The federal judiciary and the U.S. Supreme Court would receive increased funding for security in a bill approved by a U.S. House subcommittee. The judiciary would receive $774.4 million for court security, a 4% boost, while the court would get extra funding to support protection of justices' homes. The bill next goes to the full House Appropriations Committee, where several lawmakers said they plan try to amend it. Reuters has more on the proposal.

The U.S. Judicial Conference's Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure has approved a first-of-its kind rule to govern federal mass torts cases and provide judges a roadmap to follow when assigned hundreds or thousands of lawsuits against companies. The rule, which has been under consideration since 2017, now goes to the Judicial Conference. If approved, it would be transmitted to the U.S. Supreme Court, which would then submit it to Congress. Unless Congress disapproved it, the rule would take effect Dec. 1, 2025. The committee also has approved a proposal designed to strengthen disclosure rules for those who fund friend-of-the-court briefs. That proposed change, which is expected to be controversial, will be subject to a public comment period. Reuters reports on both actions.

If you missed the TBA’s Corporate Counsel Forum, the video from each of the sessions is now available to watch on demand through our 1-Click Package. This year’s program topics included how the Corporate Transparency Act affects in-house counsel, guiding a company through a government investigation, the recent FTC guidance on non-competes and no-poaching agreements, and what in-house counsel needs to know about the parent/subsidiary relationship. Access the package here.

Hard-to-break passwords are either long, complex, or both. Don’t expect to remember them all. Use this chart to pick a password manager that will do the remembering for you, as well as help create secure new passwords. Access this and other resources in the Opening a Firm section of TBA’s Law Practice Management Center.

New lawyers were welcomed to the legal profession at swearing ceremonies in Knoxville and Nashville this month. Representatives from the TBA and local bar associations were on hand to congratulate the new admittees. See photos from the events.

The TBA’s Court Square Series is back with programming in Chattanooga on July 12. The three-hour session will feature Judge Marie Williams talking about courtroom best practices, Judge Barry Steelman discussing criminal law and Rob Malin providing an update on estate planning. Other participants include Judge Michael Dumitru, Judge Kathryn Sell and Brennan Wingerter with the District Public Defenders Conference. The Court Square Series is intended to bring top speakers to local legal communities and foster relationships and collegiality among lawyers across the state.

Join the Nashville School of Law (NSL) on June 7 at the Renaissance Nashville Hotel to honor the NSL Class of 1974 on its 50th anniversary. In addition, Nashville attorney Bill Harbison will be honored for his community service, including 15 years as a contracts professor at the law school.

This appeal concerns the denial of a motion to set aside default judgment and the award of damages in a premises liability action. After sustaining injuries from a shooting in a Nashville nightclub, Cedric Crutcher (“Plaintiff”), filed a premises liability action against various co-defendants, including the owner and operator of the nightclub, Paul Eichel (“Defendant”), and the owners of the building where the nightclub was located (“the Ellises”). The Ellises filed an answer to Plaintiff’s complaint and a cross-claim against Defendant. When Defendant failed to respond to Plaintiff’s complaint, Plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment, which the trial court granted. When Defendant failed to respond to the Ellises cross-claim, the Ellises also filed a motion for default judgment, which the court granted. Thereafter, the only remaining issues were the amount of damages that the Ellises and Plaintiff were entitled to recover from Defendant. Following a hearing on damages, the court awarded Plaintiff $300,000 against Defendant for his pain and suffering, and awarded the Ellises $31,745.76 against Defendant for the attorney’s fees they incurred in defending the action as authorized under their lease agreement. Defendant filed a motion to set aside the default judgment pertaining to Plaintiff’s premises liability claim, which the court denied. Defendant then filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment relating to Plaintiff’s damages, which the court granted. Following a second evidentiary hearing on Plaintiff’s damages, the court awarded Plaintiff a judgment against Defendant in the amount of $15,014.19 for medical expenses and $300,000 in noneconomic damages. Defendant appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to set aside default judgment in favor of Plaintiff, as well as the award of damages to Plaintiff. Finding no error, we affirm.

The Arts & Business Council's Volunteer Lawyers & Professionals for the Arts (VLPA) and Bradley partner each month to provide free business-oriented legal services to Black-owned small businesses and nonprofits. Assistance includes business formation and corporate governance, review of contracts and guidance in navigating local ordinances and state regulations. Registration is now open for the June 20 clinic. Clients should register by June 17. Attorneys interested in volunteering should email vlpa@abcnashville.org.

This is the second interlocutory recusal appeal in this conservatorship action, filed by two attorneys in the case. In the first recusal appeal, the Court of Appeals entered an order staying all trial court proceedings. The Court of Appeals then issued an opinion affirming denial of the recusal motion, stating that the stay was lifted, and remanding the case to the trial court. Before the appellate mandate issued, the attorneys filed a second motion for the trial court judge to recuse; this was denied as well. The attorneys then filed this second petition for recusal appeal. They later filed a motion in the Court of Appeals arguing that trial court orders entered after the Court of Appeals issued its opinion in the first recusal appeal, but before the mandate issued, are void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals agreed and held the orders were void. The counterpetitioners and co-conservators have filed an accelerated application for permission to appeal in this Court, and we ordered the attorneys to file a response. Having reviewed the application for permission to appeal, the answer, all appendices, and the applicable law, we grant the application, and dispense with additional briefing and oral argument. We hold that the stay imposed by the Court of Appeals in the first recusal appeal did not divest the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction over the case. We further hold that the attorneys waived any other argument that orders entered by the trial court should be vacated because they were entered prior to issuance of the mandate. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand for further proceedings consistent with this decision.