An Act to amend the Code of Virginia by adding sections numbered 18.2-469.1, 53.1-120.1, and 53.1-127.2:1, relating to powers and duties for operation of local and regional correctional facilities and courthouse security; attorney access to courthouses and communication and visitation with incarcerated clients; penalty.
HB1392 adds three new provisions to the Code of Virginia focused on courthouse security and attorney access to incarcerated clients. First, it creates a misdemeanor offense for an attorney whose law license has been suspended or revoked if that attorney uses a Virginia State Bar-issued bar card to claim an exemption from courthouse security screening. Second, it requires sheriffs who exempt courthouse employees or law-enforcement officers from screening to extend the same exemption to attorneys who present a valid bar card and government-issued ID.
The bill also requires sheriffs and jail superintendents operating local or regional correctional facilities to provide confidential attorney communication options whenever they offer prisoner phone, electronic, or web-based communication systems. It further requires reasonable opportunities for prisoners to review attorney correspondence, discovery, and trial materials so they can assist in their defense. The bill is aimed at balancing courthouse security with attorney access and jail-based legal communication.
HB1392 would create new statutory duties for sheriffs and jail superintendents and new criminal liability for certain attorneys. It affects courthouse screening practices under § 53.1-120.1, adds a Class 1 misdemeanor under § 18.2-469.1 for misuse of a bar card by a suspended or revoked attorney, and imposes communication and document-review requirements under § 53.1-127.2:1 for local and regional jails. The practical effect is to standardize attorney access at courthouses and strengthen confidential access to counsel for incarcerated people.
The available record shows no committee transcript or vote breakdown, so there is no detailed public debate to characterize. The bill’s enactment indicates it received enough legislative support to pass, but the final status of “Governor’s Veto Received by House” suggests the measure was ultimately opposed at the executive stage. Overall, the bill appears to have been framed as a security-and-right-to-counsel measure rather than a partisan policy fight.
The main points of contention likely involve courthouse security versus attorney access. One issue is whether attorneys should be automatically exempt from screening when sheriffs exempt courthouse staff and law-enforcement officers, and whether the bill gives attorneys too much access or creates enforcement burdens for sheriffs. Another potential concern is the misdemeanor penalty for a suspended or revoked attorney using a bar card, which targets misconduct but may raise questions about proof and enforcement. The jail-communication provisions may also have prompted operational concerns about cost, staffing, and how broadly “reasonable opportunities” and “confidential means” must be interpreted.