ÿWPCmK ]ø…“£dÖ_GcyÞNH ¾„¬Hþ°T›nÔ_la¹è†e7Iôå»^-HeM *2R °¥F™-ÌE,×0Lò—kõÿëy÷ÐmŒ¢FöÅyÎ’ƒ$×~ É9wŸ@¶^|¦âêOmâìoJmˆÍ×´ÊôÓMa&):‹s`¿Ú~LÝZðžÈ´b@C6Ÿò†MàaÞ½l_ü±r“ÃÔcº¥i¢‚ºc<7 F†e„T51ŸÃå?y¯µÿ:t‹ÝBUâ‡äÙ)Uf¡rî‚Ïý.sۙŠ;¿DIM‹iè‚óR‚f!Næ’Þ¹`1Ø’‹º­™×æ›8Ÿ pÕÅû®Eµ¿1 æM°`¥1NVNŸ!þóTÓãä½Þž|^ZL;¡ + ÑÍaÏá©Ï"Cþ‘™´a…o:sF$Ìô‚¾^`1Øp 8À¯«nxYÞMgð+4mt†!­MLȳ¶*Øw¨§À).D(Sð¿°sÛt6¢E=.£Üzvyº%G}gˆyÛê;=CÒvìlK¸¸k4jeÛ¯®h–@41pw¬“ÌÕ çB®qÊöil¯±§ÀOmˆ¨•»××*¢b#É\ %% ^ + 0ˆ7 w¿ U(Nà 4 z% ÒŸ q € m‚ =™ ÆÖ ÆœÆbÆ( 0ÔîN 0CÄ 0×EÞ 0Ñà 0α 0Ë 0ÈJ 0Å 0D× 1u 72ÂÂÂÂjáªKKKKöõÚëwÅ d<"* #ZÊ%b$'“,' 0U¿* 0ã+ 0Å÷+ 0¿¼, 0¹{- 0³4. 0­ç. 0§”/ 0¡;0Ü0 0ä2 0Âq3 0Î34 0°5 0ª±5 0¤[6 0žÿ6 0˜7 0’58 0ŠÇ8¬Q9 1eý:áb;æC=Ñ)>´ú?ú?æ®A®AÖ”E”E”E”E”E 0ëjFjFjFjF BUGUG 0¤rG D3H D-IH 0KvHvH ASÁHÆI 0¤ÚI 0D~J A«ÂJ˜\\IB01S01\CLERK1NASÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»JŸž/Ï (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularqdj/ê:i¢×+00 ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ 3Ý ƒR¼$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô29ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔFor€reasons€not€appearing€in€the€record,€an€order€reflecting€the€trial€courtððs€decision€at€the€September€9,€1994Ð H Ðhearing€was€not€entered€until€August€5,€1996.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5*DM ÿÿ(_15Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó* ÿÿ(_17Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô€*GM ÿÿ(_16Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*AM ÿÿ(_14Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*>M ÿÿ(_13Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*;M ÿÿ(_12Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*8M ÿÿ(_11Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*5M ÿÿ(_10Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i) Ý ƒR¼$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô29ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThis€order€had€been€entered€on€May€12,€1997,€and€the€record€contains€no€clear€explanation€for€Mr.€TerryððsÐ H Ðdelay€in€receiving€it. `Ý ƒR¼$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô29ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòEvers€v.€Shermanóó,€No.€88„208„II,€1988€WL€132687,€*4€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Dec.€14,€1988)€(No€Tenn.€R.€App.Ð H ÐP.€11€application€filed);€òòHunt€v.€Hoppeóó,€22€Tenn.€App.€540,€545,€124€S.W.2d€306,€309€(1938).€  Ý ƒR¼$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô29ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòJessee€v.€American€Gen.€Life€and€Acc.€Ins.€Co.óó,€No.€E2002„00182„COA„R3„CV,€2003€WL€165777,€*5€(Tenn.Ð H ÐCt.€App.€Jan.€24,€2003)€òòperm.€app.€dismissedóó€(Tenn.€April€24,€2003);€òòCoakley€v.€Danielsóó,€840€S.W.2d€367,€370€(Tenn.Ð  Ä ÐCt.€App.€1992). ìÝ ƒR¼$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô29ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔBetween€July€1997€and€April€1999,€the€parties€continued€the€hearing€on€this€motion€seven€times€apparentlyÐ H Ðby€agreement.€€Understandably,€they€did€not€desire€to€press€the€matter€because€they€were€attempting€to€negotiate€aÐ  Ä Ðsettlement€of€Dr.€Nagarajanððs€federal€damage€claim.€€The€chancery€court€eventually€heard€the€motion€on€April€30,€1999,РЈ Ðand€entered€an€order€on€May€14,€1999€declining€to€set€aside€the€May€12,€1997€order€dismissing€the€complaint€for€failureÐ ”L Ðto€prosecute.€€As€far€as€the€record€shows,€no€appeal€was€taken€from€this€order. ÐÝ ƒR¼$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô29ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔHad€the€default€judgment€resolved€all€the€claims€between€the€parties,€it€would€have€been€final€and€immediatelyÐ H Ðappealable.€€òòFirst€Union€Natððl€Bank€v.€Abercrombieóó,€No.€M2001„01379„COA„R3„CV,€2003€WL€22251347,€at€*2€(Tenn.Ð  Ä ÐCt.€App.€Oct.€2,€2003)€(No€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€filed).€€ mÝ ƒR¼$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô29ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô9€òòCharles€A.€Wright€&€Arthur€K.€Miller,€Ô_ÔFederalÔ_Ô€Practice€and€Procedureóó€ðð€2318,€at€133€(2d€ed.Ð H Ð1995)€(ð ðÔ_ÔòòFederalÔ_Ô€Practice€&€Procedureóóðð). ZÝ ƒR¼$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô29ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔMr.€Braun€had€another€matter€in€the€United€States€District€Court€for€the€Middle€District€of€Ô_ÔTennesseeÔ_Ô€alreadyÐ H Ðset€for€Ô_ÔFebruaryÔ_Ô€10,€2003. Ý ƒR¼$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô29ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€appellate€record€does€not€reveal€Ô_ÔpreciselyÔ_Ô€when€the€renewed€demand€was€made.€€In€his€Ô_ÔFebruaryÔ_Ô€18,€2003Ð H Ðmemorandum€supporting€the€renewed€demand€for€a€jury,€Dr.€Ô_ÔNagarajanÔ_Ô€ð ðrequests€that€this€Court€reverse€is€[sic]€priorÐ  Ä Ðruling€and€reinstate€this€cause€on€the€jury€docket.ðð€ PÝ ƒR¼$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô29ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThis€consent€must€take€the€form€of€either€a€written€stipulation€by€the€parties€or€their€lawyers€or€by€oralÐ H Ðstipulation€made€in€open€court€and€entered€in€the€record.€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€39.01.- ù- ‰Ý ƒR¼$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô29ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔBecause€of€the€similarities€between€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€38€and€Fed.€R.€Civ.€P.€38,€the€decisions€of€the€federalÐ H Ðcourts€construing€Fed.€R.€Civ.€P.€38€provide€us€with€helpful€guidance€in€our€interpretation€and€application€of€Tenn.€R.Ð  Ä ÐCiv.€P.€38.€€Decisions€of€the€federal€courts€construing€analogous€federal€rules€of€procedure€can€provide€helpful€guidanceРЈ Ðin€interpreting€our€own€rules.€€òòFrazier€v.€East€Tenn.€Baptist€Hosp.óó,€55€S.W.3d€925,€928€(Tenn.€2001);€òòHarris€v.€Chernóó,Ð ”L Ð33€S.W.3d€741,€745€n.2€(Tenn.€2000);€òòByrd€v.€Hallóó,€847€S.W.2d€208,€211€n.€2€(Tenn.€1993);€òòPacific€Eastern€Corp.€v.Ð X ÐGulf€Life€Holding€Co.óó,€902€S.W.2d€946,€952€n.7€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995).*+ ÿÿ(_26Ô2ÔÔ3  Ôà..à*G+G ÿÿ(_25Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÓ ¨ý ÓÓ ° Ó*8+8 ÿÿ(_24Ó  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÓ  Ó*5+5 ÿÿ(_23Ó ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÓ ` Ó*2+2 ÿÿ(_22Ó ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÓ ¸ Ó*/+/ ÿÿ(_21Ó  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÓ  Ó*,+, ÿÿ(_20Ó h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÓ h Ó*)+) ÿÿ(_19Ó À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓppÈ xÐ ÓÓ À Ó*&+& ÿÿ(_18Ó  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÓ  Ó þÝ ƒR¼$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô29ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔEven€though€these€proceedings€were€held€in€chambers,€Dr.€Nagarajan€could€have€used€his€court€reporter€hadÐ H Ðhe€simply€requested€that€the€proceedings€be€transcribed.€€Because€Dr.€Nagarajan€did€not€request€that€the€proceedingsÐ  Ä Ðin€chambers€be€transcribed,€he€alone€is€responsible€for€the€absence€of€a€transcript€of€these€proceedings€from€the€record.(&& ÿÿ&_9Ó  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€ÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÓ  Ó(AA ÿÿ&_8Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó(GG ÿÿ&_7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÓ ¨ý ÓÓ ° Ó(88 ÿÿ&_6Ó  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÓ  Ó(55 ÿÿ&_5Ó ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÓ ` Ó(22 ÿÿ&_4Ó ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÓ ¸ Ó(// ÿÿ&_3Ó  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÓ  Ó(,, ÿÿ&_2Ó h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÓ h Ó()) ÿÿ&_1Ó À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓppÈ xÐ ÓÓ À Ó&&& ÿÿ$_Ó  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÓ  Ó ¢Ý ƒR¼$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô29ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAnother€court€reached€a€different€result€on€similar€facts€because€the€plaintiffððs€jury€demand€was€limited€toÐ H Ðð ðeach€and€every€count€of€the€complaint.ðð€€òòMt.€Everest€Ski€Shops,€Inc.€v.€Ski€Barn,€Inc.óó,€736€F.€Supp.€531,€532€(D.€Vt.Ð  Ä Ð1989).€€ ÿÿ35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. ×Ý ƒR¼$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú15Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô29ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔA€lawyerððs€claims€for€unpaid€attorneyððs€fees€are€compulsory€counterclaims€in€a€clientððs€legal€malpracticeÐ H Ðaction.€€òòFirst€Am.€Trust€Co.€v.€Franklin„Murray€Dev.€Co.óó,€59€S.W.3d€135,€139„40€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2001);€òòsee€also€€StarksÐ  Ä Ðv.€Browningóó,€20€S.W.3d€645,€652„53€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1999). ÜÝ ƒR¼$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú16Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô29ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔòòCrawfordÔ_Ô€v.€Loganóó,€656€S.W.2d€360,€364„65€(Tenn.€1983). ÇÝ ƒR¼$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô29ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔCommentators€have€advised€that€careful€practitioners€can€avoid€the€predicament€facing€Dr.€Nagarajan€in€thisÐ H Ðcase€by€filing€a€timely€demand€for€a€jury€following€the€filing€of€a€counterclaim.€€5€òòJames€W.€Moore€et€al.,€MooreððsÐ  Ä ÐFederal€Practice€óóðð€38.39[2],€at€38„369€(2d€ed€1995). ªÝ ƒR¼$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú17Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô29ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAllowing€a€non„jury€trial€to€proceed€without€objection€is€sufficient€to€imply€a€partyððs€consent€to€a€trial€withoutÐ H Ða€jury.€€òòRussell€v.€Hackettóó,€190€Tenn.€at€384,€230€S.W.2d€at€192;€òòsee€also€Front€v.€Laneóó,€443€N.E.2d€95,€97€(Ind.€Ct.Ð  Ä ÐApp.€1982). GOVINDASWAMY COACantrell P.J.Crotwell TSUSearcynonsuitBatsonStranchSovranMarressJesseeCoakleyEversHoppe suasponteNatlAbercrombieHarbison YerGribbleBuckner cmtCiagloSolerKelseyStarks BealBallardBogashLederleParenteralsF.R.D.S.D.N.Y.SewelllimineBottsObionaffiantSommervilleMankinNagarajan MgmtChernHorwitzVtAyalac]onfusingm]isleadingw]astec]ourt ÌÝ ƒR¼$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú18Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô29ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThere€is€likewise€no€indication€that€the€parties€attempted€to€depose€Mr.€Ray.(|G2¼$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ŸÁ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô29ò»»Ô d(|3¤$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ŸÁ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3¤$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ŸÁ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ŸÁ»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑTRXì3Ø'LetterXà3Ø' Letter3Ø'Letter ÓÝ  ÝÔ_Ôñ–ñÑTRXì3Ø'Aÿ3Ø'LetterTÑÑH°ÑÑH°ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼ŸÁ»»»ÔÑ8€Â…XXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡î‚ðŸÁÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ H Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼ŸÁ»îî‚ð|#ԈРn& ÐÓ  ÓAssigned€on€Briefs€July€23,€2003à @ àÐ ”L ÐÔ‡XÂ…X»¼ŸÁÔÌò òÔ#†¼ŸÁ»XXÂ…w#ÔGOVINDASWAMY€NAGARAJAN€v.€MICHAEL€E.€TERRYÔ‡XÂ…X»¼ŸÁÔó óÐ ’J ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÐ ’ J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€00C„1168€€€€€€Barbara€N.€Haynes,€JudgeÐ ~ 6 ÐÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<U ` AßÐ V   ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2001„01480„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€December€30,€Ô_Ô2003Ô_ԀРQ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<(` AßÐ )á  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThis€appeal€involves€a€dispute€between€a€lawyer€and€his€former€client€regarding€unpaid€fees.€€AfterÐ $Ü  Ðthe€client€sued€the€lawyer€for€malpractice€in€the€Circuit€Court€for€Davidson€County,€the€lawyerÐ È  Ðcounterclaimed€for€unpaid€fees.€€The€trial€court€granted€the€lawyerððs€summary€judgment€motion€andÐ ü´ Ðdismissed€the€malpractice€claims.€€Thereafter,€the€trial€court€conducted€a€bench€trial€on€the€lawyerððsÐ è  Ðcounterclaim€and€awarded€the€lawyer€a€$53,884.86€judgment.€€The€former€client€asserts€on€thisÐ ÔŒ Ðappeal€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€his€request€for€a€continuance,€granting€a€judgment€byÐ Àx Ðdefault€on€the€question€of€liability,€denying€his€request€for€a€jury€trial,€and€considering€expertÐ ¬d Ðevidence€regarding€the€reasonableness€of€the€lawyerððs€fee€without€affording€him€the€opportunity€forÐ ˜P Ðcross„examination.€€We€affirm€the€judgment.Ð „< ÐÔ#†¼ŸÁ»XXÂ…ç#ÔÔ‡XÂ…X»¼ŸÁÔÓ,ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmedó óÐ \ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼ŸÁ»àXÂ…Y #ÔÔ‡XÂ…X.¼ŸÁÔWilliam€C.€Koch,€Jr.,óó€J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòBen€H.€Cantrell,€P.J.,€M.S.,Ð 4ì Ðóóandòò€William€B.€Cain,€J.óó,€joined.Ð  Ø ÐÌRichard€J.€Braun€and€Patricia€E.€Crotwell,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€GovindaswamyÐ ø° ÐNagarajan.Ð äœ ÐÌStephanie€H.€Gore,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€Michael€E.€Terry.Ð ¼ t! ÐÓõ ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼ŸÁ»XXÂ…$ #ÔÔ‡XÂ…X»¼ŸÁÔÐ ”"L# ÐÔ#†¼ŸÁ»XXÂ…7 #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XÂ…X»¼ŸÁÔÌà@¬¬)ìàò òI.ó óˆÐ l$$!% ÐÌà  àGovindaswamy€Nagarajan€was€terminated€as€an€associate€professor€of€physics€at€TennesseeÐ D&ü"' ÐState€University€(ð ðTSUðð)€in€the€fall€of€1989.€€He€retained€David€E.€Mead€and,€on€January€24,€1990,Ð 0'è#( Ðfiled€a€Title€VII€action€in€the€United€States€District€Court€for€the€Middle€District€of€TennesseeÐ (Ô$) Ðagainst€the€president€of€TSU€and€others€seeking€reinstatement,€tenure,€and€monetary€damages.€Ð )À%* ÐApproximately€three€months€later,€he€filed€a€second€complaint€seeking€essentially€the€same€reliefÐ ô)¬&+ Ðin€the€Chancery€Court€for€Davidson€County.Ð à*˜', ÐÌà  àAt€some€point€after€these€lawsuits€were€filed,€Dr.€Nagarajan,€who€is€apparently€quite€aÐ ¸,p). Ðdemanding€client,€fired€Mr.€Mead€and€retained€Walter€T.€Searcy,€III€to€represent€him€in€the€federalÐ ¤-\*/ ÐTitle€VII€proceeding.€€In€May€1992,€the€chancery€court€notified€Mr.€Mead,€who€was€still€Dr.Ð .H+0ýÿ ÐÔ_ÔNagarajanððs€lawyer€of€record,€that€Dr.€Nagarajanððs€complaint€would€be€dismissed€for€failure€toÐ H Ðprosecute€unless€some€action€was€taken.€€Mr.€Mead€informed€Dr.€Nagarajan€of€this€development.€Ð 4ì ÐHe€also€reminded€Dr.€Nagarajan€that€he€had€filed€this€complaint€as€a€tactic€to€preserve€remedies€andÐ  Ø Ðrecommended€filing€a€voluntary€nonsuit€in€the€case.€€The€notice€of€voluntary€dismissal€was€filed€onÐ  Ä ÐJune€16,€1992,€and€an€order€of€dismissal€was€entered€in€the€chancery€court€on€June€17,€1992.€€At€theÐ ø° Ðsame€time,€Mr.€Mead€took€steps€to€formally€withdraw€as€Dr.€Nagarajanððs€lawyer€in€the€chanceryÐ äœ Ðcourt.РЈ ÐÌà  àMr.€Searcy€later€withdrew€from€representing€Dr.€Nagarajan€and€was€replaced€by€Thomas€K.Ð ¨ ` ÐBowers€in€August€1992.€€Mr.€Bowers€eventually€withdrew,€and€in€November€1993,€Dr.€NagarajanÐ ” L  Ðretained€Michael€E.€Terry€to€represent€him€in€the€pending€Title€VII€action€that€was€set€for€trial€inÐ € 8  ÐMarch€1994.€€Mr.€Terry€agreed€to€represent€Dr.€Nagarajan€and€requested€a€$10,000€retainer€to€beÐ l $  Ðpaid€in€installments.€€Dr.€Nagarajan€also€informed€Mr.€Terry€that€he€had€another€suit€pending€in€theÐ X  Ðchancery€court.€€After€Mr.€Terry€ascertained€that€the€chancery€court€suit€had€been€dismissed€on€JuneÐ Dü  Ð17,€1992,€Dr.€Nagarajan€insisted€that€it€should€be€placed€back€on€the€docket€despite€Mr.€TerryððsÐ 0è  Ðadvice€that€his€remedies€in€the€federal€proceeding€were€adequate.Ð Ô  ÐÌà  àThe€trial€in€the€United€States€District€Court€was€later€continued.€€On€August€8,€1994,€Mr.Ð ô¬ ÐTerry,€at€Dr.€Nagarajanððs€insistence,€requested€the€chancery€court€to€restore€Dr.€NagarajanððsÐ à˜ Ðcomplaint€to€the€docket€and€to€set€a€trial€date.€€Thereafter,€Mr.€Terry€tried€Dr.€Nagarajanððs€Title€VIIÐ Ì„ Ðclaim€in€the€United€States€District€Court€for€several€weeks,€and€the€District€Court€took€the€case€underÐ ¸p Ðadvisement.€€At€a€hearing€on€September€9,€1994,€the€chancery€court€granted€the€motion€to€reinstateÐ ¤\ ÐDr.€Nagarajanððs€state€case€to€the€docket€and€directed€the€parties€to€contact€the€calendar€clerk€to€setÐ H Ða€trial€date.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð |4 ÐÌà  àThe€parties€in€the€chancery€court€suit€took€no€action€to€advance€the€case€because€they€wereÐ T  Ðawaiting€the€outcome€of€the€August€1994€trial€in€the€United€States€District€Court.€€On€June€5,€1997,Ð @ø Ðthe€District€Court€filed€an€order€and€memorandum€concluding€that€TSU€had€discriminated€againstÐ ,ä ÐDr.€Nagarajan€in€violation€of€Title€VII€and€that€Dr.€Nagarajan€was€entitled€to€reinstatement€as€a€non„Ð Ð Ðtenured€professor€and€back€pay.€€The€court€directed€the€parties€to€submit€their€ð ðaccountingðð€ofÐ ¼ Ðdamages€for€the€courtððs€consideration.Ð ð¨ ÐÌà  àOn€June€13,€1997,€approximately€one€week€after€the€District€Court€filed€its€order€andÐ È €  Ðmemorandum,€Mr.€Terry€received€an€order€dismissing€the€pending€chancery€court€case€for€failureÐ ´!l! Ðto€prosecute.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€When€Mr.€Terry€and€Dr.€Nagarajan€met€on€June€16,€1997,€Mr.€Terry€informed€himÐ  "X" Ðthat€the€chancery€court€case€had€again€been€dismissed€and€advised€him€that€the€suit€was€no€longerÐ Œ#D # Ðnecessary€because€he€would€obtain€sufficient€relief€in€the€federal€proceeding€in€light€of€the€DistrictÐ x$0!$ ÐCourtððs€June€5,€1997€memorandum.€€Nonetheless,€Dr.€Nagarajan€insisted€that€another€effort€shouldÐ d%"% Ðâ âbe€made€to€reinstate€his€state€lawsuit.€€Mr.€Terry€thereafter€filed€a€motion€to€set€aside€the€chanceryÐ P&#& Ðcourtððs€May€12,€1997€order€of€dismissal.׃(×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€On€December€24,€1997,€the€District€Court€entered€anÐ H Ðâ âorder€awarding€Dr.€Nagarajan€(1)€$356,310.22€in€back€pay€plus€interest,€(2)€$61,037.35€in€backÐ 4ì ÐSocial€Security€contributions,€(3)€$33,053.00€in€back€health€insurance€contributions,€(4)€$49,818.53Ð  Ø Ðin€back€retirement€contributions,€(5)€$10,800.00€in€back€longevity€pay,€and€(6)€540€hours€of€sickÐ  Ä Ðleave.€€In€addition,€the€District€Court€directed€Dr.€Nagarajan€to€submit€his€application€for€theÐ ø° Ðpayment€of€attorneyððs€fees.Ð äœ ÐÌà  àTSU€appealed€the€District€Courtððs€decision€to€the€United€States€Court€of€Appeals€for€theÐ ¼ t ÐSixth€Circuit.€€After€the€Court€of€Appeals€referred€the€case€to€its€mandatory€settlement€process,€the€Ð ¨ ` ÐState€and€Dr.€Nagarajan€engaged€in€lengthy€settlement€negotiations.€€Eventually,€the€State€offeredÐ ” L  Ðto€withdraw€its€appeal€if€Dr.€Nagarajan€would€accept€its€offer€to€pay€$525,000€in€damages.€€On€JuneÐ € 8  Ð2,€1998,€Mr.€Terry€recommended€that€Dr.€Nagarajan€accept€this€offer.€€Dr.€Nagarajan€responded€onÐ l $  ÐJune€5,€1998€instructing€Mr.€Terry€to€decline€the€Stateððs€offer€because€he€believed€that€he€mightÐ X  Ðsomehow€get€a€better€result€on€appeal€even€though€he€had€not€appealed€the€District€Courtððs€decision.€Ð Dü  ÐOn€June€8,€1998,€Mr.€Terry€advised€Dr.€Nagarajan€that€his€instructions€were€unreasonable€andÐ 0è  Ðrequested€an€opportunity€to€ð ðdiscuss€the€future€of€[his]€representation.ðð€€On€June€15,€1998,€Dr.Ð Ô  ÐNagarajan€delivered€a€letter€to€Mr.€Terryððs€office€terminating€his€employment.€€In€August€1998,€Dr.Ð À ÐNagarajan€hired€Richard€H.€Batson€II€to€represent€him€in€the€pending€federal€appeal€and€also€directedÐ ô¬ Ðhim€to€undertake€to€reinstate€the€state€complaint€that€had€been€dismissed€by€the€chancery€court€onÐ à˜ ÐMay€5,€1997.€Ð Ì„ ÐÌà  àOn€July€19,€1999,€the€United€States€Court€of€Appeals€affirmed€the€District€Courtððs€judgmentÐ ¤\ Ðfor€Dr.€Nagarajan.€€On€March€20,€2000,€the€District€Court€awarded€Dr.€Nagarajan€$167,460.00€inÐ H Ðattorneys€fees€relating€to€his€Title€VII€case.€€In€April€2000,€following€negotiations€among€the€fiveÐ |4 Ðlawyers€who€had€represented€Dr.€Nagarajan€in€the€federal€proceedings,€Mr.€Terry€receivedÐ h  Ð$83,000.00€for€his€work€in€the€case.€€Two€months€later,€he€received€an€additional€$15,742.49.Ð T  ÐÌà  àOn€April€27,€2000,€Dr.€Nagarajan€filed€a€pro€se€malpractice€complaint€against€Mr.€Terry€inÐ ,ä Ðthe€Circuit€Court€for€Davidson€County€seeking€$500,000.00€in€damages€for€his€failure€to€reinstateÐ Ð Ðhis€chancery€court€complaint€against€TSU€and€others.€€€Mr.€Terry€responded€by€denying€theÐ ¼ Ðmalpractice€claim€and€by€counterclaiming€for€unpaid€attorneyððs€fees.€€In€March€2001,€Mr.€Terry€filedÐ ð¨ Ða€motion€for€summary€judgment€seeking€dismissal€of€Dr.€Nagarajanððs€malpractice€claim€on€theÐ Ü” Ðground€that€it€was€not€timely€filed.€€The€trial€court€granted€the€summary€judgment€in€May€2001€andÐ È €  Ðsuggested€that€the€parties€either€mediate€the€remaining€fee€dispute€or€submit€it€to€the€Nashville€BarÐ ´!l! ÐAssociationððs€fee€dispute€committee.€€€€€€Ð  "X" ÐÌà  àWhen€attempts€to€resolve€the€fee€dispute€proved€fruitless,€Mr.€Terry€requested€the€trial€courtÐ x$0!$ Ðto€set€the€case€on€the€non„jury€docket.€€After€receiving€a€September€2001€trial€date,€Dr.€NagarajanÐ d%"% Ðretained€James€G.€Stranch,€III€to€represent€him.€€The€trial€was€thereafter€postponed€for€anotherÐ P&#& Ðattempt€at€mediation.€€After€this€attempt€failed,€the€trial€was€set€for€September€2002.€€The€trial€wasÐ <'ô#' Ðagain€postponed€until€December€9,€2002.€€On€the€day€of€trial,€the€court€learned€that€Dr.€NagarajanÐ ((à$( Ðhad€sued€one€of€Mr.€Stranchððs€employees€and,€therefore,€that€Mr.€Stranch€could€no€longer€representÐ H ÐDr.€Nagarajan.€€Rather€than€proceeding€to€trial€without€a€lawyer,€Dr.€Nagarajan€agreed€that€the€trialÐ 4ì Ðwould€be€continued€until€February€10,€2003,€and€that€he€would€inform€the€trial€court€on€or€beforeÐ  Ø ÐJanuary€17,€2003€either€that€he€had€retained€a€new€lawyer€to€represent€him€or€that€he€would€beÐ  Ä Ðproceeding€pro€se€at€the€February€10,€2003€trial.Ð ø° ÐÌà  àOn€February€7,€2003,€Dr.€Nagarajan€filed€a€motion€for€a€continuance€informing€the€trial€courtРЈ Ðthat€he€had€found€a€lawyer,€Richard€J.€Braun,€who€would€represent€him€but€only€if€the€trial€was€againÐ ¼ t Ðcontinued.׃+×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Dr.€Nagarajan€appeared€without€a€lawyer€on€February€10,€2003.€€The€trial€court€deniedÐ ¨ ` ÐDr.€Nagarajanððs€motion€for€a€fourth€continuance€and€granted€Mr.€Terry€a€default€judgment€on€theÐ ” L  Ðissue€of€Dr.€Nagarajanððs€liability€for€additional€attorneyððs€fees.€€The€trial€court€also€set€a€hearing€forÐ € 8  ÐFebruary€19,€2003€on€the€issue€of€damages.€€Dr.€Nagarajanððs€lawyer€sought€unsuccessfully€toÐ l $  Ðreschedule€the€February€19,€2003€hearing.€€Following€a€bench€trial€on€February€19,€2003,€duringÐ X  Ðwhich€Dr.€Nagarajan€declined€to€offer€any€proof€regarding€Mr.€Terryððs€claim€for€attorneyððs€fees,€theÐ Dü  Ðtrial€court€entered€an€order€on€February€27,€2003,€awarding€Mr.€Terry€a€$53,884.86€judgment.€€Dr.Ð 0è  ÐNagarajan€thereafter€filed€a€timely€notice€of€appeal.€Ð Ô  ÐÌà@……)ìàò òII.ó óˆÐ ô¬ Ðà@Š Š ìàòòò òThe€Denial€of€Dr.€Nagarajanððs€Motion€for€Continuanceó óóóˆÐ à˜ ÐÌà  àDr.€Nagarajan€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€his€February€7,€2003€motion€forÐ ¸p Ða€continuance.€€He€asserts€that€the€trial€court€should€have€granted€the€motion€because€his€newlyÐ ¤\ Ðretained€lawyer€would€have€been€available€to€try€the€case€on€the€day€after€it€had€been€set.€€We€haveÐ H Ðdetermined€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€by€further€delaying€the€trial.Ð |4 ÐÌà  àTrial€courts€have€broad€discretion€over€the€course€and€conduct€of€trials.€€òòState€v.€Kingóó,€40Ð T  ÐS.W.3d€442,€449€(Tenn.€2001);€òòJustice€v.€Sovran€Bankóó,€918€S.W.2d€428,€429„30€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð @ø Ð1995);€òòMarress€v.€Carolina€Direct€Furniture,€Inc.óó,€785€S.W.2d€121,€129€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1989).€Ð ,ä ÐThis€discretion€extends€to€decisions€regarding€motions€for€a€continuance.€€òòBlake€v.€Plus€Mark,€Inc.óó,Ð Ð Ð952€S.W.2d€413,€415€(Tenn.€1997).€€Accordingly,€the€appellate€courts€should€not€second€guess€a€trialÐ ¼ Ðcourtððs€decision€on€a€motion€for€a€continuance€unless€the€record,€reviewed€as€a€whole,€shows€a€clearÐ ð¨ Ðabuse€of€discretion€or€that€a€clear€prejudicial€error€has€been€committed.€€òòBlake€v.€Plus€Mark,€Inc.óó,Ð Ü” Ð952€S.W.2d€at€415;€òòOwens€v.€Bristol€Motor€Speedway,€Inc.óó,€77€S.W.3d€771,€775€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð È €  Ð2001);€òòTrinity€Indus.,€Inc.€v.€McKinnon€Bridge€Co.óó,€77€S.W.3d€159,€175€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2001).Ð ´!l! ÐÌà  àDecisions€regarding€continuances€are€fact„specific.€€Accordingly,€motions€for€a€continuanceÐ Œ#D # Ðshould€be€viewed€in€the€context€of€all€the€circumstances€existing€when€the€motion€is€filed.€€AmongÐ x$0!$ Ðâ âthe€factors€that€courts€consider€are:€(1)€the€length€of€time€the€proceeding€has€been€pending,׃$×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€(2)€theÐ d%"% Ðreason€for€the€continuance,€(3)€the€diligence€of€the€party€seeking€the€continuance,׃#×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€(4)€theÐ H Ðâ âprejudice€to€the€requesting€party€if€the€continuance€is€not€granted.Ð 4ì ÐÌà  àBy€the€time€Dr.€Nagarajan€filed€his€motion€for€continuance€on€February€7,€2003,€the€case€hadÐ  Ä Ðbeen€pending€for€almost€three€years.€€It€had€been€first€set€for€trial€in€September€2001€but€had€beenÐ ø° Ðcontinued€three€times.€€The€third€continuance€was€required€because€Dr.€Nagarajan€created€a€conflictÐ äœ Ðwith€his€own€lawyer€after€he€sued€one€of€his€lawyerððs€employees.€€When€the€trial€court€granted€theРЈ Ðthird€continuance,€it€reached€an€explicit€understanding€with€Dr.€Nagarajan€that€he€would€have€untilÐ ¼ t ÐJanuary€17,€2003€to€notify€the€court€that€he€had€retained€another€lawyer€and€that€if€he€did€not€retainÐ ¨ ` Ðanother€lawyer,€the€trial€would€proceed€on€February€10,€2003,€and€that€Dr.€Nagarajan€would€beÐ ” L  Ðrequired€to€represent€himself.€€These€facts€support€a€conclusion€that€Dr.€Nagarajan€was€not€pursuingÐ € 8  Ðhis€case€with€the€sort€of€diligence€that€would€have€merited€another€continuance.Ð l $  ÐÌà  àThe€record€also€provides€a€basis€for€concluding€that€the€trial€courtððs€refusal€to€grant€Dr.Ð Dü  ÐNagarajan€a€continuance€did€not€materially€prejudice€his€case€with€regard€to€both€liability€andÐ 0è  Ðdamages.€€The€facts€regarding€Mr.€Terryððs€representation€of€Dr.€Nagarajan€were€essentiallyÐ Ô  Ðundisputed€and€had€been€set€out€in€great€detail€in€the€partiesðð€statements€of€undisputed€material€facts.€Ð À ÐThe€partiesðð€differences€involved€the€legal€conclusions€to€be€drawn€from€these€facts.€€The€onlyÐ ô¬ Ðmaterial€factual€dispute€regarded€the€manner€in€which€Mr.€Terry€had€calculated€the€additionalÐ à˜ Ðattorneyððs€fees€he€was€claiming.€€The€trial€courtððs€action€on€February€10,€2003€did€not€deprive€Dr.Ð Ì„ ÐNagarajan€of€his€opportunity€to€cross„examine€Mr.€Terry€on€his€fee€calculation€or€to€introduceÐ ¸p Ðevidence€on€this€question€because€it€continued€the€hearing€to€February€19,€2003,€to€enable€the€partiesÐ ¤\ Ðto€address€that€question.€€Mr.€Terry€testified€and€was€subject€to€cross„examination€at€that€hearing,Ð H Ðand€Dr.€Nagarajan€could€have€presented€any€other€evidence€on€that€issue€he€desired.Ð |4 ÐÌà@^^(ìàò òIII.ó óˆÐ T  Ðà@ø ø ìàòòò òThe€Default€Judgment€on€Mr.€Terryððs€Counterclaimó óóó€ˆÐ @ø ÐÌà  àDr.€Nagarajan€also€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€on€February€10,€2003,€by€granting€Mr.Ð Ô ÐTerry€a€default€judgment€on€the€issue€of€Dr.€Nagarajanððs€liability€for€additional€attorneyððs€fees.€€HeÐ À Ðinsists€that€he€informed€the€trial€court€on€February€10,€2003,€that€he€was€ready€to€proceed€withoutÐ ô¬ Ðcounsel€and,€therefore,€the€trial€court€should€not€have€sua€sponte€given€Mr.€Terry€a€default€judgment.€Ð à˜ ÐWe€find€no€merit€in€this€argument€for€two€reasons.Ð Ì „  ÐÌà  àThe€first€reason€is€that€the€record€does€not€support€Dr.€Nagarajanððs€self„serving€assertion€thatÐ ¤"\" Ðhe€informed€the€trial€court€during€the€hearing€in€chambers€on€February€10,€2003€that€he€was€preparedÐ #H # Ðto€proceeding€with€the€trial€without€a€lawyer.€€The€trial€court€stated€explicitly€both€in€its€orders€andÐ |$4!$ Ðon€the€record€of€the€February€19,€2003€hearing€that€Dr.€Nagarajan€had€represented€to€the€court€onÐ h% "% ÐFebruary€10,€2003€that€he€was€not€prepared€to€proceed€with€the€trial€notwithstanding€the€DecemberÐ T& #& Ð18,€2002€order.€€Appealing€parties€have€an€obligation€to€provide€appellate€courts€with€an€appellateÐ @'ø#' Ðrecord€containing€a€full,€accurate,€and€complete€account€of€what€transpired€at€trial€with€regard€to€theÐ ,(ä$( Ðâ âissues€raised€on€appeal.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€24(a).€€Dr.€Nagarajan€has€not€provided€a€record€of€theÐ )Ð%) ÐFebruary€10,€2003€proceedings.׃9×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€In€the€absence€of€such€a€record,€we€will€accredit€a€trial€courtððsÐ H Ðâ âversion€of€what€transpired€at€a€hearing€over€that€of€one€of€the€parties.Ð 4ì ÐÌà  àThe€second€reason€is€that€Dr.€Nagarajan€never€requested€the€trial€court€to€set€aside€the€defaultÐ  Ä Ðjudgment€on€the€question€of€liability.€€The€decision€to€grant€the€default€judgment€was€notÐ ø° Ðimmediately€appealable€because€it€was€not€final,׃)Ü×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€Dr.€Nagarajan€could€have€asked€the€court€toÐ äœ Ðset€the€default€judgment€aside€at€the€February€19,€2003€hearing.€€This€court€generally€declines€toРЈ Ðgrant€relief€on€appeal€to€litigants€who€were€responsible€for€or€who€failed€to€take€reasonably€availableÐ ¼ t Ðaction€to€prevent€the€harmful€effect€of€an€error.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a).€€In€light€of€the€conduct€ofÐ ¨ ` ÐDr.€Nagarajan€and€his€lawyer€after€February€10,€2003,€we€find€that€Dr.€Nagarajan€is€in€no€positionÐ ” L  Ðnow€to€take€issue€with€the€default€judgment.Ð € 8  ÐÌà@dd)ìàò òIV.ó óˆÐ X  Ðà@Ä Ä ìàòòò òDr.€Nagarajanððs€Right€To€a€Jury€Trialó óóóˆÐ Dü  ÐÌà  àDr.€Nagarajan€argues€that€he€was€denied€his€right€to€a€jury€trial€on€Mr.€Terryððs€counterclaim.€Ð Ô  ÐHe€asserts€that€he€had€a€right€to€a€jury€trial€on€the€counterclaim€because€he€requested€a€jury€for€hisÐ À Ðmalpractice€claim.€€While€Dr.€Nagarajanððs€general€demand€for€a€jury€survived€the€dismissal€of€hisÐ ô¬ Ðcomplaint,€we€have€determined€that€Dr.€Nagarajan€and€his€lawyer€waived€his€demand€for€a€jury€byÐ à˜ Ðtheir€acquiescence€in€placing€the€case€on€the€trial€courtððs€non„jury€docket.Ð Ì„ ÐÌà@‹‹)ìàò òA.ó óˆÐ ¤\ ÐÌà  àDr.€Nagarajanððs€legal€malpractice€complaint€contained€a€demand€for€a€jury€ð ðto€hear€thisÐ |4 Ðcause.ðð€€Mr.€Terry€responded€by€filing€an€answer€and€a€counterclaim€for€unpaid€attorneyððs€fees.€€Mr.Ð h  ÐTerry€did€not€request€a€jury€trial€on€his€counterclaim.€€Dr.€Nagarajan€filed€a€reply€to€Mr.€TerryððsÐ T  Ðcounterclaim€that€did€not€include€a€demand€for€a€jury€trial€on€Mr.€Terryððs€counterclaim.Ð @ø ÐÌà  àThe€only€remaining€issue€to€be€resolved€after€the€trial€court€granted€Mr.€Terryððs€motion€forÐ Ð Ðsummary€judgment€on€May€21,€2001,€was€his€claim€for€additional€attorneyððs€fees.€€On€July€24,€2001,Ð ¼ Ðthe€trial€court€entered€an€order€setting€the€case€for€trial€on€the€ð ðnon„jury€docketðð€on€September€26,Ð ð¨ Ð2001.€€When€the€court€continued€the€trial€to€enable€the€parties€to€mediate€their€dispute,€its€orderÐ Ü” Ðreiterated€that€the€case€would€ð ðbe€placed€back€on€the€non„jury€docketðð€if€mediation€failed.€€The€caseÐ È €  Ðcame€on€to€be€tried€on€December€9,€2002,€without€a€jury€but€was€continued€until€February€10,€2003,Ð ´!l! Ðbecause€Dr.€Nagarajan€had€forced€his€lawyer€to€withdraw.Ð  "X" Ðâ âÐ Œ#D # Ðà  àAt€some€point€apparently€following€December€9,€2002,€Dr.€Nagarajan€renewed€his€demandÐ H Ðfor€a€jury€trial,€and€the€trial€court€apparently€denied€it.׃,×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Inexplicably,€however,€his€lawyer€did€notÐ 4ì Ðâ âorally€renew€his€demand€for€a€jury€when€the€trial€began€on€February€19,€2003.€€Instead,€his€lawyerÐ  Ø Ðannounced€that€ð ðweððre€prepared€to€proceed€in€whatever€way€your€Honor€wishes€to€proceed.ðð€€TheÐ  Ä Ðfirst€mention€of€Dr.€Nagarajanððs€renewed€demand€for€a€jury€was€made€after€the€plaintiff€had€closedÐ ø° Ðits€case.€€After€consulting€with€his€client,€Dr.€Nagarajanððs€lawyer€announced€that€ð ðwe€believe€thatÐ äœ Ðthe€Court€is€in€error€on€the€right€to€a€juryðð€and,€therefore,€that€ð ðMr.€Nagarajan€will€not€be€testifyingРЈ Ðtoday.ðð€€€€€€€€€€€Ð ¼ t Ðà@)ìàò òB.ˆÐ ¨ ` Ðà@k k ìàòòThe€Effectiveness€of€Dr.€Nagarajanððs€Jury€Demandóóó óˆÐ ” L  ÐÌà  àThe€right€to€a€jury€trial€guaranteed€by€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€6€is€one€of€the€most€valuableÐ l $  Ðpersonal€rights€protected€by€the€Constitution€of€Tennessee.€€òòHarbison€v.€Briggs€Bros.€Paint€Mfg.€Co.óó,Ð X  Ð209€Tenn.€534,€540,€354€S.W.2d€464,€467€(1962);€òòState€Bank€v.€Cooperóó,€10€Tenn.€(2€Yer.)€599,€604Ð Dü  Ð(1831).€€In€civil€cases,€however,€the€right€is€not€self„enforcing.׃*Ü×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€A€party€who€desires€a€jury€trialÐ 0è  Ðmust€file€and€serve€a€timely€demand€for€a€jury€in€accordance€with€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€38.02.€€PartiesÐ Ô  Ðwho€fail€to€comply€with€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€38€have€not€properly€requested€a€jury€trial€and€will€beÐ À Ðdeemed€to€have€waived€their€right€to€a€jury€trial.€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€38.05;€òòGribble€v.€Buckneróó,€730Ð ô¬ ÐS.W.2d€630,€633€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1986).Ð à˜ ÐÌà  àTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€38.02€provides€thatÐ ¸p ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àAny€party€may€demand€a€trial€by€jury€of€any€issue€triable€ofÐ H Ðright€by€jury€by€demanding€the€same€in€any€pleading€specified€in€RuleÐ |4 Ð7.01€or€by€endorsing€the€demand€upon€such€pleading€when€it€is€filed,Ð h  Ðor€by€written€demand€filed€with€the€clerk,€with€notice€to€all€parties,Ð T  Ðwithin€fifteen€(15)€days€after€the€service€of€the€last€pleading€raisingÐ @ø Ðan€issue€of€fact.Ð,ä` x` x ÐÌParties€requesting€a€jury€may€specify€the€issues€to€be€tried€by€the€jury,€but€if€they€do€not€specifyÐ ¼ Ðparticular€issues,€their€demand€will€be€deemed€to€include€all€issues€triable€by€a€jury.€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.Ð ð¨ ÐP.€38.04.€€Once€a€demand€for€a€jury€trial€has€been€made,€it€cannot€be€withdrawn€without€the€consentÐ Ü” Ðof€all€the€parties€as€to€whom€the€issues€have€been€joined.€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€38.05.׃-,×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Trial€courts€may,Ð È €  Ðin€their€discretion,€order€a€trial€by€jury€notwithstanding€a€partyððs€failure€to€demand€a€jury€in€theÐ ´!l! Ðinterest€of€justice.€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€39.02€&€cmt.Ð  "X" Ðâ âÐ Œ#D # Ðà  àA€timely,€general€demand€for€a€jury€that€does€not€specify€issues€is€regarded€as€a€demand€forÐ H Ðâ âa€jury€on€all€issues€in€the€case.€€9€òòFederal€Practice€&€Procedure€óóðð€2318,€at€136;€òòAllison€v.€CitgoÐ 4ì ÐPetroleum€Corp.óó,€151€F.3d€402,€423€(5th€Cir.€1998).׃/×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Plaintiffs€who€have€included€a€general€juryÐ  Ø Ðdemand€in€their€complaint€are€entitled€to€a€jury€on€all€triable€issues€pertinent€to€their€complaint,Ð  Ä Ðincluding€issues€raised€in€counterclaims.€€òòHorwitz€v.€Alloy€Automotive€Co.óó,€677€F.€Supp.€564,€566Ð ø° Ð(N.D.€Ill.€1988)€(once€a€general€jury€demand€has€been€asserted,€a€second€demand€need€not€be€madeÐ äœ Ðafter€the€filing€of€a€counterclaim);€òòCiaglo€v.€Fanningóó,€300€N.W.2d€436,€438€(Mich.€Ct.€App.€1980).׃H(×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀РЈ ÐThus,€plaintiffs€who€have€included€a€general€jury€demand€in€their€complaint€are€entitled€to€a€jury€onÐ ¼ t Ðthe€triable€issues€raised€in€a€defendantððs€counterclaim€even€if€their€complaint€is€dismissed.€€In€a€caseÐ ¨ ` Ðstrikingly€similar€to€this€one,€the€Supreme€Court€of€Ohio€held€that€a€client€who€included€a€generalÐ ” L  Ðjury€demand€in€the€malpractice€complaint€against€her€former€lawyer€was€entitled€to€a€jury€trial€onÐ € 8  Ðthe€lawyerððs€counterclaim€for€unpaid€attorneyððs€fees€after€her€malpractice€complaint€had€beenÐ l $  Ðdismissed.€€òòSoler€v.€Evans,€St.€Clair€&€Kelseyóó,€763€N.E.2d€1169,€1175€(Ohio€2002).׃D< ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð X  ÐÌà  àThe€principles€applied€by€the€Supreme€Court€of€Ohio€in€òòSoler€v.€Evan,€St.€Clair€&€Kelsey€óóareÐ 0è  Ðapplicable€to€this€case.€€Dr.€Nagarajan€included€a€general€jury€demand€in€his€complaint.€€Mr.€TerryððsÐ Ô  Ðcounterclaim€for€attorneyððs€fees€was€a€compulsory€counterclaim€because€it€arose€out€of€the€sameÐ À Ðtransaction€that€gave€rise€to€Dr.€Nagarajanððs€complaint.€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€13.01.׃FP ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú15Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€triable€issuesÐ ô¬ Ðin€the€complaint€and€counterclaim€were€inextricably€intertwined€because€Mr.€Terry€could€haveÐ à˜ Ðpotentially€forfeited€all€or€part€of€his€fee€if€he€had€committed€malpractice€and€if€his€malpractice€hadÐ Ì„ Ðdamaged€Dr.€Nagarajan.׃Gd×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú16Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Accordingly,€Dr.€Nagarajanððs€general€demand€for€a€jury€in€his€complaintÐ ¸p Ðsurvived€the€dismissal€of€his€malpractice€complaint€against€Mr.€Terry.Ð ¤\ ÐÌà@‹‹)ìàò òC.ó óˆÐ |4 Ðà@) ) ìàòòò òDr.€Nagarajanððs€Waiver€of€His€Right€to€a€Jury€Trialóóó óˆÐ h  ÐÌà  àDetermining€that€Dr.€Nagarajanððs€jury€demand€survived€the€dismissal€of€his€complaint€doesÐ @ø Ðnot€end€our€inquiry.€€Dr.€Nagarajan€would€not€have€been€entitled€to€a€jury€at€either€the€February€10Ð ,ä Ðor€19,€2003€hearings€if€he€effectively€waived€his€right€to€a€jury€sometime€between€the€filing€of€hisÐ H Ðcomplaint€and€the€date€of€the€trial.€€We€have€determined€that€the€record€clearly€demonstrates€that€Dr.Ð 4ì ÐNagarajan€waived€his€right€to€a€jury€trial.Ð  Ø ÐÌà  àJury€demands€are€not€irrevocable.€€Litigants€who€have€requested€a€jury€may€subsequentlyÐ ø° Ðwaive€their€right€to€a€jury€with€the€ð ðconsent€of€all€parties€as€to€whom€issues€have€been€joined.ðð€Ð äœ ÐTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€38.05.€€This€waiver€may€be€explicit€or€by€implication.€€òòRussell€v.€Hackettóó,€190€Tenn.РЈ Ð381,€383,€230€S.W.2d€191,€192€(1950);€òòBeal€v.€Doeóó,€987€S.W.2d€41,€47€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998);Ð ¼ t ÐòòDavis€v.€Ballardóó,€946€S.W.2d€816,€817€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996).€€Courts,€however,€should€indulge€inÐ ¨ ` Ðevery€reasonable€presumption€against€waiver€of€a€jury€demand€in€a€civil€case.òò€€Aetna€Ins.€Co.€v.Ð ” L  ÐKennedy€ex€rel.€Bogashóó,€301€U.S.€389,€393,€57€S.€Ct.€809,€812€(1937).€€A€waiver€should€not€beÐ € 8  Ðinferred€without€reasonably€clear€evidence€of€an€intent€to€waive.€€òòL€&€R€Realty€v.€Connecticut€NatððlÐ l $  ÐBankóó,€715€A.2d€748,€753€(Conn.€1998).€€Therefore,€when€doubt€exists,€a€court€should€not€find€thatÐ X  Ða€party€who€requested€a€jury€waived€its€right.€€òòGarcia„Ayala€v.€Lederle€Parenterals,€Inc.óó,€212€F.3dÐ Dü  Ð638,€645€(1st€Cir.€2000);€òòLovelace€v.€Dallóó,€820€F.2d€223,€227„28€(7th€Cir.€1987);€òòAmericanÐ 0è  ÐStandard,€Inc.€v.€Crane€Co.óó,€60€F.R.D.€35,€42„43€(S.D.N.Y.€1973).Ð Ô  ÐÌà  àThe€record€reflects€that€Dr.€Nagarajan€explicitly€waived€his€right€to€a€jury€trial€on€Mr.€TerryððsÐ ô¬ Ðcounterclaim.€€Following€the€entry€of€the€summary€judgment€dismissing€Dr.€Nagarajanððs€claim,€Mr.Ð à˜ ÐTerry€filed€a€motion€requesting€a€non„jury€trial.€€The€record€contains€no€indication€that€Dr.Ð Ì„ ÐNagarajan,€who€was€representing€himself€at€the€time,€objected€to€the€request€for€a€non„jury€trial.€Ð ¸p ÐAccordingly,€on€July€24,€2001,€the€trial€court€filed€an€order€setting€the€case€for€a€non„jury€trial€onÐ ¤\ ÐSeptember€26,€2001.€€Thereafter,€Dr.€Nagarajan€retained€counsel,€and€the€parties€agreed€to€continueÐ H Ðthe€trial€to€engage€in€mediation.€€The€October€18,€2001€agreed€order€continuing€the€trial€directs€theÐ |4 Ðparties€to€ð ðinform€the€Court€whether€or€not€this€matter€should€be€placed€back€on€the€non„jury€docketððÐ h  Ðshould€mediation€fail.€€The€entry€of€the€October€18,€2001€order€acknowledging€that€the€case€was€onÐ T  Ðthe€courtððs€non„jury€docket€supplies€clear€evidence€that€all€the€parties€had€consented€at€that€point€toÐ @ø Ðtry€the€case€without€a€jury.€€òòSewell€v.€Jefferson€County€Fiscal€Courtóó,€863€F.2d€461,€464„65€(6th€Cir.Ð ,ä Ð1988)€(failure€to€object€to€an€order€scheduling€a€case€on€the€non„jury€docket€implies€consent€to€aÐ Ð Ðnon„jury€trial).€€Ð ¼ ÐÌà  àAs€far€as€the€record€shows,€no€other€mention€of€a€jury€was€made€prior€to€the€February€10,Ð Ü” Ð2003€trial€when€the€trial€court€granted€Mr.€Terry€a€default€judgment€with€regard€to€Dr.€NagarajanððsÐ È €  Ðliability€for€additional€attorneyððs€fees.€€The€first€mention€of€a€jury€trial€came€in€a€brief€filed€with€theÐ ´!l! Ðcourt€on€February€18,€2003,€in€support€of€Dr.€Nagarajanððs€ð ðrenewed€demandðð€for€a€jury.€Ð  "X" ÐNotwithstanding€this€brief,€neither€Dr.€Nagarajan€nor€his€lawyer€requested€a€jury€at€the€beginningÐ Œ#D # Ðof€the€proceeding€on€February€19,€2003.€€The€subject€of€a€jury€was€not€mentioned€until€Mr.€TerryÐ x$0!$ Ðclosed€his€case.Ð d%"% ÐÌà  àThere€are€substantial€questions€about€the€efficacy€and€timeliness€of€Dr.€Nagarajanððs€renewedÐ <'ô#' Ðrequest€for€a€jury.€€However,€even€if€we€assume€that€his€request€was€timely,€Dr.€Nagarajan€againÐ ((à$( Ðâ âwaived€his€right€to€a€jury€trial€when€neither€he€nor€his€lawyer€requested€a€jury€at€the€beginning€of€theÐ )Ì%) Ðhearing€on€February€19,€2003.׃I×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú17Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Clearly,€broaching€the€subject€of€a€jury€after€the€close€of€Mr.€TerryððsÐ H Ðâ âcase€was€untimely,€and€the€trial€court€cannot€be€faulted€for€declining€to€start€the€proceedings€anewÐ 4ì Ðand€grant€Dr.€Nagarajan€a€jury€trial€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€39.02.Ð  Ø ÐÌà@‹‹)ìàò òV.ó óˆÐ ø° Ðà@ä ä ìàòòò òConsideration€of€the€Affidavit€of€Mr.€Terryððs€Expertó óóóˆÐ äœ ÐÌà  àAs€a€final€matter,€Dr.€Nagarajan€takes€issue€with€the€trial€courtððs€decision€to€admit€andÐ ¼ t Ðconsider€the€affidavit€of€Charles€R.€Ray€regarding€the€reasonableness€of€Mr.€Terryððs€claim€forÐ ¨ ` Ðattorneyððs€fees.€€He€asserts€that€the€trial€courtððs€decision€to€admit€the€affidavit€deprived€him€of€hisÐ ” L  Ðopportunity€to€cross„examine€Mr.€Ray.€€We€have€determined€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€admittingÐ € 8  ÐMr.€Rayððs€affidavit€into€evidence€over€Dr.€Nagarajanððs€objection.€€However,€we€have€alsoÐ l $  Ðdetermined€that€the€admission€of€the€affidavit€was€harmless€because€it€did€not€affect€the€judgment.€Ð X  ÐÌà  àIn€an€agreed€scheduling€order€filed€on€May€14,€2002,€the€trial€court€directed€the€parties€toÐ 0è  Ðdisclose€their€expert€witness€and€exchange€their€expert€witness€statements€by€August€1,€2002.€€OnÐ Ô  ÐAugust€22,€2002,€Mr.€Terry€disclosed€that€he€intended€to€call€Charles€R.€Ray€as€an€expert€witnessÐ À Ðand€provided€a€summary€of€Mr.€Rayððs€testimony€regarding€Mr.€Terryððs€entitlement€to€an€additionalÐ ô¬ Ðfee,€the€reasonableness€of€his€requested€fee,€and€the€value€of€his€services€to€Dr.€Nagarajan.€€On€theÐ à˜ Ðsame€day,€Dr.€Nagarajan€filed€a€motion€in€limine€seeking€to€exclude€Mr.€Rayððs€testimony€because€Ð Ì„ Ðit€was€(1)€irrelevant,€(2)€contrary€to€the€decision€of€the€United€States€District€Court€in€the€Title€VIIÐ ¸p Ðproceeding,€and€(3)€ð ð[c]onfusing,€[m]isleading,€and€a€[w]aste€of€the€[c]ourtððs€time.ðð€€DespiteÐ ¤\ Ðextensive€briefing€and€supplemental€briefing€by€the€parties,€the€record€contains€no€indication€thatÐ H Ðthe€trial€court€ever€ruled€on€the€motion€in€limine.׃MÜ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú18Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð |4 ÐÌà  àOn€February€18,€2003,€the€day€before€the€final€hearing,€Mr.€Terry€filed€two€affidavits€withÐ T  Ðthe€court€ð!ð€his€affidavit€and€that€of€Mr.€Ray.€€Mr.€Rayððs€affidavit€stated€that€Mr.€Terry€was€entitledÐ @ø Ðto€$113,989.86€and€that€Mr.€Terryððs€request€for€$53,884.86€was€ð ðvery€favorableðð€to€Dr.€Nagarajan.€Ð ,ä ÐAfter€he€testified€at€the€February€19,€2003€hearing,€Mr.€Terry€tendered€Mr.€Rayððs€affidavit€to€theÐ Ð Ðcourt€explaining€that€Mr.€Ray€would€have€been€available€to€testify€had€the€case€been€tried€either€onÐ ¼ ÐDecember€9,€2002€or€February€10,€2003,€but€that€he€was€unavailable€to€testify€on€February€19,€2003.€Ð ð¨ ÐDr.€Nagarajanððs€lawyer€objected€to€the€affidavit€on€the€ground€that€it€would€deprive€him€of€hisÐ Ü” Ðopportunity€to€cross„examine€Mr.€Ray.€€The€trial€court€overruled€the€objection€and€admitted€theÐ È €  Ðaffidavit.Ð ´!l! ÐÌà  àAs€a€general€matter,€evidence€introduced€at€trial€takes€the€form€of€testimony€of€live€witnessesÐ Œ#D # Ðwho€are€subject€to€cross„examination,€depositions€of€unavailable€witnesses€who€have€been€availableÐ x$0!$ Ðfor€cross„examination,€and€properly€authenticated€exhibits.€€The€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€ProcedureÐ d%"% Ðdo€not€provide€for€the€use€of€affidavits€as€evidence€at€trial€except€by€consent.€€òòBotts€v.€Bottsóó,€ObionÐ P&#& ÐEq.€No.€6,€1990€WL€183742,€at€*7€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Nov.€29,€1990)€òòperm.€app.€denied€óó(Tenn.€MayÐ <'ô#' Ð6,€1991);€òòTurner€v.€Turneróó,€776€S.W.2d€88,€90€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1988).€€With€regard€to€requests€forÐ ((à$( Ðattorneyððs€fees,€however,€it€has€become€commonplace€to€use€affidavits€and€counter„affidavits€to€tryÐ H Ðissues€regarding€the€reasonableness€of€a€requested€fee.€€In€these€circumstances,€the€parties€either€haveÐ 4ì Ðnot€objected€to€the€use€of€affidavits€because€they€have€had€sufficient€opportunity€to€prepare€andÐ  Ø Ðsubmit€counter„affidavits€or€the€affiant€has€been€reasonably€available€for€cross„examination.€€òòFainÐ  Ä Ðv.€Fainóó,€No.€M1999„02261„COA„R3„CV,€2000€WL€1879548,€at€*6€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Dec.€29,€2000)Ð ø° Ð(No€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€filed)€(affidavit€admissible€because€the€opposing€party€did€notÐ äœ Ðrequest€cross„examination);€òòSommerville€v.€Sommervilleóó,€No.€01A01„9710„CV„00559,€1998€WLРЈ Ð792050,€at€*5€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Nov.€16,€1998)€(No€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€filed)€(opposingÐ ¼ t Ðparty€had€an€opportunity€for€cross„examination);€òòJones€v.€Mankinóó,€No.€88„263„II,€1989€WL€44924,Ð ¨ ` Ðat€*10€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€May€5,€1989)€(No€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€filed)€(affidavit€admissibleÐ ” L  Ðwhere€opposing€party€did€not€request€opportunity€to€put€on€proof€or€to€depose€the€affiant).Ð € 8  ÐÌà  àIt€is,€no€doubt,€true€that€Dr.€Nagarajan€had€known€since€August€2002€that€Mr.€Terry€intendedÐ X  Ðto€use€Mr.€Rayððs€testimony€to€support€his€claim€for€attorneyððs€fees.€€However,€it€is€also€true€that€untilÐ Dü  ÐFebruary€18,€2003,€Dr.€Nagarajan€reasonably€understood€that€Mr.€Ray€would€be€testifying€in€personÐ 0è  Ðand,€therefore,€subject€to€cross„examination.€€Thus,€Dr.€Nagarajan€and€his€lawyer€could€reasonablyÐ Ô  Ðhave€decided€to€attempt€to€undermine€Mr.€Rayððs€testimony€by€cross„examination€rather€than€byÐ À Ðgenerating€counter„affidavits.€€When€they€discovered€on€the€day€before€trial€that€Mr.€Ray€would€notÐ ô¬ Ðbe€testifying,€they€did€not€have€reasonable€time€either€to€depose€him€or€to€obtain€counter„affidavits.€Ð à˜ ÐTherefore,€the€trial€court€erred€by€admitting€Mr.€Rayððs€affidavit€over€Dr.€Nagarajanððs€objection.Ð Ì„ ÐÌà  àParties€are€not€entitled€to€a€reversal€of€a€judgment€based€on€an€error€that,€more€probably€thanÐ ¤\ Ðnot,€did€not€affect€the€outcome€of€the€trial.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b).€€Thus,€errors€either€in€admittingÐ H Ðor€excluding€evidence€may€be€found€to€be€harmless.€€òòUnion€Planters€Natððl€Bank€v.€Island€Mgmt.Ð |4 ÐAuth.,€Inc.óó,€43€S.W.3d€498,€500„01€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2000).€€We€have€determined€that€the€trial€courtððsÐ h  Ðerroneous€admission€of€Mr.€Rayððs€affidavit€did€not€affect€its€judgment.€€Mr.€Ray€opined€that€Mr.Ð T  ÐTerry€was€entitled€to€$113,989.86€in€additional€attorneyððs€fees.€€However,€the€trial€court€awarded€Mr.Ð @ø ÐTerry€$53,884.86€ð!ð€precisely€the€amount€he€requested.€€Accordingly,€Mr.€Rayððs€opinion€did€notÐ ,ä Ðinfluence€the€trial€courtððs€decision.Ð Ð ÐÌà@dd)ìàò òVI.ó óˆÐ ð¨ ÐÌà  àWe€affirm€the€judgment€and€remand€the€case€to€the€trial€court€for€further€proceedingsÐ È €  Ðconsistent€with€this€opinion.€€We€tax€the€costs€of€this€appeal€to€Govindaswamy€Nagarajan€for€whichÐ ´!l! Ðexecution,€if€necessary,€may€issue.Ð  "X" ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à_____________________________€Ð P&#& Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€J.