<p class=ldtitle>A BILL to direct the Boyd-Graves Conference and Virginia Criminal Justice Conference to convene a work group to address legal deserts within the Commonwealth; report.</p>
SB 798 directs the Judicial Council of Virginia to convene a work group to study “legal deserts,” meaning areas of the Commonwealth where residents have limited access to legal services. The work group is tasked with developing a definition of legal desert and recommending legislative solutions to improve access to justice, legal advice and guidance, and constitutionally required legal representation. It must include legislators, judicial and executive branch representatives, prosecutors, indigent defense leadership, the Virginia State Bar, law school representatives, legal aid, and selected citizen members with legal experience.
The bill requires the work group to report its findings and recommendations to the Chairs of the House and Senate Committees for Courts of Justice by November 1, 2026. In effect, the measure is a study-and-report bill rather than a direct regulatory change, but it is intended to inform future legislation addressing uneven distribution of lawyers and legal services across Virginia.
SB 798 does not itself amend substantive statutes governing legal services, attorney licensing, or court operations. Instead, it creates a temporary advisory process under the Judicial Council of Virginia to gather stakeholders, define the problem of legal deserts, and propose legislative remedies. Its practical impact would be to shape future policy affecting access to counsel, legal aid, indigent defense, and the availability of private attorneys in underserved regions of the Commonwealth.
The bill appears to have been received favorably in committee, as reflected by its unanimous 15-0 vote to continue it to the next session in the Courts of Justice Committee. The absence of recorded opposition or transcript discussion suggests broad agreement with studying access-to-justice gaps, even though the measure was not advanced to final enactment in the available history. Overall, the sentiment is supportive but cautious, consistent with a policy study bill.
The main point of potential contention is not the goal of improving access to legal services, but how to define a “legal desert” and what legislative solutions should follow from the study. Because the work group includes prosecutors, indigent defense, the bar, law schools, legal aid, and legislators, differing views may arise over whether the issue should be addressed through incentives for private practice, expanded public defense and legal aid, or other structural reforms. The bill’s continuation to a later session also suggests that while the concept was broadly acceptable, lawmakers may have wanted more time to refine the proposal or consider its implementation.