or Revocation Notice.

C.        Opportunity for Response.  Within 14 days of the date of mailing of the Board order, via certified mail, to Respondent’s last address of record with the Bar, Respondent shall file with the Clerk of the Disciplinary System a written response, which shall be confined to argument and exhibits supporting one or more of the following grounds for dismissal or imposition of lesser discipline:

1.         The record of the proceeding in the other Jurisdiction would clearly show that such proceeding was so lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard as to constitute a denial of due process;

2.         The imposition by the Board of the same or equivalent discipline upon the same proof would result in an injustice;

3.         The same conduct would not be grounds for disciplinary action or for the same or equivalent discipline in Virginia; or

4.         The misconduct found in the other Jurisdiction would warrant the imposition of substantially lesser discipline in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

D.        Scheduling and Continuance of Hearing.  Unless continued by the Board for good cause, the hearing shall be set not less than 21 nor more than 30 days after the date of the Board’s order.

E.         Provision of Copies.  The Clerk of the Disciplinary System shall furnish to the Board members designated for the hearing and make available to Respondent copies of the Suspension or Revocation Notice, the Board’s order against the Respondent, the notice of hearing, any notice of continuance of the hearing, and any written response or materials filed by Respondent or by Bar Counsel.

F.         Hearing Procedures.  Insofar as applicable, the procedures for Proceedings on allegations of Misconduct shall govern.  Bar Counsel has discretion to put forth evidence and argument that one or more of the grounds specified in Paragraph 13-24.C exists.  If Respondent does not file a timely written response, but appears at the hearing and expresses intent to present evidence or argument supporting the existence of one or more of the grounds specified in Paragraph 13-24.C, Respondent shall make a proffer to the Board.  The Board may refuse to consider such evidence or argument as untimely.  If the Board in its discretion is willing to consider such evidence or argument, then Bar Counsel, upon motion, may be entitled to a continuance.

G.        Burden of Proof.  The burden of proof to establish the existence of one or more of the grounds specified in Paragraph 13-24.C is clear and convincing evidence.  Unless one or more of the grounds specified in Paragraph 13-24.C has been established by clear and convincing evidence, the Board shall conclude that Respondent was afforded due process by the other Jurisdiction and the findings of the other Jurisdiction shall be conclusive of all matters for purposes of the Proceeding before the Board.

H.        Action by the Board.  If the Board determines that none of the grounds specified in Paragraph 13-24.C exist by clear and convincing evidence, it shall impose the same or equivalent discipline as imposed in the other Jurisdiction.  If the Board finds by clear and convincing evidence the existence of one or more of the grounds specified in Paragraph 13-24.C, the Board shall enter an order it deems appropriate.  A copy of any order imposing discipline shall be served upon Respondent via certified mail, return receipt requested. Any such order shall be final and binding, subject only to appeal as set forth in the Rules of Court.

The amendments effective March 1, 2017, revised Paragraph 13 to clarify what qualifies as another jurisdiction for reciprocal discipline purposes; clarify the disciplinary board’s authority to impose the same, equivalent, or lesser discipline as another jurisdiction; allow for leniency as appropriate; and provide the disciplinary board with discretion in enforcing the default provision.

Paragraph 13.1 as amended by the Supreme Court of Virginia, effective March 1, 2017:

13.1 Suspension for Failure to Complete Professionalism Course—

Each person admitted to the Virginia State Bar on or after July 1, 1988, as an active member shall complete the course of study prescribed by the Executive Committee of the Virginia State Bar and approved by the Supreme Court of Virginia on the Rules of Professional Conduct and the lawyer’s broader professional obligations, and any active member who fails to complete the course shall be suspended unless an extension is obtained for good cause shown. Such course of study shall be funded by attendance fees paid by those attending the course.

Any active member licensed after June 30, 1988, and any other member who changes his or her membership to active status shall complete the required course within twelve months of becoming an active member. Failure to comply with this Rule shall subject the active member to the penalties set forth in Paragraph 19 herein.

“Good cause shown” as used herein shall include illness, hospitalization or such other cause as may be determined by the Executive Committee, whose determination shall be final. The Executive Director of the Virginia State Bar is authorized to grant extensions for compliance with this paragraph until the next Executive Committee meeting. Any determination by the Executive Committee or the Executive Director may be reviewed by the Supreme Court on request of the member seeking an extension.

The amendments effective March 1, 2017, authorize the VSB executive director to grant, for good cause, an extension request from a member who fails to complete the Professionalism Course by the deadline.


New or reelected members effective July 1, 2017





Contested online election

Andrew D. Kubovcik



Ryan G. Ferguson

Steven G. Owen (reelected)



Neil S. Lowenstein (reelected)


Contested online election

Benjamin M. Mason



W. Hunter Old (reelected)


Election by meeting

Charles H. Crowder, III (reelected)



Dale W. Pittman (reelected)


Contested online election

Brian L. Buniva (reelected)

J. Tracy Walker, IV


Contested online election

Craig B. Davis

Marissa D. Mitchell



Jennifer L. Parrish (reelected)


Contested online election

William H. Miller


Contested online election

Stacey Rose Harris


Contested online election

Brian C. Drummond

Richard A. Gray

Gary H. Moliken (reelected)

Jay B. Myerson (reelected)

Dennis J. Quinn (reelected)

Edward L. Weiner



Susan F. Pierce



William T. Wilson


Addendum to report (added 7/19/2017):

Salaried employment changes in FY 2017


July 1, 2016 - June 30, 2017


Tiffany Harris (HR/Facilities) hired 07/10/16


Tamra Booker (Member Compliance) separated 07/29/16


Mary Yancey Spencer (Deputy Executive Director) retired 8/1/16


(Renu Brennan promoted in FY16)


Jessica Blanton (HR/Facilities) separated 08/9/16


Nejla Cohen (Member Compliance) hired 08/25/16


Laura Booberg (Professional Regulation) hired 08/25/16


Laura Parrish (Member Compliance) hired 09/10/16


Bo Bosak (Professional Regulation) hired 09/10/16


Susan Busch (Finance) retired 10/1/16


(Crystal Hendrick promoted FY16 to replace Susan; Danielle Roache hired FY16 to replace Crystal)


Gene Rhodenizer (Professional Regulation) retired 10/1/16


Charles Jackson (Member Compliance) hired 10/25/16


Erica Gray (Professional Regulation) separated 02/13/2017


Mike Keen (Professional Regulation) separated 02/14/2017


Jean Oakley (Finance) retired 04/01/17


(Catherine Huband transferred 2/27/17)


Rob Baker (Professional Regulation) hired 04/03/17


Madonna Dersch (Publications) separated 04/11/17


Charles Jackson (Member Compliance) separated 04/20/17


Steven Long (Professional Regulation) hired 05/10/17


Alfred Carr  (Professional Regulation) separated 05/20/17


Katie Byrd (Member Compliance) hired 06/25/2017






















Updated: Jul 20, 2017