Executive Director’s Message by Karen A. Gould An Update on Legal Ethics and Unauthorized Practice of Law Opinions at the Virginia State Bar The Supreme Court of Virginia made substantial revisions in 2015 and 2016 to Paragraph 10 of Part 6, § IV of the Rules of Court governing the Virginia State Bar. Paragraph 10 deals with the promulgation of legal ethics and unauthorized practice of law opinions, informal staff opinions, and complaints of unauthorized practice of law. This column is to update you on those changes and others. Legal Ethics Opinions Members of the Virginia State Bar may request a written legal ethics opinion (LEO) from the Standing Committee on Legal Ethics. A legal ethics opinion applies ethics rules to a hypothetical set of facts and states whether the activity or conduct complies with or violates such ethics rules. This proce-dure is outlined in Paragraph 10-2. In 2015, the Supreme Court required that all LEOs be forwarded to the Court for review after Council, the VSB’s governing body, approves or modifi es an LEO. 1 Paragraph 10-3.A. The Court then has an opportunity to approve, modify, or disapprove the LEO. Paragraph 10-4. On September 30, 2016, the Court approved the fi rst LEO submitted under this new process, Legal Ethics Opinion 1884, entitled “ Confl icts arising from a lawyer-legislator’s em-ployment with a consulting fi rm owned by a law fi rm .” LEO 1884 had been unanimously approved by Council at its June 16, 2016, meeting. LEO 1886, which concerns the duty of partners and supervisory law-yers in a law fi rm when another lawyer in the fi rm suffers from signifi cant impairment, was approved by Council at its October 7, 2016. It is pending be-fore the Supreme Court of Virginia for approval. The petition seeking review and approval can be found on the bar’s website via this link: http://www.vsb. org/docs/prop-1886-petition-101916. pdf. On October 31, 2016, the Supreme Court of Virginia approved eight older opinions that had not been approved previously: Legal Ethics Opinions 1329, 1438, 1584, 1606, 1742, 1792, 1856, and 1869. The Virginia State Bar’s Standing Committee on Legal Ethics has withdrawn the following legal ethics opinions: 821 : Advertisements 835 : Fees—Collections 856 : Solicitation of employment—Free estate planning seminars 862 : Solicitation letter 926 : Lawyer referral services 1003 : Attorney—Relationship with fi nancial advisor 1290 : Nonlawyer employee: Use of for soliciting prospective clients 1348 : Advertising and solicitation— Lawyer referral service: Propriety of nonlawyer screening calls and referring potential claims for attorney members 1380 : Fees—Law fi rms—Aiding unau-thorized practice of law—Splitting fees withnonlawyer: Arrangement between multi-jurisdictional offi ces of law fi rm 1543 : Advertising—Recommendation of professional employment: Attorney paying “referral” service for “exclusive rights” to all prospective clients in four counties 1600 : Aiding unauthorized practice of law—Nonlawyer personnel— Misconduct: Level of direct supervi-sion of nonlawyer personnel required 1689 : Attorney participation in referral service (legal-friend) that offers legal referrals to members at discount 1743 : Virginia law fi rm forming part-nership with a foreign legal consultant (FLC) when the FLC is a nonlawyer under the unauthorized practice rules and is not licensed in the United States. The status of LEOs can be tracked on the VSB’s website under Professional Regulation/Ethics Questions and Opinions/Actions on Legal Ethics Opinions or search on this link: https://www.vsb.org/site/regulation /leo-status. Rule changes continue to be sub-ject to the review and approval of the Supreme Court of Virginia. Unauthorized Practice of Law Paragraph 10 requires that unautho-rized practice of law complaints be investigated by VSB investigators and then evaluated by VSB staff counsel. As a result of rule changes made by the Supreme Court of Virginia to Paragraph 10 in May of 2016, the initial handling of UPL complaints continues to be the same, but recom-mendations of case dispositions will then be reviewed independently by the clerk of the Disciplinary System, a lay person. Paragraph 10-6.D. The clerk has the power to veto or modify deci-sions reviewed, after an independent analysis. Paragraph 10-6.E. The clerk’s decisions are fi nal. Id. The Standing Committee on the Unauthorized Practice of Law, composed of lawyers and two lay members, was removed from the UPL complaint process. The UPL Committee withdrew the following opinions on April 12, 12 VIRGINIA LAWYER | December 2016 | Vol. 65 www.vsb.org