Shelby County lawyer Samuel John Muldavin has received a public censure from the Tennessee Supreme Court. In representing two clients in defense of a detainer action, the court found that Muldavin failed to communicate adequately with clients, had no prior experience handling residential landlord tenant matters and did not complete any research of applicable law or otherwise take any action to prepare for trial. He also agreed to the scheduling of trial for calculation of money damages, fees and costs, despite the inadequacy of service of process. His actions were determined to violate Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4, 1.5(b) and 3.3(a)(1).

In this conservatorship action, we address whether subject-matter jurisdiction over the ward’s assets remains with the court appointing the conservator. Here, the conservatorship was opened in Madison County. Appellee and the ward’s conservator agreed to transfer some of the ward’s rights to payments from a structured settlement, the ward’s sole asset, to Appellee. Appellee filed a petition for approval of the transfer in Anderson County, where none of the parties resided, and the Anderson County court approved the transfer. A second conservator was appointed for the limited purpose of challenging the Anderson County order, and the instant lawsuit was filed to set aside the Anderson County order for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The trial court initially held that Anderson County lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, but on Appellee’s motion to alter or amend, reversed itself. Appellant appeals. Because subject-matter jurisdiction over the ward and her property remained with the conservatorship court, Anderson County lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, and its order allowing the transfer of the asset was void ab initio. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s orders finding otherwise and affirm and reinstate its initial order finding no subject-jurisdiction in Anderson County.

This accelerated interlocutory appeal is taken from the trial court’s order denying Appellant’s motion for recusal. Because the order denying recusal conflicts with the trial court’s previously entered standing order of recusal regarding all cases involving Appellant’s attorney, we vacate the trial court’s order denying recusal and remand for resolution of the conflicting orders.

In this appeal, we hold that the right to petition in the Tennessee Constitution is enforceable against governmental entities, not private parties, and that it cannot be the basis for a “public policy” exception to the employment-at-will doctrine as against private employers. Here, the plaintiff at-will employee emailed members of the Tennessee General Assembly expressing grievances about the COVID-19 vaccination mandate implemented by her employer, a private organization. After the employer told the plaintiff that the email violated the employer’s policies, the employee sent a second similar email to legislators. The defendant terminated the plaintiff’s employment. The plaintiff sued the defendant private employer for retaliatory discharge, asserting her employment was terminated for exercising the right to petition in Article I, Section 23 of the Tennessee Constitution. The trial court dismissed the complaint, and the Court of Appeals reversed. On appeal, our review shows that, for hundreds of years dating back to early England, the constitutional right to petition has been considered a bulwark against government oppression, not a constraint on private parties. No state in the nation has held that the right to petition applies to limit the ability of private employers to terminate the employment of at-will employees, and the language in Article I, Section 23 does not mandate such a holding. We hold that Article I, Section 23 is enforceable only against the government, not against private actors; consequently, private employers do not violate a clear public policy by terminating employees for exercising the right to petition. Thus, at-will employees may not base claims of retaliatory discharge against private employers on the right to petition in the Tennessee Constitution. Accordingly, we reverse the Court of Appeals and affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint.

Following the Lee administration's release of its amended budget, which includes funding for the new plan for indigent representation in Tennessee, the TBA will continue to work closely with the Tennessee Supreme Court and the Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) on the new plan, including tracking its progress through the legislative process. The TBA is grateful for the support and advocacy of the legal community on this issue, and encourages lawyers to stay up to date on the work of TBA's Government Affairs team and share their own experiences with the indigent representation system. Learn more about the plan and indigent representation in Tennessee.

The U.S. Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) released an interim final rule on Friday, narrowing the scope of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA). Under the new rule, U.S. companies are no longer required to submit Beneficial Ownership Information (BOI) reports, with the exception of foreign companies operating in the U.S. and their foreign beneficial owners. According to The National Law Review, this change significantly reduces the compliance burden, with FinCEN estimating a 99.8% reduction in the number of companies required to report. The rule follows a series of legal challenges to the CTA, including a suspension of enforcement earlier this month. FinCEN is soliciting comments from the public on the interim rule, noting it will assess requested exemptions as appropriate. A final rule is expected this year.

The TBA will host "Serving Service Members, Veterans and Their Families: The Evolving Legal Framework" virtually on April 22 from 11 a.m. to noon CDT. The course will offer an introduction to the state and federal laws governing benefits for service members, veterans and their families in Tennessee. It also will cover ongoing legal issues before the U.S. Congress, state legislatures, and the courts regarding federal statutes and regulations related to veterans' claims. For more information and to register, visit TBA's website.

The Corporate Counsel Section will host its annual Corporate Counsel Forum virtually on Friday from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. CDT. The event will cover essential topics for in-house attorneys, including the risks of AI use in contract negotiations, complexities of attorney-client privilege for in-house counsel, an employment law update and a Supreme Court update. Corporate Counsel Section members will receive a discount for the program. Not a section member? Join the section to receive additional savings. For more information and to register, visit TBA's website.

The Tennessee Bar Association is still accepting nominations for its 2025 Claudia Jack Award and Justice Frank F. Drowota III Outstanding Judicial Service Award. The Claudia Jack Award honors an outstanding public defender or court-appointed private practitioner who has served the legal community and their clients in an exemplary fashion. It is named after the late Claudia Jack, a public defender and long-time champion of the poor and underprivileged. The Drowota Award is given to a judge or judicial branch official of a federal, state or local court in Tennessee who has demonstrated extraordinary devotion and dedication to the improvement of the law, the legal system and the administration of justice as exemplified by the career of former Tennessee Supreme Court Justice Frank F. Drowota III. The deadline for both nominations is April 4.

A Muslim woman from Knoxville has been awarded $71,500 in her lawsuit against the Knox County Sheriff's Office (KCSO) after the agency released her mug shot without her hijab. The woman partially settled the suit on March 11. She had filed the suit seeking at least $250,000 in damages. The settlement resolves only her claims for monetary damages, according to Knox News. She also is seeking to have her booking photo deleted and amend KCSO policy to allow hijabi women to keep their head coverings on during mugshots.