Based on input from more than 1,300 legal professionals, the 2026 Legal Industry Report from 8am™ covers three major themes shaping the legal field right now: the rapid rise of legal AI, persistent gaps in access to justice and growing concern about the rule of law. Key findings from the survey include: 69% of legal professionals now use general-purpose AI tools, yet fewer than half of firms have provided training on how to use them responsibly; 76% of respondents believe AI could help narrow the access-to-justice gap; and 62% of lawyers say the rule of law is under threat. The report also explores where firms are seeing the biggest returns on technology investment. 8am™ is a TBA member benefit partner. Read the report or learn more about their products and services.

The Tennessee Lawyers Association for Women (TLAW) will host its annual meeting and breakfast on June 12 from 7:30-8:45 a.m. EDT during the TBA's Annual Convention in Knoxville. Tennessee Supreme Court Justice Holly Kirby will deliver the keynote address on "Justice. Leadership. Grace." TBA Convention registration does not include the TLAW Annual Meeting and breakfast. Tickets are $38 and can be purchased at www.tlaw.org. Attendance without breakfast is free, but registration is required. View a flyer for the event.

This appeal addresses sealing judicial records. Three filings were sealed without a written order. The presiding judge later recused herself and the matter was transferred. Then The Nashville Banner intervened to unseal the records. The trial court denied the motion to unseal. The appellate court denied the Rule 10 appeal and then denied the petition for writ of certiorari. We reverse. Rule 10 interlocutory review is available to media intervenors when judicial proceedings are closed or documents are sealed. Sealing judicial records protected by the First Amendment right of access requires entry of a written order after finding that a compelling interest necessitates sealing. Any such order must be narrowly tailored and seal only those judicial records, or the portions thereof, necessary to protect the identified interest. After conducting a de novo review, we do not find a compelling interest necessitating sealing. The documents shall be made available to the public.

Former Ohio Solicitor General Benjamin Flowers recently appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee for his confirmation hearing to serve on the Cincinnati-based U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. Nominated by President Donald Trump in April, Flowers faced scrutiny regarding past legal advocacy and questions about the 2020 election, according to Cleveland.com. Flowers is an attorney at Ashbrook Byrne Kresge Flowers in Cincinnati. He previously worked for Jones Day and Sidley Austin. If confirmed, he will fill the seat currently held by Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton, who plans to take senior status on Oct. 1.

A Knox County jury convicted the Defendant, Ralphelle Antre James, of second degree murder, unlawful possession of a weapon by a convicted felon, and felony reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective thirty-six years of incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant raises two related issues. First, he asserts that the trial court improperly denied his motion to continue the trial to investigate a late-added witness. He also argues that the trial court erred in allowing the late-added witness to testify, contending that the testimony violated Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b) and denied him a fair trial. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Plaintiff appeals the denial of her motion to recuse the trial court judge, which raised allegations of bias related to, inter alia, the treatment of her pro se status and her lack of personal notice of court filings, the lack of response to her ex parte communication, the failure to report alleged attorney misconduct, and the entry of certain court orders. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

The Appellant brought suit against his psychiatrist and the psychiatrist’s clinic, but the trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants. After appellate briefing and oral argument but prior to the filing of the opinion of the Court of Appeals affirming the trial court, the psychiatrist died. The Appellant became aware of the death after the Tennessee Supreme Court denied his application for permission to appeal. He, subsequently, filed numerous motions for relief in the trial court. The trial court denied relief under Rule 60 and denied the other motions. We affirm.

This appeal arises from a general claim of negligence stemming from a dog bite. The plaintiffs adopted a dog from an animal shelter owned and operated by the defendant, a governmental entity. The dog bit one of the plaintiffs shortly after adoption. The plaintiffs sued, claiming that the shelter had a duty to warn them of the dog’s dangerous propensities but failed to do so. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court determined that the evidence did not create a genuine issue of material fact regarding the foreseeability of the incident, and therefore, the plaintiffs could not establish the defendant owed them a duty to warn. Accordingly, the trial court granted the motion for summary judgment. The plaintiffs appeal. We affirm.

The trial court entered a parenting plan setting parenting time and child support between Mother and Father. Mother appealed. Mother raises a due process challenge to the trial extending into the late evening of the last day. She also challenges the trial court’s analysis of the best interest factors, its allocation of parenting time, its designation of Father as the primary residential parent, its awarding to Father sole decision-making authority, and its denial of Mother’s motion to alter or amend. Father seeks attorney’s fees on appeal. We affirm the trial court’s ruling and award attorney’s fees.

Defendant, Elliot Arnaz Price, was indicted by the Knox County Grand Jury for one count of burglary. After trial, a petit jury convicted Defendant as charged. The trial court classified Defendant as a career offender and sentenced him to an effective sentence of twelve years’ incarceration. On appeal, Defendant argues (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for burglary; (2) the trial court committed reversible error in violation of Tennessee Rules of Evidence 608 and 609 by admitting evidence of Defendant’s prior charge for burglary and of Defendant’s conduct underlying the burglary charge; (3) the trial court committed reversible error by classifying him as a career offender; (4) the trial court committed plain error in violation of Defendant’s confrontation rights by admitting the arresting officer’s affidavit from a prior theft case; and (5) the trial court committed plain error by improperly instructing the jury that the “without the consent of the property owner” element of burglary applied to Defendant’s “actions” rather than Defendant’s “entry” onto the victim’s property.2 After review, we conclude there are instances of error made by the trial court, but determine such errors were harmless and affirm the judgment of the trial court.