The start of a new year is a great opportunity to reset and be intentional about your well-being. Wellness doesn't have to mean a total life overhaul. Wellness starts with small, realistic goals that support a balanced, sustainable career.

Begin by reflecting on one or two areas you'd like to improve or maintain, such as sleep, movement or how you recharge outside of work. Set goals that are specific and achievable: a 20-minute walk a few times a week, routine coffee with a friend, logging off by a set time, protecting one (at least) evening for personal time, or setting limits on social media (especially if doom-scrolling sneaks into your routine).

Track your progress and acknowledge small wins, because they add up! Most importantly, give yourself grace. Wellness is not about perfection; it's about consistency and self-awareness. By setting clear, realistic wellness goals, you can build habits that help you feel more energized, focused and resilient throughout the year.

Finally, remember that wellness isn't just about what you add to your routine. It is also about setting boundaries and recognizing when you need support. You don't have to do everything on your own. Developing habits that protect your time and energy now can have lasting benefits, helping you stay grounded, effective and fulfilled throughout your career as a young lawyer. New year, stronger you.

Happy New Year!

This bonus episode of BarBuzz takes a festive and reflective turn as TBA staff members and hosts Azya Thornton and Hank Elliott share lighthearted courtroom stories and holiday traditions submitted by members and staff, ranging from memorable probate court moments to cookie baking, tamale-making and even a legendary flour fight. The episode also looks ahead to 2026, offering a relaxed and cheerful conversation that celebrates community, connection and what’s next for the TBA. Listeners can catch past episodes of the podcast anytime in the BarBuzz archive.

THAPAR, Circuit Judge. In summer 2020, Sir Maejor Page raised hundreds of thousands of dollars through a Facebook page he created for Black Lives Matter of Greater Atlanta. Donors thought Page was using their funds to support protests. But in reality, he spent the money on a prostitute, guns, booze, tailored suits, and a new house. As a result, Page was convicted of wire fraud and money laundering. On appeal, he challenges both his conviction and sentence. Because none of his arguments has merit, we affirm.

Defendant Humana, Inc. petitions for permission to appeal a district court order certifying a class in this action alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. § 227. Plaintiff David Elliot opposes the petition. Accordingly, the petition for permission to appeal is DENIED.

The petitioner, Marcus Willingham, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing the post-conviction court erred in denying his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition.

A Williamson County jury convicted Jeremy Michael Fowler (“Defendant”) in Case No. W-CR22-213-A (“the Waffle House Case”) of seven counts of Class A misdemeanor reckless endangerment (Counts 1-7), two counts Class C felony aggravated assault (Counts 8 and 9), and one count of Class A misdemeanor unlawful possession of a weapon after having been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (Count 11). At the outset of the sentencing hearing in the Waffle House Case, Defendant entered guilty pleas in Case No. W-CR230286 (“the Jail Case”) to two counts of Class A misdemeanor assault, which stemmed from incidents that occurred while Defendant was incarcerated awaiting trial in the Waffle House Case. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant in the Waffle House Case to two consecutive terms of six years on the aggravated assault convictions, six consecutive terms of eleven months and twenty-nine days on the reckless endangerment convictions, and a consecutive term of eleven months and twenty-nine days on the weapons charge. The court merged the reckless endangerment conviction in Count 7 with Count 6. Additionally, pursuant to his plea agreement in the Jail Case, the trial court sentenced Defendant to concurrent terms of eleven months and twenty-nine days on the assault convictions and ordered the sentence to run consecutively to the sentence in the Waffle House Case. On appeal, Defendant claims the court erred by (1) failing to merge all the reckless endangerment convictions in the Waffle House Case, (2) misapplying enhancement and mitigating factors resulting in an excessive sentence, and (3) imposing consecutive sentences. Based upon the proof presented at trial, the indictment, and the jury verdicts in the reckless endangerment offenses, we reverse the court’s merger of Count 7 into Count 6 and remand for the trial court to enter an amended judgment omitting the merger language in Count 7 and aligning the sentence in Count 7 concurrently with Count 6. In all other regards, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

State officials decertified the Meigs County Jail earlier in December after determining that recently approved repair plans would not bring the overcrowded, aging facility into compliance with Tennessee Corrections Institute (TCI) standards. WBIR reports that the decision came less than a day after county commissioners voted to renovate rather than build a new jail. TCI officials have concluded that only a new facility could restore certification. As a result, state inmates must be transferred out and county leaders must reconsider their plans.

This action involves the termination of a mother’s parental rights to her minor child. Following a bench trial, the court found that clear and convincing evidence existed to establish several statutory grounds of termination as applied to the mother. The court also found that termination was in the child’s best interest. We now affirm.

This is an action for breach of contract and violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (the “TCPA”). The defendants, who are Minnesota residents and who have no business activities in Tennessee except for this one transaction with the plaintiff, responded to the complaint by filing a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02 motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The trial court granted the motion on both grounds. This appeal followed. Finding no error, we affirm.

This action involves the proper use and zoning of a parcel of real property. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the property owner, determining that the owner’s use of the property as a quarry was not prohibited because the subject property was unzoned. The trial court based its ruling on the municipality’s inability to produce a validly enacted zoning ordinance that applied to the specific parcel. The municipality and its planning commission have appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. We also find that the property owner’s motions to consider post-judgment facts and to dismiss the appeal are not well taken, and we deny those motions.