TBA offers a one-stop shop for starting a solo practice, with hundreds of resources for starting, growing and managing a practice, access to a special email address for tech and practice management questions, and comparison charts on law tech tools. Legal research is covered with your membership, providing access to court opinions from all 50 states and all federal courts as well as unlimited usage, printing and customer service. Finally, use discounts for Clio practice management tools, LawPay for processing client credit card charges and legal malpractice insurance to protect yourself. Start your membership here.

Join the University of Tennessee Winston College of Law for the 26th Annual Julian Blackshear Jr. Scholarship Gala, a tradition honoring one of Winston Law’s first Black graduates and celebrating the school's commitment to expanding access to legal education. This event supports the Julian Blackshear Scholarship Endowment, which helps recruit exceptional future students. Iké Adeyemi, senior vice president, chief legal officer and corporate secretary of Eastman Chemical is this year’s keynote speaker. Attendees should register by March 13.

Make plans now to join colleagues on April 10 in Nashville for the inaugural Business College, sponsored by the TBA's Young Lawyers Division (YLD). The program is designed as a practical refresher and foundation course for new and young attorneys, or for any lawyer who wants to brush up on the basics of transactional law. Geared toward real-world practice, the program focuses on core concepts, ethical considerations and emerging issues in business law, with hands-on guidance and takeaways attendees can use right away to more confidently and efficiently handle a wide range of business legal matters for their clients. Visit the TBA's website for more information and to register.

The Knoxville Bar Association and the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, in partnership with Legal Aid of East Tennessee (LAET), will hold a Debt Relief Clinic on March 28 to provide pro bono legal services to income-eligible consumer debtors. The clinic will begin at 9 a.m. EDT at the Knox County Public Defender's Community Law Office, 1101 Liberty St., Knoxville 37919. Judge Suzanne Bauknight will present a short overview of the bankruptcy system and then volunteer lawyers will conduct initial meetings with the clients to discuss their situations and options. Those interested in helping should register online. Clients seeking advice should call 865-637-0484.

Question 1: Does Tenn. Code Ann. § 48-249-1109(e)(1) grant any cross-combination of professionals listed in subdivisions (A)-(E) the right to be members or holders of financial rights of the same PLLC?

Opinion 1: No. Question 2 If the answer to Question 1 is “Yes,” must the ownership combination of the PLLC have at least one physician licensed under title 63, chapter 6 or 9, except radiologists, pathologists, and anesthesiologists?

Opinion 2: Because of the answer to Question 1, this question is moot. Question 3 If the answer to Question 1 is “No,” does the language contained within Tenn. Code Ann. § 48-249-1109(b) allow cross-combinations if authorized by an applicable licensing authority?

Opinion 3: Probably yes.

Question 4: Does Tenn. Code Ann. § 48-249-1109(e) grant the following three health care professionals the right to be members or holders of financial rights of the same PLLC: a. Physicians licensed under title 63, chapter 6 or 9, except radiologists, pathologists, and anesthesiologists; b. c.

Opinion 4: No.

Question 1: Is the presence, absence, or content of pesticide labeling in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 43-8-104 and/or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”) an essential element of a claim against a manufacturer or seller of a pesticide that is based on one or more of the following theories of liability: negligence; strict liability; breach of warranty; design defect; inadequate testing; inherently unsafe for the intended use; deviation from intended design during production; and assurances of product quality or safety?

Opinion 1: It depends on the specific allegations asserted against the manufacturer or seller.

Question 2: Would passage of Senate Bill 527/House Bill 809 allow manufacturers to use labeling of a pesticide in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 43-8-104 and/or FIFRA as a defense against theories listed in Question 1?

Opinion 2: It depends on the specific allegations asserted against the manufacturer.

Question 3: If Senate Bill 527/House Bill 809 becomes law, will a person who is injured by a pesticide that is labeled in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 43-8-104 and/or FIFRA be able to maintain a claim against the pesticide manufacturer? If yes, under which cause(s) of action and what elements would the injured person have to prove to establish a claim under such cause of action compared to the elements the injured person would have to prove to establish a claim based on negligence for failure to warn?

Opinion 3: See response to Question 2. The viability of a given cause of action would depend on what is alleged.

Question 4: Does Senate Bill 527/House Bill 809 bar civil actions for damages caused by a pesticide that are discovered before a pesticide’s label was approved or updated in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 43-8-104 and/or FIFRA? After a pesticide’s label was approved or updated in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 43-8-104 and/or FIFRA?

Opinion 4: As specifically phrased, we do not think that either of the respective queries posed through the above question admit definitive answers.

Question 5: Does Senate Bill 527/House Bill 809 violate 7 U.S.C. § 136a(f)(2)? Opinion 5 No. The proposed legislation would not “violate” the referenced federal provision.

DAVIS, Circuit Judge. A jury convicted Amador Magallon Guerrero of multiple counts of conspiracy, drug trafficking, and money laundering. Prior to trial, Guerrero moved to suppress some of the evidence against him—including his confession and information retrieved from his cellphones. But his efforts were unsuccessful. He appeals the district court’s denial of two of his motions to suppress. Guerrero argues that the district court erred in denying these motions because the record shows that agents violated his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights in obtaining the statements comprising his confession, and they violated his Fourth Amendment rights in conducting the warrantless cellphone searches. Because Guerrero has not established reversible error relating to either motion, we AFFIRM.

The Defendant, Marquez L. Maxwell, was convicted by a Rutherford County Circuit Court jury of one count of rape of a child. The trial court entered judgment ordering the Defendant to serve a thirty-year sentence at one hundred percent service, with community supervision for life following the expiration of his sentence. On appeal, the Defendant claims that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction and that the trial court erred by failing to answer a jury question about its ability to reach a verdict and by simply administering a Kersey v. State, 525 S.W.2d 139, 144-45 (Tenn. 1975) instruction to the jury. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Make plans now to join colleagues from across the state at the TBA’s 2026 Annual Convention, set for June 10-13, in downtown Knoxville. Annual favorites such as the Lawyers Luncheon, compelling CLE and the swearing in of TBA’s new president will return, as will the Wednesday night welcome reception and a Thursday evening reception at Knoxville’s minor league ballpark, home of the Tennessee Smokies. This year’s convention also will include TBA’s first-ever Tech Show, tech focused CLE programs and several lunch and learn opportunities with tech vendors. The four-day event will take place at the Crowne Plaza Knoxville. Stay tuned for more information coming soon to the event website!

The Petitioner, Jacob Evan Coyne, appeals from the Hamilton County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel based upon trial counsel’s (1) failure to investigate or file pretrial motions challenging the credibility of an officer who investigated his case, (2) failure to sufficiently meet with or to advise the Petitioner regarding the nature of his case, and (3) failure to adequately advise the Petitioner regarding the status of plea negotiations. Discerning no error, we affirm.