Calling all early birds! The TBA is launching a new series in December that will bring lawyers compelling CLE webcasts from 7:30 to 8:30 a.m. CST. The Sunrise Series will begin Dec. 2 with “College Mascots and Legal Ethics: Lessons from the Sidelines,” during which legal educator Stuart Teicher will use tigers, eagles and other college icons to explore what mascots can teach lawyers about loyalty, character and protecting clients. Then on Dec. 9, Teicher will present "Good Lawyers Gone Bad: Ethics Lessons from True Lawyer Slime and Crime." The session will explore actual missteps committed by lawyers and the ethics lessons underlying the actions. Make plans now to get your day started with a CLE boost!

The TBA will host its 2025 Environmental Law Forum on Dec. 5 in Nashville, offering a full day of programming for lawyers and environmental professionals. The annual event will cover nuclear energy concerns, recent state and federal developments, brownfields and other timely issues shaping the practice area. Speakers include Payton Bradford of the Tennessee Department of Environment & Conservation, Katherine Barnes Cohn of Bradley, John Dawson of Bass, Berry & Sims, Ellery Richardson of K&L Gates and Ashley Strittmatter of United Cleanup Oak Ridge. For more information and to register visit the TBA website.

The defendant, Charles Wilson, was convicted by a Madison County Circuit Court jury of one count of second-degree murder and one count of facilitation of attempted simple robbery for which he received a sentence of twenty-three years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction. After reviewing the record and considering the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

DAVIS, Circuit Judge. Timothy Ehn and William Siefert executed a health-care-fraud scheme at the heart of the opioid epidemic. Ehn owned and operated a pain clinic in northern Kentucky. With the help of Siefert, Ehn created a testing scheme that involved using patients’ medical conditions as a front to conduct specialized urine drug tests that were billed at a higher rate than the routine tests most patients needed. This scheme began in 2017 and lasted, for Siefert, until he stopped working at the clinic in 2019 and, for Ehn, until 2021. Both Ehn and Siefert were indicted for conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance, health care fraud, and conspiracy to commit health care fraud. Siefert was also indicted for unlawful distribution of a controlled substance. A jury ultimately convicted Siefert of health care fraud and Ehn of health care fraud and conspiracy to commit the same. Both defendants appeal those convictions on various grounds and challenge the procedural reasonableness of their sentences. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM.

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC (“HDI”) and the Michigan State Utility Workers Council (“the Union”) were parties to a collective bargaining agreement. That agreement provided for arbitration of Union members’ grievances. So, when one member disagreed with HDI about his discharge, the Union demanded arbitration on his behalf. Though the demand mistakenly named HDI’s parent company, Holtec International Corporation (“Holtec International”) (collectively with HDI “Holtec” or “Appellants”), with whom there was no agreement, HDI appeared through counsel and participated in the arbitration—that is, until an award was issued in favor of the Union. HDI did not comply with the award, and Holtec filed suit in federal district court seeking vacatur on the ground that the award’s caption mistakenly named Holtec International. The district court declined to vacate the award. This appeal thus turns on a single question: where an arbitration demand and the case’s caption misname the party against whom an award is meant to be entered, but there is no ambiguity as to the real identity of that party, may a federal district court enforce that award? Because it may, we AFFIRM the judgment below.

SUTTON, Chief Judge. A Nashville city councilman threatened to withdraw business from a law firm, which served as the city’s outside counsel, due to the position one of its attorneys took as the chair of the county election commission on a tax referendum. When the attorney declined the law firm’s request that he oppose the referendum, the firm fired him. The attorney sued the council member and the law firm for retaliating against his federal free-speech rights, namely his support of the tax-repeal referendum in his capacity as the county election chair. The district court denied qualified immunity to each defendant in ruling on their motions to dismiss. The law firm is eligible for qualified immunity in view of the government work it performed. And it did not violate any clearly established law. We know of no case in which the First Amendment prohibited a law firm from firing one of its lawyers when the business interests of the firm, including demands from one of its clients, triggered the firing. We thus reverse that portion of the district court’s decision. On the other hand, the council member’s alleged actions violated clearly established law, and we affirm the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss.

The petitioner, Brandon Holliday, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition, arguing the post-conviction court erred in finding he received the effective assistance of counsel. After our review of the record, briefs, and applicable law, we affirm the denial of the petition.

The Petitioner, Clifford Lamar Clark, III, appeals from the Henderson County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance and that he did not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently enter into the plea agreement. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The Defendant, Carlos Monalito Clark, a career offender, was indicted for aggravated burglary, a Class C felony, and vandalism under $1000, a Class A misdemeanor. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the Defendant entered a guilty plea to aggravated burglary and received a Range III sentence of ten years with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. The vandalism charge was dismissed pursuant to the plea agreement. Following a hearing, the trial court ordered the Defendant to serve his sentence in confinement. In this appeal, the Defendant argues he is entitled to de novo review or a new sentencing hearing because the trial court failed to consider three statutory sentencing factors, failed to consider the purposes and principles of the sentencing act, and failed to consider his request for community corrections. Upon review, we affirm.

The Petitioner, Quadarius Devonta Bufford, appeals from the Gibson County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction for first degree felony murder, for which he was sentenced to life imprisonment. The Petitioner alleges that the post-conviction court erred by denying relief on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, his claim of prosecutorial misconduct, and his request for funds for a medical expert. He also seeks relief due to the cumulative effect of trial counsel’s multiple deficiencies of performance. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.