Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-271.1 (2026)

Signing of pleadings, motions, and other papers; oral motions; sanctions

✓ current as of May 2026

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

A. Except as otherwise provided in §§ 16.1-260 and 63.2-1901, every pleading, motion, or other paper of a party represented by an attorney shall be signed by at least one attorney of record who is an active member in good standing of the Virginia State Bar with his individual name, and the attorney's mailing address shall be stated on the first pleading filed by that attorney in the action. In any action in a court of record, the first pleading shall also contain the attorney's Virginia State Bar number, email address, and telephone number. A party who is not represented by an attorney, including a person confined in a state or local correctional facility proceeding pro se, shall sign his pleading, motion, or other paper and state his mailing address. In any action in a court of record, the first pleading shall also contain the email address and, if available, the telephone number of the party who is not represented by an attorney. The signature of a person other than counsel of record who is an active member in good standing of the Virginia State Bar or a pro se litigant is not a valid signature. A minor who is not represented by an attorney shall sign his pleading, motion, or other paper by his next friend. Either or both parents of such minor may sign on behalf of such minor as his next friend. However, a parent may not sign on behalf of a minor if such signature is otherwise prohibited by subdivision 6 of § 64.2-716. The signature required by this section may be an electronic signature as defined in § 59.1-480 or a digital image of a signature. If a pleading, motion, or other paper is not signed in compliance with this paragraph, it is defective. Such a defect renders the pleading, motion, or other paper voidable.

B. The signature of an attorney or party constitutes a certificate by him that (i) he has read the pleading, motion, or other paper, (ii) to the best of his knowledge, information and belief, formed after reasonable inquiry, it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, and (iii) it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.

C. An oral motion made by an attorney or party in any court of the Commonwealth constitutes a representation by him that (i) to the best of his knowledge, information and belief formed after reasonable inquiry it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification or reversal of existing law, and (ii) it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.

D. If a pleading, motion, or other paper is signed or made in violation of this section, the court, upon motion or upon its own initiative, shall impose upon the person who signed the paper or made the motion, a represented party, or both, an appropriate sanction, which may include an order to pay to the other party or parties the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred because of the filing of the pleading, motion, or other paper or making of the motion, including reasonable attorney fees.

E. Failure to raise the issue of a signature defect in a pleading, motion, or other paper before the trial court's jurisdiction expires pursuant to Rule 1:1 (a) and Rule 1:1B waives any challenge to that pleading, motion, or other paper based on such a defect.

F. Signature defects in appellate filings, including the notice of appeal, shall be raised in the appellate court where the appeal is taken. Failure to timely raise the issue of a defective signature in an appellate pleading, motion, or other paper while the case is pending before the appellate court waives any challenge to that pleading, motion, or other paper based on such a defect.

G. If a signature defect is not timely and properly cured after it is brought to the attention of the pleader or movant, the pleading, motion, or other paper is invalid and shall be stricken. A signature defect shall be cured within 21 days after it is brought to the attention of the pleader or movant. If a signature defect is timely and properly cured, the pleading, motion, or other paper shall be valid and relate back to the date it was originally served or filed.

1987, cc. 259, 682; 1998, c. 596; 2008, cc. 136, 845; 2018, c. 59; 2020, cc. 74, 351; 2024, c. 20; 2026, c. 401.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 394 cases (78 in the last 5 years), 1987–2026 · leading case: Williams & Connolly v. People, 643 S.E.2d 136 (Va. 2007).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Williams & Connolly v. People, 643 S.E.2d 136 (Va. 2007). · cites it 81× “In this appeal, we consider whether the circuit court abused its discretion in imposing sanctions under Code § 8.01-271.1 against six attorneys and their respective law firms based on motions they filed in pending litigation.”

Oxenham v. Johnson, 402 S.E.2d 1 (Va. 1991). · cites it 56× “Specifically, we decide whether, and under what circumstances, the Code § 8.01-271.1 duty of "reasonable inquiry" required the lawyer to investigate information opposing counsel gave him indicating that the lawyer's client might not prevail in the litigation.”

Robert & Bertha Robinson Fam., LLC v. Allen, 810 S.E.2d 48 (Va. 2018). · cites it 17× “In response, the tenants filed a motion for sanctions under Code § 8.01-271.1. The tenants "[took] no position on the health issues" of the acting manager and his wife and did not object to "an order dismissing [the landlord's] appeal so long as [the circuit court] consider[ed]"…”

Johnson v. Woodard, 707 S.E.2d 325 (Va. 2011). · cites it 31× “Second, whether the petitioners were parties to the removal action such that they may be subject to sanctions pursuant to Code § 8.01-271.1. We hold that the circuit court had jurisdiction to consider the motion for sanctions, but erred in imposing sanctions against the…”

Ford Motor Co. v. Benitez, 639 S.E.2d 203 (Va. 2007). · cites it 18× “The sanctions were imposed because the trial court found that the attorney had filed a pleading asserting affirmative defenses that were not "well grounded in fact" in violation of Code § 8.01-271.1. The facts pertinent to the appeal are not in dispute.”

Gilmore v. Finn, 527 S.E.2d 426 (Va. 2000). · cites it 20× “In these appeals, we consider whether the trial court erred in awarding sanctions pursuant to Code § 8.01-271.1, limited to the actual attorney’s fees and costs incurred by the opposing party, against the Governor and the Commonwealth (hereafter collectively, the Governor) for…”

McNally v. Rey, 659 S.E.2d 279 (Va. 2008). · cites it 26× “" McNally objected to the entry of this order, asserting numerous reasons, including his contention that he had not violated Code § 8.01-271.1. McNally also filed a motion to reconsider, and he reasserted, among other things, that he had not violated Code § 8.”

Arthur G. Kahn v. Eileen McNicholas, 795 S.E.2d 485 (Va. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 10× “As Kahn was not obligated to pay spousal support to McNicholas pursuant to the parties’ PSA, Kahn claims that the circuit court should have dismissed the rule to show cause issued against him and imposed sanctions pursuant to Code § 8.01-271.1. We disagree. Code § 8.”

Flippo v. CSC Assocs. III, L.L.C., 547 S.E.2d 216 (Va. 2001). · cites it 8× “In this appeal, two members of a limited liability company seek reversal of a trial court’s judgment entered in consolidated cases holding one of the members liable for a breach of fiduciary duty to the limited liability company, barring both members from performing as managers…”

Nusbaum v. Berlin, 641 S.E.2d 494 (Va. 2007). · cites it 6× “Nusbaum argued not only that the circuit court had no basis for declaring the mistrial but also that it did not have the authority to impose costs against an attorney for conduct that did not violate either Code § 8.01-271.1 or Rule 4:12(b). He noted that the proposed monetary…”

Roy M. Carrithers v. Kimberly A. Harrah, 762 S.E.2d 402 (Va. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 14× “1 In its most recent order, now on appeal to us, the circuit court sanctioned Carrithers under Code § 8.01-271.1 and awarded Harrah $2,000 in partial compensation for her' attorney fees incurred during the defense of the second proceeding.”

Vinson v. Vinson, 588 S.E.2d 392 (Va. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 28× “Weiner (appellant) appeals from an order in a divorce case, sanctioning him for violating Code § 8.01-271.1. He argues the trial court erred (1) in precluding a line of *679 cross-examination, (2) in finding he violated Code § 8.”

Show all 394 citing cases →

— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-271.1(A) — 10 cases

Moss (W.D. Va. 2026).

Klockner Pentaplast of Am. & Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Beverly Hope Miller (Va. Ct. App. 2021).

Gregory Leon Hammer v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2022).

Bruce Henry v. Dominion Towing & Recovery, LLC (Va. Ct. App. 2023).

— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-271.1(B) — 19 cases

Andrei J. Kublan, Esquire v. Devon B. Humphreys, Esquire (Va. Ct. App. 2023).

James A. DeVita v. Jason Miller & Mark Bodner, Esquire (Va. Ct. App. 2022).

Just Wright Distrib., Inc. by Julius Wright v. Reid Coastal Logistics (Va. Ct. App. 2025).

Klockner Pentaplast of Am. & Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Beverly Hope Miller (Va. Ct. App. 2021).

Kenneth R. Fox v. Wendy R. Fox (Va. Ct. App. 2023).

— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-271.1(B)(i) — 2 cases

James A. DeVita v. Jason Miller & Mark Bodner, Esquire (Va. Ct. App. 2022).

Wayne Kenneth Martin v. Hanadi Al-Samman (Va. Ct. App. 2023).

— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-271.1(B)(ii) — 4 cases

James A. DeVita v. Jason Miller & Mark Bodner, Esquire (Va. Ct. App. 2022).

AV Auto., LLC v. Gebreyessus (Va. 2022).

Lonnie McClanahan v. Kathy L. Vanhoozier Kelly (Va. Ct. App. 2025).

Michael J. Muhammad v. Ramin Fatehi (Va. Ct. App. 2024).

— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-271.1(B)(iii) — 3 cases

James A. DeVita v. Jason Miller & Mark Bodner, Esquire (Va. Ct. App. 2022).

Janella Jordan v. Jason Miller & Mark H. Bodner, Esquire (Va. Ct. App. 2022).

Kenneth R. Fox v. Wendy R. Fox (Va. Ct. App. 2023).

— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-271.1(C) — 3 cases

LeeAnn S. Dance v. Glenn Dance (Va. Ct. App. 2023).

Glenn Dance v. LeeAnn S. Dance (Va. Ct. App. 2023).

James A. DeVita v. Jason Miller & Mark Bodner, Esquire (Va. Ct. App. 2022).

— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-271.1(C)(ii) — 1 case

James A. DeVita v. Jason Miller & Mark Bodner, Esquire (Va. Ct. App. 2022).

— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-271.1(D) — 17 cases

AV Auto., LLC v. Gebreyessus (Va. 2022).

Tiziano M. Scarabelli, M.D. v. Kenneth Ellenbogen, M.D. (Va. Ct. App. 2023).

John E. Nestler, M.D. v. Tiziano Scarabelli, M.D. (Va. Ct. App. 2023).

Lonnie McClanahan v. Kathy L. Vanhoozier Kelly (Va. Ct. App. 2025).

James A. DeVita v. Jason Miller & Mark Bodner, Esquire (Va. Ct. App. 2022).

— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-271.1(E) — 2 cases

Windset Capital Corp. v. Thomas Debosky (Va. Ct. App. 2023).

Moss (W.D. Va. 2026).

— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-271.1(G) — 8 cases

Konate v. Norfolk State Univ. (E.D. Va. 2023).

Yovani Cardenas Flores v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2025).

Kenneth P. Dubs, Sr. v. Thomas Mancuso (Va. Ct. App. 2024).

Patel v. Jones (W.D. Va. 2022).

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.