An Act to amend and reenact § 17.1-267 of the Code of Virginia, relating to clerk fees; secure remote access to nonconfidential court records by certain attorneys.
HB520 amends Virginia Code § 17.1-267, which lists services for which circuit court clerks may not charge fees. The bill adds a new fee exemption for secure remote access to nonconfidential court records when the requesting attorney is certified by the Virginia Indigent Defense Commission, is currently appointed to represent a defendant in that jurisdiction, and agrees to continue accepting appointments there. The access is limited to nonconfidential records under the existing secure remote access framework.
The bill also authorizes clerks to terminate that access if the attorney abuses the privilege, is removed from the Indigent Defense Commission’s court-appointed attorney list, or stops accepting appointments in the jurisdiction. In effect, the measure creates a no-cost remote records access benefit tied to ongoing indigent defense service and compliance with access rules.
HB520 changes state law by expanding the list of clerk services that must be provided without charge under § 17.1-267. Its practical effect is to reduce or eliminate access fees for a defined group of court-appointed criminal defense attorneys, while preserving clerk authority to revoke access under specified conditions. The bill affects circuit court clerks, the Virginia Indigent Defense Commission, and attorneys representing indigent defendants, and it applies only to nonconfidential court records accessed remotely.
The available record shows no committee transcript or vote history indicating controversy, support, or opposition, and the bill was enacted as Chapter 159. Based on the text alone, the measure appears to have been a targeted administrative change with a likely practical purpose of improving access for court-appointed defense counsel. The absence of recorded debate or dissent suggests the bill was not highly contentious in the available materials.
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided materials. The main policy issue implicit in the bill is whether clerks should waive remote access fees for a limited class of attorneys, balanced against the need to protect clerk revenue and ensure access is used only by attorneys actively serving indigent-defense appointments. The bill addresses that concern by conditioning the fee waiver on certification, current appointment status, continued willingness to accept appointments, and the clerk’s ability to terminate access for abuse or loss of eligibility.