<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Virginia Lawyers Weekly &#187; Ethics</title>
	<atom:link href="http://valawyersweekly.com/tag/ethics/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://valawyersweekly.com</link>
	<description>VA Lawyers Weekly</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Jun 2013 13:26:42 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Virtual practice: Lawyers hanging a shingle in cyberspace&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/29/virtual-practice-lawyers-hanging-a-shingle-in-cyberspace/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/29/virtual-practice-lawyers-hanging-a-shingle-in-cyberspace/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Apr 2013 10:26:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Correy E. Stephenson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News Stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Office Management]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rules of Professional Conduct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia State Bar]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74059</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In Melissa Howell’s employment law practice, she rarely meets with her clients in her Norfolk office space. Instead, her clients prefer to work with her via phone and email or have her come to them, where she can access employment records and interview witnesses. Matthew Kaplan, who practices law out of his home in Arlington, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/29/virtual-practice-lawyers-hanging-a-shingle-in-cyberspace/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Specialty ad rules back to status quo&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/18/specialty-ad-rules-back-to-status-quo/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/18/specialty-ad-rules-back-to-status-quo/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Apr 2013 13:33:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter Vieth</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News Stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Marketing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Virginia News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia State Bar]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73826</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[After announcing rule changes that would have barred lawyers from advertising credentials as specialists, then vacating the new rules a day before their effective date last fall, the Supreme Court of Virginia now has published a new set of lawyer advertising rules that preserves the status quo for specialty claims. In the latest set of [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/18/specialty-ad-rules-back-to-status-quo/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Attorneys, marketers hesitate to endorse LinkedIn endorsements&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/10/attorneys-marketers-hesitate-to-endorse-linkedin-endorsements/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/10/attorneys-marketers-hesitate-to-endorse-linkedin-endorsements/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Apr 2013 20:18:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Correy E. Stephenson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News Stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73718</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Brian D. Wassom has never done work on mergers and acquisitions. But someone recently endorsed him for the skill on social networking site LinkedIn. A slip-up like that is part of the reason marketing expert Allison C. Shields, president of New York-based Legal Ease Consulting a legal practice management and marketing firm, is “on the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/10/attorneys-marketers-hesitate-to-endorse-linkedin-endorsements/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Board certification claims still allowed&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/12/07/board-certification-claims-still-allowed/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/12/07/board-certification-claims-still-allowed/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Dec 2012 11:55:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter Vieth</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News Stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Marketing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Virginia News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia State Bar]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=71300</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Lawyers upset about having to remove board certification credentials from websites and other advertising materials may have prompted the Supreme Court of Virginia to abandon its publicly announced revisions to lawyer advertising rules just two days before they were to take effect. In a Nov. 29 order, the court “vacated and set aside” its Sept. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/12/07/board-certification-claims-still-allowed/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Court reconsiders rules on lawyer ads&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/11/30/supreme-court-reconsiders-rules-on-lawyer-ads/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/11/30/supreme-court-reconsiders-rules-on-lawyer-ads/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Nov 2012 14:45:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter Vieth</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News Stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Malpractice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Virginia News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia State Bar]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=71147</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Just two days before new rules on lawyer advertising in Virginia were scheduled to take effect, the Supreme Court of Virginia abruptly dropped the planned revision. In a Nov. 29 order, the court “vacated and set aside” its Sept. 18 approval of modifications to the lawyer advertising rules. Those modifications were scheduled to take effect [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/11/30/supreme-court-reconsiders-rules-on-lawyer-ads/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ethics case centers on lawyer’s conflict check&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/10/18/ethics-case-centers-on-lawyers-conflict-check/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/10/18/ethics-case-centers-on-lawyers-conflict-check/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Oct 2012 14:09:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter Vieth</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News Stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Domestic Relations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lawyer Discipline]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia State Bar]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=70180</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An Eastern Shore lawyer is fighting to overturn a Virginia State Bar admonition for failing to withdraw from representing a divorcing husband after the wife divulged confidential information to his law partner. The case highlights the risk of not having a database for easy conflict checks, even for a small law office.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/10/18/ethics-case-centers-on-lawyers-conflict-check/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Lawyers paying non-lawyer colleagues&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/10/02/lawyers-paying-non-lawyer-colleagues/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/10/02/lawyers-paying-non-lawyer-colleagues/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Oct 2012 13:32:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dolan Media Newswires</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News Stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Attorneys Fees]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ethics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=69892</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ethics experts and the lawyers they counsel have engaged in a long-running debate about how lawyers can compensate their non-lawyer colleagues. It’s been a contentious issue and a recent decision by the Wisconsin Supreme Court highlights the continuing controversy. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held recently that a law firm could pay a paralegal a percentage [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/10/02/lawyers-paying-non-lawyer-colleagues/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>VSB approves adjuster talk with plaintiff’s lawyer&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/09/28/vsb-approves-adjuster-talk-with-plaintiffs-lawyer/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/09/28/vsb-approves-adjuster-talk-with-plaintiffs-lawyer/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Sep 2012 10:51:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News Stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Ethics Opinion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rules of Professional Conduct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia State Bar]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=69829</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Virginia State Bar has approved an advisory ethics opinion that says unless a plaintiff’s lawyer knows that a defense lawyer represents the insured and the insurance carrier, the plaintiff’s lawyer may talk to an insurance adjuster without the defense lawyer’s consent. A draft Legal Ethics Opinion 1863, circulated last month by the VSB Standing [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/09/28/vsb-approves-adjuster-talk-with-plaintiffs-lawyer/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Court nixes changes in lawyer ad rules&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/09/20/supreme-court-nixes-changes-in-lawyer-ad-rules/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/09/20/supreme-court-nixes-changes-in-lawyer-ad-rules/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Sep 2012 13:44:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter Vieth</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News Stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Marketing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rules of Professional Conduct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Virginia News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia State Bar]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=69653</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Supreme Court of Virginia has rejected proposed reforms in lawyer advertising regulations, refusing to relax requirements for disclaimers on claims about case results and tightening limits on the use of words such as “expert” and “specialist.” With amended advertising rules adopted Sept. 18, the court spurned a plan by the Virginia State Bar and its [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/09/20/supreme-court-nixes-changes-in-lawyer-ad-rules/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Insurance defense bar questions adjuster LEO&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/09/12/insurance-defense-bar-questions-adjuster-leo/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/09/12/insurance-defense-bar-questions-adjuster-leo/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Sep 2012 13:27:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter Vieth</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News Stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Insurance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Ethics Opinion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Association of Defense Attorneys]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia State Bar]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=69528</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Virginia State Bar is proposing to give a green light to plaintiffs’ lawyers talking directly with insurance adjusters, but tort defense lawyers are signaling caution. The Virginia Association of Defense Lawyers warns about unintended consequences and oversimplification of the defense lawyer’s role if a proposed legal ethics opinion is adopted. The VSB ethics committee [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/09/12/insurance-defense-bar-questions-adjuster-leo/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
