The Petitioner, Bryant Ward, pleaded guilty to second degree murder, in exchange for a twenty-year sentence. The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective and that he was on a medication that inhibited his ability to enter a knowing and voluntary guilty plea. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. After review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

A Shelby County jury convicted the Petitioner, Victor Valle, of rape of a child, and the trial court sentenced him to a term of twenty-two years imprisonment. Thereafter, he filed a petition for post-conviction relief, asserting that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. In relevant part, the Petitioner alleged that his attorneys were ineffective by (1) calling the victim’s mother and his former spouse as witnesses at trial; (2) failing to explain his right to testify and advising him not to testify; and (3) failing to advise him of his right to have the jury instructed regarding lesser-included offenses. The Petitioner also asserted that he was entitled to relief due to cumulative error. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief, and the Petitioner appealed. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Defendant, Derek Morse, was convicted by a Hamilton County jury of three counts of premeditated first degree murder and one count of attempted premeditated first degree murder. Defendant was sentenced to three terms of life imprisonment without parole for the first-degree murder convictions, and he was ordered to serve a concurrent sentence of fifteen years for the attempted first degree murder conviction. In this direct appeal, Defendant contends that: 1) the evidence at trial was insufficient to sustain his convictions because the State failed to establish his identity as a shooter; 2) the trial court erred by allowing evidence of a prior bad act; 3) the State failed to establish a proper chain of custody for evidence of gunshot residue on Defendant's clothing; 4) the trial court should have granted a new trial based on newly discovered evidence; 5) the trial court should have granted a new trial based on proof that a State's witness gave false testimony that he did not receive favorable treatment from the State for his testimony against Defendant; 6) the State made improper comments during its opening statement and closing argument; and 7) the cumulative effect of these errors entitles Defendant to a new trial. Having reviewed the entire record and the briefs and arguments of the parties, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Plaintiff sued Defendant for divorce. Defendant appeals challenging the trial court’s failure to award alimony. Without a transcript or statement of the evidence, appellate courts presume the record supports the trial court’s findings. We affirm.

In this appeal, the claimant sought workers’ compensation benefits for injuries he alleged resulted from his work as a truck driver. The business the claimant identified as his employer on his petition for benefit determination contended that the claimant was an independent contractor and, therefore, was not entitled to the requested benefits. After the claimant did not timely file a request for a hearing, the trial court filed a show cause order. The claimant did not respond, and the trial court dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute the claim and for failure to comply with court orders. The court’s order also taxed the filing fee to the purported employer, which filed a motion for reconsideration, asserting that it was not obligated to pay the fee because it was not the employer. The trial court denied the motion, and the purported employer has appealed. Upon careful review of the record, we reverse the trial court’s order taxing a filing fee to the purported employer and modify the court’s order to reflect that no filing fee is taxed under the circumstances of the present case. We affirm the remainder of the trial court’s order, and we certify as final the trial court’s order as modified.

The Tennessee Supreme Court and the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) released a statement following the General Assembly’s approval of $17 million for a new indigent representation plan. The groups say the funding “will enable the Judicial Branch to address challenges with the retention and compensation of appointed counsel and enhance the delivery of indigent services across the state.” Chief Justice Holly Kirby also said, “This funding puts us in a financial position to take a transformational step forward to safeguard the fair and impartial administration of justice in Tennessee. It is the result of many hands and hearts working together to figure out a new and effective system to deliver representation to those who cannot afford counsel. Heartfelt thanks to our legislative leaders, the Governor’s Office, the district attorneys general and district public defenders across the state, and the Tennessee Bar Association for their collective effort and vision." Kirby also thanked the judges and appointed attorneys who “passionately and capably communicated … struggles with the current system and helped … formulate a new way forward.” Read the full statement.

The Tennessee Senate has passed SR120, Action News 5 reports. The resolution, sponsored by Sen. Brent Taylor, R-Memphis, calls for the Tennessee Supreme Court to establish a Judicial Review Committee to investigate three district attorneys general (DAs): Shelby County District Attorney Steve Mulroy, Davidson County District Attorney Glenn Funk and District Attorney Chris Stanford, who serves Warren and Van Buren counties. The resolution also asks the Supreme Court to create a review board that would mirror the Board of Judicial Conduct but oversee district attorneys, court clerks and public defenders according to the Commercial Appeal. “After discussions with Senate leadership, we agreed the serious nature of these allegations warrant a judicial — rather than legislative — review,” Taylor said. The senator had introduced a resolution in January that would have created a committee of legislators to investigate Mulroy. It was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee but never considered.

The TBA Dispute Resolution Section directory is a great place to find colleagues with a similar focus. The directory provides a list of section members with contact information, as well as listing any other sections or TBA groups to which they belong. This resource provides a great way to connect with like-minded lawyers and find dispute resolution attorneys who are well-versed in other practice areas as well. View the section directory here.

TBA’s member benefit partner Clio has released the 2025 Legal Trends for Mid-Sized Law Firms Report, which examines key trends shaping mid-sized law firms and provides data and insights to navigate industry shifts. For the first time, this year’s report explored hourly rates by firm size, finding that mid-sized law firms charge higher average hourly rates than smaller firms for both lawyers and non-lawyer professionals, and see greater variation in the rates charged than smaller firms. The report also looks at the prevalence of AI, use of flat fee billing structures, marketing modes for lead generation and spending on software programs. Read more highlights or view the full report.

The 2025 Dispute Resolution Forum will take place virtually on May 14 from 9 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. CDT. The program will feature carefully crafted sessions tailored to both lawyers and mediators presented by speakers from the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) vocation. The forum will begin with a panel discussion of ADR in the federal space, move on to a session covering mass arbitrations and will end with an ethics course. Reserve your spot today!