March 2025 DICTA

THE 14TH AMENDMENT AND BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP FOR THE CHILDREN OF MIGRANTS AND VISITORS

2025 LAW PRACTICE TODAYEXPO

We’re Back - To the Future!

6 MARCH AM 8:30 - 4 PM

$300 All Expo Pass (5 hrs. of CLE)

$65 Per CLE Session Scan the QR Code to get started!

Free Exhibit Hall Open to All

CLE Session Schedule

9-10 a.m.

Take it easy: Making law, life, and leisure less stressful by leveraging technology (with and without AI)

10:15-11:15 a.m.

AI in Law Practice: Unlocking Microsoft 365 Copilot and LLMs for Secure and Effective Use Or Generating AI-Created Images and Videos for Legal Practice (It’s Simple)

11:30 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.

Cyber Theft - An Ounce of Prevention is Worth a Pound of Cure Or Hallucinations, Black Boxes, & Deep Fakes: Managing Risk While Using AI in Your Practice

12:30 -1:30 p.m.

Boxed Lunch Included for “All Expo Pass” Registrants

1:30-2:30 p.m.

Using Technology in Your Litigation Practice: Best Practices to Organize Your Trial Documents Or Vital Security Practices Every Law Firm Should Adopt Today

2:45-3:45 p.m.

Essential Tech For Attorneys Who Want Happy Clients, Happy Bottom Line, and a Happy BPR!

KBA Board of Governors

Courteney M. Barnes-Anderson

R. Kim Burnette

Melissa B. Carrasco

Meagan Collver

Dicta is the official publication of the Knoxville Bar Association Officers of the Knoxville Bar Association

Samuel K. Lee

T. Mitchell Panter

M. Samantha Parris

Courtney Epps Read

Charles S.J. Sharrett

The Knoxville Bar Association Staff

Volume 53, Issue 3

Dicta

DICTA is published monthly (except July) by the Knoxville Bar Association. It is designed to offer information of value to members of the local bar association. The news and features should illustrate the issues affecting the bar and its members. The opinions expressed do not necessarily represent those of the Knoxville Bar Association.

All articles submitted for publication in DICTA must be submitted in writing and in electronic format (via e-mail attachment). Exceptions to this policy must be cleared by KBA Executive Director Tasha Blakney (522-6522).

James T. Snodgrass

James R. Stovall

C. Scott Taylor

Alicia J. Teubert

Everything Everywhere All at Once: New Presidential Actions Versus the Federal Workforce

The Ethics of Criticizing Judges

Management Counsel Additional Considerations for Allowing Employees to Work from Home

Publications Committee

Executive Editor Sarah Booher

Executive Editor Wade H. Boswell, II

Executive Editor Melissa B. Carrasco

Executive Editor Summer McMillan

Brandon Allen

Sherri Alley

Anita D’Souza

Elizabeth B. Ford

Jennifer Franklyn

Joseph G. Jarret

F. Regina Koho

Matthew R. Lyon

Robin McMillan

Angelia Morie Nystrom

Katheryn Murray Ogle

Laura Reagan

Ann C. Short

Cathy Shuck

Eddy Smith

Grant Williamson

Managing Editor Tasha C. Blakney

KBA Executive Director

As It Ever Was

Mockingbird Songs: My Friendship with Harper Lee, by Wayne Flynt

Stars

The Details Matter 14 Hello My Name Is Elle Shipley

21st Century Lawyer

Embracing Technology: The TechDriven Legal Practice in 2025

Legally Weird

A Different Kind of Lunch Order

Around the Bar

LAET’s Recovery Legal Project: Supporting Community Recovery in Knoxville

Top Ten List

Top Ten Things You Never Want to Read in a Judicial Opinion/Order

Barrister Bites

Marry Me! (or at least do the dishes)

Foodie Finds

The Egyptian Taste

Profiling Paul Wehmeier

to Be in the Law

Carrying the Legacy: Finding Purpose & Gratitude in the Law

Tasha C. Blakney Executive Director

Tracy Chain LRIS Administrator

Jason Galvas LRIS Assistant

Tammy Sharpe Director of CLE & Section Programming Jonathan Guess Membership Coordinator Bridgette Fly Programs & Communications Coordinator

Section Notices

There is no additional charge for membership in any section, but in order to participate, your membership in the KBA must be current. To have your name added to the section list, please contact the KBA office at 865-522-6522 or send an email to membership@knoxbar.org.

Alternative Dispute Resolution Section

The ADR Section plans regular CLE throughout the year. If you have a CLE program topic or speaker suggestions, please contact the ADR Section Chairs Joe Jarret (566-5393) or Betsy Meadows (540-8777).

Bankruptcy Law Section

The Bankruptcy Section plans CLE programs and helps coordinate volunteers for the Pro Bono Debt Relief Clinics. The next Pro Bono Debt Relief Clinic will be held on March 8, and volunteer registration is available at www.knoxbar.org. If you have a CLE program topic or speaker suggestions, please contact the Bankruptcy Section Chairs Greg Logue (215-1000), Kevin Newton (588-5111), or Shanna Fuller Veach (545-4284).

Corporate Counsel

The Corporate Counsel Section provides attorneys employed by a corporation or who limit their practice to direct representation of corporations with an opportunity to meet regularly and exchange ideas on issues of common concern. If you would like to know how you can get involved or have suggestions for CLE topics, please contact Section Chairs David Headrick (363-9181) or Marcia Kilby (362-1391).

Criminal Justice

The KBA Criminal Justice Section represents all attorneys and judges who participate in the criminal justice system in Knox County. If you have suggestions for CLE topics, please contact Section Chairs Joshua Hedrick (524-8106) or Sarah Keith (457-5640).

Employment Law

The Employment Law Section is intended for management and plaintiffs’ counsel, in addition to inhouse and government attorneys. If you have a program topic or speaker suggestions, please contact the Employment Law Section Chairs Howard Jackson (615-574-6702) or Tim Roberto (691-2777).

Environmental Law

The Environmental Law Section provides a forum for lawyers from a variety of backgrounds, including government, corporate in-house, and private firm counsel. If you have suggestions for CLE topics, please contact Section Chairs Catherine Anglin (804-3741), Kendra Mansur (771-7192), or Jimmy Wright (637-3531).

Family Law Section

The Family Law Section has speakers on family law topics or provides the opportunity to discuss issues relevant to family law practice. The next KBA Family Law Section Social is scheduled for March 7 from 4-6 p.m. at Breeding Carter, PC law firm. If you are interested in getting involved or have suggestions for CLE topics, contact Section Chairs Blair Kennedy (539-3515) or Laura Wyrick (297-5511).

Government & Public Service Lawyers Section

The Government & Public Service Lawyers Section is open to all lawyers employed by any governmental entity, state, federal, or local, including judicial clerks and attorneys with legal service agencies. If you are interested in getting involved or have suggestions for CLE topics, contact Section Chairs Ron Mills (215-2050) or Mitchell Panter (545-4167).

Juvenile Court & Child Justice Section

The Juvenile Court & Child Justice Section has speakers on juvenile law topics or provides the opportunity to discuss issues relevant to juvenile law practice. If you have suggestions for CLE topics, please contact Section Chairs Justin Pruitt (215-6440) or Mike Stanuszek (766-4170).

New Lawyers Section

The New Lawyers Section is for attorneys within their first three years of practice, and any KBA member licensed since 2023 will automatically be opted-in to the section. If you like to get involved in planning section activities, please contact Section Chairs Dalton Howard (546-0500) or Mari Jasa (546-7770).

Senior Section

The KBA Senior Section will meet next on Wednesday, April 2, at Calhoun’s on Bearden Hill. The program title is “Evolving to Better Serve: Changes in the Knoxville Police Department” and will feature Paul Noel, Chief of Police, and Bruce Guyton, Deputy Chief of Professional Standards. The luncheon will be held from 11:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. The price includes a buffet lunch. If you have suggestions for future luncheon speakers, please contact Section Chairs Wayne Kline (292-2307) or Sam Rutherford (659-3833).

Solo Practitioner & Small Firm Section

The goal of the Solo Practitioner & Small Firm Section is to provide and encourage networking opportunities and offer high quality CLE programs featuring topics that will help solo/small firm attorneys enhance and improve their practices and assist them with law office management challenges. If you have a program topic or speaker suggestions, please contact Section Chairs Tim Grandchamp (392-5936), Brittany Dykes (214-7869), or Stan Young (209-8034).

By: Jonathan Cooper Knox Defense

“NORMS” AND THE RULE OF LAW

As I write this, we have survived months of campaigning and an election and are now in the first 100 days of the presidency. By now, we are accustomed to the notion that our President does not adhere to norms and perhaps purposefully breaks them.

“Norms” is not a term I ever gave much thought to, and I am not even going to properly define it here. The word seems to be shorthand for the concept that our society has long-standing, broadly accepted customs based on shared values and tradition. Although this same terminology would not define “Rule of Law,” the Rule of Law in many ways represents our commitment to tradition (precedent) and shared values.

So, what happens when the Rule of Law holds no greater weight than a norm? I believe we are about to find out, if we are not already seeing this unfold.

Politics has, of course, always found cracks in the integrity and legitimacy of our legal system, and pardons are a clear example of this. Although many pardons and commutations are bestowed following careful research and scrutiny and reflect an act of mercy or a correction of a bad legal outcome dependent on difficult facts, there are historical examples where a pardon in no way reflects an act of mercy. For example, compare the many thoughtful pardons in our State by Governors Haslam and Lee, some made with personal political risk, with those made in 1977 by Governor Ray Blanton.

More recently, and on a national level, President Biden tarnished the integrity of our legal system by pardoning his son, claiming originally that he was satisfied his son had received a fair trial and then justifying the pardon on a “miscarriage of justice.”1 It was not just that he overrode the legal process for a family member, it was his double-speak and the timing of the act that made this especially self-serving and political.

However, while this pardon by President Biden was regrettable, the blanket pardons and commutations President Trump issued to literally every January 6 defendant was infuriating, and I say this as a 30-year criminal defense lawyer, as someone who generally abhors the application of government might on the freedoms of its citizens. Within hours of his inauguration, he indiscriminately issued more than 1,500 pardons and 14 commutations of defendants fairly characterized as “his supporters.”2 This included the leaders of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, who were convicted by a jury of their peers and sentenced to 22- and 18-year terms in federal prison, and who were released within mere months of sentencing. This also included “dozens” of defendants who had “prior convictions or pending charges for crimes including rape, sexual abuse of a minor, domestic violence, manslaughter, production of child sexual abuse material, and drug trafficking.”3

Of course, the egregious nature of these pardons is compounded by the motive of the attackers and the setting of the criminal acts: these individuals used force and violence to unlawfully enter our nation’s

Capitol for the purpose of preventing or delaying the peaceful transfer of power. In a brazen act of self-dealing, Trump wiped away jury verdicts and judicial determinations for the very people whose criminal conduct was made for his benefit, calling them “patriots.”

The impact of these pardons was dramatically described, not by pundits or politicians, but by the very judges who presided over the prosecutions, heard the evidence against the defendants, and imposed sentences. In her written opinion dismissing the cases, D.C. District Judge Tanya Chutkin warned that dismissal “cannot whitewash the blood, feces, and terror that the mob left in its wake. And it cannot repair the jagged breach in America’s sacred tradition of peacefully transitioning power.”4 For his part, D.C. District Judge Beryl Howell wrote that “No ‘process of national reconciliation’ can begin when poor losers, whose preferred candidate loses an election, are glorified for disrupting a constitutionally mandated proceeding in Congress and doing so with impunity. . . . That merely raises the dangerous specter of future lawless conduct by other poor losers and undermines the rule of law.”5

Thus, of all the norm-breaking we have seen in the first 100 days of this presidency,6 and this list will be much longer by the time of publication, pardoning the attackers of our nation’s Capitol may present the most direct and lasting threat to our Rule of Law. Unlike other norms, however, that can be re-established and repaired over time, it remains to be seen whether the Rule of Law will withstand the lawless symbolism, the might-is-right messaging, the minimizing of the legal process, and the degradation of our courts that these pardons represent.

As always, my message to you – lawyers, professors, judges, prosecutors, and defenders – is to speak out. Use your education and legal skills in your community to correct, encourage, and educate. We simply cannot allow the Rule of Law to become another broken norm.

1 Jake Horton & Matt Murphy, What has Joe Biden said in the past about pardoning his son?, BBC News, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ceql5v5v0xlo, December 2, 2025.

2 Ryan J. Reilly, Trump pardons roughly 1,500 criminal defendants charged in the Jan. 6 Capitol attack, NBC News, https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/ justice-department/trump-set-pardon-defendants-stormed-capitol-jan-6-2021rcna187735, January 20, 2025.

3 Tom Dreisbach, Criminal records of Jan. 6 rioters pardoned by Trump include rape, domestic violence, NPR News, https://www.npr.org/2025/01/30/nx-s1-5276336/ donald-trump-jan-6-rape-assault-pardons-rioters, January 30, 2025.

4 Katelyn Polantz & Marshall Cohen, They sentenced the January 6 rioters. Now, these judges are calling out Trump and ‘poor losers,’ CNN, https://www.cnn. com/2025/01/22/politics/federal-judges-speak-out-january-6-pardons/index.html, January 23, 2025.

5 Andrew Goudsward, US judge says Trump Jan. 6 pardons reflect ‘revisionist myth,’ Reuters, https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-judge-says-trump-jan-6-pardonsreflect-revisionist-myth-2025-01-22, January 22, 2025 (emphasis added).

6 See American Bar Association, “The ABA supports the rule of law,” www. americanbar.org/news, February 10, 2025 (“. . . [W]e see wide-scale affronts to the rule of law itself, such as attacks on constitutionally protected birthright citizenship, the dismantling of USAID and the attempts to criminalize those who support lawful programs to eliminate bias and enhance diversity.”)

JUDICIAL PROFILE

By: Hon. Zachary R. Walden Criminal Court Judge, 8th Judicial District

A PROFILE OF JUDGE JEREMY BALL

The Honorable Jeremy Ball has stepped into his new role as Circuit Court Judge for Tennessee’s 4th Judicial District with a sense of duty, humility, and continuity. His appointment in January 2025 marks the next chapter of a career grounded in public service, shaped by years as a prosecutor, and influenced by the late Judge Duane Slone, whose seat he now fills.

Born and raised in Cocke County, Judge Ball has spent the majority of his professional life serving the judicial district he has long called home. He attended CarsonNewman University, where he met his wife, Shelley. They have one daughter, Dana, age ten. He then earned his law degree from Vanderbilt University before beginning his career as an Assistant

District Attorney in Nashville’s 20th Judicial District. His time in Nashville, where he might not see the same defense attorney in court again for months, contrasts with the smaller, close-knit bar he would ultimately experience in Jefferson County. It was in 2004 that Judge Ball found his way back home to East Tennessee, accepting a position as an Assistant District Attorney in the 4th Judicial District.

For over two decades, Ball served in Sevier and Jefferson Counties as a prosecutor, where he became a familiar and respected figure in the courtroom. His transition to the bench is the culmination of years of public service, but it is also the fulfillment of a vision first encouraged by Judge Slone more than a decade ago.

Judge Slone, who died unexpectedly in the fall of 2024 after serving as Circuit Court Judge since 1998, was not only a judicial leader but also a pioneer in addressing substance abuse within the criminal justice system. Judge Ball recalls that on his first day as an Assistant District Attorney in Jefferson County, Judge Slone invited him and several others to lunch, expressing his concerns about seeing the same defendants repeatedly cycle through the system without addressing substance abuse treatment. That conversation laid the groundwork for one of Tennessee’s first recovery courts, which launched formally in 2009. Now, as the presiding judge over Jefferson and Grainger Counties’ Recovery Court and TNROCS1 docket, Judge Ball finds himself carrying the torch passed from Judge Slone.

Judge Ball’s appointment was the result of a rigorous selection

process. After considering a competitive application pool, the Trial Court Vacancy Commission submitted three candidates for Governor Bill Lee’s consideration. Judge Ball described the interviews with the Governor’s legal counsel and Governor Lee himself as an exciting yet weighty experience, noting that those involved took their role in judicial appointments with the utmost seriousness.

Judge Ball was sworn in on January 21, 2025, and he presided over his first docket in Jefferson County Criminal Court—the same court where he had prosecuted cases for the past 17 years—the very next day. Describing his initial days on the bench as akin to “taking a sip of water from a fire hydrant,” Judge Ball will preside over all Jefferson County Criminal Court cases, as well as Grainger County Criminal Court cases. He will share a civil caseload throughout the district with the other judges.

Judge Ball’s transition from the prosecution to the bench is shaped not only by his legal experience but also by his deep ties to the community. In addition to his professional commitments, he has served on the Board of Directors for the Boys and Girls Club of Dumplin Valley and is an active member of First Baptist Church of Dandridge. He is a member of both the Tennessee Bar Association and The Federalist Society.

Judge Ball is also grateful to District Attorney General Jimmy Dunn and his former colleagues for the opportunity to work alongside them.

Judge Ball acknowledges that the transition has been made smoother by the support of his fellow judges in the 4th Judicial District. “All of the other judges have been helpful during my transition,” he notes, emphasizing the collegiality of the judiciary. He wants every attorney who appears in his courtroom to know they will be given a fair opportunity to present their case. “Every judge wants to be fair and make every litigant feel like their case has been heard. The more prepared I am going in, the better chance I’ll have to succeed,” he says.

Fellow Judge Jim Gass shares his confidence in Ball’s abilities, stating, “We are all happy to welcome Judge Ball to the judiciary in the Fourth Judicial District. He has many years of courtroom experience as a prosecutor, and he will serve our district well as a trial court judge.”

Please join me in congratulating and welcoming Tennessee’s newest trial court judge, the Honorable Jeremy Ball, as he begins this exciting new chapter in his life.

1 TN-Recovery Oriented Compliance Strategy (known as TNROCS) is a special court docket for those who do not otherwise qualify for a recovery court but are considered a medium risk for re-offending and have significant needs for treatment for substance abuse and/or co-occurring disorders.

APPEALING

By: Robin McMillan Co-Author of the upcoming book People Behind the Precedent

IT AIN’T OVER ’TIL IT’S OVER

Subject to a few exceptions, in civil cases, appellate courts consider only appeals of final judgments.1 The question of whether a judgment is final, however, sometimes causes confusion. In this article I want to discuss some procedural requirements of a final appealable judgment.

First and foremost, to be final and appealable, a judgment must address all claims between all parties, leaving nothing left for the trial court to do.2 Merely including language in an order stating that the order is ‘final’ does not transform a non-final order into one that is final and appealable.3 If the order does not dispose of all parties and all issues, then it is not a final judgment regardless of the language it contains.

Second, a written order must be entered into the record. Oral pronouncements from the bench alone do not constitute a final appealable order. Nor is it sufficient to enter into the record a transcript of an oral decision absent a written order. “It is well-settled that a trial court speaks through its written orders—not through oral statements contained in the transcripts—and that the appellate court reviews the trial court’s written orders.”4

Just last year, the Court of Appeals discussed the fact that even after an oral pronouncement of judgment is rendered, a case remains pending until entry of a written order.5 The Court explained that until a written order is entered, the judgment “is inchoate, and has no force whatever,” as the trial court retains the right to modify, change, or even reverse its oral decision.6 The Court succinctly summed up that “in connection with judgments, ‘no oral pronouncement is of any effect unless and until made a part of a written judgment duly entered.’ ”7

That is not to say that a trial court may not announce its decision from the bench. Nor does it mean that the decision may not be transcribed and the transcript entered into the record. In fact, a transcript of the trial court’s decision announced orally from the bench and entered into the record can be a helpful aid to the appellate court, particularly if the required written order incorporates the transcript by reference. Rather, the point is that an oral decision alone is insufficient. A written order must be entered into the record before the judgment can be considered final and appealable.

Third, the written judgment order must comply with Rule 58 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 58 was designed to provide a uniform procedure for entry of judgment that would ensure that all parties are aware of the entry of a final appealable judgment.8 Compliance with Rule 58 is mandatory.9

Rule 58 clearly sets out what an order must contain in order to be final and appealable, giving several alternative options to make compliance possible even if one or more of the parties is pro se and unwilling to sign a proposed order. Rule 58 specifies that the order must be signed by the judge and must contain either the signature of all parties or counsel, proper indicia of service upon all parties or counsel, or an appropriate mixture thereof.10 If the order does not comply with Rule 58, the judgment is not a final appealable judgment. Importantly, while compliance with Rule 58 is required to make a judgment final,

compliance with Rule 58 does not convert an otherwise non-final order into one that is final and appealable.11

In closing, I want to address the impact of mistaken entry of multiple purported final judgments. If multiple orders are entered but only one of those orders meets the requirements to be a final judgment, then that order is the final judgment. But what happens if multiple orders are entered and each order in and of itself meets the criteria for a final judgment? The answer is, it depends. If the orders are substantively identical, then the first entered of the orders prevails and is considered the final judgment.12 If, however, the second order contains substantive changes from the first order and was entered within thirty days of entry of the first order,13 then the second order becomes the final appealable judgment.14

1 See, e.g., Bayberry Assocs. v. Jones, 783 S.W.2d 553, 559 (Tenn. 1990) (“Unless an appeal from an interlocutory order is provided by the rules or by statute, appellate courts have jurisdiction over final judgments only.”). Interlocutory appeals, extraordinary appeals, and appeals of orders properly certified pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 54.02 are topics for another day.

2 See, e.g., Tenn. R. App. P. 3(a); In re: Estate of Henderson, 121 S.W.3d 643, 645 (Tenn. 2003).

3 Garrett v. Garrett, No. E2022-00030-COA-R3-CV, 2022 WL 3082576, at *1 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 3, 2022). Please note that this is a Memorandum Opinion pursuant to Tenn. R. Ct. App. 10, which may not be cited or relied upon in any unrelated case. As I am not citing it for use in a case, my reference to it for purposes of illustrating the point in this article does not violate the rules.

4 Williams v. City of Burns, 465 S.W.3d 96, 119 (Tenn. 2015).

5 Britt v. Usery, No. W2022-00256-COA-R3-CV, 2024 WL 195879, at *7 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 18, 2024).

6 Id.

7 Id. (quoting Lewis v. Brooks, 66 S.W.3d 883, 886 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001)).

8 Steppach v. Thomas, No. W2008-02549-COA-R3-CV, 2009 WL 3832724, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 17, 2009).

9 Id.

10 Tenn. R. Civ. P. 58.

11 In re Isaiah M., No. E2024-00616-COA-R3-PT, 2024 WL 2783132, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 30, 2024). Please note that this is a Memorandum Opinion pursuant to Tenn. R. Ct. App. 10, and refer to footnote 3.

12 Ball v. McDowell, 288 S.W.3d 833, 837-38 (Tenn. 2009).

13 See Tenn. R. Civ. P. 59.05 (“Within 30 days after entry of judgment the court on its own initiative may alter or amend the judgment, . . .”).

14 Ball, 288 S.W.3d at 837-38.

LEGAL UPDATE

By: Stephanie L. Prager Tennessee Valley Authority Office of the General Counsel 1

EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE ALL AT ONCE: NEW PRESIDENTIAL ACTIONS VERSUS THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE

Everything Everywhere All at Once is a quirky adventure film about an exhausted Chinese-American woman who must save the world by fighting dangers from the multiverse, even though she can’t seem to finish her taxes. The title alone perfectfully encapsulates my disposition as I write this article ten days into the new presidential administration. Spoiler alert: this sequel might be more action packed than the original screenplay.

Last year, I convinced my employer that it would be an excellent opportunity for me to support our Federal Affairs team during the presidential transition. I moved to Washington D.C., three days before the 2024 election. In doing so, this small-town girl from West Virginia by way of Tennessee was living out a career dream… to be at the epicenter of it all. This was it! I was heading into my own realm of infinite possibilities.

One of my first assigned tasks was to refine an existing process for reviewing all new presidential actions, making sure that the right attorneys and subject matter experts were analyzing each issue so that management decisions could be made. Now, I knew the ushering in of a new administration of a different party than the preceding one creates conditions ripe for the political pendulum to swing wildly in the opposite direction.

On day one of the new administration, President Trump vowed to turn back numerous Biden-era actions, which he did at his own starstudded premiere in a public signing ceremony at Capital One Arena, just blocks away. As I heard the presidential motorcade leave the event site en route to the Oval Office, the newly minted White House website––complete with cinematic aesthetics of helicopters and bald eagles––began to issue presidential actions at a feverish pace.

In total, over 40 executive orders, memoranda, and proclamations were signed on January 20, 2025. President Trump’s first executive order, titled “Initial Rescissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions,” rescinded 78 actions issued during the prior administration and reinstated policies from Trump’s first term. Within mere hours, it was clear that the political pendulum had swung again.

At least eight of the newly signed presidential actions targeted the federal workforce. The most controversial of these remove job protections for career civil servants; eliminate government-sponsored diversity, equity, and inclusion spending; institute a federal hiring freeze; and mandate a return-to-office plan for remote workers. While these actions are aimed at reducing the size of the government workforce, Democratic lawmakers, union leaders, and civil servants also believe that they are designed to intentionally exasperate federal workers to the point of quitting out of frustration.

The content of many of these actions is hyperbolic and lacking in direction. For instance, the “Return to In-Person Work” memorandum is two sentences in its entirety and directs:

Heads of all departments and agencies in the executive branch of Government shall, as soon as practicable, take all necessary steps to terminate remote work arrangements and require employees to return to work in-person at their respective duty

stations on a full-time basis, provided that the department and agency heads shall make exemptions they deem necessary. This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable law.

Since the end of the pandemic, returning federal employees to offices has been a focus of Republicans, believing that remote work inhibits productivity. But it is important to note that not all federal employees work in Washington, D.C. Also, as of the inauguration, 54% of federal workers already report in-person to their designated duty stations.

The Office of Personnel Management has issued guidance on the “Return to In-Person Work” memo with a 30-day compliance deadline which appears to have little room for accommodations for hardships. While this action does not materially change the conditions of dayto-day work for many, strong union opposition is expected for those with collective bargaining agreements containing long-term telework arrangements.

Another action that caused immediate and far-reaching angst amongst the federal workforce is the “Fork in the Road” deferred resignation offer. Originally termed a “buyout,” this proposal was meant to incentivize employees who do not want to return to the office to quit their government jobs. The offer purports to allow workers to be placed on paid leave in exchange for an agreement to resign by February 6, 2025, with an exit date in September, but lacks clarity on whether employees would still be required to perform job duties. There is no regulation or federal incentive program to provide for this offer. Likewise, the government is only funded through March 14, 2025, so a pledge to pay workers- who may or may not be working- through September is tenuous at best.

Lastly, the “Hiring Freeze” memorandum halts the hiring of federal civilian employees throughout the executive branch agencies. The order expires after federal agencies submit a plan to reduce the size of the federal workforce, except for the IRS. The hiring freeze remains in effect for the IRS until the secretary of the Treasury determines that it is in the national interest to lift the freeze. Acting on this, the IRS rescinded all job offers with a start date after February 8, 2025, possibly benefiting the protagonist from EEAAO who, herself, was being audited.

There’s no doubt that these sweeping actions, which show no signs of slowing, are designed to sow chaos and cause disruption to the federal workforce as the administration works to exert political control over professional public service. So how is the audience reacting? Well, these measures may not lead to the mass resignations the administration is seeking. Federal workers were already braced for unpredictability under an administration that promised to upend D.C. The fervent pace and nature of these first presidential actions targeting federal workers seems to have hardened the resolves of many. For now, employees appear prepared to sit through the show and wait for the closing credits.

1

Photo Ops Photo Ops

Around the KBA

The KBA has had a busy start to 2025! We’ve had a Board of Governors retreat and some great volunteerism through Volunteer Breakfast and Mobile Meals. The Senior Section welcomed UT Vols scorekeeper Buck Jones, and we had an outstanding Lunch & Learn CLE featuring UT Softball Coach and lawyer Karen Weekly. Here’s to more opportunites to work hard and play hard together in 2025!

LEGAL MYTHBREAKERS

By: Brad Fraser Leitner Williams Dooley Napolitan, PLLC

Stefanie Bowen

Leitner

Williams Dooley Napolitan, PLLC

SAME AS IT EVER WAS

Letting the days go by, let the water hold me down

Letting the days go by, water flowing underground Into the blue again, after the money’s gone Once in a lifetime, water flowing underground Same as it ever was, same as it ever was Same as it ever was, same as it ever was1

Released in 1981, the band Talking Heads collaborated with producer Brian Eno to release “Once in a Lifetime,” the lead single of the critically acclaimed album Remain in Light. While some have argued that the lyrics are meant to critique yuppie greed and consumerism, lead singer David Byrne insists that the lyrics address the unconscious. A warning that operating half-awake or on autopilot will lead you to a place you did not anticipate, the song acknowledges that some things will be the “same as it ever was.”2

Recently, the Tennessee Supreme Court upheld long-standing precedent governing premises liability cases set forth in Blair v. West Town Mall and declared that today constructive notice is the “same as it ever was.”3

In Blair, a plaintiff sued West Town Mall when she slipped on an oil spot exiting the mall.4 She alleged the owners did not exercise ordinary care and failed to keep the premises safe for patrons.5 The Court stated that previous holdings on premises liability stated that constructive notice of a dangerous or defective condition can be established by proof that the condition existed for such a length of time that the defendant, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have become aware of the condition.6 But the Court in Blair took up the theory of “method of operation” and determined a plaintiff could also rely on this theory to prove an owner had constructive notice of a dangerous condition’s existence.7 The “method of operation” theory requires a showing that a pattern of conduct, a recurring incident, or a general or continuing condition exists to prove the dangerous condition’s existence and the constructive knowledge of such.8 In essence, constructive knowledge requires either proof that the unsafe condition existed long enough for a reasonable owner to discover it or a similar condition had occurred in the past, making it reasonably foreseeable it would happen again. This accepted theory, the Court reasoned, “simply recognizes the logical conclusion that, when a dangerous condition occurs regularly, the premises owner is on constructive notice of the condition’s existence. This places a duty on that owner to take reasonable steps to remedy this commonly occurring dangerous condition.”9

In January 2025 the Court revisited the issue of the “method of operation” theory and whether an owner’s “pattern of conduct” can establish constructive knowledge. In Trentham, the plaintiff fell on a pedestrian bridge at an apartment complex in Franklin, Tennessee.10 He sued the owner of the apartment complex, alleging that the company had negligently failed to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition.11 A professional engineer called by plaintiff to provide expert testimony opined that the bridge was poorly maintained and was slick from a microbial substance.12 The engineer believed that if the bridge was not cleaned over its five-year history, it would grow fungus and “always become slick.”13 Of course, the owners hired an expert to rebut the

testimony that the bridge would become covered in algae or mildew due to its “sloping nature.”14 A corporate representative who frequented the bridge stated that no mildew or algae was noticed at any time, nor were there any complaints by other residents.15

The trial court found the owners 85% at fault for plaintiff’s fall and injuries.16 The owners, of course, appealed. Counsel for owners spent a “considerable amount of time at oral arguments” focused on whether Blair’s standard is unworkable and should be clarified. Specifically, the owners’ argument focused on the alleged unworkability of the mode of operation theory as a “pattern of conduct.”17 They also questioned whether a “general condition” as contemplated in Blair was vague and unhelpful.

The Court disagreed and declined to overrule Blair, finding that there is no issue in these terms causing confusion made apparent by courts in Tennessee.18 And it applied the “mode of operation” theory to the facts in Trentham. The owners owed plaintiff a duty of care because they were on constructive notice of a dangerous condition on the pedestrian bridge. Plaintiff proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, constructive notice of the defendants by showing a general or continuing condition that made the condition’s existence reasonably foreseeable, in accordance with Blair 19

Justice Sarah K. Campbell penned a sharply worded dissent. She found this result “impossible to reconcile with Blair,” in that the defendant lacked constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition.20 She noted the undisputed fact that there had been no similar incidents previously on the property. She continued, “Blair is grounded in the bedrock principle that ‘a premises owner’s duty to remedy a condition, not directly created by the owner, is based on that owner’s actual or constructive knowledge of the existence of the condition.”21 While she noted the serious nature of Plaintiff’s injury, she found this result inconsistent with Blair and its progeny.22

But for now, the majority of the Tennessee Supreme Court says the law, at least with respect to premises liability, constructive notice, and reasonable foreseeability, is the same as it ever was.

1 Talking Heads, Once in a Lifetime (Sire Records 1981).

2 All Things Considered, NatioNal Public Radio (March 27, 2000).

3 Trentham v. Mid-Am. Apartments, LP, No. M2021-01511-SC-R11-CV, 2025 Tenn. LEXIS 1 (Jan. 8, 2025) (citing Blair v. West Town Mall, 130 S.W.3d 761 (Tenn. 2004)).

4 Blair, 130 S.W.3d at 762.

5 Id. at 764.

6 Id. (citing Simmons v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 713 S.W.2d 640, 641 (Tenn. 1986)).

7 Id. at 764-66.

8 Id.

9 Id. at 766.

10 Trentham, No. M2021-01511-SC-R11-CV, 2025 at *4.

11 Id

12 Id. at *9-10.

13 Id. at *10.

14 Id.

15 Id. at *11.

16 Id. at *12.

17 Id. at *14.

18 Id. at *18.

19 Id. at *33.

20 Id. at *49 (Campbell, J., dissenting).

21 Id. citing Blair, 130 S.W.3d at 766 (emphasis added).

22 Id.

TENNESSEE CHAPTER

Knoxville Area Members recognized for Excellence in the field of Mediation or Arbitration

Adrienne ANDERSON (865) 249-8011

James LONDON (865) 637-0203

Scott TAYLOR (865) 546-8030

Bob ARRINGTON (423) 723-0402

Richard MARCUS (423) 756-0414

Mark TRAVIS (931) 252-9123

Gail ASHWORTH (615) 254-1877

David NOBLIT (423) 265-0214

William VINES (865) 637-3531

Paul HOGAN Jr. (865) 546-2200

Robert NOELL (865) 215-1023

Howard VOGEL (865) 546-7190

Dana HOLLOWAY (865) 643-8720

Sarah SHEPPEARD (865) 546-4646

Jeffrey WARD (423) 639-6811

Check preferred available dates or schedule appointments online directly with the state’s top neutrals

Check preferred available dates or schedule appointments online directly with the state’s top neutrals

TennesseeMediators.org is free, funded by members

TennesseeMediators.org is free, funded by members

By: Summer H. McMillan

Jennifer Morton Law, PLLC

MOCKINGBIRD SONGS: MY FRIENDSHIP WITH HARPER LEE, BY WAYNE FLYNT

This is not a new book, but one that I came across fairly recently while wandering through Union Avenue Books. It provides a glimpse into the life and personality of Harper Lee told through anecdotes and correspondence between her and Wayne Flynt.1 It also contains stories and correspondence with others, including Harper Lee’s two older sisters, Alice and Louise, occurring over the course of two decades.

Many of us have read descriptions of Harper Lee as a reclusive, peculiar, and eccentric person who despised publicity and shunned the public and the press. Another author stated that “no matter where she was, she avoided the press, her fans, and anything that seemed too literary; she tried to live her life as if she had never published one of the most popular novels in American history.”2

This is a common perception of Harper Lee, as described by many sources, but Mockingbird Songs shows another side:

The public image of Nelle3 as a private woman –– opinionated, uncommunicative, cool if not cold insofar as human relationships were concerned –– is far from the truth. She was in fact empathetic, warm, non-judgmental, and a wonderful conversationalist, often going out of her way to answer letters to children, teachers, and fans, to attend award ceremonies for high schoolers who wrote essays about Mockingbird, to host friends visiting New York City, and to read and critique manuscripts by other writers.4

Wayne5 goes on to explain that “no single letter better captures these qualities than one I received from a member of the audience at a speech I gave about Nelle in Fairhope, Alabama.”6 This audience member was Cammie East, whose parents owned a bookstore in Mobile, Alabama, that had hosted “one of the first Alabama signings of Mockingbird.”7 Even though they had only met in passing at this book signing in Mobile, about a year later Nelle invited Ms. East, who was on her way to begin her freshman year at Wellesley College, to spend a week with her in New York City. Ms. East later described that visit in a letter:8

She also kindly and generously entertained me in New York for a week in September of 1963, when I was en route to Wellesley . . . . She put up with me nobly, put us both up at the Roosevelt and introduced me to the joys of 2 a.m. hamburgers ordered from room service, among other pleasures of the big city. I will always cherish the memory of her insistence that

the two of us stand for hours on a New York sidewalk in a throng waiting for John F. Kennedy to ride by in his limousine as he went to speak at the United Nations. I kept insisting that she couldn’t really want to wait there all that time, and she kept insisting that I should see the president. He was running late, but we waited, and now he’s the only one I’ve ever seen in the flesh. And from what I’ve seen of most of the others, I think I’d just as soon keep it that way . . . . I will love her forever, even if I seldom communicate it.

Interestingly, Wayne’s friendship with Nelle had an inauspicious beginning. He had met her other older sister, Louise, in 1983 in Eufala, Alabama, when he was invited to speak at an Alabama history and heritage festival where Harper Lee also spoke. Afterward, she autographed his son’s copy of To Kill a Mockingbird, but when Wayne asked her to autograph his own copy, she “replied icily, ‘I only sign for children.’”

Gradually, however, after many years of friendship with Nelle’s sisters, as well as a few encounters at various literary awards ceremonies, Wayne was able to break the ice. He describes one such occasion in 2006 as “the evening when Dartie,9 Nelle, and I began the process of transforming acquaintanceship into something much deeper.”10

The book includes a number of photographs of Wayne and Dartie with Nelle and various family members. One particularly sweet photograph shows Nelle meeting Wayne and Dartie’s granddaughter, who had been named Harper Flynt in Nelle’s honor.

This book shows a different Harper Lee than the usual biographical depiction (at least those I have read). It is a quick, easy, and enjoyable read.

1 Wayne Flynt is Professor Emeritus in the Department of History at Auburn University. He also wrote a book entitled Afternoons with Harper Lee, of which I was not aware until searching for images of the book cover of Mockingbird Songs to include with this article. It is now on my “must read” list.

2 Casey Cep, Furious Hours at 152 (Knopf, 2019).

3 Harper Lee’s first name was Nelle, which is what she is called throughout the book and is the name she signed to her letters. For that reason, I will refer to her as Nelle in this article.

4 Mockingbird Songs at 17.

5 Since I will be referring to Harper Lee as Nelle, I will refer to Professor Flynt as Wayne. This seems not only consistent with the language in this article, but also with the tone and spirit of the book chronicling their friendship.

6 Id.

7 Mockingbird Songs at 18.

8 Mockingbird Songs at 17, 23. Cammie East wrote this letter to Wayne in 1998 because she thought he might use the information in an upcoming talk at the University of Vienna.

9 Wayne’s wife.

10 Mockingbird Songs at 13.

THREE STARS

By: Melissa B. Carrasco Carrasco Trump, PLLC

THE DETAILS MATTER

The case of Miguel Torres v. Allvan Corporation, et al. could be summed up with five words: “But, your Honor, everyone agrees.”1 Mr. Torres suffered an inguinal hernia while he was on the job using a tow motor to move steel beams for his employer, Allvan Corporation. He reported the injury to his employer, got workers’ compensation benefits, and had surgery to repair the hernia. Two months later, his physician released him from care with a note to follow up as needed. But the physician did not render an opinion as to maximum medical improvement or permanent medical impairment.2

Seventeen (17) months later, Mr. Torres’ attorney filed a petition for benefits determination, but less than a month later, Mr. Torres’ attorney filed another petition, this time for approval of a lump sum settlement agreement with no future medical benefits.3 A couple of weeks later Mr. Torres, his attorney, his employer, and its attorney appeared before Judge Dale A. Tipps of the Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims asking the judge to approve their settlement agreement.

The parties agreed that Mr. Torres’ claim was compensable. The injury had been repaired. The only “dispute” was the amount of compensation due because there was no impairment rating. But good news! The parties had agreed on the terms of settlement. Just sign the agreed order approving the settlement, right?

Wrong. Judge Tipps said, “No.” So, the parties filed a joint notice of appeal, and then they filed a joint brief on appeal.4 The employee and employer were as aligned as Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers. Together, they argued that the trial court erred and abused its discretion in refusing to approve the proposed settlement.

That may have been their problem. The Workers’ Compensation Law allows an employer and an employee to settle a workers’ compensation claim “without regard to whether the employee is receiving substantially the benefits provided by [the Workers’ Compensation Law]; provided, that the settlement is determined by a workers’ compensation judge to be in the best interest of the employee.”5 But, this provision only applies IF (1) there is a dispute as to whether the injury is compensable or (2) there is a dispute as to the amount of compensation due.6

Let’s recap. The parties agreed that Mr. Torres’ injury was compensable. The parties agreed on the terms of settlement. The parties agreed on the lump sum payment as settlement. So, where was the dispute?

The parties said the dispute was over the amount of compensation due. But there was no independent impairment rating (the parties agreed that the impairment rating was 0%), and everything else was agreed.7 So, how could there be a dispute if everyone agreed?

Also, there was no medical report detailing Mr. Torres’ maximum medical improvement or permanent medical impairment.8 Without a

medical report, Judge Tipps could not reasonably tell if approving the settlement was in the employee’s best interest, which is the last part of that provision of the Code. During the settlement hearing, the Judge asked Mr. Torres about his injury, and through a translator he was able to discern that Mr. Torres pointed at his stomach and mentioned that he could feel the mesh that was installed to help repair his hernia. The Court of Appeals concluded that Judge Tipps had not erred in declining to approve the settlement.

Game over, right? Not so fast. The parties had one more argument. Before the settlement hearing, the parties had submitted the settlement agreement. The Court reviewed it and sent them a note.9 The note told them that the lack of an impairment rating and the fact that there did not appear to be a dispute could be a problem. Then, Judge Tipps referred them to a blog post called Tennessee Revised for Disputed Cases: No Doubt – from the Bench 10

After losing on the substance of their argument, the parties argued that the Trial Court’s reliance on a blog post was misguided. The Appellate Court thought the parties were misguided. It was not an abuse of discretion for Judge Tipps to point the parties in the right direction of some reading material that could have saved everyone a lot of wasted time and money going to a settlement hearing without giving the Judge enough information to make a decision. After all, the Judge still had to use his own independent review to determine if the settlement was in the best interest of the employee.11

The moral of this case is to take heed of the Supreme Court’s admonition that parties who wish to settle their workers’ compensation claims must be careful to comply with “the procedural and substantive safeguards” in the Worker’s Compensation Law. See Furlough v. Spherion Atl. Workforce, LLC, 397 S.W.3d 114, 123 (Tenn. 2013). These safeguards are not extraneous details, but important requirements that ensure an employee receives the benefits that he or she is entitled to under the law. So, check every box, double check every detail, and if the Judge tells you to read a blog to help you know what you were supposed to do, maybe read the blog.

1 Miguel Torres v. Allvan Corp., No. 2024-05-4796 (Tenn. Bur. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. Feb. 7, 2025).

2 Id. at 2

3 Id.

4 Id. at p. 6.

5 Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-240(e) (2024).

6 Id.

7 Torres, No. 2024-05-4796, at 6.

8 Id. at 8.

9 Id. at 2.

10 Id

11 Id. at 8.

HELLO MY NAME IS

By: Bridget J. Pyman Arnett | Baker

ELLE SHIPLEY

This month’s Hello My Name Is column features attorney Elle Shipley, an Associate Attorney with Lewis Thomason, P.C., where she focuses on estate planning, tax law, and business law. A 2023 graduate of William & Mary Law School, Elle also holds a master’s degree in English Literature, with a focus on Late Victorian Britain, from the University of Delaware, as well as two undergraduate degrees in History and English Literature from Auburn University. She is an active member of the North Carolina Bar Association, the Tennessee Bar Association, the Knoxville Bar Association, and the National LGBTQ+ Bar Association, and she cochairs the Barristers Membership Committee.

Through her responses, Elle describes a journey into the legal profession marked by intellectual curiosity and a strong desire to make a meaningful impact in her clients’ lives. From navigating law school during the pandemic to developing her estate planning practice, Elle approaches her work with dedication and care. Outside the office, Elle’s diverse interests—from managing a global sports travel itinerary to her commitment to personal growth and community engagement—highlight her ability to balance a fulfilling personal life with a dynamic career.

Why did you decide to go to law school?

At a difficult crossroads in my life, a friend from Auburn texted me telling me I would love law school, and, let’s be honest, I should have known I would enjoy law when my History senior thesis revolved around laws in Victorian England. I took the LSAT on a whim and found myself accepted at my dream school, William & Mary. Even though my entire 1L year was online due to the pandemic, law school was one of the best experiences. I made the best friends of my life at law school and learned from them that I did not have to take myself so seriously and that I could, in fact, balance a job I enjoyed with a personal life full of good experiences, joy, and genuine self-care.

What do you enjoy most about your job?

I sincerely enjoy guiding clients through the difficult process of facing their fears of death and dying. Most people understand the importance of having a plan in place for the end of their lives, but many are also understandably scared of confronting their mortality in such a tangible way. I take great pride and fulfillment in helping my clients navigate that space in a way that is as comfortable as possible, and which will ultimately provide peace of mind for them as they go through life. In my opinion, creating an estate plan is a crucial

form of self-care and reflection that clients often find is more positive, and less frightening, than they believed.

If you could see one performance over again as if you were experiencing it for the first time, what would it be?

As a lifelong lover of musicals, I would love to recapture the first time I saw Hadestown and relive the rush of emotions that came with it. I first saw it at the Kennedy Center several years ago without having heard the soundtrack, and it quickly became my favorite show. Hadestown is a masterpiece of a show with deeply resonant characters, a memorable sound, and a poignant message: be brave enough to show others how the world could be, in spite of the way that it is.

How do you achieve work-life balance?

To me, having a fulfilling life outside of the practice of law is essential. Having dedicated time for myself, including scheduling vacations or weekend trips every so often, is the best way I have found to prevent burnout and make sure that life is kept in perspective. The people we help at work can only get the best side of us when we also nurture ourselves and spend time doing what renews us – for me, that includes playing music, watching sports with friends, going to trivia nights, crocheting or gardening, playing with my dog Dolly Parton Shipley, and spending time beyond work advocating for the LGBTQ+ community. I feel incredibly fortunate to have the ability to balance my work and personal lives at this early stage of my career, and I attribute my philosophy to my friends and mentors in law school.

What are your favorite sports teams?

I am a huge fan of both Liverpool FC and Auburn basketball! Knoxville has a thriving Premier League fan community, and I thoroughly enjoy joining my fellow Liverpool supporters to watch games at Boyd’s Jig & Reel. This has also been a great year to be an Auburn men’s basketball fan – I never miss a game in my lucky game day shirt (War Eagle!). I am extremely excited that I will be going to my first game in Liverpool this year, and am still working out how I will watch the March Madness final rounds from the United Kingdom.

Where do you see yourself in 10 years? Hopefully in ten years, I will have won at least one game of Jeopardy!

THE 14TH AMENDMENT AND BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP FOR THE CHILDREN OF MIGRANTS AND VISITORS

During his January 20 inaugural address, President Donald Trump declared “a national emergency at our southern border,” and promised that his administration “will begin the process of returning millions and millions of criminal aliens back to the places where they came from.”1 That same day, he signed an executive order under the heading “Protecting the Value and Meaning of American Citizenship” that required federal departments and agencies to stop recognizing U.S. citizenship for children born to either visitors or unauthorized migrants (“Order”).2

The Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause states that “[A]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”3 The Order, which is premised on the supposition that the children of unlawful migrants and visitors are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States for birthright citizenship purposes, has been enjoined, on a nationwide basis, by federal courts in Seattle and Maryland.4 Should the reviewing courts apply originalism as their mode of analysis, such that they interpret the Citizenship Clause and the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” based on the understanding of its 1868 framers, the Order will be deemed unconstitutional and permanently enjoined.

and Curtis ridiculed it in dissent and the emerging Republican Party, including its 1860 Presidential nominee, Abraham Lincoln, renounced it.9

After the Civil War, the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, enacted in 1868, reversed Dred Scott by granting citizenship to all former slaves and their descendants, but created ambiguity as to the its meaning by limiting birthright citizenship to those “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.10

Post-colonial American scholars such as Rawle, Swift, Kent, and Story adopted Blackstone’s common law understanding that “[t]he children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such.”5 Unlike England, however, American birthright citizenship was equivocally conveyed and systematically denied to the children of slaves and tribal Native Americans.6 The issue of birthright citizenship became prominent in Antebellum America due to the growing number of free persons of African descent who were initially granted citizenship, but whose citizenship was questioned by Southern states keen on preserving the South’s racial hierarchy.7 Purporting to resolve the issue and preserve the Union, Chief Justice Taney’s 1857 opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford concluded that free Black persons born on U.S. territory cannot be U.S. citizens.8 The decision became an immediate flashpoint: Justices McLean

Proponents of broad birthright citizenship rights interpret the “subject to the jurisdiction” phrase broadly to grant automatic citizenship rights to the children of all persons, except those not subject to our laws, namely diplomats, invading armies and, at the time, Tribal Native Americans. The Native American exclusion was because many tribes had treaties with the U.S. that granted them a degree of independence from U.S jurisdiction and others were beyond U.S. authority because they were situated in unsettled and largely uncharted areas in the West, thereby creating a rough analogy with foreign occupying armies under the law of nations.11 Native Americans had to wait until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 to obtain U.S. citizenship.12 The broad interpretation of birthright citizenship finds support in authorities widely read at the time of the Citizenship Clause’s enactment such as Webster’s dictionary, Wheaton’s International Law, Chief Justice Marshall’s decision in Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, and Congressional debates surrounding its meaning during the 39th Congress.13

Because immigrants were bound by U.S. local laws just like citizens, the exclusion from birthright citizenship did not apply to U.S.-born children of immigrants, especially those born to Chinese immigrants on the West Coast.14 This view was finally enforced in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 15 which required the government to grant citizenship to a U.S.-born child of Chinese nationals, because “[t]he Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory… including all children born here of resident aliens.”16 This led the executive branch to conclude that the Citizenship Clause conveyed citizenship not only to children of permanent residents but also to children of visitors and those not lawfully present in the

United States.17 The framers’ textual grant of territorial birthright citizenship seems clear, and the evidence demonstrates they imagined and approved of birthright citizenship for the children of visitors.18 But whether they intended it for children of unauthorized migrants is harder to discern. Immigration restrictions at the time were implemented at the state level, and restrictive federal immigration laws did not take hold until late in the nineteenth century.19 While it was theoretically possible for persons to be born in the U.S. to parents not lawfully present, there is little evidence that anyone recognized the issue in the 1860s, much less that the Fourteenth Amendment’s framers thought they had resolved it by the Citizenship Clause.20

Almost a full century after the Citizenship Clause was enacted, the Supreme Court, in a decision mandating that states fund public schooling for unauthorized migrant children, concluded that birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment “extends to anyone … who is subject to the laws of State,” including the U.S.-born children of “illegal aliens.”21 In INS v. Rios-Pineda, the court, in a deportation proceeding brought against two unauthorized migrant Mexicans, unanimously concluded, in dicta, that a child born to an undocumented immigrant is a U.S. citizen.22

Some scholars such as Rogers Smith, Peter Schuck, and John Eastman, have interpreted the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” narrowly to allow the government to disallow birthright citizenship to the children of unauthorized migrants. This minority view is premised on the notion that “jurisdiction” is synonymous with “allegiance,” and would deny citizenship to unauthorized migrant children because citizenship rests on the mutual consent of the individual and sovereign. 23 Their perspective is overwhelmingly rejected by the bulk of the scholarship that has emerged regarding the Citizenship Clause.24 Indeed, the Fourteenth Amendment was one of three Reconstruction Amendments enacted to expand and not limit rights, such that any interpretation of the Citizenship Clause purporting to limit its applicability based on ancestry should be presumed invalid.25

Most likely, President Trump and the Order’s proponents believe the Citizenship Clause’s framers never contemplated a large number of U.S. births by unauthorized migrants, and if they did, they would have likely adopted different language to require parental legal status within the U.S. as a condition for natural born citizenship.26 Indeed, while the Citizenship Clause’s text definitively grants birthright citizenship to the children of unauthorized migrants, its framers never counterfactually contemplated significant unauthorized permanent migration.27 To paraphrase Yale Law School’s Christina Rodriguez, how does one approach interpreting a constitutional provision when the source of today’s constitutional debate stems from a set of facts that were likely perceived dimly or never considered at all?28

Problematically for the president and the Order’s supporters, federal courts today apply originalism in interpreting constitutional text. This mode of analysis, which originated with Justice Black, was popularized by Robert Bork and Justice Scalia, and fiercely advocated by the Federalist Society, requires reviewing courts to interpret constitutional text based on its framers’ intent at the time the provision was enacted and disallows application of a contemporaneous or updated interpretation.29 A nonoriginalist interpretation might leave sufficient “play in the joints” for the Order to withstand judicial review on the grounds that the Citizenship Clause’s framers never contemplated the world of today

By: Mohamed Akram Faizer Professor of Law LMU Duncan School of Law

and that the issue of birthright citizenship for migrant children should be left to the political process. In Canada, for example, citizenship by birth is a statutory entitlement and not a constitutional right such that the Parliament of Canada can enact an amendment limiting territorial citizenship if it so chooses.30 The U.K. and France have both enacted legislative limitations on acquisition of citizenship by territorial birth since the 1980s.31 However, as Justice Kagan conceded in her confirmation hearings, “we are all originalists” on the Supreme Court. The Order is a nonstarter.

1 The White House, Inaugural Address, January 20, 2025, https://www.whitehouse. gov/remarks/2025/01/the-inaugural-address/

2 https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-themeaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/

3 U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.

4 State of Washington v. Donald Trump, Case No. C25-0127-JCC (D. Wash. 2025), https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.343943/gov.uscourts. wawd.343943.114.0_1.pdf; Campbell Robertson et al., Judge Blocks Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order Nationwide The New York Times, February 5, 2025, https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/05/us/trump-birthright-citizenship.html and Ashley Urquio et al. Federal Judge Halts Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order, Ogletree Deakins (January 23, 2025), https://ogletree.com/insights-resources/blogposts/federal-judge-halts-trumps-birthright-citizenship-order/

5 Michael D. Ramsey, Originalism and Birthright Citizenship, 109 Geo. L. J. 405, 413 (2020).

6 See Ramsey, supra note v. at 416.

7 See Ramsey, supra note v. at 416.

8 Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19How.) 393 (1857)

9 See Ramsey, supra note v. at 417 citing Abraham Lincoln, Speech on the Dred Scott Decision (June 26, 1857) (transcript available at https://teachingamericanhistory. org/library/document/speech-on-the-dred-scott-decision [https://perma.cc/EMY2CYCW]).

10 U.S. Const. Amendment XIV.

11 Ramsey, supra note v. at 443-44. See also Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) (interpreting the Citizenship Clause to conclude that on reservation Tribal Native Americans born on U.S. territory are not U.S. Citizens).

12 Pub L. 68-175 (1924).

13 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 116 (1812); see also HENRY WHEATON, ELEMENTS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW: WITH A SKETCH OF THE HISTORY OF THE SCIENCE 100 (Philadelphia, Carey, Lea & Blanchard 1836). On Wheaton’s influence, see generally ELIZABETH FEASTER BAKER, HENRY WHEATON, 1785-1848 (1937) and NOAH WEBSTER, AN AMERICAN DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE 732 (Chauncey A. Goodrich & Noah Porter eds., Springfield, G. & C. Merriam 1865); see also James C. Ho, Birthright Citizenship, the Fourteenth Amendment, and State Authority, 42 U. Rich. L. Rev. 969, 9732 (2008); Ramsey, supra note v. at 442-43.

14 Ramsey, supra note v. at 444.

15 169 U.S. 649, 693 (1898).

16 Id. at 972-73 citing United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 693 (1898); see also Ramsey, supra note v. at 447.

17 Ramsey, supra note v. at 420-21 citing U.S. DEP’T OF STATE, 8 FOREIGN AFFAIRS MANUAL § 301.1-1(d) (2018) (“All children born in and subject, at the time of birth, to the jurisdiction of the United States acquire U.S. citizenship at birth even if their parents were in the United States illegally at the time of birth ....”);

18 Ramsey, supra note v. at 464 citing See CONG. GLOBE, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 1832 (1866) (statement of Rep. Lawrence) (quoting Lynch for the proposition that “children born here are citizens without any regard to the political condition or allegiance of their parents”)); see also statement of Senator Fessenden) (specifically raising the question of the citizenship of children of temporary visitors).

19 GERALD L. NEUMAN, STRANGERS TO THE CONSTITUTION: IMMIGRANTS, BORDERS, AND FOUNDATIONAL LAW 165-87 (1996)

20 Ramsey, supra note v. at 409.

21 Ho at 973 citing Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 215, 243 (1982) (Burger C.J., dissenting).

22 Ho at 973 citing INS v. Rios-Pineda, 471 U.S. 444, 445-46 (1985).

23 See, e.g., John C. Eastman, Born in the U.S.A.? Rethinking Birthright Citizenship in

continued on page 26

21ST CENTURY LAWYER

By: Garrett Belcher Peterson White, LLP

EMBRACING TECHNOLOGY: THE TECH-DRIVEN LEGAL PRACTICE IN 2025

The practice of law is constantly evolving. Now, approximately four years after the COVID-19 pandemic, 2025 will undoubtedly be shaped by technological advancements, shifting client expectations, and an increasingly dynamic work environment. The legal profession, often seen as a bastion of tradition, is experiencing growing pains as it undergoes notable transformation. At the macro level, bills are not passed into law quickly enough to keep pace with this changing technological landscape. At the micro level, law firms endure tensions due to intra-office generational gaps. Law firms in the United States will find themselves at a crossroads in 2025. If unwilling to break from tradition, law firms risk falling behind the curve and their competition. Law firms must instead adapt, overcome, and use this opportunity to excel in their practice.

The most transformative change in legal practices today is the rise of automation and artificial intelligence (AI). From AI to blockchain, these technologies have revolutionized how we approach legal work. AI tools now streamline a variety of tasks that were once time-intensive, such as legal research, document drafting, document review, and case analysis. A lengthy document, e.g., a deposition transcript, can be uploaded and summarized in seconds. An attorney can then start a dialogue with the AI program to dig deeper into voluminous documentation to extract key pieces of information.

Notwithstanding, these new tools are not without risk. As technology continues to evolve, so do the ethical considerations surrounding its use. Attorneys could find themselves facing termination, sanctions, or even disbarment for the improper use of AI in their practice.1 There are also privacy and confidentiality concerns when using AI systems to sort through confidential client documentation and case material. It is imperative that law firms educate themselves about these tools and how to appropriately implement them in their practice.

In addition to virtual tools, changing technologies are shaping the physical environment in which lawyers operate. The COVID-19 pandemic expedited the adoption of remote work in the legal profession, and virtual collaboration is becoming the norm rather than the exception. Many court proceedings, depositions, mediations, and meetings now take place via telephonic or video conferencing, saving time and energy and reducing travel expenses. This arrangement allows attorneys to switch between tasks quickly and efficiently. In addition, remote work provides greater flexibility, allowing attorneys to experience a better balance of professional responsibilities with personal life.

Despite these advantages, the virtual practice of law comes with its own set of unique challenges, particularly for inexperienced attorneys. Building rapport with clients and colleagues can be more difficult in a virtual setting, and the lack of face-to-face interaction sometimes creates barriers to effective communication and learning. New attorneys require

more encouragement, guidance, and supervision; it is difficult to garner these benefits when working remotely.

As a newer attorney, I prefer working predominantly in person. This allows me to brainstorm ideas with my colleagues and quickly address urgent matters as they arise. However, I often utilize a hybrid approach given my day-to-day schedule, especially when my personal and professional lives intertwine or when a large task needs complete attention. This hybrid approach allows me to collaborate in person with my colleagues during the week, while also utilizing the efficiency of working from home when it matters most. There is no one-size-fits-all approach. Each attorney works best in different environments and each area of law requires varying degrees of inperson involvement.

Perhaps the most important reason that law firms are compelled to adopt modern practices is that clients are likewise utilizing these same tools. Today’s clients expect more than just legal expertise; they demand efficiency, transparency, faster response times, value, and more personalized services. Clients are increasingly cost-conscious. This shift has prompted law firms to adopt a more client-centric practice, utilizing technology to enhance service delivery. After all, the business aspect of a law firm is, at its heart, truly based on customer service.

My law firm works primarily with sophisticated clients, including businesses and insurance carriers. Insurance carriers use predictive analysis tools such as AI to project and mitigate exposure. Likewise, insurance carriers utilize these tools to monitor the productivity of their outside counsel, rank their panel-approved firms from least to most productive, and measure key benchmarks based on firm performance. These performance benchmarks are used to retain or terminate a carrier’s working relationship with a law firm. Carriers and third-party administrators often employ companies that utilize AI in reviewing, managing, and often reducing legal expenses.

The practice of law in 2025 will be particularly challenging as law firms embrace change, even if reluctantly. My firm has embraced the immeasurable benefits that accompany developing technologies in the practice of law. By staying adaptable and open to innovation, we can ensure that our practices remain relevant and responsive to the needs of our clients in this era of technological development. As we navigate this era of rapid change, however, some traditions remain constant: honesty, integrity, accountability, and competence are just a few of the timeless values that will permanently guide our profession. In the end, the successful practice of law, even in the age of AI, will depend on our ability to connect with clients, understand their needs, and provide thoughtful, zealous, and effective counsel.

1 Gauthier v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., No. 1:23-CV-281, 2024 WL 4882651, (E.D. Tex. Nov. 25, 2024).

SCHOOLED IN ETHICS

By: Alex B. Long

Williford Gragg Distinguished Professor of Law

University of Tennessee College of Law

THE ETHICS OF CRITICIZING JUDGES

In today’s hyper-partisan world, the conduct and alleged misconduct of judges has generated significant discussion and criticism. Along with such discussion and criticism comes the potential for professional discipline for lawyers. For example, in December 2024, Judge Michael A. Ponsor of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts was found to have committed judicial misconduct by publicly criticizing Justice Samuel Alito in a New York Times column for flying a flag associated with January 6 protesters outside his home.1

In a May 2017 DICTA column, my UT College of Law colleague Professor Judy Cornett explored TRPC Rule 8.2(a), which prohibits a lawyer from making a statement “that the lawyer knows to be false or that is made with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of” a judge.2 Professor Cornett looked at several Tennessee cases involving lawyers who faced professional discipline for having made critical comments concerning judges in an attempt to help define the boundaries of the rule. Since then, there have been several Tennessee Supreme Court decisions that provide further guidance for lawyers. So, in light of these decisions and the ongoing public ethical discussion concerning the behavior of judges more generally, now seems like an appropriate time to revisit the issue.

Justice v. Board of Professional Responsibility: Learned Hand v. Yosemite Sam

The most recent Tennessee Supreme Court decision on the issue was Justice v. Board of Professional Responsibility. There, a Knoxville lawyer filed several motions that, among other things, said that a judge’s demeanor was “less in the nature of Learned Hand or Oliver Wendell Holmes and more Yosemite Sam.” The lawyer also charged that the judge ran from evidence “like it was the Ebola virus.”3 The judge eventually reported these and other statements to the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility which, after a hearing, found that the lawyer had committed a number of rule violations, including a violation of TRPC Rule 8.2(a).

The lawyer’s statement raises several issues regarding the application of the rule. One involves the mental state of the lawyer. The rule prohibits a lawyer from making a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or that is made with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity. This language would seem to imply the existence of a subjective standard in which the lawyer must actually know the statements to be false or at least entertain serious doubts as to their truth or falsity (as is required in the defamation context). However, a number of courts have held that an objective “reasonable attorney” standard applies. For example, in a recent decision from New Mexico, the court held that the appropriate standard was whether the attorney’s factual basis for making the statement was objectively reasonable.4 In Justice, the Tennessee Supreme Court applied a similar objective standard, holding that “[i]t is the reasonableness of the belief, not the state of mind of the attorney, that is determinative.”5 This standard is more restrictive of attorney speech than the subjective standard applied by some courts.

One issue not addressed by the Justice court was whether some of

the statements in question were actually “false” to begin with. Some of the lawyer’s statements concerning the judge’s integrity (like comparing the judge to Yosemite Sam) were so over the top that it is debatable whether they amounted to false statements to begin with. Other courts have held that statements of opinion and hyperbolic statements that cannot be proven to be true or false cannot serve as the basis for discipline under Rule 8.2(a).6 Unfortunately, the Tennessee Supreme Court did not address this issue in Justice, thus missing an opportunity to provide clarity to lawyers on a matter involving First Amendment concerns.

Out-of-Court Statements: Manookian v. Board of Professional Responsibility

Another issue that has come up in cases involving alleged violations of Rule 8.2(a) is what standard applies when the speech in question occurs out of court. The Justice lawyer’s statements occurred in the context of motions filed with the court. In that context, the Tennessee Supreme Court held, an objective “reasonable attorney” standard applies. The asserted justifications for imposing this more restrictive standard are that it furthers the state’s interest in preserving public confidence in the judiciary and the administration of justice. Since lawyers are officers of the court, whose statements concerning judges are more likely to be taken seriously by members of the public, false statements by lawyers are more likely to harm public confidence than statements made by others. But does that same standard apply to statements made outside the context of a motion filed with a court or other in-court statements?

In Manookian v. Board of Professional Responsibility, a Nashville lawyer was charged with violating Rule 8.2(a) by sending a letter to opposing counsel and other people, in which he claimed that opposing counsel’s brother had told the lawyer that the judge in the case was corrupt.7 The court noted that most other courts had not drawn any distinction between in-court and out-of-court statements for purposes of Rule 8.2(a). Regardless, the court concluded that the same standard should apply in this case. While stopping short of holding that the contents of the letter amounted to in-court speech, the court concluded that “communication among counsel made in pending litigation is clearly adjacent to in-court speech.”8

Concluding Thoughts

Lawyers should also keep in mind that Rule 8.2(a) does apply to out-of-court statements more generally. In one of the more famous cases on the subject, a California lawyer faced professional discipline for making highly critical statements about a judge to a journalist.9 While it is technically an open question as to what standard the Tennessee Supreme Court would apply in a similar case, the available evidence suggests it would impose the same restrictive objective standard it applies in the case of in-court speech.

Lawyers should also be mindful that criticizing a judge may, depending upon the context, result in a violation of other rules as well. In both Justice and Manookian, for example, the lawyers in question were also charged with violations of TRPC Rule 8.4(d), which prohibits a

continued on page 27

BARRISTERS MONTHLY MEET-UP

Plan now to attend the Barristers monthly meet-up on Wednesday, March 12, starting at 5:30 pm (note the time change) at The Firefly, the outdoor patio at the Hilton, located at 501 W. Church Avenue, Knoxville. Social time starts at 5:00 pm. All Barristers members are invited to attend, meet fellow attorneys, and learn about upcoming Barristers events.

NOMINATIONS OPEN FOR THE LAW & LIBERTY AWARD

The Barristers Constitution Day & School Outreach Committee is accepting nominations for the annual Law & Liberty Award, which will be announced at the Law Day Luncheon on April 30. You can nominate someone by visiting the Barristers Constitution Day Committee page. The deadline for nominations is April 8, 2025. Nominees do not have to be attorneys to qualify for the Law and Liberty Award. The award may be given posthumously.

Consider someone who:

• fostered and maintained good relationships between the legal profession and the community

• promoted and advanced a better understanding of the law and legal process in the non-legal community

• demonstrated and encouraged an abiding respect for the rule of law, set an example of good citizenship, stimulated a sense of civic responsibility, or otherwise contributed to the improvement of the legal profession in our community

• maintains high standards of professional integrity and ethical conduct and demonstrates respect of personal, political, civil, and religious liberties

DIVERSITY COMMITTEE COLLECTS DONATIONS FOR SCHOLARSHIP FUND

The Barristers Diversity Committee has created a scholarship fund to help with travel and lodging costs for diverse students who are invited to attend preview days hosted by the local law schools. Members are asked to make a donation to help ensure that one student, who may not otherwise be able to afford to visit a law school in Knoxville prior to their enrollment, is able to attend a preview day.

If you have questions, please reach out to Mariel Bough (mariel.bough@ verasafe.com) or Grant Williamson (gwilliamson@bradley.com) for more information on how your donation will be used, or for more ways to get involved with the Barristers Diversity Committee’s efforts to make the Knoxville Bar Association a more inclusive and diverse organization. Information on how to donate online can be found on the KBA website on the Barristers Diversity Committee page.

VOLUNTEER BREAKFAST COMMITTEE CONTINUES OPERATIONS

The Volunteer Breakfast is a recurring event on the 4th Thursday of each month at 6:15 a.m. at the Volunteer Ministry Center, located at 511 N. Broadway, Knoxville, Tennessee. The Barristers Volunteer Breakfast Committee always needs volunteers to serve food or sponsor. The cost is $150 for sponsoring, and we need 4-5 volunteers. If you are unable to fund the breakfast, the Barristers will subsidize the cost of the breakfast. We meet at 6:15 a.m. and serve breakfast to approximately 30-40 individuals, generally leaving the site around 7:30 a.m. It’s a great way to serve the community! Please contact either Miranda Goodwin at mirandaegoodwin@gmail.com or Bridget Pyman at bpyman@ arnettbaker.com with any questions and/or about volunteering.

MANAGEMENT COUNSEL: LAW PRACTICE 101

By: Jimmy Snodgrass Kramer Rayson LLP

ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR ALLOWING EMPLOYEES TO WORK FROM HOME

The subject of remote work has been impossible to avoid over the past couple of weeks.1 However, it has also been a key issue for employers over the past several years coming out of the COVID-19 pandemic. As you all are aware, employers were forced to figure out how to allow their employees to work from home, an idea many of them found impossible years before. On the other hand, increased teleworking and flexible work arrangements have provided a stress test to illustrate several other issues for management to consider about remote work.

A.

Developing Remote Work Policy

At the outset, an effective policy will address many of the issues posed by remote work. First, the policy should explain who is eligible to work remotely, the process for requests to work from home, and how such requests should be considered. Additionally, the policy should make clear that remote work will be approved on a case-by-case basis. It is also important to ensure that the policy is applied in a clear and consistent manner to avoid claims that allowing certain employees to work from home, while not allowing others, was discriminatory. Another key consideration is emphasizing to employees that they are expected to be available during business hours. If such a request is granted, it should specifically detail the employee’s job duties and work area to alleviate potential workers’ compensation concerns.

Next, a remote work policy should highlight that company policies and procedures are still applicable to remote workers. As an example, some policies that may be more relevant to remote workers would be any outside employment policy prohibiting an employee from having another job without approval or an electronic communications policy. Lastly, a remote work policy should detail what devices the employer will provide an employee who is working from home.2

B. Pay For Remote Work

Another important consideration for allowing remote work is ensuring that employees are properly paid under the Fair Labor Standards Act. While this is a much larger point of analysis, a remote work policy should place specific detail on how hours are recorded for non-exempt employees and how employees confirm that they have recorded all compensable time. Any off-the-clock work will create additional issues involving overtime pay The Department of Labor previously issued Field Assistance Bulletin 2020-5, which provides guidance on tracking compensable hours for teleworkers. It emphasized that if an employer has reason to believe that work is being performed, even outside of regular working hours, that time must be counted as hours worked. Therefore, employers must exercise reasonable diligence to track compensable time and provide a procedure for reporting unscheduled work.

C. Determining Whether Additional Laws and Regulations are Applicable

A large incentive for allowing remote work is to increase the talent pool of applicants. However, management must also consider potential state laws for remote employees, many of which they may be unfamiliar with. Generally, the law of the state where the employee is physically

located is applicable to remote workers, although this is a fact-specific question. This brings, however, a new host of considerations, such as withholding and tax issues, workers’ compensation requirements, training and leave responsibilities, and a host of other potentially applicable state or local laws and regulations.

D. Effect of Allowing Remote Work as Reasonable Accommodation

As an employer deals with an increasingly remote workforce, it is also important to consider the resulting effect under the Americans with Disabilities Act. For certain situations, allowing employees to work remotely may demonstrate that working from home is a reasonable accommodation. The Sixth Circuit has previously detailed that “with few exceptions, ‘an employee who does not come to work cannot perform any of his job functions, essential or otherwise.’” Therefore, “[r]egular, inperson attendance is an essential function—and a prerequisite to essential functions—of most jobs, especially the interactive ones.”3

However, as technology has advanced and teleworking is more prevalent, there are far more cases challenging the denial of a request to work from home as an accommodation under the ADA. An employer is still required to engage in the interactive process and determine whether the individual request is a reasonable accommodation for the specific position and does not cause undue hardship. Additionally, essential functions for the position are generally those that the employer’s “judgment” and “written [job] description” prior to litigation deem essential. See 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8). This highlights the importance of ensuring job descriptions are accurate. As one example, the Sixth Circuit in Mosby-Meachem v. Memphis Light, Gas & Water Division, 883 F.3d 595 (6th Cir. 2018), found that an in-house attorney presented sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict that she could perform all of the essential functions of her position remotely for ten weeks while she was on bed rest due to her pregnancy. One factor in the Court’s decision was that “the job description on which MLG&W relied was based on a 20-year-old questionnaire that did not reflect changes in the job that have resulted from technological advancements.”

E. Conclusion

Suffice it to say that there are too many considerations regarding remote work to cover completely in this space. However, I hope this article provides some guidance and starting points to help employers as they make these decisions on a case-by-case basis.

1 Most of the ideas for this article come from whatever employment-law related issue is in the news. I think I’ve exhausted all stories about my past jobs or opinions on Tennessee’s basketball season, although I have many thoughts on the latter. Additionally, anyone willing to provide analysis into a potential fifth year of eligibility for Zakai Zeigler would be a DICTA article I am excited to read.

2 There are several other IT considerations for remote workers, although that is high on the list of articles that I am least qualified to write. Some issues to consider would be ensuring that employees can receive remote technical assistance, ensuring necessary subscriptions and access to programs, as well as protecting cybersecurity and network infrastructure.

3 E.E.O.C. v. Ford Motor Co., 782 F.3d 753, 761–62 (6th Cir. 2015) (quoting EEOC v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 253 F.3d 943, 948 (6th Cir. 2001)).

About this column: “The cobbler’s children have no shoes.” This old expression refers to the fact that a busy cobbler will be so busy making shoes for his customers that he has no time to make some for his own children. This syndrome can also apply to lawyers who are so busy providing good service to their clients that they neglect management issues in their own offices. The goal of this column is to provide timely information on management issues. If you have an idea for a future column, please contact Jimmy Snodgrass at jsnodgrass@kramer-rayson.com.

LEGALLY WEIRD

By: Lisa J. Hall Hodges, Doughty & Carson, PLLC

A DIFFERENT KIND OF LUNCH ORDER:

SAW’S BBQ, FIDDLE-FADDLE, AND SMALL TOWN BONA FIDES

Court can be nerve-wracking for many reasons, but often because of what is at stake. Depending on what is on the docket for the day, the potential ramifications of a court appearance include winning millions of dollars, being ordered to pay millions of dollars, winning zero dollars, being ordered to pay zero dollars, going to jail, and sometimes, going to lunch. It’s kind of a big deal.

On November 26, 2024, the lawyers in the federal court case of Pamela McCullers v. Koch Foods of Alabama, LLC, et al. in the Northern District of Alabama appeared to argue the Defendants’ Motion to Extend Responsive Pleading Deadline. Plaintiff’s counsel would only agree to an extension of time if the Defendants promised not to file a motion to dismiss. Judge R. David Proctor was hearing none of this, and I quote, “fiddle-faddle”:

There is generally no good reason that an extension such as this should be opposed, let alone denied. The Golden Rule – do unto others as you would have them do unto you – is not just a good rule of thumb for everyday life. It is a critical component of legal professionalism. Sadly, in recent years compliance with the rule is becoming rarer and rarer in the litigation arena. It is time to reverse that trend, even if it is only in this case.

Here, Plaintiff’s counsel’s conditioning of any agreement to an extension was wholly inappropriate, particularly in light of the looming Thanksgiving holiday. Such nonsense wastes time, damages professional relationships, and makes the lawyer withholding consent (or conditioning it) appear petty and uncooperative. Judges rightly expect lawyers to handle minor procedural issues like extensions without unnecessary conflict, and refusing to do so is unprincipled.

Conditioning or denying consent to an extension in this way is fiddle-faddle for an additional reason: it rarely provides any legitimate strategic advantage. Everyone encounters unexpected delays, and extending professional courtesy really costs nothing. But, fostering goodwill by agreeing to short extensions could benefit counsel later in this case – or in future dealings with opposing counsel. The court’s job is to address the merits of the case, not to navigate a world of technicalities. Refusing such a reasonable extension request stinks of petty gamesmanship. Professionalism demands that lawyers pick their battles wisely, and minor extension requests simply are not the place for unnecessary posturing.

The Court’s solution was obviously to grant the Defendants’ motion, but also the Court ordered, sua sponte, that “on or before December 31, 2024, counsel for both Plaintiff and Defendants are to go to lunch to-

gether. Plaintiff’s counsel will pay the bill; Defendants’ counsel will leave the tip. The parties will discuss how they can act professionally throughout the rest of this case. Within ten (10) days of the lunch, the parties SHALL file a joint report describing the conversation that occurred at lunch and the amount of the tip.” (emphasis in original).

I am relieved to report that the lawyers complied by going to lunch at Saw’s BBQ in Hoover, Alabama, for over an hour. The lawyers discussed the practice of law, families, big-ticket items for the 2024 holiday season, “everyone’s small town bona fides,”1 and the plan for future communications. “A healthy dialogue regarding professional norms ensued.” As ordered, Plaintiff’s counsel paid the $74.00 bill, and presumably much to the server’s delight, Defendants’ counsel left a $74.00 tip.2 I know that sometimes clients protest acts of civility and professionalism, such as granting reasonable extensions of time for responsive pleadings, discovery responses, etc. I have had many conversations with clients explaining that judges prefer counsel to cooperate on smaller matters like this. I will keep a copy of Judge Proctor’s order handy in case this issue arises in the future, whether it is a client or opposing counsel who is a proponent of the fiddle-faddle.

If fiddle-faddle is going to cause me to end up in a strip mall barbeque joint and paying $74.00 to discuss my “small town bona fides”3 with a lawyer who cannot comprehend common courtesy,4 then I simply cannot abide another occurrence of fiddle-faddle. Fiddle-faddle no more, fellow counsel. Or I’ll see you at Saw’s BBQ.

1 This is probably the first time I have heard this phrase, and when I Googled it, most of the results were linked to this particular lunch date. A couple of comments on a Thread shed some light: (1) @meandmypets83 said, “It’s Alabama, my home state. Pretty much everyone over 35 is from a small town because there haven’t been many big cities in the state for too long!” (2) @groundingrod added, “It’s just funny (I’m from GA) because it’s really a thing. If you aren’t from a small town down there, you get sneered at as a city-slicker, a Yankee, or worse. There’s a whole ritual around the process of establishing said bona fides and I’ve been through it more times than I can count. I bet it was at least half the lunch.”

2 Defendants’ counsel is killing the Golden Rule game!

3 This column is forcing me to face the uncomfortable truth that I moved to Oak Ridge in 1978 and prior to that, had no roots in Tennessee. I can be very competitive, and I do not like the thought of losing a duel of the small town bona fides.

4 Obviously in this scenario, I am the reasonable one.

AROUND THE BAR

By: Kimberly Riddett Staff Attorney Legal Aid of East Tennessee

LAET’S RECOVERY LEGAL PROJECT: SUPPORTING COMMUNITY RECOVERY IN KNOXVILLE

This project is funded under an Agreement with Knox County Opioid Settlement Funds Program.

“In Tennessee, 12,538 individuals died of an unintentional or undetermined drug overdose between 2019-2022. [These] deaths increased 90% from 2019 to 2022. In 2022, illicit opioids and stimulants accounted for the highest proportions of deaths 75% and 59%, respectively. Fentanyl was the most frequently occurring substance on toxicology.”1

Most people are now aware of how dangerous opioids can be and how carefully they must be handled when they are prescribed. Most people are also aware that the addictive nature of opioids was not always common knowledge. During the 90’s, pharmaceutical companies deceived healthcare providers by assuring them that opioids were not addictive. Though this deception is now infamous, at the time it was unknown and led to opioids being prescribed more liberally. It also meant that there was generally no help for patients who suffered from opioid addictions. This misinformation persisted for years and led to an increase in opioid use disorder and in opioid-related deaths. In 2017, the U.S. Department of Human Health Services declared the opioid crisis as a national emergency.2

In the past few years, pharmaceutical companies have made headlines as they were confronted with large-scale lawsuits over the harm caused by their predatory efforts to push opioids onto patients. Now, many of these lawsuits have been settled, or are in the process of being settled, with large payments to affected communities. According to a press release by the Attorney General’s office from 2022, “Tennessee was a lead state in the negotiations that secured these [settlement] agreements, which took several years to complete because of the complex nature of the settlements. Nationally, more than 50 states and territories and thousands of local governments have joined the agreements. In Tennessee, more than 150 counties and municipalities are participating.”3

It is well known that our own community suffered great harm due to the opioid crisis and continues to feel its adverse effects. As a result of Tennessee’s efforts in the litigation, Tennessee has previously received more than $128 million from the initial settlement payments, continues to receive funds from these settlements currently, and anticipates receiving annual payments from these settlements potentially through 2038.4

In determining how to appropriately handle this money, Tennessee has created the Opioid Abatement Council, which was established in law by the Tennessee General Assembly “to decide how to best spend dollars received from lawsuits related to the opioid crisis.”5 The Abatement Council ensures that, “these funds go toward funding programs, strategies, expenditures, and other actions designed to prevent and address the misuse and abuse of opioid products and treat or mitigate opioid use or related disorders or other effects of the opioid epidemic.”6 This includes funding grant-based projects that work towards this goal.

The Recovery Legal Project is one of these projects. Beginning in mid-2024, Legal Aid of East Tennessee was given a grant that came directly from the Knox County Opioid Settlement Funds Program, which consists of money disbursed from the above-mentioned settlements. The Recovery Legal Project exists with the sole purpose of helping people in the Knoxville community who have suffered because of the opioid crisis. This program creates an opportunity for free civil legal assistance for these individuals.

The Recovery Legal Project is unique due to its expansive nature.

Many grants focus on providing a specific service, whereas this grant focuses on serving certain members of our community. It allows LAET attorneys to assist on any civil legal issue that a person who has been harmed by the opioid crisis may be facing. This encompasses community members who have themselves suffered from opioid use disorder, but also those around them who are dealing with legal issues that directly stem from another person’s opioid use. Services can include, but are not limited to, legal issues pertaining to housing, benefits, consumer protection, orders of protection, divorce, and general family law.

It is important to be able to support those members of our community who are working to overcome the challenges that come with recovery from addiction. It is also important that we work to remediate the harm that can be caused to others due to the complex nature of addiction. Recovery from addiction is often an arduous process. There are very few things in life that are easy or straightforward. Oftentimes, as a person is trying to stabilize their life after any difficult event, other issues crop up which can inhibit a person’s ability to move forward. These can be things like housing insecurity or difficulty obtaining certain benefits.

Assistance from the Recovery Legal Project can look like helping someone who is in the early stages of their recovery maintain stable housing so that they can continue focusing on their treatment and sobriety. It can also be assistance with understanding the state of benefits of a deceased parent to the child of a person who has passed away due to a fatal opioid overdose. It can be assisting with a divorce that stems from one party falling into addiction and the need for both parties to be able to move forward in their individual lives.

Legal Aid of East Tennessee has also been using this as an opportunity to create new connections and partnerships with other community organizations and programs. Knoxville is a community that deeply cares for its members, and the Recovery Legal Project has created a new avenue to allow LAET to work with different organizations and become even more invested in our community. Being able to better the lives of individuals betters our community as a whole.

1 Tennessee State Unintentional Drug Overdose Reporting System (SUDORS) Report 2024, Tennessee Department of Health Office of Informatics and Analytics January 12, 2024.

2 (DCD), Digital Communications Division. “Opioid Facts and Statistics.” HHS.Gov, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 30 May 2023.

3 “General Skrmetti Announces $84 Million Payout to Combat Opioid Crisis.” Tennessee State Government - TN.Gov, TN Attorney General , 4 Nov. 2022, www. tn.gov/attorneygeneral/news/2022/11/4/pr22-42.html.

4 “General Skrmetti Announces $84 Million Payout to Combat Opioid Crisis.” Tennessee State Government - TN.Gov, TN Attorney General , 4 Nov. 2022, www. tn.gov/attorneygeneral/news/2022/11/4/pr22-42.html.

5 “Our Work.” Tennessee State Government - TN.Gov, TN Opioid Abatement Council, 27 June 2024, www.tn.gov/oac/our-work.html.

6 “Our Work.” Tennessee State Government - TN.Gov, TN Opioid Abatement Council, 27 June 2024, www.tn.gov/oac/our-work.html.

TOP TEN

By: Jason H. Long Lewis Thomason, PC

TOP TEN THINGS YOU NEVER WANT TO READ IN A JUDICIAL OPINION/ORDER

Recently, a friend sent me an opinion which contained foreboding language directed at an opposing counsel. My friend was enjoying some schadenfreude as the litigation had been contentious and he felt it was about time opposing counsel “got his.” For me, it was a flashback of the many times I have read, in black and white, things that caused my stomach to turn. It inspired me to put together the following list of Top Ten Things You Never Want to Read in a Judicial Opinion/Order:

10. “Granted in part, Reversed in part.” Sure, it is better than losing outright, but a partial win/partial loss can be a little like kissing your cousin. Also, now I have to read the whole thing to know what I won.

9. “[Client or Attorney] is directed to Show Cause . . .” This is like getting called to the principal’s office. You’ve already done the deed that is going to get you in trouble. Time to own up to it, apologize profusely, and pray for some mercy.

8. “The Court therefore finds it appropriate to award attorney fees . . . .” At this point, you’ve almost certainly lost whatever it is you are arguing about. Your client is going to be angry they have to pay your attorney fees. Wait until they find out they have to pay their opponent’s attorney fees as well.

7. “The Court finds the argument has been waived . . . .” Oops. A call to your malpractice carrier is likely in order.

6. “[Attorney] is reminded of his legal and ethical duties under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 11(b)(2).” This is an actual quote from an opinion recently entered in federal court in another state. The attorney submitted a brief created by AI without checking the law and citations (how many times is this going to happen?). If the Court feels the need to remind you of ethical obligations and the existence of Rule 11, you are not on the right trajectory.

5. “This signifies the end, we trust, of [plaintiff’s] and its counsel’s singularly sanctionable sojourn among the hallowed halls of justice. Throughout this litigation, the conduct of Plaintiff and its counsel [has] fouled the judicial nest.” This attorney’s conduct was so bad, the court took the time to employ two examples of alliteration and an avian metaphor to admonish him.

I’ve divided this list into two parts. The six quotes above are unrelated to me but would be awful to read. The following top four are all cases I was involved in and are remarks relating to my legal ability/ arguments. They are therefore particularly troublesome and thus make the top of my list.

4. “Defendant’s proposed Motion is unlikely to meet with success.” I hadn’t even filed the motion yet, but the judge felt the need to tell me I was going to lose. I guess I should thank the judge for saving me the time?

3. “Never, in 27 years on the bench, has this Judge come across a more inequitable agreement.” A little background here. I had a friend in Memphis who represented structured settlement companies. These are the groups that will go in and offer to pay a lump sum to people for their structured settlement rights. Many times, these companies will offer pennies on the dollar for these rights. It really can be unfortunate for people who are in need of money immediately as they sometimes sell off substantial rights. The job of the attorney is to facilitate the transaction and present it to the Court, which must determine if it is appropriate. My Memphis friend needed local counsel in Knoxville to handle these matters on the east side of the state. This was the third, and last, of these matters I handled. The judge was incensed at the terms of the buyout, refused to sign it, and insisted I include the language above in a final order for him to sign. The Order got picked up by the TBA Today. I am only thankful that my name was not included.

2. “The first reason assigned by the Appellant is somewhat baffling and we will not further notice it.” This line, by Senior Judge Inman, appeared in the opinion that came out of my first ever appearance in the Court of Appeals in 1997. Remarkably, we won the case on other grounds. Still, for over 25 years, I have been harboring resentment that Judge Inman found my primary argument “baffling.” Sidenote here, for years after this decision, every time Judge Susano saw me on the street, he’d smile, shake his head, and say “baffling.”

1. “At the outset, we note that the Appellee’s brief takes undue liberties with the art of advocacy. . .” Judge Inman strikes again (I swear he had it out for me). This language appeared in an opinion on a healthcare liability appeal where I wrote the primary brief. In fairness, I did get a little overly creative with the facts in making my argument, which I thought at the time was my job. Inman probably got this one right, and I have kicked myself over it for years.

BARRISTER BITES

By: Angelia Morie Nystrom Vice President for Advancement and Chief Legal Counsel East Tennessee Foundation

MARRY ME! (OR AT LEAST DO THE DISHES)

I recently read about a dish that was so good it had resulted in hundreds of marriages. It was billed as a “fool-proof” way to get a marriage proposal. I was curious and wondered whether I might have convinced Hugh to marry me a little quicker had I had this about 2 ½ decades ago.

Hugh and I met on a blind date in 2001 and have been together ever since. (We later discovered that we had met at a party in 1992, and I am very glad that I did not know that when I accepted that first date. I was not impressed, and he didn’t remember me. But that’s a story for another day.) After that blind date, I told my friends that I was going to marry Hugh. I’m not sure that he was as easily convinced, and the road to the altar was a long one… so long that the 20-something girl working at the bridal store asked me if I needed to see mother-of-the-bride dresses.

Having been happily married for now over 20 years, I was still curious about the infamous chicken dish that had been the impetus for so many marriage proposals. This dish apparently originated when an editor from Delish created it for a video. After filming, the videographer sampled it and said, “I’d marry you for that chicken.” Apparently, others heard, and “Marry Me Chicken” was born.

Curious, I decided to give it a try to see if it truly lived up to its reputation. It did, and I want to share it. To prepare “Marry Me Chicken,” preheat oven to 375°. In a large ovenproof skillet over mediumhigh heat, heat 1 tablespoon of olive oil. Generously season 4 (8-oz) boneless, skinless chicken breasts with salt and black pepper and cook, turning halfway through, until golden brown, about 5 minutes per side. Transfer chicken to a plate.

In the same skillet over medium heat, heat 2 tablespoons of olive oil. Stir in 2 cloves finely chopped garlic, 1 tablespoon fresh thyme, and 1 teaspoon crushed red pepper flakes. Cook, stirring until fragrant, about 1 minute. Stir in ¾ cup low sodium chicken broth, ½ cup chopped sundried tomatoes, ½ cup heavy cream, and ¼ cup finely grated Parmesan cheese. Bring to a simmer, then return chicken and any accumulated juices to skillet.

Transfer skillet to the oven. Bake chicken until cooked through and juices run clear when chicken is pierced with a knife, 10-12 minutes. Remove from oven and arrange chicken on a platter. Spoon sauce over

STORY, continued from page 18

the Wake of 9/11, 42 U. Rich. L. Rev. 955, 957-58 (2008) and Ramsey, supra note v. at 452-53; see also PETER H. SCHUCK & ROGERS M. SMITH, CITIZENSHIP WITHOUT CONSENT: ILLEGAL ALIENS IN THE AMERICAN POLITY (1985).

24 Ramsey, supra note v. at 452-53; see also Cristina M. Rodríguez, The Citizenship Clause, Original Meaning, and the Egalitarian Unity of the Fourteenth Amendment, 11 U. PA. J. CONST. L. 1363 (2009).

25 Rodríguez, supra note xxiv at 1367 (citing Christopher L. Eisgruber, Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution, 72 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 54, 76 (1997)).

26 Ramsey, supra note v. at 460-61.

27 Ramsey, supra note v. at 465.

28 Ramsey, supra note v. at 465 (citing Rodríguez, supra note xxiv. at 1364-65).

29 See, e.g., Amanda Hollis-Brusky, Ideas with Consequences: The Federalist Society and the Conservative Counterrevolution, Oxford University Press (2019).

30 Citizenship by birth in Canada is mandated by the Citizenship Act of 1946, SC 1946, c. 15.

31 Christophe Bertossi, EUDO Citizenship Observatory, Country Report France (2010),

chicken and top with torn fresh basil.

While “Marry Me Chicken” didn’t convince Hugh to marry me all over again (or even purchase jewelry or flowers), it was a hit and will become a part of the regular dinner rotation at our house.

Hugh’s sister provided me with a twist on “Marry Me Chicken” – “Marry Me Chicken Lasagna.” We recently hosted a luncheon, and Joann is an amazing cook and volunteered to prepare the meal. She makes wonderful lasagna, and she told me about her latest recipe that she wanted to try. I was excited, as it was very similar to my chicken.

Marry Me Chicken Lasagna keeps the flavors of the original chicken dish but “marries” them with pasta. To prepare, preheat the oven to 350°. Spray a 9x13 inch pan with nonstick spray.

To make the sauce, melt 2 tablespoon butter in a medium saucepan. Add 3 large minced garlic cloves and heat for 30 seconds. Whisk in 1 ½ cups of milk, 1 ½ cups of heavy whipping cream, ½ teaspoon salt, ¼ teaspoon pepper and ¼ teaspoon red pepper flakes. Heat until bubbling. Add 1 cup grated Parmesan and whisk until smooth. Then stir in 2 cups of fresh chopped spinach and 2/3 cup of sundried tomatoes, and let sit until you are ready to use it.

To assemble the lasagna, in a medium bowl, combine 2 cups of ricotta cheese with 1 teaspoon garlic powder. Spoon about 1 cup of the sauce into the bottom of the prepared pan. Top with 3 lasagna noodles. (I like the oven-ready lasagna noodles.) Spread 1/3 of the ricotta mixture over the lasagna noodles. Add 4 cups shredded cooked chicken breast and 8 slices of bacon (cooked crisp and crumbled) to the remaining sauce and spoon 1/3 of the chicken mixture evenly over the ricotta layer. Top with 1 cup of shredded mozzarella cheese. Repeat the layers two more times, starting with the lasagna noodles.

Cover with foil and bake 40 to 50 minutes, or until the sauce is bubbling. Remove the foil and bake a few more minutes, until the cheese is golden brown. Top with chopped Italian parsley. Cool for at least 10 minutes before serving.

If you are not married but want to be, I highly recommend these dishes. If they work, I get the credit. If they don’t, you have had a really wonderful meal. If you are married, hopefully your spouse will love them so much that he or she does the dishes! No matter what, we all win!

https://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/19613/France.pdf and British Nationality Act of 1981, 1981 c 61. See also Brooke Hurley, Automatic Birthright Citizenship: How Europe Has Fallen and Why We Should Not Follow, 19 Sw. J. Int’l 351 (2013).

FOODIE FINDS: THE BEST OF KNOXVILLE FOOD TRUCKS

By: Parker Bohne LMU Duncan School of Law J.D. Candidate, 2026

THE EGYPTIAN TASTE

Knoxville’s food truck scene has been growing steadily over the past several years, offering a diverse array of flavors from around the world. But one cuisine that had been noticeably lacking representation was Egyptian food—until now. Enter The Egyptian Taste, a food truck owned and operated by Mohamed Allam, a former chemical engineer turned food entrepreneur, who is bringing authentic Egyptian flavors to East Tennessee.

When the COVID-19 pandemic struck, Allam was working as a chemical engineer in South Dakota. COVID forced the closure of his employer, forcing him to take a new engineering job and relocate to Morristown, Tennessee. But things didn’t pan out as he had hoped, so it was time to rethink his career path and pursue the dream he had set aside for years. Even during Allam’s time in South Dakota, he had dreamed of leaving his job as an engineer to open a restaurant, but COVID made him hesitant to make that leap. After leaving his job in Morristown, however, it was the perfect time to make a big change.

Rather than opening a traditional brick-and-mortar restaurant, Allam opted for a food truck, giving him the flexibility to move around the city and introduce Egyptian cuisine to a broader audience. For Allam, one of the best parts of running a food truck is the people. Unlike working in a closed environment where he saw the same colleagues daily, Allam now meets new customers every day, forming relationships with first-time visitors and regulars alike. It’s this personal touch—Allam’s kindness and welcoming smile—that makes The Egyptian Taste more than just a place

SCHOOLED IN ETHICS,

continued from page 19

lawyer from engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. And in Justice, the lawyer was also charged with violating Rule 3.5(e), which prohibits a lawyer from engaging in conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal.

1 Jacqueline Thomsen, Judge Apologizes for Criticizing Alito’s Ethics Over Flags, bloombeRg law, Dec. 17, 2024, https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/judgeapologizes-for-criticizing-alitos-ethics-over-flags

2 Judy M. Cornett, Criticism of Judges: The Ethical Boundaries, dicta, May 2017.

3 693 S.W.3d 225, 234, 36 (Tenn. 2024).

4 Bernie Pazanowski, Disbarred New Mexico Lawyer Loses Federal Appeal of State Rebuke, bloombeRg law, Feb. 3, 2025, https://www.bloomberglaw.com/product/ blaw/bloomberglawnews/bloomberg-law-news/BNA%2000000194-ccd4-d1b0a39e-ced4d2790001

5 Justice, 693 S.W.3d at 247.

6 Standing Committee v. Yagman 55 F.3d 1430 (9th Cir. 1995).

7 Manookian v. Board of Professional Responsibility, 685 S.W.3d 744, 787 (Tenn. 2024).

8 Id. at 788.

9 Standing Committee v. Yagman 55 F.3d 1430 (9th Cir. 1995).

to grab a meal—it’s an experience.

One of Allam’s biggest motivations behind launching The Egyptian Taste was the limited Middle Eastern food options in Knoxville, and more specifically, the absence of Egyptian cuisine. When Allam moved to the area, he sought out places that reflected his culture and flavors, but he found few options. While Knoxville has some Middle Eastern-inspired restaurants, he found nothing that truly specialized in Egyptian food. Allam made it his mission to represent and share his culture with the Knoxville area through a universal language: food.

For those unfamiliar with Egyptian cuisine, it’s a delightful blend of Mediterranean, Middle Eastern, and North African influences, featuring rich spices, hearty dishes, and vibrant flavors. Customers of The Egyptian Taste can expect classic dishes such as koshari, a popular Egyptian street food made with lentils, rice, pasta, and tomato sauce, as well as falafel, shawarma, and other traditional delights. For those who are a bit more carnivorous, the Mix Grill provides an opportunity to dig into a heaping plate of chicken kebab, kofta—think “Middle Eastern meatloaf”— and lamb kebab, served over yellow rice. Allam prepares every dish with the goal of authentically representing Egypt’s culinary heritage.

For those eager to try The Egyptian Taste, the food truck is regularly stationed at 8097 Kingston Pike, from 11:30 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. daily. As Knoxville continues to grow in its culinary diversity, food trucks like The Egyptian Taste are making a significant impact, expanding the city’s palate one plate at a time.

Address Changes

Please note the following changes in your KBA Attorneys’ Directory and other office records:

Katherine A. Eshleman

BPR #: 041203

University of Tennessee Foundation, Inc.

1525 University Ave.

Knoxville, TN 37921-4848

Ph: (865) 974-2115 aeshleman@utfi.org

Patrick Alford

Sarah C. Atkinson

DeRoyal Industries, Inc.

Laurel C. Ball

Consolidated Nuclear Security, LLC

Leonora Browne

Grace Keel Buchanan Realty Trust Group, LLC

Andy Cofer

Garza Law Firm, PLLC

Ellen R. Copper

The Law Office of Laura Metcalf

Elise M. DeNicola

Watson, Roach, Batson & Lauderback, P.L.C.

Travis E. Dorman

Peyton E. Faulkner Ritchie Lewis Thomason, P.C.

John M. Foster Leitner, Williams, Dooley & Napolitan, PLLC

Bianca M. Guzman

R. Jarek Hall

McKinney & Tillman, PC

Emily Harfouche

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

Crystal J. Harris

Daniel P. Hesketh

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

Caitlin Hoch-Nussbaum

Consolidated Nuclear Security, LLC

Matthew Hubbs Paine, Bickers, Elder, King & Williams, LLP

Miranda Goodwin

BPR #: 038465

Malia & Goodwin

5727 Clinton Hwy #12395

Knoxville, TN 37912-7225

Ph: (865) 712-8687

mirandaegoodwin@gmail.com

Leah W. McClanahan

BPR #: 027603

Long, Ragsdale & Waters, P.C.

1111 N. Northshore Drive, Suite S-700

Knoxville, TN 37919-4097

Ph: (865) 584-4040 lmcclanahan@lrwlaw.com

WELCOME NEW MEMBERS

THE KNOXVILLE BAR ASSOCIATION IS PLEASED TO WELCOME THE FOLLOWING NEW MEMBERS:

NEW ATTORNEYS

Weslen T. Lakins

Lewis Thomason, P.C.

Emily K Lambert

Lewis Thomason, P.C.

Kassadi B. Lavrinovich

Tod Leaven

Leaven Law Firm, PLLC

Adam B. McDonald

Kennerly, Montgomery & Finley, P.C.

Dr. April C. Meldrum

Lincoln Memorial University

Duncan School of Law

Adam S. Moncier Law Office of Adam S. Moncier

Jennie M. Montenotte

Arenas Immigration Law

Louis Moran, IV

Lewis Thomason, P.C.

Brenden Shawn Moriarty Long, Ragsdale & Waters, P.C.

Laura Mott

Lincoln Memorial University

Duncan School of Law

Luci L. Nelson

Ogletree Deakins Law Firm

Andrew Eugene O’Donnell Barnes and Fersten

Cynthia L. Paduch

Tennessee Attorney General’s Office

Daryl H. Petersen, Jr.

Taylor A. Redmond Elmore, Stone & Caffey, PLLC

J. Hannah Reed Great West Casualty Company

Kimberly N. Riddett Legal Aid of East Tennessee, Inc.

Laura J. Rudder

Camellia Saunders Law Office of Camellia S. Saunders, LLC

Julia G. Slagle

Rebecca J. Spicer-Keller Legal Aid of East Tennessee, Inc.

Sarah Emily Still

Caleb E. Stuber

Caden Throneberry Pilot Company

Rodolfo Urquieta Cortes

Knox County Public Defender’s Community Law Office

Kendal A. Walker

Knox County Public Defender’s Community Law Office

Edward G. White, III Law Offices of Edward G. White III

Bethany Westcott Wilson

Kramer Rayson LLP

NEW LAW STUDENT MEMBERS

Constance Olivia Brown

Emily Bryant

Rebecca L. Cates

Jacob Cherry

Chloe A. Eagle

Taylor N. French

Erica Glover

Haley R. Hilbun

Anna B. Howard

Kelsey Kendall

Katelynn N. Luttrell

Jillian McGauley

Mitchell T. Oetgen

Cecilia K. Plummer

Kayla Rachunek

Lora R. Smith

Veronica L. Smith

Carlee R. Sullins

KBA VOLUNTEERISM

By: Bridget Pyman Arnett | Baker

PROFILING PAUL WEHMEIER

There is a common perception that lawyers operate within a distinct realm — one defined by procedural rigor, complex legal doctrines, and an unyielding stream of “high priority” emails. The profession is often, though not unfairly, associated with long hours, battles fought through paperwork, and a relentless flow of deadlines. At its core, however, the practice of law is about service — advocating for others, ensuring fairness, and navigating complex systems to assist those who cannot do so independently. Beyond their professional duties, many lawyers dedicate themselves to their communities in ways that extend far beyond legal advocacy. This column highlights the volunteer efforts of KBA members who, in addition to their work commitments, devote time and energy to serving their communities.

Paul Wehmeier is a labor and employment law attorney by trade, but his contributions to the community extend far beyond the legal field and his dedication to community service is well established, shaped by years of involvement in initiatives aimed at supporting those in need. For six years, Paul chaired the Barristers Volunteer Breakfast Committee coordinating efforts to provide warm meals to those in need. Now, through West Park Baptist Church and its nonprofit arm, Cedarbrook Outreach, Paul has been actively engaged in providing volunteer services directly addressing needs of individuals and families in the surrounding community. Through the Outreach program, Paul and his family, among numerous West Park families, provide emergency food assistance to

underprivileged communities through weekly food trucks; organize meal programs for children who lose access to school-provided meals during weather-related school closures and during the summer months; and when the holiday season arrives, the Outreach ensures that disadvantaged families receive Thanksgiving and Christmas meal boxes, complete with gift cards for main dishes.

Paul’s commitment to service extends beyond meeting immediate needs in the community; it is also about imparting important values to his children. He and his wife believe that demonstrating faith requires more than attending Sunday services. By volunteering together, they teach their children that Christianity is an active practice — one that calls for service, compassion, and direct engagement with the community.

Paul’s volunteerism also serves as a powerful reminder of the broader impact the legal profession can have within the community. His work demonstrates how members of the KBA go beyond their professional roles to serve others in meaningful ways. The time and energy Paul dedicates to initiatives like Cedarbrook Outreach reflect the foundational values of the legal profession: fairness, justice, and service to others. His efforts are a testament to the commitment and compassion that many in the legal field bring to their communities, showcasing the positive influence attorneys can have when they step beyond their offices and into the neighborhoods they serve.

Serving the Legal Community in Assisting Low-Income Persons To Navigate the Justice System

GOODBYES AND HELLOS

Caitlin Torney

Lincoln Memorial University Duncan School of Law Director of Career Services

Friends and Colleagues, it has truly been a pleasure and a privilege to serve as the Director of Pro Bono for Legal Aid of East Tennessee these past five years. As I step into a new chapter, I want to express my deep gratitude to the Knoxville Bar Association and the many dedicated local attorneys I have had the honor of working alongside. Through your service at clinics, bar events, and community outreach, I have been continually inspired by this community’s commitment to pro bono service and access to justice. The dedication and generosity of our local legal community are remarkable, and I am proud to have been a part of it. Thank you for your support, partnership, and friendship. I am excited to continue this work as co-chair of the KBA Access to Justice Committee and in my new role as the Director of Career Services at LMU Duncan School of Law.  I am confident that Clint Wren will excel in his new role as Pro Bono Coordinating Attorney for the Knoxville Legal Aid Office, and I am excited to be a part of the volunteer community going forward.

Best,

Caitlin Torney

Mary Frances DeVoe

Legal Aid of East Tennessee Director of Pro Bono

As we say farewell to Caitlin, we also want to thank her for nearly five years of incredible work not just in the Knoxville area but throughout the whole of East Tennessee! She is leaving us with a Pro Bono Project that is not only thriving but is respected throughout Tennessee and beyond. With Caitlin’s departure come shoes to fill–– including her position as Director of Pro Bono and the coordinating attorney for Knoxville’s pro bono efforts. Clint Wren will be stepping in as the pro bono coordinating attorney for Knoxville, and I will be serving as Director of Pro Bono. So let this serve as my introduction! My name is Mary Frances DeVoe, and I have served as the pro bono coordinating attorney for our Chattanooga office for the last three and a half years. As you might have guessed, I live and work in Chattanooga, and I look

forward to continuing to captain our Chattanooga efforts while also overseeing our Knoxville and Johnson City pro bono programs! You might be thinking, “what does this mean for Knoxville?” Very little, actually! The Pro Bono Project is going to continue doing all the things you all love to see the Pro Bono Project do, just with a different face in Clint Wren. Clint will be your “boots on the ground” for all things Knoxville-related and your go-to guy! While we are beyond sad to be losing Caitlin’s leadership, passion, charisma, and excellent taste in fashion, we are confident that the Pro Bono Project is going to continue growing, innovating, and serving Knoxville and East Tennessee. I look forward to seeing you all at Pro Bono Night in November and whenever else the occasion might arise!

Cheers,

Mary

Frances DeVoe, Director of Pro Bono

Clint Wren

Legal Aid of East Tennessee

Staff Attorney, Knoxville Pro Bono Coordinator

I am thrilled to introduce myself as the new Pro Bono Central Coordinator for Legal Aid of East Tennessee’s Knoxville division. As I step into the role, I want to thank Caitlin Torney for the work she has done in this role previously and wish her luck in her next exciting role at Lincoln Memorial University. I am optimistic about what lies ahead for all of us given our Bar’s unique interest in our shared mission––to provide access to justice for our neighbors in need.

This position represents more than a professional opportunity; this is a personal calling. The chance to build meaningful partnerships, collaborate with some of the best legal professionals in the area, and facilitate a tangible improvement in people’s lives is not a privilege I take lightly.

When I’m not in the office, I’m at home playing with my two energetic sons and bonkers Shiba Inu dog. My wife, Ashley, travels the world putting on conferences for a field of science I frankly do not understand, but I’m excellent at pretending to know about the places she travels to and the science she hosts.

I look forward to connecting with you and your organizations in the coming weeks!

Best, Clint Wren, Staff Attorney and Knoxville Pro Bono Coordinator

Upcoming Clinic Opportunities

Legal Advice Clinic for Veterans: In person at the Public Defender’s Community Law Office at 1101 Liberty Street in Knoxville. Phone advice options available. Ssign up via the KBA website. NOTE: The clinic will be held bimonthly in 2025.

• Wednesday, April 9 Noon – 2:00 PM.

• Wednesday, October 8 Noon – 2:00 PM.

• Wednesday, June 11 Noon – 2:00 PM

• Wednesday, December 10 Noon – 2:00 PM

• Wednesday, August 13 Noon – 2:00 PM

Debt Relief Clinic: In person at the Public Defender’s Community Law Office at 1101 Liberty Street in Knoxville. Signup via the KBA website.

• Saturday June 28 8AM – Noon.

• Saturday November 15 8AM – Noon.

• Saturday September 13 8AM – Noon.

PRIVILEGED TO BE IN THE LAW

By: Sharon Leveron Eldridge & Cravens, PC

CARRYING THE LEGACY: FINDING PURPOSE & GRATITUDE IN THE LAW

When I think about what it means to practice law, I am reminded of a quote attributed to Konstantin Josef Jireček: “We, the unwilling, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have done so much, for so long, with so little, we are now qualified to do anything with nothing.” While this sentiment may reflect the challenges and frustrations many attorneys face, for me, it also highlights the extraordinary resilience and dedication required to thrive in this profession. And despite the hardships, I feel privileged to be in the law—a profession that is not just my career, but my calling.

My Hispanic American heritage and my family’s deep history in the legal profession have shaped my path to becoming an attorney and continue to amplify my thankfulness for the opportunity to serve others through this work.

Ever since I was a little girl, I knew I wanted to be a lawyer. Most parents teasingly tell their argumentative children that they should pursue a career in law, but I took that encouragement to heart. Now that I am here, I understand that practicing law is about far more than just being able to argue effectively, more than a resolute, rigid concept. In reality, it is fluid and malleable. It requires a deep commitment to justice, an unwavering work ethic, and the ability to see beyond oneself to serve others.  In what other profession do you have the opportunity to learn about a miscellany of topics, to question longstanding concepts and rules, and to advocate for the deserving and underserved?

The law feels like it is in my blood—a calling woven into the fabric of my life. My mother, one of my greatest inspirations, worked as a paralegal in Florida for over a decade. I have vivid memories of helping her in her office as a child—making copies, organizing files, and running small errands. It was there that I not only saw the behind-the-scenes effort that legal work demands but also the impact it has on real lives.

On my father’s side, my family’s legal roots are even deeper. My father comes from a family of eighteen siblings in Honduras, many of whom are attorneys. In that country, the practice of law often comes with profound risks. One of my uncles, a defense attorney, was murdered on the courthouse steps because of the status of the individual he represented. His tragic death is a somber reminder of the sacrifices lawyers make to uphold the principles of justice and the right to a fair trial. It is also a reminder of the privileges of being an attorney in America, despite our justice system’s imperfections.

My family’s dream has always been for me to continue this tradition in the United States. Growing up, I was surrounded by resilient and hardworking individuals who instilled in me the belief that education is my greatest asset and that I could achieve anything I set my mind to if I worked tirelessly for it.

That belief—and the countless hours of hard work it inspired—has paid off. I am proud to say that I am an attorney. More than that, I am privileged to be part of a profession that allows me to carry forward my family’s legacy while also using my knowledge and skills to help others.

Although I am only just starting my career, I am beginning to

understand and truly appreciate that being a lawyer is not without its difficulties. Like many young attorneys— and even seasoned ones— I face moments of doubt and uncertainty. The demands of the job are relentless, and the legal profession often faces scrutiny and devaluation. But the opportunity to serve clients, advocate for justice, and collaborate with kind, knowledgeable colleagues makes every challenge worthwhile. I am privileged to be part of the Knoxville bar, where resilience is matched with camaraderie, and where a supportive community is always willing to extend a helping hand.

The law is about more than rules and arguments. It is about people—their stories, struggles, and triumphs. As an attorney, I have the honor of standing beside individuals during some of the most difficult moments of their lives, offering guidance, hope, and perhaps even a little bit of laughter when it is needed most.

To me, that is a privilege unlike any other.