Opinion ID: 6045098
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Associate Status

Text: Robol argues the Board lacked authority to discipline him because he was an associate member of the Virginia Bar and not actively providing legal services in Virginia. He contends an associate member is essentially a “non-lawyer” and not subject to discipline by the Virginia State Bar. We reject this argument. The Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct are Rules of this Court. See Code § 54.1- 3909. The interpretation of the Disciplinary Rules is a question of law we review de novo. Zaug v. Virginia State Bar, 285 Va. 457, 462 (2013). 13 First, our Rules state that “every person licensed by the Virginia Board of Bar Examiners or admitted by the Supreme Court of a Virginia is a member of the Virginia State Bar.” Part 6, § 4, Para. 2. Paragraph 13-1, which governs the “Procedure for Disciplining, Suspending, and Disbarring Attorneys,” defines an attorney as “a member of the Bar, a Corporate Counsel Registrant, Foreign Lawyer, Foreign Legal Consultant, and any member of the bar of any other jurisdiction while engaged, pro hac vice or otherwise, in the practice of law in Virginia.” Part 6, § 4, Para. 13-1. Paragraph 3 sets forth the six classes of members: active, associate, judicial, disabled, retired, and emeritus. Associate members “are entitled to all the privileges of active members except that they cannot practice law, vote nor hold office (other than as members of committees) in the Virginia State Bar.” Part 6, § 4, Para. 3. Associate members are required to pay dues equivalent to half the amount paid by active members. Part 6, § 4, Para. 11. They may “reactivate” their status at any time; all that is required is payment of the full annual dues and certain additional fees, completion of MCLE obligations, and a Professional Liability certification. The plain language of these Rules establishes that associate members are attorneys who remain subject to the Bar’s jurisdiction and regulation. Second, we have already rejected a similar argument made in Barrett v. Virginia State Bar, 277 Va. 412 (2009). Barrett was a member of the Virginia Bar whose license was suspended. Id. at 413. While his license was suspended, Barrett was charged with additional violations of the Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct, and after a hearing before a three-judge panel, his license was revoked. Id. Barrett argued that because his license was suspended, he was a “non-lawyer” and therefore the three-judge panel “lacked jurisdiction to try a non-lawyer 14 under the rules of professional conduct.” Id. We rejected his argument, holding it would be “a manifest absurdity and a distortion of the Rules” if they were applied in such a manner. Id. at 414. “A lawyer would be able to escape accountability for a violation of the Rules by using a license suspension as a permit to offend even more.” Id. In reaching this conclusion, we adopted the following distinction: Disbarment is the severance of the status and privileges of an attorney, whereas suspension is the temporary forced withdrawal from the exercise of office, powers, prerogatives, and privileges of a member of the bar. Id. at 415 (emphasis added). A member of the Virginia Bar who has taken associate status has essentially taken a voluntary withdrawal, as opposed to a forced one, from certain privileges of a member of the Bar. However, as discussed above, an associate member may “reactivate” their status at any point by complying with a few minor regulatory requirements. Following Robol’s argument to its conclusion reveals its absurdity. Despite findings by the Ohio District Court and the Sixth Circuit that Robol engaged in bad faith and fraudulent conduct, the Bar would be without any power to regulate him because he was not an active member of the Bar. Robol could then reactivate his membership, thereby escaping any accountability for his actions while an associate member. Such an outcome would conflict with the Bar’s mission “(1) to protect the public, (2) to regulate the legal profession of Virginia, (3) to advance access to legal services, and (4) to assist in improving the legal profession and the judicial system.” Accordingly, we hold the Bar acted within its authority when it pursued disciplinary action against Robol for actions committed while he was an associate member of the Bar. 15