Memphis attorney William Carey Bateman Jr. died Nov. 26 at age 87. He graduated from East High School in 1956 and after a year at the University of Tennessee, enlisted in the U.S. Army. Batemen went on to graduate from Memphis State Law in its first graduating class of 1965. In his more than 40 years of practice, he was a partner at Johnson & Bateman, Bateman & Childers, and Bateman Gibson. He also served as an assistant city attorney during two mayoral administrations and as a JAG in the Navy reserves. Visitation will be held from 5-7 p.m. CST on Dec. 5 at Memorial Park Cemetery, 5668 Poplar Ave., Memphis 38119. A memorial service will be held at 11 a.m. on Dec. 6 at First Evangelical Church, 735 Ridge Lake Blvd., Memphis 38120. A private burial will occur at Memorial Park Cemetery. Memorial donations may be made to the Judge and Mrs. William Carey Bateman Memorial Scholarship at Union University.

The TBA's Year End CLE event is now underway with a range of packages that make getting your hours easy. The 15-hour package offers a mix of ethics, AI, law practice management, professional skills, attorney wellness and a 2025 legislative update. Check out the courses included in this package on the TBA website. Looking for something else? TBA also has six, eight, 10 and 12-hour packages, packages based on specific topics or practice areas, live webcasts and on-demand video all month long. Explore all the options to complete your CLE requirement by Dec. 31.

On Nov. 26, the Tennessee Supreme Court imposed censures on Shelby County lawyers John Michael Bailey and Mark Anthony Lambert, both with the law firm of John Michael Bailey Injury Lawyers. The court found that the law firm was hired by a client for a personal injury matter. Lambert filed a complaint in federal court and included his law partner’s name when Bailey was not admitted to practice in that court. Neither Bailey nor Lambert filed a motion for pro hac vice admission and neither attended the initial case management conference or responded to a show cause order why the matter should not be dismissed. Their actions were determined to violate Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3, 3.2, 3.4 and 8.4(d).

In this termination of parental rights case, the trial court denied Appellant’s multiple motions to recuse. Appellant filed this interlocutory appeal as of right pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The trial court denied Appellant’s seventh and eighth motions to recuse. Appellant filed this interlocutory appeal as of right pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Because the order from which the appellant has filed an appeal does not constitute a final appealable judgment, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

In this action, the trial court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims based on res judicata and failure to prosecute. The plaintiffs have appealed in companion appeals. 1 Upon our review, we vacate the trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims and remand for further proceedings. We deny the plaintiffs’ request for an award of attorney’s fees on appeal.

In this action, the trial court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims based on res judicata and failure to prosecute. The plaintiffs have appealed in companion appeals. Upon review, we vacate the trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims and remand for further proceedings. We deny the plaintiffs’ request for an award of attorney’s fees on appeal.

In this interlocutory appeal, the employee challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion to compel. The employee alleged he contracted several diseases, including metastatic cancer and toxic encephalopathy, as a result of occupational exposures over the course of his employment with the employer. The employer obtained an opinion from a doctor specializing in oncology and hematology regarding causation who initially determined the employee’s conditions were more likely than not caused by occupational exposures. However, once the employer provided additional information to its expert regarding the employee’s medical history and conditions at the employer’s facility, she revised her causation opinion. After the employer declined to allow the employee to enter its facility to obtain video and photographs of conditions inside the plant, the employee filed a motion to compel. The employer objected to the employee’s request on the grounds of relevance and confidentiality, stating that it could not grant such access to the facility because of its obligations to its customers, including the United States military, and any video and photographs obtained would not be relevant because the employee had not worked at the facility in ten years. The trial court denied the motion to compel, and the employee has appealed. Having carefully reviewed the record, we affirm the trial court’s order and remand the case.

November 24, 2025 - November 28, 2025.