The Tennessee Supreme Court suspended Knox County lawyer Loring Edwin Justice from the practice of law for four years on Feb. 19. The court imposed the discipline after finding that Justice and his firm entered into a fee agreement without client authorization, charged excessive and unreasonable fees that were unsupported by billing records, abused the fiduciary relationship with the client, failed to reasonably communicate with or diligently represent a client, failed to protect his client’s interests after withdrawal or termination, and engaged in misconduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. On Dec. 3, 2025, Justice entered into a conditional guilty plea that he violated Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.8, 1.16 and 8.4(c).

The Tennessee Supreme Court rejected an appeal from the Attorney General’s Office to take up a case involving a lawsuit challenging the state’s abortion ban, meaning the case is now likely to go to trial, the Nashville Banner reports. The plaintiffs in the initial lawsuit included several women who suffered medical complications during their pregnancies but were unable to receive medical care and doctors who were unable to give care under the law. The plaintiffs initially sued the state in September 2023. In October 2024, a three-judge panel ruled the state could not discipline doctors for giving medically necessary abortions. In October 2025, a three-judge panel declined to dismiss the suit. A two-week non-jury trial is scheduled to begin at 9 a.m. on April 27.

Petitioner, Brandon Michael Schklar, appeals the Marshall County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his post-conviction petition. He argues that the post-conviction court erred in dismissing his petition because (1) his petition was timely filed and stated a colorable claim; (2) Tennessee case law allows for exceptions to the statutory post- conviction verification requirement; and therefore, (3) he should have been offered an opportunity to verify his petition under oath in an evidentiary hearing. Upon review of the entire record, the briefs and arguments of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Petitioner, Ed Henry Loyde, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition seeking DNA analysis of evidence related to his 2014 conviction for rape of a child and aggravated sexual battery. Petitioner’s notice of appeal was untimely filed, and we conclude Petitioner is not entitled to waiver of the filing deadline. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal.

Adonis Donnell Holbrooks, Petitioner, was convicted of attempted rape of a child, solicitation of a minor, especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor, and sexual exploitation of a minor via electronic means. State v. Holbrooks, No. M2019-02099-CCA- R3-CD, 2020 WL 6060440, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 19, 2020), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Feb. 4, 2021). Petitioner subsequently sought post-conviction relief on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court denied relief after a hearing, and Petitioner appealed to this Court. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court because Petitioner failed to establish prejudice.

Defendant, Devaunte Louis Hill, appeals his Davidson County Criminal Court conviction for second degree murder, for which he received a sentence of twenty-five years in confinement. Defendant asserts that: (1) the trial court erred in excluding the testimony of Defendant’s proffered expert; (2) the trial court improperly limited Defendant’s cross- examination of a witness; (3) the trial court abused its discretion by finding that Defendant opened the door to cross-examination about delinquent behavior he committed as a juvenile; (4) the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the State to present evidence of Defendant’s gang membership in its case-in-chief; (5) the trial court improperly admitted part of a recorded jail conversation between Defendant and other parties; (6) the State engaged in improper argument during closing; (7) he is entitled to relief via cumulative error; and (8) the trial court imposed an excessive sentence. Following a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This is a dispute over a child support obligation for a severely disabled adult child that would have terminated on the child’s 25th birthday under the Marital Dissolution Agreement (“MDA”). Prior to the expiration of Father’s agreed upon support obligation, the child’s mother petitioned for child support to continue due to the adult child’s ongoing disability and needs. Finding that the adult child was severely disabled and living with her mother prior to attaining eighteen years of age and she remains severely disabled, the trial court granted the mother’s petition and ordered that the father’s child support obligation be extended indefinitely. The trial court also awarded the mother a judgment of $21,700 in retroactive child support. The father appealed. We affirm.

The Plaintiff brought a claim of intentional interference with business relationships against the Defendant, and the Defendant moved to dismiss under the Tennessee Public Participation Act (TPPA). The Defendant attached to the motion a declaration to establish that the suit was in response to his exercise of the right to free speech and right to petition. The Plaintiff did not attempt to establish a prima facie case but instead sought to amend the complaint to allege a different cause of action and sought to exclude the declaration. The trial court dismissed under the TPPA. The Plaintiff appeals. We affirm and remand for a determination of attorney’s fees under the statute.

The Tennessee Department of Revenue will host a free webinar on the Family-Owned Non-Corporate Entity (FONCE) exemption for the franchise and excise tax on Feb. 24 at 9 a.m. CST. Department staff will discuss eligibility criteria, application requirements and the annual renewal procedure for the FONCE exemption. The webinar is part of a free series the department offers to the public. Learn more and register here.

The American Bar Association (ABA) Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility has released a formal opinion that provides guidance on the ethical obligations of judges under the ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct when they are exercising administrative, employment and supervisory authority. Formal Opinion 521 states that the canons and rules governing impartiality, integrity and independence require judges to administer chambers and court staff with the same fairness and neutrality that guide adjudication. The opinion explains that ethical duties extend beyond the courtroom to include merit-based appointments, prevention of bias and harassment, and avoidance of favoritism and the appearance of impropriety in all administrative decisions. Read more in a release from the ABA.