State officials have asked the Tennessee Supreme Court to restore a school voucher law overturned in September by the appeals court, the Daily Memphian reports. Attorney General Herbert Slatery III filed the state’s application to appeal just days before the court’s deadline for continuing the case. Gov. Bill Lee has vowed to continue fighting for the 2019 law, which would provide taxpayer money to eligible families in Memphis and Nashville to pay for private school tuition. The two jurisdictions challenged the law arguing it is unconstitutional because it only applies to their communities and does not give local governments or voters a say. The government says that if the program is successful, it will expand it throughout the state.

The Tennessee Supreme Court this week issued an order, following several since March, to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic. The order comes in response to several factors including a significant increase in COVID-19 cases in the state and a number of reports of instances of failure to comply with written plans of judicial districts by judges, attorneys and litigants, including the appearance in open court of attorneys and litigants who have tested positive for COVID-19. The order reaffirmed a mandatory face coverings requirement and suspended all jury trials through Jan. 31, 2021, (with exceptions granted by the chief justice on a case-by-case basis). The TBA is aware that many attorneys have reported issues of concern to the court throughout the pandemic. As part of the TBA’s ongoing commitment to collecting data and working with Tennessee’s legislative, judicial and executive branches on solutions for attorneys, the TBA has created an email account for lawyers to use for communicating concerns related to the pandemic and their practices. Please submit comments to pandemic@tnbar.org. Feel free to share this email address with others.

The Tennessee Supreme Court today asked for comments on a petition that calls for modifying state rules on lawyer advertising. Comments should be submitted to the court by March 21, 2021, either by email or by mail to Clerk James M. Hivner, Tennessee Appellate Courts, 100 Supreme Court Building, 401 7th Ave. N., Nashville, TN 37219. The petition from the TBA proposes amendments to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 8 and Rules of Professional Conduct 7.1, 7.2 7.3, 7.4, 7.5 and 7.6 with the goal of (1) culling down restrictions on lawyer advertising to the core requirement that lawyers not make false or misleading statements about themselves or their services, and (2) removing restrictions on communications by lawyers when communications are not likely to cause consumer harm.

The Tennessee Supreme Court has six cases set for its docket this week. The first five cases will be heard using livestream video conferencing, while the sixth case will be submitted on briefs. Hearings began today and continue Thursday. Cases include questions of double jeopardy in a death penalty case, fraud claims in a commercial trucking transaction, use restrictions on property originally part of a neighborhood development, commercial dispute between the city of Memphis and Elvis Presley Enterprises, a parental termination case, and a case involving the state’s criminal gang enhancement statute.

The TBA filed a petition with the Tennessee Supreme Court today requesting modifications to S. Ct. Rule 8 and Rules of Professional Conduct 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5 and 7.6, which address advertising of services. The petition was drafted by the TBA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility and proposes two changes: (1) culling down restrictions on lawyer advertising to the core requirement that lawyers not make false or misleading statements about themselves or their services, and (2) removing restrictions on communications by lawyers when communications are not likely to cause consumer harm.

The Tennessee Supreme Court today issued an order directing that the February 2021 bar exam be administered as a “remote, computer-based test.” The court states that with COVID-19 cases continuing to increase in Tennessee, an in-person exam “even with safety precautions in effect … cannot be justified at this time.” The order allows those who transferred their application for the July exam to the February testing date to transfer the application again with no additional fees to “a concurrent" Uniform Bar Examination. It also allows those who transferred their July application to February and now no longer wish to take the exam to withdraw their application by Nov. 10 and receive a refund of $400. Earlier this week, the National Conference of Bar Examiners announced that jurisdictions could choose to administer the February exam either in person or remotely on Feb. 23 and 24, 2021. Read more from the court.

The Tennessee Supreme Court last week issued an order adopting proposed changes to Rule 9, Section 27.4, which pertain to the status of an attorney seeking to transfer to disability inactive status during the course of disciplinary proceedings. The court solicited comments on the proposed change through Oct. 1. It received just one comment and that came from the Board of Professional Responsibility, which stated that it supports the proposed amendments. The amendments take effect immediately. See the changes being made in this red-line version.

The Tennessee Supreme Court today released an opinion that affirms a holding of the Court of Appeals that the Brentwood company Crouch Railway Consulting LLC met its burden of establishing personal jurisdiction to sue LS Energy Fabrication LLC. Crouch filed a breach of contract and unjust enrichment action against LS Energy after it failed to pay what Crouch claimed it was owed for design and consulting services. LS Energy, a Texas company, filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that Tennessee lacked personal jurisdiction over the Texas company. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss, but that ruling was later overturned by the Court of Appeals. LS Energy appealed to the state’s high court, which, in a unanimous opinion, found that the Tennessee court’s exercise of specific personal jurisdiction over LS Energy in this case was constitutionally permissible. Read more on the Administrative Office of the Courts website.

The Tennessee Supreme Court today suspended the law license of Morristown attorney Douglas Ralph Beier for two years. The court held that Beier made false representations in a child custody case, exploited a client with a disability in an estate case, and engaged in dishonest conduct in order to get an exorbitant fee from an estate. The Board of Professional Responsibility (BPR) originally recommended a three-month active suspension followed by 21 months of probation. The chancery court ruled that the discipline should be increased to two years of active suspension. The Supreme Court agreed with the chancery court and rejected the probation time. The court pointed to the seriousness of the breach of ethics rules and the fact that Beier refused to acknowledge the wrongfulness of his conduct as reasoning for its decision. Read the BPR release.

The Tennessee Supreme Court unanimously held today that an appellate court does not have the authority to consider an issue, or raise an issue on its own, that was not raised in the post-conviction trial court. The decision came in the case of Marty Holland, who pled guilty to attempted first-degree murder and especially aggravated robbery and agreed to serve a 17-year sentence. He also agreed to concurrently serve a federal sentence for an unrelated bank robbery. Holland later argued that (1) his conviction was the result of an unlawful search and seizure, (2) his conviction was the result of an unlawful bench warrant, (3) he lacked effective assistance of counsel, (4) he had newly discovered evidence, and (5) the evidence used in the conviction was obtained illegally. The trial court and Court of Criminal Appeals denied the relief but the appeals court remanded the case for a hearing to consider whether Holland was fully informed of the circumstances of agreeing to serve concurrent state and federal sentences. The Supreme Court found that the concurrent sentencing issue had been waived and could no longer be a basis for relief. Read the opinion.