Car dealership and customer signed a purchase agreement containing a provision that the contract would become void if the dealership was unable to “assign this contract (get a credit approval)” within a certain time period. A financing company conditionally approved the customer’s credit application within the relevant period but later revoked its approval and never provided any funding. The customer returned the vehicle, made no payments toward its purchase, and sued the dealership for breach of contract and violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. The jury found in favor of the customer, and the trial court awarded treble damages. Following the denial of its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for new trial, the dealership appeals. We affirm and award the customer her reasonable appellate attorney’s fees.

This appeal arises from a lawsuit filed by a mother, individually and on behalf of her daughter, against the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County and the State of Tennessee after her daughter sustained paralyzing injuries while attending a public school. After a four-day bench trial, the trial court found that both defendants were negligent and that each was fifty percent at fault for the child’s injuries. The trial court found that the plaintiffs should be awarded total compensatory damages of $10,902,348.02, but it reduced the judgment to $600,000 ($300,000 against each defendant) in accordance with the applicable statutory caps. Metro has appealed, while the State has not. For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the circuit court.

The number of lawyers in the United States increased significantly this year for the first time since 2020, rising from 1.35 million in 2024 to 1.37 million this year, according to the American Bar Association (ABA) 2025 Profile of the Legal Profession. The profile is based on findings from the National Lawyer Population Survey (NLPS) published by the ABA’s Center for Bar Leadership. In total, the number of resident active lawyers in the U.S. has grown by 73,363 over the last 10 years, an increase of 5.6%, according to the survey. The ABA has collected data on the number of U.S. lawyers since 1878. Over the last 147 years, overall growth has been consistently positive, with short bursts of rapid expansion. Read more about the NLPS and download the full report.

This case focuses on the termination of parental rights of Violet B. (“Mother”) and Coy B. (“Father”) to their Child, Madison B. The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) sought termination of Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to Madison and Madison’s older sister, Kaylee B., in two separate petitions filed in the Sevier County Juvenile Court (“trial court”).1 The trial court conducted a joint hearing on both petitions and entered two separate orders terminating Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to each child.2 The trial court entered an order terminating Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to Madison after finding that clear and convincing evidence supported termination based upon the ground of mental incompetence. The trial court further determined by clear and convincing evidence that termination was in Madison’s best interest. Father has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

This case focuses on the termination of parental rights of Violet B. (“Mother”) and Coy B. (“Father”) to their Child, Kaylee B. Mother gave birth to Kaylee in June 2022, and the parents had a second child, Madison B., in December 2023. 1 The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) sought termination of Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to each child in two separate petitions filed in the Sevier County Juvenile Court (“trial court”).2 The trial court conducted a joint hearing on both petitions and entered two separate orders terminating Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to each child. The trial court entered an order terminating Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to Kaylee based upon two statutory grounds. The trial court further determined by clear and convincing evidence that termination of Mother’s and Father’s parental rights was in Kaylee’s best interest. Father has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

Under the Tennessee Public Participation Act, a party may seek dismissal of a lawsuit that was filed “in response to that party’s exercise of the right to free speech, right to petition, or right of association.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-17-105(a) (2021). In this case, two lawyers sought to dismiss a tort action brought by the sister and brother-in-law of a former client. The lawyers had represented the former client in a series of unsuccessful lawsuits against the sister and brother-in-law related to their administration of a family trust. Dissatisfied with their representation, the former client sued the lawyers for legal malpractice and fraudulent concealment. Based on that alleged conduct, the sister and brother-in-law also sued the lawyers under the tort-of-another doctrine. The lawyers sought to dismiss the tort action on the theory that it was filed in response to the lawyers’ exercise of the right to petition in the underlying trust litigation. We hold that the lawyers failed to show that the tort action was filed in response to their exercise of the right to petition. Assuming that filing a lawsuit is an “exercise of the right to petition” within the meaning of the statute, a lawyer who files a lawsuit on behalf of a client does not personally exercise that right. Instead, a lawyer at most facilitates his client’s exercise of the right. Because the lawyers here cannot show that the action was filed in response to their exercise of the right to petition, the action should not be dismissed under the Tennessee Public Participation Act. We reverse the Court of Appeals’ contrary holding and remand to the trial court for further proceedings.

Under the Tennessee Public Participation Act, a party may seek dismissal of a lawsuit that was filed “in response to that party’s exercise of the right to free speech, right to petition, or right of association.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-17-105(a) (2021). In this appeal, we consider whether lawyers sued by their former client for legal malpractice and fraudulent concealment may seek dismissal of the lawsuit on the theory that it was filed in response to the lawyers’ exercise of the right to petition—namely, the filing of a lawsuit on behalf of their client. We hold they may not. Assuming that filing a lawsuit is an “exercise of the right to petition” within the meaning of the statute, a lawyer who files a lawsuit on behalf of a client does not personally exercise that right. Instead, the lawyer at most facilitates his client’s exercise of the right. Because the lawyers here cannot show that their former client filed the malpractice and fraudulent concealment action in response to the lawyers’ exercise of the right to petition, the action should not be dismissed under the Tennessee Public Participation Act. We reverse the Court of Appeals’ contrary holding and remand to the trial court for further proceedings.

The Tennessee Supreme Court adopted amendments to two rules last week. In the first order, the court announced the adoption of an amendment to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 12.4(E) to set forth the procedures and deadlines for litigation that could affect the method or timing of an execution when the litigation is filed after an execution date is set. In the second order, the court announced an amendment to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 54 to add a new type of civil complaint required to be heard by a three-judge panel. The court explained that the action was taken after the General Assembly passed and the governor signed new legislation amending Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 20. Both orders were adopted on Dec. 5 and took effect immediately.

Anderson County lawyer Bradley David Williams was reinstated to the practice of law on Dec. 2. He had been on inactive status since Dec. 15, 2015. According to the Tennessee Supreme Court, Williams filed a reinstatement petition, which the Board of Professional Responsibility found to be satisfactory.

Knox County lawyer Keri Elizabeth Rule was temporarily suspended from the practice of law on Dec. 5. The Tennessee Supreme Court took the action after finding that Rule failed to respond to the Board of Professional Responsibility concerning a complaint of misconduct. The suspension will remain in effect until dissolution or modification by the court.