Code updates, case law, ethics opinions, seminars, bar news, and practice trends
288
Total
76
Legislation
42
Case Law
12
Retirement
14
Military
17
Federal
10
Seminars
Showing 1–20 of 288 updates
Supreme Court of Virginia Amends Rule 5A:35 for Court of Appeals Rehearing En Banc Procedure
The Supreme Court of Virginia ordered amendments to Rule 5A:35, effective July 1, 2026, governing Court of Appeals rehearing en banc procedure. The amendments clarify that en banc review may be granted in whole or in part, limit en banc review to matters included in the grant, specify reply-brief timing including cross-error, and create a 17-judge baseline/rotational composition procedure when the Court sits en banc with fewer than all active judges. Family-law and GAL appellate practitioners should update appeal/rehearing checklists and briefing calendars for CAV custody, support, protective-order, abuse/neglect, and domestic-relations appeals.
Va. Sup. Ct. R. 5A:35 amendment (ordered June 15, 2026; effective July 1, 2026)
VSB Revocation: Gary Steven Pisner Following Reciprocal Maryland Revocation
Virginia State Bar reported that, effective June 8, 2026, a Fairfax County three-judge panel revoked Gary Steven Pisner’s Virginia law license based on reciprocal revocation of his Maryland law license on March 5, 2025. Practice-management relevance: verify licensure/status for referrals, appearances, substitutions, and matters involving attorneys subject to reciprocal discipline.
VSB Docket No. 26-000-137922; Circuit Court No. 2026-04406
VSB Public Reprimand with Terms: Thomas Bert Weidner IV for Fees and Conflict-of-Interest Violations
Virginia State Bar reported that, effective June 1, 2026, the Disciplinary Board issued an agreed public reprimand with terms to Thomas Bert Weidner IV for violations of professional rules governing fees and conflicts of interest/prohibited transactions. Family-law and domestic-relations practices should treat the item as a reminder to document fee arrangements, evaluate client/adverse-party transaction conflicts, and maintain conflict-screening procedures.
VSB Docket No. 26-080-137200
VSB Summary Suspension: Patrick Ross Macaluso Based on Maryland Criminal Convictions
Virginia State Bar reported that, effective June 5, 2026, the Disciplinary Board summarily suspended Patrick Ross Macaluso’s license to practice law in Virginia based on conviction of crimes in Maryland. The summary orders Macaluso to appear before the Board on June 26, 2026, to show cause why his license should not be further suspended or revoked. Practice-management relevance: verify current licensure/status when referrals, co-counsel, or opposing counsel are affected by disciplinary proceedings.
VSB Docket No. 26-000-139287
Craig v. Commonwealth: CAV Vacates Overbroad Lifetime No-Contact Condition Affecting Defendant’s Biological Children
In an unpublished June 9 memorandum opinion involving sexual offenses against a child by a stepparent, the Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and mandatory life sentence but vacated in part a sentencing condition that imposed an unrestricted lifetime ban on contact with Craig’s biological children. The court held the no-contact condition was permissible while the children remain minors but overbroad as a lifetime restriction without further tailoring. Family-law and GAL practitioners may find the case useful when criminal no-contact conditions intersect with parent-child contact and child-protection planning.
Craig v. Commonwealth, Record No. 0450-25-4 (Va. Ct. App. June 9, 2026) (unpublished)
Hazelwood v. Commonwealth: Published CAV Opinion Defines Protective-Order “Contact” and Obscene Sexual Display Standards
In a published June 9 opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed Hazelwood’s convictions for violating a protective order under Code § 18.2-60.4, holding that his directed gestures toward the protected person constituted prohibited contact, while reversing obscene-sexual-display convictions for insufficient proof of explicitly simulated masturbation. For family-law and protective-order practice, the opinion is important for advising clients about indirect/nonverbal contact, evidentiary framing, and criminal enforcement of no-contact protective orders.
Hazelwood v. Commonwealth, Record No. 2013-24-1 (Va. Ct. App. June 9, 2026) (published)
Fourth Circuit revives foster-care class action in Jonathan R. v. Morrisey
The Fourth Circuit reversed dismissal of a certified foster-care class action challenging West Virginia systemwide conditions. The court held federal courts may grant declaratory and structural injunctive relief for systemic constitutional and statutory violations affecting children in state custody, including needs assessments, placement timing, caseworker ratios, disability services, and neutral monitoring. Not Virginia domestic-relations precedent, but binding Fourth Circuit federal practice authority relevant to GAL and child-welfare litigation.
Jonathan R. v. Morrisey, Nos. 25-1232 and 25-1239 (4th Cir. June 4, 2026)
Supreme Court of Virginia affirms 13-month suspension in Wessel v. Virginia State Bar
The Supreme Court affirmed a Fairfax three-judge panel discipline order suspending Douglas Bell Wessel for 13 months. The Court held that Wessel violated Rules 1.3(b), 1.16(a)(1) and (a)(3), 1.15(b)(4), and 8.4(a) by misleading a client about trial readiness, failing to withdraw after discharge, and interfering with undisputed settlement funds.
Wessel v. Virginia State Bar ex rel. Fifth District, Section II Committee, Record No. 251004 (Va. June 4, 2026)
VSB Public Reprimand with Terms: Marc Seguinot for Competence, Diligence, Communication, and Safekeeping-Property Violations
Virginia State Bar summary reports that, effective June 2, 2026, the Fifth District, Section II Subcommittee issued an agreed public reprimand with terms to Marc Seguinot for violating professional rules governing competence, diligence, communication, and safekeeping property.
VSB Docket Nos. 25-052-135419 and 25-052-135880
VSB Public Reprimand with Terms: Ryan Michael Rafferty for Diligence and Communication Violations
The Virginia State Bar reported that, effective June 2, 2026, the Fifth District, Section I Subcommittee issued a public reprimand with terms to Ryan Michael Rafferty for violations of professional rules governing diligence and communication; the matter was an agreed disposition.
VSB Docket No. 25-051-135616
Loblein v. Alcaraz — EDVA Denies Hague Convention Return Petition Based on Grave Risk from Domestic Abuse
The Eastern District of Virginia denied a father’s Hague Convention/ICARA petition seeking return of two children to Paraguay, despite finding wrongful retention in the United States. Judge Payne held that the mother proved by clear and convincing evidence a grave risk that return would expose the children to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place them in an intolerable situation, based on evidence of domestic abuse in the children’s presence, abuse directed at the children, and sexually inappropriate conduct around them. The court also placed the burden on the petitioner to show proposed ameliorative measures would sufficiently mitigate the grave risk and found the proposed Paraguay protective measures inadequate. Practical takeaway: in international-abduction cases involving family violence, counsel should develop detailed evidence on child exposure, direct abuse, psychological risk, and realistic enforceability of foreign protective measures. VLW 026-3-235; Civil No. 3:25-cv-737.
Loblein v. Alcaraz, VLW 026-3-235 (E.D. Va. May 29, 2026)
Guerrettaz v. Guerrettaz: CAV Affirms Sole Custody, Child Support, Equitable Distribution, and Virginia Custody Statutory Framework
In an unpublished June 2 memorandum opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed a York County order awarding Mother sole custody, resolving child support and equitable-distribution issues, rejecting Father’s constitutional challenge to Virginia’s custody statutes and best-interests framework, and upholding evidentiary/procedural rulings and attorney-fee award.
Record No. 0107-25-1 (Va. Ct. App. June 2, 2026) (unpublished)
Motaparthy v. Ravi: CAV Reverses Civil Contempt for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction After Defective Show-Cause Service
In an unpublished June 2 memorandum opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed a civil-contempt order enforcing a final divorce decree because the rule to show cause was posted at the husband’s Virginia residence while he was in India and was not mailed as required for posted service under Code § 8.01-296(2)(b). The court also confirmed appellate jurisdiction over civil contempt under Code § 19.2-318.
Record No. 0103-25-1 (Va. Ct. App. June 2, 2026) (unpublished)
Proposed LEO 1902: Duties When Opposing Counsel Files Unchecked AI-Hallucinated Legal Authority
The Virginia State Bar Legal Ethics Committee is seeking public comment on Proposed Legal Ethics Opinion 1902, addressing duties when opposing counsel files pleadings containing generative-AI hallucinations such as false quotations or nonexistent case citations. The proposal says lawyers must use professional judgment in deciding whether to report opposing counsel to disciplinary authorities, considering seriousness and circumstances, and may not file bar complaints solely to gain civil-litigation advantage or harass opposing counsel. It also states that unchecked AI errors may implicate Rules 1.1, 1.3, 3.1, 3.3, and 8.4(c), encourages direct contact with opposing counsel where appropriate, and says identified false quotations or erroneous citations should be brought to the court’s attention. Comments are due to the VSB by July 10, 2026.
Proposed LEO 1902; Rules 1.1, 1.3, 3.1, 3.3, 8.4(c); comments due July 10, 2026
VSB Public Reprimand: James Calvin Breeden for Diligence, Communication, and Termination-of-Representation Violations
Effective May 22, 2026, a three-judge panel for the Circuit Court for Lancaster County issued a public reprimand without terms to James Calvin Breeden. The VSB summary states that the discipline involved violations of professional rules governing diligence, communication, and declining or terminating representation, with VSB Docket No. 25-060-134308 and Circuit Court No. CL25-330. For Virginia family-law practitioners, the action reinforces core practice-management duties in emotionally time-sensitive matters: keep clients informed, act diligently, and handle withdrawal or termination consistently with professional obligations. The VSB posted the summary on May 29, 2026.
VSB Docket No. 25-060-134308; Circuit Court No. CL25-330
VSB Administrative Suspension: Bernice Marie Stafford Turner for Failure to Comply with Bar Subpoena Duces Tecum
On May 22, 2026, the Virginia State Bar administratively suspended Bernice Marie Stafford Turner’s license to practice law for failing to comply with a subpoena duces tecum issued by the Bar. The VSB posted the disciplinary-system action summary on May 29, 2026, and identifies VSB Docket No. 26-033-137628. Although the summary does not describe a client matter, it is a professional-responsibility monitoring item for Virginia practitioners because failure to cooperate with Bar investigative process can itself trigger loss of authority to practice. Family-law offices should treat subpoena and disciplinary-response deadlines as risk-management priorities alongside client-service deadlines.
VSB Docket No. 26-033-137628
Supreme Court of Virginia Amends Rule 1.9(c) on Former-Client Confidentiality and Criminal-History Information
The Supreme Court of Virginia approved the Virginia State Bar petition amending Rule 1.9(c), Part Six, Section II, effective July 27, 2026. The amendment provides that a lawyer may not use information relating to or gained in a former-client representation to that client’s disadvantage, except as Rules 1.6 or 3.3 permit or require, when the information is generally known, or when the information consists solely of criminal-history information obtainable from law-enforcement databases or court records. This is directly relevant to family-law conflict checks, adverse-party representations after prior consultations, and handling criminal-history facts in custody, protective-order, and support matters. Firms should update intake/conflict procedures and confidentiality training before the effective date.
Va. Sup. Ct. R. Pt. 6, § II, Rule 1.9(c) amendment (effective July 27, 2026)
Governor Signs Childcare Affordability Package: Employee Child Care Assistance, Early-Childhood Cost Reporting, and Head Start Study
Governor Spanberger signed HB 18/SB 3 creating an Employee Child Care Assistance program that offers matching state funding to employers that cover childcare expenses for employees, with priority for small businesses with fewer than 50 employees. The same release reports approval of HB 1208/SB 134 for annual calculation/reporting of parental early-childhood care and education costs, and HB 211 for a comprehensive Head Start/Early Head Start report. For Virginia family-law counseling and settlement planning, the package is a practical benefits-and-budget development for working parents, childcare expense negotiations, and parenting-plan logistics. Attorneys should track implementation details because employer childcare assistance and state cost data may affect evidence about childcare availability and affordability.
HB 18 / SB 3; HB 1208 / SB 134; HB 211 (2026 Regular Session)
VSB Six-Month Suspension: Kelly Lynn DiCorrado (Virginia Beach) for Competence, Diligence, Communication, and Disciplinary-Matter Violations
Effective May 20, 2026, the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board suspended Virginia Beach attorney Kelly Lynn DiCorrado’s license to practice law in Virginia for six months. The VSB summary states that the agreed disposition involved violations of professional rules governing competence, diligence, communication, and bar admission and disciplinary matters. The action was posted on the VSB disciplinary-actions page on May 26, 2026, with VSB Docket No. 26-022-136789. For Virginia family-law and civil practitioners, this is a local professional-responsibility monitoring item and a reminder that client communication, diligence, and cooperation with disciplinary authorities remain core risk areas.
VSB Docket No. 26-022-136789
Yazdani v. Yazdani: CAV Dismisses Custody Appeal as Nonfinal Where Visitation and Reunification Remained Contingent on Mental-Health Evaluation
The Court of Appeals of Virginia dismissed Farzin Yazdani’s appeal from Fairfax custody-modification orders because the orders did not fully resolve visitation, phone/text contact, and reunification issues. The unpublished opinion explains that even though the circuit court labeled its order final, the order remained contingent on a mental-health evaluation and future compliance review, leaving further judicial action necessary. The court also noted that the circuit court could require the evaluation to evaluate contact and reunification in the children’s best interests, citing Code §§ 20-124.2(E) and 16.1-278.15. For Virginia family-law practitioners, the case is a useful nonprecedential reminder to craft custody/visitation orders carefully for finality and to preserve/avoid piecemeal appeals when reunification conditions remain unresolved.
Yazdani v. Yazdani, Record No. 2072-24-4 (Va. Ct. App. May 26, 2026) (unpublished)