Lawyer questions new ‘interactive’ CLE rule (access required)

Published: March 15, 2010
Tags:

Dear Editor:
Let me understand this.
The Mandatory Continuing Legal Education Board will now require that four hours of mandatory CLE be “interactive.” This change is said “to reflect concern about the decline over the last five years of attendance at live programs” and is designed to “stave off the inevitable that everyone will just stay [...]

Letter to the Editor (access required)

Published: January 6, 2010

Dear Editor:
I am a 25-year veteran of the Miami-Dade Police Department, a licensed Florida attorney since 2000, and recently admitted to the Virginia State Bar in October 2008, and after having represented my first criminal defendant, I am amazed at how extreme the differences are between the two states. Florida has a completely open criminal [...]

Letter to the Editor (access required)

Published: November 30, 2009

Dear Editor:
The dissent in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts predicted that the Court’s narrow 5-4 decision would have catastrophic consequences. The majority, of course, brushed off this criticism. So where do we stand, five months after Melendez-Diaz and three months after the General Assembly convened in a special session to enact a “notice and demand” statute? [...]

Exec clarifies VTLA’s view on client protection (access required)

Published: October 12, 2009

Dear Editor:
I am often not too effective at saying what I mean to say but I know that, my wife’s been telling me that for more than 42 years.
The article published in the Sept. 21 edition of VLW (“Payee-notice plans need more work, VTLA says”) did not fully set out the points I thought I [...]

Lawyer raps VTLA over payee notice (access required)

Published: September 28, 2009

Dear Editor:
I am disappointed that the Virginia Trial Lawyers Association objects to a proposed “payee notification” statute (“Payee-notice plans need more work, VTLA says,” Sept. 21). No rational consumer would think that having an insurance company mail them a notice that says “the check is in the mail to your attorney” is a bad idea. [...]

Letter to the Editor

Published: December 17, 2007

Dear Editor:
I’m writing to those of you who offer free initial consultations to prospective clients in order to determine whether you can help them. I want to persuade you to stop.
It certainly is not my intention to ask you to stop seeing prospective clients. I do, however, want to suggest that you stop [...]

Letter to the Editor

Published: April 16, 2007

I read with great consternation the remarks made in the General Assembly by Robert Lamb and House Majority Leader Morgan Griffith in opposition to Sen. Henry Marsh’s bill regarding our Commonwealth’s participation in the bicentennial celebration of Abraham Lincoln’s birth (Virginia Lawyers Weekly, Feb. 19, 2007).
I am a proud member of the bars of [...]

Legislative background of lien law explained

Published: March 12, 2007

Dear Editor:
Your lead article in your Feb. 26 issue caught my eye (”General contractor, sub have different rules on perfection of mechanic’s liens”). I am pleased to see that Judge Sharrett got the interpretation of the 2003 amendment to Va. Code Section 43-4 exactly right.
While Virginia does not really use legislative history, the story [...]

Letter to the Editor

Published: October 9, 2006

Dear Editor:
The Virginia Supreme Court recently issued an opinion in the case of Janvier v. Arminio in which a serious anomaly in the statutory law of Virginia was highlighted and brought to the attention of the General Assembly. In that case, a second nonsuit was knowingly granted by the trial judge, but it was [...]

Letters to the Editor

Published: May 8, 2006

CPF officers explain fund’s purpose
Dear Editor:
As the chair and vice-chair of the Virginia State Bar’s Clients’ Protection Fund, we write in response to the letter submitted by fellow VSB attorney H. Watkins Ellerson in the April 17 edition of Virginia Lawyers Weekly (”Lawyer Objects to Mandatory Liability Coverage,” 20 VLW 1383). In his letter, Mr. [...]

Today's Top Opinion

Municipal - No Inverse Condemnation From Flooding
In a case of first impression, a Fairfax Circuit Court says a one-time incident of flooding does not support a cause of action for inverse condemnation against VDOT and Fairfax County.
Livingston v. County of Fairfax (VLW 010-8-051) (10 pp.)

GET THE VLW DAILY ALERT

The Daily Alert from Virginia Lawyers Weekly brings you the latest legal news every morning in your e-mail. You’ll get headline news, a link to the day’s Top Opinion and more!

Click here for more info.

E-mail Sign Up:


Feeds/Web 2.0: