James Theodore "Jim" Bland Jr. died Nov. 27 in Florida at the age of 75. He earned a Bachelor of Business Administration with a major in accountancy in 1972 from the University of Memphis and a law degree from the university’s Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law in 1974. Bland began his career working at the Internal Revenue Service as an estate and gift tax attorney before joining the law firm of Armstrong, Allen, Prewitt, Gentry, Johnston and Holmes. He later opened his own private practice. Bland was active in the Tennessee legal community serving as president of the Federal Bar Association's Memphis chapter from 1979-1980, as a charter fellow and president of the Memphis Bar Foundation, as president of the TBA Young Lawyers Conference (the precursor organization to the Young Lawyers Division) from 1984-1985, and on the TBA Board of Governors from 1990-1991. On the national level, he served as the youngest president of the Federal Bar Association from 1987-1988. After retiring, Bland moved to the U.S. Virgin Islands but returned to Memphis in 2015 and finally settled in Florida in 2017. Memorial donations may be made to St. Jude Children's Research Hospital or Wesleyan Hills United Methodist Church in Memphis.

This appeal arises from a divorce with minor children. Appellant/Mother appeals the trial court’s designation of Appellee/Father as the primary residential parent of the parties’ youngest children. Discerning no error, we affirm. Both parties request awards of appellate attorney’s fees, which are denied.

Shelby County Mayor Lee Harris held a press conference earlier this week to highlight concerns at the county jail, known as 201 Poplar. The Commercial Appeal reports that he also used the event to call on Shelby County Sheriff Floyd Bonner to "come up with a plan for reform in 2026.” According to Harris, Bonner has not provided a thorough plan for reform for the jail. Harris also called out the number of deaths at the jail, saying the issue is that of management and oversight and that there is a "lack of basic humanity in our jail." Ahead of the press conference, Bonner sent a press release to media outlets saying Harris has routinely underfunded the sheriff's office and refused to engage with Bonner about the need for a new jail.

The state of Florida has become the second U.S. state to reduce its reliance on the American Bar Association (ABA) to determine graduates of which law school can become lawyers, Reuters reports. The Supreme Court of Florida said in an order released Jan. 15 that it was replacing the ABA as the “sole accrediting agency” for law schools whose graduates may take the state’s bar exam, a requirement to practice in the state. The Supreme Court of Texas finalized a similar plan earlier this month. The Tennessee Supreme Court is similarly examining whether to "modify, reduce or eliminate its reliance on ABA accreditation" and whether any other practicable alternatives should be considered. Feedback on those questions may be sent to TBA's newly formed Legal Access & Regulatory Reform Task Force at townhall@tnbar.org as well as directly to the court. Visit TBA's Legal Access & Regulatory Reform resource page for more information.

In this action to terminate parental rights, the mother, father, and child all tested positive for methamphetamine. Accordingly, the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) took the child into protective custody, and the child was adjudicated dependent and neglected. Despite completing many of DCS’s requirements, the mother and father continued to fail drug tests. DCS filed a petition for termination of parental rights, and the trial court determined that three grounds supported termination as to both parents: (1) persistence of the conditions that led to the child’s removal, (2) severe child abuse, and (3) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume physical custody of or financial responsibility for the child. The trial court also concluded that termination of both parents’ rights was in the child’s best interest. Both parents have appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

Being a mentor is one of the most meaningful ways to contribute to the legal profession. It allows experienced attorneys to share hard-earned lessons, strengthen the next generation of lawyers and deepen their own understanding of leadership and service.

This guide offers practical tips, conversation ideas and strategies for creating a mentoring relationship that is positive, productive and sustainable for both parties.

What Makes a Good Mentor

1. Be Approachable and Authentic. Your mentee will learn as much from your honesty as from your expertise. Share not only your successes but also your missteps, course corrections and lessons learned.
2. Listen First, Advise Second. Many mentees simply need a safe space to talk through their challenges. Practice active listening and ask thoughtful questions before offering advice or solutions.
3. Share Practical Wisdom. Offer real-world insight into topics like time management, dealing with criticism, setting boundaries, managing workload and balancing personal life with professional demands.
4. Be Encouraging, Not Evaluative. The goal of mentorship is growth, not judgment. Focus on encouragement, empathy and constructive feedback that builds confidence.
5. Promote Career Exploration. Help mentees reflect on what areas of law align with their values and strengths. Share your own experiences navigating career transitions or discovering your niche.
6. Respect Confidentiality. Mentees must feel comfortable sharing candidly. Keep conversations private and avoid gossip or speculation about others in the legal community.
7. Be Consistent. Schedule regular check-ins. Even short meetings can make a lasting impact when they show reliability and investment in your mentee’s development.
8. Celebrate Progress. Recognize milestones and celebrate those wins together.

Tips for Building a Strong Mentoring Relationship

• Establish Expectations Early. Discuss how often you’ll meet, preferred communication methods and the mentee’s goals for the relationship.
• Start with Storytelling. Share your professional journey including the highs, the lows and the lessons. It makes you relatable and builds trust.
• Balance Guidance with Autonomy. Offer options and perspectives, but allow your mentee to make their own decisions.
• Model Work/Life Integration. Talk openly about boundaries, time off and wellness strategies that sustain long-term success.
• Make Introductions. When appropriate, connect your mentee to colleagues, bar associations or community service opportunities that broaden their network.

Discussion Topics for Mentors and Mentees

Use these prompts to spark meaningful, two-way conversations:

• What drew you to the legal profession? Has that changed over time?
• What do you find most rewarding and most challenging about your current role?
• How do you define professional success?
• What role do mentorship, service or pro bono work play in your sense of purpose?

Provided by TBA Mentoring Committee 2025

The TBA will be closed Monday in observance of the Martin Luther King Jr. Day. The office will reopen Tuesday at 8 a.m. CST. Visit the TBA.org website for information on CLE or other TBA programs and for staff contact information.

It's not too late to join your colleagues in Nashville next Friday for the TBA's 2026 Construction Law Forum. The program, tailored to both new and experienced practitioners, will feature a morning session focused on introductory sessions that build foundational knowledge and an afternoon sessions delving into more advanced issues. The morning session will feature presentations on preserving and enforcing lien rights, reviewing recent case law developments and avoiding common construction law mistakes. The afternoon session will include presentations on payment obligations, statutory compliance under the Prompt Pay Act, the growing role of artificial intelligence in construction projects and legal practice, and ethics considerations unique to construction law practitioners. Register now for the full day program, morning session or afternoon session.

Great! You're thinking of becoming a mentor. Now what? “WIIFM” stands for “What’s in it for me?” Did you think we would start off with some high-sounding rhetoric? Well, we're not.

Before you start out, why not reflect on why you want to be a mentor and what you hope to get from the experience? For ideas, see the bullet points below.

I’m looking forward to mentoring because:

_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

• Friendship
• Opportunity to teach material I know and am interested in
• Giving back
• Insight into the new generation of lawyers
• Share in the excitement of a new lawyer finding their “style”
• Pride in a new lawyer’s accomplishments
• Discover new things about myself
• See the profession – what’s right about it and where we need to improve – through fresh eyes
• Get a chance to use strengths in new ways
• Learn some new things
• Never hurts to go back to the basics

Provided by TBA Mentoring Committee, November 2025

Robert Boyd wanted to exit from his company. In 2019, he had sold a majority stake in Northern Biomedical Research, Inc. (“NBR”) to the individual defendants in this case: Shane Woods, Dean Haan, Joshua Bartoe, and Mark Johnson. He retained a 16% stake in the business but had moved from its headquarters in Michigan to a ranch in Idaho and had grown increasingly frustrated with the management of the company that he started several decades earlier. At the same time, the individual defendants were seeking to expand. NBR lacked the cash or revenue to fund that expansion, so the defendants began exploring a potential loan, and they also considered equity financing options. But they told Boyd little or nothing about these efforts, particularly with respect to the company’s interest in equity financing and early overtures from Avista Capital Partners, LLP (“Avista”), the venture capital firm that would wind up taking a 50% stake in NBR.

Boyd sold his shares in December 2020 for about $3.4 million, an amount based on an agreed-upon accounting firm’s annual valuation of NBR at roughly $21 million. The next spring, Avista and NBR entered an agreement for a capital infusion of $40 million, thus valuing the company at $80 million. Unhappy that he sold his stake in NBR for less than he might have later received, Boyd sued the company and the individual defendants, alleging that their failure to inform him about their discussions with Avista or the fact that NBR was considering private-equity financing violated securities law and breached the defendants’ fiduciary duties under Michigan common law. After discovery, the district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on all counts. This appeal followed.

We hold that the district court did not err when it granted summary judgment on Boyd’s securities-law claims. But because it applied an incorrect legal standard under Michigan common law, a genuine dispute of material fact remains as to whether Boyd is entitled to relief on Counts III, IV, and V of his second amended complaint. We therefore affirm in part and reverse in part.