Brunty v. Smith

                   COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA


Present: Judges Willis, Annunziata and Senior Judge Cole
Argued at Richmond, Virginia


CAROL A. BRUNTY, COMMISSIONER,
 VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
                                             OPINION BY
v.        Record No. 0725-95-2       JUDGE ROSEMARIE ANNUNZIATA
                                           MARCH 26, 1996
BARBARA SMITH


           FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LUNENBURG COUNTY
                Charles L. McCormick, III, Judge

          Craig M. Burshem, Assistant Attorney General
          (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General;
          William H. Hurd, Deputy Attorney General;
          Siran S. Faulders, Senior Assistant Attorney
          General, on brief), for appellant.

          John M. Boswell for appellee.



     A local department of appellant, Virginia Department of

Social Services ("DSS"), determined that appellee, Barbara Smith

("Smith"), had committed "Founded-Physical Abuse-Level 3" against

J. H. ("child").   Smith appealed to the Commissioner of DSS

("Commissioner"), who affirmed the local department's finding.

Smith appealed to the Circuit Court of Lunenburg County, which

reversed the Commissioner's decision and dismissed the case.     DSS

appealed, contending that the trial court erred in reversing the

Commissioner's affirmance.   DSS also filed a motion to vacate

both the trial court's order appointing a "special prosecutor"

and its order reversing the Commissioner's affirmance.   We agree

with DSS' contention that the court had no authority to appoint a
special prosecutor and remand this case for a new hearing. 1

     The facts are as follows.    After Smith appealed the

Commissioner's decision to the Lunenburg County Circuit Court,

the court appointed Edwin B. Baker ("Baker"), Commonwealth's

Attorney of Charlotte County, as a special prosecutor to act on

behalf of DSS after finding that Smith was a personal friend of

the Commonwealth's Attorney for Lunenburg County.   Neither DSS

nor the Attorney General's Office received notice of Baker's

appointment.   Meanwhile, the Attorney General's Office entered

its appearance as counsel of record by filing an answer to

Smith's petition for appeal.   Notwithstanding the Attorney

General's appearance in the case, neither it nor DSS was notified

of the circuit court hearing scheduled on the matter.
     At the hearing, Baker, after reviewing the evidence in the

case, represented to the court that he found the evidence

insufficient to support the finding of child abuse.   Baker

thereafter prepared an order which the court entered, dismissing

the matter and ordering that Smith's name be removed from any

register identifying her as having been found guilty of Physical

Abuse-Level 3.   Baker signed the order under the heading, "We ask

for this."   The order states that Baker "acted with full

knowledge and concurrence of the office of the Attorney General."

     DSS' motion to vacate is based on the trial court's
     1
          Because we decide the case on the grounds raised in
DSS' motion to vacate, we address neither Smith's motion to
dismiss nor the merits of the issues raised on appeal.



                                 - 2 -
appointment of a prosecutor to act on behalf of DSS.    DSS claims

the appointment was improper and deprived it of legal

representation before the court.   DSS contends that the case was

civil, not criminal, and that Code § 2.1-121 requires that DSS be

represented by the Attorney General's Office in such cases.    We

agree.

     The matter before the court was civil in nature rather than

criminal.    See Jackson v. W., 14 Va. App. 391, 410, 419 S.E.2d

385, 396 (1992); cf. Commonwealth v. Gray, 248 Va. 633, 635-36,
449 S.E.2d 807, 809 (1994) (proceedings on unreasonable refusal

charge are civil and administrative in nature).   Code § 2.1-121 2
     2
            Code § 2.1-121 provides, in part:

                 All legal service in civil matters for
            the Commonwealth, the Governor, and every
            state department, institution, division,
            commission, board, bureau, agency, entity,
            official, court, or judge, including the
            conduct of all civil litigation in which any
            of them are interested, shall be rendered and
            performed by the Attorney General, except as
            hereinafter provided in this chapter and
            except for any litigation concerning a
            justice or judge initiated by the Judicial
            Inquiry and Review Commission. No regular
            counsel shall be employed for or by the
            Governor or any state department,
            institution, division, commission, board,
            bureau, agency, entity, or official. The
            Attorney General, in his discretion, may
            represent personally or through one or more
            of his assistants any number of state
            departments, institutions, divisions,
            commissions, boards, bureaus, agencies,
            entities, officials, courts, or judges which
            are parties to the same transaction or which
            are parties in the same civil or
            administrative proceeding and may represent
            multiple interests within the same


                                - 3 -
provides that the Office of the Attorney General shall provide

all legal services for the Department of Social Services in civil

matters.    See also Code § 2.1-121.2. 3   In the context of Code

§ 2.1-121, the term "shall" is mandatory and reflects the General

Assembly's intention that there be no discretion in complying

with statute, except as provided in the statute itself.      See Sink

v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 544, 546-47, 413 S.E.2d 658, 659-60

(1992).    Code § 2.1-121 contains three exceptions: (1) where the
(..continued)
          department, institution, division,
          commission, board, bureau, agency, or entity.
           The Attorney General, in his discretion, may
          represent personally or through one of his
          assistants any of the following persons who
          are made defendant in any civil action for
          damages arising out of any matter connected
          with their official duties: any member,
          agent, or employee of . . . the Department of
          Social Services. . . . If, in the opinion of
          the Attorney General, it is impracticable or
          uneconomical for such legal service to be
          rendered by him or one of his assistants, he
          may employ special counsel for this purpose,
          whose compensation shall be fixed by the
          Attorney General.
     3
            Code § 2.1-121.2 provides:

                 Notwithstanding any other provision of
            law, if the Attorney General finds after
            consultation with the head of the affected
            department that it is in the best interests
            of the Commonwealth to do so, the Attorney
            General may, in his discretion, authorize any
            employee of his office or any employee of a
            department to represent that department or an
            affiliated body in any administrative
            proceedings before the department, an
            affiliated body or before any hearing officer
            or examiner appointed or employed by the
            department or affiliated body.




                                 - 4 -
chapter expressly grants an exception, see Code § 2.1-122; 4 (2)
     4
          Code § 2.1-122 provides:

               No special counsel shall be employed for
          or by the Governor or any state department,
          institution, division, commission, board,
          bureau, agency, entity, official, justice of
          the Supreme Court, or judge of any circuit
          court or district court except in the
          following cases:
               (a) Where because of the nature of the
          service to be performed, the Attorney
          General's office is unable to render same,
          the Governor after issuing an exemption order
          stating with particularity the facts and
          reasons upon which he bases his conclusion
          that the Attorney General's office is unable
          to render such service, may employ special
          counsel to render such service as the
          Governor may deem necessary and proper.
               (b) In cases of legal services in civil
          matters to be performed for the Commonwealth,
          where it is impracticable or uneconomical for
          the Attorney General to render same, he may
          employ special counsel whose compensation
          shall be paid out of the appropriation for
          the Attorney General's office.
               (c) In cases of legal services in civil
          matters to be performed for any state
          department, institution, division,
          commission, board, bureau, agency, entity,
          official, justice of the Supreme Court, or
          judge of any circuit court or district court
          where it is impracticable or uneconomical for
          the Attorney General's office to render same,
          special counsel may be employed but only upon
          the written recommendation of the Attorney
          General, who shall approve all requisitions
          drawn upon the Comptroller for warrants as
          compensation for such special counsel before
          the Comptroller shall have authority to issue
          such warrants.
               (d) In cases where the Attorney General
          certifies to the Governor that it would be
          improper for the Attorney General's office to
          render legal services due to a conflict of
          interests, or that he is unable to render
          certain legal services, the Governor may
          employ special counsel or other assistance to


                              - 5 -
where the litigation, initiated by the Judicial Inquiry and

Review Commission, involves a justice or judge; and (3) where the

Attorney General determines that it is impractical or

uneconomical for his or her office to render the services.

          None of the exceptions apply in this case.   The trial court

had no authority to appoint a "special prosecutor" to represent

DSS in a civil proceeding.     Baker had no authority to represent

DSS either at the hearing or by his signature on the final

order. 5    For these reasons, the final order was entered

improperly, without endorsement of counsel of record.        See Rule

1:13; Rosillo v. Winters, 235 Va. 268, 272-73, 367 S.E.2d 717,

719 (1988); Westerberg v. Westerberg, 9 Va. App. 248, 250, 386

S.E.2d 115, 116 (1989).

      Accordingly, both the trial court's order appointing Baker

as "special prosecutor" and its order reversing the

Commissioner's decision in this case are vacated and the matter

remanded for any further proceedings deemed appropriate.
(..continued)
          render such services as may be necessary.
      5
          Smith contends the Attorney General knew that the
matter had been assigned to a prosecutor and concurred in the
decision to allow the prosecutor to proceed with the case. It is
unclear from the evidence to what extent the Attorney General's
Office was aware of Baker's representation of DSS. However, the
Attorney General's knowledge or concurrence, even if established,
is not determinative under the facts of this case. Neither
waiver nor estoppel may be raised to bar the government from
exercising its governmental functions. See Sink, 13 Va. App. at
547-48, 413 S.E.2d at 660-61; Monument Associates v. Arlington
County Board, 242 Va. 145, 151, 408 S.E.2d 889, 892 (1991); cf.
Falls v. Virginia State Bar, 240 Va. 416, 418, 397 S.E.2d 671,
672 (1990) (applying same principle to administrative agency).




                                  - 6 -
        Vacated and remanded.




- 7 -