Century-Old Law Gives Virginia Legislator-Lawyers Broad Power To Delay Court Cases

By Markus Schmidt and Virginia Mercury

September 14, 2026

More than four years after Buchanan County Supervisor Trey Adkins was charged with dozens of felonies, his case has yet to reach a jury.

Adkins was indicted in May 2022 on 82 counts stemming from allegations that included election fraud, absentee-voting violations, forgery, conspiracy and embezzlement of public property. He has maintained his innocence.

The case is now scheduled for trial Oct. 19 in Dickenson County, nearly 54 months after the charges were filed. Court motions obtained by The Mercury show that Virginia House Minority Leader Terry Kilgore, R-Scott, one of Adkins’ attorneys, invoked a century-old Virginia law at least three times in 2023 and 2024 to seek continuances tied to his legislative responsibilities.

Virginia Code § 30-5 gives state legislators, legislative employees and parties represented by them the right to postpone court and administrative proceedings during periods surrounding General Assembly sessions and a variety of legislative meetings.

The provision has drawn criticism over the years from attorneys who say clients can face lengthy delays when opposing counsel serves in the General Assembly. Lawmakers who practice law say the protection is necessary in a part-time legislature where members must balance their public duties with private employment.

Kilgore did not respond to requests for an interview.

A protection for a citizen legislature

Under § 30-5, qualifying parties are entitled to a continuance “as a matter of right” beginning 30 days before the session and ending 30 days after adjournment.

The protection, which includes both regular and special legislative sessions, also covers the day before, of and the day after meetings of legislative commissions, councils and committees that the lawmaker is scheduled to attend.

If a judge refuses a qualifying request, the statute says the decision constitutes reversible error, meaning a higher court can overturn it on appeal. Temporary injunctions are exempt and remain within the court’s discretion.

Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell, D-Fairfax, a practicing attorney, said the provisions keeps clients from being disadvantaged when their lawyer is called to Richmond.

“Legislative responsibilities and litigation can be unpredictable, and it’s important that clients’ matters aren’t affected because their lawyer happens to serve the commonwealth as a legislator,” Surovell said in a phone interview. “I think a lot of people often lose sight of the fact that clients matter, and it’s not the lawyer’s case.”

Surovell said he has used the law to continue misdemeanor cases when his legislative obligations conflicted with court dates. But lawmakers should have legitimate grounds for doing so and should not invoke the provision when their duties do not interfere, he said.

Nor does a delay necessarily benefit the client, Surovell added, because many defendants want their cases resolved quickly.

“If § 30-5 didn’t exist, it wouldn’t work,” Surovell said of balancing the two professions. “And I’m pretty sure that similar privileges exist in almost every other state.”

Florida, for example, allows qualifying proceedings to be continued during legislative sessions, for 15 days before and after them and around required committee work. Virginia’s principal window extends twice as long on either side of a session.

Surovell said the protection has become increasingly important as Virginia’s formally part time legislature conducts more business throughout the year.

“We’re slowly turning into a full time legislature,” he said, citing commission meetings, special sessions and other duties. “I’m not sure a lot of people appreciate how full-time this part-time job is.”

He also defended Kilgore, calling him a sought-after and accomplished attorney while noting that litigants generally have the right to choose their counsel.

Claims of delay and abuse

Bristol attorney John Lamie has seen the provision from the other side. He said cases involving some of his clients have been postponed multiple times because opposing counsel served in the legislature.

“A sophisticated litigant can delay the resolution of a legal dispute by hiring a member of the legislature,” Lamie said in an email.

Lamie favors repealing § 30-5 and replacing it with a narrower protection limited to active legislative sessions. He would allow only one such continuance in a case and create broader exemptions for criminal proceedings and civil matters in which a delay could cause irreparable harm.

“There also may be a separation of powers issue here too,” Lamie said. “The legislative branch should not be able to dictate how the courts rule on motions in cases.”

Sonny Stallings, a Virginia Beach attorney who served as a Democratic state senator from 1988 to 1992, said in a phone interview that he tried to narrow the law during his first year in office decades ago.

Stallings said he watched an attorney serving in the House of Delegates repeatedly invoke the provision involving one of his clients, leaving her without child and spousal support for five months.

Stallings proposed limiting the use of legislative continuances in support cases. His measure advanced in the Senate, he said, but he abandoned the effort after “a powerful” member of the House told him it would not pass in that chamber.

“There was nothing the court could do,” Stallings said of his experience. “This isn’t discretionary, because the continuance is automatic, and that’s why it’s such a big stick.”

Longtime Virginia political analyst Bob Holsworth said extended delays can also complicate cases as witnesses become unavailable or their memories fade.

“One of the reasons why we want speedy trials is that you want the witnesses’ memories to be fresh,” Holsworth said. “And the longer something continues, the more difficult it is sometimes for the prosecution to keep their witness list intact.”

Surovell noted that in criminal cases, the constitutional right to a speedy trial belongs to the accused, who can waive it. He also said delays can work against defendants and that clients rarely are enthusiastic about waiting.

A bipartisan privilege with deep roots

The law has been invoked by legislators in both parties, including recently.

In September 2025, House Speaker Don Scott, D-Portsmouth, relied on § 30-5 after joining the legal team representing the Democratic Party of Virginia in a Richmond defamation suit brought by Thomas Speciale, a retired U.S. Army intelligence officer and a former Republican U.S. Senate candidate.

Court records described in an account of the case published by transparency advocate and Activate Virginia Executive Director Josh Stanfield show Scott filed notice that the General Assembly remained in special session and sought to suspend deadlines and proceedings until after adjournment.

The case included written deposition responses from Abigail Spanberger, then the Democratic nominee for governor, that the judge had ruled would not remain under seal.

Circuit Court Judge Richard Campbell granted the continuance, delaying the release of Spanberger’s responses as the 2025 election approached.

His order noted when Scott joined the case but said the court was bound by the statute’s “clear, absolute, and unequivocal” language. Speciale alleged that the DPVA retained Scott to delay the case, but the court did not make such a finding.

Scott did not respond to an interview request.

Virginia has afforded lawmakers some version of the protection for more than a century. The statute’s official history traces it to the 1919 code, and the General Assembly has amended it repeatedly since then.

The scope of the law came before the Supreme Court of Virginia in 1972, when then-Lt. Gov. Henry Howell sought to postpone a State Corporation Commission hearing involving a Virginia Electric Power Co. rate case. The commission denied the request, reasoning that it was exercising a legislative rather than judicial function in setting utility rates.

The Supreme Court disagreed and ordered the continuance. In its decision in Howell v. Catterall, the court found that because the SCC possesses judicial or quasi-judicial powers, proceedings before it were covered by § 30-5 even when the commission was acting in its legislative capacity.

The court acknowledged that the law could interfere with the SCC’s ability to manage its work but concluded that any change would have to come from lawmakers.

The General Assembly added limited procedural requirements in 2002, including three days’ written notice for continuances surrounding legislative meetings and a direction requesting parties notify others when practicable. But the underlying right to continuance remained.

Holsworth said complaints about the provision have surfaced periodically but have never generated enough pressure for lawmakers to substantially rewrite it.

“The people who would want to change this law are not in the legislature, and so long as the legislature has powerful lawyers in it, I don’t see a change, and I don’t see the House Speaker putting this on his bingo card anytime soon,” Holsworth said.

“There’s obviously been abuses of this over the years, but it hasn’t reached a point where the public clamors about it.”

This story was originally published by the Virginia Mercury. For more stories from the Virginia Mercury, visit VirginiaMercury.com.