The Tennessee Supreme Court has declined a request to consider a legal dispute over whether the state attorney general (AG) can take control of some post-conviction proceedings in death penalty cases from local district attorneys. According to the Nashville Banner, the court’s decision could remove the last obstacle to setting new execution dates. The AG's office historically has represented the state in capital post-conviction proceedings involving challenges to a person’s conviction or death sentence. Litigation followed the passage of a new state law in 2023, which gave the attorney general's office exclusive control over post-conviction cases in trial courts as well, where defendants can raise claims about legal errors, new evidence of innocence or proof of intellectual disability. No executions have taken place in Tennessee since 2020, but last week, the AG's office asked the state Supreme Court to set execution dates for five people on death row.

The lack of attorneys available for appointed cases is contributing to the crisis in providing legal representation to indigent individuals in Tennessee. Under the current program, many attorneys cannot afford to take these cases due to low compensation and program constraints. The plan proposed by the Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) on behalf of the Tennessee Supreme Court addresses these challenges in a few ways, including via the use of strategic compensation structures for employing and contracting with attorneys. The plan may use a combination of retainer, flat fee and hourly or other contracts, offering more competitive and predictable compensation. Among the advantages of this approach are the elimination of caps and the ability to use predictable and intermittent payment for attorneys. Learn more about the plan and indigent representation in Tennessee. Watch for more details about the plan in upcoming issues of TBA Today.

The Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) on behalf of the Tennessee Supreme Court has proposed a plan to develop a new structure for handling criminal conflicts and civil appointments for indigent clients. Under the plan, the Tennessee Supreme Court would establish an “Office of Indigent Conflicts and Civil Counsel,” with oversight by an “Indigent Representation Commission.” These entities would provide and manage appointed counsel for individuals who are constitutionally and statutorily entitled to representation. The office would manage an estimated 76,000 cases each year. In developing this plan, the Supreme Court and AOC consulted with legislative leadership and other stakeholders, and examined best practices from other jurisdictions. The Supreme Court and the TBA believe that this new structure will better address the impending crisis in the administration of justice in Tennessee and will also relieve trial judges of the burden of appointing attorneys on their own. Learn more about the plan and indigent representation in Tennessee. Watch for more details about the plan in a series of articles to run in TBA Today.

The Tennessee court system is facing a crisis in providing legal representation to indigent individuals who are constitutionally and statutorily entitled to legal counsel. The Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) on behalf of the Tennessee Supreme Court has proposed a plan to help address the emergency and provide long-term stability through the development of a new structure for handling criminal conflicts and civil appointments for indigent clients. Specifically, the plan establishes an “Office of Indigent Conflicts and Civil Counsel,” with oversight by an “Indigent Representation Commission.” The plan highlights the anticipated outcomes, including an increase in the number of attorneys willing to accept appointments via the strategic use of retainers, flat fee and other types of contractual arrangements, and enhancing the quality of representation by providing training and mentorship for attorneys. The plan is structured to facilitate the work of the AOC, the courts, the district public defenders, the district attorneys general, and the private attorneys accepting appointments to be more efficient and effective as the need for indigent legal representation continues to grow. It also engages stakeholders in ongoing collaborations to improve function and accountability and prevent misuse of the system. The TBA has been working alongside the AOC to address this crisis and has key points for attorneys regarding the plan.

The Tennessee Supreme Court held official proceedings inside the Old Supreme Court Chamber at the Tennessee State Capitol for the first time in more than 10 years on Feb. 12. “This is an historic occasion, a homecoming of sorts for our court,” said Chief Justice Holly Kirby. “The Tennessee Supreme Court held its court proceedings in this very room for about three quarters of a century, until 1936 when the Supreme Court moved to the fancy new building down the street.” The historic event brought together all three branches of state government — executive, judicial and legislative — under the Capitol dome. Gov. Bill Lee said of the occasion, "The legislature is in session. The governor’s office is alive and well down there, I can say. We will be signing a bill into law today. There is work being done by all branches of government in this building. It’s historic, it’s important and it’s government at work on behalf of the people.” Read more in a press release from the Administrative Office of the Courts.

The Tennessee Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in several cases in Nashville on Feb. 12. Beginning at 10:30 a.m. CST at the Supreme Court building, the court will hear the case of Ashley Denson ex rel. Bobbie J. Denson v. Methodist Medical Center of Oak Ridge et al.  A second case, James B. Johnson v. Bd. of Prof. Resp. of the Sup. Ct. of Tenn., will be submitted to the court on brief. Then beginning at 1:30 p.m., the court will hear oral arguments in two cases — Brian Coblentz v. Tractor Supply Co. and State v. Shenessa Sokolosky — in the historic Supreme Court courtroom at the state Capitol. All proceedings will be livestreamed to the TNCourts YouTube page. Read more about the cases in a release from the Administrative Office of the Courts.

The Tennessee Supreme Court clarified in an opinion today that holding shareholders responsible for a corporation's actions, known as "piercing the corporate veil," requires three elements: control, wrongdoing and causation. According to a press release, the court also ruled that trial courts must ensure a complaint sufficiently articulates a claim for the relief sought before entering a default judgment. Charles Youree Jr. filed a lawsuit seeking to hold two companies responsible for a monetary judgment he had obtained against another company. When the two companies failed to respond, the trial court awarded him a default judgment. The companies later moved to set aside the judgment, arguing Youree’s complaint lacked sufficient factual allegations for piercing the corporate veil. The trial court denied the motion, but the Court of Appeals reversed the decision. The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding that while a defendant’s failure to answer does admit the factual allegations in a complaint, it does not mandate a default judgment. Instead, courts must ensure that the admitted facts are sufficient to establish a valid claim. When applying the three-prong test to this case, the court found that Youree’s complaint did not contain sufficient factual allegations.

The Tennessee Supreme Court ruled today that a plaintiff who did not refile a negligence lawsuit against Vanderbilt University Medical Center within the required one-year time frame could not assert an extension based on the Health Care Liability Act. According to a press release from the Administrative Office of the Courts, the case began when Clayton D. Richards, a former patient at the medical center, filed a negligence lawsuit in 2014 after giving pre-suit notice as required by law. The lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice, allowing Richards the opportunity to refile the complaint within a year. However, instead of refiling within that time, Richards argued that the act provided a 120-day extension under the Saving Statute, making his lawsuit timely. The trial court disagreed and dismissed the complaint. The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s decision, and in a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court agreed, concluding that the claims were untimely.

The Tennessee Supreme Court issued an order on Jan. 17 soliciting comments on proposed changes to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, sections 26.4 and 33.1. The deadline for submitting comments is March 3. Written comments should reference docket No. ADM2025-00078 and be emailed to appellatecourtclerk@tncourts.gov or mailed to Clerk James Hivner, 100 Supreme Court Building, 401 7th Ave. N., Nashville, TN 37219-1407, RE: Proposed Amendments to Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9, sections 26.4 & 33.1. The changes primarily deal with the process for appealing the judgment of a Board of Professional Responsibility hearing panel.

The Tennessee Supreme Court has addressed allegations from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) that the Tennessee Board of Law Examiners (TBLE) and the Tennessee Lawyers Assistance Program (TLAP) violated the Americans with Disability Act by discriminating against two bar applicants “due to a substance use disorder or mental health disorder.” In a news release, the court says it “strongly disagrees” with the assertion that either agency discriminated against applicants based on health status or disability. “Both TBLE and TLAP follow well-established administrative processes that are designed to avoid discrimination against any applicant.” The statement continues that the court, TBLE and TLAP “have been and remain committed to treating persons with disabilities, including bar applicants with disabilities, with dignity and respect, and in compliance with all legal rights afforded to such applicants.” Read the full statement.