Bar Relies On Lawyer’s Argument That Judge Didn’t Show “Personal Bias Per Se” in Favoring Sentara, the Judge’s Former Client
The Virginia Bar has dismissed Checks and Balances Project’s (C&BP) complaint against long-time Sentara Healthcare outside attorney Jamie B. Martin. The complaint was dismissed, in part, because Martin asserted Norfolk Circuit Court Judge Mary Jane Hall didn’t show “personal bias per se” in ruling in favor of her former client, Sentara, in a 2018 case involving Chesapeake Regional Medical Center.
In February 2021, C&BP reported there had been no public disclosure that Hall and Martin had together previously represented Sentara in a four-year fight to get a Certificate of Public Need application approved to add a liver transplant unit. Martin had argued Sentara’s case in the matter before Hall, who ruled in Sentara’s favor.
No matter. The Virginia Bar agreed with Martin’s argument that Hall was not obligated to report her earlier work for Sentara because it was for a different matter than the Sentara case before Hall.
“Judge Hall did not violate Cannon 3 E(1)(a), as working at the same firm nineteen years prior did not evidence personal bias per se.”
Jamie B. Martin also cited in her argument to the Virginia Bar the case Newport News Holding Corp. v. Virtual City Vision, which said “a work relationship that ended more than ten years ago is not a sufficient basis to question the impartiality of a judge.”
Judge and Attorney Informed Parties in Newport News Case
In that case, however, attorneys for Newport News Holding Corp. had publicly disclosed to opposing counsel and the court the relationship between the attorney and the federal magistrate overseeing the case. That public disclosure did not happen in the Sentara-Chesapeake case in 2018.
Virtual City Vision raised no objection at the time. Only later in the process did it choose to make a complaint about partiality.
No Record Martin or Hall Reported Potential Conflicts
There is no record anywhere that Jamie B. Martin or Mary Jane Hall had publicly disclosed their work together or Hall’s previous representation of Sentara.
In the March 4, 2021, letter acknowledging our complaint, Assistant Bar Counsel Shelley L. Spaulding wrote, “If the attorney submits a written response, the bar may give you an opportunity to review it and submit written comments.”
Unfortunately, that never happened.
Do you have information to share? Send us a note through our confidential tip line.
Scott Peterson is executive director of Checks and Balances Project, an investigative watchdog blog holding government officials, lobbyists, and corporate management accountable to the public. Funding for C&BP is provided by Renew American Prosperity and individual donors.
You may also want to read:
Norfolk’s Historic DePaul Hospital’s Efforts to Survive Were Stymied By Sentara Healthcare
Reader Says: “There is more than meets the eye to the issue of Sentara”
Recent Comments