ABA Ethics Opinion: Do Not 'Friend' Jurors

Lawyers may look up jurors or potential jurors on the Internet and social media, but they may not communicate directly with them — such as asking to “friend” them on Facebook. According to Formal Opinion 466 issued today by the ABA Standing Committee in Ethics and Professionalism, lawyers may pick through the troves of public information that jurors put on the Internet about themselves. “'The mere act of observing’ is not improper ex parte conduct, much as driving down a juror’s street to get a sense of his or her environs isn’t,” the ABA Journal reports.

Today's Opinions

Click on the category of your choice to view summaries of today’s opinions from that court, or other body. A link at the end of each case summary will let you download the full opinion in PDF format.

01 - TN Supreme Court
00 - TN Workers Comp Appeals
00 - TN Supreme Court - Rules
02 - TN Court of Appeals
12 - TN Court of Criminal Appeals
01 - TN Attorney General Opinions
00 - Judicial Ethics Opinions
00 - Formal Ethics Opinions - BPR
00 - TN Supreme Court - Disciplinary Orders









You can obtain full-text versions of the opinions two ways. We recommend that you download the Opinions to your computer and then open them from there. 1) Click the URL at end of each Opinion paragraph below. This should give you the option to download the original document. If not, you may need to right-click on the URL to get the option to save the file to your computer.


TN Supreme Court

RICHARD THURMOND v. MID-CUMBERLAND INFECTIOUS DISEASE CONSULTANTS, PLC ET AL.

Court: TN Supreme Court

Attorneys:

Henry S. Queener, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Richard Thurmond.

Suzanne M. Pearson, Dan L. Nolan, and Erik Fuqua, Clarksville, Tennessee, for the appellees, Mid-Cumberland Infectious Disease Consultants, PLC, and Simi Vincent, M.D.

W. Bryan Smith, Memphis, Tennessee, for the amicus curiae, Tennessee Association for Justice.

Judge: CLARK

Sixty days prior to filing his complaint, the plaintiff in this health care liability action sent written notice of his potential claim to each of the health care providers that would be named as defendants. Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121(a)(1) (2012 & Supp. 2013). The plaintiff served the pre-suit notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, as permitted by statute. Id. § 29-26-121(a)(3)(B). In his subsequent complaint, the plaintiff alleged that he had complied with the statutory requirement of pre-suit notice, id. § 29-26-121(b), but the plaintiff failed to file with the complaint “an affidavit of the party mailing the [pre-suit] notice establishing that the specified notice was timely mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested,” id. § 29-26-121(a)(4). The defendants moved for dismissal of the lawsuit, citing the plaintiff’s failure to file with the complaint an affidavit of the person who had sent the pre-suit notice by certified mail. The defendants did not allege that the lack of the affidavit resulted in prejudice. Instead, the defendants contended that the pre-suit notice statute demands strict compliance with all its requirements and that dismissal is the mandatory remedy for noncompliance. The trial court “reluctantly” agreed with the defendants and dismissed the complaint. The Court of Appeals affirmed but noted the “harsh results” strict compliance produces in cases, such as this one, where no prejudice is alleged. We granted the plaintiff’s application for permission to appeal. We hold that the statutory requirement of an affidavit of the person who sent pre-suit notice by certified mail may be satisfied by substantial compliance. We also hold that the plaintiff substantially complied with the statute. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint is reversed; the complaint is reinstated; and this matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.


TN Court of Appeals

IN RE KORY W. A.

Court: TN Court of Appeals

Attorneys:

Nicholas A. Schaefer, Kingsport, Tennessee, for the appellant, Percy H.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter, and Jordan Scott, Assistant Attorney General, General Civil Division, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, State of Tennessee, Department of Children’s Services.

Claire A. Addlestone, Kingsport, Tennessee, guardian ad litem for the minor, Kory W. A.

Judge: MCCLARTY

This is a termination of parental rights case in which the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of Father to the Child. Following a bench trial, the trial court found that clear and convincing evidence existed to support the termination of Father’s parental rights based upon his incarceration. The court likewise found that termination of Father’s parental rights was in the Child’s best interest. Father appeals. We affirm the decision of the trial court.


WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. v. WILLIAM S. LOCKETT, JR., ET. AL.

Court: TN Court of Appeals

Attorneys:

J. Myers Morton, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellants, William S. Lockett, Jr. and Dawn Lockett.

Samuel P. Funk, Ryan T. Holt, Edmund S. Sauer, and Amy R. Mohan, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Judge: MCCLARTY

This is a detainer action in which Mortgagors sought to rescind the foreclosure sale of their property. Wells Fargo filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging that recision of the sale was not a remedy available under Tennessee law. The trial court agreed and upheld the sale. Mortgagors appeal. We reverse the decision of the trial court and remand for further proceedings.


TN Court of Criminal Appeals

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. ALVIN BREWER and PATRICK BOYLAND

Court: TN Court of Criminal Appeals

Attorneys:

Harry E. Sayle, III, Assistant Public Defender (on appeal) and Lawrence Russell White, Assistant Public Defender (at trial), for the appellant, Alvin Brewer.

Neil Umsted, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellant, Patrick Boyland.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; Jeffrey D. Zentner, Assistant Attorney General; Amy P. Weirich, District Attorney General; and Pamela Fleming and Jose Leon, Assistant District Attorney Generals, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge: WILLIAMS

In this consolidated appeal, the defendants, Alvin Brewer and Patrick Boyland, stand convicted of multiple crimes in two separate cases. In case number 11-02360, defendant Brewer was convicted by a jury of two counts of false imprisonment, two counts of robbery, one count of aggravated burglary, and one count of assault. Defendant Boyland was convicted of two counts of false imprisonment, one count of robbery, one count of facilitation of robbery, one count of aggravated burglary, and one count of assault. Each received effective twenty-eight year sentences as Range II multiple offenders. In this case, both have raised the following issues for review on appeal: (1) whether the trial court erred by failing to charge criminal attempt to the jury when the proof of a completed robbery was controverted and not overwhelming; (2) whether the trial court erred by improperly commenting on the evidence by referring to the home residents as “victims” in the jury charge; (3) whether there is sufficient evidence to support the convictions; and (4) whether the trial court erred in failing to force the State to make an election as to the aggravated assault charge when the proof presented showed two separate assaults. Following review, we have concluded that no reversible error has been established and affirm the judgments and resulting sentences. However, the judgment for facilitation of robbery in Count 4 for defendant Boyland incorrectly indicates that he was convicted of a Class C felony. In actuality, it should reflect conviction of a D felony, and we remand for entry of a corrected judgment form.

In case number 11-02361, the defendants incurred multiple convictions. Defendant Boyland was convicted of especially aggravated kidnapping, aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, and three counts of facilitation of aggravated assault. During the motion for new trial hearing, the trial court granted a motion for judgment of acquittal with regard to the especially aggravated kidnapping conviction. Following a sentencing hearing, defendant Boyland was sentenced to an effective forty-eight year sentence. Defendant Brewer was convicted of especially aggravated kidnapping, aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, and three counts of aggravated assault. As with defendant Boyland, the trial court granted a motion for judgment of acquittal with regard to the especially aggravated kidnapping conviction, and defendant Brewer was sentenced to an effective forty-eight year sentence in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendants argue: (1) that the employing a firearm offense is void for failure to allege a predicate felony; (2) alternatively, that the firearm conviction should be reversed because the trial court improperly instructed the jury and provided improper verdict forms; (3) that the trial court erred in allowing a witness to testify in violation of rule 404(b); (4) that the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions; (5) that the trial court erred in refusing to merge the conviction for aggravated robbery with the convictions for aggravated assault and facilitation of aggravated assault, respective to each defendant, in violation of double jeopardy protections; (6) alternatively, that if merger is not applicable, then the trial court erred in failing to compel an election for the aggravated assault and facilitation of aggravated assault; and (7) that the trial court erred in allowing Mr. Clarence Mann to testify when his name was not endorsed on the indictment. Additionally, the State raises an issue for appeal, that being that the trial court erred in granting the motion for judgment of acquittal with regard to the especially aggravated kidnapping convictions of both defendants. Following review, the convictions for each defendant for employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony are reversed. Moreover, we have determined that the court did erroneously refuse to merge defendant Boyland’s conviction for facilitation of aggravated assault and defendant Brewer’s conviction for aggravated assault into their respective aggravated robbery convictions. Moreover, the judgment of conviction form for defendant Brewer’s aggravated assault conviction in Count 8 fails to specify a release eligibility. Additionally, the trial court’s granting of motions for judgment of acquittal as to the charge of especially aggravated kidnapping for both defendants is reversed, and the judgments should be re-instated. As such, the case is remanded for sentencing on the especially aggravated kidnapping convictions and for further proceedings and actions necessary in accordance with this opinion. The convictions and sentences are affirmed in all other respects.


JOHNNY COFFEY v. STATE OF TENNESSEE

Court: TN Court of Criminal Appeals

Attorneys:

C. Richard Hughes, Jr., District Public Defender, Cleveland, Tennessee, for the Petitioner- Appellant, Johnny Coffey.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; Renee W. Turner, Senior Counsel; Steven Bebb, District Attorney General; and Cynthia Lecroy-Schemel, Assistant District Attorney General, for the Appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge: MCMULLEN

The Petitioner, Johnny Coffey, appeals the Bradley County Criminal Court’s denial of postconviction relief. The Petitioner was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment. On appeal, he argues that trial counsel was ineffective by failing to properly petition the trial court for a State-funded psychiatric expert to assist the defense. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.


STATE OF TENNESSEE v. STEVE DUCLAIR

Court: TN Court of Criminal Appeals

Attorneys:

Richard A. Spivey, Kingsport, Tennessee, for the appellant, Steve Duclair.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; Benjamin A. Ball, Assistant Attorney General; Barry Staubus, District Attorney General; and Joseph Perrin, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge: SMITH

count of selling one-half gram or more of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school and one count of delivering one-half gram or more of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school. After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of two counts of selling one-half gram or more of cocaine, two counts of delivering one-half gram or more of cocaine, one count of selling one-half gram or more of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school, and one count of delivering one-half gram or more of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school. The trial court merged the convictions for the sale of cocaine with the convictions for the delivery of cocaine. Appellant was sentenced to an effective sentence of fifteen years at 100 percent. After the denial of a motion for new trial, Appellant presents the following issues for our review on appeal: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; (2) whether the trial court committed error while dismissing the alternate juror at the conclusion of the trial; (3) whether the trial court committed error by asking Appellant where he was from during voir dire; (4) whether the trial court properly instructed the jury; (5) whether Appellant’s sentences constitute cruel and unusual punishment; (6) whether the assistant district attorney committed prosecutorial misconduct; and (7) whether the Drug-Free School Zone Act is unconstitutional. After a review of the record and the applicable authorities, we determine that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; the trial court properly instructed the jury; the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Appellant; the Drug-Free School Zone Act is not unconstitutional; the trial court did not violate Appellant’s right from self-incrimination during voir dire; the trial court did not err in dismissing the alternate juror; and the prosecutor did not commit misconduct during closing argument. Consequently, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.


STATE OF TENNESSEE v. TRAVIS DARNELL KENDRICK

Court: TN Court of Criminal Appeals

Attorneys:

Roger E. Nell, Clarksville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Travis Darnell Kendrick.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; Clark B. Thornton, Senior Counsel; John W. Carney, District Attorney General; and Jason White, Assistant District Attorney General for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge: WILLIAMS

The defendant, Travis Darnell Kendrick, was found to be in violation of the terms and conditions of his probation agreement and was sentenced to serve the remainder of his sentence in confinement. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering the remainder of his sentence to be served in incarceration. After review of the record, we find no abuse of discretion and affirm the judgment of the trial court.


STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JOSEPH LEON KNOWLES

Court: TN Court of Criminal Appeals

Attorneys:

John S. Colley, III (on appeal), Columbia, Tennessee, and Daniel Freemon (at the guilty plea and sentencing hearings), Lawrenceburg, Tennessee, for the appellant, Joseph Leon Knowles.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; Tracy L. Bradshaw, Assistant Attorney General; Michael T. Bottoms, District Attorney General; and Beverly White, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge: TIPTON

The Defendant, Joseph Leon Knowles, pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to attempt to commit aggravated child abuse of a child under six years old, a Class B felony, with the sentence to be determined by the trial court. See T.C.A. § 39-15-402 (2010). The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I, standard offender to twelve years’ confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred during sentencing by failing to apply certain mitigating factors relative to remorse, assisting the police, and his not having a substantial intent to violate the law and by denying him alternative sentencing. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.


STATE OF TENNESSEE v. DANNY R. MAYS

Court: TN Court of Criminal Appeals

Attorneys:

Gregory D. Gookin, Assistant Public Defender, Jackson, Tennessee, for the Appellant, Danny R. Mays.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; Caitlin E.D. Smith, Assistant Attorney General; James G. Woodall, District Attorney General; Shaun A. Brown, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge: WEDEMEYER

A Madison County jury convicted the Defendant, Danny R. Mays, of felony evading arrest, reckless driving, driving on a cancelled, suspended or revoked license, leaving the scene of an accident, violation of the registration law, criminal trespass, vandalism, and possession of marijuana. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of eight years. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions for felony evading arrest, reckless driving, driving on a cancelled, suspended or revoked license, and possession of marijuana. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable authorities, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.


RASHE MOORE v. STATE OF TENNESSEE
With Concurring & Dissenting Opinion

Court: TN Court of Criminal Appeals

Attorneys:

James P. Coleman (on post-conviction appeal) and Charles Mitchell (at post-conviction hearing), Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellant, Rashe Moore.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; Clark B. Thornton, Senior Counsel; Amy P. Weirich, District Attorney General; Charles Summers and David Zak, Assistant District Attorneys General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge: THOMAS

In this post-conviction appeal, the Petitioner contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel at trial because trial counsel was deficient in failing to file a written motion requesting jury instructions on lesser-included offenses and that this failure resulted in prejudice because it precluded appellate review of the trial court’s refusal to instruct the jury on any lesser-included offenses. After a review of the record and the applicable authorities, we reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court with respect to trial counsel’s failure to file a written motion requesting an instruction on lesser-included offenses of especially aggravated kidnapping. We affirm the judgment in all other respects.


STATE OF TENNESSEE v. MICHAEL PRESSON

Court: TN Court of Criminal Appeals

Attorneys:

David L. Raybin, Nashville, Tennessee (on appeal), and Joe H. Byrd, Jr., Jackson, Tennessee (at trial), for the Appellant, Michael Presson.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; David H. Findley, Senior Counsel; James G. Woodall, District Attorney General; Rolf G.S. Hazlehurst, Assistant District Attorney General, for the Appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge: WEDEMEYER

A Madison County jury convicted the Defendant, Michael Presson, of ten counts of attempted aggravated sexual battery, one count of aggravated sexual battery, and eleven counts of rape of a child. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of thirty-five years of confinement. On direct appeal from his convictions, the Defendant contends that: (1) the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to sustain his convictions; (2) the trial court erred when it refused to admit into evidence the medical record for one of the victims; (3) the trial court violated Tennessee Rule of Evidence 615 by allowing the State’s designated witness to be present during the victims’ testimony, without requiring the designated witness to testify first; (4) the State improperly used an exhibit and commented on a jury questionnaire during closing arguments, violating the Defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial; (5) the trial court improperly instructed the jury as to the mens rea elements of the crimes; (6) the trial court erred when it imposed consecutive sentences; and (7) the trial court erred when it placed the victim’s medical records under seal and denied the Defendant the opportunity to review the records. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.


STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JAMES H. SAINT, JR.

Court: TN Court of Criminal Appeals

Attorneys:

Jason Mitchell Chaffin, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, James H. Saint, Jr.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; Ahmed A. Safeeullah, Assistant Attorney General; Victor S. Johnson, III, District Attorney General; and Brian Holmgren, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge: WILLIAMS

The petitioner, James H. Saint, Jr., was convicted of six counts of aggravated sexual battery and was ordered to serve a sixty-six-year sentence. The petitioner brings this post-conviction action where he alleges that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel in that: (1) trial counsel failed to sufficiently inform the petitioner regarding the details of his settlement offer; (2) trial counsel failed to adequately prepare both himself and the petitioner for trial; and (3) trial counsel failed to adequately cross-examine the petitioner’s wife at trial. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the petitioner has not established that counsel performed deficiently or that any deficiency prejudiced the petitioner. We accordingly affirm the denial of his petition.


STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JUSTIN SHELTON

Court: TN Court of Criminal Appeals

Attorneys:

William J. Harold, Assistant Public Defender, Lewisburg, Tennessee, for the appellant, Justin Shelton.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; Brent C. Cherry, Assistant Attorney General; Robert J. Carter, District Attorney General; and Ann L. Filer, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge: SMITH

Appellant, Justin Shelton, was indicted by the Lincoln County Grand Jury on two counts of reckless endangerment and two counts of vandalism. Appellant pled guilty and was sentenced to two years on each count for a total effective sentence of eight years. The trial court suspended the sentences and ordered Appellant to probation. Subsequently, a probation violation warrant was filed which alleged that Appellant had not reported to his probation officer; failed to pay fines; and failed to provide proof of employment. Petitioner also pled guilty to another offense. At a hearing, Petitioner pled guilty to the probation violation. The trial court ordered Appellant to serve the balance of his sentence in incarceration. Appellant appeals. After a review of the record and authorities, we determine that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Appellant’s probation as there was evidence to support the conclusion of the trial court that a violation of the conditions of probation occurred. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.


KRISTOPHER SMITH v. STATE OF TENNESSEE

Court: TN Court of Criminal Appeals

Attorneys:

J. Jeffrey Lee, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellant, Kristopher Smith.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; Sophia S. Lee, Assistant Attorney General; Amy P. Weirich, District Attorney General; and Melanie Headley, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge: WITT

The petitioner, Kristopher Smith, appeals the denial of his bid for post-conviction relief from his 2009 Shelby County Criminal Court jury convictions of aggravated kidnapping and rape, claiming that the ruling in State v. White, 362 S.W.3d 559 (Tenn. 2012), requires dismissal of his aggravated kidnapping conviction and that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. Discerning no error, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.


TIM SMITH v. STATE OF TENNESSEE

Court: TN Court of Criminal Appeals

Attorneys:

Ruchee Patel, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellant, Tim Smith.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; Sophia S. Lee, Senior Counsel; Amy P. Weirich, District Attorney General; and Meghan Fowler, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge: THOMAS

The Petitioner, Tim Smith, challenges his conviction for aggravated kidnapping, alleging that his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered because he did not understand the ramifications of his plea, noting that trial counsel erroneously advised him that he would be eligible for release after he had served eighty-five percent of his sentence. Upon consideration of the record and the applicable authorities, we conclude that the Petitioner failed to prove that his plea was unknowingly and involuntarily entered and affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.


TN Attorney General Opinions

Administering Spinal Injections in Unlicensed Settings

Court: TN Attorney General Opinions

Date: 2014-04-23

Opinion Number: 49


Obama’s Impact on Courts Under Scrutiny

What has been President Barack Obama’s impact on the courts? Journalists are updating their analyses as November’s mid-term elections near, and Democratic control of the Senate comes into question, Gavel Grab reports. A Bloomberg News article published today reports that Obama has surpassed his predecessor, President George W. Bush, for the number of judges confirmed to the bench at a corresponding point in his two terms. The article also notes Obama has named more blacks, Hispanics, women and Asians as federal judges than any of his predecessors.


Justice Alito: Law Schools Give LSAT Too Much Weight

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has taken sides in the polarizing debate over the Law School Admissions Test (LSAT). Student scores on the entrance exam shouldn’t matter as much as they do, he told the American Spectator. “Law schools put too much emphasis on this one multiple choice test. What in life is a multiple choice test?” he said. During the wide-ranging interview with the magazine, the justice also discussed the importance of justices accepting change and his aversion towards attending State of the Union addresses. The Wall Street Journal Law Blog has more.


Justices Limit Restitution to Child Porn Victims

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday limited the restitution that victims of child pornography can receive under federal law from individuals who acquire and view images of the child. Ruling in Paroline v. United States, Justice Anthony Kennedy said one user’s role in causing the pornography was “very minor” compared to the acts of the producers and distributors of the pornography. As a result, a $3.4 million award in the case before the court was vacated. The National Law Journal has more.


Disavowed Democrat Loses Federal Suit

U.S. District Judge Kevin Sharp threw out a suit filed by 2012 Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate Mark Clayton. Clayton alleged the Tennessee Democratic Party violated state law by keeping him off the ballot for governor this August. Clayton was disavowed by the party for his association with an anti-gay hate group and for an uneven record of voting in Democratic primaries. The party blocked his application for governor, telling state elections offices that he is not a “bona fide” Democrat. The Tennessean has more.


Chattanooga Businesswoman Joins House Race

Chattanooga businesswoman Patsy Hazlewood will run for the House District 27 seat being vacated by state Rep. Richard Floyd, Nooga reports. Her bid for the Republican nomination has already led would-be challenger Tom McCullough to drop out of the race, citing Hazlewood’s political strength on Signal Mountain and ability to raise funds.


Save on Auto Insurance with TBA Benefit

GEICO Auto Insurance offers competitive products and services. Eligible TBA members will receive a members-only 8 percent discount on auto insurance premiums. Check out the savings today!


Health Care, Insurance Associate Sought in Memphis

A Memphis law firm has an immediate opening for an associate attorney with two to six years experience to work in the areas of health care law and insurance defense. A Tennessee bar license is required and a Mississippi license is preferred. The firm reports that the opening is an excellent opportunity for professional growth in a unique work environment. Submit cover letter and resume to memphistnlawfirm@gmail.com. Learn more in this job description.


 
 

Questions, comments: Email us at TBAToday@tnbar.org

About this publication: Today's News is a compilation of digests of news reports of interest to Tennessee lawyers compiled by TBA staff, links to digested press releases, and occasional stories about the TBA and other activities written by the TBA staff or members. Statements or opinions herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Tennessee Bar Association, its officers, board or staff.


© Copyright 2014 Tennessee Bar Association