The Tennessee Supreme Court last week denied a petition from the Tennessee Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection (TLFCP) to increase the annual attorney registration fee from $170 to $185 and to raise the portion of the fee it receives to $25. The court, however, said the petition “highlighted the need for a comprehensive review of the sufficiency of the annual registration fee and the allocation of funds” and that it would conduct such a review itself. At the completion of the review, the court said it would reconsider the request on its own motion. The court did grant two other TLFCP requests: (1) to modify the limitations on payments it may make by increasing the per-attorney cap and making the aggregate cap discretionary; and (2) to require it to publicize information about claims that are paid. These changes were made in Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 25, section 6.01(c), and Rule 9, section 28.11, and are spelled out in the attached order.

The Tennessee Supreme Court has ordered that Violaine Panasci, a Canadian attorney who passed the Uniform Bar Exam and is licensed to practice in New York, should not be precluded from the practice of law in Tennessee. Panasci, who moved to Nashville in in 2021, petitioned the court for admission after the Tennessee Board of Law Examiners (TBLE) denied her application, concluding that she did not meet the requirements for foreign-educated applicants. The high court ruled that “based on Ms. Panasci’s legal education and UBE score, the requirements of section 7.01(a) should not preclude her admission to practice law in Tennessee by transferred UBE score.” Costs of the appeal will be assessed to the BLE. Read the order here.

The Tennessee Supreme Court earlier this week named Jennifer Austin Mitchell to the hearing committee for Disciplinary District III. She will serve from Sept. 12 to March 16, 2025. Read the court’s order.

The Tennessee Supreme Court today clarified uncertainties concerning the appropriate standard of review to apply to claims of alleged prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument when no objection was lodged at the time of the alleged misconduct but the claim is raised in a motion for new trial. After reviewing State v. Tyler Ward Enix, the high court clarified that failure to object to a prosecutor’s statements during closing arguments results in waiver on appeal and that the plain error standard of review applies to claims that are treated as waived. The Administrative Office of the Courts has more on the case and the Supreme Court’s decision.

The Tennessee Supreme Court will hear two cases in Knoxville for its September docket. State of Tennessee v. Johnny Summers Cavin will begin at 9 a.m. EDT and will be followed by State of Tennessee v. Joseph Gevedon. Both cases will be livestreamed on the Administrative Office of the Courts YouTube page. More information on both cases can be found on the AOC’s website.  

The Tennessee Supreme Court issued an order soliciting comments on proposed amendments to the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure and Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure. The court notes that the Advisory Commission on the Rules of Practice & Procedure recommended these changes during its 2021-2022 term, which ended on June 10. Comments on the amendments are due by Dec. 2 and should be emailed to appellatecourtclerk@tncourts.gov or mailed to James Hivner, Clerk, Re: 2023 Rules Package, 100 Supreme Court Building, 401 7th Ave. N., Nashville, TN 37219-1407. Comments also should reference docket number ADM2022-01198.

The Tennessee Supreme Court today appointed 27th Judicial District Circuit Court Judge Jeff Parham and Lynnville Municipal Judge Cara Lynn to its Judicial Ethics Committee. Parham replaces 30th Judicial District Circuit Court Judge Jerry Stokes, who retired today. Lynn replaces Judge Deana Hood, whose term expired today due to her election to the 21st Judicial District Circuit Court. Both Parham and Lynn will serve through Dec. 31, 2024.

The Tennessee Supreme Court today held that, unless the legislature says otherwise, a person who commits an offense that is later repealed must be prosecuted under the law in effect when the offense was committed. The high court reinstated the sentence of Marvin Maurice Deberry, who was convicted of driving after being declared a motor vehicle habitual offender (MVHO). While Deberry awaited his sentencing hearing, the legislature repealed the MVHO offense and replaced it with alternative procedures. After being sentenced, Deberry filed for a reduction of sentence, citing a state law known as the criminal savings statute. According to the statute, if a new law “provides for a lesser penalty,” then any punishment imposed must be in accordance with the new law. The Court of Criminal Appeals agreed with Deberry, but the Supreme Court today reversed that decision and reinstated Deberry’s sentence. The justices found that when a statute repeals a criminal offense altogether rather than reducing the punishment for the offense, the defendant must be convicted and sentenced under the law in effect at the time of offense. Read more from the Administrative Office of the Courts.

The Tennessee Supreme Court on Wednesday appointed Lynn Zehrt, professor of law at Belmont University College of Law, to its Advisory Commission on the Rules of Practice and Procedure. Zehrt replaces Jeffrey Usman, a Belmont law professor who recently was appointed to serve on the Tennessee Court of Appeals. Read the order.

A challenge to Nashville's laws restricting home-based businesses was today sent back to the trial court by the Tennessee Supreme Court. A Nashville music producer and a licensed cosmetologist, both running businesses out of their homes, sued Metro in 2017 after their businesses were found to be in violation of Nashville’s “client prohibition” law, which states that “No clients or patrons may be served on the property.” A trial court ruled in Metro’s favor. While the appeal was pending, Metro Council repealed the client prohibition law, replacing it with a new law allowing home businesses up to six customer visits per day. The Court of Appeals ruled the case moot due to Metro's repeal of the law. On appeal before the Supreme Court, the plaintiffs argued their case was not moot because they were still being harmed by the new law. The high court found the new law did not completely cure the harm claimed by the plaintiffs and that the appellate court could not be sure whether the plaintiffs will suffer ongoing harm. The justices unanimously decided to vacate the previous decisions and send the case back to trial court. Read more from the Administrative Office of the Courts.