Utah is scaling back a four-year-old program that loosened rules for delivering legal services in the state, leading to the exit or elimination of nearly 30 businesses and law firms, according to Reuters. The move comes as reforms to law firm ownership rules in Arizona have sparked an influx of legal businesses there.

A federal judge has approved a settlement between Tennessee and the National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA) over a lawsuit that sought to overturn name, image and likeness (NIL) recruiting rules, WBIR reports. Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti had announced the deal on March 17. According to Skrmetti, student-athletes now will be able to negotiate NIL compensation before committing to a specific school. Skrmetti and Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares, along with the Florida, District of Columbia and New York attorneys general, filed a federal lawsuit against the NCAA in January 2024, alleging that the NIL recruiting ban created anticompetitive restrictions that violate federal antitrust law and harm current and future student-athletes.

Mt. Juliet attorney Bethel Dean Robinson died Feb. 12 at age 84. He graduated from Belmont University with a degree in history and spent several years teaching there and at Panola Junior College (now Panola College) in Carthage, Texas. Robinson earned his law degree from Memphis State University College of Law (now University of Memphis Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law) in 1974. He began his practice as a general attorney, eventually focusing on property law. A highlight of his legal career was winning a federal civil rights suit for his client, who claimed she was wrongfully discharged in 1975 based on sex discrimination. Plans for a celebration of life will be announced at a later date.

Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti and 17 other state attorneys general announced today they have concluded their investigation into Wells Fargo & Company following the company's decision to abandon certain environmental, social and governance (ESG) policies. The coalition has been investigating whether Wells Fargo and five other American banks — Bank of America Corporation, Citigroup Inc., The Goldman Sachs Group Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Morgan Stanley — violated antitrust or consumer protection laws by implementing net-zero emissions policies and restricting financing. In a release, Skrmetti said, “I commend Wells Fargo’s pro-consumer decision to step away from utopian policymaking, and I look forward to the rest of America’s major financial institutions following its lead.”

The Tennessee Supreme Court has held that Tennessee law does not prohibit a private employer from firing an employee for exercising the right to petition the government. In 2021, BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee directed all employees to receive the COVID vaccine. One employee, Heather Smith, chose not to receive the vaccine. When Smith wrote to members of the state legislature to express her concern with the mandate, the company warned that the communication violated policy. When she sent a second email, the company terminated her. Smith then filed suit alleging that the company violated her right to petition the government under the Tennessee Constitution. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the Court of Appeals reversed. The Tennessee Supreme Court found that the state constitution’s protection of the right is enforceable only against the government, not private actors. Justice Sarah Campbell concurred but wrote a separate opinion. Read more in a press release or read the opinions.

NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judge. A jury convicted Juan Grogan of possessing a firearm as a felon, possessing a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking, and possessing fentanyl with intent to distribute. At trial, the judge allowed the government to admit testimony about a series of statements that Grogan made during a proffer session. The statements concerned his ownership of drugs, a firearm, and a wallet, and his involvement in a shooting and a kidnapping. On appeal, Grogan argues the admission of this evidence was an error. Under the proffer agreement, the government could introduce a particular statement from the proffer session if Grogan testified or presented arguments inconsistent with that statement. Grogan contends admission of the evidence was an error because neither of these conditions were met. We agree with him that at least some of these statements should not have been admitted. And because the error was not harmless, we REVERSE.

An Anderson County jury convicted Defendant, Michael Christopher Simonds, of attempted aggravated rape. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of eleven years’ confinement. On appeal, Defendant contends that that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction and that the State made improper comments in its closing argument. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Scott Alan Haynes, Jr., was convicted in the Montgomery County Circuit Court of second degree murder and reckless endangerment committed with a deadly weapon and received consecutive eighteen- and two-year sentences, respectively. On appeal, the Defendant claims that the evidence is insufficient to support his second degree murder conviction and that his eighteen-year sentence for the conviction is excessive. Based upon our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The pro se Petitioner, Lavonta Laver Churchwell, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s summary denial of his petition for writ of error coram nobis. Because the petition was filed well outside the one-year statute of limitations and the Petitioner has not shown any grounds to warrant equitable tolling, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Defendant, Aaron Joseph Van Arsdale, appeals his Maury County convictions for vehicular assault, driving under the influence (second offense), simple possession of cocaine, and failure to exercise due care. He contends that: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the results of blood alcohol concentration testing; (2) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for vehicular assault; and (3) the trial court erred in ordering restitution. Upon review, we affirm Defendant’s convictions, affirm the restitution order in part, vacate the restitution order in part, and remand for entry of an amended judgment consistent with this opinion.