The TBA has released the December episode of its BarBuzz podcast. "A Discussion on Health and Wellness for Lawyers During the Holidays" features Brad Bald from Lifestyle Communities and Lauren Castor from the Tennessee Lawyers Assistance Program (TLAP) and focuses on the importance of mental health and wellness for attorneys during the holiday season. Bald and Castor share insights on upcoming programs and resources offered by the TBA Attorney Well Being Committee and TLAP, while also discussing their personal strategies for prioritizing well-being during the busy holidays. BarBuzz is available on the TBA’s website or wherever you listen to podcasts. Find past episodes at the BarBuzz archive.

The Tennessee Supreme Court today issued conditional reinstatement for Virginia lawyer Daniel Lynn Withers on compliance with outstanding obligations with the Tennessee Commission on Continuing Legal Education. Withers filed a petition for reinstatement of his law license on Nov. 20. The court gave him until Feb. 1, 2025, to complete the required CLE hours or warned that it would dismiss the petition.

A majority of the Judges of this Court in regular active service has voted for rehearing en banc of this case. Under Sixth Circuit Rule 40(d), “[a] decision to grant rehearing en banc vacates the previous opinion and judgment of the court, stays the mandate, and restores the case on the docket as a pending appeal.”

The pro se Defendant, Nancy Abbie Tallent, was convicted by an Anderson County Circuit Court jury of third offense driving under the influence (DUI) of an intoxicant and third offense DUI per se. See T.C.A. § 55-10-401. The trial court merged the convictions and sentenced the Defendant to eleven months and twenty-nine days in confinement, with seventy-five percent service. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the trial court judge did not have authority to preside over her case; (2) no probable cause existed for her arrest; (3) the State violated her right to a speedy trial; (4) she was denied due process in numerous ways; (5) the State failed to meet its burden of proof; (6) the jury verdict was not supported by the evidence; and (7) the trial court failed to act as a thirteenth juror. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

After a hearing before the Metropolitan Historic Zoning Commission, the appellant homeowner was ordered to remove a covered porch addition that was constructed without a preservation permit, as the Commission determined that the addition did not comply with the applicable design guidelines. The homeowner filed a petition for writ of certiorari, and the chancery court held a de novo hearing on the matter. After the evidentiary hearing, the chancery court likewise determined that the unpermitted covered porch did not meet the applicable design guidelines, and the court ordered its removal. The homeowner appeals, arguing that her due process rights were violated due to untimely notice of the hearing before the Commission and that the chancery court erred in finding that her covered porch was not in compliance with the guidelines. We affirm.

This case arises from a car wreck. Following the accident, the at-fault driver was issued several citations for various violations of the City of Memphis traffic laws. The trial court denied Appellant’s motion for summary judgment, finding that Appellee’s lawsuit was not time barred. In so ruling, the trial court held that the citations given to the at-fault driver were criminal in nature and, thus, triggered the filing extension contemplated in Tennessee Code Annotated section 28-3-104(a)(2)(A). We granted this interlocutory appeal under Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 10. Because the citations in this case were civil in nature, we conclude that the two-year statute of limitations is not applicable, and Appellee’s lawsuit is time-barred. We reverse the trial court’s order and remand for entry of an order granting Appellant’s motion for summary judgment.

This is an appeal from a trial court’s decision to grant class action certification. Discerning no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision to certify the class at issue, we affirm.

The Nashville Bar Association (NBA) recently held its annual meeting where new leaders were elected and a number of lawyers were honored with awards. Joseph Hubbard, a shareholder with Polsinelli, was named 2025 president of the association. Other officers named include First Vice President Marie Scott, Second Vice President Christen Blackburn, President-Elect Sherie Edwards, First Vice President-Elect Ben Raybin, 2nd Vice President-Elect Judge Ana Escobar, Secretary Deadrick Thaxton and Treasurer Jae Lim. The John C. Tune Public Service Award was presented to Donald Capparella with Dodson Parker Behm & Capparella. DarKenya Waller and Eric Osborne won the Nashville Bar Journal (NBJ) Best Article of the Year Award. The NBJ Contributor of the Year Award went to Victoria Gentry. Josh Burgener was presented with the CLE Excellence Award. President’s Awards also were presented to six. Read more about the event in a release and see photos here.

This appeal concerns the change of custody and the relocation of a parent, as well as an evidentiary issue concerning the denial of the admission of certain psychiatric records. Because the mother failed to provide an offer of proof in connection with the juvenile court’s ruling concerning the inadmissibility of the psychiatric records, we conclude that this evidentiary issue was not properly preserved for appellate review. Regarding the remaining issues, the juvenile court determined that a material change in circumstances had occurred and modified the parenting plan by designating the father as the primary residential parent and providing the father with the majority of the parenting time. Because we conclude that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in modifying the parenting plan, we affirm the juvenile court’s modification. Furthermore, as discussed herein, we affirm the juvenile court’s decision permitting the father to relocate.

The TBA's continuing efforts to provide education and resources related to representation for indigent individuals includes our Indigent Representation Primer series, which shares background and updates about indigent representation in Tennessee, and shares information and innovations from across the country. A recent item in TBA's Indigent Representation Primer may be helpful in better understanding both how Tennessee's system works, as well as models from other jurisdictions. Each model has strengths and weaknesses; some jurisdictions, including Tennessee, combine elements of multiple systems to better provide quality representation, balanced with flexibility and cost. Tennessee's system would be considered a hybrid, with two primary components: public defender offices in each judicial district and the indigent representation program administered by the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC). The types of cases covered include dependency and neglect and termination of parental rights cases (representation for parents and children), as well as criminal defendants in jeopardy of incarceration. Providing representation to indigent individuals, in both criminal and civil cases, is a significant issue for the legal community, with impacts that go far beyond the individual cases and counsel appointed to the matters. Read more about these differing structures and see other past primer posts here. Read the next primer update in Friday's issue of TBA Today.