Controversies surrounding Rupert Murdoch family’s succession plan have evolved into a case study of irrevocable trusts, modification and the future of the mogul’s media empire. During his second divorce in 1999, Murdoch established a trust to hold the family's 28.5% stake in News Corporation, which owns Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, the New York Post and numerous other media companies. The structure was designed to grant voting rights to Murdoch's children from his first two marriages, while children with his third wife, Wendi Deng, would share in the stock's proceeds but have no voting rights or control. Murdoch in 2023 filed a petition to amend the irrevocable family trust and grant exclusive control to his eldest son Lachlan Murdoch. The move led three other children to contest the change in court. A Nevada probate commissioner has ruled that Murdoch can amend the trust if he demonstrates he is acting in good faith, with a trial to assess Murdoch's ‘good faith’ expected to begin in September. Forbes examines this case, precedents, and strategies to avoid similar dilemmas for your clients.

Losing a loved one is never easy. The death of a family member can lead to a deluge of emotions that can overwhelm even the most resilient. Often, the division of assets is a powder keg waiting to blow, set off by a perceived unfairness to an heir. When creating a will, planners would be wise to steer their client with considerations on how to make their wishes known with clear explanations. This can help avoid bad blood and potential legal battles amongst family members and leave a positive emotional legacy. A recent article in The Washington Post explores how clients can turn this potentially fraught situation into a healing one.

Social Security benefits remain a concern for most Americans. Polls consistently show people look at Social Security reform as one of the most important factors considered when voting for a political candidate. With the trust fund that pays these benefits due to run out of money in 2033, these concerns have proven more urgent, yet few individuals understand the policy and process behind this benefit. A recent article provides five steps a layperson can use to maximize their benefits, including knowing when they will retire, impact of claims, benefit estimates and asset considerations, among other tips. CNBC has more.

The 2024 TBA Topgolf Estate Planning Tee-off will take place Thursday, Nov. 7. This annual favorite offers three general CLE credits followed by two hours of Topgolf gameplay. The event also provides a perfect team-building exercise for your group or firm. Topics for the tee-off include the Corporate Transparency Act, trust modification, estate taxes and much more. Breakfast and lunch are provided. Topgolf bays are covered and climate controlled for your comfort. Space is limited, so register now before it’s too late!

The TBA Young Lawyers Division provided essential documents to 16 Sumner County firefighters last month. Seven attorneys participated and provided approximately $7,500 of legal services free of charge. With the help of two Belmont Law students, these important community members received documents pertaining to powers of attorney, advanced healthcare directives and last wills and testaments. The clinic was organized by YLD District 8 Representative Grace Benitone Burnett.

The University of Memphis Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law Alumni Chapter honored seven lawyers for their careers and contributions to the legal profession and community during its annual Pillars of Excellence Awards ceremony last month. One of the recipients, state Sen. Ken Yager, R-Kingston, who represents District 12 in East Tennessee, received an award for his outstanding public service. The other honorees included Dorothy J. Pounders, Judge John T. Fowlkes Jr., Leland McNabb, Mark R. Allen, Richard Murrell Carter, David Pickler and Barbara Kritchevsky. The event is the chapter's largest fundraiser and will provide scholarships to law students. The Daily Memphian has the story.

CLAY, Circuit Judge. After a four-day trial and multiple days of deliberations, a jury found that Plaintiff Ariel Schlosser proved by a preponderance of the evidence that her former employer, VRHabilis, LLC (“VRH”), subjected her to a hostile work environment on the basis of her sex or gender, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 et seq. Following the jury’s verdict, VRH filed a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 50(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that the evidence could not support the jury’s verdict in favor of Schlosser. The district court denied the motion, and VRH timely appealed. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.

NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judge. Cases often depend on the contents of legal instruments, such as trusts or contracts. And under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, these documents are part of the pleadings if attached to the complaint. If a plaintiff doesn’t attach them to the complaint, an alert defendant can provide the relevant records at the motion-to-dismiss stage to defeat the plaintiffs’ claims. But defendants must take care. If there are factual questions about whether the defendant has provided a complete set of the controlling documents, discovery is appropriate—not dismissal.

August 19, 2024 - August 23, 2024.

The plaintiff in this case sued the State of Tennessee, Tennessee Department of Correction, alleging that it refused to hire her for employment solely on the basis of her disability. The complaint asserted a single claim -- for violation of the Tennessee Disability Act, Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 8-50-103, et seq. During the three years of litigation that followed, the plaintiff’s TDA claim survived a motion for summary judgment and was eventually tried before a jury over the course of five days. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff but awarded her only $10,000 for lost wages and $5,000 for compensatory damages. The plaintiff’s counsel then sought an award of attorney fees of nearly $700,000. The Department challenged the reasonableness of the fees. After a hearing, the trial court found the requested amount was excessive and reduced it, but only by twenty-five percent, awarding counsel $511,620. Due to the lack of findings regarding the factors applicable to such decisions, we vacate the award and remand for entry of an order analyzing the relevant factors.