TBA Young Lawyers Division (YLD) Past President Billy Leslie, Secretary Ross Smith and TBA House of Delegates Member Princess Rogers visited the Nashville School of Law (NSL) last month to speak with students about the benefits of their free membership with the TBA, including the Diversity Leadership Institute (DLI) and mentoring programs. They encouraged students to get involved with the TBA early by volunteering at pro bono clinics and attending CLE programs. NSL 3L student Diane Tress, a member of the 2024 DLI class, also was on hand to encourage her peers to apply for that program. See photos from the event.

If you missed the TBA's Legislative Update CLE this summer, the program will be rebroadcast on Oct. 3 from noon to 1:30 p.m. CDT.  Tune in to hear members of TBA's Government Affairs team discuss legislation affecting Tennessee lawyers and share insights into the most recent session of the Tennessee General Assembly. As part of its grassroots advocacy effort, TBA also is seeking to build a network of engaged lawyers across the state to advocate for issues relevant to the practice of law in Tennessee. Learn more and get involved in that effort. To register for the CLE visit the TBA's online course catalog.

The easiest way to have access to client and matter data anywhere is with cloud-based practice management. An internet-connected device is all you need. Use this chart to determine which vendors have the features you desire. Find this and more in the Practice Management section of TBA’s Law Practice Management Center.

TBA Young Lawyers Division (YLD) Past President Billy Leslie, Secretary Ross Smith and TBA House of Delegates Member Princess Rogers visited the Nashville School of Law (NSL) this week to speak with students about the benefits of their free membership with the TBA, including the Diversity Leadership Institute (DLI) and mentoring programs. They encouraged students to get involved with the TBA early by volunteering at pro bono clinics and attending CLE programs. NSL 3L student Diane Tress, a member of the 2024 DLI class, also was on hand to encourage her peers to apply for that program. See photos from the event.

CHAD A. READLER, Circuit Judge. While enrolled in pharmacy school, Kimberly Diei was the subject of professionalism complaints regarding her social media posts. Following an investigation, a committee at the school voted to expel Diei. She responded by filing suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, primarily asserting violations of the First Amendment. The district court dismissed Diei’s complaint. Because she plausibly alleged a free speech violation, we reverse in part and remand.

The Defendant, John Michael Storey, pled guilty as a Range III, persistent offender to reckless homicide and the sale and delivery of fentanyl. As part of the plea, the parties agreed to have the trial court decide the length of the sentences and the manner of their service. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed an effective sentence of eight years and denied the Defendant’s request for an alternative sentence. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court should have granted an alternative sentence or, alternatively, should have modified his sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 35 to provide for probation or split confinement. Upon our review, we conclude that the Defendant’s notice of appeal was untimely as to the trial court’s original sentencing decision, and we dismiss that part of the appeal. We respectfully affirm the trial court’s judgments in all other respects.

The Petitioner, James Lee McClain, appeals the Madison County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief challenging his convictions for aggravated assault and witness coercion. The Petitioner argues he received the ineffective assistance of both pretrial and appellate counsel. Specifically, he contends both attorneys who represented him during the pretrial stage were ineffective by failing to discuss discovery materials and case strategy with him, failing to adequately prepare for trial, and failing to file “critical” motions, resulting in the Petitioner’s having to represent himself at trial. Additionally, he argues appellate counsel was ineffective by failing to include sufficiency of the evidence and severance issues in his direct appeal. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

This appeal concerns whether witness testimony in the course of a parole hearing is absolutely privileged. Fred Auston Wortman, III (“Plaintiff”), a prisoner, filed a defamation lawsuit against Eric Shirkey (“Defendant”), a detective who testified at Plaintiff’s parole hearing, in the Circuit Court for Morgan County (“the Trial Court”).1 Plaintiff alleged that Defendant’s statements about him at the parole hearing, such as calling Plaintiff a “narcissist,” damaged his reputation. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, which the Trial Court granted. The Trial Court concluded that Defendant’s statements were absolutely privileged. Plaintiff appeals, arguing that his parole hearing was administrative rather than judicial in nature, so Defendant’s statements were not protected by absolute privilege. We hold that the parole board, in considering whether to grant Plaintiff parole, was exercising a judicial function such that absolute privilege extended to testimony at the parole hearing. We hold further that Defendant’s statements were relevant and pertinent to the issues involved. Therefore, Defendant’s statements at Plaintiff’s parole hearing were absolutely privileged. We affirm.

The Plaintiff was injured as a result of stepping into a hole in the grass on the Defendant’s property and brought a premises liability action. The trial court granted summary judgment to the Defendant, finding that the Plaintiff’s responses to the Defendant’s statement of undisputed material facts established that the Defendant had no actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition. On appeal, the Plaintiff asserts there is evidence from which notice could be inferred. We conclude that the trial court properly granted summary judgment. The judgment is affirmed.

At issue in this appeal is the petitioner’s attempt to recover for breach of contract of a marital dissolution agreement entered into between his parents prior to their divorce. Although the parents’ agreement had called for the petitioner’s father to create an irrevocable life insurance trust for the petitioner’s benefit, the trial court concluded that there was not an enforceable obligation regarding that subject matter and entered summary judgment. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm.