|
Archives:
February/March
2005 (PDF)
December 2004/January 2005 (PDF)
November 2004 (PDF)
October 2004 (PDF)
September 2004 (PDF)
August 2004 (PDF)
June/July 2004 (PDF)
April/May 2004 (PDF)
February/March 2004 (PDF)
December 2003/January 2004 (PDF)
October/November 2003 (PDF)
September 2003 (PDF)
July 2003 (PDF)
June 2003 (PDF)
April 2003 (PDF)
March 2003 (PDF)
January 2003 (PDF)
December 2002
October 2002
September
2002
July 2002
June 2002
April 2002
March 2002
January 2002
December 2001
October 2001
September 2001
July 2001
June 2001
April 2001
March 2001
January 2001
December 2000
October 2000
September 2000
July 2000
June 2000
April 2000
March 2000
January 2000
Articles
in the following issues are available from the VBA office:
December 1999
October 1999
September 1999
July 1999
June 1999
April 1999
March 1999
January 1999
December 1998
October 1998
September 1998
NOTE: Certain links
in past issues' text may no longer be active.
Articles
from the VBA Journal, 1975-98
Copies of VBA Journal articles are available from the VBA office,
(804) 644-0041 or thevba@vba.org.
Advertising rates and specifications
|
April/May
2005
Volume XXXI, Number 2
President’s Page: A Case for the Voluntary Bar
James V. Meath
The Role of Nonprofits in the Rehabilitation of
Prisoners
Remarks of The Honorable Mark L. Earley to the Virginia Law Foundation
Fellows
Legal Focus/Domestic Relations:
Update to Summary of Post-1998 Rehabilitative Alimony Cases and Trends
(Sept. 2003-March 1, 2005)
Cheryl Watson Smith
The 2005 Virginia Bar Association Legislative
Review
VBA Young Lawyers Division: Law School Councils serve
and socialize
R. Braxton Hill IV
Community Service/Young Lawyers Division: Whitcomb
Dreams
Brooks M. Smith
Across the Commonwealth
Democratic and Republican gubernatorial candidates to debate at the VBA
Summer Meeting • Author Adriana Trigiani, ABA President Robert
Grey are among scheduled Summer Meeting speakers • VPLC seeks photos
taken “Through Different Eyes”
News in Brief
Calendar
President’s Page:
A Case for the Voluntary Bar
James V. Meath
At the outset, let me say that I have been rewarded beyond
belief in two areas. First, many of you have been so kind to let me know
that you share my thoughts concerning the singular pride that we have
in being Virginia lawyers. Second, because of the nature of my practice,
I have not had the occasion to stay in touch with as many of my friends,
classmates and colleagues who practice within the Commonwealth as I would
like. It has been particularly rewarding to reconnect with these individuals.
Although it is hard to believe, we have been out of law school for 26
years. In every instance, I am proud of the contribution that these lawyers
and judges are making to the legal system and serving the citizens of
the Commonwealth of Virginia.
It has been rewarding as well to speak to local voluntary
bar groups and recognize what good things that these groups are doing,
considering the stress that exists for time, talent and funds for voluntary
bar work. One example that I point to is the domestic violence project
that has been so highly successful in Chesterfield County. As I studied
their project and realized how successful it has been, it saddened me
that this project has not been templated and made uniform throughout the
Commonwealth. That brings me to the central question that I am often asked.
The question is understandable and logical. It is “Why should I belong
to the VBA or any other voluntary bar organization (Richmond Bar Association,
Norfolk/Portsmouth Bar Association, Old Dominion Bar Association, Roanoke
Bar Association...), when I am required to belong to the mandatory bar?”
I have pondered this question for quite some time, and I believe that
I have formulated the beginnings of what I consider to be a good answer.
As Chief Justice Hassell has often articulated, the Virginia
State Bar needs to be strong and responsive to all of us, but equally
as important is the strength of the voluntary bar. Indeed, we are fortunate
to have, as leaders of the Virginia State Bar, current President David
P. Bobzien of Fairfax and President-elect Phillip V. Anderson of Roanoke.
Both of these gentlemen are not only colleagues, but have become friends,
as we have traveled in the same circles as bar leaders. Both of these
individuals continue to be active members of The Virginia Bar Association.
It is also the support of the Chief Justice, that of former Presidents
of the Virginia State Bar, and the handwork of our 5,600 members that
help me answer the question posed above.
The mandatory bar must itself be strong beyond reproach
and also beyond reproach in its mission. That mission — regulation,
discipline and self-policing. Many of us have been, and should be, actively
involved in the Virginia State Bar. Indeed, the current Chairman of our
Board of Governors is now on Bar Council and has been actively involved
in the Virginia State Bar for many years. As our good friend, albeit under
house arrest, Martha Stewart, would say, “That is a good thing.”
So let me, at least partially, make the case for the voluntary bar.
Some voluntary bar associations are struggling to maintain
membership in an era where there are many other entities competing for
coveted dues money. Voluntary bar associations are outside of the regulatory
scheme that the legislature has set out. They are not engaged in discipline
or regulating lawyer conduct or self-policing issues. We, as attorneys,
have little control over the mandatory bar. As stated above, we all participate
at varying levels of the bar structure, as we should. Most of the functions
of the mandatory bar typically do not overlap the functions of the voluntary
bar. The voluntary bar historically has addressed some of these non-regulatory
areas and has done quite well. I would like to mention a few.
First of all, there is the administration of justice.
I have just related above the Chesterfield Bar Association’s pro
bono domestic violence initiative. This is a worthwhile project that has
provided real value to its members and the public at large. Our Association
has also been at the forefront of lobbying efforts to enhance the administration
of justice. Indeed, this has been a part of our mission since 1888. There
is no better example of our Association’s efforts to enhance the
administration of justice than the fact that in March I was proud to represent
our members in making an address and presentation at the 20th anniversary
of the Court of Appeals of Virginia. The VBA, along with other groups,
engaged in a resolute seven-year effort to establish an intermediate court
of appeals in Virginia. I can tell you that the Court is very aware of
our efforts in this regard and is deeply appreciative of our efforts.
The next area where we have significant influence is in
law reform. The State Bar, being a governmental agency, is precluded from
lobbying. That, in and of itself, leaves a void as to which groups can
lobby the legislature on behalf of the profession and the public. I know
that I share your pride in the record of our Association’s efforts
in this regard. We are well-known within all three branches of the government.
We are known to provide an objective voice for many causes at the General
Assembly. Our lobbyists are well-respected, and our positions on legislation
are sought-out. We have provided real worth to the profession and the
public at large in many areas. In particular, we have been dogged in advancing
the rights of children and the disabled. Our sections and committees have
provided guidance to the legislature on numerous bills, not the least
example of which is the negative bill on guardians ad litem that was blocked
in 2002 and the expanded training of guardians ad litem project of the
Supreme Court of Virginia, with which our Commission on the Needs of Children
has worked extensively since then. Currently, we are engaged in a continuing
effort to reverse the dismal record of the Commonwealth of Virginia in
providing funds for the defense of indigent criminal defendants. This
year we made minor gains, but, as we did with the intermediate court described
above, we will not stop in our efforts, and we will continue to press
the cause and work actively, lobbying all three branches of the government.
Another topic that deserves mention is the independence
of the judiciary. Our organization is well-known among the judiciary for
our commitment to judicial independence. We provide a clearinghouse for
judges who are subject to unfair criticisms of their judicial decisions.
Further, we are committed to use our resources to ensure that there is
due process involved in the appointment and re-appointment of our judges
within the Commonwealth of Virginia.
On this same topic, at the recent annual meeting of the
Virginia Trial Lawyers Association, I attended a provocative program,
moderated by W. Coleman Allen of Richmond on the topic of judicial independence,
which included video clips of shocking TV ads from the recent state Supreme
Court campaigns in West Virginia, where Justice Warren McGraw was ousted
by challenger Brent Benjamin. I commend the VTLA for this outstanding
program, which examined these crucial issues in depth.
Next, I would cite our divisions, sections and committees.
To point out just one, our Law Practice Management Division continues
to address the myriad of challenges that exist in the practice of law.
From law firm management, lifestyle balance, professionalism, substance
abuse, employee benefits, retirement and disability, it is the Law Practice
Management Division that provides our members with information and guidance
on these issues. We have provided and continue to provide expertise in
the form of seminars and materials to our members to enhance professionalism
and deal with the lifestyle balance issues that are so prevalent today
in our profession.
Finally, if the case for the voluntary bar has not already
been made, one only needs to look at one of our own, the current President
of the voluntary American Bar Association, Robert J. Grey Jr. of Richmond.
Robert has dedicated his efforts to using his office to put in front of
everyone the need for jury reform. Our Association has assisted Robert
in carrying this message. We entrust juries who are made up of small bodies
of ordinary men and women with decisions that involve the liberties and
property of defendant citizens. Having been charged thusly, it is incumbent
upon us to provide every juror with the respect, dignity and tools that
they deserve to carry out that process to render the best, fairest and
sound decisions that they can.
The case for the voluntary bar association is an easy
one to make. Yes, there are tensions, there are membership concerns, but
I am heartened by the fact that in my travels around the Commonwealth,
people come up to me and ask me how they can get involved, or more involved,
in the work of the VBA. That, indeed, is our challenge. What we have done
in the past is written. The value that we will bring and the relevance
that we will maintain with lawyers around the Commonwealth is yet to be
determined.
In that regard, I am reminded of the words of the great
bard, Yogi Berra, “The future just ain’t what it used to be.”
Whatever the future, the involvement of the voluntary bar is important
to it.
Return to Top
The Role of Nonprofits
in the Rehabilitation of Prisoners
by The Honorable Mark L. Earley
The following remarks were delivered at the annual
Virginia Law Foundation Fellows Dinner on January 20 in Williamsburg by
former Virginia Attorney General Mark Earley and are reprinted with his
permission.
The criminal justice system in America today is broken. If measured by
its ability to rehabilitate prisoners and facilitate their successful
reentry to society, it is by all accounts a failure. With the U.S. having
the highest per capita incarceration rate of any country in the world
and totally unacceptable rates of recidivism, virtually every neighborhood
and every household is touched by incarceration.
We have failed to balance justice with mercy by all but
ignoring rehabilitation. Some offenders need to be locked up forever,
and some will never change. But our criminal justice system is not based
on that assumption alone. Indeed, on average, violent offenders serve
only 49 months before they are released; offenders for all types of crimes
serve an average 25 months. And once these prisoners are released, more
than 50 percent of them will return to prison within three years.
We are poor stewards of taxpayer money if we basically
ignore rehabilitation and thereby ensure continued high recidivism rates.
There must be a renaissance of commitment to rehabilitation by everyone
connected with the criminal justice system and most importantly by the
nonprofit sector.
The purpose of this talk is to suggest that the winds of change are blowing
across the face of America, stirring up a fresh commitment to the rehabilitation
of prisoners and to suggest that nonprofits, not the government, should
lead the way.
Although today I am the president of Prison Fellowship
USA, a nonprofit holistic Christian ministry to prisoners and their children,
for the first 47 of the 50 years of my life, I gave little thought to
prisoners. I visited prison once to take part in a church service. As
a lawyer I would go to visit my clients in prison. As a state senator
and then as attorney general of Virginia, I toured Virginia’s prisons
and supported legislation that was “tough on crime.” I generally
felt that those in prison belonged there, deserved to be there, and had
no potential.
Such a perspective has been common among citizens and
policymakers. But I believe it is changing, perhaps more rapidly than
we think.
At least four factors are driving this change. First,
with two million people incarcerated in America today, we are reaching
a tipping point in public opinion. Almost everyone has a friend or family
member who is or has been in prison. It is no longer somebody else’s
problem.
Second, government funding for increasing incarceration
and recidivism rates has reached the saturation point.
Third, in the last four years courageous efforts from
conservative political leadership, most notably President George W. Bush,
have put prisoner reentry initiatives and the mentoring of prisoners’
children front and center on the political agenda. Such actions signal
a departure from the traditional conservative approach of “lock ’em
up and throw away the key.”
Fourth, a blossoming of primarily faith-based efforts,
at both national and local levels, are leading thousands of volunteers
in local churches to become involved in the lives of prisoners both in
prison and as they reenter society.
Having served in the Virginia senate for 10 years and
as Virginia’s attorney general for four, I know only too well that
in times of fiscal stress, correctional budgets are the first to be cut.
Within those budgets, rehabilitation and educational programs are the
first and proportionally the deepest cuts that are made. That is not likely
to change in the real-world competition for dollars. Even when state treasuries
are bulging, these efforts historically receive relatively low priority
because of demand in other “high profile” areas. But even if
that changed overnight and prisoner rehabilitation and reentry became
the number one priority of state governments, government agencies are
by nature woefully incapable of rehabilitation that transforms.
Prisoner rehabilitation and reentry efforts cannot be
delivered by bureaucrats. For starters, it is anything but a 9-to-5 job.
Instead, they must be delivered through a community of loving relationships
that are patient, nurturing, sacrificial, holistic, and able to sustain
a genuine long-term commitment to the welfare of prisoners and ex-prisoners.
These efforts must be administered by those who believe
that darkness can be overcome by light, evil by good, despair by hope,
and addiction by freedom. They must be delivered by men and women who
believe in hope and transformation even for those who have murdered, raped,
beaten, stolen, kidnapped, and been bound by addictive behaviors. They
must believe that in spite of, and precisely because of, their past, transformed
prisoners and ex-prisoners are uniquely situated to contribute to society
because they have experienced brokenness, forgiveness, and restoration.
Rehabilitation must focus on a transformation of the heart,
dispositions, and character. It must equip prisoners with the knowledge
and skills for productive work. It must be characterized not by a systems
approach but by a relational (mentoring) approach. It must begin in prison
and continue for up to two years after release from prison—a critical
transitional stage. And since it cannot be provided primarily by the state,
it must be provided by nonprofits, including churches and faith-based
nonprofits such as synagogues, mosques, etc.
A refocusing on the importance of rehabilitation is not
“soft on crime,” nor does it compromise public safety. I would
not advocate such an emphasis if it did. Indeed, the state has a duty
to protect the public, restore the victim, guard the treasury, and ensure
the safety of inmates in prison. A commitment to rehabilitation is consistent
with each of these goals; correspondingly, a failure to provide rehabilitation
compromises each one of them. For without rehabilitative efforts that
transform, inmates are more of a threat upon release than when they were
sentenced, more victims are created, more taxpayer money is spent for
the same thing over and over again, and inmates are at a greater risk
of violence and criminal corruption in prison. Such an understanding is
leading to public support of bold new initiatives in rehabilitation and
a willingness to become personally involved in this community-based effort.
The partnership between governments and nonprofits for
purposes of rehabilitation and reentry are not new. What is new is the
large-scale interest developing among nonprofits, the explosion of interest
among faith-based nonprofits, and the willingness of nonprofits to spend
their own money as opposed to government grants.
Indeed, the renaissance in rehabilitation spearheaded
by nonprofits need not be fueled by government funds. Some limited application
of grants may be helpful in developing prototypes and has been instrumental
in the start of some new programs, but in the long run the prison population
is too large and the needs in rehabilitation too intensely relational
to be realistically supported by the government. This can and should be
a movement largely sustained by the fuel of philanthropy, and the correctional
system must welcome and adapt to the partnership.
The objection, of course, from some secularists will be
that religion has no place in this endeavor. But it is not their choice.
It is the choice of the prisoner. And in the prisons of America today,
there is a deep and abiding interest in things spiritual. So long as prisoners
have freedom of religion and so long as they wish to pursue a changed
life through their faith, they should be allowed to take advantage of
the resources available.
Rehabilitation, successful reentry into society, and reduced
recidivism rates are long accepted goals of government. Nonprofits, faith-based
or not, that can provide a service that meets these goals should be allowed
to do so. Particularly in the arena of aftercare or reentry, nonprofits
and specifically faith-based nonprofits in the form of local churches
are uniquely well suited to engage in rehabilitative and reentry efforts.
If the external forces sparking an attitude change in
society at large are the high incarceration rate, state budget woes, and
a shift in conservatives’ approach to crime, what then is internally
fueling the churches are increasingly moving into the prisons of America,
which are littered with broken lives looking for a message and a model
of forgiveness, love, and hope.
Let me give just one significant example. In four prisons
across the U.S, Prison Fellowship has developed and staffs a program called
the InnerChange Freedom Initiative, which immerses prisoners in a values-based
environment taught from a biblical perspective. The in-prison portion—which
addresses academics, life-skills training, spiritual development, and
job preparation—is followed by several months of post-prison support
to ensure that released prisoners have the best opportunity to successfully
reintegrate into society. For each program, hundreds of volunteers from
local churches are recruited and trained to work with and mentor the ex-prisoners.
Based on records for Prison Fellowship’s fiscal year
ended in June 2004, of the 909 program participants (from all four prisons)
who have been released from prison so far, 90 percent have mentors, 86
percent are involved with a church community, and 85 percent are gainfully
employed. In a 2002 University of Pennsylvania study that focused on the
Texas program—the one in operation the longest—researchers found
that of those prisoners who completed the entire program, only eight percent
were reincarcerated within a two-year period.
David Russell is one of those “success stories.”
David has described his first stint in prison as the state’s “attempt
at rehabilitation — where all I learned was how to do my crime a
little better so I wouldn’t get caught.” His second imprisonment
— when he participated in the InnerChange Freedom Initiative—he
calls a time of “transformation: changing the heart” through
a faith relationship.
Nonprofits must be allowed to operate within and alongside
the prison system. States must allow for innovation and experimentation
with the guidelines of ensuring public safety. There will be success and
failures along the way, but the system cannot get worse than it is at
present unless we do nothing but continue the status quo.
Although the government should not forfeit its role in
certain aspects of the rehabilitative process, the correctional system
is unable to provide the web of human nurture and love necessary to effect
life-changing transformation in the lives of prisoners.
To be successful, such community-based nonprofits must
be motivated by love for their fellow man and a deep-rooted conviction
that life transformation is possible and is worthy of individual and community
sacrifice. Many if not most of the nonprofits stepping up to the plate
are faith-based, others are not; but all should be welcome insofar as
their methodology and purposes are not contrary to public policy and public
safety, and all should be held accountable for results.
Return to Top
About the Author: Mark Earley, former State Senator
and Attorney General of Virginia, became president of Prison Fellowship
in 2002. As president and CEO of Prison Fellowship, Earley oversees the
national ministry founded by Charles Colson in 1976, which has since spread
to 105 countries in addition to the United States. Prison Fellowship’s
core commitments are fellowshipping with Jesus, visiting prisoners, and
welcoming their children. In line with these commitments, PF works with
thousands of churches and volunteers across the U.S. to disciple prisoners
and prepare them to re-enter the community; to minister year-round to
prisoners’ children through Christmas, camping, and mentoring programs;
and to help redeem the culture by embracing, defending, and applying a
clear biblical worldview. Additionally, Earley serves as chairman of Operation
Starting Line, a multi-ministry, interdenominational outreach to prisoners
in America that is helping the local and in-prison church provide in-prison
evangelistic events, ongoing inmate mentoring, and post-prison assistance
for ex-prisoners and their families. Earley, an attorney, practiced law
for 15 years with the firm of Tavss, Fletcher, Earley and King in Norfolk.
He served in the Virginia State Senate from 1987 to 1997 and then served
as the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia from 1997 to 2001.
In 2001 he was the Republican candidate for Governor of Virginia. From
1977 to 1982, Earley served on the staff of the Navigators, an international
evangelical ministry active on college campuses, military bases, and other
settings. He served in campus ministry at the University of the Philippines
in Manila and in the U.S. at the West Chester University in Pennsylvania
and at the College of William and Mary in Virginia. Earley is a graduate
of the College of William and Mary, where he received a B.A. in religion.
He earned a juris doctor degree from Marshall-Wythe School of Law. Return
to Top
Legal Focus/Domestic Relations:
Update to Summary of Post-1998 Rehabilitative Alimony
Cases and Trends
(September 2003-March 1, 2005)
Cheryl Watson Smith
In 1997, the Legislature amended Virginia Code §
20-107.11 to include the option of awarding spousal support for a defined
duration, in addition to spousal support for an undefined duration or
lump sum or any combination thereof. In the October/November 2004 edition
of the VBA News Journal, a look at the known “rehabilitative
alimony” cases revealed that some defined duration support awards
were being made in the extreme situations, i.e. long marriage, short award
of support/short marriage, permanent support. Since September 2003, 10
cases were located, seven of which were from Fairfax. However, a few trends
are emerging in these cases, at least in Fairfax.
Published Court of Appeals Case:
1. Miller v. Cox.2 The Court of Appeals remanded the
issue of spousal support raised in Husband’s 20033 appeal for reconsideration
in light of the Court’s reversal on several equitable distribution
issues. Then, in this Appeal, the trial court’s award of $9,000 per
month permanent support in this 15-year marriage was affirmed. This was
a second marriage for both parties, each with children from prior marriages.
Both parties were in their 50s and healthy. Wife netted approximately
$25,000 per year and the trial court’s finding of a five percent
return on her $1,700,000 equitable distribution award was affirmed. Husband
earned between $573,000 and $872,000 per year. Wife maintained the home,
had limited professional help and was primary caregiver of Husband’s
son who visited several weeks each summer. Wife worked throughout the
marriage, but testified she sacrificed her career to move several times
with Husband, including a 1993 move to Washington, D.C., for Husband to
be the CEO of his company, which managed retirement assets. Husband argued
that, based on Wife’s financial estate and access to retirement funds
from the equitable distribution, a defined duration award was “compelled.”
The Court of Appeals disagreed. An award of defined duration or undefined
duration is discretionary with the court. The Court of Appeals noted that
a “change in either party’s position regarding support is more
properly addressed, not in speculated anticipation of change, but in relation
to the current circumstances of the parties” and the award may be
altered upon a showing of a change in circumstances.4
In affirming the undefined duration, the Court of Appeals also affirmed
the trial court’s award of $9,000 per month, which included a substantial
amount for retirement savings. The Court of Appeals went so far as to
state that “[t]he parties’ savings plan during the marriage
is not only an appropriate consideration, it is a mandatory one.”5
However, it is important to note that both Husband and Wife were committed
to a savings program during the marriage and both testified to their history
of savings, so the trial court’s award gave appropriate consideration
to the parties’ pattern and custom of savings and investing a substantial
portion of their income throughout the marriage.
Unpublished Court of Appeals Cases:
1. Massa v. Massa.6 The trial court’s award of
permanent spousal support of $10,000 per month and no imputation of income
to Wife was affirmed. The parties had been married for 17 years and had
four children, 4-14 years of age. The Husband had a B.S. and earned $26,000
per month, plus other incentives. The Wife had a B.A. in English and a
master’s in social work, but she had never worked as a social worker.
By agreement, the children alternated weeks in each parent’s home.
Husband asked the court to impute income to Wife. The party seeking imputation
of income has the burden of proving that the other party is voluntarily
unemployed or under employed. Husband’s vocational expert testified
that Wife could work as a social worker earning $32,000 per year, even
though the known jobs required 2-3 years’ experience. The expert
opined that Wife’s master’s degree was comparable to the required
work experience, but admitted he had never placed a person in a position
as a social worker.
The trial court considered all of Virginia Code7 §
20-107.1(E) factors, including the length of the marriage, the very high
standard of living, the disparate income levels, and, as required by factor
(E)(11), the parties’ decision during the marriage regarding employment,
career and parenting arrangements. The trial court found that the parties
had agreed Wife would stay home with the children; that the children still
needed her assistance to some extent; and, that even if Wife could go
back to work, she was limited in what she could do because she “had
put aside her career employment goals, consistent with her educational
background” to further the parties’ understanding that she would
stay home with the children which permitted “husband’s career
to flourish.”8 It was reasonable for the trial
court to conclude that the parties’ agreement for Wife not to work
outside the home for 14 years negatively affected her earning capacity
and career opportunities at divorce.
Husband feared that the trial court’s use of the term “permanent
support” as opposed to support “for an undefined duration”
foreclosed the court’s ability to modify the award. The Court of
Appeals has consistently held that a court award of permanent support
is subject to modification if the circumstances change. Moreover, §
20-109(A) permits the court to increase, decrease or terminate the amount
or duration of any spousal support or maintenance.9
2. Holland v. Holland.10 The trial court’s award
of $700 per month for six years was affirmed. This was almost a 12-year
marriage with two minor children. Husband earned $74,400 per year. Wife
earned $9,756 per year. By agreement, Wife stayed home while the children
were young. She had returned to work in 1998 and contributed to the family
finances. Husband earned significantly more than Wife did, but the court
found he provided equal non-monetary contributions. The Wife was healthy,
able to work and there were no special circumstances with the children.
3. Block v. Block.11 The trial court’s award of
permanent support of $1,500 per month was affirmed. The parties separated
in 1998 after a nine-year marriage. The divorce was awarded August 3,
2004. There were three minor children, one with a special need (learning
disability). By agreement, the Wife worked part-time (32 hours per week)
as a nurse earning $50,000 per year. Husband attended dental school during
the marriage. He averaged over $150,000 per year. The trial court based
its award upon the income, earning capacities, standard of living during
the marriage, monetary and non-monetary contributions, special needs of
the child, education and parenting arrangements during the marriage and
the effect of the parenting arrangements on present and future earning
potential.12
Circuit Court Opinions:
1. Heiche v. Heiche.13 $1,000/month for four years,
no stated basis. This was a nine-year marriage; three children, custody
with Wife; Husband with a college degree earned $130,000/year; Wife earned
$11,352/year; grounds were Wife’s adultery, and the court expressly
found that complete denial of support would be a manifest injustice. Four
and one-half year reservation (half of the length of the marriage).
2. Abraham v. Bereketab.14 $4,000 lump sum support,
stressed short duration of marriage. This was almost a four-year marriage;
Husband earned $5,578/month; Wife earned $2,427/month; one child, custody
with Wife. The lump sum was to assist Wife to find housing comparable
to the marital standard of living.
3. Hoegle v. Hoegle. 15 $5,500/month permanent support,
rejecting Husband’s argument for defined duration support. This was
a 22-year marriage; one child, living with Husband; Husband had a law
degree; Wife had a B.A. in health care administration. The court found
Wife could earn $40,000/year, but not more due to her alcoholism, prior
unsuccessful treatment and her absence from the job market at times during
the marriage.
4. Goldman v. Goldman.16 $3,000/month for 13 years
and Husband pays mortgage until marital residence sold, no stated basis.
This was a 21-year marriage; Husband was 53 and Wife 52; two children,
one in college, one with Wife; Wife’s two-year nursing training was
in 1971 and the Court accepted her expert’s opinion that a 10-month
refresher training course was needed, rejecting Husband’s expert’s
testimony that a five-week refresher course would suffice. The Court expressly
did not impute income to Wife, so support could not have been rehabilitative.
There were considerable retirement funds divided, so since support expired
when Wife turned 65 it is possible that the limited duration award was
meant to support the Wife until social security and retirement benefits
became payable, but the court did not state this expressly.
5. Crawford v. Crawford.17 $1,200/month for 24 months,
no stated basis and essentially no findings, except the short duration
of the marriage. This was a 4-year marriage; each had children for whom
Wife cared during the marriage; Husband, 46, had a college degree and
was employed with General Dynamics; Wife, 37, had an associate degree,
paralegal certificate and was working toward a B.A. Husband had been supportive
of Wife’s educational endeavors. Each party was granted a reservation.
6. Edgar v. Edgar.1 $750/month for three years, rehabilitative award to
cover Wife’s educational expenses.2 This was an 18-year marriage;
Husband, 44, was retired military and each spouse received a portion of
his retired pay; Wife, 42, supported Husband’s career through many
moves. At the time of trial, Wife was caring for the parties’ child,
working overtime, and already in a three-year part-time nursing program
earning her B.N. The court stated that the three-year award was to permit
Wife to complete school without having to continue to work overtime and
to put herself in a better position to support herself in the future.
Trends:
From these cases, several trends are emerging, at least in Fairfax:
Defined duration awards are increasingly common in very short marriages.
Although the cases do not explicitly state this, the emphasis on the short
duration of the marriages implies that the Wife (in these cases) had not
made enough of a financial sacrifice or had not suffered damage to her
long-term earning capacity to have a permanent entitlement to the marital
standard of living. Marriages of five years or less are typically being
considered a short marriage. If both spouses work and there are no children,
then a marriage a few years longer than five is still being considered
short. However, if there are children early on and one spouse stops working
to care for the child(ren), then a marriage of less than five years may
not be considered short.
Defined duration awards are not as prevalent in long marriages, except
to meet the support needs until a pension and/or social security benefits
begin. (Goldman) But, in Miller, with the focus on retirement savings,
the court rejected Husband’s contention that Wife’s ample retirement
compelled a defined duration award. A financial planner may be of assistance
in these cases to show the level of support needed until retirement benefits
commence, and to determine whether the expected benefits will meet the
spouse’s financial needs for the spouse’s life expectancy. If
the court bases its award upon a specific amount of expected future retirement
benefits, it is particularly important that the amount be stated in the
order, so that the award can be modified if unforeseen circumstances (e.g.,
another boom or crash in the stock market, or possible major amendments
to Social Security) result in retirement benefits greater or smaller than
expected.
The court must (1) make written findings on the factors in § 20-107.1
(E) and (2) explain the basis for any defined duration award.20
Except for Crawford and Heiche, the cases are doing a fairly good job
on the first requirement, making findings on the 20-107.1(E) factors.
However, except for Edgar, the courts are essentially failing to identify
the basis for the nature and duration of the defined duration award. If
appropriate, the court is to specify the events and circumstances reasonably
contemplated by the court, which supports the award for a defined duration.
The failure to explain the basis for the defined duration is clear error.
Without an explanation, a future court will not know why the limited term
was awarded and will not have a basis to determine whether to extend or
contract the term or the amount of the award.
Although fairly common in other states, conspicuous by its absence in
Virginia are reported cases making both a permanent and a defined duration
or a lump sum award. A “combination” award may be a reasonable
alternative in cases where the support recipient can work and meet part
of his or her needs but will never reach the income level of the support
payor in order to maintain the marital standard of living. After a long
marriage, in which an entitlement to permanent support exists, most of
the cases just award it. However, in the appropriate case, consider seeking
an award of a lesser amount of permanent support, combined with a limited
term award, to give an employable support recipient an opportunity and
an incentive to find employment.
A lump sum award as part of the combination could cover education and
retraining costs, but the lump sum, once awarded, does not terminate,
even upon remarriage, and cannot be modified. A defined duration award
provides more flexibility and if the basis of the award is clearly stated,
then it will be more apparent if the award needs to be modified in amount
or duration, if the circumstances change during the defined duration.
Once the duration ends, the defined award terminates; but, the lesser
amount of the permanent award continues to address, without the necessity
of further litigation (hopefully), the issues of maintaining the standard
of living, the disparity in incomes, financial sacrifices made during
the marriage and damages to the recipient spouse’s long-term earning
capacity.
Practice Pointers:
· Request or remind the court to make findings.
· If appropriate, have a financial expert testify to the level
of support needed until retirement; the amount of retirement benefits
expected to be available; and, whether the level of retirement will meet
the spouse financial needs.
· Submit draft findings and draft explanation of the basis to the
court for consideration.
· If no findings or basis is given, preserve the objection for
appeal by stating “The court erred by failing to make the findings
and conclusions required by Virginia Code § 20-107.1(F), and by failing
to state clearly the events and circumstances supporting an award of spousal
support for a limited duration.”
Perhaps next year more judges will have defined duration (or denial of
defined duration) cases which they feel are appropriate to report, since
identifying the trends and the basis for the trends provides more guidance
to practitioners, which may increase the settlement opportunities for
spousal support cases. Return to Top
About the Author: Cheryl Watson Smith has her own
law firm, Cheryl Watson Smith, P.C., in Roanoke, and practices primarily
in the area of family law, including complex property matters. She is
a mediator certificed by the Supreme Court of Virginia and mediates cases
by private and court referral. She was previously a partner in the law
firm of Mundy, Rogers & Frith, L.L.P. Ms. Smith is a graduate of the
University of Virginia and the University of Richmond’s T.C. Williams
School of Law, where she was a member of the University of Richmond Law
Review and co-chaired the Client Counseling and Negotiation Board. She
has been in the private practice of law since 1988. Among her numerous
professional activities, she serves as vice chair of the VBA Domestic
Relations Section Council, is a member of the VBA Committee on Federal
Judgeships (Western District) and lectures frequently on family law issues
and mediation.
NOTES
1. See B. Turner, “Spousal Support
In a Time of Transition: Recent Changes in Virginia Spousal Support Law,”
Fourth Annual Virginia Chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial
Lawyers CLE (October, 1998) for an outline summarizing Virginia and non-Virginia
law on the issue of rehabilitative alimony; Rehabilitative Alimony and
the Reservation of Spousal Support in Divorce Proceedings, House Doc.
No. 55 (1997); For a discussion of the general history of the legislation,
the jurisdiction and applicability of the amendments see Peter N. Swisher
et. al., Virginia Family Law: Theory and Practice § 9-6.1 (2003 ed.)
2. 44 Va. App. 674, 607 S.E.2d 126 (2005). Case from
City of Alexandria.
3. Miller v. Miller, Unpublished, Record No. 2261-02-4
(July 15, 2003). Case from City of Alexandria.
4. Miller v. Cox, 44 Va. App. at ___.
5. Id. at ___.
6. Unpublished, Record No. 0843-03-4 (March 30, 2004).
Case from Fairfax County.
7. All references are to the 1950, Code of Virginia,
as amended unless otherwise stated.
8. Id.
9. Note also, Pappas v. Pappas,
Unpublished, 2004 WL 1822345 (Ct. App. August 17, 2004): separation agreement
allowing “increase or decrease” in spousal support did not allow
modification of duration. This case states quite clearly that duration
could be modified if the award had been made by a court (otherwise, the
contract construction issue would be irrelevant). So, if you want the
duration to be modifiable, use broad modification language. E.g., “Spousal
support may be increased, decreased or terminated in amount or duration
by a court of competent jurisdiction based upon a material change in circumstances.”
10. Unpublished, Record No. 1231-04-3 (December 7, 2004).
Case from Roanoke City.
11. Unpublished, Record No. 2059-04-2 (March 1, 2005).
Case from Chesterfield County.
12. An interesting procedural question was raised in
this case. Wife filed for spousal support in JDR in April 1998. The divorce
was filed after the July 1, 1998 amendments to 20-107.1. The trial court
refused to state whether the amended version of the statute applied as
Husband requested. The trial court articulated factors in the amended
version of the statute. The Court of Appeals found that those factors
were encompassed under the “such other factors” of the prior
version of the statute.
13. 2004 WL 1879209 (Fairfax July 21, 2004).
14. 2004 WL 877842 (Fairfax March 31, 2004).
15. 2004 WL 351145 (Fairfax February 9, 2004).
16. 2003 WL 23272407 (Fairfax December 29, 2003).
17. 2003 WL 23272405 (Fairfax November 24, 2003).
18. 2003 WL 22779080 (Fairfax November 12, 2003).
19. Court stated its findings and gave a clear explanation
of the basis for the award which is an example of a trial court getting
all of the § 20-107.1 procedures exactly right.
20. § 20-107.1(F) provides two requirements: In
contested cases in the circuit courts, any order granting, reserving or
denying a request for spousal support shall be accompanied by written
findings and conclusions of the court identifying the factors in subsection
(E) which support the court’s order. If the court awards periodic
support for a defined duration, such findings shall identify the basis
for the nature, amount and duration of the award and, if appropriate,
a specification of the events and circumstances reasonably contemplated
by the court, which support the award. Return to Top
Young Lawyers Division:
Law School Councils serve and socialize
R. Braxton Hill IV, Chair, VBA Young Lawyers Division
For nearly 50 years, The Virginia Bar Association’s
Young Lawyers Division has given newly-minted Virginia lawyers the opportunity
to undertake pro bono service, to develop leadership skills and to forge
friendships that span the length of careers as well as the breadth of
the Commonwealth. With modest fanfare but tremendous success, the Association
recently extended those benefits of membership in the Young Lawyers Division
to law students, who represent the next generation of bar leaders. To
sow the seeds of bar service among these future leaders of our profession,
the Young Lawyers Division established Law School Councils (LSCs) across
Virginia. A brief glimpse at the achievements of our law student members
reveals how felicitous that decision has proved to be.
The Law School Council for the Appalachian School of Law
has adopted the ASL Memorial 5K Run/Walk as its Community Service project.
The proceeds of the race benefit the Anthony Sutin and Thomas Blackwell
Endowment Scholarship Funds, and the ASL LSC greatly appreciates the Association’s
financial support of the event. As a sponsor, the Association receives
prominent billing on race fliers and T-shirts. Victoria Schawl, the current
ASL LSC secretary/treasurer, reports that the students have nominated
officer candidates for next year, and elections will take place in mid-April.
The George Mason University Law School Council is likewise
going strong. On April 10, the GMU LSC will lend a hand with the Arlington
Food Assistance Center’s “Canstruction” competition, which
showcases structures created of donated nonperishable foods by local architectural
firms. The students will help dismantle the contest entries and organize
the donated food for distribution to needy Arlington families. On the
organizational front, the GMU LSC has drafted a new constitution and has
recruited a faculty sponsor, Prof. John L. Costello. The students anticipate
receiving recognition by the school as an official student organization
by the end of the semester, which recognition would entail eligibility
for funding through the Student Bar Association. New officer elections
are scheduled for mid-April.
The University of Richmond Law School Council was busy
in February with its Elder Law Symposium, which was moderated by Christopher
M. McCarthy, chair of the VBA Elder Law Section. Law student Helen
Baucom spearheaded the event, garnering 89 registrants, including 30 law
students, three professors and approximately 50 attorneys from as far
away as Tidewater and Roanoke. In March, the UR LSC held a “Necessities
Drive” contest with the William and Mary LSC, through which the UR
students collected a carload of donations for the Safe Harbor Shelter
in Richmond. Additionally, student member Jackie Wilbur has implemented
a mentor program that matches UR law students with local attorneys. The
students and lawyers have enjoyed several social events in the past few
months, including a Richmond RiverDogs hockey game, and they plan to square
off on the kickball diamond in the near future. Much to the dismay of
VBA President Meath, kilts will not be permitted on the field of play.
In November the University of Virginia Law School Council
welcomed remarks by Ted Ellett, now the Association’s past president.
UVA LSC President Adam Brink reports that the address shed a great deal
of light on the Association’s current programs, goals and concerns,
and also made a strong case for student membership in the UVA LSC. In
February, the UVA LSC organized a panel discussion entitled “Serving
the Public in the Private Sector” for the law school’s Public
Service Conference. Three members of the Association served as panelists
for the standing-room-only seminar, providing a distinct and well-received
local flavor to the broad range of subjects addressed over the Conference
weekend. With elections on the horizon, the Council is laying the foundation
for another productive year.
Representatives of the William and Mary Law School Council
joined us at the Annual Meeting in Williamsburg, and the students are
planning a membership and networking social event for mid-April. Demonstrating
its commitment to community service, the W&M LSC collected donations
for the Avalon Center for Women and Children as part of the “Necessities
Drive” contest with the UR LSC. The W&M LSC thanks outgoing officers
Kelly Street, Brad Reeves, and Sarah Edmondson, as well as 2L officer
Rachel Juhas, who will remain with the Council next year.
In the rolling hills of Lexington, the Washington and
Lee Law School Council hosted a cocktail reception on February 10 at the
W&L Alumni House, drawing 20 law students and seven lawyers. The students
are looking forward to hosting a similar event in Roanoke this fall.
In addition to the laudable work of our law student members
through the VBA/YLD Law School Councils, law students also play a key
role in the Association’s Community Service Program, which encourages
attorneys across the Commonwealth to make an annual commitment of 50 hours
of pro bono legal service, 50 hours of nonlegal community service, or
a mix of both. Under the leadership of William and Mary’s Dean Robert
E. Kaplan, the Community Service Program’s Law School Outreach Committee
is formulating guidelines for making the Community Service Program available
to students, faculty, administration and staff at law schools throughout
Virginia. Thanks to the efforts of that committee, which includes student
members Karen Jordan (Appalachian), Jodie Herrman (George Mason ), Joseph
Verser (Regent), Scott Hulgan (University of Richmond), Kristin Glover
(University of Virginia), Sarah Wayland (Washington and Lee) and Elizabeth
Bircher (William and Mary), the Association hopes to implement the Community
Service Program at Virginia’s seven ABA-accredited law schools at
the start of the 2005-06 academic year.
The foregoing is by no means an exhaustive list of the
contributions made to our Association, our profession and our communities
over the past few months by our law student members, who must balance
their bar service with the demands of family life, course loads and job
searches. Reflected glory shines brightest, and based on the dedication,
initiative and leadership shown by these students, we can take comfort
in the knowledge that the Young Lawyers Division will be in good hands
for years to come. Return to Top
Whitcomb Dreams
A lawyer’s life lessons from his lunch buddy
Brooks M. Smith
“There is a place where the sidewalk ends…”
And each time I cross the tracks and ascend the hill,
past boarded-up apartments and junkyard dogs, to the windswept plain known
as Whitcomb Court, I think about how remote the merry poetry of Shel Silverstein
is from this garbled concrete outpost. There are no crimson rays or songbirds
or peppermint clouds here. Just rows of two-story tenements — seemingly
abandoned in the cool light of day — and a squat public building
styled Whitcomb Court Elementary School.
This is a place of nearly undeniable squalor. A place that strains minute
by desperate minute against the hopelessness that seeps in through broken
windows, cracked walls and sole-less shoes. A place of Sisyphean struggle.
And yet, through it all, it is a place of children. Hungry,
but impelled by youthful energy. Their dreams and worries like wet frescos,
immovable in spite of the chaos, but alive with emotion and contrast.
Every so often — not nearly as often as I would like
— I venture up the hill to eat lunch in the school cafeteria with
a little girl named Derrica. She’s halfway through the fourth grade,
quixotic, outspoken, occasionally querulous, and always ebullient at the
sight of her lunch buddy. She’s surely as poor as the rest, as exposed
to the realities of the projects as her many siblings, or her rasorial
mom, or her absentee dad, or her impossibly young grandmother. In the
two years that we have dined together, she seems to have grown 10, a little
person too soon become big.
We do not often talk about important things. Mostly, we
critique the cafeteria food, play silly games with fruit roll-ups, and
compete to see who can drink their chocolate milk the fastest. Sometimes,
we go to the library after lunch so that she can read to me. So ponderous,
but urgent with the need to sound out each word, to make some sense of
the story line, as if it were all foreign to her. Lately, she’s delighted
in hearing about my own little girl’s belabored efforts to speak,
to sound out simple words like “moon” and “mommy,”
as if these girls were confidants in a confused world of vowels and silent
letters.
Last week, I asked Derrica if she’d ever been on
a trip, ever ventured to a faraway place. She looked at me as if I had
asked a nonsensical question. And I realized that I had, so I quickly
re-phrased it.
“Derrica, if you could take a trip anywhere in the world, where would
you go?”
She furrowed her little brow and then said, more unequivocally
than I could have imagined, “South America.”
“But why there?” I thought and then asked aloud.
She looked sheepish for a minute, and then explained.
“There’s a little girl that comes on TV sometimes, her name
is Jenny, and she’s very, very poor. She doesn’t have a family,
or a home, or food. I asked my mom if we could adopt her, so that she
could come live with us. My mom said that would be okay, but only if we
could find a way to go down to South America to get her. So that’s
where I want to go.”
This little creature, herself devoid of the comforts that
we off-the-hill dwellers take for granted, betwixt dirty and poor, and
exposed to hopelessness at every turn, still she clings to hope. And not
for herself, not for her own survival or satisfaction, but for a little
creature even less fortunate than she, remote but bonded by irreducible
reality.
I was stunned, nearly fell off my chair, nearly burst
into tears. I felt like the Grinch when he heard the Whos down in Whoville
singing their sweet song in spite of their loss, felt like the weight
of a hundred-pound iron had been lifted from my chest, felt like I could
sit there forever listening to this little creature beside me, her voice
now sweet with crimson rays and songbirds and peppermint clouds.
There is a place where the sidewalk ends, and it is not
too far from here. Few follow the path there, and even fewer follow it
out. It is a place of overwhelming need, nearly unfixable, almost forgotten.
But it also is a place of children, and hope, and from time to time, impossible
beauty. Lunch is served promptly at 12:20, so don’t be late or you
might miss it.
“Yes we’ll walk with a walk that is measured
and slow,
“And we’ll go where the chalk-white arrows go,
“For the children, they mark, and the children, they know,
“The place where the sidewalk ends.”
Brooks Smith is an associate at Hunton & Williams
LLP in Richmond and is the immediate past chair of the VBA Environment,
Natural Resources and Energy Law Section. In addition to writing this
essay about his “lunch buddy,” he recently read it to listeners
on National Public Radio. For information on becoming a “lunch buddy”
for a Richmond elementary student, please contact VBA Young Lawyers Division
Richmond Mentor Program Co-Chairs Andrew Sherrod at (804) 697-1231 or
Caroline Browder at (804) 782-7643. Return to Top
Across the Commonwealth
Candidates, CLEs, cooking, and much more:
the VBA Summer Meeting is the place to be!
Former Attorney General Jerry Kilgore (R) and Lieutenant
Governor Tim Kaine (D), the projected gubernatorial candidates of their
respective parties, have accepted The Virginia Bar Association’s
invitation to debate at the Summer Meeting, continuing a decades-long
tradition of holding opening debates of statewide political campaigns
at VBA Summer Meetings.
The debate will be held on Saturday, July 16, from 10:30 a.m. to noon,
at The Greenbrier. Professor Robert D. Holsworth, director of the L. Douglas
Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs at Virginia Commonwealth
University, will serve as moderator.
VBA President Jim Meath voiced the pleasure of the Association’s
Board of Governors at the candidates’ commitment to the event. “We
believe this will give both men an excellent platform and afford citizens
an early look at a major decision that will be made in November 2005,”
he said.
The organized bar’s role in overseeing professionalism
in the legal community will be considered during a general session on
Friday, July 15, during the VBA Summer Meeting. American Bar Association
President Robert J. Grey Jr. of Richmond will moderate a panel of leading
figures within the legal profession, including former Chief Justice Thomas
Zlaket of the Arizona Supreme Court and University of Illinois Law Dean
Heidi Hurd, who will discuss mandatory and voluntary efforts of monitoring
lawyer professionalism. The program is presented by the VBA Committee
on Special Issues of National and State Importance and the VBA Law Practice
Management Division.
Author Adriana Trigiani will visit the Summer Meeting
as part of her national book tour, reading from her new release Rococo
on Friday afternoon and joining her mother and sisters and The Greenbrier’s
chefs for a culinary demonstration on Saturday, featuring dishes from
her recent compilation of recipes and memories, Cooking with My Sisters.
The following continuing legal education programs, listed
with their sponsoring entities, will be offered at the VBA Summer Meeting:
Videotape Presentation: “Eye of the Beholder: Client Perceptions
of Ethics Issues in Intellectual Property Law (Further Expanded and Enhanced),”
Intellectual Property and Information Technology Law Section.
“Tips on Effective Advocacy in Arbitration,” Civil Litigation
Section.
“Fifth Annual Review of Criminal Law Decisions of the Virginia Supreme
Court,” a presentation by Prof. Ronald J. Bacigal, Criminal Law Section.
“Drinkin’ My Baby Goodbye: Dealing with a Substance Abuser in
Family Law Matters,” Domestic Relations Section, Judicial Section,
and Virginia Joint Alternate Dispute Resolution Committee.
“The FLSA Today: Fair Pay or Foul Play?” Labor Relations and
Employment Law Section.
General Session: “Professionalism: How Can Lawyers, Judges and the
Organized Bar Restore Our Values?” Law Practice Management Division
and Committee on Special Issues of National and State Importance (see
related article on facing page).
General Session: “Conflicts Between Lawyers and Their Clients II,”
an interactive ethics presentation by Thomas E. Spahn, Law Practice Management
Division.
“The 2005 Bankruptcy Reform Bill: 20 Years in the Making,” Bankruptcy
Law Section.
“An Overview of the 2005 Revision of the Virginia Stock Corporation
Act and Post Sarbanes-Oxley Danger Zones for the Directors and General
Counsel,” Business Law Section.
“Seventh Annual Review of Civil Decisions of the Virginia Supreme
Court,” a presentation by Hon. Jane Marum Roush, Civil Litigation
and Judicial Sections.
“Reducing Malpractice by Identifying and Helping the Impaired Lawyer,”
Lawyers Helping Lawyers Program.
Details will be available in the meeting brochure.
Later this year, accessing certain areas of The Virginia
Bar Association’s website at www.vba.org will require a bit more
effort than a simple mouse-click. In other words, VBA members will need
a password to view protected areas of the website. This feature will protect
members’ privacy and allow the VBA to provide more value-added features
for members only. To simplify matters, each VBA member will have a unique
user name which consists of that member’s ID number. The password
will be the member’s ID number plus the first three letters of the
member’s last name, as indicated by the following (facetious) example:
Member: Virginia B. Lawyer
User Name: 12345 (VBA member ID)
Password: 12345law
(member ID plus first three letters of last name)
Afraid you can’t remember your member ID? Watch the
printed address label on the back cover of the VBA News Journal —
member IDs are now being included with the address information.
The Virginia Poverty Law Center (VPLC) has issued a call
for entries in its 2005 juried photographic exhibition.
“Through Different Eyes: The Faces of Poverty in
Virginia” is a large-scale effort to capture through visual images
the lives of those in our society who are most invisible. The project
intends to educate the public through art about the lives of low-income
families and individuals in Virginia. These families share many qualities
that are universal — including triumphs and tragedies, pleasure and
sorrow, pride and pain, sacrifice and excess, courage and fear, love and
anger, spirituality and thoughtlessness. VPLC specifically seeks entries
that avoid stereotypes and instead explore the varieties of daily experience
and singular moments shared by our neighbors.
The Honorary Committee, led by Governor Mark Warner, will
invite the finalists and the community to a public exhibit and awards
celebration this fall in Richmond. VPLC, working with the Virginia Museum
of Fine Arts and Legal Aid Societies in Virginia, will tour the exhibit
throughout Virginia, thereby guaranteeing maximum exposure for the project.
Additionally, VPLC will work with the Virginia Commonwealth University
School of the Arts and the T.C. Williams School of Law at the University
of Richmond to produce a publication that incorporates selected photography,
testimonials, and essays on the social justice aspects of poverty law
in Virginia. The Virginia Bar Association and McGuireWoods LLP are assisting
with public relations for the competition, exhibit, and publication.
The nationally-recognized jury for the exhibition includes
Robert Sullivan, the long-time editor of LIFE magazine, LIFE.com, and
LIFE Books; Brooks Johnson, the photography curator from the Chrysler
Museum; Tom Rankin, executive director of the Center for Documentary Studies
at Duke University; and Willie E. Williams, a celebrated photographer,
curator, and educator. The jury will select images that portray the courage
and dignity of low-income families and individuals in the Commonwealth
of Virginia.
While the focus is regional by definition, any photographer
may enter the competition. Rules for entrants and an entry form are available
online at www.vplc.org. Dates for submitting work for consideration run
from March 1 through June 30, 2005. For more information about the work
of VPLC, please visit www.vplc.org.
The John Marshall Foundation
invites you to save the date of September 24, 2005,
for a gala banquet
in honor of the 250th anniversary
of the birth of John Marshall, “The Great Chief Justice.”
News in Brief
Elaine Charlson Bredehoft of Reston has been inducted
as a fellow of the International Academy of Trial Lawyers (IATL). A partner
in the law firm of Charlson, Bredehoft & Cohen and a member of the
VBA Labor Relations and Employment Law Section Council, she is one of
14 inductees invited to join the group of more than 500 national and 100
international lawyers. She has been included in The Best Lawyers In America
every year since 1997, was named by Washingtonian magazine among the "50
Best Lawyers in Washington" in 1997, among the "40 Top Lawyers
Under 40" in 1998, among the “75 Best Lawyers” in 2002,
and listed as one of the top employment lawyers in 2004. Bredehoft was
also featured as one of 12 top employment lawyers in the Washington area
in Legal Times in 2004. In 2003, she received the honor of being inducted
into the American College of Trial Lawyers, an honor limited to the top
one percent of attorneys in each state.
Malcolm M. Christian of Richmond, a VBA Life Member and counsel
to the law firm of Spotts Fain, PC, has received the Hunter W. Martin
Professionalism Award from the Bar Association of the City of Richmond.
In nominating him for the award, a bar member noted “Throughout his
52 years of membership in the Richmond Bar Association and active practice
of law in the Richmond area, and throughout his community involvement
including service as President of the Henrico County School Board, [he]
has demonstrated the highest level of professionalism and courtesy to
his clients and fellow members of the bar.”
Joseph W. Gorrell of Fredericksburg, former chair of the VBA Substance
Abuse Committee, has been named as the recipient of this year’s Lewis
F. Powell Jr. Award, for outstanding pro bono publico legal service, by
the Virginia State Bar. Gorrell volunteers more hours of service to Rappahannock
Legal Services than any other attorney, earning the nickname “Joe
Monday.” In addition to his legal aid service for the past nine years,
he has been a longtime supporter of the Lawyers Helping Lawyers Program
and a participant in the VBA Community Service Program. He is a retired
federal administrator with 42 years of civil service, primarily in the
U.S. Department of the Interior.
|
