Opinion ID: 1058676
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: analysis

Text: On appeal to this Court, Moseley makes two assignments of error. First, he contends the circuit court erred because it was without jurisdiction to revoke his entitlement to practice law before the Circuit Court of Arlington County. Second, Moseley asserts the circuit court failed to properly provide him notice of the alleged misconduct prior to taking such action. We address each assignment of error in turn.
Moseley contends the Circuit Court of Arlington County did not have jurisdiction to revoke his entitlement to practice before it because the whole field of disbarment in Virginia is now regulated by statute. He argues that because the circuit court did not follow the procedure for disbarment set forth in Code § 54.1-3935, it was without authority to act so as to bar his practice before that court. Moseley distinguishes the circuit court's authority to remove counsel in a particular case or to punish for contempt, and the type of action here, which removes his ability to appear before the court. At the outset, it is important to note that Moseley's license to practice law in Virginia was not affected by the March 16, 2006 order. Licensure of an attorney, and revocation of that license, are matters governed by statute. Code §§ 54.1-3928, -3934 et seq. It is not within the jurisdiction of a circuit court to adjudicate the revocation of a license to practice law except in compliance with the statutory authority. Code § 54.1-3935. [7] The circuit court clearly recognized that limitation because it referred any action regarding Moseley's license to practice law to the Virginia State Bar. A license to practice law covers the full panoply of actions an attorney can undertake from writing a will to representing a person in a controversy before a court. And while the issuance of a license to practice law carries with it certain rights for the holder of that license, the ability to practice before a particular court is a distinct and separate consideration. The matter before the Court on appeal, however, is not the status of Moseley's license to practice law, but whether a court can revoke his privilege to practice before a particular court when no statute specifically provides for that action. The answer to that query is answered by our long-standing jurisprudence. We addressed the basic issue now before us in 1835 in Ex Parte Fisher, 33 Va. (6 Leigh) 619, 624-25 (1835). Our resolution of the issue then remains as valid today as it was nearly two centuries ago. [I]ndependently of any statutory restriction, the courts of record of this [C]ommonwealth might, in a proper case, suspend or annul the license of an attorney, so far as it authorized him to practice in the particular court, which pronounced the sentence, but no farther. Id. at 624. Although the local circuit courts had jurisdiction in the 19th century both to issue a license to practice law and control the actual practice before that court, the intervening statutory regimen ceding licensure to the Virginia State Bar (as opposed to the various circuit courts) has no effect on the continuing authority of a court to regulate the privilege of practicing before that court. We explained this concept in Legal Club of Lynchburg: Independent of statutory authority, all courts of record in Virginia have inherent power in a proper case to suspend or annul the license of an attorney practicing in the particular court which pronounces the sentence of disbarment. 137 Va. at 250, 119 S.E. at 55. This independent and inherent power to regulate the lawyers practicing before it is vested in courts as part of the authority necessary to the existence and function of a court. See, e.g., Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962). In Code § 54.1-3935, on which Moseley relies, the General Assembly has set forth the procedure by which the appropriate court is empowered to revoke or suspend a license to practice law that affects the right to practice law throughout the Commonwealth. [8] However, as recognized in Legal Club, this statutory authority does not curtail a court's pre-existing and independent authority to control those who practice before it, including the authority to suspend or revoke an attorney's privilege to practice before that court. 137 Va. at 250-51, 119 S.E. at 55. Such power does not depend for its existence upon either constitutional or statutory provisions, but is possessed by all courts of record, unless taken away by express constitutional (or possibly legislative) inhibition. Id. at 251, 119 S.E. at 55. Although Legal Club seemed to leave open the possibility that a legislative enactment could circumscribe a court's authority to discipline attorneys practicing before it, this Court's decision in Norfolk & Portsmouth Bar Ass'n v. Drewry, 161 Va. 833, 172 S.E. 282 (1934), annuls that possibility. In Drewry we reiterated not only that a court has an inherent power to discipline and regulate attorneys practicing before it, but also recognized that [t]his power, since the judiciary is an independent branch of government, is not controlled by statute. 161 Va. at 836, 172 S.E. at 283. Thus, the court's authority to discipline attorneys and regulate their conduct in proceedings before that court is also a constitutional power derived from the separation of powers between the judiciary, as an independent branch of government, and the other branches. Va. Const. art. III, § 1; art. VI, § 1; see, e.g., Harlen v. Helena, 208 Mont. 45, 676 P.2d 191, 193 (1984); Hustedt v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., 30 Cal.3d 329, 178 Cal.Rptr. 801, 636 P.2d 1139, 1142-44 (1981); R.J. Edwards, Inc. v. Hert, 504 P.2d 407, 411 (Okla.1972); State ex rel. Oregon State Bar v. Lenske, 243 Or. 477, 407 P.2d 250, 254-56 (1965); In re Sparks, 267 Ky. 93, 101 S.W.2d 194, 196 (1936). As the circuit court implied, this inherent and constitutional power is essentially acknowledged in Code § 54.1-3915, where even this Court is prohibited from promulgating any rule or regulation or method of procedure which eliminates the jurisdiction of the courts to deal with the discipline of attorneys. Our more recent cases continue to recognize this inherent and constitutional authority of a court to discipline attorneys apart from the formal statutory disciplinary procedures affecting the attorney's license to practice law. For example, as recently as March of this year, we summarized our jurisprudence in this area in Nusbaum v. Berlin, 273 Va. 385, 641 S.E.2d 494 (2007): [T]his Court has recognized that the courts of this Commonwealth have the inherent power to supervise the conduct of attorneys practicing before them and to discipline any attorney who engages in misconduct. A court's inherent power to discipline an attorney practicing before it includes the power not only `to remove an attorney of record in a case,' [ Judicial Inquiry and Review Comm'n v. Peatross, 269 Va. 428, 447, 611 S.E.2d 392, 402 (2005)], but also `in a proper case to suspend or annul the license of an attorney practicing in the particular court.' Id. at 399, 641 S.E.2d at 501 (citations omitted). Thus, the authority of a court to regulate the conduct of attorneys practicing before that court by revoking or suspending that privilege is both an inherent and a constitutional power that is not dependent on its creation by legislative enactment and thus cannot be limited by statute. Accordingly, under our longstanding precedent, the circuit court had jurisdiction to revoke Moseley's privilege to practice before that court. [9] The March 16, 2006 order by its plain terms applies only to Moseley's right to practice before the Circuit Court of Arlington County. By necessity, the circuit court's action is the act of that court and not limited to practice before the individual judge presiding over the case. See Commonwealth v. Epps, 273 Va. 410, 414, 641 S.E.2d 77, 80 (2007) (In the context of contemptuous behavior in the courtroom, [a]ny harm in this case was suffered by the court as an institution, not by [the judge] personally.). By that, we mean the order of March 16, 2006, by its very issuance, is an act binding within the jurisdictional limits of the Circuit Court of Arlington County. Therefore, the Circuit Court of Arlington County, which is coterminous with the 17th judicial circuit, has authority to regulate the conduct of attorneys throughout that circuit, but no further. Indeed, as we recognized in Ex Parte Fisher, Legal Club, and Drewry, a court's authority in the discipline of attorneys practicing before it is limited to the jurisdictional boundaries of that court and cannot extend to other courts beyond that boundary. [10] For all these reasons, we conclude the circuit court had jurisdiction to revoke Moseley's privilege to appear in that court and thus did not err in the judgment of March 16, 2006.
Moseley also alleges the circuit court erred in revoking his privilege to practice before the Circuit Court of Arlington County without notice of the alleged misconduct. Although Moseley also argues on brief the broader contention that he did not have notice that his right to practice law was in jeopardy, he made no assignment of error as to that issue. We thus limit our review to the specific issue to which he assigned error. Rule 5:17(c); see Chesapeake Hosp. Auth. v. Commonwealth, 262 Va. 551, 557, 554 S.E.2d 55, 57 (2001). Moseley's argument that he lacked notice of the alleged misconduct is without merit. Courts are not required to list with specificity their factual basis for issuing a rule to show cause. Moreover, the record clearly shows Moseley received, inter alia, copies of the motion to disqualify, communication from the Christian Coalition to the court stating the intent to raise correspondence written by Moseley (with copies of the referenced correspondence attached), a transcript of the February 16 hearing detailing the evidence on which the Christian Coalition was relying to support Moseley's disqualification, and the issuance of a rule to show cause in the circuit court's February 27 order. Moseley received more than adequate notice of the alleged misconduct, which was the subject of the March 16 hearing and embodied in the findings of the March 16, 2006 order. Thus, Moseley's second assignment of error also fails.