Bar seeks comment on amendment to conflict of interest rule
Jason Boleman//April 3, 2025//
The Virginia State Bar is seeking public comment on a proposed amendment to Rule 1.9(c) of the Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct.
The proposed amendment to the rule, which governs conflict of interest, would allow a lawyer to use information gained while representing a former client to that former client’s disadvantage “when the information consists solely of criminal history information that can be obtained from law enforcement databases or court records.”
In a March 27 release from the VSB, the bar states that the proposal would “reduce the number of conflicts faced by criminal defense lawyers,” as under the current rule, an attorney who learned of a former client’s criminal history during representation would have a conflict when representing a new client if that former client were an adverse witness.
The VSB release also states that the information covered by the amendment is “typically provided by the prosecution to any lawyer representing the defendant,” negating any special advantage for the attorney.
Comments on the proposed amendment to Rule 1.9(c) can be submitted via email to VSB Executive Director Cameron M. Rountree at [email protected]. Comments must be submitted by May 7.
The proposed amendment can be viewed on the bar’s website, vsb.org.
Legal Tech
- How large language models are leveling the personal injury playing field
- Attorney Share, Lawmatics integrate to automate law firm referrals
- How ransomware tactics against law firms are changing
Verdicts & Settlements
- Motor Vehicle Negligence – Motorcyclist suffers severe injuries in vehicle accident
- Medical Malpractice – Patient dies after alleged improper medicine admin
- Workers’ Compensation-Vehicle accident paralyzes Brazilian cement worker
- Medical Malpractice – Death from cancer followed stomach pain misdiagnosis
- Workers’ Compensation – Seasonal worker paralyzed in tobacco baler accident
Opinion Digests
- Criminal – Defendant convicted based upon Commonwealth witnesses’ testimony
- Zoning – Party failed to show its due process rights were violated
- Tort – Jury’s zero-damages verdict for inmate plaintiff affirmed
- Parent and child – Record supported termination of mother’s parental rights
- Criminal – Man convicted of grand larceny after stealing $26,000
- Parent and child – Brothers dispute who should be their mother’s guardian
- Tort – Allegedly defamatory statements lacked the requisite “sting”







