Belmont University and the University of Tennessee (UT) have launched investigations into the status of their diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs after reports that employees have said DEI practices remain unchanged, WZTV reports. Last week, Vanderbilt University announced it had hired a law firm to investigate similar claims. Belmont reports it has hired an outside consultant to "initiate an independent compliance review." In an email to staff, UT said it has initiated a systemwide independent review of all access and engagement activities and mandated compliance training for employees. The inquiries come on the heels of new guidance from the U.S. Department of Education about the legality of DEI programs. Inside Higher Ed reports on the latest direction from the department.

The Tennessee Supreme Court ruled unanimously today that a defibrillator implanted in Byron Black’s chest does not have to be deactivated before the state executes him next week. The Nashville Banner reports that the decision reverses an opinion from Davidson County Chancellor Russell Perkins that directed the state to disable the device. Perkins issued that order after hearing from medical professionals that the device could put Black at risk of a prolonged and torturous death. The state appealed that ruling to the high court, arguing it could not deactivate Black’s defibrillator on the day of the execution, and asking whether it could be done the day before. The justices said that because Black would not agree to that timeframe, the lower court order was operating “effectively and practically” as a stay of its execution order, which a trial court does not have the authority to “stay, modify or condition.” The court did note at the end of the opinion though that nothing in its decision prevents the parties from reaching an agreement on deactivation of the device. The decision comes after news that Nashville General Hospital had not agreed to perform the procedure, according to The Tennessean. Black’s lawyers continue to pursue other remedies, calling on Gov. Bill Lee to halt the execution and asking the U.S. Supreme Court for a stay.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has approved 728 applications for a total of nearly $5.2 million in disaster assistance for Tennesseans affected by severe storms and flooding in April. This includes $2.8 million in housing assistance and $2.3 million in assistance for other needs, according to Tennessee Lookout. Individuals have until Aug. 19 to apply. The agency also recently announced that is preparing to close three of its Disaster Recovery Centers, which help disaster victims with aid applications and provide connections to other resources. Centers in Dyer, McNairy and Montgomery counties will close at 6 p.m. on Aug. 1. Centers in Hardeman and Obion counties will remain open. More information about available resources can be found on FEMA’s website.

Washington County lawyer Stephen Thomas Russell Martin was reinstated to the practice of law on July 23. The Tennessee Supreme Court reports that Martin was placed on inactive status more than five years ago, on Dec. 20, 2013, and has satisfied all outstanding requirements for reinstatement.

Texas lawyer Chasity Halford Balfour was reinstated to the practice of law in Tennessee on July 30. The Tennessee Supreme Court reports that she was placed on inactive status more than five years ago, on April 1, 2011, but now has satisfied all outstanding requirements for reinstatement.

William “Bill” Ray Martin, age 83, died April 20. A graduate of Memphis State University, Martin became an attorney in 1966 and moved to Lexington to practice law with his wife Pennie. He worked in private practice for many years and later joined the 26th Judicial District as an assistant district attorney in Henderson County until his retirement. In that role, he worked closely with the Carl Perkins Center and supported efforts to help local children and families. He also served as chair of the Henderson County Election Commission. Funeral services were held in April with burial at Mt. Moriah Cemetery in Reagan. Memorial donations may be made to Grace Methodist Church, 89 Natchez Trace Drive, Lexington, TN 38351; St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, 501 St. Jude Place Memphis, TN 38105; or the Carl Perkins Center for the Prevention of Child Abuse, P.O. Box 447, Jackson, TN 38302.

The Davidson County Circuit Court will hold a portrait unveiling for the late Judge Philip Smith, who presided over the 4th Circuit Court for 13 years. The event will take place on Aug. 14 at 2 p.m. CDT in Courtroom 607 at the Historic Metro Courthouse, 1 Public Square, Nashville 37201. A reception will follow. View the invitation.

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights on July 18 approved new appointments to the Tennessee State Advisory Committee. The commission maintains advisory committees in each state, which are tasked with conducting civil rights studies specific to that area and making recommendations to the commission. Brandon Smith has been named chair of the Tennessee committee. Other members include: Nicholas Barry, Gale Jones Carson, Larry Crain, Luke Cymbal, Chicoya Smith Gallman, Kathleen Harms, William Terry Ladd III, William Morgan Denise Smith-Martinez, Kyontha Nelson, Muriel Malone Nolen, Kymberly Whitaker and Stelle Marie Yarbrough. Read more in a release from the commission.

Introduction

Generative AI (Gen AI)[i] tools are increasingly being integrated into legal practice.[ii] While they offer significant benefits for efficiency and productivity, their use comes with important ethical and professional considerations. This short guide outlines key best practices based on guidance from the American Bar Association[iii], state bar associations[iv] (including Tennessee) and court rulings.

Confidentiality, Competence & Client Consent

• Duty of Confidentiality: Lawyers must safeguard all client information. This duty applies fully to Gen AI use.[v]
  • In practice, this means not uploading or disclosing confidential data into an unsecure or non-private Gen AI tool. Have an internal protocol with a quick checklist to ask questions like: Will this prompt reveal client identity? Is there another way to phrase it? Am I uploading client documents?[vi]
• Duty of Competency: Lawyers should understand the benefits and risks associated with technology.[vii]
  • In practice, this means knowing what your Gen AI tool can and can’t do. Training on how to use a tool effectively, verifying the accuracy of outputs and understanding the value and limitations of usage are all essential to providing competent representation.  
• Informed Client Consent: Obtain specific permission before inputting any client information into Gen AI tools. This consent is also needed if using an AI tool will significantly influence the representation. Boilerplate consent in engagement letters may be insufficient.
  • In practice, this means updating your engagement letters to disclose which Gen AI tools are being used and why, in plain language. This can also include the risks and safeguards you have taken in choosing a particular product. Allow clients to opt out of you using their data in Gen AI tools. If the tool is being used to make important decisions in the representation, such as settlement valuation or jury selection, get consent.
• Data Minimization: Share only necessary information with AI tools, removing names, identifying details and confidential information whenever possible.
  • In practice, this means stripping any identifying information before use. Instead of uploading the entire complaint, work with smaller, de-identified sections of text. 
• Security Vetting: Use only AI tools with robust encryption, clear privacy policies and confidentiality guarantees. Avoid services that claim ownership of input/output data or lack adequate security measures.[viii]
  • In practice, this means your firm has a due diligence process in place prior to any acquisition of new Gen AI technology. Inquire about contractual guarantees for ownership of inputs, outputs, and notice or indemnity provisions in the event of a breach, etc. Consider having an “approved tool” list and block other applications with a firewall.
• Privilege Preservation: Take precautions to ensure that sharing information with Gen AI tools doesn't jeopardize attorney-client privilege.[ix]
  • In practice, this means using a workspace or program that only you have access to. Avoid shared or public chat histories. Retain outputs in the client files and apply the same policies that govern emails and drafts. Avoid mixing privileged and non-privileged prompts in the same chat. Recheck the terms of service whenever updated by your AI provider to ensure privilege considerations are not impacted.

Legal Research and Writing Applications

AI as Assistant, Not Expert

• Use AI as a research and drafting assistant, not a substitute for legal judgment. The attorney remains responsible for all work product, including checking its accuracy.
• Leverage AI for efficiency (summarizing documents, generating draft memos, identifying patterns, etc.) while applying your own legal expertise to evaluate results. Using AI is just one step in the overall process of producing work product. 

Verification Requirements

• Mandatory Accuracy Checks: Verify all AI-generated content before use. AI can "hallucinate" non-existent cases, statutes, or misrepresent holdings.  Not only is verifying the case or statute important, you must go further and ensure all quotes and stated reasons for including the authority are accurate.
• Court Expectations: A growing number of judges require disclosure when Gen AI is used for drafting or research and require attorneys to certify that the work has been reviewed and verified by a human. Always check your local rules and the judge’s individual practices with regard to AI usage and disclosure.[x]  

Research Limitations

• Many publicly available AI tools have fixed knowledge cutoffs and, unless paired with services like Lexis or Westlaw, lack comprehensive and current legal content. It is essential that you understand the data that your Gen AI program has access to and is using when producing outputs. These sources could include the internet, case law databases or internal firm documents.
• Use AI to complement, not replace, traditional legal research using up to date resources (Westlaw, Lexis, etc.). An advantage to AI for research is its ability to distill concepts and search semantically, not just relying on exact search terms. While AI can help locate authority, it is still your role to determine if it is in fact authoritative, accurate and appropriate for your given matter.

Combine AI's efficiency with human expertise for optimal results. It is important to remember that widely available generative AI tools have only been on the market for roughly three years. The legal profession is still in the early stages of exploring and adopting this ever-evolving technology.

[i] George Lawton, What is GenAI? Generative AI explained, TechTarget (Mar. 13, 2025), https://www.techtarget.com/searchenterpriseai/definition/generative-AI.

[ii] Thomson Reuters Institute, 2025 Generative AI in Professional Services Report, Thomson Reuters (Apr. 15, 2025), https://www.thomsonreuters.com/content/dam/ewp-m/documents/thomsonreuters/en/pdf/reports/2025-generative-ai-in-professional-services-report-tr5433489-rgb.pdf.

[iii] ABA Standing Comm. on Ethics & Prof’l Responsibility, Formal Opinion 512: Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools, Am. Bar Ass’n (July 29, 2024), https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/ethics-opinions/aba-formal-opinion-512.pdf.

[iv] AI and Attorney Ethics Rules: 50-State Survey, Justia (Apr. 2025), https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/ai-and-attorney-ethics-rules-50-state-survey/.

[v] Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, RPC 1.6 (2023), https://www.tncourts.gov/courts/supreme-court/rules/supreme-court-rules/rule-8-rules-professional-conduct; Formal Op. 512, supra note iii.

[vi] Ilia Kolochenko, How to Protect Your Law Firm’s Data in the Era of GenAI, Bus. L. Today (Dec. 9, 2024), https://www.americanbar.org/groups/business_law/resources/business-law-today/2024-december/how-protect-law-firm-data-era-gen-ai/.

[vii] Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, RPC 1.1 cmt. 8 (2023).

[viii] Oliver Roberts, Legal AI Unfiltered: Legal Tech Execs Speak on Privacy and Security, Nat’l L. Rev. (Mar. 31, 2025), https://natlawreview.com/article/legal-ai-unfiltered-legal-tech-execs-speak-privacy-and-security.

[ix] Christopher Campbell & Antonious Sadek, Protecting Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product in a GenAI World, Practical Guidance J. (Mar. 20, 2024), https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/practical-guidance-journal/b/pa/posts/protecting-attorney-client-privilege-and-work-product-in-a-generative-ai-world.

[x] Ropes & Gray LLP, Artificial Intelligence Court Order Tracker (last visited July 2, 2025), https://www.ropesgray.com/en/sites/artificial-intelligence-court-order-tracker.

BOGGS, Circuit Judge. In the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, Ohio ordered “non-essential businesses” to close. A group of dance-studio owners sued in federal court. They alleged that various state and local officials had violated their constitutional rights by issuing those orders. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, and we affirmed on August 22, 2022. Bojicic v. DeWine, No. 21-4123, 2022 WL 3585636 (6th Cir. Aug. 22, 2022). We held that Plaintiffs lacked standing against all Appellees except former Ohio Director of Public Health Amy Acton because Plaintiffs failed to plead traceability. We also held that Plaintiffs’ substantive-due-process claim and equal-protection claim both failed under rational-basis review. And we affirmed the district court’s rejection of Plaintiffs’ takings claim, but on the different reasoning that, though a regulation intended to benefit public health could theoretically be a compensable taking, this one did not qualify under Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978). Appellants now are attorneys Thomas B. Renz and Robert J. Gargasz — not their clients, who were Plaintiffs and appellants in the merits case. After we affirmed the district court’s grant of Defendants’ motion to dismiss, the district court issued a sanctions order granting fees and costs against Appellants for their extensive legal failings throughout this case. The attorneys appealed the orders issuing sanctions and granting fees and costs. We affirm.