Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 54.1-3900 (2026)

Practice of law; student internship program; definition

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Persons who hold a license or certificate to practice law under the laws of this Commonwealth and have paid the license tax prescribed by law may practice law in the Commonwealth.

Any person authorized and practicing as counsel or attorney in any state or territory of the United States, or in the District of Columbia, may for the purpose of attending to any case he may occasionally have in association with a practicing attorney of this Commonwealth practice in the courts of this Commonwealth, in which case no license fee shall be chargeable against such nonresident attorney.

Nothing herein shall prohibit the limited practice of law by military legal assistance attorneys who are employed by a military program providing legal services to low-income military clients and their dependents pursuant to rules promulgated by the Supreme Court of Virginia.

Nothing herein shall prohibit a limited practice of law under the supervision of a practicing attorney by (i) third-year law students or (ii) persons who are in the final year of a program of study as authorized in § 54.1-3926, pursuant to rules promulgated by the Supreme Court of Virginia.

Nothing herein shall prohibit an employee of a state agency in the course of his employment from representing the interests of his agency in administrative hearings before any state agency, such representation to be limited to the examination of witnesses at administrative hearings relating to personnel matters and the adoption of agency standards, policies, rules and regulations.

Nothing herein shall prohibit designated nonattorney employees of the Department of Social Services from completing, signing and filing petitions and motions relating to the establishment, modification, or enforcement of support on forms approved by the Supreme Court of Virginia in Department cases in the juvenile and domestic relations district courts.

Nothing herein shall prohibit designated nonattorney employees of a local department of social services from appearing before an intake officer to initiate a case in accordance with subsection A of § 16.1-260 on behalf of the local department of social services.

Nothing herein shall prohibit designated nonattorney employees of a local department of social services from completing, signing, and filing with the clerk of the juvenile and domestic relations district court, on forms approved by the Supreme Court of Virginia, petitions for foster care review, petitions for permanency planning hearings, petitions to establish paternity, motions to establish or modify support, motions to amend or review an order, or motions for a rule to show cause.

Nothing herein shall prohibit a nonattorney attendance officer, or a local school division superintendent or his designee when acting as an attendance officer pursuant to § 22.1-258, from completing, signing, and filing with the intake officer of a juvenile and domestic relations district court, on forms approved by the Supreme Court of Virginia, a petition for a violation of a school attendance order entered by a juvenile and domestic relations district court pursuant to § 16.1-278.5 in response to the filing of a petition alleging the pupil is a child in need of supervision as defined in § 16.1-228.

As used in this chapter "attorney" means attorney-at-law.

Code 1950, § 54-42; 1972, c. 391; 1974, c. 456; 1976, c. 277; 1988, c. 765; 1991, c. 650; 1994, c. 30; 1998, c. 796; 2008, cc. 136, 845; 2016, c. 704; 2020, cc. 105, 106.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2005–2023 · leading case: Junious Pernell Bartlett v. City of Newport News Dep't of Human Servs., 793 S.E.2d 831 (Va. Ct. App. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Junious Pernell Bartlett v. City of Newport News Dep't of Human Servs., 793 S.E.2d 831 (Va. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 6× “The General Assembly also amended Code § 54.1-3900 in 2016, which is the statute that describes the proper practice of law in the Commonwealth.”

Oberto v. Grogan, 88 Va. Cir. 188 (Richmond County Cir. Ct. 2014). · cites it 3× “, Va. Code § 54.1-3900 (“Persons who hold a license or certificate to practice law under the laws of this Commonwealth and have paid the license tax prescribed by law may practice law in the Commonwealth.”

Junious P. Bartlett v. City of Newport News Dep't of Human Servs. (Va. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 6× “-6- The General Assembly also amended Code § 54.1-3900 in 2016, which is the statute that describes the proper practice of law in the Commonwealth.”

Arete Nicole Rudolph v. City of Newport News Dep't of Human Servs. (Va. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 6× “-6- The General Assembly also amended Code § 54.1-3900 in 2016, which is the statute that describes the proper practice of law in the Commonwealth.”

Arete N. Rudolph v. City of Newport News Dep't of Human Servs. (Va. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 6× “-6- The General Assembly also amended Code § 54.1-3900 in 2016, which is the statute that describes the proper practice of law in the Commonwealth.”

Nickolas G. Spanos v. Michael Y. Feinmel, Esquire (Va. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “; see Code §§ 54.1-3900 to -3944.4 Therefore, we must examine the statutory framework applicable to Spanos’ complaint.”

Nickolas G. Spanos v. Shannon L. Taylor (Va. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “; see Code §§ 54.1-3900 to -3944.4 Therefore, we must examine the statutory framework applicable to Spanos’ complaint.”

Herbert W. Lux, s/k/a Herbert W. Lux, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “, Code § 54.1-3900 (only persons licensed to practice law in Virginia may practice law in Virginia); Code § 54.”

Off. of Disciplinary Couns. v. Raney, 77 Pa. D. & C.4th 112 (Pa. 2005). · cites it 2× “(22) Respondent did not at any time file a motion to appear in the Swanson matter pro hac vice, as required by Va. Code Ann. §54.1-3900 . (23) At the time the Titus Law Group filed the pleading, respondent: (a) had been admitted to practice in Pennsylvania for two years and was…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.