Recent episodes from the Legal Services Corporation’s “Talk Justice” podcast explore the potential and pitfalls of generative AI. In “AI’s Potential for Access to Justice,” experts look at ways AI can dramatically shorten the time it takes to develop new legal services platforms and resources, while also increasing the reach of those services. Then in “Will AI Be Accessible?” tech experts explore the protential problems AI could create for the legal field, including issues of accessibility and faulty information that could do more harm than good for self-represented litigants.

The Biden administration is implementing a new family reunification program for Ecuador, allowing U.S.-based Ecuadorians to sponsor their immediate family members abroad to legally immigrate to the United States. The program, which currently serves citizens of Colombia, Cuba, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti and Honduras, is meant to encourage the use of legal pathways to immigrate, The Hill reports.

This is an accelerated interlocutory appeal as of right pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B § 2.02 from the trial court’s denial of a motion for recusal. This appeal arises from a civil action in which the plaintiff has brought claims of fraud and civil conspiracy against his former counsel in a criminal case that resulted in a conviction and his counsel in a pending post-conviction case. While this civil action was pending, the trial court allowed the attorneys who were representing the plaintiff in the post-conviction case to withdraw. Shortly thereafter, the plaintiff filed a recusal motion, contending that the trial judge should be recused because he showed bias in favor of the plaintiff’s post-conviction attorneys when he granted their motions to withdraw without a hearing, during which the plaintiff wished to share his grievances about the attorneys. The trial court denied the plaintiff’s recusal motion, and this Rule 10B appeal followed. We have concluded that neither the legal grounds nor the evidence that the plaintiff relies upon in his affidavit in support of the recusal motion are sufficient to prompt a reasonable, disinterested person to reasonably question the judge’s impartiality. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court denying the motion for recusal is affirmed.

The Memphis Bar Association (MBA) is accepting nominations for its two annual awards through Nov. 10. The Sam A. Myar Jr. Award is presented to a member of the association who is 40 years of age or younger, and has rendered outstanding service to the legal profession and community. See the list of past recipients. The Judge Jerome Turner Lawyer's Lawyer Award is presented annually to an MBA member who has practiced law for more than 15 years and exemplifies the aims and aspirations embodied in the Guidelines for Professional Courtesy and Conduct. See the past recipients of that award. Nomination forms should be sent to MBA Executive Director Mary Ann Upchurch.

Recent developments in a court case that could restore voting rights to thousands of people in Tennessee may lead to new delays, News Channel 5 reports. In 2020, the NAACP sued the state alleging that Tennessee officials failed to follow state law that allows people to legally restore their voting rights after serving their sentences and completing parole. The group also alleged that officials added new requirements to the process. While some thought the suit would be settled, attorneys broke off talks in July. In addition, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti recently asked a judge to reject the suit in its entirety. The NAACP had hoped the suit would be resolved in time for the 2024 presidential election.

A Knox County jury convicted the Defendant, Leslie Hurn, Jr., of unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and the trial court sentenced him as a Range II, multiple offender to fourteen years. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction. He also argues that the trial court erred by (1) forcing him to stipulate that his prior convictions were felony crimes of violence; (2) denying his motion for a continuance; and (3) effectively denying his motion to suppress without holding a hearing or making findings of fact. On our review, we respectfully affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Petitioner, Willie Nathan Jones, appeals from the Putnam County Criminal Court’s denying his petition for post-conviction relief, which petition challenged his convictions of second degree murder and attempted second degree murder. Petitioner argues trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to contemporaneously object to the prosecutor’s closing argument and failing to object to the prosecutor’s use of the term “victim” when referring to a State’s witness. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Tennessee Department of Revenue will host a free live webinar Oct. 31 at 9 a.m. CDT to discuss how to file a state sales tax return online. Learn more or register here. The webinar is one in a series of educational sessions held by the department each month.

Nashville lawyer and TBA Elder Law Section Executive Council member Barbara J. Moss writes in USA TODAY that the conservatorship of Michael Oher is not how law is supposed to work. Moss points out that at the time Sean and Leigh Anne Tuohy petitioned the court to be named conservators for Oher, they specifically stated he had “no known physical or psychological disabilities.” She also notes that for 19 years, the court never required any proof of disability or the filing of status reports. According to Moss, Tennessee law requires clear and convincing evidence that an individual is fully or partially disabled, and mandates the filing of annual accounting and status reports. In August, Oher petitioned the court to terminate the conservatorship, provide an accounting of funds the Tuohys received, and grant him an unspecified amount in damages. Memphis Judge Kathleen Gomes terminated the conservatorship in September.

Multiple organizations today filed a federal lawsuit challenging Tennessee’s aggravated prostitution statute, saying it and related sex offender registration requirements are unconstitutional and violate the Americans with Disabilities Act. Aggravated prostitution is defined by Tennessee law as when a person, knowing that they are HIV positive, “engages in sexual activity as a business or is an inmate in a house of prostitution or loiters in a public place for the purpose of being hired to engage in sexual activity.” The offense is a class C felony and requires lifetime registration as a violent sex offender. The groups — including the ACLU of Tennessee, Transgender Law Center, OUTMemphis and several Jane Does — argue that the law “targets people because of their HIV status and keeps them in cycles of poverty …”.  The Commercial Appeal has more.