The Metro Nashville Council approved a new budget Tuesday night, including $400,000 to launch an Indigent Defense and Excellence in Advocacy program. Developed by former Davidson County Public Defender Dawn Deaner and veteran defense attorney Jodie Bell, the program mirrors a federal model program to improve representation for poor criminal defendants and more thoroughly vet attorneys appointed to take their cases. The council also approved use of the funds to hire additional staff for the public defender’s office. Nashville’s public defenders, like those around the country, regularly carry a far heavier caseload than state guidelines recommend, Nashville Banner reports.

The Tennessee Supreme Court has permanently disbarred Davidson County lawyer Robert Allen Doll III after he was convicted on three criminal charges. The decision upholds the recommendation of a Board of Professional Responsibility (BPR) hearing panel and the Davidson County Chancery Court, both of which Doll had challenged. The court found that Doll, while representing a client in post-divorce proceedings, signed the client’s name to a petition and instructed the client to tell the court she had signed the document. The client testified that Doll never informed her she could be charged for lying under oath, and in fact, she was indicted on two counts of aggravated perjury. A jury convicted Doll on two counts of subornation of aggravated perjury for having his client lie under oath and one count of criminal simulation for forging the client’s signature. Read the opinion or more about the case in a release from the court or access the BPR press release.

A bipartisan group seeking to draw more moderate Tennessee Republican and Democrats into voting in state primary contests plans to roll out its first ad next week during the presidential debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden, Tennessee Journal reports. Organizers of the group — known as The Best of Tennessee — say that only about 22% of voters have participated in party primaries in recent years. According to Tennessee Lookout, the group was founded by Nashville lawyer Chloe Akers.

President Joe Biden has approved Gov. Bill Lee’s request for federal disaster relief following severe storms in Tennessee in May, including deadly tornadoes and flooding. WPLN reports that the aid is approved for recovery efforts by local governments and qualified nonprofits in 12 counties: Cannon, Cheatham, Giles, Hamilton, Jackson, Macon, Maury, Montgomery, Polk, Smith, Sumner and Warren. Lee’s request for individual assistance for residents in the counties hit the hardest is still pending. The storms on May 8 and 9 included 10 tornadoes, damaging hail and record-setting rainfall in some areas.

More than a dozen lawyers were in Davidson County Chancery Court on Monday expecting a hearing on whether the Tennessee Star should be held in contempt for publishing leaked documents related to the Covenant School shooting. Instead, according to the Nashville Banner, lawyers on both sides argued that issues around the leak and subsequent publication should not delay a ruling on the underlying case of whether the Covenant documents are subject to Tennessee’s Open Records Act. Chancellor I’Ashea Myles indicated that a decision on that question is imminent. She also revealed that she had an opinion ready to release on June 14 when she learned about the Star’s coverage.

SUTTON, Chief Judge. Heavy rains prompted the Edenville Dam in Michigan to fail, flooding several cities downstream. Eight affected landowners sued Midland and Gladwin Counties, alleging a taking under the federal and state constitutions. The district court granted summary judgment to the counties. We affirm

Attorneys general from 19 Democratic-led states have pledged to help defend the American Bar Association’s (ABA) requirement that law schools advance diversity goals. The move comes after a coalition of Republican-led states, including Tennessee, questioned the ABA accreditation standard earlier this month, Reuters reports. The Democratic group argues that the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2023 ruling curtailing the consideration of race in college admissions does not extend into ABA policies or corporate diversity programs. The ABA previously announced it is revising its diversity standard and could adopt changes as early as August.

This is a child custody matter involving the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-201, et seq. (“the UCCJEA”). Leslie Burke and Melissa Burke (“the Burkes”) received temporary custody pending adoption of the minor child Jane Doe (“the Child”) from an Indiana court (“the Indiana Court”). The Burkes then brought the Child to Tennessee. The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) later filed a dependency and neglect action in the Juvenile Court for Greene County (“the Juvenile Court”). DCS alleged that the Child disclosed having been sexually abused in previous adoptive homes, and that the Burkes were not cooperating with individual therapy for the Child. The Juvenile Court ordered the Child’s removal into DCS custody. The Child’s legal parents in Indiana surrendered their parental rights. DCS moved for guardianship of the Child in the Circuit Court for Greene County (“the Circuit Court”), which the Circuit Court granted. The Burkes sued DCS2 in the Circuit Court challenging the legal parents’ surrender of their parental rights and the Circuit Court’s award of full guardianship to DCS. The Burkes and DCS filed motions for summary judgment. The Circuit Court ruled in favor of DCS, dismissing the Burkes’ complaint. The Burkes appeal, arguing that the Circuit Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction even though the Indiana Court expressly ceded jurisdiction to Tennessee. We hold, inter alia, that Indiana relinquished its exclusive, continuing jurisdiction. We affirm.

The Department of Children’s Services filed a petition to terminate the mother’s parental rights to her five children on multiple grounds. The trial court found that grounds had been proven and that termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests. The mother of all five children appeals. For the reasons stated below, we vacate that part of the judgment terminating Mother’s parental rights to Destiney S. and Serenity S. because they attained the age of majority prior to the entry of the final judgment. As for the three youngest children, Aurora R., Kanan R., and Kyaion R., we affirm the trial court’s determination that grounds for termination of Mother’s parental rights were proven and that termination of Mother’s parental rights is in their best interests. Accordingly, we affirm the termination of Mother’s parental rights to Aurora R., Kanan R., and Kyaion R.

In this case, an attorney appeals the recommended sanction of disbarment after three criminal convictions. The attorney was convicted by a jury of two counts of subornation of aggravated perjury and one count of criminal simulation, all Class E felony offenses and serious crimes under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, section 22. All three criminal convictions arose out of the attorney’s conduct in representing a client. In the ensuing disciplinary proceedings, a Board of Professional Responsibility hearing panel recommended disbarment. The attorney appealed the hearing panel’s decision to the chancery court, which affirmed. The attorney appealed to this Court. On appeal, the attorney argues the hearing panel should have reviewed similar cases of attorney misconduct where a suspension was imposed, and that he should be suspended based on the sanction imposed in those cases. Under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Board of Professional Responsibility hearing panels and trial courts considering attorney discipline promote consistency in the imposition of sanctions by anchoring their decisions on punishment to the American Bar Association Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions. Rule 9 does not give either hearing panels or trial courts authority in attorney disciplinary cases to base recommended attorney disciplinary sanctions on a review of sanctions imposed in comparative cases. The Supreme Court’s more expansive perspective from seeing the broad swath of attorney disciplinary matters in the entirety of the State—whether appealed or not—puts it in the best position to consider comparative cases for the sake of uniformity of punishment throughout Tennessee. In this case, considering the nature of the attorney’s misconduct, no comparable case convinces us that suspension, rather than disbarment, is the appropriate sanction. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the chancery court and the decision of the hearing panel and impose the sanction of disbarment.