The Death Penalty Information Center recently released a new report titled, “Doomed to Repeat: The Legacy of Race in Tennessee’s Contemporary Death Penalty.” The report highlights the connection between the state’s current use of capital punishment and its history of racial oppression, according to Stacy Rector with Tennesseans for Alternatives to the Death Penalty. Tennessee stopped executions last year because of problems with the lethal injection protocol.

Sullivan County lawyer Samuel Ervin White was suspended from the practice of law today after the Tennessee Supreme Court found that he misappropriated funds for his personal use and posed a threat of substantial harm to the public. White is immediately precluded from accepting new cases and must cease representing existing clients by July 30. The suspension will remain in effect until dissolution or modification by the court.

The Tennessee Supreme Court today affirmed a one-year suspension for Sevier County attorney James Ralph Hickman Jr., but increased the length of time to be spent on active suspension. The Board of Professional Responsibility (BPR) had recommended that Hickman serve at least 90 days on active suspension with the remainder on probation. It also imposed several conditions of probation, including that Hickman be under the supervision of a practice monitor and complete 15 additional hours of CLE in estate management. Finally, it required that any violation of the conditions result in automatic reversion to active suspension. The court changed the BPR’s recommendation in two ways: it increased the length of active suspension to six months and removed the requirement that a violation of probation automatically reverts his case to active suspension. Hickman’s conduct was determined to violate Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct 1.5(a), 3.3(a)(1) and RPC 8.4(c). Read more in a press release from court or the opinion.

TBA's Family Law Section will host a series of CLE programs across the state this fall in lieu of a single forum. The first of these events is planned for Aug. 17 in Memphis, titled Intersections of Family Law. Sessions will cover litigation regarding closely-held businesses in divorces and criminal law considerations for domestic lawyers. A networking reception will follow the program.

Watch for information coming on programs in Nashville and Chattanooga!

The Legal Services Corporation (LSC) podcast “Talk Justice” recently featured experts discussing the potential role of generative AI in expanding the reach of legal services and promoting access to justice. Podcast co-host and Vanderbilt Law professor Cat Moon was joined by Sam Flynn, COO and co-founder of the no-code automation platform Josef; Natalie Anne Knowlton, founder of Access to Justice Ventures; and Tom Martin, CEO and founder of the no-code AI platform LawDroid. Despite a lot of unknowns and concerns around AI, the group expressed hope that its growing popularity will lead to user-centered solutions that promote access to justice. “Talk Justice” episodes are available on the LSC’s website and on Spotify, Apple, Legal Talk Network and other podcast apps.

In this post-divorce action, the trial court modified the permanent parenting plan to provide the father with equal co-parenting time after the father and the mother had, by oral agreement, lived by an alternate plan for approximately sixteen months during the COVID- 19 pandemic in an effort to adapt to their child’s virtual education from home. The mother has appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by finding a material change in circumstance affecting the child’s best interest and by determining that modification of the parenting plan was in the child’s best interest. Both parties have requested attorney’s fees on appeal. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. We decline to award attorney’s fees to either party.

The U.S. Supreme Court today ruled 6-3 in favor of a website designer who did not want to create wedding websites for same-sex couples. The court found that enforcement of a Colorado anti-discrimination law against the designer was a violation of her First Amendment right to free speech, SCOTUSblog reports. Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch also indicated that the court’s decision would provide similar protection to other business owners whose services involve speech, such as artists, speechwriters and movie directors. In their dissent, Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson called the decision “a sad day in the American constitutional law and in the lives of LGBTQ people.” Read the decision in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis.

RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. Defendants Wendell Brown and Gary T. Reed were convicted of conspiring to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute at least 50 grams of methamphetamine (meth), in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and 841(b)(1)(A). Both defendants appeal their convictions, arguing that the district court erred by failing to give a “buyer-seller instruction” to the jury. They also appeal their sentences, arguing that the district court committed a procedural error when calculating their Guidelines ranges under the United States Sentencing Guidelines (the Guidelines). Brown separately contends that his conviction should be overturned because the district court erroneously admitted an incriminating statement by Reed, his nontestifying codefendant. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM Brown’s and Reed’s convictions, but VACATE their sentences and REMAND to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

For the second time, the Defendant, Bruce Antione Cole, appeals the trial court’s order of restitution in the amount of $25,474.16 associated with his convictions for aggravated assault and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Specifically, the Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by reinstating a restitution amount that was not substantiated by evidence in the record and by failing to consider the Defendant’s financial resources and future ability to pay. After review, we reverse the restitution order of the trial court and remand for a new restitution hearing.

This case began with the filing of a “Civil Warrant Restraining Order” in general sessions court. The defendants then filed a petition to dismiss pursuant to the Tennessee Public Participation Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-17-101, et seq. The plaintiffs filed a response, asking the court to deny the TPPA petition to dismiss. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court entered an order denying the defendants’ TPPA petition for reasons set forth in an attached transcript. We vacate the trial court’s order and remand for the trial court to enter an order setting forth the reason for the trial court’s decision.