Duncan v. Brannock

By Judge Melvin R. Hughes, Jr.

In this case, where the defendant law firm and defendant lawyer member have objected to venue, the parties agree that resolution of the issue is confined to whether the defendants or one of them “regularly conducts substantial business activity in Richmond” pursuant to Va. Code § 8.01-262(3).

The testimony of one of the law firm partners revealed that 40% of his practice is workers’ compensation. His involvement consists of handling appeals representing employers before the Workers’ Compensation Commission. Though the Commission is based in Richmond, the witness…