Programming at TBA’s 2026 Convention kicks off June 11 at 9 a.m. EDT with Catherine Sanders Reach, director of the North Carolina Bar Association’s Center for Practice Management. Every legal tech vendor has an AI pitch, but is your firm actually ready to buy? This session will cut through the hype with a problem-first approach to technology purchasing. Reach will cover how to audit current technology for gaps and redundancies, calculate real ROI on the tools already owned, and build a framework for evaluating new products. Reach has spent over two decades helping legal professionals integrate technology into their practices. She has been with the North Carolina Bar Association since 2018. She previously was director of the ABA’s Legal Technology Resource Center and director of law practice management and technology at the Chicago Bar Association. Check out all the CLE planned for Convention and register today!

In the latest edition of Voices of the YLD, Brian Mounce shares his views in Too Many Laws, Too Little Liberty as it relates to the complexity of criminal law. Would the Framers believe in Cicero's view of "The more laws, the less justice?" Brian Mounce is currently an attorney at Burch, Porter & Johnson. He will join Memphis Law as an assistant professor in the fall. Mounce is TBA YLD’s publication chair and the YLD TBA HOD representative for the West Tennessee. Email bmounce@gmail.com if you are interested in submitting a piece for Voices of the YLD.

Christen Clark was charged with six counts related to drug trafficking cocaine, fentanyl, and methamphetamine and also firearm possession. He pled guilty to all six counts while represented by Owen Kalis, who withdrew from the practice of law eleven days later due to pending disciplinary action. See In re Resignation of Kalis, 236 N.E.3d 263, 264 (Ohio 2024); Ohio S. Ct. R. Gov. Bar VI, § 11(A)–(C). Clark subsequently moved to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing that his plea was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent due to ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court held that there was not a “fair and just” reason for withdrawal under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(d)(2)(B) and that the court’s plea colloquy rendered the plea sufficient under the Due Process Clause. Clark timely appealed. For the reasons set forth below, we VACATE the district court’s denial of Clark’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea and REMAND the case for the district court to hold an evidentiary hearing on Clark’s claims.

The defendant, Denisha Simmons, appeals the order of the trial court revoking her probation and ordering her to serve her four-year sentence in confinement. Upon our review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and oral arguments, we affirm the revocation and disposition of the defendant’s probation.

The defendant, Joseph McDowell, was convicted by a Hamilton County jury of two counts of sexual battery by an authority figure. The trial court imposed a sentence of six years’ incarceration in the first count and six years’ probation in the second count, to be served consecutively. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in 1) denying his motion to exclude his statements concerning his sexuality and 2) ordering his sentences be served consecutively. Following a thorough review of the record, the briefs, and oral arguments of the parties, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Defendant, Joshua F. Linebarger, pleaded guilty to two counts of felony theft, reckless burning, and assault. For his convictions, the trial court ordered Defendant to serve an effective ten-year sentence on supervised probation. Less than two months after the judgments were entered, a violation of probation warrant was issued. Defendant submitted to the violations, and the trial court held a hearing to determine the consequence of his violations. The trial court fully revoked Defendant’s probation and ordered Defendant to serve his sentences. Defendant appeals. Having reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

Following the denial of his motion to suppress, the Defendant was convicted by a Sequatchie County Jury of driving under the influence (DUI), first offense, a Class A misdemeanor. See Tenn. Code. Ann. § 55-10-401. He received a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days of supervised probation after service of twenty days in jail on weekends. In this appeal, the Defendant argues the trial court erred in overruling his motion to suppress and admitting evidence obtained from an unlawful detention. The Defendant contends his arrest was without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and unsupported by probable cause in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution. Because the subsequent detention of the Defendant exceeded the duration of a Terry-type investigatory stop in violation of the Fourth Amendment, we conclude that any evidence seized as a result should have been suppressed as “fruit of the poisonous tree.” Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963). Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court, vacate the Defendant’s conviction, and dismiss the charge in this case.

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.

The president of a homeowner’s association filed a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of a decision by a local zoning board. The chancery court dismissed the petition, finding that the petition was insufficiently verified. After review, we affirm.

In this interlocutory appeal, the employee asserts she sustained injuries arising out of her employment as a hospital security guard when she and a co-worker were instructed to remove a disruptive individual from the emergency room. Following the incident, the employer authorized medical care, including treatment with an orthopedic specialist and a psychiatrist. Neither physician provided an opinion that the employee’s alleged injuries arose primarily out of her employment. After an expedited hearing, the trial court found the employee did not come forward with sufficient evidence that she would likely prevail at trial in establishing that the work incident was the primary cause of her conditions and need for additional medical treatment and denied her request for medical benefits. The court also denied her request for temporary disability benefits, noting she provided no proof of her compensation rate or the time period for which she contended she was entitled to benefits. The employee has appealed. Having carefully reviewed the record, we affirm the trial court’s order and remand the case.