The TBA Creditors Practice Section Executive Council is pleased to announce a section social event at Noble's Central (2292 Rosa L Parks Blvd., Nashville 37228) on Wednesday, April 30, from 5:30-8 p.m. CDT. We hope you will join us for drinks, appetizers and opportunities to network with the executive council and fellow section members. 

Please complete this RSVP by 5 p.m. CDT on April 29 to let us know that you plan to attend. Email TBA Coordinator Brooke Leeton at bleeton@tnbar.org with any questions.

On March 26, the Supreme Court of Tennessee suspended Hawkins County lawyer Gerald Todd Eidson from the practice of law for two years with one year to be served on active suspension and the remainder on probation so long as Eidson engages a practice monitor. The court took the action after determining that Eidson failed to provide competent representation to a client, failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness during his representation of the client, and failed to inform the Juvenile Court of an earlier misrepresentation regarding the incarceration status of the client, which resulted in prejudice to the administration of justice. His actions were determined to violate Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, 1.3 and 8.4(d).

Following the Lee administration's release of its amended budget, which includes funding for the new plan for indigent representation in Tennessee, the General Assembly now will move forward with House and Senate consideration. The amended budget, introduced as HB1409/SB1431, has been referred to the House Finance, Ways and Means Subcommittee and the Senate Finance, Ways and Means Committee. In the House, the subcommittee must first consider the bill before sending it to the full Finance, Ways and Means Committee and then on to the floor. In the Senate, the committee must consider the bill before forwarding it the floor. Amendments at each step of the process may be introduced. The legislature’s one constitutionally required charge is to pass a balanced budget, which is one of the last things it will do before adjourning for the year. Learn more about the plan and indigent representation in Tennessee.

Make plans now to join colleagues from across the state at the TBA’s 2025 Annual Convention, set for June 11-14, in the Nashville suburb of Franklin. The Franklin Marriott Cool Springs will serve as the host hotel. Perennial favorites such as the Bench Bar program and lunch, Lawyers Lunch, and joint event with the Tennessee Judicial Conference return to the agenda. For the second year, the Public Service Breakfast will take place during the convention to honor legal aid, private practice and law student pro bono work. CLE programming will include sessions on famous Tennessee trials, the role lawyers played in the Gov. Ray Blanton pardon scandal, an indigent defense and legislative update, AI, wellness, and the future of DEI. For the first time, the TBA also will present a session on the future of legal tech with vendor panelists. Again this year, the Tennessee Lawyers' Association for Women (TLAW) and Tennessee Alliance for Black Lawyers (TABL) will hold meetings and events in conjunction with the convention. Don’t miss this annual gathering of Tennessee lawyers! Access registration, hotel reservation information and more on the event website.

Shelby County lawyer Samuel John Muldavin has received a public censure from the Tennessee Supreme Court. In representing two clients in defense of a detainer action, the court found that Muldavin failed to communicate adequately with clients, had no prior experience handling residential landlord tenant matters and did not complete any research of applicable law or otherwise take any action to prepare for trial. He also agreed to the scheduling of trial for calculation of money damages, fees and costs, despite the inadequacy of service of process. His actions were determined to violate Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4, 1.5(b) and 3.3(a)(1).

In this conservatorship action, we address whether subject-matter jurisdiction over the ward’s assets remains with the court appointing the conservator. Here, the conservatorship was opened in Madison County. Appellee and the ward’s conservator agreed to transfer some of the ward’s rights to payments from a structured settlement, the ward’s sole asset, to Appellee. Appellee filed a petition for approval of the transfer in Anderson County, where none of the parties resided, and the Anderson County court approved the transfer. A second conservator was appointed for the limited purpose of challenging the Anderson County order, and the instant lawsuit was filed to set aside the Anderson County order for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The trial court initially held that Anderson County lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, but on Appellee’s motion to alter or amend, reversed itself. Appellant appeals. Because subject-matter jurisdiction over the ward and her property remained with the conservatorship court, Anderson County lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, and its order allowing the transfer of the asset was void ab initio. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s orders finding otherwise and affirm and reinstate its initial order finding no subject-jurisdiction in Anderson County.

This accelerated interlocutory appeal is taken from the trial court’s order denying Appellant’s motion for recusal. Because the order denying recusal conflicts with the trial court’s previously entered standing order of recusal regarding all cases involving Appellant’s attorney, we vacate the trial court’s order denying recusal and remand for resolution of the conflicting orders.

In this appeal, we hold that the right to petition in the Tennessee Constitution is enforceable against governmental entities, not private parties, and that it cannot be the basis for a “public policy” exception to the employment-at-will doctrine as against private employers. Here, the plaintiff at-will employee emailed members of the Tennessee General Assembly expressing grievances about the COVID-19 vaccination mandate implemented by her employer, a private organization. After the employer told the plaintiff that the email violated the employer’s policies, the employee sent a second similar email to legislators. The defendant terminated the plaintiff’s employment. The plaintiff sued the defendant private employer for retaliatory discharge, asserting her employment was terminated for exercising the right to petition in Article I, Section 23 of the Tennessee Constitution. The trial court dismissed the complaint, and the Court of Appeals reversed. On appeal, our review shows that, for hundreds of years dating back to early England, the constitutional right to petition has been considered a bulwark against government oppression, not a constraint on private parties. No state in the nation has held that the right to petition applies to limit the ability of private employers to terminate the employment of at-will employees, and the language in Article I, Section 23 does not mandate such a holding. We hold that Article I, Section 23 is enforceable only against the government, not against private actors; consequently, private employers do not violate a clear public policy by terminating employees for exercising the right to petition. Thus, at-will employees may not base claims of retaliatory discharge against private employers on the right to petition in the Tennessee Constitution. Accordingly, we reverse the Court of Appeals and affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint.

Following the Lee administration's release of its amended budget, which includes funding for the new plan for indigent representation in Tennessee, the TBA will continue to work closely with the Tennessee Supreme Court and the Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) on the new plan, including tracking its progress through the legislative process. The TBA is grateful for the support and advocacy of the legal community on this issue, and encourages lawyers to stay up to date on the work of TBA's Government Affairs team and share their own experiences with the indigent representation system. Learn more about the plan and indigent representation in Tennessee.

The U.S. Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) released an interim final rule on Friday, narrowing the scope of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA). Under the new rule, U.S. companies are no longer required to submit Beneficial Ownership Information (BOI) reports, with the exception of foreign companies operating in the U.S. and their foreign beneficial owners. According to The National Law Review, this change significantly reduces the compliance burden, with FinCEN estimating a 99.8% reduction in the number of companies required to report. The rule follows a series of legal challenges to the CTA, including a suspension of enforcement earlier this month. FinCEN is soliciting comments from the public on the interim rule, noting it will assess requested exemptions as appropriate. A final rule is expected this year.