Keep malpractice claims in check

Legal malpractice claims are increasingly common, and, as virtually all practitioners can attest, reasonable insurance coverage has become more expensive. To help you survive in this climate, TennBarU is offering a 3-hour seminar in Knoxville on Dec. 4, in Nashville on Dec. 5 and in Memphis on Dec. 6, to discuss risk management, recent developments in the area of legal malpractice, recent case law dealing with legal malpractice claims, and the ethical issues implicated by legal malpractice claims.

Take this class for free! With your TBA Complete Membership, three hours of TennBarU programming is prepaid.

https://www.tnbaru.com/CLE/catalog_by_topic.php?topic=17

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. To search all opinions in the TBALink database or to obtain a text version of each opinion, go to our OpinionSearch page. If you have forgotten your password or need to obtain a password, you can look it up on TBALink at the TBA's Membership Central.

00 - TN Supreme Court
00 - TN Worker's Comp Appeals
00 - TN Supreme Court - Rules
07 - TN Court of Appeals
10 - TN Court of Criminal Appeals
00 - TN Attorney General Opinions
00 - Judicial Ethics Opinions
00 - Formal Ethics Opinions - BPR

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. 2) Do a key word search in the Search Link area of TBALink. This option will allow you to view and save a plain-text version of the opinion.

CONSOLIDATED WASTE SYSTEMS, L.L.C. v. METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY

Court: TCA

Attorneys:

James L. Murphy, III and Colin J. Carnahan, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Consolidated Waste System, LLC.

Thomas G. Cross and Lora Barkenbus Fox, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County.

Judge: CLEMENT

The developer of a "construction and demolition" landfill appeals the denial of its application for a permit to construct the landfill. When the developer first applied for a permit in 1999 to develop the landfill, the Metropolitan Government denied the application based upon two zoning ordinances. In the lawsuit that ensued, the trial court found the ordinances unconstitutional. In the appeal that followed, this Court affirmed the trial court and issued a stay of 150 days to afford the Metropolitan Government the opportunity to cure the constitutional infirmities. The Metropolitan Government timely amended one of the ordinances in 2003, but not the other ordinance, believing the amendment to that ordinance cured the constitutional infirmities identified in the first appeal. Following the post-remand amendments to the ordinance, the developer renewed its request for a permit to construct the landfill. The Metropolitan Government again denied the permit, this time stating the landfill would violate Section 17.16.110(A)(2) of the Metro Code because the property was zoned in a district that permitted construction and demolition landfills with "conditions" and the proposed landfill did not meet the requisite conditions for two reasons. The landfill was within 100 feet of a property line for a residential area, and it was within 2000 feet of a park. Believing the Metropolitan Government had not cured the constitutional infirmities, the developer filed a motion to compel the Metropolitan Government to issue the twice-requested permit. After analyzing the two relevant ordinances and this court's opinion in the first appeal, the trial court concluded that the Metropolitan Government had cured all constitutional infirmities. It also concluded that the proposed landfill did not meet the requisite conditions for the reasons stated by the Metropolitan Government, and thus, affirmed the denial of the permit. We have determined, as the trial court did, that the Metropolitan Government cured the constitutional infirmities and find no error with the determination that the plaintiff did not meet the requisite conditions for a construction and demolition landfill. Accordingly, we affirm.

http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2007/consolidatedw_113007.pdf


RICHARD MICHAEL EAVES v. JUDY J. (LEISTNER) EAVES

Court: TCA

Attorneys:

Grace E. Daniell for the appellant, Judy J. (Leistner) Eaves.

Richard Michael Eaves, appellee, Pro Se.

Judge: SUSANO

The trial court's judgment granted a divorce to Judy J. (Leistner) Eaves ("Wife") and Michael Eaves ("Husband"). Wife appeals. She disputes the trial court's rulings with respect to allocation of marital debt, alimony, child support, and their children's tax exemptions. On appeal, she also requests a change in the residential parenting schedule and a larger award of attorney's fees. We hold that Wife fails to demonstrate that the trial court either abused its discretion or committed an error of law with respect to any of these issues. Accordingly, we affirm.

http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2007/eavesr_113007.pdf


IN RE ESTATE OF PAULINE HILL

Court: TCA

Attorneys:

Robert Asbury, Jacksboro, Tennessee, for the appellant, Larry Cosby.

Lee Dan Stone, III, Tazewell, Tennessee, for the appellee, Glenda Elliott.

Judge: SUSANO

This is an appeal of a will contest. Pauline Hill ("the Deceased") died in 2001 at the age of 72. She was predeceased in death by her husband, Maynard. At an earlier time, and following the death of her husband, a conservatorship was established for Mrs. Hill. This occurred in 1982. Her brothers, Willard, Lloyd, and Russell Cosby, were designated as her conservators. On April 24, 1992, the Deceased executed what purports to be a will. Later in the same year, her original conservators were removed and her guardianship was vested in Marty Cosby. After the Deceased died in 2001, her brother, Russell, and a nephew, Larry Cosby ("the Contestant"), filed papers seeking appointment as the administrators of her estate. An order of administration was entered in the trial court on or about August 21, 2001. On October 12, 2001, a niece of the Deceased, Glenda Elliott ("the Proponent"), filed a petition to probate in solemn form the Deceased's purported 1992 will. The will named the Proponent as executrix. The Proponent further requested that the order of administration previously issued at the request of the Cosbys be revoked. In their answer to the petition for probate in solemn form, the Cosbys denied that the 1992 will was valid and asserted various affirmative defenses, which put at issue the Deceased's competency and whether the will was properly witnessed. On August 13, 2004, the Contestant filed a motion for summary judgment, suggesting that the appointments of guardians in 1982 and 1992 established that the Deceased was incompetent at the time the will was executed. He further asserted that the affidavit of Melba R. Webb, a witness to the will, showed that the will was void. He contended that Ms. Webb did not realize she was witnessing a will. On December 14, 2005, after hearing argument, the trial judge determined that the issues raised made out a will contest. The court denied the Contestant's motion for summary judgment. A jury subsequently found the will to be valid. The will was admitted to probate. The Contestant appeals. We affirm.

http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2007/hillp_113007.pdf


IN RE J.C.D, J.D.D., J.A.M., E.O.M., T.D.M., & Q.O.M.

Court: TCA

Attorneys:

Ben H. Houston II, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellant, J.D.M.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter, and Lauren S. Lamberth, Assistant Attorney General, Nashville, Tennessee, for the Appellee, State of Tennessee, Department of Children's Services.

Judge: LEE

Upon petition of DCS, the juvenile court terminated Mother's parental rights to her six children upon a determination that Mother had failed to substantially comply with requirements of her permanency plans, that conditions that led to the children's removal from the home still persisted and that termination was in the best interest of the children. On appeal, Mother argues that there was not clear and convincing evidence of statutory grounds for termination or that termination was in the children's best interest. Mother also argues that DCS did not make reasonable efforts to reunite Mother and the children, that the juvenile court erred in finding statutory grounds for terminating the Mother's parental rights to T.D.M. and Q.O.M., who were opposed to termination, before appointing a preference guardian to represent them, and that termination of parental rights to Q.O.M. was prohibited absent his consent because he was over fourteen years of age at the time of termination. We hold that the evidence does not preponderate against the juvenile court's finding that there was clear and convincing evidence of at least one statutory ground for termination of Mother's parental rights, that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the children's best interest, and that DCS made reasonable efforts to reunite Mother and the children. We further hold that the juvenile court was not required to appoint a preference guardian ad litem before trying the issue of whether there were statutory grounds for the termination of parental rights as to T.D.M. and Q.O.M. despite their opposition to termination and that the consent of Q.O.M. was not a prerequisite to termination of Mother's parental rights despite the fact that he was over fourteen years of age. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the juvenile court.

http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2007/inre JCD_113007.pdf


THERESA LYNN PETERS v. ORVILLE LEON PETERS

Court: TCA

Attorneys:

Clifton Corker, Johnson City, Tennessee, for the Appellant, Orville Leon Peters.

David S. Haynes, Bristol, Tennessee, for the Appellee, Theresa Lynn Peters.

Judge: SWINEY

Theresa Lynn Peters ("Wife") filed a complaint seeking a divorce from Orville Leon Peters ("Husband"). Following the trial, the Trial Court divided the marital property and awarded Wife alimony in futuro of $2,200 per month. Husband appeals challenging the Trial Court's division of the marital property as well as the award of alimony in futuro. Because Husband failed to file either a transcript of the proceedings or a Tenn. R. App. P. 24(c) statement of the evidence, we affirm the judgment of the Trial Court.

http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2007/peterst_113007.pdf


JULIA LEIGH TOMES v. TIMOTHY LEE TOMES

Court: TCA

Attorneys:

Penny Harrington, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Timothy Lee Tomes.

Mary Frances Lyle, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Julia Leigh Tomes.

Judge: COTTRELL

Husband appeals the trial court's interpretation of provisions in a marital dissolution agreement governing distribution of home sale proceeds and payment of debt. Finding the agreement to be ambiguous, the trial court heard evidence on the parties' intent and found Husband was responsible for the second mortgage. Agreeing that the agreement is ambiguous, based on evidence provided at the hearing, we find the agreement contemplated that Husband was to pay the second mortgage. Consequently, the trial court is affirmed.

http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2007/tomesj_113007.pdf


DICK WAGER v. LIFE CARE CENTERS OF AMERICA, INC.

Court: TCA

Attorneys:

H. Chris Trew, Athens, Tennessee, for the appellant, Life Care Centers of America, Inc.

John C. Cavett, Jr., Chattanooga, Tennessee, for the appellee, Dick Wager.

Judge: SUSANO

This case focuses on the aftermath of the eight-month tenure of Dick Wager ("President") as president of Life Care Centers of America, Inc. ("Company"). President sued Company for breach of contract, claiming that he is entitled to an unpaid $500,000 severance that was payable upon his "leaving employment . . . for any reason." President also claims he is entitled to two equity options worth approximately $1,500,000 that were scheduled to vest within six months of his start date at Company. Company says it was justified in refusing to give President the severance and the equity options after he was forced to resign. With regard to the severance, Company argues that the "for any reason" language in the parties' contract is ambiguous and was not intended to apply to a situation like this one, in which, according to Company, President breached his contract by maintaining improper relationships with outside vendors. President argues that the relationships in question were not improper and that, in any event, Company had advance notice of them. Each party asserts that the other acted in bad faith. The trial court found that neither party acted in bad faith, and awarded President the $500,000 severance on the basis of the "for any reason" language, but declined to award him the equity options. Company appeals, arguing that President is entitled to nothing; President asserts that he is entitled to both the severance and the equity positions. We affirm the trial courtís ruling in both respects.

http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2007/wagerd_113007.pdf


ARTHUR BUFORD v. STATE OF TENNESSEE

Court: TCCA

Attorneys:

Lance R. Chism, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellant, Arthur Buford.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; J. Ross Dyer, Assistant Attorney General; William L. Gibbons, District Attorney General; and Scot A. Bearup, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge: TIPTON

The petitioner, Arthur Buford, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for two counts of first degree murder. See T.C.A. section 39-13-202. He was sentenced to two life sentences to be served consecutively. The petitioner contends the trial court erred in denying him post-conviction relief based upon the ineffective assistance of counsel. We conclude that no error exists and affirm the trial court's judgment.

http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCCA/2007/buforda_113007.pdf


STATE OF TENNESSEE v. CARLOS BUSH

Court: TCCA

Attorneys:

Edward P. Bronston, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellant, Carlos Bush.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; Renee W. Turner, Assistant Attorney General; William L. Gibbons, District Attorney General; and Robert Carter and Dean DeCandia, Assistant District Attorneys General,for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge: SMITH

Appellant, Carlos Bush, was convicted by a jury of one count of aggravated robbery. As a result, Appellant was sentenced to serve fifteen years in incarceration as a Range II multiple offender. After the denial of a motion for new trial and a timely notice of appeal, Appellant presents the following issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction; (2) whether the photographic lineup was unduly suggestive; (3) whether the trial court erred in allowing a witness to testify regarding Appellant's prior incarceration; (4) whether the trial court improperly admitted hearsay testimony; (5) whether the trial court improperly refused to grant a recess to allow Appellant to prepare curative measures for alleged evidentiary errors; and (6) whether the trial court improperly enhanced Appellant's sentence by applying an enhancement factor that was not determined by a jury in violation of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). We determine that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, that the photographic lineup was proper and that the trial court did not improperly admit hearsay or statements about Appellant's prior incarceration. With regard to Appellant's sentence, we determine that review of the issue is not necessary to do substantial justice, and consequently, that no plain error was committed on the part of the trial court. Further, the application of enhancement factors (1) and (16) justified the enhancement of Appellant's sentence from twelve years to fifteen years. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCCA/2007/bushc_113007.pdf


JACOB EDWARD CAMPBELL v. STATE OF TENNESSEE

Court: TCCA

Attorneys:

J. Chase Gober, Nashville, Tennessee, for the Appellant, Jacob Edward Campbell.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; Alice B. Lustre, Assistant Attorney General; Victor S. Johnson III, District Attorney General; and Katrin Miller, Assistant District Attorney General, for the Appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge: HAYES

The Appellant, Jacob Edward Campbell, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief by the Davidson County Criminal Court. After a jury trial in 2002, Campbell was convicted of first-degree murder and robbery, and he was ordered to serve consecutive sentences of life imprisonment and ten years. On appeal, Campbell argues that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel. After a thorough review of the record on appeal and the arguments of the parties, we affirm.

http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCCA/2007/campbellj_113007.pdf


STATE OF TENNESSEE v. WILLIAM B. FRANCIS, JR.

Court: TCCA

Attorneys:

Jonathan F. Wing and Tyler Chance Yarbro, Assistant District Public Defenders (at trial), and Emma Rae Tennent, Assistant District Public Defender (on appeal), for the appellant, William B. Francis, Jr.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General & Reporter; Preston Shipp, Assistant Attorney General; Victor S. Johnson, III, District Attorney General; and Katrin Miller and Christopher Buford, Assistant District Attorneys General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge: WITT

The defendant, William B. Francis, Jr., originally charged with first degree premeditated murder, was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to 25 years' incarceration. In this appeal, he asserts (1) that the trial court erred by admitting certain evidence, (2) that the trial court erred by instructing the jury on flight, and (3) that the sentence is excessive. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCCA/2007/francisw_113007.pdf


STATE OF TENNESSEE v. LESLIE RAYDELL JONES

Court: TCCA

Attorneys:

Michael A. Colavecchio, Nashville, Tennessee, attorney for appellant, Leslie Raydell Jones.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General & Reporter; Lacy Wilber, Assistant Attorney General; W. Michael McCown, District Attorney General; Michael D. Randles and Ann Filer, Assistant District Attorneys, attorneys for appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge: THOMAS

The defendant, Leslie Raydell Jones, appeals as of right his convictions in the Bedford County Circuit Court for first degree premeditated murder and especially aggravated burglary. He received sentences of life and twelve years as a Range I, standard offender, respectively, to be served consecutively. On appeal, he alleges that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions and that the convictions are based upon the perjured testimony of several witnesses. Following our review, we conclude that no error exists with respect to the defendant's allegations. However, we further conclude that the defendant's conviction for especially aggravated burglary should be modified to reflect a conviction for aggravated burglary because an especially aggravated burglary conviction is precluded by Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-14-404(d); the case shall also be remanded for sentencing.

http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCCA/2007/jonesl_113007.pdf


MORRIS LAMONTE MARSH v. STATE OF TENNESSEE

Court: TCCA

Attorneys:

Morris LaMonte Marsh, Mountain City, Tennessee, Pro Se.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; Michael E. Moore, Solicitor General; Lacy Wilber, Assistant Attorney General; Victor S. Johnson, III, District Attorney General; Bret Gunn, Assistant District Attorney General; for the Appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge: WEDEMEYER

This matter is before the Court upon the State's motion to affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court by memorandum opinion pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner appeals the post-conviction court's dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief based on its untimeliness. Upon a review of the record in this case, we are persuaded that the post- conviction court was correct and that this case meets the criteria for affirmance pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted and the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed.

http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCCA/2007/marshm_113007.pdf


STATE OF TENNESSEE v. MARQUETTE MILAN

Court: TCCA

Attorneys:

Charles S. Mitchell, Memphis Tennessee (on appeal); Juni Ganguli (at trial), Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellant, Marquette Milan.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; Rachel E. Willis, Assistant Attorney General; William L. Gibbons, District Attorney General; Reginald Henderson and Dean Decandia, Assistant District Attorneys General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge: THOMAS

The defendant was convicted by a Shelby County jury of first degree premeditated murder, first degree felony murder, and especially aggravated robbery, a Class A felony. The trial court merged the two murder convictions and sentenced the defendant to life in prison for first degree murder and twenty years for especially aggravated robbery, with the sentences to be served concurrently. On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court erred in excluding the testimony of two witnesses, a forensic psychologist and the defendant's mother, who would have offered testimony regarding the defendant's ability to form the requisite culpable mental state. The defendant also contends that the evidence produced at trial was insufficient to support the jury's guilty verdicts. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the testimony of the two witnesses, and that the evidence produced at trial was sufficient to support the defendant's convictions. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCCA/2007/milanm_113007.pdf


STATE OF TENNESSEE v. COURTNEY PARTIN

Court: TCCA

Attorneys:

Douglas A. Trant, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Courtney Partin.

Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; John H. Bledsoe, Assistant Attorney General; William Paul Phillips, District Attorney General; and Michael Olin Ripley, Senior Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge: TIPTON

This case is before the court upon the United States Supreme Court's remand for further consideration of the sentences imposed in light of Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. ___, 127 S. Ct. 856 (2007). Partin v. Tennessee, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S. Ct. 1240 (2007). We hold that the trial court applied enhancement factors which were not found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, in violation of the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. Because the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, we reverse the judgments and remand for resentencing.

http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCCA/2007/partinc_113007.pdf


RODNEY R. RYE v. STATE OF TENNESSEE

Court: TCCA

Attorneys:

Kathryn B. Stamey, Clarksville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Rodney R. Rye.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; Lacy Wilber, Assistant Attorney General; John Wesley Carney, Jr., District Attorney General; and C. Daniel Brollier, Jr., Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge: TIPTON

The petitioner, Rodney R. Rye, filed a petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for two counts of child rape, a Class A felony, and one count of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony, and his resulting effective twenty-two-year sentence. He contends that he entered guilty pleas that were unknowing and involuntary and that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court denied relief, and we affirm that judgment.

http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCCA/2007/ryer_113007.pdf


RANDY LEE SHATTO, SR. v. STATE OF TENNESSEE

Court: TCCA

Attorneys:

Randy Lee Shatto, pro se.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General & Reporter; Elizabeth B. Marney, Assistant Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge: WEDEMEYER

The Appellant appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for post conviction relief. The Appellant filed his petition outside the statute of limitations. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCCA/2007/shattor_113007.pdf


TODAY'S NEWS

Legal News
Disciplinary Actions
TBA Member Services

Legal News
Judge sanctions firm as part of manifesto on civility in legal profession
In sanctioning the law firm Dorsey & Whitney and two of its partners, Manhattan federal judge Harold Baer opened his decision with a discussion on how "naked competition and singular economic focus of the marketplace have begun to infiltrate the practice of law, subordinating the high standards of service, collegiality and professionalism as a result."
Read more from the New York Law Journal on Law.com
Bredesen: No executions until high court rules
No executions will be taking place in Tennessee until the U.S. Supreme Court rules on the case of two Kentucky death row inmates who argue the method amounts to cruel and unusual punishment, Gov. Phil Bredesen said Thursday. A ruling is not expected until next summer.
Read more in the Knoxville News Sentinel
Judge jails suspended lawyer
A Knoxville lawyer was jailed for contempt of court after a judge in Union County found that he was defending a man accused in a child rape case even though his license had been suspended. In September, his license was suspended when he failed to show proof he had received mandatory legal refresher training.
The Knoxville News Sentinel reports
Rally for judge draws crowd of area leaders
A crowd of more than 150 rallied Tuesday night to support Blount County Circuit Court Judge W. Dale Young, who has recently faced criticism for his conduct in two cases -- one involving a woman who accused the judge of denying an order of protection from her estranged husband because she was an immigrant, and the other alleging the mishandling of a divorce case.
Read more in Blount Today
Governor opposes weakening open government law
Gov. Phil Bredesen doesn't want the legislature to weaken the state's open government laws by allowing local politicians to discuss public business in private as proposed by a legislative study panel, the Tennessean reports. The governor said Thursday, "I've basically come down on the side of you need to have open government, you need to have open records, and I would hate to see it watered down."
Read more in the Tennessean
Baker adds attorneys, moves to No. 78 in nation in size
The Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz law firm grew its attorney base by 20 percent last year, the Memphis Business Journal reports, bringing its total number of lawyers from 438 to 526 and moving it to the number 78th position among the largest U.S. law firms.
Read more about the firm (subscription required)
Lawsuit targets Vandy students for downloading music
The Recording Industry Association of America fired another volley into the ranks of Music City's illegal downloaders, this week filing a lawsuit against 23 "John Doe's" accused of illegally downloading copyrighted music.
Read more in the Nashville Post (subscription required)
Disciplinary Actions
BPR hears testimony on Hooker actions
After a 3-hour public disciplinary hearing this morning, the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility will render a decision regarding sanctions against John Jay Hooker by Dec. 15, the Nashville Post reports. BPR Disciplinary Counsel Sandy Garrett has recommended Hooker's law license be suspended for not less than 30 days and not more than two years.
Read more in the Nashville Post (subscription required)
Memphis lawyer censured
Javier M. Bailey was publicly censured by the Board of Professional Responsibility on Nov. 16 based on four separate complaints.
Learn more in the BPR's release
Lawyer suspended based on guitly plea
The Supreme Court on Nov. 27 suspended Shannon Leigh Clark from the practice of law for five years effective Sept. 17, 2004. She had been summarily suspended on that date pending a final resolution of her disciplinary charges. Clark's suspension was imposed after she pleaded guilty to one count of bankruptcy fraud.
Read the BPR release
Georgia attorney reinstated
James A. Meaney III of Dalton has been reinstated to the practice of law in Tennessee after complying with requirements for continuing legal education.
View all attorneys suspended and reinstated for 2006 CLE violations
TBA Member Services
Free online legal research
Online legal research is now available free to all Tennessee Bar Association members through an agreement with Fastcase, a leading online legal research firm. The new TBA member benefit is national in scope and offers TBA members unlimited usage, unlimited customer service and unlimited printing -- all at no cost. Log in with your TBALink password.
Access Fastcase now

 
 
UNSUBSCRIBE TO TBAToday? ... SURELY NOT!
But if you must, visit the TBALink web site at: http://www.tba2.org/tbatoday/unsub_tbatoday.php

TBALink HomeContact UsPageFinderWhat's NewHelp
 
 
© Copyright 2007 Tennessee Bar Association