Memphis Lawyer Magazine Vol. 37 Issue 4

the magazine of the Memphis Bar Association | Vol. 37, Issue 4, December 2020

My Time With RBG

Cover Photo: Memorial Service for the Honorable Ruth Bader Ginsburg

THIS ISSUE:

The Inevitable Demise of the 2020 Law Grad: And What Hiring Attorneys Can Do To Help Law & Basketball: Jason Wexler Finds Balance of the Two With the Memphis Grizzlies

The Impact and Legacy of the Honorable Paulette Delk

MEDIATION: (Noun) An

intervention between conflicting parties to promote reconciliation, settlement, or compromise.

Example in a sentence:

Attorney Lisa J. Gill assisted my client in coming to an agreeable Settlement with their ex-spouse, without the emotional and financial expense of the courtroom experience.

Lisa J. Gill is a partner and attorney at Thomas, White & Gill and is a certified Rule 31 mediator.

memphisfamilylaw.com 901-537-0010

Volume 37, Issue 4, December 2020

FEATURES 6 The Inevitable Demise of the 2020 Law Grad:

And What Hiring Attorneys Can Do To Help

BY NATTALY PERRYMAN

9 Law & Basketball: Jason Wexler Finds Balance of the Two

With the Memphis Grizzlies

BY SEAN ANTONE HUNT

11

The Impact and Legacy of the Honorable Paulette Delk

BY HARRISON D. MCIVER III, INTERVIEWER

14 Tennessee Supreme Court Adopts Amendments To Tennessee Rules Of

Civil Procedure: What Are They And How Will They Affect Your Practice

BY PRESTON DAVIS

16

My Time With RBG

18

Post-Stretch: Inheriting Retirement Accounts After the SECURE Act

22

Title VII

BY BARBARA ZOCCOLA

BY TIM ELLIS

BY JAKE D. STRAWN

24 The COVID-19 Challenge: Public Health or Public Safety?

DA Weirich Aims to Have Both

BY AMY WEIRICH

27

2020 Memphis Bar Association Virtual Annual Meeting

28

Annual Awards

31

Black Mental Health in 2020: Time for Cultural Competence

COLUMNS 5

President’s Column

35

People in the News

BY PETER GEE

37 Classifieds

3

MEMPHIS LAWYER

2020 MBA Officers

the magazine of the Memphis Bar Association

MBA Publications Committee Sean Antone Hunt, Chair Jacob Strawn, Vice Chair Peter Gee, Executive Committee Liaison Preston Battle Karen Campbell Dean DeCandia Chasity Grice Nicole Grida Stephen Leffler Kendra Lyons Harrison McIver Jared Renfroe Faith Sanford Andrew Shrack Jennie Silk Richard Vaughan Ellen Vergos Christy Washington

The Memphis Lawyer is a quarterly publication of the Memphis Bar Association, Inc. with a circulation of 2,000. If you are interested in submitting an article for publication or advertising in an upcoming issue, contact maurytower@memphisbar.org. The MBA reserves the right to reject any advertisement or article submitted for publication.

The Memphis Bar Association 145 Court Ave. Suite 301 Memphis, TN 38103 Phone: (901) 527-3573 Fax: (901) 440-0426 www.memphisbar.org

4

Lucie Brackin

Peter Gee

President

Vice President

Tannera Gibson

Secretary/Treasurer

Annie Christoff Past President

2020 Board of Directors Dawn Campbell Hon. Frank Cantrell Hon. M. Ruthie Hagan Hon. JoeDae Jenkins Adam Johnson Andrea Malkin Matt May Patrick Morris Jennifer Nichols Will Perry Hon. Shayla Purifoy Terrence Reed Maggie Roney Billy Ryan

Jennifer Sink Lauran Stimac Laquita Stokes Josh Wallis Christy Washington Estelle Winsett Section Representatives Laurie Christensen Anne Davis Forrest Edwards Robbin Hutton Laura Mason Jill Shirley

ABA Delegate Lucian Pera AWA Representative April Bostick Law School Representative Donna Harkness NBA Representative Tiffany Webber YLD President Sarah Pazar Williams

MBA STAFF

Maury Tower

Interim Executive Director

Lauren Gooch Membership & CLE Director

D’Onna James Project Coordinator

Kelly Swan

Communications Director

PRESIDENT'S COLUMN

By PETER GEE, MBA 2021 President

We Love Lucie!

Being the President of the Memphis Bar Association is a monumental challenge in the best of times. To be MBA President in unprecedent times is how legends are born.

Lucie Brackin will forever be a legend in the MBA for the tenacity, grace and thoughtfulness of her leadership of this organization in 2020, and I remain in awe of the performance she turned in. This organization is stronger and better suited to the challenges ahead because of Lucie’s tireless work, and on behalf of the entire MBA, I want to start my tenure with this expression of our collective gratitude: We Love Lucie!

Now it is my turn to pick up the torch and continue Lucie’s work, and to lead the MBA forward through (what we hope is) the backside of this COVID pandemic.

Despite the challenges we face, the work of the MBA will and must go on. We have the Mock Trial Competition, Bench Bar, Summer Law Intern Program (SLIP) and John Dice Wellness Seminar ahead, on top of so many other wonderful programs and so many excellent CLEs. These cornerstone events do not happen merely because the calendar says its time. They happen because of the hard work put in by the leadership of this organization and by the individual members who give of themselves to make them happen. 2021 will be no different. I am blessed to have the support of Tannera Gibson as the Vice President, and the newly elected Jennifer Sink as Secretary/Treasurer. Both of these women are talented, strong leaders, and the three of us are counting on you to step up and help us deliver on the mission of the MBA in 2021, no matter the circumstances.

This brings me to the theme I hope will persist throughout my tenure as President of this organization: we need you to buy in. Every member of this organization, whether in an elected position or not, has to buy in to the

mission and purpose of a bar association. The MBA has a long, rich history of supporting the broader Memphis community by strengthening access to justice (Saturday Legal Clinic, etc.), encouraging youths to engage in a positive way with the law (SLIP, Mock Trial, etc.), strengthening the knowledge, expertise and wellness of our members (CLE, John Dice, etc.) and in so many other vital ways. In order for these impacts to continue and deepen, I am challenging each of you to find a way to buy in this year. For some, that may be a literal buy in, in the form of a donation to help fund these programs.

For others, I hope you will buy in with your time, either to help fundraise, to help increase membership or to volunteer to work with one of these programs.

The Memphis Bar Association, like so many institutions, stands at an inflection point created by the COVID crisis. Now is the time for all of us to buy in and to help shape and strengthen the MBA to ensure that the generations that come after us – inside and outside the legal community – get to enjoy the benefits and community that the MBA has provided for the last 146 years.

I hope you will join me. Buy in. Let’s build on the past and provide for the future.  5

THE INEVITABLE DEMISE OF THE 2020 LAW GRAD: And What Hiring Attorneys Can Do to Help

By NATTALY PERRYMAN, B.A., M.A. ED., J.D.1

I

n the second week of March 2020, the plight of the 2020 Law Graduate began venturing down the slippery slope of uncertainty.

This was the week many law schools across the nation realized they would have to transition to virtual learning for the duration of the Spring semester.

For second semester 3Ls at Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law, many of them will never forget receiving that email from University President Rudd at 8:43 a.m., and another from Dean Schaffzin from the Law School at 8:53 a.m. explaining how that day was the last day of in-person classes for the academic year. Many of us were physically sitting in class when the aforementioned correspondence was released. We sat there, a bit stunned, a lot confused - trying to figure out what all of this meant for a journey we had all spent the past three years striving to complete. March 12, 2020 was a day the 2020 Memphis Law Grad will not soon forget, but we left the building that day still with hope. On March 13, 2020, the Tennessee Supreme Court suspended in-person proceedings in all state and local courts across the state.2 That’s when things “got real.”

Think back to March of your 3L year… Most likely, you already would have started making graduation plans with family and friends, you already would have had job offers lined up, all that was left to do was likely to complete the last few tasks to register for the Bar Examination and then prepare to start studying. Then, out of nowhere seemingly, everything changed. No one 6

had any clue what virtual classes would look like, nor how exams would be administered. The Ben F. Jones Barrister’s Ball is cancelled, graduation is cancelled, classes become pass/fail, job interviews and offers are put on hold, and absolutely no one has any clear guidance on what will happen to the July Bar examination. Yet, the 2020 Law Grad still starts studying for the July Bar Exam nonetheless.

On, May 11, 2020, the Tennessee Supreme Court issued an order stating that “absent new or extended ‘safer at home’ orders the July 2020 bar examination will be administered in Tennessee on July 28 and 29, 2020, in Knoxville, Memphis and Nashville.”3 Everything was still on track, all was not for naught. By the time most 2020 grads had completed over half of their bar prep programs, yet another curveball was thrown at them: "Consistent with the Tennessee Supreme Court’s COVID-19 Pandemic Orders entered March 13, 2020, March 25, 2020, April 2, 2020, and May 11, 2020, and in furtherance of the Judicial Branch’s obligation to mitigate the risks associated with COVID-19, the Court has determined that the July 2020 Bar Examination must be canceled."4 Needless to say, many 2020 Law Grads began to feel hopeless. However, no one could refute “the potential benefits of administering the examination do not justify the risk of assembling large groups of people in limited space for up to nine hours per day over a period of two days, even if all precautions recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are implemented.”5 The Class of 2020 began shifting and adjusting to the later scheduled exam date of September 30th and October 1st. The fun times did not stop there.

Less than two weeks later, on July 13, 2020, the Tennessee Supreme Court issued an order stating: "Based on the current trajectory of the pandemic, we cannot conclude with reasonable certainty that it will be possible to safely administer the in-person Fall Examination on September 30 and October 1, 2020, even with safety precautions. Therefore, the requirement in Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 7, Section 4.03, for the Tennessee Board of Law Examiners (the “Board”) to administer an in-person examination at least once a year in each of the three grand divisions is waived and the in-person Fall Examination is canceled."6 With this latest plot twist, “[i]n place of the inperson Bar Examination, applicants will be given the opportunity to take an online examination for licensure to practice law in Tennessee.”7 However, not only is the online test format very different, it also is not a Universal Bar Exam Score. The 2020 Law Grad then had to decide if they were going to blaze new trails and take this never before seen online version or wait until the February 2021 examination and further delay their entry into the profession. With so much to adjust to in such a short time, one Tennessee Law Grad (Adam) remarked: "The decisions made regarding the bar exam for 2020 graduates have been callus and reckless at best, and gatekeeping at its worst. The legal industry’s toxicity and arbitrary gatekeeping has become evident during this pandemic. Private interests in the administration of the bar exam for 2020 graduates have prevailed over sensibility and the safety of exam takers."8 Another 2020 graduate, Brandon, shared a similar perspective: “Those already in the profession honestly can’t even fathom the toil it has taken on our class.

I feel like a lot of those in our profession already lack empathy and sympathy for others and this pandemic has exacerbated this weird ‘us versus them’ behavior.”

If it is commonly understood, and very well known, that studying for the bar examination is one of the most stressful periods in a recent law graduate’s life, (in these truly unprecedented times) shouldn’t it be readily cognizable that the 2020 Law Grad is facing

truly novel hurdles? To further complicate the matter, increasing numbers of law graduates are non-traditional students. Many 2020 Law Grads have had to deal with graduating virtually and constant changes to the bar examination all while navigating virtual learning for their kids, or caring for loved ones in the midst of a pandemic, compounded by their job situation literally diminishing before their eyes.

As 2020 Graduate Carrie stated: “Mentally, it’s been a really tough time with not much support from those in positions to help. They have no empathy and only care that students take an archaic test that keeps certain people out of the profession.” The gatekeeping mechanism many recent graduates discussed in their interviews with me is very much a real issue. For law graduates who are not in a position of having parents or family members to stay with completely free of charge, or the financial means to completely sustain themselves for the eight (8) to ten (10) weeks of a bar prep program, financial hardship is very much a barrier to entering the profession, regardless of grades or class rank. Let us not forget about the additional roughly one thousand dollars ($1,000) needed for the Bar Exam application and additional fees and tests (e.g., laptop fee and MPRE registration), and the roughly $2,500 needed for bar prep programs. Financial hardship was already a very tangible hurdle for many “back when the world was normal.” In this new COVID-era, it has become a potential deal-breaker for many.

Furthermore, the technical and logistic issues are also ever-present stressors. Danielle, a recently engaged mother of two, stated, “As for me, it’s been very stressful trying to dedicate 100% focus to this exam with so many other responsibilities and not knowing for sure if it will be cancelled (AGAIN) or rescheduled (AGAIN) due to technical difficulties.” More importantly, recent graduates are not immune from the Coronavirus. Evan stated: "I have COVID (as of this weekend), as do my wife and both parents (who I’ve been staying with recently). My mom has multiple sclerosis and a compromised immune system.

So, studying while being sick has been challenging, to say the least. My sister also has a newborn, but so far their house has no symptoms, but I was with them on Saturday, so I’m stressed about that now too!"

Regardless of one’s stance on the effectiveness of the bar exam as an entry into the profession, it cannot be 7

refuted that the 2020 Law Grad is facing many more hurdles than any other class has ever had to encounter.

Through it all, we have remained one of the most resilient classes ever. We are consistently being thrown 2020 curve balls, and we consistently keep swinging. Even through our buoyancy, there are a few things we would like hiring attorneys and managers to keep in mind: 1) Be Cognizant of the Challenges/Obstacles Particular to Recent Grads After having participated in over twenty interviews myself in recent months, it was shocking and a little disheartening just how many hiring attorneys truly had no clue what my class was facing. It seems unfair to judge recent 2020 grads based on the same standards as everyone else, because we have not had the same experiences as other law classes. Everyone’s life has changed due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and we all have had to adjust accordingly. Whether interviewing, hiring, or simply mentoring a recent graduate, take a moment to ask or address what issues they may be facing, and think about how you would feel in that situation.

2) Be an Agent for Change in Your Firm/Practice Just because your firm has ONLY interviewed or hired recent grads who sat for the July bar exam, does not mean that practice needs to continue. In the same vein, only hiring recent graduates who have already passed the bar exam is a practice that should be re-evaluated as well.

The COVID-19 pandemic has shifted EVERYTHING in the legal profession. Jury trials have been suspended

throughout the year, and almost every docket in every court is months behind its regularly scheduled events. Is it fair to completely delay recent graduates’ entry into the profession based on things that have been completely out of their control? If there was ever a time to try something new and unprecedented, now is the time.

3) Hire based on WHAT Someone Knows, Instead of WHO Someone Knows Regardless of political affiliation, it seems fair to declare that someone has assumed the Office the United States Presidency for the last four years based upon who they knew, rather than what they knew. Shouldn’t you base your hiring practices on who is the best fit for the job? It is no secret that nepotism in the legal profession is going no where fast. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has revealed many truths. Gone are the days of getting away with stating “That’s how we’ve always done it.” The Coronavirus has almost annihilated our regular course of business. I posit that many 2020 Law Grads know a lot more and have experienced more than what they are given credit for. If their resume is solid, their writing sample is strong, and they interview well, why not at least give them a chance to prove themselves. Having graduated in the midst of a global pandemic, if nothing else - the 2020 Law Grad knows how to navigate almost every virtual meeting/conference platform and will be more amenable to change than anyone else in the office.

Instead of looking at what the 2020 Law Grad has not done, I challenge everyone to look at all that the 2020 Law Grad has already accomplished. 

1

Nattaly Perryman is a 2020 Graduate of The University of Memphis, Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law. She recently moved back to Nashville, Tennessee where she lived and worked for many years before pursuing her law degree. Nattaly has accepted a position as a Research and Writing Attorney at The Law Office of Jennifer Lynn Thompson, and plans to take the Tennessee Bar Examination in February 2021.

2

Order of March 13, 2020, In re: COVID-19 Pandemic, Case No. ADM2020-00428, available at http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/docs/ covid-19_order.pdf.

3

Order of May 11, 2020, In re: COVID-19 Pandemic, Case No. ADM2020-00428, available at https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/docs/sct_ covid-19_order_ble_5-11-2020.pdf .

4

Order of July 2, 2020, In re: COVID-19 Pandemic, Case No. ADM2020-00428, available at http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/docs/ble_ covid-19_order_-_7-2-2020.pdf.

5

Id.

6

Order of July 13, 2020, In re: COVID-19 Pandemic, Case No. ADM2020-428, available at http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/docs/adm202000428_order_canceling_fall_in-person_bar_exam_directing_an_oct_online_exam_and_modifying_tn_sct_r7.pdf.

7

Ibid.s

8

All names of recent 2020 Law Grads interviewed have been changed and their respective Tennessee Law Schools omitted for confidentiality purposes.

8

LAW & BASKETBALL

Jason Wexler finds balance of the two with the Memphis Grizzlies

By SEAN ANTONE HUNT

I

f you are old enough, you might recall that year 2000 Spike Lee movie “Love & Basketball” where childhood sweethearts attempt to negotiate the demands of their respective basketball careers while maintaining their stormy relationship. As pointed out by the movie, balancing the two is not necessarily an easy accomplishment. The same is true for balancing law and basketball. As Jason Wexler, president of the Memphis Grizzlies, points out, he is “very aware of the good fortune [he] has had to be sitting in the chair [he is] sitting in.”

But, what most outsiders, looking in, would agree, he is too humble for the extraordinary credentials he brings to the table.

He is a graduate of Columbia University School of Law with an undergraduate degree in architecture.

In fact, he started his career looking to be a real estate developer. After getting advice from an undergraduate professor to go to law school, however, he found himself as an associate in a New York law firm before coming to Memphis to practice with the former Hanover Walsh Jalenak & Blair firm. Jason was an associate and partner at Hanover Walsh for eight years before changing over to basketball. At Hanover Walsh he practiced in real estate transactions and particularly more complex structures for financing real estate transactions like tax credits and tax exempt bonds.

While practicing law, he began searching for real estate development projects and “eventually got one going.” The “timing of it was really good because, as that first project was finishing up, at the corner of Main and Gayoso—a historic rehab—Hanover Walsh started merging with Harris Shelton. And at that point I realized I needed to more conclusively pick a path and opted out of my law partnership and started a real estate development company.” Eventually, he became president of Henry Turley Company where he ultimately found himself doing what he really wanted to do: “doing interesting, compelling, downtown revitalization projects.” But fate

stepped in as well. It was the coincidence of being a real estate developer and lawyer in Memphis, along with his connections, that led to his opportunity with the Memphis Grizzlies in 2013.

The Grizzlies wanted someone connected with the City to be the COO and tapped Jason for that position.

That started his sports career. He started as COO, of course, and later became president of business operations.

And, as most of us know, little over a year ago he became president of the entire organization which included both the business and the basketball sides.

Jason readily admits that his job is complicated.

“The weird thing about being a sports franchise is you are really like a lot of small businesses in one. You have, first of all, the entire basketball operation – which is a significant piece of what we do and it has its own whole organizational structures… And on the business side you have a ton of small business functions, essentially you are a ticket selling company, you are a sponsorship group, you are an arena operations group, you are a marketing and advertising group and you also have all the normal operations … that any other company would have.”

His job is to get all those different departments to work together and function together for the “maximum success of the organization.” It is his job to oversee it all.

Jason admits that they are really excited about where they are on their growth curve, especially on the basketball side. They feel like there is a lot of opportunity on the basketball side. And on the business side, they continue to make long-term inroads into Memphis. He admits that they are attempting to maximize their footprint within Memphis while still looking at regional reach for their audience. He notes “our broadcast footprint goes to seven states,” and they have fans who routinely drive an hour to an hour and half to come to a game.

As with other businesses, one of their biggest challenges this year is the fallout from COVID-19.

Noting that they had their season cut short although 9

the NBA had a successful bubble, he admits this coming year faces some obstacles. It looks like there will be some attendance restrictions and all sorts of other obstacles that they’re going to have to navigate in order to be successful in operating the FedEx Forum and the Grizzlies franchise.

And, in the long term, they still face challenges in staying out front in the trends and how people spend their entertainment time and their entertainment dollars. And he proudly notes that the Memphis Grizzlies is the only franchise with its own in-house digital media company, Grind City Media, which they use to make sure they can reach their fans.

Jason teases by indicating that this coming season in 2021 is their 20th anniversary season for being in Memphis, and they have some special treats coming for their fans. As a preview, he mentions the special throwback court, the classic uniforms and more. “It’s a real milestone,” says Jason. “It’s been good to see Memphians gain confidence in the city and the organization over

Click here to see the interview excerpt.

10

time. I think you could ask a lot of Memphians twenty years ago, what the odds were of the team making it twenty years being successful, having a bright future, there probably would’ve been a good deal of skepticism.

But I think if you ask around today people understand, we are here and we are here for the long haul. We’ve got a bright future and we are part of how the city sees itself every single day. And that is as good a thing as you can accomplish as a sports team.”

Jason does credit his law degree as being a great help, especially in risk assessment. In this portion of his interview, he tells about how his law degree helps with his current position.

But Jason does caution would be followers about the chances of duplicating his success. While downplaying his great credentials, Jason says “I had a very very atypical, a very very fortunate path into my position that really you can’t replicate in any planned fashion. Sports from a management executive environment has a very very steep pyramid and there’s not that many executive jobs in relationship to the industry.… What I tell people is the best way is to enjoy it as a fan; but if you are determined to have a career in sports, given the amount of luck that is needed to land in an executive position with an NBA franchise, [ask yourself ] would you be comfortable having a career in sports if you did not have the luck of being in the right place at the right time to get one of those premier positions… without the ultimate holy grail of getting up to that C suite position.”

Although he does downplay his own abilities, I believe that we can all agree that the Memphis Grizzlies is in good hands. 

The Impact and Legacy of the Honorable Paulette Delk

By HARRISON D. MCIVER III, Interviewer

W

hen given the privilege and opportunity to interview the Honorable Paulette Delk after her retirement as U.S. Bankruptcy Judge, Western District of Tennessee and a distinguished professional career, I was honored and excited. I found that her intellect, skills, expertise and dedication had an indelible impact in the legal community and on the lives she touched. Over these past several years I have gotten to see Judge Delk not only as a judge, but as a person with many interests. She and my wife Lauryce are in the same chapter of The Links Incorporated and her husband Dr. Sam Delk and I are members of Sigma Pi Phi Fraternity. Events hosted by both organizations afforded me the opportunity to appreciate her as the multifaceted person she is. During the process of writing this article, I became keenly aware of her impact on colleagues and students alike. Below are their words describing the Honorable Paulette Delk.

The Honorable David Kennedy, Chief Judge, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Western District of Tennessee (Former Colleague) “The Honorable Paulette Delk has all the attributes of an outstanding judge and human being. I only have superlatives to describe her. We need more Paulette Delks.”

Jeb Bailey, Lawyer, Butler Snow (Former Student and Practicing Attorney) “Like all lawyers, my legal education began as a law student where we were taught the fundamentals like offer and acceptance; consideration and lack thereof; and attachment and perfection of security interests. Then came the real education all lawyers receive – actually appearing in front of real judges and truly learning the craft. Like many others in the bankruptcy bar, I had the pleasure (and at times stress) of having both aspects of my legal education shaped by a wonderful woman – Paulette Delk.” He went on to state “as a jurist, Judge Delk brought the same experience, enthusiasm and demeanor to the bench. She exemplified what a judge should be and is a role-model in so many ways. She was patient, fair and kind. She was prepared, diligent, thoughtful and firm when necessary.”

Kandace Stewart, Director of Business Operations, the Grizzlies (Former Student/Mentee) “I met Judge Delk when I was a law student at the University of Memphis. I was excited when I was finally able to sign up for her course, because she was the only black woman law professor….and since I had come to law school without knowing any attorneys, unbeknownst to her, I’d decided that she was going to be my mentor. I asked Professor Delk a lot of questions about her career path and listened intently whenever she gave me advice."

After graduation, then Professor Delk recommended Kandace for a job as an associate attorney in the Insolvency Department at Husch and Eppenberger and refused to let her doubt herself. Kandace went on to say what an honor it was to later practice law in Judge Delk’s court: “When I made a career change and started my position with the Memphis Grizzlies in Business Operations, she was happy for me and extremely supportive. I am so appreciative of the role that she played in shaping my career and happily take this opportunity to congratulate her on retirement. She remains an example for me and so many other attorneys who look like me to look up to so that we can see what is possible.”

11

With the foregoing as a backdrop, I was prepared to hear from Judge Delk in her own words: HDM: Judge Delk, you have had a very long and impressive career but not many of the readers know very much about you before your legal career began. Please share a little about where you are from, your family and educational background, and your career before pursuing the law.

Judge Delk: I grew up in Daphene, Alabama, during the Jim Crow era, and attended segregated schools from 1st grade through 12th grade. My brother and I loved school, and with our parents’ encouragement, we became avid readers and thinkers. Our parents were high school teachers, and they were largely responsible for our ability to thrive and flourish in what otherwise would have been a stultifying environment. I chose to attend college at Fisk University in Nashville, in large part, because of the civil rights activism of Fisk students like John Lewis and Diane Nash. My college years were filled with marches protesting police brutality and segregation, and with classes taught by members of the Harlem Renaissance like poet Robert Hayden, artist Aaron Douglas and writer Arna Bontemps. My Fisk experience afforded me the opportunity to spend the summer after my junior year in Switzerland, which was quite the eye-opening experience for a nineteen-year-old from small town Alabama. After college, I attended Atlanta University, where I received my Master’s Degree in Social Work. I worked as a medical social worker for several years in Chicago at Cook County Hospital and in Atlanta at Grady Memorial Hospital, where I was Director of the Social Work Department.

HDM: Who or what circumstances inspired you to choose law and to attend law school?

Judge Delk: During my years in medical social work, I often worked with lawyers in cases involving child abuse, medical emergencies, termination of parental rights, etc., and was drawn to the legal analysis in which the lawyers were engaged. I found the social work aspect of those kinds of cases to be emotionally draining, but the legal analysis I thought was great. I had always been a good math and logic student, so when I decided to attend law school at DePaul University in Chicago, I was drawn to business law classes, and especially to bankruptcy law.

HDM: Please describe your early legal jobs and your experience as an African-American woman.

12

Judge Delk: My first legal job was with the national law firm, Winston & Strawn, in its Chicago office. I was an associate in the Creditors’ Rights section where I represented banks and other creditors in Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases, represented Chapter 7 trustees, and occasionally represented Chapter 11 debtors. Although this firm had over 300 lawyers in its Chicago office at the time, I was the only African-American woman lawyer.

What could have been a difficult situation, was not because of the partner with whom I worked most closely.

He was a wonderful mentor who believed in me and my abilities and made sure that the clients knew that.

Because of him, I had great and varied work, and learned the practice of law in a firm with almost unlimited resources and opportunities. Thereafter, I moved to Memphis to join the Heiskell Donelson law firm (now Baker Donelson) as an associate.

HDM: What were the circumstances surrounding your joining the Memphis Law faculty; how long did you teach? And what did you enjoy most about your time as a law professor and in particular the courses you taught?

Judge Delk: When I was in law school, I wanted to take every course offered. I LOVED law school! So that was the first clue that I might enjoy being a law professor.

An administrator at the University of Memphis Cecil Humphreys School of Law asked if I had ever thought of teaching law, and a light bulb lit up in that moment!

A few years later in 1987, the law school was seeking a professor to teach in the bankruptcy area; I applied, and eventually got the job. I taught Debtor-Creditor law, Secured Transactions, Remedies, Franchising and Business Reorganizations under the Bankruptcy Code.

I became a law professor on the full-time faculty for nineteen years, and after becoming a judge, I taught as an adjunct professor for four years. I loved the interaction with students and the great discussions with faculty colleagues. Seeing students progress from being completely baffled by concepts in courses like Secured Transactions at the start of the semester to having a good grasp of those concepts and the analysis by semester’s end, never got old to me.

HDM: Who or what were the circumstances that persuaded you to apply for U.S. Bankruptcy Judge?

What did you enjoy most as a judge?

Judge Delk: Although I taught several different courses as a law professor, my love was always bankruptcy law.

As a law student, I served as an extern for a bankruptcy

judge in Chicago. That experience provided me with an inside view of the judicial process, and I liked what I saw.

I think that becoming a bankruptcy judge was always at the back of my mind, and I decided to pursue it in 2006.

What I loved the most was delving into the variety of legal issues that bankruptcy law presents. The Bankruptcy Code provides the framework, but there are lots of unanswered questions within that framework. I loved grappling with those issues. Bankruptcy law intersects with many other areas of the law such as tax law, family law, probate law and corporate law, and that kept things exciting. Most of the time, debtors and creditors have conflicting interests, so it was particularly gratifying to be in a position to foster compromise between debtors and creditors when that was best. But when there were clear losers and winners, I appreciated having the ability to explain in a thorough and understandable manner what the law was and why it was applied as it was.

HDM: Is this perception a reality that Southwest Tennessee has the distinction of being the “bankruptcy capitol”? If true, how did you or the Court respond to such an abundance of filings?

Judge Delk: Tennessee does have a high bankruptcy rate per capita, but there are other states with very high rates of bankruptcy as well, for example Alabama, Georgia, Utah and Nevada. The Western District of Tennessee has a very large number of Chapter 13 cases. But the court is able to deal effectively with that high volume, because it has the able assistance of two very capable standing Chapter 13 trustees. These trustees and their staff administer the Chapter 13 cases by receiving and disbursing payments, by investigating the financial affairs of the debtor, by examining proofs of claims and determining if opposition to the debtor’s discharge is merited, inter alia. This enables the court to focus on matters that are of a purely judicial nature.

HDM: What were your proudest and most significant accomplishments, memories, experiences you would like to share about your distinguished career?

Judge Delk: In terms of my own personal accomplishments in my career, I was most proud when I became a tenured law professor, and when I was selected by a merit selection panel and by the Sixth Circuit to become a United States Bankruptcy Judge. I was equally proud when I had former law students appear before me in court as accomplished and outstanding attorneys. I was so pleased to have played a small role in their careers.

HDM: I did my research, although you are very modest, it should be noted that as a law professor, you received a fellowship from the National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges, served as a Faculty Dean for the American Board of Certification, received the University of Memphis Law Alumni Association’s Teaching Excellence Award and in 2013, the Marion Griffin-Frances Loring Award from the Association for Women Attorneys.

HDM: Now retired, how are you spending your time, and do you have plans as a retiree?

Judge Delk: Now that I’ve retired, I have more time to read fiction, as well as non-fiction, more time for genealogical research, and more time to visit my grandchildren. Next year I plan to teach a prelaw course at LeMoyne-Owen College to encourage and prepare students to pursue a career in the law. I thoroughly enjoyed being a practitioner, professor and judge, and I hope to bring my enthusiasm for the law to LeMoyneOwen students.

HDM: What is your credo by which you live?

Judge Delk: I’ve experienced more than my share of personal grief, beginning as a child, but what had enabled me to survive and thrive is summed up in the “Prayer for Protection” by James Dillet Freeman: “The light of God surrounds me; The love of God enfolds me; The Power of God protects me; The presence of God watches over me; Wherever I am, God is, And all is well.”

This prayer opens our eyes as to the depth of the woman - Paulette Delk.

Thank you Judge Paulette Delk for your service and continuing contributions to our community.  Harrison D. McIver III was CEO of MALS for more than 20 years, now holding the distinction of CEO Emeritus, and was a national, regional, state and local leader and an advocate for justice for more than 40 years.

13

TENNESSEE SUPREME COURT ADOPTS AMENDMENTS TO TENNESSEE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE: WHAT ARE THEY AND HOW WILL THEY AFFECT YOUR PRACTICE

O

By PRESTON DAVIS

n January 16, 2020, the Tennessee Supreme Court adopted proposed amendments to several rules of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, regarding electronic filing and service and answering interrogatories.

Specifically, Rules 5 and 5B were amended to account for changes in the courts due to the expansion of the e-filing system across the state. Rule 33 was amended in an effort to eliminate the increasing gamesmanship counsels employ when answering interrogatories. Lastly, the 2019 Advisory Comment to Rule 34 has been minimally revised, changing the word “has” to “have”. Subject to approval by resolution of the General Assembly, these amendments become effective on July 1, 2020.

RULE 5 AMENDMENTS

Rule 5 governs service and filing of pleadings and other papers. Most important is the Court’s addition of subsection (3) to Rule 5.02. Subsection (3) states: (a) Service required by these rules also may be made on any registered user of a court’s E-filing system by filing any document that may be E-served with that court’s E-filing system. E-service shall constitute effective service under these rules and no other service on such registered users is required, unless otherwise ordered by the court. (b) Any attorney or any self-represented party who is not a registered user of an E-filing system, or known by the E-filer not to have been E-served, must be served by means authorized in subsection (1) or (2) of this rule. (c) Unless ordered otherwise by the court, a court or court clerk may, through such court’s E-filing system, transmit to registered users all notices, orders, opinions, or judgments filed by the court or court clerk, which transmission shall constitute proper service and shall satisfy the notice requirements of Tenn. R. Civ. P. 58 or any other applicable rules of procedure. (d) Any court has the discretion, for good cause 14

shown, to order that a means of service authorized in these rules other than E-service be required in a particular case. (e) A document that is E-served shall be treated as a document that was mailed for purposes of computation of time under Rule 6. (f ) For purposes of E-service under Rule 5, the definitions in Rule 5B shall apply.

(2020 Tennessee Court Order 0001 (C.O. 0001), No. ADM2019-01444, app. Rule 5.02).

In the Advisory Commission Comment to this amendment, the commission notes that this subsection “has been added to provide for electronic service through a court’s E-Filing system, provided that such a system has been authorized by such court pursuant to Rule 5B of these rules.” (Tenn. R. Civ. P. 5.02 advisory commission comment to 2020 amendment). This amendment now gives attorneys three means to effectuate service under the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure.

RULE 5B AMENDMENTS Rule 5B governs electronic filing, signing, verification and service. The amendment adds definitions to the rule for the following terms: “E-file or E-filing”, “E-Filer”, “E-Filing system”, “E-service or E-served”, and “registered user”. More importantly, the amendment adds in language to allow E-service of any documents that any local rule allows to be E-filed since the existing Rule 5B did not provide for service to be made through an e-filing system.

RULE 33 AMENDMENTS Rule 33 governs interrogatories to parties. The amendment requires that any objections made to interrogatories be stated with specificity. As the Advisory Commission Comment explains, “[t]he amendment is intended to make clear that vague, generalized, or ‘boilerplate’ objections are improper. Instead, objection should be specific as to the grounds for the objection,

describing the reason in a manner that will reasonably inform the adverse party as to what aspect of the interrogatory the objection pertains.…” (Tenn. R. Civ. P. 33.01 advisory commission comment to 2020 amendment). Additionally, the amendment now requires that any objection or response under this rule makes clear whether the information is being withheld pursuant to that objection. The Advisory Commission states, “[a] responding party may object part of the request, but a party should answer any part of an interrogatory for which no objection is made, making clear which part is being answered. The aim of this amendment is to “end the confusion that frequently arises when a responding party states several objections, but then still answers the interrogatory by providing information, leaving the requesting party uncertain whether and to what extent relevant and responsive information has been withheld on the basis of the objection.” (Tenn. R. Civ. P. 33.01 advisory commission comment to 2020 amendment).

Finally, the Advisory Commission states: The producing party does not need to provide a detailed description or log of information withheld, but does need to respond in a manner that will alert and inform parties what information is being provided, and what categories or types of information have been withheld pursuant to objection, thereby facilitating an informed discussion of the objection.

(Tenn. R. Civ. P. 33.01 advisory commission comment to 2020 amendment). Thus, this amendment should lead to objections to interrogatories being specific enough that adverse parties can determine what part of the interrogatory is being objected to and what types of information are being withheld under that objection.

I spoke with Sean O’Brien, associate attorney at Snider & Horner, PLLC, regarding how these changes might affect his current practice. Sean stated that the change to Rule 33 would impact him the most. “I normally respond to interrogatories but will also assert objections to prevent any sort of waiver. Normally, I am specific about the grounds for objections, but the change to withhold certain information will impact me the most because I foresee issues with parsing interrogatories and responses for certain information to hold back and/or that could be objectionable for one purpose but perfectly fine for another.”

I asked Sean what effects these changes could have on those not familiar with the electronic service system,

particularly pro se litigants and more seasoned attorneys.

Sean stated, “While it may be true that more seasoned attorneys like to file at the court clerk’s office, most attorneys have a professional staff member they can rely on to ease the transition to e-filing. That’s not true for pro se litigants. Not only do these litigants need to know the law but also the local rules, they will now have to know how to use an electronic system to file documents. My concern would relate to pro se litigants that cannot access a scanner to upload documents to a computer, or those who cannot access a computer altogether.” Regarding the impact of these changes on office efficiency, Sean replied, “I believe that these changes will drastically cut down administrative tasks. For instance, if I know that opposing counsel is a registered e-file user, I won’t have to draft a letter, enclose the document, and slow my day down with written correspondence. An extra benefit, to me at least, relates to the environmental impact: hopefully, this cuts down the amount of paper I go through printing documents.”

Sean, like many newer attorneys in the legal profession, already relies on electronic copies but noted that other attorneys in his office rely solely on paper copies. He foresees those attorneys that normally rely on paper copies simply printing any electronically filed copies and not requiring a large adjustment period to these amendments. Finally, I asked Sean if he had any concerns about possibly missing a filing deadline due to network connectivity issues or connection issues with the e-filing system itself: “I’m not personally worried about missing a filing deadline because of connectivity issues because of technology like WiFi hotspots, using your cell phone as a temporary hotspot, and the nature of e-filing.

If you e-file something when the clerk’s office is closed, the file stamp indicates the time and date you file it, not the time and date it is stamped.”

In closing, these amendments will expedite the filing process for attorneys in Tennessee while also reducing the amount of paper being used by attorneys across the State. While some in the legal community, particularly pro-se litigants, will have to become familiar with the electronic filing system, the amendments will make the process of filing overall more efficient and come at time when many in the state are already working remotely due to the COVID-19 pandemic, making the amendments even more timely and, in my opinion, necessary.  15

My Time with

RBG

By BARBARA ZOCCOLA

www.mzlawyers.net

I

am one of the few Memphians who had the fortunate opportunity to spend some time in person with the Honorable Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

I was first impacted by Justice Ginsburg when I applied to law school. I applied to attend Washington and Lee University School of Law (W & L) in Virginia in 1983. Little did I know that if I would have applied seven years earlier in 1976, I would have been denied entrance because I was a woman. Before she was on the Supreme Court, Ginsburg was on the American Bar Association’s committee to accredit law schools. The ABA committee, led by Ginsburg informed W & L that they would lose accreditation for their law school if they did not admit women. The administration at W & L decided to allow women at the law school in 1976, opening the path for me to apply in 1983.

I first met Justice Ginsburg in 1999 at the U.S. Supreme Court. I was there with my husband and children to be sworn into the U.S. Supreme Court for an event organized by the Association for Women Attorneys (AWA). We had asked Justice Sandra Day O’Connor to come to a reception put on by the AWA in one of the meeting rooms at the Supreme Court following our induction. Justice O’Connor was unable to attend our reception. During that reception, Denise McCrary and I had gone to the restroom when we happened to see that Justice Ginsburg was at a reception for the Texas women’s bar association. Denise and I went into the reception, waited our turn in line to speak to the Justice and asked her if she would come to our reception when she was finished. She kindly obliged and our group was thrilled to get to meet her. Our daughter was 6 years old and Justice Ginsburg agreed to a photo with her (right).

Fast forward to 2006 when I was president of the Memphis Bar Association and decided to invite Justice Ginsburg to speak at the annual meeting. Fortunately, S. Shepherd Tate, an attorney with the Martin Tate law 16

firm, knew Ginsburg from when he served as president of the American Bar Association, so he called her and invited her to speak. She accepted his invitation. Not only did she speak to a sold-out dinner at The Peabody where she shared her thoughts on the Supreme Court, she also went to a reception prior to the dinner for attorneys.

The evening before the annual meeting, she attended a dinner for local judges and bar association officers and directors. And since she was an art aficionado, she wanted to see our local art galleries. Shep Tate set up a private tour of the Brooks Museum and of the Dixon Gallery, and I attended both showings with her.

I also had the great privilege of going on a private tour of the National Civil Rights Museum with her and having the Reverend Samuel “Billy” Kyles, who had been great friends with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., as our tour host. Throughout the museum, Justice Ginsburg

recognized photos of people she had worked with on the women’s movement.

When we got to the room in the museum that Dr. King had stayed the night he was shot and killed on the balcony, Reverend Kyles told the story of what happened the night Dr. King was killed. His account of the facts was very vibrant and compelling, starting with how they were talking “preacher’s talk” that evening when Dr. King decided to go out on the balcony. I could tell by the tears that dripped slightly from Justice Ginsburg’s somber face that she was as moved as I was. I felt so privileged to be able to share that poignant moment in time with such national icons as Reverend Kyles and Justice Ginsburg.

Justice Ginsburg was great friends with Justice Antonin Scalia. Polar opposites on the political spectrum, they found friendship through their love of Opera and spent time together with their spouses every New Year’s Eve and many other occasions. Because of their friendship, Justice Ginsburg was able to persuade Justice Scalia to accept our invitation to speak at the Memphis Bar Foundation’s annual dinner the year after she spoke in Memphis.

Not long after Justice Ginsburg was in Memphis, my daughter’s 8th grade class at St. Mary’s was planning a trip to Washington, D.C. I contacted Justice Ginsburg’s staff and set up an opportunity for the girls to meet Justice Ginsburg at a reception in one of the Supreme Court meeting rooms. The girls enjoyed meeting the only current female Supreme Court Justice at that time. A few years ago, I saw a mother of one of those 8th graders, whose daughter is now in medical school. The mom remarked to me how much it meant for her daughter to get to meet Justice Ginsburg and how it had been a great inspiration for her.

In the past few years, Justice Ginsburg has become a national hero to the younger generation, inspiring her “Notorious RBG” tag and a documentary about her life reverberated through all the generations. There has even been a Hollywood movie, called “On the Basis of Sex” which depicts parts of her life and focuses on the Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld case that touted equality for men and women, valuing caring for family as much as working for pay. In that case, Mr. Wiesenfeld sought to receive social security benefits from his deceased wife’s benefits. He was denied because the statute allowed “mothers” to receive benefits but fathers were not named in the statute. Ginsburg fought to have men treated equally to women for such benefits because “the same cage that holds women as homemakers also holds men as breadwinners.” She argued that no cage should hold anyone back and everyone should be able to make their choice and not be discriminated against because of their gender.

She again fought for women and men to be treated equally in her opinion in United States v. Virginia Military Institute. The VMI case in 1999 hit close to home for me because VMI is in the same small town in Virginia (Lexington) as Washington and Lee University School of Law, my law school.

Justice Ginsburg is an icon for the ages. She worked tirelessly to bring equality for all. I feel very privileged to have had an opportunity to view a bit of her magic in person. When asked about what makes a meaningful life, she said, “To make life a little better for people less fortunate than you, that's what I think a meaningful life is. One lives not just for oneself but for one's community." Justice Ginsburg made life better for a lot of people who are less fortunate than her and gave a voice to those who had none. 

17

Post-Stretch: Inheriting Retirement Accounts after the SECURE Act Sponsored Article By TIM ELLIS, CPA/PFS, CFP® Senior Investment Strategist, Wealth Strategist, Waddell & Associates

T

he Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement (SECURE) Act of 2019 was passed

by Congress as part of a year-end appropriations bill and signed into law by President Donald Trump on December 20, 2019 to be effective on January 1, 2020. The legislation has substantial repercussions for the financial industry, but perhaps the most notable change that requires estate, tax, and financial planning analysis is the partial end of “stretch” retirement account distributions.

Before the SECURE Act, designated beneficiaries— generally defined as living natural persons and certain qualifying “see-through” trusts—were able to inherit retirement accounts and stretch out required minimum distributions (RMDs) over their life expectancies.

Example: On December 31, 2019, Tammy’s mother passes away, leaving her $500,000 in a traditional IRA. Tammy rolls over the funds to an inherited traditional IRA. She will use the IRS’s Single Life Expectancy Table to determine the amount required to be distributed each year. As a 60-year-old, the payout period is 25.2 years. Typically, Tammy would be required to distribute $19,841.27 ($500,000 / 25.2) or 3.97% of the account during 2020. Please note that RMDs have been waived for tax year 2020 per the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act. In the following year, Tammy’s distribution amount will be the previous yearend value of the account divided by 24.2 (initial IRS life expectancy minus one year). Tammy can gradually stretch out the inherited IRA distributions over her lifetime.

Under the SECURE Act, designated beneficiaries may fall under a new standard that requires the retirement account to be completely distributed within ten years after the death of the original account owner.

The ten-year rule may sound familiar because there was already statute for a five-year rule for non-designated beneficiaries: charities, estates, and non-qualifying trusts.

18

Example: Consider the same facts above except that Tammy’s mother passes away on January 1, 2020. Instead of basing Tammy’s RMDs on her life expectancy and potentially stretching distributions out over 25 years, Tammy is required to distribute out the entire account within ten years following the death of her mother.

Ultimately, the old classification of designated beneficiaries was subdivided into two classifications of beneficiaries – a limited group that can still utilize “stretch” provisions and a larger group that is subject to the tenyear provision. This new classification of beneficiaries represents a significant change in the potential for tax deferral and tax consequences of estate planning.

The SECURE Act’s three classifications of retirement account beneficiaries: 1) Eligible Designated Beneficiaries. These beneficiaries are still eligible to stretch out distributions over their life expectancies. a. Spouses. Spouses are afforded flexibility inheriting retirement accounts. They have the option to roll the account into their own and treat it as such, or they can treat it as an inherited account. If they choose the latter, they can take minimum distributions over their life expectancy. b. Persons not more than ten years younger than the decedent. This category is defined purely based on age, and may commonly consist of parents, siblings, and unmarried domestic partners. c. Disabled persons. Disabled persons are defined

by IRC Section 72(m)(7) and applies to physical and mental impairment. d. Chronically ill. Chronically ill is defined by IRC Section 7702B(c)(2)(A)(i), which requires the inability to perform two out of six activities of daily living.

e. Minor children of the decedent. There is a caveat for minor children because it applies only until they reach the age of majority (or complete full-time educational courses up until age 26), then converts to the ten-year rule.

2) Designated Beneficiaries. These beneficiaries are subject to the new ten-year rule. It is a catchall class that includes all living natural persons and certain qualifying trusts that do not meet the explicit definitions listed above as eligible. Practically, this will impact adult children, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, and friends (more than ten years younger) named as retirement account beneficiaries.

3) Non-Designated Beneficiaries. These beneficiaries were not affected by the SECURE Act. This class of beneficiaries includes charities, estates, and nonqualifying trusts. Non-designated beneficiaries must distribute all funds from the inherited account within five years after the death of the original account owner.

For designated beneficiaries, there is some flexibility regarding the timing of the ten-year distribution rule. It does not require distributions to be evenly spaced out over ten years. The law only states that the entire interest must be distributed within ten years after the death of such person. Therefore, beneficiaries and their advisors should review income and plan around marginal ordinary income tax rates to efficiently distribute inherited retirement account assets.

Example: On July 1, 2020, Timmy’s father passes away, leaving Timmy $500,000 in a traditional IRA. Timmy is single, 60 years old, and plans to continue working, earning $200,000 per year, until age 65. If Timmy equally distributes $50,000 (or more if there is growth) per year

over the ten-year period, the distributions in the first five years while working may be taxed at high marginal tax rates of 32% and 35%. If Timmy waits until year ten and does a $500,000 lump sum distribution, the effective income tax rate may be more than 30%. Instead Timmy can delay distributions until retirement, then distribute $100,000 equally between years six and ten at effective tax rates of approximately 18%. This also allows him to use some of the distributions for retirement living expenses and delay Social Security benefits until age 70 and earn delayed retirement credits.

There are potential planning pitfalls created by the SECURE Act, particularly related to using trusts as beneficiaries of retirement accounts. Trusts have been permitted to be named beneficiaries of retirement accounts, provided they meet the requirements as listed in Treasury Regulation 1.401(a)(9)-4, Q&A-5. These qualifying “see-through” trusts come in two varieties: 1) Conduit Trusts and 2) Accumulation (or Discretionary) Trusts.

A “conduit trust” requires all retirement account distributions be paid out directly to the primary beneficiary. No distributions can be accumulated in the trust, and no distributions can be distributed to another beneficiary. The benefits of the conduit trust are that remainder beneficiaries are ignored, and therefore, you can have a non-natural person remainder beneficiary, such as a charity. The primary beneficiary can also hold a lifetime or testamentary power of appointment.

An “accumulation trust” allows the trustee the discretion to accumulate or distribute retirement account distributions. This structure requires that the only possible trust beneficiaries be individuals for it to qualify as a see19

through trust. A current beneficiary also cannot have a lifetime or testamentary power of appointment which may be exercisable for a non-natural person remainder beneficiary, such as a charity.

After the SECURE Act, accumulation trusts may become the preferred instrument for retirement accounts. Conduit trusts now have the disadvantage of requiring distributions out of the trust structure to the beneficiary within the shortened ten-year period.

There is not much value for retirement account owners to spend the time and resources to draft a trust or will language for only ten years of asset protection. On the other hand, accumulation trusts will likely still require retirement account distributions according to the tenyear rule, but the proceeds may then be accumulated in the trust and reinvested. Or, the trustee can make discretionary distributions for the beneficiary’s needs or for tax efficiency.

While beneficiaries and trustees can employ tax mitigation strategies in the distribution phase, there also needs to be planning strategies utilized during the accumulation phase. Retirement account owners should seriously consider Roth conversions. Roth conversions are a simple tax arbitrage strategy. If traditional tax-deferred assets can be converted at a 22%, 24%, or even 32% marginal income tax rate then later distributed tax-free

20

and hereby avoid a 35% or 37% tax rate, it is worthwhile.

Especially if the retirement account is destined for an accumulation trust to be taxed at compressed trust tax rates. For 2020, the top marginal income tax rate of 37% starts at $12,950 for trusts compared to $518,400 for single filers and $622,050 for married joint filers.

For clients with considerable charitable intent, leaving retirement accounts to a Charitable Remainder Trust (CRT) may be a good option for estate and income tax planning. A CRT is considered a nondesignated beneficiary, which subjects it to the five-year rule. However, the CRT does not pay taxes. Instead, it distributes income to the beneficiaries based on annuity or unitrust payments. This allows income to be spread out over a term of years or for life, rather than five years.

The decedent’s estate also receives a charitable deduction based on the estimated remainder value.

In conclusion, the end of the “stretch” retirement account provision for non-spouse beneficiaries, especially children and grandchildren, changes the retirement planning landscape. It puts the impetus on planning practitioners to review retirement account beneficiary designations and trusts or wills language to determine if estate plans are appropriate and implement strategies to mitigate the impact of the SECURE Act. 

Bench Bar

The 45th annual (and the first virtual) Bench Bar Conference was held on Oct. 13 – 15, and as you can see, it was a rousing success despite the trying circumstances!

The speakers were dynamic and diverse. The fantastic presentations are all available for CLE credit by clicking on the following links: BENCH BAR 2020 An Exhaustive Analysis of Restrictive Covenants Not to Compete BENCH BAR 2020 Be Like Netflix: Understanding the Economic Advantages of Embracing Diversity BENCH BAR 2020 Family Law Case Update BENCH BAR 2020 Having Your Own Personal Board of Directors BENCH BAR 2020 How to Best Use Your Financial Expert BENCH BAR 2020 Shelby County Commission Business Updates

A big thank you to the Bench Bar Committee for planning not one, but two conferences this year: Chair Adam Johnson, Co-Chair Judge Bobby Carter, Judge Rhynette Hurd, Matt May, President Lucie Brackin, Nicole Grida, Dawn Campbell, and Patrick Hillard.

And the conference would not have been possible without the tireless work of Lauren Gooch, who made sure the programming went seamlessly.

21

Title VII

By JAKE D. STRAWN Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

I

n 2020, “sex” is an interesting word. Is it synonymous with gender? Is it more than one’s reproductive organs? Does it encompass notions of sexual orientation? These are challenging, heavily debated questions in our modern society; questions even the Supreme Court of the United States cannot avoid. On June 15, 2020, in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, the Supreme Court entered this debate, at least in the context of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Specifically, the Court was asked to answer the following: “whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender.” The answer -- a resounding “no.” “An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex.”

Title VII outlaws discrimination in the workplace under the following bases: race, color, religion, national origin, and sex. Obviously, in Bostock, the protected characteristic at issue was sex. Ultimately, the Court ruled that homosexual and transgender employees were entitled to Title VII protection from sex-based discrimination. How did it get there? Simple -- statutory construction. Specifically, “[w]hen the express terms of a statute give us one answer and extratextual considerations suggest another, it’s no contest. Only the written word is the law, and all persons are entitled to its benefit.”

The written words of Title VII “prohibit[ ] employers from taking certain actions ‘because of ’ sex.’” As “because of ” requires a consideration of “but for” causation, the Court was directed by a “but for” test “to change one thing at a time and see if the outcome changes.”

In other words, “[s]o long as the plaintiff’s sex was one but-for cause of [an adverse employment] decision, that is enough to trigger [Title VII].” Simply stated, did the employer discriminate against one individual for actions it would have tolerated in an individual of another sex?

The Court asks its audience to consider two employees; both employees are attracted to men.

Contextually, “[t]he two individuals are, to the employer’s 22

mind, materially identical in all respects, except that one is a man and the other a woman.” If said employer were to fire the male employee simply because he is attracted to men, it discriminates against the male employee for traits that it tolerates in its female employee, who is also attracted to men. In so doing, the employer singles out one employee, in part, because of sex, which satisfies the requirement of but for causation. Similarly, if said employer fires an employee who identified as male at birth, but now identifies as female, but retains an employee who identified as female at birth, and still identifies as female, it has singled out one employee based, in part, because of sex. In other words, the transgender employee was fired for a trait the employer tolerates in the female employee -- simply identifying as female. In these situations, “the individual employee’s sex plays an unmistakable and impermissible role in the discharge decision.”

The Court’s analysis was simple, based on the plain terms of Title VII, which, according to statutory construction, “should be the end of the analysis.” In so doing, the Court wholeheartedly rejected any argument based on legislative history or policy. “[N]one of these contentions about what the employers think the law was meant to do, or should do, allow [the Court] to

ignore the law as it is.” In short, the Court opined that these arguments called the Court “to retreat beyond the statute’s text...”

Notably, in its reasoning, the Court was able to avoid any decision-making on the controversial interplay between the terms “sex,” “gender,” and “orientation.”

In fact, the Court “agree[d] that homosexuality and transgender status are distinct concepts from sex.”

Rather, the Court relied on the law, as written, even acknowledging its faults: “You can call the statute’s butfor causation test what you will -- expansive, legalistic, the dissents even dismiss it as wooden or literal. But it is the law.” And because of this, the Court’s opinion is rather uncontroversial. Specifically, the Bostock opinion rests on an ordinary principle of statutory construction: “when the meaning of the statute’s terms is plain, [the Court’s] job is at an end.” Under these circumstances, the Court analyzed the words “because of ” and “sex” according to their plain meanings. In so doing, it employed the

standard of but for causation to reach its conclusion, holding that, if an employer discriminates against one sex for a trait that it tolerates in another sex (such as physical attraction or gender identity), it discriminates against an employee because of sex.

The Court’s closing remarks neatly package the Bostock opinion: Ours is a society of written laws. Judges are not free to overlook plain statutory commands on the strength of nothing more than suppositions about intentions or guesswork about expectations. In Title VII, Congress adopted broad language making it illegal for an employer to rely on an employee’s sex when deciding to fire that employee. We do not hesitate to recognize today a necessary consequence of that legislative choice: An employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender defies the law. 

23

The COVID-19 Challenge: Public Health or Public Safety?

DA Weirich Aims to Have Both

By AMY WEIRICH

Last year I had to correct someone (someone who wore a black robe to work every day), who opined that a prosecutor’s job is to put people in jail. I explained that my job is to see that justice is done in every case, whether that meant sending someone to prison or sending them home.

This year’s Covid-19 pandemic has turned life as we know it upside down. My office has been no exception.

A big part of my job became – and continues to be - figuring out how to safely reduce the population of the Shelby County Jail to help prevent the spread of this strange, baffling virus.

This virus could spread through the jail like a California forest fire, some warned, so the jail doors must be opened immediately to all. A jail is a pre-trial detention facility, they noted. These prisoners have not been convicted of anything.

Others argued that since jails specialize in isolating trouble – and troublemakers – they are the ideal environment in which to keep infected prisoners away from healthy ones.

I believe the answer lies somewhere between these two approaches.

When the pandemic era began around March of this year, the Shelby County Jail population was around 2,300 prisoners. In the span of about four weeks, we were able to reduce that population to close to 1,700.

That’s a reduction of almost 25 percent. How was that even possible without substituting a public-health crisis with a public-safety crisis?

Those charged with serious, violent crimes and with long criminal histories were not going to be released to further victimize the community. The standard then, and now, is to identify those prisoners we can safely, reasonably, and responsibly release back into the community.

24

We worked with Sheriff Floyd Bonner, the public defender’s office, private attorneys, judges, and law enforcement to get people out of jail. We also have been in constant contact with the County and the Health Department.

Our prosecutors rolled up their sleeves – and put on their masks – and went through their pending in-custody case files, identifying and advancing on the docket all the cases with offers of time-served or probation.

Many were low-level, non-violent felony cases that were pled as misdemeanors, cases that did not pose a public-safety issue. We also gave priority to those over 60 and those with health issues.

In many other instances, we identified low-risk offenders and had their bonds reduced or ROR’d them, while reminding them that this was not a get-out-of-jailfree situation. Their cases are still active, and they still will have to make court appearances until their cases are resolved. They just won’t be waiting in jail.

We also took steps to keep pending cases out of the courtrooms at 201 Poplar. I sent signed letters to thousands of out-of-custody defendants who had been issued citations in lieu of arrests and literally told them not to come to court, that their cases were dismissed.

I had to issue video statements through social media and in TV interviews (by Zoom, of course) assuring recipients that the letters of dismissal they received were not pranks. They were done out of necessity to stop the spread of COVID-19 that had caused what the Tennessee Supreme Court has declared a state of emergency for the judiciary.

Shelter-in-place orders from the mayors confused some citizens about their court duties. We had to remind them that a court order or subpoena still means the appearance in court of a crime victim or a witness is

necessary for the administration of justice for preliminary hearings or other settings.

One particularly remarkable development born of the pandemic has been the first-ever Shelby County virtual grand jury. After grand jury sessions were halted by the virus from March 5 to May 19, a virtual grand jury was introduced with jurors observing social distancing and witnesses appearing via teleconference to testify and answer juror’s questions.

Every case presented is chosen by the seriousness of the offense and the number of days a defendant has spent in jail.

From May 19 to Nov. 12, the virtual grand juries returned 2,829 indictments, cases that otherwise would have been stuck in limbo – and with many defendants waiting in jail – with no chance for resolution in Criminal Court.

Many of those defendants will wait in jail a while longer until trials by jury – now suspended until the end of January 2021 – can resume. Others will be settled by plea agreements that may or may not include prison time.

We continue to work to restore order for victims and the community, and to preventing repeat violent offenders from preying on more victims. We also are working to intervene to help first-offenders avoid a future of criminal conduct and incarceration.

One plan scheduled to begin in the new year is the Community Justice Program in which volunteers from the community will hear low-level criminal cases by agreement of the victim and the offender.

The volunteers on the panel then will fashion a resolution that may include restitution, a life-skills plan for the offender or perhaps even an apology. The

community interest has exceeded expectations for a program that we hope will result in fewer crimes, fewer victims and fewer offenders spending their lives in and out of jail.

Another program operates on the other end of the spectrum and involves those who already have led lives of crime. The program is called Operation Comeback and is based on the concept of focused deterrence.

Offenders on probation or parole are ordered to attend a meeting where they are confronted face-to-face by a panel of law enforcement, prosecutors, and prison officials who tell them the community is tired of being victimized by them and that any future offenses will be dealt with the maximum sentencing allowed by law.

That “accountability” panel is then replaced by an “assistance” panel comprised of social service representatives offering the offenders job training, housing, employment, drug counseling and other help, all designed to help them break their pattern of criminal behavior.

Most of the two dozen non-voluntary participants so far have not re-offended and say their lives are better now than they were before being called in to the program.

As I write this, we are in the midst of a second wave of COVID-19. We are taking all the safety precautions the CDC and the Health Department have issued. I am honored and proud to have such a dedicated staff that seeks to do the right thing every day for the right reason.

We want to hold offenders accountable, but on a larger scale we want to prevent and to intervene and to help offenders find a way out of the criminal justice system for the benefit of every citizen in Memphis and Shelby County.  25

Memphis Area Legal Services Thanks the Contributors to Our Campaign for Equal Justice Brice M. Timmons, Esq. Charles T. Tuggle, Esq. Colleen Hitch Wilson, Esq. Crye-Leike, Inc. Eugene J. Podesta, Esq. Evergreen Packaging First Horizon Bank Gilliland Family Fund, Inc. Glassman, Wyatt, Tuttle & Cox PC Harrison D. McIver, III, Esq.

VISIONARIES

Contributions of $30,000 or more

AutoZone Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz PC FedEx Corporation International Paper

DIFFERENCE MAKERS

Firms of 2 or more contributing $350 or more per attorney Adams & Reese LLP Barlow & Schaffzin, PLC Bass Berry & Sims PLC Bourland Heflin Alvarez Minor & Matthews PLC Burch Porter & Johnson PLLC Butler Snow LLP Farris Bobango PLC Ford & Harrison LLP Glankler Brown PLLC Gordon Shaw Law Group

John H. Parker, II, Esq. John C. Pekar, Esq. Kay Fish Keating C. Lowery, Esq. Linda Williams Louis P. Britt, III, Esq. Mallory Seeker The Marston Group PLC Michael Fletcher, Esq. In memory of Patricia C. Howard, Milandria King, Esq. Hon. Russell Sugarman & Network For Good Lisa A. Lichterman, Esq. and In Honor of Sean A. Hunt, Esq., Nicole D. Berkowitz, Esq. David M. Cook, Esq., Nicole M. Grida, Esq. Janese Perry & Kayron Newman Nicole M. Walthour, Esq. Honorable Janice Holder Patrick Gilmore In Memory of Paul H. (Esq.) & Prof. Mary Morris Sylvia & Louis Holder Philip Malary Honorable Robert & Priority Insurance Agency, Inc. Kim Weiss J. R. Hyde III Family Ray Brown Foundation Renee E. Castle, Esq. John and Leslie Daniel Richard F. Mattern, Esq. Rita L. Gibson Rayford, Esq. John H. Parker, II, Esq. In Memory of Tylan Rayford John C. Pekar, Esq.

Justin M. (Esq.) & Bethany Ross Kevin N. Graham, Esq. Kristine L. (Esq.) & Harold Roberts Larry Crawford, Esq. Liz L. Keough, Esq. Harris Shelton Hanover Walsh PLLC Jack & Lauran G. Stimac, Esq. Lewis Thomason PLC Liz L. Keough, Esq. Littler Mendelson PC Mark F. Lightfoot, Esq. Magids Cottam PLC Matthew L. Barron, Esq. Martin Tate Morrow & Memphis Communications Corporation Marston PC Memphis Reprographics Memphis Area Legal Services Inc. Methodist Le Bonheur Morgan & Morgan PA Michael (Esq.) & Sharon Rosenblum & Reisman PC Goldstein Family Fund Russell & Oliver PLC Mutual of America Shuttleworth PLLC Nike, Inc. The Hunt Law Firm NLADA Service Corporation The Prosser Law Firm Paragon Bank The Wharton Law Firm Paul H. (Esq.) & Prof. Mary The Williams Law Firm, PLLC Morris In Honor of Linda Harris, Esq. Randall D. Noel, Esq. Wolff Ardis PC Sarah H. Norton, Esq. Scot A. Bearup, Esq. BARRISTERS Sheila Jordan Cunningham, Esq. Contributions from $10,000-$14,999 Thad S. Rodda, Jr., Esq. Honorable Diane K. Vescovo & Thomas L. Campbell Fund Tiffanee Wade-Henderson, Esq. Mike G. McLaren, Esq. Tri-State Bank Vero Business Capital Monogram Foods State of Tennessee Access to Watkins Uiberall PLLC Wolff Ardis, PC Justice Fund Women’s Foundation of Greater Memphis Yuletide Office Solutions

ADVOCATES

Contributions from $5,000$9,999

LEADERS

Anonymous Bill and Sharon Ryan, Esq. Buckman Laboratories Glenda Hastings & Napa Café Kathy and J.W. Gibson Memphis Bar Association Methodist LeBonheur Healthcare Nike, Inc.

Contributions from $400-$999

Adrienne K. Price, Esq. Alex (Esq.) & Debra Saharovich Amy M. Pepke, Esq. Association of Women Attorneys Ben G. Sissman, Esq. Dr. Bo & Petra Adams Bradley E. Trammell, Esq. Bruce M. Smith, Esq. Buckner P. Wellford, Esq. Carlos A. Bibbs, Esq. Priscilla & Paulo Teixeira Foundation Carlyn L. Addison, Esq. In honor of Honorable Diane Vescovo & Cindy Cole Ettingoff, Esq. Corey B. (Esq.) & Mary Trotz Mike McLaren, Esq. David J. Cocke, Esq. Susan & Alan L. Kosten, Esq. David M. (Esq.) & Theresa Cook United Way of the Mid-South Earle J. Schwarz, Esq. Frank S. Cantrell, Esq. Frank (Esq.) & Cynthia Childress Harris P. Quinn, Esq. Charitable Fund Independent Bank Contributions from $1,000-$4,999 Jackie G. Prester, Esq. James C. Warner, Esq. Adams & Reese LLP Jerry E. Mitchell, Esq. André & Monica Wharton, Esq. Jill (Esq.) & Kenneth Steinberg John J. Heflin, III, Esq. Ben C. (Esq.) & Kathy Adams

GUARDIANS

Ben F. Jones Chapter of Charitable Fund

In Memory of Conrad and Jeanne Kruger Johannah F. O'Malley, Esq.

John E. Kruger

Honorable Robert L. Childers In Memory of Lenard Hackel, Esq., Lance Minor, Esq., and Bernie Kustoff, Esq. S. Newton Anderson, Esq. Scot A. Bearup, Esq. Shepherd D. Tate, Esq. Spicer Rudstrom PLLC Sherrie Hollis SFP Benefits University of Memphis William B. Smith, Esq.

.

SUPPORTERS Contributions from $150-$399 Allen S. Blair, Esq. Allen, Summers, Simpson, Lillie Gresham PLLC Amy & Emmel Golden

Michael J. Stengel, Esq.

&

Anna L. Phillips, Esq. Anne & John M. Jones, Esq. In Honor of Judge J. Ross Dyer Honorable Annie Christoff Prof. Andrew Hussey Anidra J. Lomax, Esq. Banks, Finley, White & Co.

Beard & Savory, PLLC Beth W. Bradley Honorable Betty Thomas Moore

Bruce M. Kahn, Esq. Charles (Esq.) & Barbara W. Key, Esq. Chouwanee Clark Clarence (Esq.) & Harriet Halmon Craig Barnes, Esq. Correen Ferrentino, Esq. In Memory of Paul D. Trapeni, III

Daniel W. Van Horn, Esq.

Darrin F. Davidson, Esq. David & Elizabeth Rudolph, Esquires Delaine R. Smith, Esq. Dena Beck

In Memory of Paul D. Trapeni, III

Prof. Donna S. Harkness Earnest E. Fiveash, Esq. Elizabeth P. Miller In Memory of

Paul D. Trapeni, III

Elizabeth A. Prendergast, Esq. Estelle G. Winsett, Esq. Esther D. Sykes-Wood, Esq. Evan A. Williams George M. Hirsch, Esq. George S. Sullivan, Jr., Esq. Gerald and Lynn Eisenstatt In Honor of Justice Janice Holder Gina & Brian Heim, Esq. Grace L. Bonner, Esq. Honorable Gwendolyn Rooks

Henry C. Shelton, III, Esq. Herman Morris, Jr., Esq. Honorable Holly Kirby J. Michael Murphy, Esq. J. William (Esq.) & Pam Pierce Jamal Johnson James P. Barry, Esq. James G. Couch, Esq. James W. Curry, Jr., Esq. Honorable James F. Russell Jessica L. Indingar, Esq. John and Molly Willmott John A. Williamson, Esq. Joseph M. Williams, Esq. Joshua (Esq.) & Leah Hillis Julie Chinn Justin L. Bailey, Esq. Kaitlin D. Beck, Esq. Katherine B. Anderson, Esq. Katherine M. Dowd, Esq. Honorable Kathleen N. Gomes Kayron L. Newman Kenneth Anderson, Esq. Kevin G. Patterson, Esq. Kimbrough B. Mullins, Esq. L. Don Campbell, Jr., Esq. Leo M. Bearman, Esq. Linda Williams Lucie K. Brackin, Esq. M. Ruthie Hagan, Esq. Marlinee C. Iverson, Esq. Mary Wu Tullis, Esq. Melody McAnally, Esq. Michael L. Robb, Esq. Mike (Esq.) & Susanna Cody Mitchell W. Wood, Esq. National Civil Rights Museum Nathan T. Simpson, Esq. Nicholas A. Stephens Nicole Smith, Esq. Paul W. (Esq.) & Marjorie Brown Philip Woodard R. Mark Glover, Esq. R. Spencer Clift, Esq. Rebekka N. Freeman, Esq. Richard H. Allen, Jr., Esq. Richard (Esq.) & Veronica Cullison Robb Family Fund S. Kalki Winter Scottie O. Wilkes, Esq. Sharon L. Petty, Esq. Shannon L. Toon, Esq. Shayla N. Purifoy, Esq. Spicer Rudstrom PLLC Sukita L. Johnson, Esq. Dr. Susan Neely-Barnes Susan M. Callison, Esq. Terri Freeman Thomas and Courtenay McAlister Virginia P. Bozeman, Esq. Wendy Sumner-Winter

William H. Parr, Esq.

Honorable William Anderson William B. Smith, Esq. William (Esq.) and Ruth Young

FRIENDS

Contributions from $149 and below Abraham Pickens Adam S. Baldridge, Esq. Adriana Rodriguez Alan R. Haguewood, Esq. Alexander R. Nigh Alicia N. Moore Alice M. Finn Alison Hart Allison Marie Crain Alpha Reporting Corporation Amazon Smiles Amber Taylor Andrea Willis Andrew C. Branham, Esq. In Honor of Harrison D. McIver, III.

Andrew Chapman, Jr. Andrew E. Garrett, Esq. Angela Wynn Angelene Franklin Nelson Ann Edwards Argie Daniel Ariel K. Coalburn Ashley N. Finch, Esq. Ashley Foret In Memory of Paul D. Trapeni, III Ashley T. Wiltshire, Jr. In Memory of Paul D. Trapeni, III Ashton E. King Belinda Winston Bennie Nelson Beth W. Bradley, Esq. Biridiana Erives Blair Mediation PLLC Bonnie Eulinberg Bryson W. Whitney, Esq. Caroline O’Connor In Memory of Paul D. Trapeni, III Carolyn Mills Carrie Lumpkin Cassie Turner Chenben He Cindy Tupis The Cochran Firm Mid-South Honorable Connie Clark Cuba Westbrooks Daniel R. Hooks In Memory of Raymond & Marie Hooks Daniel Howard Danielle Faulk Danielle S. Woods, Esq. Datarius Tabus David Adams David Crislip David (Esq.) & Lynda Burkhardt Denise R. Hooks, Esq. Desiree M. Franklin, Esq. Dinesh Fernando Dione J. Bowers E. C. Carrozza Edward Wids, Jr. Efrain Perez Elaine St. Clemmons, Esq. Elida Cordota Elizabeth E. Chance, Esq. Elizabeth L. Follis Evan Williams Evelyn D. White Fred M. Ridolphi, Esq. Gail Wright Gloria Woods Grace Pennell Henry J. Ward Hugh Cross Hunter Benjamin Rozman Ignacio Vincentelli Irénée Strack Ishara Fernando J. Denisha Wright J. Henderson J. Michael Murphy, Esq. Jack F. Heflin, Esq. Jacob A. Horn, Esq. Jacqueline D. Herod Jaime Rivera James B. Jalanek, Esq. James (Esq.) & Linda Parker Jamie Feldman Jamie E. Lambert Janese Perry Janice Litta Jasmine Worthen Jeannie Kosciolek, Esq. Jermellody Setton JoAnn Jones John A. Rochford, Esq. John G. Kimbrough Jose Ari G. Laraya Joseph P. Alexandre Josie Holland Kalista Bassett Karen J. Casey Kasey R. Adkins Kenneth D. Worles Keosha Robinson Kentrice Bailey Keri G. Unowsky, Esq. Kevin Bernst Kimberly A. Dougherty, Esq. Kimberly K. Schreiber, Esq. Larry Dansberry Laura L. English, Esq. Lauren Ludwikowski, Esq. Lawrence J. Laurenzi, Esq. Lesley Glasper Levy Commercial Realty, LLC

Liberty Cunningham Lloyd Calhoun M. Phillips Malcolm McClenon Marcin Wlordarski Maria Deer Marie Dodson Martha Strinky Matthew Diana In Memory of Paul D. Trapeni, III Matthew R. Taber Matthew T. May, Esq. Merrell Johnson Michael Jung Michael C. Patton, Esq. Nassar Farraj, Esq. Nathaniel Greenhall Nicole M. Grida, Esq. Nicole Smith, Esq. Pamela Williams Kelly, Esq. Patrick Gilmore Philip Maloney Regina Hopkins In Memory of Paul D. Trapeni, III Reva M. Kriegel, Esq. In Honor of Frank S. Cantrell, Esq. Honorable Robert S. Benham In Memory of S. Shepherd Tate Robert G. Taylor, Esq. Robert Q. Wilson, Esq. Rodney & Elizabeth Merriweather Rose Benson Sandy Newton Shannon N. McKenna, Esq. Shanta Valentine Sharon Jackson Sharon Murtaugh Shelvie S. Rose Spencer D. Pierce Stefanya Bernal Sydney St. Clemmons Tamara Walk Tamara Woods Tara D. Brown, Esq. Tanedra Turner Tarus Coleman Tasha Lee Terrence Birdsong Thomas B. Pritchard, Esq. In Memory of Paul D. Trapeni, III Tiffany A. Jackson Tiffany Williamson Timothy Johnson Timothy Sutherland Tonnie Gordon Tracy Denise Simpson Travis K. Brown Tri M. Nguyen Vicki Young W. H. Ewing, Jr., Esq. Dr. William R. Breen William Clark Zachary Beaver

GRAY KNIGHTS Senior attorneys giving $100 or more

Mayor A C Wharton, Jr. Alan Kosten, Esq. Andrew C. Branham, Esq. Ben G. Sissman, Esq. Bruce M. Kahn, Esq. Bruce M. Smith, Esq. David J. Cocke, Esq. David M. Cook, Esq. Donna K. Fisher, Esq. Earle J. Schwarz, Esq. George S. Sullivan, Esq. Henry C. Shelton, III, Esq. J. Michael Murphy, Esq. James B. Jalanek, Esq. John E. Kruger, Esq. John R. McCarroll, Esq. Michael Cody, Esq. Michael E. Goldstein, Esq. Reva M. Kriegel, Esq. Richard H. Allen, Jr., Esq. Ruby R. Wharton, Esq. Susan M. Callison, Esq. Thad S. Rodda Jr., Esq. W. H. Ewing, Jr., Esq.

Donations made through The United Way or a change in our method of data migration may not be reflected here due to unavailability of contribution lists.

26

2020 Memphis Bar Association Virtual Annual Meeting Introducing the

2021 MBA BOARD

Peter Gee President

Tannera Gibson Vice President

RETURNING BOARD MEMBERS Dawn Campbell Hon. M. Ruthie Hagan Hon. JoeDae Jenkins Adam Johnson Andrea Malkin Patrick Morris Jennifer Nichols Will Perry Hon. Shayla Purifoy Billy Ryan Lauran Stimac Laquita Stokes

Jennifer Sink

Secretary/Treasurer

Lucie Brackin Past President

SECTION REPRESENTATIVES Taurus Bailey Anne Davis Nancy Rigell Danielle Woods ABA DELEGATE Lucian Pera LAW SCHOOL REPRESENTATIVE Donna Harkness YLD PRESIDENT Quinton Thompson

NEW BOARD MEMBERS Justin Bailey Lisa Gill Marlinee Iverson Bobby Martin Steve Mulroy Edd Peyton 27

Annual Awards W.J. MICHAEL CODY ACCESS TO JUSTICE AWARD presented to

Melanie Yelder PRESIDENT’S AWARDS presented to

Cindy MacAulay of DHG and

Michelle McLaughlin of BankTennessee

The Sam A. Myar, Jr. Memorial Award is presented annually to a member of the Memphis Bar Association, who is 40 years of age or younger, and has rendered outstanding personal service to the Memphis & Shelby County legal profession and community.

SAM A. MYAR, JR. MEMORIAL AWARD presented to

Nicole Grida SAM A. MYAR, JR. MEMORIAL AWARD RECIPIENTS 1960 Hunter Lane, Jr. (deceased) 1961 Jack Petree (deceased) 1962 Leo J. Buchignani (deceased) 1963 Harry W. Wellford, Jr. 1964 Erich W. Merrill (deceased) 1965 Richard Allen, Sr. (deceased) 1966 Henry M. Beaty, Jr. (deceased) 1967 John J. Thomason 1968 Leo Bearman, Jr. (deceased) 1969 George Klepper, Jr. (deceased) 1970 David G. Williams (deceased) 1971 John B. Maxwell, Jr. 1972 William R. Bruce, Jr. 1973 James S. Gilliland 1974 Olen C. Batchelor (deceased) 1975 Donn Southern 1976 W.J. Michael Cody 1977 W. Otis Higgs, Jr. (deceased) 1978 Albert C. Harvey 1979 George H. Brown, Jr. 1980 B. Percy Magness (deceased) 1981 Ronald Lee Gilman 1982 Blanchard E. Tual 28

1983 Alexander W. Wellford, Jr. 1984 Joseph E. Feibelman 1985 William Michael Richards Janet L. Richards (deceased) 1986 John L. Ryder 1987 No recipient 1988 William H. Haltom, Jr. 1989 Clare Shields (deceased) 1990 Janice M. Holder 1991 David J. Harris 1992 Stephen R. Leffler 1993 Charles E. Carpenter, Sr. 1994 Stephen W. Vescovo 1995 Amy E. Spain (posthumously) 1996 Buckner P. Wellford 1997 Lucian T. Pera 1998 Ricky E. Wilkins 1999 Thomas L. Parker 2000 Barbara Morris Zoccola 2001 Robert L. Hutton 2002 David F. Kustoff James S. Strickland, Jr. 2003 Elizabeth T. Collins (deceased)

2004 Leslie Gattas 2005 Edward L. Stanton, III 2006 Caren B. Nichol 2007 Lara Butler 2008 Kirk A. Caraway 2009 Amy Martin Bobby Martin 2010 Craig Conley 2011 Lucie Brackin 2012 Marcy Dodds Magee 2013 Stacie Winkler 2014 Emily T. Landry 2015 Jennifer S. Hagerman 2016 Annie T. Christoff 2017 Earl W. Houston, II 2018 Andre B. Mathis 2019 Adam Johnson 2020 Nicole Grida

Annual Awards The Lawyer’s Lawyer Award is presented annually to a Memphis Bar Association member who has practiced law for more than 15 years and who, during that time, has exemplified the aims and aspirations embodied in the Guidelines for Professional Courtesy and Conduct. In 2000, the award was renamed in honor of Judge Jerome Turner, during whose presidency of the MBA, the Guidelines were developed.

JUDGE JEROME TURNER LAWYER’S LAWYER AWARD presented to

Bruce McMullen JUDGE JEROME TURNER LAWYER’S LAWYER AWARD RECIPIENTS 1988 John S. Porter (deceased) 1989 Leo M. Bearman, Jr. (deceased) 1990 S. Shepherd Tate (deceased) 1991 Walter P. Armstrong, Jr. (deceased) 1992 Lucius E. Burch, Jr. (deceased) 1993 Thomas R. Prewitt, Sr. (deceased) 1994 William M. Walsh (deceased) 1995 James M. Manire (deceased) 1996 Judge Bailey Brown (deceased) 1997 James D. Causey (deceased) and Hal Gerber (deceased) 1998 Frank J. Glankler, Jr. (deceased) 1999 A.C. Wharton 2000 Irvin Bogatin (deceased) 2001 W.J. Michael Cody 2002 John J. Thomason 2003 Dorothy J. Pounders

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Charles M. Crump (deceased) Robert L. Green Jef Feibelman G. Patrick Arnoult Albert C. Harvey Blanchard E. Tual David M. Cook Elizabeth T. Collins (deceased) Lewis Donelson (deceased) James R. Garts, Jr. Ruby Wharton Joe M. Duncan William H. Haltom, Jr. Maurice Wexler Amy J. Amundsen Charles F. Newman Bruce McMullen

29

Happy Holidays!

Best wishes for a wonderful, safe holiday season and a prosperous New Year!

From your friends at The Bank for the Legal Community AJ Colton commercial loan officer Megan Goodman teller LaShawnda McKinney teller Michelle McLaughlin manager Caitlin Rech universal banker PROUD PARTNER OF THE MEMPHIS BAR ASSOCIATION SINCE 2006

Let us tailor a specialized account to fit you and your law firm’s needs.

IOLTA • GUARDIANSHIP • ESTATE • PERSONAL & BUSINESS CHECKING REMOTE CAPTURE • TREASURY MANAGEMENT

CONSUMER & COMMERCIAL LOANS • MORTGAGES

30 North Second at Court Square

901.525.5533

We also have offices in East Memphis, Germantown, Collierville, Munford & Ripley.

30

www.banktennessee.com MEMBER FDIC NMLS #441426

BLACK MENTAL HEALTH IN 2020: TIME FOR CULTURAL COMPETENCE

T

he inspiration for creating this series came from the recent collaborative efforts of the Ben F. Jones Chapter of the National Bar Association (BFJ), the Memphis Bar Association (MBA), the Association for Women Attorneys (AWA) and the Wellness Committee of the MBA. From the shared vision of Shayla Purifoy, President of the BFJ, Lucie Brackin, President of the MBA and Megan Lane, President of the AWA, the trajectory for 2020 was set in the leaders for our legal community to strengthen relationships and work together.

bias. The 21-Day Challenge provides articles, podcasts and videos intended to challenge and inform the way non-black people think and talk about issues of race and implicit bias. The 21-Day Challenge also gives insight to topics surrounding Black mental health. The poetry and photography accompanying this article are drawn from day 7 and 14 of the 21-Day Racial Equity Habit Building Challenge ©.

The syllabus and articles can be found here.

For this series, we have enlisted leaders in the Black mental health community who have volunteered their time and wisdom to informing our message. Our intention is to support and give voice to the trauma and internal struggle felt more intensely by many in the Black legal community at this moment of political unrest, disproportionate impact of the pandemic and obstacles in accessing to culturally competent mental health care.

The poetry and photography accompanying this article are drawn from days 7 and 14 of the 21-Day Racial Equity Challenge.

PART I: A RECKONING WITH HISTORY

Then came the pandemic, the violent deaths of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery and the countless others who have directly and indirectly suffered at the hands of systemic racism, and the resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement. And so, the shared commitment to strengthening relationships was carried out in the Bar Unity March on June 24, 2020, the formation of the MBA Outreach and Diversity Committee, the formation of the BFJ Legal Justice Task Force, and the joint sponsorship of the 21-Day Racial Equity Habit Building Challenge ©.

Roughly 18% of adults in the United States suffer from 1 a diagnosable mental disorder each year. Members of U.S. racial and ethnic minority groups generally experience mental disorders in similar numbers to whites—and, in 2 some cases, fewer numbers. Yet Black American adults are

In collaboration with BFJ, the MBA Wellness Committee is introducing this first article in a series on Black mental health, to highlight the current state of Black mental health in America and educate the legal community and provide resources. Additionally, we will integrate the wealth of wisdom shared through the 21Day Challenge and continue to bring awareness, and hopefully compassion, to the dialogue about race and 31

20% more likely to report “serious psychological distress,” and only one in three Black Americans who struggles with 3 mental health issues ever receives appropriate treatment.

Much of the discussion about these disparate figures centers on the stigma regarding mental illness among Black people. “Whether it’s depression or anxiety,” the National Council for Behavioral Health observed last year, “there is a longstanding belief in . . . communities [of color] that such concerns are taboo, and their impact is 4 the problem of ‘the other.’” Similarly, “prayer and faith . . . may be favored over formal medical treatment” in Black communities, “which are among the most religious of any 5 racial or ethnic group in the United States.”

But multiple factors contribute to poor mental health outcomes for Black people. In addition to cultural stigma, the American Psychiatric Association reports, inaccessibility of high-quality mental health care services, lack of awareness about mental health, and discrimination 6 play a role.

And as for stigma, Black people have good reason to be wary of mental health treatment. To say that the medical establishment has mistreated Black communities is to revel in understatement, given persistent and well7 8 documented practices of exploitation, denigration, and 9 abuse by medical professionals. Some of the more horrific examples include experiments on enslaved Black women’s 10 genitalia without anesthesia; the forced sterilization of Black women at teaching hospitals in the southern United 11 States, nicknamed “Mississippi appendectomies”; and 12 the infamous Tuskegee Syphilis Study, in which doctors allowed some 400 black men to suffer from syphilis and die slow, painful deaths, despite a cure, over four decades.

The mental health profession itself has hardly been

32

innocent of dehumanizing practices. In 2011, Psychology Today published an article by evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa entitled, “Why Are Black Women 13 Less Physically Attractive Than Others?” The National Library of Medicine also reports that Black Americans with psychiatric issues are misdiagnosed at higher rates 14 than white patients. Black people thus rightly may mistrust, resent, or fear non-Black therapists, seeing them as part of a medical community with a long history of treating Black people as ugly, crazy, or stupid. It was, after all, an educational psychologist who pioneered the “race science” theory that Black people are genetically less 15 intelligent than whites. In a world where Black mental health professionals might as well be “unicorns,” these challenges are real barriers to mental health treatment for 16 Black communities.

Despite this disturbing history, however, there is room for hope. Kimery Irby, a licensed clinical social worker in Memphis and the founder of Essential Pieces Therapy Plus, notes that she has observed an increase in positive conversations about mental health treatment via social media, podcasts, the internet, and within the faith-based community since the onset of COVID-19. More people, according to Irby, are looking for ways to cope with the challenges that the pandemic has created and exacerbated and are actively seeking help. Irby notes that many Blacks have experienced, witnessed, or heard about events that may trigger concerns or emotions that can cause a heightened sense of awareness, fear, and uncertainty about themselves in their environment, very similar to the effects of trauma. She acknowledges how Black Americans have dealt with adversity in the most resilient ways that have shaped the culture. Irby says “It does not surprise me that in the midst of such polarizing events in America, Black Americans are once again taking the opportunity

and lack of access, Black people have been more willing to seek these services. According to Dr. Freeman, we now have more progressive pastors that recognize and have a relationship with mental health providers.

Dr. Freeman notes that many Christians are starting to recognize mental health services as an option, because when they go to their pastors, they find that solutions for mental health concerns of church members are beyond what pastors are able to provide. The Bible, according to Dr. Freeman, provides a blueprint for how to live, but psychology and social work give people a strategy. Dr. Freeman says that many churches now offer information and support to congregations and others have developed mental health staff. Irby stresses that access to quality, culturally-competent mental health services is a critical component of combating mental health illness in Black communities. Rather than supplanting formal medical treatment, she explains, churches and other faith-based groups historically have filled gaps in access to mental health support for Black communities and also have advocated for equality, justice, and resources for their members. Irby believes that as culturally-competent, evidence-based interventions from trustworthy sources become more readily available, faith-based leaders within Black communities will increasingly partner with mental health professionals to enhance the quality of life of their members. Similarly, Dr. Freeman asserts that we are likely to make greater improvement when a greater number of therapists understand and respect our culture and become more culturally competent.

In the meantime, Kimery Irby, Dr. Freeman and the Wellness Committee make the following recommendations for people seeking mental health support:

to heal by embracing and shaping another part of their culture by incorporating mental health into their cultural experience.”

Dr. Charlotte Freeman, CP, PhD, a clinical psychologist, and the owner of Nia Therapy Services, indicated that despite the past trend of Black people being less likely to seek services, which was because of a combination of strong religious faith, lack of knowledge

• First, both Freeman and Irby suggest if you are insured, contact your insurance company before searching for a therapist. Your insurance company can also provide a comprehensive list of local in-network therapists.

Your insurance company also can tell you whether you have Employee Assistance Program benefits for free therapy sessions. Freeman notes that if you are going through insurance via Human Resources or EAP that your employer will not have access to your mental health records.

• Second, Irby suggests whether you are insured or uninsured, a great website to begin the search for a therapist is Psychology Today: www.PsychologyToday.com. The website will allow you to view the profiles of therapists in your local area 33

and tailor your search to meet your specific needs.

Each profile will tell you whether the therapist accepts private pay or insurance or provides therapy services on a sliding fee scale.

• Third, Freeman recommends Kindred Place for people experiencing any type of abuse. The services are on a sliding scale. Additionally, she suggests that patients inquire whether Telehealth is an option by the provider and whether it is covered by insurance.

Telehealth is a virtual option which may be by video or phone. Currently Dr. Freeman provides Telehealth, however, the first appointment must be by video.

Additional appointments may be by telephone if the client prefers.

resources and services.

• Finally, CONCERN EAP is an option for MBA members to add-on to their member benefits.

CONCERN EAP offers telehealth and in-person appointments. The link with more information about

• Fourth, the Memphis Crisis Center (901) 2747477 and the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline 1-800-273-8255 are here to assist anyone who needs immediate help with connecting with mental health 1

“Mental Health Disparities: Diverse Populations,” Am. Psychiatric Assoc., Dec. 19, 2017, available at https://www.psychiatry.org/ psychiatrists/cultural-competency/education/mental-health-facts.

2

Ibid.

3

White, Ruth, “Why Mental Health Care is Stigmatized in Black Communities,” Univ. S. Cal. Sch. of Social Work, Feb. 12, 2019, https://dworakpeck.usc.edu/news/why-mental-health-care-stigmatizedblack-communities.

4

Armstrong, Victor, “Stigma Regarding Mental Illness Among People of Color,” Nat’l Council for Behavioral Health, July 8, 2019, https://www. thenationalcouncil.org/BH365/2019/07/08/stigma-regarding-mentalillness-among-people-of-color/.

5

See supra note 3 and accompanying text.

6

See supra note 1 and accompanying text.

7

E.g., Skloot, Rebecca, The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks (Crown 2010) (discussing a black woman, Henrietta Lacks, and the immortal cell line, HeLa, that was extracted from her in 1951 without consent or compensation and that continues to be used for medical research today); see also Rothman, Lily, “The Disturbing History of African-Americans and Medical Research Goes Beyond Henrietta Lacks,” Time, Apr. 21, 2017, available at https://time.com/4746297/henrietta-lacks-moviehistory-research-oprah/.

8

9

E.g., Jensen, Arthur, “How Much Can We Boost I.Q. and Achievement?,” Harv. Educ. Rev. Vol. 39, No. 1, Winter 1969 (concluding that conceptual ability, which includes abstract thinking and problem solving is more prevalent among Asians and whites than blacks; that general intelligence is largely genetically determined; and that educational programs like Head Start were therefore destined to fail); see also Evans, Gavin, “The Unwelcome Revival of ‘Race Science,’” The Guardian, Mar. 2, 2018, https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/ mar/02/the-unwelcome-revival-of-race-science (discussing Jensen and others).

Ko, Lisa, “Unwanted Sterilization and Eugenics Programs in the United States,” Independent Lens, Jan. 29, 2016, available at https://www. pbs.org/independentlens/blog/unwanted-sterilization-and-eugenics-

34

CONCERN EAP is https://www.baptistonline.org/ services/employee-assistance/. The contact person is Melissa Wilkes Donahue at (901) 338-6256. programs-in-the-united-states/ (describing, among other things, “Mississippi appendectomies”).

10

Bachynski, Kathleen, “American medicine was built on the backs of slaves. And it still affects how doctors treat patients today,” The Washington Post, June 4, 2018, available at https://www. washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2018/06/04/americanmedicine-was-built-on-the-backs-of-slaves-and-it-still-affects-howdoctors-treat-patients-today/; see also Shukla, Shipra, “Scholar Speaks About History of Medical Experimentation on African Americans,” UCSF, Dec. 17, 2007, https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2007/12/7682/ scholar-speaks-about-history-medical-experimentation-african-american.

11

See supra note 9 and accompanying text.

12

U.S. Public Health Service Syphilis Study, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, available at https://www.cdc.gov/tuskegee/timeline. htm (last visited October 22, 2020) (describing a study that began in 1932 and lasted 40 years, involving 600 black men, 399 of whom had syphilis and whom doctors deceived, refused proper treatment despite the known efficacy of penicillin as early as 1947, and “studied” over the course of four decades to observe the cumulative effects of the disease)

13

Sehgal, Ujala, “Psychology Today Apologizes for ‘Black Women Less Attractive’ Post,” The Atlantic, May 28, 2011, available at https:// www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/05/psychologytoday-apologizes-black-women-less-attractive-article/351205/; see also Folkenflik, David, “Blogger’s ‘Ugly’ Conclusions Anger Some in the Black Community,” National Public Radio: The Two Way, May 17, 2011, https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwoway/2011/05/17/136399684/bloggers-ugly-conclusions-anger-some-inthe-black-community.

14

Bell, Carl, et al., Misdiagnosis of African-Americans with Psychiatric Issues—Part II, J. Nat’l Med. Assoc., Mar. 2015, available at https:// pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27282721/.

15

See supra note 8 and accompanying text.

16

Poindexter Massey, LaShaunda, “Opinion: Racism Is Causing A Mental Health Crisis,” Daily Memphian, Sept. 24, 2020, available at https:// dailymemphian.com/article/17058/unicorn.

AMY AMUNDSEN

After 32 years of litigation practice, Amy Amundsen has started her own virtual firm where she provides family law dispute resolution and legal consulting. Amundsen is a TN Supreme Court Rule 31 Family Law Mediator and trained as a Collaborative Family Lawyer and Arbitrator, Diplomate in the American College of Family Trial Lawyers (“ACFTL”), Fellow in both the International and American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers and member of the Memphis Collaborative Alliance (“MCA”). Amundsen is a past President of the MBA and recipient of its Judge Jerome Turner Lawyer’s Lawyer award. Amundsen can be reached at www.amundsenlegalconsulting.com.

KAY ANDERSON

The Tennessee Defense Lawyers Association has named Memphis attorney Kay Anderson “Defense Lawyer of the Year.” Anderson practices with Baker Donelson in Memphis, where she is a member of the Health Care Litigation group. Anderson represents physicians, nurses, nurse practitioners and CRNAs in malpractice defense litigation. The award honors a TDLA member who has made significant contributions to the defense bar and to the practice of law in Tennessee in the past year.

Anderson accepted the award during TDLA’s Virtual Annual Meeting. In addition to TDLA, Anderson is a member of the Defense Research Institute, Memphis Bar Foundation and the Memphis, Mississippi and Tennessee Bar Associations.

JESSICA F. FERRANTE

The National Academy of Family Law Attorneys (NAFLA) has recognized the exceptional performance of Tennessee Family Law Attorney, Jessica F. Ferrante, as a 2020 Top 10 Under 40 Family Law Attorney.

Mrs. Ferrante graduated from The University of Tennessee with honors in 2009. She returned to Memphis to attend law school and received her J.D. from the University of Memphis Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law in 2012. During her time at law school, she was hired by Rice Caperton Rice PLLC as a law clerk and later as an associate attorney upon graduation. She is now the Senior Associate Attorney at the firm.

The Tennessee Supreme Court named Mrs. Ferrante as a Hearing Committee Member for the Board of Professional Responsibility, Division IX. She was reappointed for a second term in March 2019 and will be an active member through 2022.

35

M. RUTHIE HAGAN

The Honorable David S. Kennedy, Chief Judge, United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Tennessee announced that the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has appointed M. Ruthie Hagan, formerly of Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, P.C. as a United States Bankruptcy Judge for the Western District of Tennessee, and that Judge Hagan took the oath of office on October 16, 2020.

PLC in Memphis, Tennessee as an associate attorney from 2007 to 2009, and from 2004 to 2007 as an associate attorney with Quattlebaum, Grooms, Tull & Burrow, PLLC in Little Rock, Arkansas.

Before her judicial appointment, Judge Hagan served in the Bankruptcy and Commercial Restructuring group of Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, P.C. While there, she primarily handled sophisticated business workouts and complex commercial bankruptcy.

Prior to joining Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, P.C. in 2010, Judge Hagan practiced bankruptcy law at the law firm of Bass, Berry & Sims,

Judge Hagan serves as Co-Chair of the Bankruptcy Section of Memphis Bar Association, Director of the Memphis Bar Association, Executive Council Member of the Tennessee Bar Association Bankruptcy Section, Director of the Mid-South Commercial Law Institute, member of the American Bankruptcy Institute, and was named to Mid-South Rising Stars in Bankruptcy & Creditor/Debtor Rights for several years.

36

Judge Hagan graduated with honors from the University of Arkansas School of Law where she served as Managing Editor of the Arkansas Law Review and was the recipient of the American Bankruptcy Institute Medal of Excellence. She has a master's degree in Higher Education (University of Arkansas) and a Bachelor of Science degree in Chemistry (University of Kansas).

CLASSIFIED adver tisements

Professional Services Classified

analytical and writing skills, as well as discovery and motion practice experience, are sought to assume responsibility in an active practice coordinating and drafting discovery responses in hospital and nursing home cases. We will consider a partial remote work situation and flexible and/ or reduced hours requirement. Tennessee license required; Mississippi license helpful. We seek a bright, hard working person with good judgment and attention to detail. For consideration, please click here. Please also include your resume, law school transcript, and cover letter addressed to Rebecca Simon, Director of Recruiting.

Paralegal Services

Personal Injury Litigation Paralegal

Attorneys/Law Clerks Looking for a law clerk or an associate attorney? The University of Memphis School of Law has

great students and graduates, and we can help you with your employment career needs. Contact Career Services Office with your job listing or to schedule an on-campus interview. 901.678.3217.

Lynda Stamm – Paralegal services offered on a contract basis. Contact Lynda Stamm for more information – lstamm953@gmail.com.

Health Care Litigation Staff Attorney – Memphis

The Memphis office of Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell and Berkowitz seeks to hire a staff attorney with four or more years of litigation experience, preferably medical malpractice litigation experience, to join its health law litigation practice.

Academically distinguished applicants, who have excellent

Morgan and Morgan is seeking a Litigation Paralegal to work in its Memphis office. The proper candidate looking to excel in this role must be proficient in Microsoft Word and Microsoft Outlook. They must have good written and communication skills, and they must be proficient in calendaring depositions, mediation, hearings, court deadlines, etc. Must have experience preparing discovery responses, calculating damages, and answering interrogatories and requests to produce. Must have experience with trial and mediation prep. Click here to apply.

37