VBA News Journal · Herman Benn, 95, the VBA’s first African-American member 8 • VBA Summer...

THE OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE VIRGINIA BAR ASSOCIATION • VOL. XXXIII, NO. 4 • SEPTEMBER 2007

• •VBA News Journal

Community Service • Reflections on NurembergA Pathfinder Passes • Diversity Job Fair • Summer Meeting Review

My New Year’s Resolutions for 2004 —

· Evaluate Life Insurance for Family Needs

· Compare Health Insurance Plans

· Start College Funding

· Review Long Term Care

as part of Retirement Strategy

· Protect Income if sick or injured

with Disability Insurance

· Purchase Life Insurance to fund

Partners Buy/Sell Agreement

· Contact Virginia Barristers Alliance,

your insurance subsidiary

of The Virginia Bar Association,

for all of the above!

To start our conversation, please complete this formand fax it to us at (804) 762-4192 or 1-800-947-2796.

Without obligation, I would like to receive more information about products and services availableto members of The Virginia Bar Association. Item(s) of special interest: ___________________________.Here’s how you can reach me:Name: _______________________________________________________________________Address: _______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________E-mail: _______________________________________________________________________Area Code ( ) Phone: ___________________________________ ____ Day ____ Evening

Virginia Barristers Alliance, Inc.THE INSURANCE AGENCY SUBSIDIARY OF THE VIRGINIA BAR ASSOCIATION

Dean Hardy and Howard DiSavino Jr. • 4880 Sadler Road, Suite 110, Glen Allen, Virginia 23060(804) 290-8720 direct line • 1-800-358-7987 toll-free • (804) 762-4192 fax • email: [email protected]

200520062007!

Just a few months left to fulfillthose resolutions...

News Journal4 • President’s Page

Wanted: Lawyers to Write Laws and Run for Office!Glenn C. Lewis

7 • Passing of a pathfinderHerman Benn, 95, the VBA’s first African-American member

8 • VBA Summer Meeting in Photos

11 • The VBA in History, 1947A Country Lawyer in an International CourtJustice Robert Jackson’s commentary on the Nurembergtrials at the 1947 VBA Annual Meeting

18 • Community Service ProgramIn its fourth year, the VBA Community ServiceProgram approaches goals with renewed zest

19 • Law schools are enthusiastic participantsin growing program

20 • Winter clothing drive cheers Williamsburg

21 • BRLS benefits from ‘Jogging for Justice’

22 • Young Lawyers DivisionVBA/YLD Diversity Job Fair brings students andemployers together for a memorable day

23 • Classifieds

23 • Professional Announcements

24 • Calendar of Events

VBA• •

701 East Franklin Street, Suite 1120Richmond, VA 23219

(804) 644-0041FAX (804) 644-0052

Email: [email protected]: www.vba.org

OUR MISSIONThe Virginia Bar Association is a voluntaryorganization of Virginia lawyerscommitted to serving the public and thelegal profession by promoting the higheststandards of integrity, professionalism,and excellence in the legal profession;working to improve the law and theadministration of justice; and advancingcollegial relations among lawyers.

On the Cover: Original graphic by Caroline Cardwell. One hundred fortyphotographs of Virginia courthouses are contained in Virginia’s HistoricCourthouses, written by John O. and Margaret T. Peters with a foreword by thelate Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr.; photographs by John O. Peters; published byUniversity Press of Charlottesville; and sponsored by The Virginia BarAssociation. To order the book, call the VBA at (804) 644-0041 or 1-800-644-0987.

PresidentGlenn C. Lewis, Washington, D.C.

President-electG. Michael Pace Jr., Roanoke

Chair, Board of GovernorsJohn D. Epps, Richmond

Immediate Past PresidentWilliam R. Van Buren III, Norfolk

Law Practice Management Division ChairDavid H. Sump, Norfolk

Young Lawyers Division ChairMatthew E. Cheek, Richmond

Young Lawyers Division Chair-electE. Livingston B. Haskell, Toano

Board of GovernorsThe Officers andProf. Margaret I. Bacigal, RichmondStephen D. Busch, RichmondHon. Rodham T. Delk Jr., SuffolkC. Thomas Ebel, RichmondCheshire I. Eveleigh, Virginia BeachHon. Robert Hurt, ChathamWilliam R. Mauck Jr., RichmondKaren Turner McWilliams, RestonSteven R. Minor, BristolJ. Lee E. Osborne, RoanokeStephen C. Price, LeesburgRichard C. Sullivan Jr., Falls ChurchLucia Anna Trigiani, Tysons CornerRobert C. Wood III, Lynchburg

Member of ABA House of DelegatesE. Tazewell Ellett, Alexandria

Legislative CounselHon. Anthony F. Troy, RichmondHon. Robert B. Jones Jr., RichmondAnne Leigh Kerr, Richmond

Executive DirectorGuy K. Tower

Assistant Executive DirectorBrenda J. Dillard

VBA News Journal EditorCaroline B. Cardwell

THE VIRGINIA BAR ASSOCIATIONVOLUME XXXIII, ISSUE 4

SEPTEMBER 2007

VBA NEWS JOURNAL, the official publication of The Virginia Bar Association (ISSN 1522-0974, USPS 093-110), is published six times per year (February/March, April/May, June/July, August/September, October/November, December/January). Membership duesinclude the cost of one subscription to each member of the Association. Subscription priceto others, $30 per year. Statements or expressions of opinion appearing herein are thoseof the authors and not necessarily those of the Association, and likewise the publicationof any advertisement is not to be construed as an endorsement of the product or serviceunless specifically stated in the advertisement that there is such approval or endorsement.Periodicals postage paid at Richmond, VA 23232. POSTMASTER: Send address changes toThe Virginia Bar Association, 701 East Franklin Street, Suite 1120, Richmond, VA 23219.

4/THE VIRGINIA BAR ASSOCIATION NEWS JOURNAL SEPTEMBER 2007

In 1787, 55 men convened inPhiladelphia to agree on aConstitution. Thirty-five of them (63.6percent) were lawyers or had a legaleducation.

Although the document couldhave theoretically been better ifthere were fewer lawyers in theroom, I have never heard that said.

To the contrary, observers stillsay mostly good things about thetext and initial 10 amendments theyworked out and signed on thatoccasion.

I am told that 25 years ago, mostVirginia legislators were lawyersand legislative committees withcourt and judicial oversight wereoverwhelmingly populated bylawyers.

Steadily, over that period, thesepercentages have declined. Today,relatively few legislators are lawyers.

Through the years, there have beenmany examples of splendid careersin the legislative arena, served bythose coming from other callings andprofessions. Likewise today, we areblessed with some fine publicservants who never had a legaleducation or a lawyer’s training andexperience.

Still, exceptions can underscorerules. I suspect that lack of legaltraining can often show up in wrong-minded analyses or deficient draftingor reasoning.

I have witnessed brilliant workdone by exceptional legislativecounsel in Richmond. Still, whenpresented with a bad idea, there arelimits to what a dedicated staffer cando to write it nicely. While workingwith various committees andproposals in the Virginia GeneralAssembly over time, we have seencountless bills and comprehensiveinitiatives that were fatally flawedfrom the outset; many remainedplagued with problems and issuesthat should have rendered themunworthy of consideration.

We all have seen bad ideas becomelaw, only later to be exposed for theirunanticipated and unintendedconsequences. Yet such consequencesare exactly what lawyers are trained

Wanted: Lawyers to Write Laws and Run for Office!BY GLENN C. LEWIS

Despite fine legislators and legislative leadersin both parties today, the few [lawyers] cannotfix everything. In many areas of legislativeresponsibility, it is hard to miss the impactof a long, chronic shortage of lawyerrepresentation. We clearly sufferfrom a dearth of lawyer-legislators.

PRESIDENT’S PAGE

to find. Much of our work is to lookfor and work to avoid such issues.We deal with this as a part of ourpractices.

Even the best nonlawyer must besomewhat disadvantaged by lackingsuch perspective or precise thinking,training and experience.

While people may fight this pointpublicly, many of them will privatelyconcede the issue.

Despite fine legislators andlegislative leaders in both partiestoday, the few cannot fix everything.In many areas of legislativeresponsibility, it is hard to miss theimpact of a long, chronic shortage oflawyer representation. We clearlysuffer from a dearth of lawyer-legislators.

This is not about political partiesor the electoral process. For what it’sworth, I write without even knowingwhich political party claims more orless lawyers within its ranks, let alonewhich has more or less lawyers onupcoming ballots this November.

I propose that, however we do it,we should commit, if not to the 63.6percent “Colonial percentage,” thento strive to achieve a level of lawyerparticipation of not less than 50percent in each house of thelegislature. Likewise, we shouldcommit to push for near lawyerunanimity on courts of justicecommittees.

By definition, these standards canonly be aspirational. I still believe weshould adhere to these or whateverother standards might be agreed on,as workable minimums andacceptable ratios for lawyer inclusion

within state and national legislatures.I am not alone in noting these effects

or how long we have suffered fromthis lawyer deficit. As lawyers, weknow the consequences, for we dealwith them every day. Given trendsin the quality of lawmaking, allcitizens will benefit if lawyers canfind ways to better promote this asother than self-serving or self-promotion.

If not taken up by the organizedbar, whom else might take anyinterest in saying it, let alone tryingto see that it happens? As with somuch else, if not us, then who will doit? If not now, then when should wetry?

Currently, we are not even close,or close to close. And trend lines areclear; percentages decline furtherwith each election.

Even though I propose that lawyerswrite laws, some may have issueswith promoting an entire professionfor public office. I am sorry to reportthat it happens all the time.

Just read on.

Certified Public Accountants(Although folks know he never got

out of high school, my 87-year-oldimmigrant dad proudly tellseveryone that he was a CPA. Whenthey finally bite and mention thisapparent disconnect, he smiles andsays “No, I did not say I was anaccountant, I said I was a CPA. A drycleaner, you know, CPA, ‘cleaning,pressing and alternations!’”)

Last year, I was invited to onceagain address the annual meeting ofthe Virginia Society of Certified

SEPTEMBER 2007 THE VIRGINIA BAR ASSOCIATION NEWS JOURNAL/5

Public Accountants (VSCPA). (I knowyou are riveted and how younervously anticipate the thrill ofreading my remarks on the nuancesof business valuation and forensicaccounting; expert testimony incomplex civil and criminal litigation;and yes, my innermost thoughts onrecent tax regulations and IRSRevenue Rulings. Alas! I regret wemust skip forward. So, to hear thespeech, you will first need to buy mea drink!)

After my talk and the Q&A periodthat followed, I was escorted throughthe Richmond Marriott by my goodfriend and host, State Senator WalterStosch (one of those fine “nonlawyer”exceptions I earlier mentioned).Heading to a luncheon, weapproached the VSCPA’s impressivevendor exposition and VSCPAexhibit. I was handed the currentedition of the Society’s newsletter andimmediately noted a sectionmentioning Walter as the loneaccountant in the Virginia legislature.The journal item sounded an alarm,enlisting members to run for office. Iwas referred to their website to learnmore about this initiative and theirlegislative program.

On returning to my office, I clickedon and read more about the Society,its activities and mission. As wastrue of their annual program andpublication, the website was trulyprofessional and very well done.

While checking the web, I noticed asimilar display with a link and FAQs,all coordinated as a direct challengefor members to get politicallyinvolved.

There was no mistaking the VSCPAmessage. This was an urgent call toaction. Accountant members wereasked to enter the fray; to give timeand money; to actively promote theirlegislative agenda; to supportlobbying as well as those candidateswho promoted their interests.

The Society simply andarticulately described its need forresponsive representation, includingby placing accountants in the halls ofpower, writing, debating andenacting laws.

The interactive web page made iteasy to donate money. With one ortwo mouse clicks, a credit card couldbe dinged for $50, $100, $200 or more,to contribute to the Society politicalaction committee. The CPA PAC wassaid to support state and localcandidates advocating CPA interestsin Virginia. As with the rest, the sitewas well-crafted for the mission.Benefits from their advocacycampaign were explained and were

directly tied to components of theadvocacy program. The site pointedout discrete and specific waysmembers stood to gain from PACprogrammatic activities.

This Virginia Society of CertifiedPublic Accountants had establisheda simple, clear objective for its majorinitiative: To develop a system tosupport members committed torunning for office and to work toensure they are elected.

I first sighed with relief: “What ablessing!” Imagine if instead, someirresponsible or problematic groupwas in this position or became so wellorganized!

These were accountants! Unless Iwas missing something, I saw littlebasis for concern and a good deal ofmerit in bringing more CPAs toRichmond. So much for budgetdeficits!

Furthermore, I had long beenimpressed with the group and itsmembers. The audience that day wasan impressive collection of the bestand brightest among Virginiaaccountants.

So, I figured, go ahead and bring themon, especially for Appropriations orFinance Committees. No problem!Even in other arenas, might not allbenefit if highly skilled number-crunchers and tax advisors wieldedthe public purse power so affectingour daily lives?

Then, my smile faded; lightheartedthoughts went away. Surfingwebsites of other professional groups,I saw more and more of the same. Thelonger I looked, the worse it got.

I soon learned that Virginiaaccountants, while among the bestand most effectively organized, werehardly the only group with focusedadvocacy or plans to elect membersto office.

After further research and callingfriends and clients familiar with suchmatters I have concluded:

If not the only one, lawyers areamong the only professional groupslacking a focused initiative to gainfootholds in the halls of power, to electour own people to office. In particular,it appeared mainstream, non-specialty bar groups such as ours,are those chiefly missing this boat.

To the casually familiar, theuninitiated or cynical people enjoyinga lawyer joke, the need for lawyer-legislators may seem silly. At best, itmight sound corny and self-serving.

I believe we must get about thismission. As a lobby and a tool to shapepublic policy, the VBA is uniquelywithout an axe to grind. Our policyagenda is devoid of self-interest,

unless by that we refer to improvingaccess to justice or the quality ofjustice — improving real justice, aswell as perceptions and respect forthe organs and institutions of justice,the cornerstone of our democracy. .

VBA policy positions are fully anddemonstrably coextensive with truepublic interest. We really mean itwhen saying we are in it for thecommon good.

Each fall, when we leave our finalsession of marathon Legislative Daydebates and votes, we can all sleepsoundly. We know that each measurewas vetted without pocketbook orparochial arguments. We search forand try to root out hidden agendas,even though they do not exist. Whensomething seems beyond debate, westill find a way and an advocate toargue the devil’s position, if only assymbolic protection againstimprovidence based on falsecertainty.

Yet, while true and nice, this doesnot carry the day. Beyond self-congratulations, this does not help atall.

Recent events beg us to do so muchmore. We must quickly grow wiser;we must more effectively promotepolicy in the public interest,consistent with our VBA strategicpillars, acting with bothtransparency and higher visibilitywhile we do so.

As lawyers who see both theprocess and the results, we are evermore frustrated about shrinkingpopulations of lawyer-legislators inRichmond and Washington. Thistrend is relentless, seeminglyinexorable. It is destined to only getworse, unless we commit and chooseto act with resolve. We need to restoreproper ratios, to bring back somebalance to the mix.

I do not argue to excludenonlawyers from the legislativeprocess. Although I have alwaysfavored having mostly lawyer-lawmakers, much good comes fromdiverse perspectives in policy making.We should always find room forqualified nonlawyers, at least to serveas reality checks. Although not myopinion, I respect others who mightsincerely believe that when somelawyers get caught in the weeds of aposition, they might tend to staydown there for too long; continuingwith this point of view, that lawyerwould have great difficulty acquiringthe requisite perspective; he/she couldnot easily pull back far enough to seethe trees, let alone view the wholeforest. As well, civilians may bringvast stores of common sense to an

endeavor.To the extent these points are valid

or plausible; the presence of some“civilian” (“nonlawyer”) voiceswould seem invaluable in getting tothe correct endgame.

From among the good lawyer’sunderrated virtues, common sensehas long been my personal favorite.Some lawyers have much less of itthan others. And for common sense,a law license is most assuredly notrequired. Common sense will eludethe unwary lawyer and may be farmore prevalent (or accessible) in thenonlawyer. This is one reason weteach young lawyers to first try out“surefire” opening statements orclosing arguments on a candid familymember or a trusted friend.

Other solid arguments exist forensuring more voices during policyformulation. We face challengesrequiring ever-smarter approachesin technology and science. At the veryleast, if not leading to more informedlawmaking, wider participationshould mean less bad thinking, lessblind adherence to narroworthodoxy. It might also protectagainst tendencies to over serve loudbut stridently parochial interests.

All that said, I remain a hopelesslawyer junkie. I love lawyers.

And as a group, I tend to trust us.Up close, I feel certain that the vast

majority of lawyers are just the kindof people we need to serve in publicoffice and to fix whatever is broken;whether in Congress or the GeneralAssembly; or for that matter, onschool boards, charities, Little Leagueand Boy Scouts; in religiousorganizations, for school functions,or in parent-school organizations.

So, no! It is not crazy to promotethat lawyers play a far moreconstructive and direct role inwriting laws.

Said differently, the oppositemakes no sense whatsoever!

It is absurd we should beburdened with a legislaturecomprised of far less than 50percent lawmakers. Likewise, wemust ensure that our Courtscommittees are overwhelminglycomprised of lawyers.

Clearing the HurdlesIn January 2007, within days of

my swearing-in as VBA president,VSB Bar Counsel Jim McCauleypublished proposed new LEO 1829,on Lawyers Serving on PublicBodies. As with his other work, JimMcCauley’s draft compendiumopinion was well-crafted,meticulously annotated and

researched. In July 2007, after theensuing period for public commentand debate, the State Bar withdrewproposed LEO 1829 from furtherconsideration.

What remained were combinedopinions, effectively continuing to barmembers of law firms from appearingbefore a city, county, state or otherpublic body on which anothermember of the law firm sits.

As I watched this unfold, a goodfriend, longtime colleague andrespected lawyer announced hiscandidacy for a newly vacant Houseseat. He would have fit the billperfectly. Yet the cost of his electionto him, his family and his prestigiouslaw firm would have been profound,given his firm’s significant legislativepractice.

Having encouraged others like himto run through the years, I wassaddened to consider such furtherhurdles, impeding the best of society'sproblem-solvers from standing foroffice.

Having long lamented the lawyergap, this was my closest reminderyet of our need to tackle this issue.Although the LEOs would not affect amajority of Virginia lawyers (most ofus are still in very small or solo firms),the likely impact is depressing toconsider: A firm big enough towithstand and suffer the sacrificepermitting service of one of its citizen-lawyers, is just such a firm as wouldmost likely enjoy the breadth ofpractice areas to include significantlegislative representation. So, perhapsfirms most likely to produce electablecandidates for the General Assemblyare those that would need to excludetheir lawyers from consideration.Given the shortage of lawyerlegislators, these issues may serve ascause and catalyst, as well as anirritant, both creating andperpetuating the problem.

This is not easy; still we must findways to address our poor choices,needless to say, without running afoulof conflict-of-interest rules orotherwise somehow furthercontributing to already troublingpublic esteem issues for bothpoliticians and lawyers.

Current Legislative AgendaThis year we again will seek to

redress a terrible law that in recentyears has afflicted circuit andjuvenile judges and families andchildren throughout Virginia. Lastyear, SB 737 failed to pass by just afew votes. This year we will tryagain. This bill sought to restoresanity to family law child custody

determinations, by repeal ofVirginia Code Section 20-124.3:1.That law reversed evidence rulesthat existed since the court systembegan, concerning child custodycases. Under the seductive guise ofchild protection, it does nothing butensure secrecy at court and childexpense, only to protect parents andtherapists from court scrutiny. Itscrapped access to data that coulddefine a child's best interests andevidence rules that applyeverywhere else. Moreover:

•The law sought to be repealed isill-founded. After first claimingscientific data supported claims ofharm to be remedied by passage, thelobby since conceded this was nevertrue.

• In the entire nation, only Virginiahas such a statute. That must meansomething.

•This sweeping and unprecedentedprivilege and evidentiary ban wasfirst proposed without bar or familylaw input.

•There is no Virginia precedent forbarring a party’s mental healthrecords in civil litigation when theyhave put their mental state at issuebefore the court.

•Virginia Code Section 20-124.3:1denies courts crucial evidence todecide cases. It also protects parentsand other adults from theconsequences of their misconduct.

•The law perpetuates secrecy atthe potential risk of children whoseinterests are before the court.

Therapist lobbyists framed this asa debate between lawyers andtherapists. There is no debate. Manytherapists agree with our analysisand have so testified.

Our effort at repeal is only aboutprotecting children and giving thecourt what it needs to make informedrulings.

The court needs this discretion toproperly decide custody matters.Only the court should decide whatevidence it needs and should permitin deciding these, the most importantcases in the system.

On Websites, Lobbies and LawmakingWhen surfing past the accounting

website, I also saw sites by lobby andtrade groups for various kinds ofmental health professionals.

These were among the best, mostadvanced, forward and aggressive inadvocating policy to protect memberand profession interests.

As with others, the therapists didnot mince words. They offered easycredit card payment for myriadPAC's, events and initiatives.


They also clearly expressed the“need” for therapists to run for office,congratulating each therapist electedand exhorting others to carry thebanner.

After my recent experience on thereceiving end of their lobbyingefforts, I looked back at their webpages and material. Again, theseprofessionals are my respectedpeers; mostly, folks I have spentdecades working with in cases andto improve policy and law in thisarea.

I was concerned that someonemight read material as plainly andwrongly suggesting a bill (such asthe one creating 20-124.3:1) waschild focused and noncontroversial,when it in fact contorts longstandinglaw; only protects therapists andparents; and can shield crucialevidence from a custody judgemandated to consider party mentalhealth and seeking to divinechildren’s best interests.

There is a continued suggestion thisis just “they say” vs. “we say.” Well,as written and passed, the law keepstherapists out of court, without courtor parental scrutiny of their work. Imay see motive there.

When they suggested lawyers

might have any motivation ofpersonal gain or self-service here, Iissued a challenge: Please point outhow any lawyer benefits, gains, ormakes a dollar from passage (or forthat matter, by the repeal) of anythingof this sort.

No takers yet.We will keep fighting this until we

win. And, we hope to win this year.Now, consider that such groups

will run for a legislative seat you couldhold instead.

Then, consider how to best activateand increase lawyer candidacy andelection to office.

If we “need” accountants; “need”therapists; “need” electricians,generals, teachers, clergy or countlessother groups making laws, then wecertainly need lawyers! We areobliged to stand and run, allproclaiming the absolute necessitythat lawyers run for office.

Let’s do it!

Get Involved with the VBA!Your VBA does many wonderful

things to enhance the practice, theprofession and the community.

A big part of our mission is ourpolicy work. Increasingly, we haveearned the trust of the legislature.

They respect us and appreciate ourserious and thoughtful input. Theyhave come to rely on our data andthoughts, with good reason.

So whether on SB 737 and 20-124.3:1; or lawyer candidates; or onany other public issues, please join usand let’s together get things done.Please become as active as you will;also, please weigh in on critical issues.There really is no substitute for thereasoned, informed lawyer's voice.

I welcome your email on thiscolumn and your thoughts onlawyers as legislators; and of course,on anything else of interest.

You may also always choose toreach out to one of our superb anddedicated bar staff or our otherlawyer volunteers. We are all hereto serve you.

Also, please get active in a section.You can best address issues ofinterest and concern by joining andactively participating in oursubstantive law sections. Together,we really do make things happen.

ConclusionIt is our responsibility to serve.

As a group and as individuals inthe greatest profession, we are quiteblessed and are obliged to give back.


Herman T. Benn, first African-American lawyer to join the VBA, dies at 95In 1958, Herman T. Benn became the first African-American

member of the Virginia State Bar. Nine years later, he becamethe first African-American lawyer to join The VirginiaBar Association.

Mr. Benn, a resident of Suffolk who died June29 at age 95, will long be remembered as aleader in the legal profession. In addition to leadingthe way toward increased diversity in the organizedbar, he and the late Roland D. Ealey (later amember of the General Assembly) took the caseof Johnson v. Virginia all the way to the U.S.Supreme Court in 1962, which held that racialsegregation in courtrooms was unconstitutional.

When Mr. Benn became a VBA member in 1967, newmembers had to be proposed by the Committee on Admissions,then chaired by William C. Battle of Charlottesville, and votedinto membership during the Association’s annual businessmeeting. Among those who supported Mr. Benn’s bid formembership were Michael B. Wagenheim of Norfolk, the firstJewish president of the Association, and Dean Hardy Dillard ofthe University of Virginia, both of whom offered eloquentstatements in favor of extending VBA membership to all eligibleVirginia lawyers.

A native of Southampton County, Mr. Benn was educated inthe Southampton and Nansemond public schools, receiving ateaching certificate after graduation from Nansemond Institute.He later graduated from Virginia Union University and the Robert

H. Terrell Law School and studied electrical engineering atTemple University while serving in the Army Reserves during

World War II.Mr. Benn began his career as an educator and

public school administrator in Lancaster,Northumberland and Nansemond counties. DuringWorld War II, he served as a non-commissionedofficer in the Signal Corps and was in charge of allelectric power at Roberts Field Airport in Liberia. Afterthe war, he entered law school, balancing his studieswith jobs as a real estate salesman and a postalclerk.

He was appointed in 1964 as Richmond’s first African-American assistant city attorney. From 1968 to 1975, hewas an administrative law judge for the U.S. Departmentsof Health and Welfare and Labor. He was appointed asthe first African-American to serve as assistantcommonwealth’s attorney for Suffolk in 1976.

His wife of 36 years, Marian Waller Benn, also a formerteacher, read law under his tutelage, was admitted to thebar in 1981, and practiced law with him until they retiredin 1997.

In addition to the VBA and VSB, Mr. Benn was a memberof the American and Suffolk Bar Associations, the NAACP,Alpha Phi Alpha fraternity and St. Mark’s Episcopal Church.He chaired the Legal Redress Committee of the Nansemond-Suffolk branch of the NAACP. — From news reports

VBA SUMMER MEETINGJULY 19-22, 2007 • THE HOMESTEAD • IN PHOTOS

117th


Many thanks to our2007 Sponsors

honoringVBA Past PresidentsHogan & Hartson LLPHon. M. Langhorne Keith, 1994

E. Tazewell Ellett, 2004

Hunton & Williams LLPEvans B. Brasfield, 1985

Allen C. Goolsby, 1991Hon. Whittington W. Clement, 1993

David Craig Landin, 1999

Kaufman & Canoles, PCWilliam R. Van Buren III, 2006

LeClair RyanG. Franklin Flippin, 1998

McGuireWoods LLPR. Gordon Smith, 1987

Thomas C. Brown Jr., 1992Hon. R. Terrence Ney, 1995

Troutman Sanders LLPJohn F. Kay Jr., 1982

F. Claiborne Johnston Jr., 1990

Willcox & Savage, PCHon. Toy D. Savage Jr., 1969-70

Hugh L. Patterson, 1981

Williams MullenJames V. Meath, 2005

CLOCKWISE FROM TOPLEFT: VBA President GlennLewis greets SummerMeeting banquet-goers; theLewis family welcomes U.S.Sen. John Warner (R-Va.), theLexisNexis honoree for2007; VBA/YLD Chair MattCheek and Legal Food FrenzyCo-Chair Katja Hill arecommended by Atty. Gen.Bob McDonnell for theirleadership in the firststatewide Legal Food Frenzy.

LEFT-RIGHT: Virginia State Sen. Ken Stolle (R-Virginia Beach) accepts the VBADistinguished Service Award for his work to increase funding for indigent defense; MattCheek accepts the framed House resolution honoring the VBA/YLD’s 50th anniversaryfrom Del. Jennifer McClellan (D-Richmond); U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clementpresented a review of recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions, cosponsored by the CivilLitigation Section and the Committee on Special Issues of National and StateImportance.


Many thanks to our2007 Summer Meeting

SponsorsBB&T CorporationCSX Corporation

DominionEquity Concepts, L.L.C.

Gentry Locke Rakes & Moore LLP

Hunton & Williams LLPLexisNexis

Lillian Vernon CorporationMcGuireWoods LLPMinnesota Lawyers

Mutual Insurance Co.Norfolk Southern

CorporationPhillip S. Griffin II, PC

SunTrust BankThe Homestead

The Lewis Law FirmU.S. Bank Corporate

Trust ServicesWhitham, Curtis,Christofferson

and Cook, PCWilliams Mullen

FROM TOP: Continuing legal education programs ranged from single speakers to paneldiscussions on topics that included lifestyle balance, labor relations and employmentlaw, civil decisions of the Supreme Court of Virginia, effective access to justice in the21st century, construction law, e-discovery in litigation and health care, airport-airlinelaw and business law — and much more!


Plan nowto attend the118th AnnualMeetingof The VirginiaBar Association!

January 17-20, 2008Colonial Williamsburg

FROM TOP: The VBA/YLD Executive Committee and Council gatherover breakfast ; friends and colleagues mingle at the welcomereception; Byrum Geisler sprints to success in the first annual“Jogging for Justice” 5K; Executive Chef Rodger Martin demonstratespreparation techniques for VBA guests; David Keister of SunTrustpresents financial tips for retirement planning; “Off the Record”entertains at the Friday night banquet; tournament prize sponsorPhil Griffin channels Pete Sampras; Dr. Paul Levengood discusses400 years of Virginia commerce at the Legacy Series luncheon.

The Nuremberg trial is nowhistory; its decision is precedent. I amnot here to argue its merits because itis too early to know what its meritsmay be. We can only say what weexpect, but the next few years willhave to determine what Nurembergreally means to the history of theworld. I do not expect there will be atest of the law intended to preservethe peace of the world for perhaps ageneration. The countries of Europe,including Russia, are too weak today,too exhausted in resources, too wearyin flesh to take up a fight again now. Ido not believe that any people wantsa renewal of conflict at this time and Ido not believe the leadership of anypeople, including the leadership ofRussia, wants a renewal of the conflictnow, even though they want to geteverything they can without conflict.But in 25 years, when this war shallhave been forgotten and when theyare back on their feet again, there isdanger and the question is whetherwe shall have in the future the kind ofsociety that wants to be governed bylaw or whether we will revert to thekind of society that wants to begoverned merely by power. I shouldthink, in the light of the suicidalcharacter of this danger to most ofthe European countries, it should beeasy to convince them they shouldturn to a world of law.

What I want to do tonight,informally, is to tell you some of thethings that lawyers would want toknow about this trial. Not many ofyou will ever go through just thatkind of trial. We could find no rulingprecedents. We had to beat our ownpath, and some of the things we did Iam sure could be done much better ifwe could do them over again.Lawyers find interest in the trial notmerely because of its effect on thepeace of the world but because of itsrelation to the philosophy and thepractice of the law.

The first thing I want to say is thatthese trials were not gotten up for thepurpose of vindicating someindividuals’ theories nor for thepurpose of writing anybody’stheories into the law. They were theproduct of the pressure of events morethan of anybody’s philosophy. Therehad been some general discussions atYalta between President Roosevelt,Mr. Churchill and Mr. Stalin as to thetrial of the Nazi war criminals, butnothing definite had been agreed untilGermany surrendered.

What conditions faced the UnitedStates? Most of the importantGerman officials had surrendered tothe United States; they seemed tothink their chance of survival was alittle better if they surrendered to usrather than to the forces pressing onthem from the East. The United Statesfound itself with many prisoners ofwar on its hands, many personswhom we had charged with the mostatrocious offenses, men who werecharged with being guilty of startingthe war and of waging it with aruthlessness not paralleled sincemedieval times, and men who hadbeen charged with crimes against ourown military personnel.

What were we going to do withthem? Only three things have everbeen suggested as possibilities. First,you could let them go without trialand without punishment. But it didnot seem sensible to turn theseprisoners loose, after all the chargesthat we had made against them,without even a trial. It certainlywould make cynics of the boys whohad been asked to give their lives tocapture them on the ground theywere criminals. So it was unthinkableto let them go.

The next thing you could do wasthis: you could shoot them or hangthem without a trial. They were inour power and everybody concededit would have been legal on the part

A Country Lawyer in an International CourtREMARKS BY THE HONORABLE ROBERT H. JACKSON, Associate Justice of the United StatesSupreme Court, before The Virginia [State] Bar Association at the Hotel Roanoke, August 8, 1947

of the United States to have someexecutions. But we happen to have aphilosophy about these things thatwe do not hang anybody without atrial. You might hang the wrong man.I do not believe that the United Stateswould feel easy, or that history wouldspeak well of us, if we executed a lot ofmen without even making a record ofthe reasons why we did it.

If you were not going to shoot them,without a trial, and were not going tolet them go without a trial, there wasnothing to do but to have a trial. Theonly other choice was to havehearings, make some definite chargesagainst named men, bring forth theproof and then hear what they had tosay for themselves, if anything.

There were people in the UnitedStates who believed we ought not tohave any trials. Some people said itwas perfectly legal to shoot these menout of hand and said it would beillegal to try them. I never couldunderstand that philosophy myself,but some very eminent men lent theirnames to arguments of that kind.

Let us take Dr. Hans Morgenthau’sstatement; he is a professor at theUniversity of Chicago. He was quotedin the Chicago Tribune as having saidthis: “I am doubtful of the whole setupunder which these trials will be held.What they should have done was setup summary courts-martial and thenplaced these criminals on trial within24 hours after they were caught,sentence them to death and shootthem in the morning.”

The Nation, a supposedly “liberal”paper, published an editorial whichtook substantially the same position.It said: “In our opinion the properprocedure for this body [TheInternational Military Tribunal]would have been to identify theprisoners, read off their crimes withas much supporting data as seemeduseful, pass judgment upon themquickly, and carry out the judgment

THE VBA IN HISTORY: 1947



Great Britain was represented bytwo different governments. Startingout, we dealt with the Churchillgovernment, through Lord ChancellorSimon and the Attorney General, SirDavid Maxwell-Fyfe. Then, when theelections occurred, we dealt with theLabour government, through LordChancellor Jowitt and Attorney GeneralSir Hartley Shawcross. The Republicof France sent Judge Robert Falco, whowas a judge of the highest court ofthat country, and Andre Gros, aprofessor of international law,accompanied him. Soviet Russia sentthe vice president of the SovietSupreme Court, I.T. Nikitchenko, andProfessor A.N. Trainin, internationallaw teacher. So, as you see, we hadrepresentatives of the legal professionrather than of the diplomatic worldin attempting to reach this agreement.

I have taken some pride in thatagreement because, and I think Judge[John J.] Parker will agree, it provedto be a workable instrument. We notonly succeeded in trying these men,but there was less bickering aboutthe admissibility of evidence andpoints of procedure than you will seein the average criminal trial in theUnited States. It amazed me that wecould go through the trial with solittle time spent in arguing points ofprocedure. In order to do this therehad to be some give and take, and Ithink lawyers will be interested insome of the outstanding points ofconflict between the two systems, thecivil law system and the common lawsystem, which we had to reconcile.

Of course, we had the two greatcommon law systems represented inGreat Britain and the United States.France and the Soviet Union bothrepresented the civil or Roman law

without any delay whatever.” Justhow even this could be done withouta trial is hard to see unless it isintended, as it appears, to advocateconvicting men without hearing thedefense.

Now, those of us who worked withthis situation knew how impossibleit was to convict these men fairly in24 hours. Within 24 hours we didn’thave any evidence against anybody,and we know now, after we have gonethrough the evidence, that there weredifferent degrees of guilt among menwho sat at the same table. So therewas nothing for the United States todo, in justice to the individuals, exceptto put these men on trial. You couldcall it an inquest, call it a court-martial,call it a trial, but at least it wasnecessary that we make good thecharges that had been repeatedlymade during the war that these menhad behaved in a criminal manner.

But there was no tribunal inexistence and there was no code ofprocedure. There were lots of laws andtreaties which the Germans hadviolated, and international agreementsand international conventions. Therewere many sources of internationallaw, but they had never been reducedto an agreement or code; they hadnever been approved by the differentforeign powers and the four nationswere accustomed to different systemsof law.

The Soviets have a system of lawwhich stems from the ancient Romanlaw, but it reached the Russian peopleby way of Byzantium and had a greatdeal of Eastern influence in it. TheFrench received theirs from theWestern Roman Empire. The Britishreceived some law from Rome viaNormandy, and by other routes, andsome developed on that little islandas “common law.” Some of that weborrowed to make up our system. Sowe had four different systems of law,four different languages (if we countthe German with which we wouldhave to deal, of course), and it wasnecessary, before starting a trial, toreach some kind of agreement as toprocedure.

I was appointed to negotiate withthese countries, and we met inLondon, and after about two monthsan agreement was reached which wecalled the Charter of the InternationalTribunal.

system. But there were importantdifferences between the two; they hadevolved in different ways. Out of thisdifference in legal philosophy grewthe principal points of difference wehad to thresh out.

The first important difference wasas to the kind of court we were tohave. That was a very vital inquiryin an undertaking of this sort. TheAmericans, the British and the Frenchwere all in agreement that we wantedan independent judicial tribunal. Wecould call it a military tribunal, butwe wanted it independent in the sensethat judges should hear the evidenceand render their decision as theirindependent judgment upon the guiltor innocence of every one of theaccused.

The Soviets had a decidedlydifferent point of view. They said,“We do not need any question to beanswered as to whether these menare guilt; Churchill, Stalin andRoosevelt have said they are guilty.”We tried to point out to them thatChurchill and Roosevelt, even in theirown countries, had no power to sayanybody was guilty and have itenforced in the form of a judgment.But they were genuinely opposed toour idea of a court because in Russia acourt is not an independent agency ofjustice — it is an instrument of policy.The Russian court is frankly, and theysay so in their textbooks, aninstrument of policy designed to carryout the policy of the executive. Wetook the position that this court wasnot to be controlled by any nationalpolicy. It should hear the evidence anddecide whether or not these men wereguilty of the offense charged.

The Soviets finally agreed with usbecause they had no other choice. The

We did a postmortem on... thesteps [the Nazis] took to overthrowa free government and set up atotalitarian state. It would be wellworth the American’s time to learnhow it was done because theWeimar constitution had almost asgood protection on paper for civilliberty as our Constitution has.

— JUSTICE ROBERT H. JACKSON, 1947

plain fact is we had — most of theVirginia lawyers will understandwhen I say we had all of the aces. Wehad the important prisoners; they hadsurrendered to us. The Soviets onlyhad two prisoners, and one of themwas not of particular consequence.They did not have much evidence,and we had the evidence. They couldnot conduct a trial without us, andwe could conduct a trial withoutthem, and so we were in a position tobe rather influential in framing theagreement.

But these different ideas about thenature of the court persistedthroughout the trial, as may be seenfrom one amusing incident. I got theprosecutors together and said, “I thinkeach one ought to prepare amemorandum pointing out the thingsabout which his country is likely tobe criticized and give us the answerhe would like to make. Perhaps I won’tbe able to go along with you, but weought to know the position each onewants to take so we won’t get mixedup like counsel on the same side of thecase sometimes do.”

The British said that was fine, thatthey would get up a memorandum,and they did. The French agreed theywould get up a memorandum. TheSoviets asked for another meeting.When the next meeting came the chiefSoviet prosecutor, General Rudenko,said, “Let’s each of us get hold of hisjudge and make him agree not to letanything of that kind come up.”

Throughout the case ran thedifferences of opinion; the British,French, and Americans believing thecourt was an independent tribunalto make its own decision (it didn’tmake any difference whether itpleased the prosecution or theGermans), the Soviets believing it wasan instrument of policy, to carry outSoviet policy.

The next difference was closelyrelated, and was the matter of thefunctioning of the prosecution inrelation to the court. Under the Sovietsystem the court would determinewho should be indicted and whoshould be prosecuted; under oursystem that would not be for the courtto determine. Under their system itwould be for the court to determinewhat witnesses were to be called. Thecourt indicts, its tries, it runs thehearing; most of the questioning is

done by the judges. Our idea, ofcourse, was that the prosecutionwould be entirely independent of thejudges, the judges entirelyindependent of the prosecution. Wewould file our charges, we wouldcome into open court and prove themas in any Virginia or New York orfederal court. We prevailed on thatpoint too, but always, as I say, matterssometimes arose which showed thatno ideas had fundamentally changed.

As to the question of theexamination of the witnesses: underthe Continental system, in Germany,in Russia and in France, the witnessesare largely examined by the judges.Lawyers do not examine and do notcross-examine very much; they dooccasionally, but it is rare. The courtconducts the entire inquiry.

We could not use the word “cross-examination” in the agreementbetween the four nations becausethere was no Russian equivalent intowhich it could be translated. But Ithink you will all agree that nothingtests the truth like cross-examination.When the Continental lawyers sawcross-examination really taking place,they came to believe in it. They cameto see what it was worth. And I mustsay also that the Soviets came to thinkit was fun. They cross-examinedeverybody, and they asked questionsthat made me shudder because I thinkthere is no quicker way to ruin a casethan by cross-examination. Theywould hand a document up to ahostile witness and say, “I show youthis exhibit. Is your reaction positiveor negative?”

But the Soviets had thischaracteristic in cross-examining:they would always save face. If a courtrules against an American or Britishlawyer, it generally gets an argument;they stand up and fight for theirposition. But if the court rules againstthe Soviets, the prosecutor would getup and say, “Thank you; thank you,Your Honors. I had just finished withthat subject.”

But we were somewhat comfortedbecause the cross-examining done bythe Russians was not quite as recklessas that done by the Germans. I thinkthe prize bit of blundering in cross-examination was that of counsel forKaltenbrunner. Kaltenbrunner wasa cruel man. He had been a formerlawyer, disbarred in Austria, and he

was head of the concentration campsystem — one of the least decent of abad crowd. His counsel was doinghis best for him, and we respectedhim for that. We had a witness on thestand who had given damagingtestimony about a number of thedefendants, but he never mentionedKaltenbrunner, and a witnesscannot do a defendant much lessharm than by not mentioning him.We were surprised, therefore, whenKaltenbrunner’s counsel marched upto the microphone and said, “Youhaven’t mentioned Kaltenbrunner. Doyou know Kaltenbrunner?” “Oh, yes,”said General Lahousen, the witness.“I remember meeting Kaltenbrunneron the afternoon after he had executedthe students who had circulated thepetition at the university.” He wenton to describe how Kaltenbrunnerhad handled that situation. I havenever seen quite as bad an example ofcross-examination as that.

In many matters we had to prevailupon the Soviets to agree with us. Wehad to get them to go along with oursystem of procedure because theirswouldn’t have seemed right to us; butthere were some other things in whichthey thought our system was notgood. It was something of a surpriseone day in the negotiations at Londonto have the Soviet representative,General Nikitchenko, say that hethought our system of justice was notfair to defendants and they wouldnever agree to it. Well, that was a bitof a shock, but this was the point: Hesaid, “You file an indictment whichmerely says, ‘You are guilty; on sucha day you committed a stated crime.’When we file an indictment we haveto give the defendant a copy of everystatement that has been taken againsthim and a copy of every witness’testimony and a copy of everydocument that we expect to useagainst him, and when this evidenceis approved by the judge he is arrestedand the trial is a short matter.” Hesaid, “Your system of just giving hima bare charge and then coming in laterat the trial with the evidence, when itmay be too late for him to meet it,makes too much of a sport of a trial.We don’t like it.”

You have to admit there issomething to that point of view andyou have to admit that their systemof furnishing the defendant a complete



statement of the evidence that is to bebrought out against him and puttingit up to him to overcome it hassomething to be said in its favor. Weworked out a compromise, and ourcompromise was this: Our indictmentwas lengthened, and I think mostAmerican lawyers thought we hadgone too far in offering so long anindictment because it contained agreat deal more of evidence than anindictment in this country or in GreatBritain would contain; it contained agreat deal less, however, than it wouldhave to contain in either France orSoviet Russia. We compromisedabout that.

The next problem was rules ofevidence. Continental lawyers do notlike our common law rules and theFrench, just as much as the Soviets,were concerned about this. They werefearful of the suitability of our rules ofevidence and we did not think we

had much reason to insist on technicalrules. It was not a jury trial and mostrules of evidence are intended toprotect the jury against hearingprejudicial matter. Then we had a casethat would involve years of time andspread over the continent of Europe,and we were not sure we couldcomply with all technical rules in thetime available. We finally adopted asimple rule leaving much to thediscretion of the tribunal. It was this:Any evidence should be admittedwhich the tribunal considered tohave probative value.

That is pretty broad, and I believein applying rules of evidence myself.But the tribunal applied this rule tokeep out such things as anonymousletters or letters that had no apparentvalue; it admitted some affidavitswhere it was believed that theaffidavits did have some probativevalue. The result was that there was

no complaint when this case was overwith, even on the part of Germancounsel, that evidence had beenbrought in that was not valid andproper evidence.

Another point on which we had agreat deal of difficulty was thedefendants’ rights. We found itnecessary to provide in the agreementwhat the defendants’ rights shouldbe. We asked the Soviets what rightsa defendant had under their system,and there did not seem to be verymany. In fact, one of the irreverentmembers of our group said he thoughtthe only right a defendant had inRussia was to be present at his ownexecution. Under our system in moststates in modern times, although itwas not always so, the defendant, ofcourse, has the right to testify in hisown behalf under oath. We wantedthe defendants to have that right. Wethought no trial would be regarded

Virginia HolocaustMuseum creates exhibiton Nuremberg trialsLaw Foundation gives $100K

The Virginia Holocaust Museum,located in at 2000 East Cary Street inRichmond’s Shockoe Bottom, haslaunched a new permanent exhibit, TheNuremberg Trials Courtroom.

The Virginia Bar AssociationFoundation was an early financialsupporter of the project, which featuresa reproduction of the actual courtroomand continuous projections of footagefrom the trials. The exhibit includeslifelike figures of major participants inthe trial of Hermann Goering, thehighest-ranking Nazi official to survivethe war. It will serve to educate visitorson the rule of law in seeking justice,and continues the Museum’s missionof “Tolerance through Education.”

The Virginia Law Foundation recentlyannounced that it is contributing a$100,000 leadership gift to thecourtroom project and will jointly operatethe educational aspects of the courtroomthrough a joint commission of VLF andVHM representatives.

For more details about the Museum,the Courtroom and opportunities forsupport, please contact VHM Presidentand Director Jay M. Ipson, at (804) 257-5400, [email protected].

as fair in which the defendants hadnot been allowed to give theirtestimony under oath. The Russiansand the French thought it was notnecessary for them to testify underoath, and they would not be allowedto do so under the German system;but they thought they should havethe right to address the court, notunder oath and not confined to rulesof evidence, after all of the proceedingshad been taken. Under their system,the defendant himself has the right tospeak the closing word.

Well, it seemed to us that we weregoing to have evidence that waspretty convincing and the way tocompromise this was to let thedefendants do both. So it wasprovided that they could testify underoath for themselves and it was alsoprovided they could have a closingaddress after the prosecution hadfinished its speeches and after theirlawyers had finished. Then eachdefendant should have the right tospeak for himself. It could be a plea formercy, it could be a challenge to thejurisdiction of the court, it could beanything he wanted to say. Iunderstand that is the Russianpractice of allowing the defendant tohave the last word, and it is usuallyjust that.

I could go on indefinitely with thestory of how we compromised thesevarious matters. I shall not bore youmuch longer with it, but I think youwould want to know the difficultieswe had, what led us to make thecharges of crime that we did, and whywe arrived at the definitions of crime.Of course, violations of the agreedrules of warfare everybody concededwere crimes under international lawwhich should be charged. But therewere bigger things than that. Herewere defendants who, our evidenceshowed, had brought more than fourmillion persons into Germany andforced them to labor in Germanindustry and agriculture. Those fourmillion people had been torn fromtheir homes, chiefly in the East; seizedat church, seized at home, seized atmeetings like this, and transportedinto Germany. Were we going tocharge these defendants with a lot ofminor offenses and not mention fourmillion people who had been put intoslavery?

Then there were the persecutionsdirected against the Jews, and the

Poles, and the Slavs, and the Russians.There was the persecution of theCatholics and the persecution of theFreemasons. The Masonic lodges ofGermany and of all the capturedcountries were seized, their recordswere seized and their officers werethrown into concentration camps.Were we going to pass such thingsby? Those offenses were consideredto be crimes against humanity, crimeswhether there had been any war ornot; things so inhuman that under nocircumstance could they be regardedas other than attack on civilizationitself.

Then there was the great questionwhether to make commencing a warof aggression one of the charges. Therewere those who thought we oughtnot to; there were those who thoughtwe should. I was one who thoughtwe should. It seemed to me the timehad come in the course of civilizationwhen to start an ideologic war, or tostart a war simply to gain territoryor gain control of other people, was acrime. If it is not a crime to start sucha war, then there is not much use oftalking about the little crimes thatoccur in the course of a war. War, ofcourse, is a whole system of crimes, ofmurders, of arsons, of destruction.Originally the early Christianscholars and the early students ofinternational law thought there wasa difference between a just war andan unjust war, but in the last twocenturies we had gotten away fromthat idea and there grew up thethought that all wars were just andlegal.

It seemed to us that it was time toput the law on the side of peaceinstead of leaving the law on the sideof sanctioning war. I am not goinginto the difficulties involved in thediscussion of the legal issues, but wedid not believe that we were makingnew law. I am quite willing to bearthe odium of making new law if it isnecessary to make law to that effect.However, it was always murder tomarch into another territory and kill;it was always arson to go into anotherterritory and burn; but those whodid it were able to plead as a defensethat they were engaged in a legal war.When the Kellogg-Briand compactand other treaties were signed inwhich Germany agreed to forevergive up war as an instrument ofpolicy, it took that defense away from

men who made war upon theirneighbors; they could not plead waras a defense to their murders and theirarsons and their destruction whenthe war itself was illegal. That wasthe position which we took with thetribunal — that murder was murderwhen it was in the course of an illegalwar; and that has now become thelaw. There may be an argument as towhether it used to be, but there canbe no denial that it is law todaybecause the tribunal has acted andmen who were heads of powerfulstates have hanged for violation of it.Today we can say that under thisinternational law it is as dangerousto incite a war as it is to incite a rioton the streets of Roanoke tonight.Under the old law you could bearrested if you incited a riot out here,but you could not if you started awar.

There are one or two other subjectsI think you might want to hear about.What chance was given to these mento defend themselves? That is alwaysfundamental in determining whetherjustice was done. Every one of thesemen had his counsel, counsel of hisown choice if he made a choice. Theywere allowed to have attorneys whowere ardent Nazis. We felt that itwould not be proper to bar Nazis.We never objected at all to theirhaving Nazi representation becausewe thought if a man could get counselwho was in sympathy with him,perhaps he would make the bettercase for him and we were willing toface the best that they could offer.

German counsel, over 20 innumber, were furnished office spaceand secretaries and supplies; theywere provided with food and housingand transportation; they werefurnished the documents before theywere put in evidence, translated intotheir own language, and they weregiven copies in English and photostatsof the original. Every witness theycould persuade the tribunal wouldbe helpful to their case was searchedfor by the United States Army; wesent airplanes to Switzerland and toSweden to bring their witnesses tothem. We furnished them a transcriptof the testimony every day in Germanand a translation of it in English, andwe mimeographed their speeches.They had 20 days to sum up whilethe prosecution had three, and weought to have done it in a day and a



half and they in three days. They hada chance to examine every witness, toexamine every document and picture.They had every right that a defendantwould have in the courts of thiscountry, and they had many rightsthat a defendant would not have here.

What kind of evidence was used toconvict these men? I was in Germanytwo weeks after the surrenderorganizing the collection of evidencebecause it seemed to me the wholesuccess of this endeavor would dependon the use of legitimate evidence tobring about a legal conviction andthat we must not merely whip upan hysterical and passionate pleathat they be convicted whetherthere was evidence or not. Wescreened, as the military call it — Ibelieve we lawyers would say weexamined — 100,000 captureddocuments. Those documents wereall in the German language and it wasa great task to get competent peopleto examine them in German. Over5,000 of those documents weretranslated into English, and when weused them in English we had totranslate them into French andRussian also. Over 4,000 of thosedocuments were used in evidence, inwhole or in part, and when I give youthe number of documents, you mustbear in mind one document was Mr.Hans Frank’s diary of 40 volumes;another document was General Jodl’sdiary which ran into 17 or 18volumes. The tribunal was able tosay when this case closed that theconvictions could rest on documents,about only two or three of which wasthere any dispute. Those documentswere so well-authenticated that therewere no disputes before the tribunalas to their authenticity, and don’tforget we had against us the men whocould say they were not authentic ifthey were not.

Let me illustrate the kind of proofwe had because I think it is importantin the impression you get of this trial.We charged that the war was startedin deliberate aggression; we chargedit was started not as a war of self-defense, but as a war of acquisitionand aggression. Now, how do youprove that sort of thing? Well, weproved it from the Germans’ ownminutes of the meetings of the HighCommand with Hitler. By thoseminutes we proved — we had notonly the minutes, but we had the

stenographer, the colonel who wrotethem down — that Hitler, in thespring of 1939, advised his GeneralStaff that he had determined — to usehis own words — to “attack Polandat the first suitable opportunity.”Then we had the minutes of hismeeting in the Reichschancellory onMay 23 in which he disclosed that hisreal reason for the attack was notDanzig or any of the things given asreasons. He said this, and these werethe words of the minutes and severalof the witnesses and defendants werepresent who could have denied it, butinstead of denying it, admitted thatthis was true. Hitler told them: “It is aquestion of expanding our living spacein the East and of securing foodsupplies.”

And finally, we had the minutes ofthe meeting at Obersalzburg onAugust 27, and this is what they showHitler said:

“Destruction of Poland in theforeground. The aim is

elimination of living forces, notarrival at a certain line. Even ifwar should break out in theWest, the destruction of Polandshall be the primary objective...I shall give a propagandist causefor starting the war—nevermind whether it be plausible ornot. The victor shall not be askedlater on whether we told thetruth or not. In starting andmaking a war, not the right iswhat matters but victory.“Have no pity. Brutal attitude.”That was the spirit in which that

war started, according to theGermans themselves. You wondersometimes how it could be that wecould have captured suchdocumentation. It was amazing. Ithink no other people in the worldwould have kept such records. Wehad sometimes very revealingevidence about their intentions. Forexample, General Keitel had ameeting with reference to the

Lothar Kreyssig: The judge who resisted HitlerLothar Kreyssig (1898-1986) was a Lutheran pastor and German judge who

earned the distinction of being the only known jurist to resist Hitler’s policies andsurvive, although he was pushed off the bench when he refused to acquiesce toNazi demands that he allow the euthanasia of mental patients.

Kreyssig, who was appointed to the bench of the Court of Guardianship inBrandenburg in 1928, was regarded as a model judge for several years. After theNazis came to power in 1933, however, it was noted that Judge Kreyssig wasrefusing to attend a ceremonial unveiling of Hitler’s bust in his courtroom,protesting the demotion of judges who refused to follow “Aryan law” as interpretedby the Reich, and disapproving openly of Nazi policies.

Kreyssig’s subtle rebellion soon took the form of outright defiance. After hewas reassigned to the Petty Court of Brandenburg for his “insubordination,” hediscovered that patients at a local mental hospital were being systematicallykilled by the government. Kreyssig protested the Nazi practice of euthanizingdisabled, “non-Aryan” persons in a letter to the Prussian Supreme Court. Despiteefforts to quiet him, Kreyssig went on to issue injunctions against the hospitals inan attempt to stop transfers of patients to “special treatment” centers andbrought criminal charges against the head of Aktion T4, the Reich’s euthanasiaprogram. He also reported his actions to the Ministry of Justice in Berlin.

When Kreyssig refused to withdraw the injunctions in the face of officialwarnings, he was dismissed. He returned to the Lutheran ministry as a memberof the “Confessing Church,” which was opposed to the Nazi regime and its“Reich Church.” A criminal investigation of Kreyssig was launched but soondropped. Unlike other Confessing Church pastors like Dietrich Bonhoeffer andMartin Niemoller, Kreyssig was never imprisoned.

Kreyssig believed that the Germans, having committed crimes againsthumanity under the Nazis, needed to atone for their depredations throughactive service to those who had suffered. In 1958, at a synod meeting in Berlin,he proposed the creation of Action Reconciliation Service for Peace (ARSP), inwhich young Germans could volunteer to serve groups and areas which hadbeen affected by World War II. Five decades later, ARSP continues to encourageyoung people to work for reconciliation, social justice and peace.

— CAROLINE CARDWELL

Fall 2007 – Winter/Spring 2008Programs of Interest to Attorneys

Institute of Law, Psychiatry and Public Policy (ILPPP)University of Virginia

November 15-16, 2007: Assessing Individuals Charged with SexualCrimes, Charlottesville, VA, ILPPP

January 31-February 1, 2008: Advanced Research and Clinical Topicsin Forensic Practice, Charlottesville, VA, Omni Hotel

January 31: Treating and Managing Psychopathy:An Innovative Perspective

February 1: Reflections Upon the Virginia Tech Tragedy &Prosecution of a Terrorist: The Case of Abu Ali

February 15, 2008: Assessing the Risk for Violence in Clinical Practice,Charlottesville, VA, ILPPP

April 18, 2008: Risk Assessment of Sexually Violent Predators,Charlottesville, VA, ILPPP

Applications will be made for continuing education credits forattorneys, psychologists, physicians, social workers, counselors andothers. For program and continuing education information, pleasecontact els2e@virginia or (434) 924-5126.

For registration information, including dates, locations, and costs,please contact [email protected] or (434) 924-5435,or visit the website at www.ilppp.virginia.edu.

rearming of Germany and, insubstance, he said: “We are going todo this in violation of the Treaty ofVersailles. You must not put anythingin writing because if you do somebodymay get hold of it and it will be usedagainst us at Geneva” — and all of thetime a stenographer at his elbow wastaking it down and sending it aroundto all who were present; and we hadfound three copies of those minutes.

The Germans provided us with theevidence which can leave no doubtthat the offenses we charged had beencommitted.

Now, just a word as to what goodcomes of all this in the long run. Itseems to me that we cannot tell whatwill be the long view of theNuremberg trials. We cannot say thatthey will have any particular effectbecause we do not know what thediplomatic course and the militarycourse will be — conceivably theworld can get into such conflict thatno progress that has been made inthe world will be worthwhile. Butthese are the things which it seems tome have been accomplished by theNuremberg trials.

In the first place, we havedocumented the history of this war.As Judge Parker has described it, wedid a postmortem on a totalitarianstate. You can trace in Goering’sadmission after admission the stepsthey took to overthrow a freegovernment and set up a totalitarianstate. It would be well worth theAmerican’s time to learn how it wasdone because the Weimarconstitution had almost as goodprotection on paper for civil libertyas our Constitution has. Yet theymanaged to set up the concentrationcamps and the Gestapo and adictatorship because the Germanpeople did not recognize thesymptoms of a comingtotalitarianism. All of that isdocumented.

We have given the world anexample of a trial and hearing insteadof executing people in cold blood. Ithink anyone who watched whathappened in Europe at the close of thewar will agree there is too muchbloodletting over there as a part oftheir politics. If one loses a campaignover there, he loses his head with it.Although these prisoners werecompletely in our power, the very

fact that the United States paused andsaid, “We will execute no one untilwe have proved the case againstthem,” is an example that will haveits effect on affairs in Europe long afterJudge Parker and I are gone.

We demonstrated that four nationswith different languages, four nationswith different legal systems, cancooperate in conducting a joint trial.It seems to me that is important forus, as lawyers, to know. It has alwaysbeen our hope to substitute ourprocess of trial and hearing andadjudication for violence and forcibleaction. We have demonstrated that ifthe nations want to do so, they canuse our judicial processessuccessfully in spite of the barriers oflanguage and the barriers ofdifference in legal systems. We haveshown that the nations can agree onworkable procedures and the idea isnot merely academic, because it has

been done. There is a precedent now,and we know how much precedentsmean to the legal profession.

Certainly I would not for onemoment contend that Nuremberg isso effective that there can be no futurewar; it does not do that any morethan the punishment of a murderermakes it certain there will not beanother murder. But it does seem tome we have a new and a sounderbasis in international law for dealingwith the problem of the aggressorand, at last, we have put the lawwhere it is no longer saying that allwars are legal and have put it on thetable of peace.

What we have done or what wehave tried to do was to fulfill thewords of Woodrow Wilson that wemust “give to international law thatkind of vitality it can only have if it isa real expression of our moraljudgment.”



COMMUNITY SERVICE PROGRAM

VBA PRO BONO/COMMUNITY SERVANTS(100 hours or more of certified pro bono publico legal service andnonlegal community service)Christopher Albert, Hunton & Williams LLP, RichmondElizabeth J. Atkinson, Kaufman & Canoles PC, Norfolk*Robert J. Barry, Kaufman & Canoles PC, Norfolk*Brian C. Bernhardt, McGuireWoods LLP, Richmond*Brian C. Berry, Hogan & Hartson LLP, McLean*David B. Bice, David B. Bice PC, Lynchburg*Daniel Bieger, Copeland & Bieger, Abingdon*F. Nash Bilisoly, Vandeventer Black LLP, Norfolk*Elaina L. Blanks, Kaufman & Canoles PC, Norfolk*Valerie Brennan, Hogan & Hartson LLP, McLean*Andrea Bridgeman, Freddie Mac, McLean*Gary A. Bryant, Willcox & Savage PC, Norfolk*Christiane G. Burrell, Patten Wornom Hatten & Diamonstein,Newport News*Bruce Christman, Reed Smith LLP, Falls Church*N. Thomas Connally, Hogan & Hartson LLP, McLean*Ann Kiley Crenshaw, Kaufman & Canoles PC, Virginia Beach*Marie Diveley, Hunton & Williams LLP, RichmondAshley R. Dobbs, Hogan & Hartson LLP, McLeanDebra J.C. Dowd, Kaufman & Canoles PC, Richmond*S. Miles Dumville, Reed Smith LLP, RichmondKristine J. Dunne, Arent Fox LLP, Washington, D.C.Thomas A. Edmonds, Virginia State Bar, Richmond*E. Tazewell Ellett, Hogan & Hartson LLP, Washington, D.C.*Elena E. Ellison, Hunton & Williams LLP, Richmond*Michael P. Falzone, Hirschler Fleischer PC, Richmond*Andrew R. Fox, City of Norfolk, Norfolk*Lane R. Gabeler-Millner, Gabeler Battocchi Griggs & Powell PLLC,McLean*Jeffrey H. Geiger, Sands Anderson Marks & Miller, Richmond*Christopher M. Gill, Christian & Barton LLP, RichmondMichael L. Goodman, Goodman Allen & Filetti, PLLC, Glen Allen*Ann McGee Green, Anderson, Desimone & Green, PC, Roanoke*Laura Geringer Gross, Kaufman & Canoles PC, Norfolk*Grayson P. Hanes, Reed Smith LLP, Falls ChurchElizabeth G. Hester, Troutman Sanders LLP, RichmondLisa Taylor Hudson, Sands Anderson Marks & Miller, Richmond*Annie Lee Jacobs, Parker, McElwain & Jacobs, Charlottesville*Christopher A. Jones, Whiteford Taylor & Preston, Falls ChurchElaine R. Jordan, Sands Anderson Marks & Miller, Richmond*

Phyllis Katz, Sands Anderson Marks & Miller, Richmond*John G. Kelly, Reed Smith LLP, Falls Church*Tyler Garrett Kidd, CarMax, Richmond*Donald E. King, McGuireWoods LLP, Richmond*Glenn C. Lewis, The Lewis Law Firm, Washington, D.C.*Amy Marino, Troutman Sanders LLP, RichmondJennifer M. McLemore, Christian & Barton LLP, RichmondKaren Turner McWilliams, DLA Piper US, LLP, Reston*John M. Oakey Jr., McGuireWoods LLP, Richmond*Daniel Ortiz, Blankingship & Keith, PC, Fairfax*J. Lee E. Osborne, Carter Osborne & Miller, Roanoke*Amy Owen, Cochran & Owen, Vienna*G. Michael Pace Jr., Gentry Locke Rakes & Moore LLP, Roanoke*W. Benjamin Pace, Williams Mullen, Richmond*Charles W. Payne Jr., Hirschler Fleischer PC, RichmondStephen C. Price, McCandlish & Lillard PC, Leesburg*J. Bradley Reaves, Kaufman & Canoles PC, NorfolkDavid B. Rubinstein, Fredericksburg*Charles R. Samuels, Strother Law Offices PLC, Richmond*Karl L. Santone, The Chandler Law Group, Gordonsville*George Warren Shanks, Miller Earle & Shanks PLLC, Luray*Jennifer J. Sherwood, Jennifer J. Sherwood PC, Newport News*Patricia E. Smith, Bradford & Smith PC, Abingdon*Meade Spotts, Spotts Fain PC, RichmondRobert Stoney, Blankingship & Keith, PC, Fairfax*Richard C. Sullivan Jr., Reed Smith LLP, Falls Church*Tracy L. Taliaferro, Taliaferro & Mallory LLP, Colonial Heights*James R. Theuer, Hunton & Williams LLP, Norfolk*Kelly A. Thompson, Kelly A. Thompson PLC, ArlingtonGary E. Thompson, Hunton & Williams LLP, Richmond*Hon. Anthony F. Troy, Troutman Sanders LLP, RichmondThomas J. Wallen, PE, Attorney at Law, Fredericksburg*Emily M. Yinger, Hogan & Hartson LLP, McLean*

VBA PRO BONO SERVANTS(50 hours or more of certified pro bono publico legal service)Robert A. Angle, Troutman Sanders LLP, RichmondPatricia K. Epps, Hunton & Williams LLP, Richmond*Alexis Mei Fishel, Locke, Partin & DeBoer, PLC, RichmondStephen T. Fowler, Reed Smith LLP, Falls Church*Michael H. Gladstone, Troutman Sanders LLP, RichmondJoseph W. Gorrell, Fredericksburg*David B. Graham, Kaufman & Canoles PC, Williamsburg*

In its fourth year, the VBA Community ServiceProgram approaches goals with renewed zest

*indicates Charter Member of VBA Community Service Program, who participated in 2004 and/or 2005

Since its inception in 2004, The Virginia Bar Association’s Community Service Program has continued todevelop in ways that not only seek to recognize members of the legal profession who serve their communities, butalso to provide direct means of helping others. In the 2005-06 academic year, the Program was opened to lawstudents: approximately 400 students and faculty certified service for that year, with nearly 500 pledging servicein 2006-07. Although the number of participating lawyers and judges dropped slightly in 2006, the overwhelmingmajority of those who certified service were those who comprised the “Charter Club” — the participants wholaunched the Program with their initial involvement in 2004 and/or 2005. New developments for 2007 includedhighly visible service projects — a winter clothing drive and a 5K walk/run —at the VBA Annual and SummerMeetings. In an effort to streamline paperwork, pledges were no longer requested of participants, only certifications.Certification forms for 2007 will be available in early 2008, and all VBA members and their colleagues areencouraged to certify their hours of nonlegal community service and pro bono publico legal service at that time.


Cherish L. Hadley-Njewel, Portfolio Recovery Associates, NorfolkJason W. Harbour, Hunton & Williams LLP, Richmond*Melissa N. Henke, Hogan & Hartson LLP, McLean*John M. Holloway III, Hunton & Williams LLP, Richmond*Christy E. Kiely, Hunton & Williams LLP, Richmond*B. Webb King, Woods Rogers PLC, RoanokeMichael E. Kinney, Hunton & Williams LLP, McLean*Katherine Leong, Williams & Connolly LLP, Washington, D.C.*Kimberly M. Magee, Hunton & Williams LLP, Richmond*Charlotte P. McAfee, Hunton & Williams LLP, Richmond*Christopher M. McCarthy, McCarthy Elder Law PLC, Richmond*Linda C. McCreary, Linda C. McCreary PLLC, Fredericksburg*David Paul Morgan, Smith & Wells PC, MidlothianEric J. Nedell, Hunton & Williams LLP, Richmond*Christopher Colt North, Law Office of Christopher Colt North,Newport NewsSamantha S. Otero, Christian & Barton LLP, Richmond*Philip D. Porter, Hogan & Hartson LLP, McLean*William B. Porter, Blankingship & Keith, PC, FairfaxJudith Scott, Portfolio Recovery Associates, NorfolkAnna Richardson Smith, Kaufman & Canoles PC, NorfolkChristina M. Smith, Lieblich & Grimes, AlexandriaPatricia N. Snyder, Troutman Sanders LLP, Washington, D.C.George A. Somerville, Troutman Sanders LLP, RichmondR. Lee Stephens Jr., Spotts Fain PC, IrvingtonStephen Christopher Swift, Swift Law Office, Alexandria*Jon M. Talotta, Hogan & Hartson LLP, McLean*Gerard Treanor, Venable LLP, Washington, D.C.*Virginia T. Vance, Hogan & Hartson LLP, McLean*James J. Wheaton, Troutman Sanders LLP, Virginia BeachEdward T. White, Hunton & Williams LLP, Richmond*

VBA COMMUNITY SERVANTS(50 or more hours of certified nonlegal community service)Vaughan Gibson Aaronson, RichmondJessica E. Adler, Law Office of Jessica E. Adler, Washington, D.C.*David Grant Altizer, Altizer Walk and White PLLC, Tazewell*Alvin Powers Anderson, Kaufman & Canoles PC, Williamsburg*Barbara S. Anderson, Law Offices of Peter T. Straub, Alexandria*Jeanne Tyler Anderson, Cowardin & Kim, PLC, Newport NewsJohn William Anderson, Spotts Fain PC, RichmondHon. Rosemarie Annunziata, Court of Appeals of Virginia, Fairfax*David N. Anthony, Troutman Sanders LLP, Richmond*Stephen E. Arey, Stephen E. Arey PC, Tazewell*Charles B. Arrington Jr., Richmond*Margaret Ivey Bacigal, School of Law, University of Richmond*Edward D. Barnes, Barnes & Diehl, PC, ChesterfieldMichael E. Barney, Kaufman & Canoles PC, Virginia Beach*Anthony W. Basch, Kaufman & Canoles PC, RichmondRobin W. Baxter, Walton & Adams PC, Reston*Hon. William Allen Becker, Prince William County J&DR Court,Manassas*Thomas G. Bell Jr., Timberlake Smith Thomas & Moses, StauntonDarren W. Bentley, Clement & Wheatley, Danville*

Lisa Bertini, Bertini O'Donnell & Jochens, Norfolk*J. Edward Betts, Christian & Barton LLP, Richmond*Elizabeth Bircher, William and Mary Law School, YorktownLynne Jones Blain, Harman Claytor Corrigan & Wellman, GlenAllen*Michael C. Bobrick, Patten Wornom Hatten & Diamonstein,Newport NewsAlexandra D. Bowen, Coates & Davenport PC, Richmond*Stephanie Briscoe, Federal Judicial Center, Washington, D.C.Eleanor Weston Brown, Patten Wornom Hatten & Diamonstein,Newport News*Thomas C. Brown Jr., McGuireWoods LLP, McLean*John T. Bruce, Supreme Court of Virginia, Richmond*Kristan B. Burch, Kaufman & Canoles PC, Norfolk*E. Andrew Burcher, Walsh Colucci Lubeley Emrich & Walsh PC,Woodbridge*Ann T. Burks, NewMarket Services Corporation, Richmond*Stephen D. Busch, McGuireWoods LLP, Richmond*W. Huntington Byrnes, Clement & Wheatley, Danville*Mark Caldwell, Sands Anderson Marks & Miller, Blacksburg*Hon. Robert L. Calhoun, Redmon Peyton & Braswell LLP,Alexandria*Hon. Louis K. Campbell, Botetourt General District Court, Fincastle*Delphine G. Carnes, Crenshaw Ware & Martin PLC, Norfolk*Hon. Harry L. Carrico, Supreme Court of Virginia, Richmond*David B. Carson, Johnson Ayers & Matthews, Roanoke*Marie D. Carter, Kaufman & Canoles PC, Richmond*Matthew E. Cheek, Williams Mullen, Richmond*Hon. Whittington W. Clement, Hunton & Williams LLP, Richmond*Meghan M. Cloud, McGuireWoods LLP, CharlottesvilleAlexander D. Cobey, Hogan & Hartson LLP, McLean*John E. Coffey, Reed Smith LLP, Falls Church*John V. Cogbill III, McGuireWoods LLP, Richmond*Mary G. Commander, Norfolk*Sarah Cone, The George Washington University Law School,Washington, D.C.Anthony E. Cooch Jr., Cooch & Lapham PLLC, Fairfax*Eric D. Cook, Willcox & Savage PC, Norfolk*S. Gregory Cope, Hunton & Williams LLP, Richmond*Carrollyn C. Cox, Cox and Cox Attorneys, Virginia Beach*Timothy A. Coyle, Crenshaw Ware & Martin PLC, Norfolk*Lawrence G. Cumming, Kaufman & Canoles PC, Hampton*Gregory R. Davis, Kaufman & Canoles PC, Williamsburg*Jason Davis, Kaufman & Canoles PC , Norfolk*Stephen R. Davis, Willcox & Savage PC, Virginia BeachRobert B. Delano Jr., Sands Anderson Marks & Miller, Richmond*Hon. Rodham T. Delk Jr., Fifth Judicial Circuit, Suffolk*Robert L. Dewey, Willcox & Savage PC, Norfolk*Ann S. Dodson, Kaufman & Canoles PC, Norfolk*John Donaldson, William and Mary Law School, WilliamsburgMichael R. Doucette, Lynchburg Commonwealth's Attorney,Lynchburg*W. Birch Douglass III, McGuireWoods LLP, Richmond*Benton S. Duffett III, Grenadier et al, Alexandria*

Law schools are enthusiastic participants in growing programStudents at Virginia’s law schools have quickly emerged as some of the VBA Community Service Program’s staunchest

supporters. With approximately 400 students, faculty members and administrators certifying hours during 2005-06, thefirst year the Program was opened to student participants, the wave of interest brought in nearly 500 pledges for the2006-07 academic year, to be certified this fall. Recent graduates of the University of Richmond School of Law haveindicated that they plan to continue their involvement in the Program as practicing lawyers, and law students at theCollege of William and Mary bolstered the VBA’s winter clothing drive in January 2007 with their own collection efforts.The Program’s newest participants at Liberty University certified their hours in May so that their service could berecognized during commencement exercises. Washington and Lee, Regent and Appalachian have also offered enthusiasticsupport for the Program, with growing involvement at George Mason and Virginia. Whether law students are servingothers through personal activities, group projects or academic clinics, it is clear that they view voluntarism as animportant element in the life of a citizen lawyer, and that law schools are encouraging them in their altruistic pursuits.


Nicole Harrell Duke, Kaufman & Canoles PC, Norfolk*S. Lawrence Dumville, Norris & St. Clair PC, Virginia Beach*Thomas M. Dunlap, Dunlap Grubb & Weaver PC, Leesburg*Robert A. Dybing, Thompson McMullan PC, RichmondJ. Burns Earle III, Miller Earle & Shanks PLLC, HarrisonburgFrank A. Edgar Jr., Kaufman & Canoles PC, Newport News*Urchie B. Ellis, Richmond*Benjamin W. Emerson, Sands Anderson Marks & Miller, Richmond*John D. Epps, Hunton & Williams LLP, Richmond*Cheshire I'Anson Eveleigh, Wolcott Rivers Gates, Virginia BeachRenee Fain, McGuireWoods LLP, Richmond*Dana G. Fitzsimons Jr., McGuireWoods LLP, Richmond*Michael D. Flemming, Smithfield Foods, Inc., Smithfield*G. Franklin Flippin, LeClair Ryan, Roanoke*Jeanne F. Franklin, Alexandria*William M. Furr, Willcox & Savage PC, Norfolk*Richard D. Gary, Hunton & Williams LLP, Richmond*Paul W. Gerhardt, Kaufman & Canoles PC, Williamsburg*John A. Gibney Jr., Thompson & McMullan, Richmond*Hon. Larry E. Gilman, Hanover J&DR Court, Hanover*Freddie L. Goode, Central Virginia Legal Aid Society, Richmond*Robert C. Goodman Jr., Kaufman & Canoles PC, Norfolk*Allen C. Goolsby, Hunton & Williams LLP, Richmond*Marilynn C. Goss, Central Virginia Legal Aid Society, Richmond*Tarah Grant, Hogan & Hartson LLP, McLean*Jeffrey H. Gray, LeClair Ryan, Virginia BeachWilliam A. Gray, Sands Anderson Marks & Miller, Richmond*D. Brock Green, Jones and Green LLP, Charlottesville*Kevin W. Grierson, Willcox & Savage PC, Norfolk*Phillip S. Griffin II, Phillip S. Griffin II, PC, Winchester*Virginia H. Grigg, Christian & Barton LLP, RichmondCarolyn Grimes, Lieblich & Grimes, Alexandria*

Michael C. Guanzon, Clement & Wheatley, Danville*James P. Guy II, LeClair Ryan, Glen AllenDouglas L. Guynn, Timberlake Smith Thomas & Moses, Staunton*John C. Hale, Hale Carlson Penn PLC, FairfaxAndrea J. Harlow, Williams Mullen, Richmond*James R. Harvey, Vandeventer Black LLP, Norfolk*E. Livingston B. Haskell, Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Toano*Q. Russell Hatchl, Legal Services of Northern Virginia, Fairfax*Steven L. Higgs, Steven L. Higgs PC, Roanoke*Mary Ann Hinshelwood, Christiansburg*R. Lucas Hobbs, Elliott Lawson & Minor PC, Abingdon*Kevin D. Holden, Kaufman & Canoles PC, Richmond*Michael J. Holleran, Walton & Adams PC, Reston*Lawrence H. Hoover Jr., Hoover Penrod PLC, Harrisonburg*Richard Horan, Hogan & Hartson LLP, McLean*Elizabeth Mason Horsley, Williams Mullen, Richmond*Peter M. Huber, Willcox & Savage PC, Norfolk*Bryson J. Hunter, Gentry Locke Rakes & Moore LLP, RoanokePaul W. Jacobs II, Christian & Barton LLP, RichmondCharlie R. Jessee, Jessee Read & Ely PC, Abingdon*Harry M. Johnson III, Hunton & Williams LLP, Richmond*Michael Katchmark, Willcox & Savage PC, Norfolk*E. Andrew Keeney, Kaufman & Canoles PC, Chesapeake*Kirkland M. Kelley, Kaufman & Canoles PC, Norfolk*Nancy C. Kern, Virginia CLE, CharlottesvilleLynne Marie Kohm, Regent University School of Law, VirginiaBeachAmanda E. Koman, Office of the Commonwealth's Attorney,Manassas*Nathan Kottkamp, McGuireWoods LLP, Richmond*David Lannetti, Vandeventer Black LLP, NorfolkKamala H. Lannetti, City Attorney's Office, Virginia BeachMichael Larner, Hogan & Hartson LLP, McLean*Lisa Pierce Laughon, Attorney at Law, Roanoke*Mark F. Leep, Human Research Law Group PLC, RichmondTodd A. Leeson, Gentry Locke Rakes & Moore LLP, Roanoke*David S. Lionberger, Hirschler Fleischer PC, RichmondTimothy J. Lockhart, Willcox & Savage PC, Norfolk*Neil S. Lowenstein, Vandeventer Black LLP, Norfolk*Edward B. Lumpkin, Christian & Barton LLP, RichmondSuzanne Luna, Law Office of Suzanne E. Luna, PC, Virginia BeachTiffany E.C. Mansfield, University of Richmond School of Law,SpringfieldRenata Manzo, Hunton & Williams LLP, Richmond*Richard C. Mapp III, Kaufman & Canoles PC, Norfolk*Jeffrey L. Marks, Kaufman & Canoles PC, Virginia Beach*Wade W. Massie, PennStuart, Abingdon*J. Robert McAllister III, McCandlish & Lillard PC, Fairfax*W. Brian McCann, Christian & Barton LLP, RichmondMonica McCarroll, Williams Mullen, Richmond*Timothy M. McConville, Willcox & Savage PC, Norfolk*James P. McElligott Jr., McGuireWoods LLP, Richmond*Howard C. McElroy, McElroy & Hodges, Abingdon*Thomas Braxton McKee, Kaufman & Canoles PC, Norfolk*Michele A.W. McKinnon, McGuireWoods LLP, RichmondBeth McMahon, Kaufman & Canoles PC, NorfolkSteven A. Meade, Patten Wornom Hatten & Diamonstein, NewportNews*Daniel J. Meador Jr., Morin & Barkley LLP, Charlottesville*David S. Mercer, Troutman Sanders LLP, McLean*Bernard G. Meyer Jr., Meyer Goergen & Marrs, Richmond*G. Wythe Michael Jr., Hirschler Fleischer PC, Richmond*Leigh B. Middleditch Jr., McGuireWoods LLP, Charlottesville*Douglas E. Miller, Patten Wornom Hatten & Diamonstein, NewportNews*H. Victor Millner Jr., Chatham*Edward C. Minor, Courtland*Hon. Wiley F. Mitchell Jr., Willcox & Savage PC, Norfolk*

Winter clothing drive cheers Williamsburg

As of 2007, the Community Service Program no longer asks participants for pledges.

When VBA Annual Meeting attendees entered theWilliamsburg Lodge & Conference Center in January, theywere greeted by an “international man of mystery” and amushrooming pile of bags, boxes and bundles of clothingdonations for FISH and Avalon, service agencies in theWilliamsburg area. More than 300 items of winterclothing, ranging from hats and gloves to ski pants anddress coats, were collected and contributed by VBAmembers and guests, with strong assistance provided bystudents at W&M’s Marshall-Wythe School of Law.


John T. Molumphy III, Roanoke*Louis R. Monacell, Christian & Barton LLP, RichmondGlenn Moore, Hirschler Fleischer PC, Richmond*Connell Mullins, Spotts Fain PC, RichmondSean F. Murphy, McGuireWoods LLP, McLean*Anne Musgrove, PennStuart, Abingdon*G. Andrew Nea Jr., Williams Mullen, RichmondAdam R. Nelson, Thompson McMullan PC, Richmond*M. Andrew Nester, Henry County Commonwealth's Attorney'sOffice, MartinsvilleDavid Neumeyer, Virginia Legal Aid Society, Lynchburg*Hon. R. Terrence Ney, Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Fairfax*John B. O'Grady Jr., McGuireWoods LLP, Richmond*Carrie H. O'Malley, Hirschler Fleischer PC, Fredericksburg*Sakina Paige, Wachovia Securities, Richmond*Sharon E. Pandak, Greehan Taves Pandak & Stoner PLLC,Woodbridge*Hon. Albert W. Patrick III, Hampton General District Court, Hampton*Hugh L. Patterson, Willcox & Savage PC, Norfolk*Jayne A. Pemberton, Sands Anderson Marks & Miller, RichmondEric C. Perkins, Hirschler Fleischer PC, Richmond*Gordon P. Peyton, Redmon Peyton & Braswell LLP, Alexandria*Lucy E. Phillips, County Attorney for Washington County, AbingdonMarina Liacouras Phillips, Kaufman & Canoles PC, Norfolk*Brian R. Pitney, Sands Anderson Marks & Miller, Richmond*Anita O. Poston, Vandeventer Black LLP, Norfolk*Alexander W. Powell Jr., Kaufman & Canoles PC, WilliamsburgJonathan E. Pruden, Kaufman & Canoles PC, Norfolk*Glenn W. Pulley, Clement & Wheatley, Danville*Tracy L. Quackenbush, Halifax*Michael J. Quinan, Christian & Barton LLP, Richmond*Nancy Quinlan-Jaffa, Arlington*Colleen M. Quinn, Cantor Arkema PC, RichmondAlfred M. Randolph Jr., Kaufman & Canoles PC, Norfolk*Gant Redmon, Redmon Peyton & Braswell LLP, Alexandria*David D. Redmond, Christian & Barton LLP, RichmondJohn W. Richardson, Kaufman & Canoles PC, Norfolk*Carlyle Conwell Ring Jr., Ober/Kaler, Washington, D.C.*Cliona M. Robb, Christian & Barton LLP, Richmond*Cheryl L. Roberts, Law Office of John P. Frye, PC, RoanokeJohn F. Rodgers, Redmon Peyton & Braswell LLP, AlexandriaAgustin E. Rodriguez, Philip Morris USA Inc., RichmondKenneth T. Roeber, Sands Anderson Marks & Miller, Richmond*Nancy Newton Rogers, Troutman Sanders LLP, Richmond*Elizabeth Ross, Lieblich & Grimes, Alexandria*Douglas P. Rucker Jr., Sands Anderson Marks & Miller, Richmond*Thomas A. Rucker, Willcox & Savage PC, Norfolk*C. Edward Russell Jr., Kaufman & Canoles PC, Norfolk*Daniel Howard Ruttenberg, Smolen Plevy, ViennaHon. Pamela Meade Sargent, U.S. District Court, Abingdon*Jeffrey W. Saunders, Taylor & Walker, Richmond*Jane Whitt Sellers, McGuireWoods LLP, Burlington, N.C.*Hon. William W. Sharp, Warren County J&DR Court, Front Royal*Hon. W. Allan Sharrett, Sixth Judicial Circuit, Emporia*Hon. Louis A. Sherman, Norfolk General District Court, Norfolk*Winthrop A. Short Jr., Kaufman & Canoles PC, Newport News*Roderick W. Simmons, Hirschler Fleischer PC, RichmondPaul A. Simpson, Hirschler Fleischer PC, Fredericksburg*Matthew W. Smith, Kaufman & Canoles PC, WilliamsburgJames Wilson Speer, Virginia Poverty Law Center, Richmond*W. Edgar Spivey, Kaufman & Canoles PC, Norfolk*David H. Spratt, American University, Washington, D.C.*Caroline Stalker, McGuireWoods LLP, Richmond*J.A. Stalnaker, Willcox & Savage PC , Norfolk*Sarah Stanton, Department of Defense, ArlingtonJeffrey M. Stedfast, Kaufman & Canoles PC, Norfolk*Kimberly L. Stegall, Children's Health System, Inc., Norfolk*Robert P. Stenzhorn, Consumer Legal Services, PC, Virginia Beach

C. Daniel Stevens, Christian & Barton LLP, RichmondPhillip C. Stone, Bridgewater College, Bridgewater*Stephen E. Story, Kaufman & Canoles PC, Norfolk*Peter T. Straub, Law Offices of Peter T. Straub, Alexandria*Hon. Diane M. Strickland, Roanoke*Anthony M. Thiel, Willcox & Savage PC, Norfolk*Eric Thiessen, Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz,Johnson City, Tenn.*Frank A. Thomas III, Shackelford Thomas & Gregg, Orange*Lori D. Thompson, LeClair Ryan, Roanoke*Kimberley Timms, Vandeventer Black LLP, Norfolk*Guy K. Tower, The Virginia Bar Association, RichmondTimothy O. Trant II, Kaufman & Canoles PC, Williamsburg*William R. Van Buren III, Kaufman & Canoles PC, Norfolk*Nichole Buck Vanderslice, Christian & Barton LLP, RichmondJohn W. Vaughan Jr., Hirschler Fleischer PC, Richmond*Shawn A. Voyles, Crenshaw Ware & Martin PLC, Norfolk*Suzanne E. Wade, Wade and Wade PLC, Richmond*Kristin P. Walinski, Circuit City Stores, Inc., Richmond*Thomas P. Walk, Altizer Walk and White PLLC, Tazewell*Lewis W. Webb III, Kaufman & Canoles PC, Norfolk*Samuel J. Webster, Willcox & Savage PC, Norfolk*James L. Weinberg, Hirschler Fleischer PC, Richmond*Elizabeth L. White, Kaufman & Canoles PC, Williamsburg*Amy McDaniel Williams, Hunton & Williams LLP, Richmond*Sara Redding Wilson, Virginia Department of Human ResourceManagement, Richmond*F. Blair Wimbush, Norfolk Southern Corporation, NorfolkCharles A. Zdebski, Troutman Sanders LLP, Washington, D.C.and others who prefer to remain anonymous

BRLS benefits from ‘Jogging for Justice’

If you have performed 50 hours of service in 2007, certify them with the VBA in 2008!

Following the successful clothing drive at the AnnualMeeting, Community Service Program leaders planned asimilar benefit event for the Summer Meeting. “Joggingfor Justice,” a 5K walk/run along the mountain roads ofThe Homestead’s property, encouraged participation byall ages and athletic levels. The afternoon event drewapproximately 25 walkers and runners, with additionalfriends and family providing a cheering section at thefinish line. Proceeds ($850 at press time) from race fees,donations and T-shirt sales were designated to benefitBlue Ridge Legal Services, Inc., selected because itsservice area includes Bath County, where The Homesteadis located. Note: A limited number of T-shirts in youth andadult sizes are still available for $15 from the VBA office!


YOUNG LAWYERS DIVISION

VBA/YLD’s Diversity Job Fair brings studentsand employers together for a memorable day

After months of intense planning,the VBA Young Lawyers Division’sDiversity Recruitment Committeehosted its first annual Diversity JobFair at the Embassy Suites Richmondon August 18. Approximately 125students and more than 20 employersparticipated in the all-day event,which received partial funding fromthe American Bar Association YoungLawyers Division.

The Diversity Job Fair, which waspublicized throughout the mid-Atlantic region, drew both Virginiansand out-of-state students. Eachemployer reserved a suite forinterviews, which many praised as agreat improvement over other“assembly-line” job fairs whereemployers were separated bycurtains in an exhibit hall. The living-room setting created a relaxingambience in which students andemployers could converse about theirmutual objectives.

Registration and hospitality areasoffered opportunities for informalconversation between appointments,as did a buffet luncheon, and dressed-for-success students and employersmingled amid the tropical gardens inthe hotel’s atrium.

Co-chairs of the VBA/YLDDiversity Recruitment Committee areElaina L. Blanks, Kaufman & Canoles,PC; Dana A. Dews, Goodman Allen& Filetti, PLLC; Monica McCarroll,Williams Mullen; Karen R. Robinson,Kaye Scholer LLP; and Nicole S.Terry, Office of the MontgomeryCounty Commonwealth’s Attorney.

The VBA News Journal offers classifiedadvertising. Categories available are as follows:positions available, positions wanted, booksand software, office equipment/furnishings,office space, experts, consulting services,business services, vacation rentals, andeducational opportunities. Rates are $1 perword for VBA members and $1.50 per word fornon-members, with a $35 minimum, payableat the time of submission. Ad costs must bepaid in advance.Professional announcements may be printed;the cost per announcement is $15 and textmay be edited for style and space limitations.Deadlines are one month in advance of thedate of publication. Information is availableonline at www.vba.org, or call for details at(804) 644-0041. Information about displayadvertising is available online at www.vba.org.A variety of sizes may be purchased and specialrates are available for multiple insertions. Aswith other forms of advertising, costs must bepaid in advance. The VBA News Journal reservesthe right to review all copy before publicationand to reject material deemed unsuitable.

The VBA offers great benefits to our members!Visit www.vba.org/benefits.htm for more details.

POSITION AVAILABLEUNIVERSITY OF RICHMOND LAWSCHOOL seeks a full-time clinical facultymember to develop and teach a new multi-disciplinary family law clinic incollaboration with VCU’s School of SocialWork and Graduate Department ofPsychology.Required Qualifications: J.D. degree withsignificant practice experience in familyand/or poverty law, with clinical teachingexperience a plus. Must be licensed inVirginia by August 15, 2008.Appointment: People of color, women, andother candidates who will contribute tothe cultural and intellectual diversity ofthe faculty are strongly encouraged toapply. The University of Richmond is anequal opportunity employer.Contact: Professor Adrienne Volenik,Acting Director, National Center for FamilyLaw, at University of Richmond School ofLaw, University of Richmond, VA 23173,or [email protected] SPACEOffice share/sub-lease, intersectionInterstate 66, Routes 28, 29, Centreville(10 miles from Dulles). Ideal situation forlawyer with limited client visits. Sharesecretarial/receptionist. Windowed officefully furnished; ground floor, beautifulbuilding, plenty of parking. High speedinternet connection, telephone, fax andcopier/scanner provided. Conference roomavailable. Utilities/cleaning included.Numerous restaurants, shops withincampus setting. $1,800. Call 703-988-9002 or [email protected].

CLASSIFIED ADSPROFESSIONAL ANNOUNCEMENTSJon A. Nichols and Nicholas F. Simopoulos have joined Harman, Claytor, Corrigan &Wellman as associates. Mr. Nichols received his B.A. in 1999 from Canisius Collegeand his J.D. in 2002 from the State University of New York at Buffalo. Before joiningHarman, Claytor, he practiced for five years with a Richmond law firm. His primary areaof concentration is civil litigation. Mr. Simopoulos received his B.A. in 1999 from theUniversity of Virginia and his J.D. in 2004 from George Mason University School of Law.Before joining Harman, Claytor, he was a judicial law clerk for Judge Jean HarrisonClements at the Court of Appeals of Virginia. His primary areas of concentration areinsurance coverage and civil litigation.

Elizabeth E. Cherkis has been elected a Principal in Wright, Robinson, Osthimer &Tatum’s Richmond, Va., office. In addition, the firm has recently hired Kanisha L.Adkins, Kenneth T. Bailey, Heather E.W. Bryden, Kevin D. Cooper, Charles R. Milkis,Joseph T. Rezabek, Graham B. Rollins, Robert T. Ryland IV, Daryl E. Shetterly andMatthew A. Taylor. Wright, Robinson, Osthimer & Tatum welcomes and congratulatesthese outstanding attorneys.

What makeslawyers successful?

How do you define success? What havebeen your greatest accomplishments?What values do you hold in highest regard?Name one of your heroes. What is yourbiggest concern about life on the planet?What is fun? What especially galls you?What do you want to make sure youaccomplish before you die? Read answersto these and a dozen more questionsdesigned to give you a look at what makeshim a successful lawyer in the upcomingedition of TCL!

virginia.thecompletelawyer.comTCL is a collaborative effort

of The Virginia Bar Association in cooperation withThe Complete Lawyer, LLC, Copyright 2007

The VBA Law Practice Management Division has established an agreement withthe American Bar Association to sell ABA books to all members of the VBA/LPMD— that is, all members of The Virginia Bar Association — at a 20 percent discount.

You can go to www.vba.org, click on a link to the Book Program, peruse a listof books, and print out an order form to send to the VBA office with yourpayment.

NOTE: ALL books published by the ABA — not just the ones listed on the VBAwebsite — are available with the 20 percent discount. You must, however, placeyour order through the VBA office to receive the discount.

[email protected]

When the General Assemblyallocated $8.2 million to pay forlimited waivers of the fee caps forcourt-appointed attorneys inVirginia earlier this year, many barleaders saw it as a long-overdue stepforward in the ongoing effort toincrease funding for indigentdefense in the Commonwealth.

Several months later, manycourt-appointed lawyers have yetto claim their waivers and theSupreme Court of Virginia hasreturned more than 3,600incorrectly-completed voucherssubmitted by court-appointedcounsel.

Full information about waivers isavailable on the Supreme Court’swebsite at www.courts.state.va.us.

VBA• •

The Virginia Bar Association701 East Franklin Street, Suite 1120Richmond, Virginia 23219

October 11-14, 2007Southern Conference of Bar PresidentsLittle Rock, ArkansasOctober 19-21, 2007VBA Board of GovernorsHotel Stonewall Jackson, StauntonOctober 23, 2007VBA Corporate Counsel Fall ForumOmni RichmondOctober 26, 2007VBA Virginia Tax Practitioners’ RoundtableFarmington, CharlottesvilleOctober 26-27, 2007Boyd-Graves ConferenceHyatt Regency RestonNovember 6, 2007VBA Virginia Health Care Practitioners' RoundtableOmni Richmond

For more details on specific events, visit our website atwww.vba.org or call the VBA office at (804) 644-0041.

CALENDAR OF EVENTS November 13, 2007VBA Legislative DayOmni RichmondNovember 15-16, 2007VBA Capital Defense WorkshopRichmond MarriottNovember 16-17, 2007Region IV National Moot Court CompetitionOmni RichmondNovember 30, 2007VBA Administrative Law ConferenceOmni RichmondJanuary 17-20, 2008VBA Annual MeetingColonial WilliamsburgJuly 17-20, 2008VBA Summer MeetingThe Homestead

Save these dates in 2008!VBA Annual Meeting, January 17-20, 2008, Colonial Williamsburg

VBA Summer Meeting, July 17-20, 2008, The Homestead

VBA News Journal · Herman Benn, 95, the VBA’s first African-American member 8 • VBA Summer...

Documents

Transcript of VBA News Journal · Herman Benn, 95, the VBA’s first African-American member 8 • VBA Summer...