President’s Page ................................... Edmund L. Walton, Jr. 2 The Witness-Advocate Rule ............................. Thomas E. Spahn 5 The Dilemma of AIDS in the Workplace ..................... Lynn F. Jacob 11 Implied Hearsay. ~:. .............. ii:i. ................. !i:~Ronald J. Bacigal 16 Virginia’s New Life-Care Laws.. ...................... Eric E. Adamson 19 Bar Association Proceedings ........ ::’ .................... ................ 23 THE VIRGINIA BAR ASSOCIATION OFFICERS AND EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ’: President ~ ~’ Past President Edmuhd~ L. Walton, Jr. Evans B. Brasfield 1301 Vincent Place P.O. Box 1535 McLean, Virginia 221~01 . Richmond, Virginia 23212 President-Elect Secretary- Treasurer R. Gordon Smith James R. McKenry One James Center 1060 Laskin Road Suite 800 Suite 12-B Richmond, Virginia 23219 Virginia Beach, Virginia 23451 Chairman, Young Lawyers Section Chairman-Elect, Young Lawyers Section Charles M. Lollar Thomas F. Farrell, II 700 Newtown Road P.O. Box 1101 Norfolk, Virginia 23502 Alexandria, Virginia 22313 Executive Committee John M. Ryan, Chairman J. Robert McAllister, III John E. Donaldson 500 World Trade Center P.O. Box 549 School of Law Norfolk, Virginia 23510 Arlington, Virginia 22216 College of William and Mary Williamsburg, Virginia 23185 Frank L. Summers, Jr. Andrew P. Miller F. Claiborne Johnston, Jr. P.O. Box 1287 2101 L Street, N.W. Eighth Floor P.O. Box 1122 Staunton, Virginia 24401 Washington, D.C. 20037 Richmond, Virginia 23208 Thomas T. Lawson Robert C. Wood, III P.O. Box 720 P.O. Box 958 Roanoke, Virginia 24004 Lynchburg, Virginia 24505 Executive Director Director, Committee Activities Joan S. Mahan Emerson G. Spies Suite 708, 7th & Franklin Building School of Law 701 E. Franklin Street University of Virginia Richmond, Virginia 23219 Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Volume XII Spring 1986 Number 2 EDITORIAL BOARD CONTENTS President!s iPage .......................... ° ........... Appointed Members Edmund!L. Walton, Jr. David W. Parrish, Jr. Chairman ’ The Wit.ness~Advocate Rule .................................. 5 Charlottesville Thomas E. Spahn Vernon M. Geddy, Jr. Williamsburg The Dilemma ~f AIDS in the Workplace °. ............... 11 John L. Walker, Jr. Lynn F.~ Jacob Roanoke John F. Kay, Jr. Implied: Hearsay " Richmond 16 Ronald J. Bacigal ,.,~ Ex-Officio Members Edmund L. Walton, Jr. Virginia’s New Eife-Care Laws ..................... ~ 19 President Eric E: Adamson McLean R. Gordon Smith Bar Association Proceedings ......................... 23 President-Elect The Winter Meeting .............................. Richmond ~4 Joan S. Mahan Announcements ................................. 27r Executive Director Resolution ...................................... 29 Richmond YLS Chairman s Report ......................... 30 Charles M. Lollar Chairman, Young Newly Admitted Members ....................... 37 Lawyers Section Committee[Reports .............................. 38 Norfolk ° Memorials ...... 45 Editorial Staff Charles E. Friend Editor The Virginia Bar Association Journal is published quarterly by The Virginia Bar Association as a service to the profession. Contributions are welcome, but the Bess Castle Wendell right is reserved to select material to be published. Publication of any article or Associate Editor statement is not to be deemed an endorsement of the views expressed therein by the Association. The office of publication is located at 3849 W. Weyburn Road, Rich- Theodore L. Chahdler, Jr. mond, Virginia 23235. Editor, Young Membership dues include the cost of one subscription to each member of the Lawyers Contributions Association. Subscription price to others, $10.00 per year; single copies $3.00. Second-class postage paid at Richmond, Virginia 23232. ©1986 The Virginia Bar Association (ISSN 0360-3857) (USPS 093-110) EDMUND L. WALTON, JR. As I enter into my year as President of the Associa- tion and put pen to paper for my first message to you in the Journal I have looked back over a number of President’s pages written by my able predecessors, Evans Brasfield, George Grattan, and Jay Walker. It has given me some comfort to know that regardless of the number of members reading the Page as it appears in the Journal, future Presidents will proba- Edmund L. Walton, Jr. is a principal in the bly review the Page as I have for inspiration and thus McLean, Virginia firm of Walton & Adams, EC. I am certain of several readers. I speak to these future He has been in the private practice of law in the Presidents as well as the current members of the Northern Virginia area since 1963, is a graduate Association as I address this message. of the College of William and Mary and received Each President has made an effort to review past his J.D. degree from the Marshall-Wythe School accomplishments and chart future directions for the of Law. Mr. Walton has been active in civic, po- litical and bar-related activities. He has served Association in his first President’s Page. I am not as President of the McLean Bar Association, a creative enough to establish a new approach in this Director of the Fairfax County Bar Association, regard. In addition, I think a quick review of the a member of the Board of Governors of the Bus- direction of the Association over the past several iness Law section of the Virginia State Bar and years is most instructive. now is Vice-Chairman of that group, and for A major turning point in the Association’s recent three years sat as a member of the 10th District history was the presentation of the report by the Committee of The Virginia State Bar. Mr. Wal- ton was an Editor of the William and Mary Law future Planning Committee established by then-Pres- Review and recipient of a W.A.R. Goodwin schol- ident Hugh Patterson and chaired by Dean Bill arship at the College of William and Mary. Spong. This report suggested that if the Association was to pay anything more than lip service to its twin goals of public service and law reform, it would be necessary to manage the Association on a profes- Spong committee was being prepared, the Supreme sional basis. Following the receipt of the report by the Court of the State of Michigan was deciding the first Executive Committee of the Association, President in a series of cases which I believe have had, and will Jack Kay established a number of planning sessions in the future have, great impact upon our Association. with the purpose of implementing the recommenda- The case ofFalk v. State Bar, 411 Mich 63, 305 N.W.2d tions of the Spong report. I believe that the resulting 201(1981) placed a substantial shadow upon certain activities of the Association with the establishment of activities of mandatory bar associations. Subsequent our full-time staffed office in Richmond and our now cases decided in Puerto Rico, Montana, New Mexico well-implemented Legislative program have been and Wisconsin have now indicated that a mandatory noted by our membership and the Bar as a whole. We state bar may be severely constrained in the use of have made tremendous strides. members’ dues in legislative activities (law reform) At almost the same time that the report from the and perhaps also in projects for the general public 2 good (public service) which do not relate to the spe- which might be considered a substantial threat to cific purposes for which the bar was established. those with abuse problems. It has been suggested that Thus, the courts of several jurisdictions have placed actual operations of the substance abuse program be in question activities which, until five years ago, were overseen by the-A~sociation. While the special com- generally accepted as proper by a mandatory bar. mittee has not issued its final recommendations, I The concern raised by the Falk case and its prog- envision a cooperative effort which will allow a law- eny has justifiably caused substantial concern in the yer with a substance abuse problem to receive help leadership of the Virginia State Bar. As a by-product without the fear of disciplinary action hanging over of this concern, it has brought the mandatory and him as a result of his request for assistance. voluntary bars much closer together in recent years. A second concern in which this cooperation is Our Association has moved to the forefront in law reflected is in the area of alternative dispute resolu- reform and the State Bar has substantially reduced tion. A special joint committee in this area has been its role in the legislative arena. The State Bar has appointed by Bob Patterson of the State Bar and increased its activity in the areas of lawyer discipline myself. I believe that most attorneys who have taken and continuing legal education, but has stepped back the time to think about our existing system for dispute from some of the areas of public service and law resolution have become aware of the need for consid- reform which might cause questions to be raised eration of other, more efficient and less costly means under the Falk case rationale by some of its members of resolving disputes in cases which are not well- who are required to pay dues to the State Bar. The suited to our existing court system. Around the nation relationship between the State Bar and the Bar Asso- a number of programs have been instituted by the ciation is still in the process of evolution, but the organized Bar which have greatly relieved court working relationship has never been stronger or the dockets while allowing individuals to receive just communications between the leadership of each of resolution of conflicts at a cost within their means. the organizations better. It will be a major goal of my Any initiative in the Alternative Dispute area administration to continue this strong relationship would probably require the establishment of a pro- End to place our Association in the position of filling gram, legislation and cooperative efforts from all needs of the organized bar in our areas of expertise. In areas of the organized bar.