Page 1

the magazine of the Memphis Bar Association

Vol. 36, Issue 2

The Good-Faith Exception to the Exclusionary Rule: Tennessee Law in a Nutshell (Part Two)


Interview with Judge Tommy Parker

well-being: From Surviving to Thriving

MALS and Veterans Treatment Court Partner to Provide Needed Services to Veterans

Say hello to your new personal injury division. Say goodbye to lost revenue.

The Home of Personal Injury Law

Just because your firm does not have the experience or the bandwidth to handle personal injury or malpractice cases doesn’t mean you have to give up the revenue. Refer your clients to Bailey & Greer and receive up to 1/3 of the attorney fees.

Take care of your clients. Grow your business. *The sharing of attorney fees must comply with Tenn. R.P.C. 1.5

Contact Sadler Bailey or Thomas Greer at 901-680-9777 or tgreer@baileygreer.com today. 6256 Poplar Avenue | Memphis, TN 38119 | www.baileygreer.com

Volume 36, Issue 2


The Good-Faith Exception to the Exclusionary Rule: Tennessee Law in a Nutshell (Part Two) BY JUDGE W. MARK WARD


Owning Your Online Presence BY CAROLE DOORLEY


Interview with Judge Tommy Parker BY DEAN DECANDIA


Well-Being: From Surviving to Thriving BY JUDGE STEVEN C. HORNSBY


How to Get the Most Out of Your Banking Institution


Race Judicata–The Run for Justice



President’s Column


MALS Corner: MALS and Veterans Treatment Court Partner to Provide Needed Service to Veterans


The Court Report


Circuit Court Report


CLC: The Community Legal Center Has a New Office!


People in the News


Upcoming Events




30 Classifieds



2019 MBA Officers

the magazine of the Memphis Bar Association

MBA Publications Committee Stephen Leffler, Chair Nicole Grida, Vice Chair Lucie Brackin, Executive Committee Liaison Preston Battle Leslie Byrd Karen Campbell Dean DeCandia Chastity Sharp Grice Sean Hunt Kendra Lyons Harrison McIver Jared Renfroe Jake Strawn Charles Summers Ellen Vergos Christy Washington

The Memphis Lawyer is a publication of the Memphis Bar Association, Inc. that publishes four times each year. The publication has a circulation of 2,200. If you are interested in submitting an article for publication or advertising in an upcoming issue, contact Carole Doorley at 271.0660; cdoorley@memphisbar.org The MBA reserves the right to reject any advertisement or article submitted for publication.

Annie Christoff

Lucie Brackin


Vice President

Terrence Reed Maggie Roney Lauran Stimac LaQuita Stokes Josh Wallis Christy Washington Estelle Winett

Past President

ABA Delegate Lucian Pera AWA Representative Bailey Walden

Section Representatives Laurie Christensen Anne Davis Frank Day Chasity Grice Ruthie Hagan Joe Kirkland

Law School Representative Jodi Wilson NBA Representative Ed Peyton YLD President Natalie Bursi


Executive Director


Earle Schwarz

2019 Board of Directors David Bearman Sherry Brooks Frank Cantrell Hon. Phyllis Gardner Leslie Gattas Tannera Gibson Nicole Grida Hon. JoeDae Jenkins Adam Johnson Steve Leffler Matt May Jim Newsom Jennifer Nichols Hon. Shayla Purifoy

Anne Fritz

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

Peter Gee


Carole Doorley

Communications and Marketing Director

Lauren Gooch Membership & CLE Director

Introducing Westlaw Edge The most intelligent legal research platform ever. Experience it at westlawedge.com Contact your local Account Executive: Zac McRae Zac.McRae@TR.com (901) 585-3315



A little help from my friends


t takes a village. All hands on deck. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

This profession is tough. We’re pulled in a million different directions, and we have to stay on top of everything being asked of us, all while mastering our practice areas, perfecting our skills, and providing insightful legal advice to our clients. We all need help from time to time. And we all have help to give. When I was in private practice, we used a teambased approach to just about everything. Collaborating on strategy and approach while taking advantage of team members’ individual strengths leads to quality client service. Working on a team is a great educational opportunity because you learn valuable nuggets of good practice from others, and you learn how delegate. But it’s also great because you have people there to improve your work and, thankfully, correct your mistakes before they head out the door. In my position now at the U.S. Attorneys’ Office, I’ve been amazed by the selflessness of my colleagues. The halls are lined with open doors to the offices of brilliant lawyers who always have time for questions, advice, and wisdom. Teamwork in this environment often takes the form of outsourcing expertise—everyone in the office is the go-to person for some particular topic and is happy to serve as a font of knowledge and advice. (And none of it is billable.) Help can come from external sources as well. My friends who are solo practitioners develop similar networks of assistance outside of their practice. They rely 6

on friends and mentors when they need an extra hand, or need something covered, or just need someone to bounce ideas off. Even an opponent can be aid a priceless resource. This might be a little controversial, but some of the most rewarding collaborations can come from having a good working relationship with opposing counsel. I have learned so much from my colleagues at the other table over the years. All it takes is a little good will and some building of trust and mutual respect, and then the door is open. Everyone is still zealously representing their clients, but you’ll have the opportunity to pick up invaluable tips and tools from the lawyer on the other side as you go. And if a mistake occurs or a misunderstanding inevitably arises, you’ll get that illusive but cherished thing we’d all love to have: the benefit of the doubt. Of course, the advantages of a cooperative approach extend to our extracurriculars as well. For example, I am so lucky to be working with the amazing officers, board, and staff here at the MBA. I’m particularly grateful for our VP, Lucie Brackin, and our Secretary/Treasurer, Peter Gee. I couldn’t even begin to do this job without them. Their unique perspectives, creative input, and ceaseless energy make the MBA better. And boy does a good tag team come in handy during a busy week. I most definitely get by with a little help from my friends. 

TENNESSEE CHAPTER Memphis Area Members recognized for Excellence in the field of Mediation or Arbitration

Gayle ASHWORTH (615) 254-1877

Allen BLAIR (901) 581-4100

George BROWN (901) 523-2930

John CANNON (901) 328-8227

Frank CANTRELL (901) 328-8269

Fred COLLINS (731) 686-8355

Trey JORDAN (901) 526-0606

Hayden LAIT (901) 527-1301

Minton MAYER (901) 312-1640

Jerry POTTER (901) 525-1455

Check preferred available dates or schedule appointments online directly with the state’s top neutrals www.TennesseeMediators.org www.TennesseeMediators.org isis free, free, funded funded by by members members


The Good-Faith Exception to the Exclusionary Rule: Tennessee Law in a Nutshell (Part Two) by JUDGE W. MARK WARD, Judge of Criminal Court, Division 9 and Author: Tennessee Criminal Trial Practice (Thomson 2000-2009)

Part One: Constitutional Violations:


n a previous article [Part One] I discussed the goodfaith exception for non-constitutional violations. This article will discuss the current state of the Tennessee law with regard to the good-faith exception for constitutional violations. In the landmark case of United States v. Leon,1 the United States Supreme Court created what is known as the “good faith” exception to the exclusionary rule. This exception permits evidence to be introduced during the prosecutions’ case-in-chief if it was seized in reasonable, good faith reliance upon a search warrant subsequently found to be defective. The Court reasoned that the only reason to exclude evidence is to deter police misconduct and when police officers go to a judge and obtain a warrant and it is the judge who made the mistake, exclusion of the evidence would have no deterrent value. In Arizona v. Evans,2 the Court extended the good faith exception to a situation where the defendant was arrested because the court’s computer showed an outstanding arrest warrant even though the court had actually withdrawn the warrant, but court employees failed to enter the recall. In Herring v. United States,3 the Court extended the exception for errors committed by police employees in failing to maintain an accurate list of arrest warrants. In Illinois v. Krull,4 the court extended the exception to searches incident to an arrest under a state statute that was later declared to be unconstitutional and in Davis v. 8

United States,5 the court applied the good faith exception to searches conducted in objectively reasonable reliance on binding appellate precedent. In 2016, the Tennessee Supreme Court first addressed the good faith exception on its merits in State v. Reynolds6 in which it adopted as an exception to the state exclusionary rule the good faith exception articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Davis v. United States, which declines to apply the exclusionary rule to searches conducted in objectively reasonable reliance on binding appellate precedent that specifically authorizes a particular police practice. In Reynolds, the defendant was involved in a motor vehicle accident in which two people were killed. A blood draw was obtained from the defendant at a hospital without a warrant and without consent. The defendant was indicted for vehicular homicide and moved to suppress the results of the blood test. Subsequent to obtaining the blood draw, the United States Supreme Court decided in Missouri v. McNeely,7 that the natural dissipation of alcohol from the bloodstream did not automatically create exigent circumstances justifying a search without a warrant. However, at the time the blood was taken, Tennessee law clearly held that the natural dissipation of alcohol from the bloodstream created exigent circumstances in all cases and no warrant was necessary, such that at the time the officer obtained the blood he was acting in

good faith reliance on binding appellate precedent. The Tennessee Supreme Court noted that in this situation the deterrence purpose of the exclusionary rule is not served. In 2019, in State v. McElrath,8 the Tennessee Supreme Court adopted as an exception to the state exclusionary rule the good faith exception articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Herring v. United States, which declines to apply the exclusionary rule when police officers conduct a seizure in good faith reliance on what turns out to be incorrect information in a database maintained by the police. As it did in State v. Reynolds, the Court again reiterated that the purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter police misconduct. With this purpose in mind, the Court held that “when police mistakes are the result of negligence...rather than systemic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements, any marginal deterrence” purpose does not warrant exclusion of the evidence. In McElrath, a Union City police officer arrested the defendant without a warrant because he was on a list of individuals who had been “barred” from housing authority property. Nineteen days later, the same officer arrested the same defendant on the same property based on the same list. Upon performing a search incident to each arrest, marijuana was discovered on the defendant’s person. It was later discovered that the list was incorrect and the defendant’s name should not have been on the “barred” list at the time of his two arrests. In fact, the defendant had completed the procedure to be removed from the “barred” list, and his request had been approved and was effective five years before the arrests in this case. As it turned out, the police maintained two lists and while the defendant’s name was on the list to be removed from the “barred” list, due to a clerical error his name was never removed from the “barred” list. The trial court suppressed the evidence as having been obtained as a result of a search incident to an unlawful arrest and the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted permission to appeal to determine (1) whether Tennessee should adopt the good-faith exception set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Herring v. United States, and, if so, whether that exception would apply to the facts of the present case.

of the case did not support application of this good-faith exception. The Court reasoned that the facts of the case were more closely akin to reckless or gross negligence. “The arrests arose not from ‘nonrecurring and attenuated negligence’ but rather from a system so fraught with problems that a mistake remained undetected for several years.” In addition, the Court questioned the propriety of the police maintaining two lists and the fact that police department clearly did not provide any checks and balances to prevent such errors from occurring. As such, the Court concluded that the State had failed to carry its burden of proving that the facts of the case warranted application of the good-faith exception. Although the Tennessee Supreme Court has specifically adopted the federal good faith exceptions articulated in Davis v. United States and Herring v. United States, it has not yet addressed any of the other good faith exceptions set forth in United States v. Leon, Arizona v. Evans, or Illinois v. Krull. What becomes clear after the 2019 opinion in McElrath is that the majority of the Tennessee Supreme Court will eventually adopt all the federal good faith exceptions. The further lessen to be learned from McElrath is that just because the Court might recognize in the abstract one of the other exceptions, the facts of the individual case must be litigated in the lower courts to determine whether the exception is actually applicable to those facts. t


468 U.S. 897 (1984).


514 U.S. 1 (1995).


555 U.S. 135 (2009).


480 U.S. 340 (1987).


564 U.s 229 (2011).


504 S.W.3d 283 (Tenn. 2016).


569 U.S. 149 (2013).


2019 WL 1122944 (Tenn. March 12, 2019).

As indicated above, the Tennessee Supreme Court adopted the good-faith exception but held that the facts 9


CORNER MALS and Veterans Treatment Court Partner to Provide Needed Services to Veterans by JIMMY HOOD1


n an unassuming auditorium on the second floor of 201 Poplar, something amazing was happening, a handful of veterans were getting their lives back. One by one they took the stage and told their stories. A former Marine Corps Drill Instructor recalled being pulled from a car after getting stopped for a DUI. A tall, commanding man from Kenya recalled attempting to join the Army after his first day in America. Another veteran gave a detailed account of all the other treatment programs he had completed to varying degrees of success and failure. Some veterans chose not to speak at all. They all shared something in common, they were graduating from a radical, relatively new experiment within the judicial system—Veterans Treatment Court.

Participating veterans must take random and frequent drug screenings, attend mandatory treatment sessions, and undergo life skills training—including career training, financial education, professional development, and community service.3 Veterans Treatment Courts are a nationwide success story. A nationwide study conducted in 2015 found that veterans who participated in the program had significantly improved mental health, enhanced housing conditions, and overall functioning.4

Veterans Treatment Courts started in Buffalo, New York in 2008.2 Today, there exists over 300 such courts across the United States, including here in Shelby County. These courts follow the blueprint of other specialty courts like drug treatment courts and juvenile courts. Veterans in Veterans Treatment Courts are held accountable for everything they do.

I started my externship with MALS in the Spring of 2019 following a few months of volunteer work with MALS in the Fall of 2018. I hoped to provide resolutions for the civil issues veterans were dealing with that were otherwise going un-noticed and un-addressed; some of which were the direct link that lead many of the veterans to the treatment court. One goal that I wanted to achieve


Memphis Area Legal Services has partnered with The University of Memphis Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law and the Shelby County Veterans Court to provide legal services for veterans in Shelby County Veterans Treatment Court. Through MALS, the court can offer a wide range of civil legal services to the veterans at no cost. Students will assist with issues such as child support modification, divorce, voter rights restoration, non-conviction expungements, power of attorneys, wills, and whatever other civil legal needs that may need to be addressed.

was to provide help with child support modification. By easing the strain of having to provide for child support while undergoing treatment, I hoped to provide yet another incentive for the veteran to successfully graduate from the program. However, I experienced an interesting legal issue concerning the nature of child support modification. A person may not generally modify a child support order if they are willfully or voluntarily unemployed under TCA § 36-5-2611. When a veteran starts the treatment program, they are encouraged not to work. The veteran is obligated to attend weekly appointments and missing those appointments could result in the veteran getting removed from the program. Removal from the program may also result in the veteran having to spend time in jail. However, veteran’s court does not mandate that a veteran cannot work. Mrs. Danielle Woods, the Manager of Pro Bono Services at MALS, and I were presented with this interesting legal hurdle. Memphis Areal Legal Services has a host of talented and knowledgeable family law attorneys on staff. One of them suggested that we discuss this issue with the magistrate judges at Juvenile Court. We set up a meeting with all the magistrate judges and proposed our problem along with our possible solutions. The magistrate judges were more than receptive with the idea with a few contingencies. First, they wanted to link up with MAXIMUS, the organization in charge of child support administration in Shelby County, and see if we could handle this issue administratively. Second, they wanted an exhaustive list of those who would be receiving this benefit for two reasons: (1) to makes sure not to issue warrants for arrearages during the time the veterans would be benefiting from of the modification and (2) to ensure that the program was not being taken advantage of.

I am always surprised at the willingness of Memphians to help others. That has been one of the more rewarding aspects of working at MALS. Seeing smart, hardworking attorneys dedicating their life for the help of others, seeing law students and grad students sacrificing the one resource there is never enough of—time—all in the name of helping others. I am additionally pleased with other Memphis organization’s willingness to cooperate with me in the pursuit of helping veterans. It truly is amazing what can be accomplished if you first care enough to ask, and then simply ask. If you would like to support in this endeavor or to get involved in pro bono services in general, MALS is always receptive to volunteers. You can get involved by contacting me at jjhood@memphis.edu or Mrs. Danielle Woods at dsalton@malsi.org or (901) 255-3421. Also, MALS hosts free legal advice clinics every Thursday beginning at 1:30 p.m. at 140 Adams in Room 134. 

Mr. Jimmy Hood is a 3L at the University of Memphis, Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law and served as the Spring 2019 Veterans Court Partnership Extern for Memphis Area Legal Services.


Melber, Ari, For Vets, Rehab Rather than Prison, http://www. msnbc.com/the-cycle/vets-rehab-rather-prison (last visited Jan. 27, 2019).



Id. Knudsen, Kraig J. & Wingenfeld, Scott, A Specialized Treatment Court for Veterans with Trauma Exposure: Implications for the Field, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ pubmed/?term=10.1037%2Fa0029967 (last visited Jan. 28, 2019).


Following the meeting with the magistrate judges, I sent a proposal to the attorneys at MAXIMUS. The proposal outlined that MAXIMUS would put a temporary stay on child support for the first crucial months once a veteran agrees to undergo treatment through the court. If the proposal is accepted, my goal of providing yet another resource of the Shelby County Veteran’s Court to help ensure the success of their veterans will be realized, and veterans and their families would ultimately win. 11




CRIMINAL COURT—Covers the weeks of August 20, 2018 – May 20, 2019 COURT




VERDICT 1. STATE V. LANCE TAYLOR: Indicted for Robbery Acting in Concert. Trial lasted from October 15 through October 17, 2018. Verdict: Not Guilty. Prosecutor: Austin Scofield. Defense: Jason Ballenger 2. STATE V. DERRICK JEFFERSON: Indicted for First Degree Murder. Trial lasted from October 1 through October 5, 2018. Verdict: Guilty as Charged in the Indictment. Prosecutor: Leslie Byrd and Theresa McCusker. Defense: Marty McAfee 3. STATE V. ZACHARY THOMPSON: Indicted for First Degree Murder. Trial lasted from November 5 through November 8, 2018. Verdict: Guilty as Charged in the Indictment. Prosecutor: Pam Stark and Leslie Byrd. Defense: Joe McClusky 4. STATE V. ANTONIO ROBINSON: Indicted as First Degree Murder During the Perpetration of a Robbery . Trial lasted from March 4 through March 7, 2019. Verdict: Criminally Negligent Homicide; Facilitation of Aggravated Assault; Aggravated Robbery . Prosecutor: Theresa McCusker and Jennifer Morris . Defense: Glover Wright 5. STATE V. MICHAEL WILSON: Indicted as First Degree Murder During the Perpetration of a Robbery; CA: Second Degree Murder; Employing a Firearm During a Dangerous Felony; Aggravated Robbery. Trial lasted from March 18 through March 21, 2019. Verdict: Guilty as Charged in the Indictment . Prosecution: Theresa McCusker and Jennifer Morris. Defense: Eric Montierth 6. STATE V. TAMARCUS BURTON: Indicted as Aggravated Robbery . Trial lasted May 6 through May 9, 2019. Verdict: Not Guilty. Prosecution: Melissa Harris and Jennifer Morris. Defense: Eric Mogy and Michael Campbell



1. STATE V. ALBERT MOSES: Indicted for Sexual Battery . Trial lasted August 20, through August 21, 2018 . Verdict: Not Guilty . Prosecutor: Cali Kovalic and Jimmy Thomas. Defense: Leslie Ballin 2. STATE V. MARICO SPENSER AND MARCELLUS JOHNSON: Indicted as First Degree Murder; CA: First Degree Murder; Employing a Firearm . Trial lasted March 4 through March 8, 2019. Verdict: Guilty as Charged as to Johnson; Guilty as Charged as to First Degree Murder and not guilty CA: First Degree Murder; Employing a Firearm . Prosecutor: Chris Lareau and Sarah Poe. Defense: Claiborne Ferguson and Juni Ganguli 3. STATE V. DUWAINE FELTNER: Indicated as Theft of Property over $60,000. Trial lasted May 20 through May 23, 2019. Verdict: Not Guilty . Prosecutor: Byron Winsett. Defense: Claiborne Ferguson



1. STATE V. CARDELL SIMS: Indicted for Aggravated Assault. Trial lasted from August 20 through August 21, 2018. Verdict: Not Guilty . Prosecutor: Matt McLeod . Defense: Donna Lawson 2. STATE V. RAYMON MUHAMMAD: Indicted for First Degree Murder . Trial lasted from October 1 through October 4, 2018. Verdict: Guilty as Charged in the Indictment . Prosecutor: Carla Taylor and Austin Scofield. Defense: Rob Felkner 3. STATE V. SHAUGHN EUGENE WALKER: Indicted for CA: Especially Aggravated Kidnapping and Aggravated Robbery . Trial lasted from October 29 through November 1, 2018. Verdict: Robbery (Kidnapping charges dismissed prior to verdict). Prosecutor: Alyssa Hennig and Scott Smith. Defense: Josh Stanton 4. STATE V. PARKER JACKSON: Indicted as Vehicular Homicide (two counts); Reckless Aggravated Assault. Trial lasted from December 3 through December 4, 2018. Verdict: Guilty as Charged . Prosecutor: Glen Baity and Scott Smith . Defense: Ken Brashier 5. STATE V. JULIUS JONES: Indicted as Rape of a Child . Trial lasted from January 7 through January 10, 2019. Verdict: Not Guilty . Prosecution: Alyssa Hennig and Jeff Jones. Defense: Phil Harvey 6. STATE V. RONALD TAYLOR: Indicted as First Degree Murder . Trial lasted from January 28 through February 1, 2019. Verdict: Guilty as Charged in the Indictment . Prosecution: Glenn Baity and Scott Smith . Defense: Neil Umstead 7. STATE V. JEFFREY CEVERO: Indicated as Aggravated Robbery; Aggravated Assault. Trial lasted from February 4 through February 8, 2019. Verdict: Not Guilty. Prosecution: Matt McLeod. Defense: Bo Summers and Scott Hall 8. STATE V. JAMES BENNETT: Indicted as Theft of Property over $10,000. Trial lasted from March 4 through March 7, 2019. Verdict: Guilty as Charged in the Indictment. Prosecution: Matt McLeod. Defense: Rob Felkner 9. STATE V. TURNER, HAWKINS AND THOMAS: Indicted as First Degree Murder. Trial lasted from April 29 through May 3, 2019 . Verdict: Guilty as Charged. Prosecution: Paul Haggerman and Austin Scoefiled. Defense: John Scott; Irwin Cantor, Jenny Case


CRIMINAL COURT—Covers the weeks of August 20, 2018 – May 20, 2019 COURT






VERDICT 1. STATE V. JACOB RIDDICK: Indicted Aggravated Assault. Trial lasted from October 15 through October 18, 2018. Verdict: Not Guilty . Prosecution: Paul Goodman and Jermal Blanchard. Defense: Sean Muziers 1. STATE V. TYRAN ROLLINS: Indicted for Aggravated Robbery . Trial lasted from August 27 through August 29, 2018. Verdict: Guilty as Charged in the Indictment . Prosecutor: Gavin Smith and Jaimie Kidd. Defense: Charles Waldman 2. STATE V. KENNETH BENSON: Indicted for Rape of a Child. Trial lasted from September 10 through September 14, 2018. Verdict: Not Guilty . Prosecution: Lessie Rainey. Defense: Joe McClusky 3. STATE V. THOMAS LAYNE: Indicted for Aggravated Burglary; Theft of Property . Trial lasted from October 1 through October 3, 2018. Verdict: Criminal Trespass; Theft of Property . Prosecution: Ryan Thompson. Defense: Donna Lawson 4. STATE V. DERRICK ROSS: Indicted for Domestic Assault. Trial lasted from September 24 through September 26, 2018. Verdict: Not Guilty. Prosecution: Greg Gilbert. Defense: Larry Fitzgerald 5. STATE V. KEITH BROWN: Indicted for Aggravated Assault; Domestic Assault. Trial lasted from November 5 through November 8, 2018. Verdict: Pled as charged in the middle of trial . Prosecution: Jamie Kidd. Defense: Jake Brown 6. STATE V. QUINTAVIOUS HILL: Indicted for CA: Second Degree Murder; Aggravated Assault; and Employing a Firearm During a Dangerous Felony. Trial lasted from October 29 through November 2, 2019. Verdict: Guilty as Charged in the Indictment . Prosecution: Jamie Kidd. Defense: Jason Matthews and Jim Schaeffer 7. STATE V. MARVIN DAVIS: Indicted as Rape of a Child . Trial lasted from February 4 through February 8, 2019. Verdict: Not Guilty. Prosecution: Lessie Rainey 8. STATE V. CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS: Indicted for First Degree Murder. Trial lasted from February 11 through February 14, 2019. Verdict: Guilty as Charged. Prosecution: Paul Haggerman and Jamie Kidd. Defense: John Dolan 9. STATE V. JOCQUEZ PARHAM: Indicted as First Degree Murder; 7 counts CA: First Degree Murder . Trial lasted from March 25 through March 29, 2019. Verdict: Second Degree Murder and 7 counts CA: Second Degree Murder; Possession of a Firearm During a Dangerous Felony . Prosecution: Jamie Kidd. Defense: Juni Ganguli 10. STATE V. LASHAWN SHANNON: Indicted as Especially Aggravated Kidnapping and Aggravated Robbery . Trial lasted from April 8, 2019 through April 11, 2019. Verdict: Facilitation of Especially Aggravated Kidnapping; Aggravated Robbery . Prosecution: Jamie Kidd and Justin Prescott. Defense: John Dolan 11. STATE V. DEMARCUS STEVENSON: Indicted as Second Degree Murder. Trial lasted from April 22 through 26, 2019. Verdict: Guilty as Charged in the Indictment . Prosecution: Stephanie Johnson and Ryan Thompson. Defense: Jason Matthews 12. STATE V. DEDRICK BRIGANCE: Indicted as Aggravated Robbery . Trial lasted from April 29 through May 1, 2019. Verdict: Guilty as Charged in the Indictment . Prosecution: Jamie Kidd and Ryan Thompson. Defense: Eric Mogy 13. STATE V. FARIEL RODRIGUEZ: Indicted as Aggravated Assault. Trial lasted May 6 through May 10, 2019. Verdict: Assault. Prosecution: Jamie Kidd. Defense: Larry Fitzgerald 14. STATE V. RUBEN WALTON: Indicated as First Degree Murder . Trial lasted May 13 through May 16, 2019. Verdict: Second Degree Murder. Prosecution: Stephanie Johnson and Jamie Kidd. Defense: Neil Umstead



1. STATE V. DARRELL WREN: Indicted for First Degree Murder; Criminal Attempt First Degree Murder and Employing a Firearm During a Dangerous Felony . Trial lasted from August 27 through August 31, 2018. Verdict: Guilty of Second Degree Murder; Criminal Attempt Second Degree Murder; Employing a Firearm During a Dangerous Felony . Prosecution: Kirby May and Leslie Byrd . Defense: Joe McClusky 2. STATE V. WILLIAM JOHNSON: Indicted for Vandalism over $1,000. Trial lasted from February 4 through February 7, 2019. Verdict: Vandalism under $1,000. Prosecution: Scott Smith . Defense: Robert Spence 3. STATE V. LESLIE TATE: Indicated as Aggravated Burglary and Aggravated Assault. Trial lasted from April 2 through April 6, 2019. Verdict: DV Assault; Aggravated Criminal Trespass . Prosecution: Danielle McCollum and Bill Hill . Defense: Eric Mogy 4. STATE V. CARLOS WILSON: Indicted as Rape; Aggravated Burglary . Trial lasted from April 15 through April 20, 2019. Verdict: Guilty as Charged. Prosecution: Cavett Ostner and Dru Carpenter. Defense: Dewun Settles 5. STATE V. ISIAH WILLIAMS: Indicted as CA: First Degree Murder; Employing a Firearm During a Dangerous Felony . Trial lasted May 6 through May 10, 2019. Verdict: CA: Second Degree Murder; Employing a Firearm . Prosecution: Kirby May and Will Mueller. Defense: Leslie Ballin


CRIMINAL COURT—Covers the weeks of August 20, 2018 – May 20, 2019 COURT




VERDICT 1. STATE V. DAVID JOHNSON: Indicted for Aggravated Rape . Trial lasted from October 8 through October 12, 2018. Verdict: Guilty as Charged in the Indictment . Prosecution: Cavett Ostner and Dru Carpenter. Defense: Claiborne Ferguson 2. STATE V. JOSHUA FISHER: Indicted for First Degree Murder. Trial lasted from September 17 through September 22, 2018. Verdict: Guilty as Charged in the Indictment. Prosecution: Marianne Bell and Jamie Kidd. Defense: Constance Barnes 3. STATE V. TREMAINE WILBOURN: Indicted for Capital Murder. Trial lasted from October 29 through November 5, 2018. Verdict: Guilty as Charged in the Indictment – Life Without the Possibility of Parole . Prosecution: Alanda Dwyer; Reggie Henderson; Leslie Byrd. Defense: Juni Ganguli; Lauren Pasley 4. STATE V. ANTHONY OLIVO AND ANDRE BOWEN: Indicted for First Degree Murder During the Perpetration of a Robbery . Trial lasted from January 28 through February 1, 2019. Verdict: Guilty as Charged in the Indictment against Olivo and Facilitation of First Degree Murder against Bowen . Prosecution: Alanda Dwyer and Kevin McAlpin. Defense: Paul Guiabo and Kindle Nance 5. STATE V, KWASI CORBIN: Indicted as First Degree Murder; CA: Second Degree Murder; Employing a Firearm During a Dangerous Felony. Trial lasted from April 1 through April 6, 2019. Verdict: Guilty as Charged in the Indictment. Prosecution: Alanda Dwyer and Kevin McCalpin . Defense: Lauren Pasely



1. STATE V. RASHARI JONES: Indicted for Criminal Attempt: First Degree Murder . Trial lasted from August 20 through August 24, 2018 . Verdict: Criminal Attempt Voluntary Manslaughter; Aggravated Assault; Employing a Firearm During a Dangerous Felony. Prosecution: Devon Lepeard and Paige Munn . Defense: John McNeil 2. STATE V. RANDY WHITEHEAD: Indicted for Rape of a Child . Trial lasted from September 4 through September 7, 2018. Verdict: Hung Jury . Prosecution: Abby Wallace and Melanie Cox. Defense: William Johnson 3. STATE V. MICHAEL CHAMBERS: Indicted for CA: Second Degree Murder; Vandalism over $10,000. Trial lasted from September 24 through September 27, 2018. Verdict: Reckless Endangerment, Simple Assault, Vandalism over $2,500. Prosecution: Jose Leon. Defense: Josh Stanton 4. STATE V. BRANDON TAYLOR: Indicted for First Degree Murder. Trial lasted from November 26 through November 29, 2018. Verdict: Criminally Negligent Homicide . Prosecution: Jose Leon and Melanie Cox. Defense: Paul Pera; Greg Carmen; and Kathy Kent 5. STATE V. RONNIE MALONE: Indicted for Aggravated Robbery; Robbery Acting in Concert; Theft of Property over $1,000. Trial lasted from February 11 through February 14, 2019. Verdict: Robbery, Robbery Acting in Concert and Theft of Property over $1,000. Prosecution: Abby Wallace and Sam Winnig. Defense: William Johnson 6. STATE V. JOSEPH MORAN: Indicted for Rape; Aggravated Sexual Battery; Kidnapping and Domestic Assault. Trial lasted from February 18 through February 22, 2019. Verdict: Sexual Battery and Domestic Assault . Prosecution: Holly Palmer and Jeff Jones. Defense: Art Quinn 7. STATE V. DORRYL A. GREER: Indicted for Aggravated Rape . Trial lasted from February 25 through February 26, 2019. Verdict: Mistrial . Prosecution: Gavin Smith and Sarah Poe. Defense: Sam Jabor 8. STATE V. JUVONTE CARPENTER: Indicated as First Degree Premeditated Murder; First Degree Murder During the Perpetration of a Robbery (2 counts each); Aggravated Robbery . Trial lasted March 25 through March 28, 2019. Verdict: Guilty as Charged in the Indictment . Prosecution: Chris Lareau and Melanie Cox. Defense: William Johnson



1. STATE V. PATRICK PHILLIPS: Indicted for Rape of a Child. Trial lasted from September 10 through September, 2018. Verdict: Guilty as Charged in the Indictment . Prosecution: Devon Lepeord and Alyssa Hennig. Defense: Ralph Gibson 2. STATE V. DEMONICA GORE: Indicted as Aggravated Robbery . Trial lasted from March 25 through March 27, 2019. Verdict: Guilty as Charged in the Indictment . Prosecution: Jamie Kidd and Justin Prescott. Defense: Christian Johnson 3. SATE V. NATHANIEL HUNTLEY: Indicted as Sexual Battery; Statutory Rape . Trial lasted from April 29 through May 3, 2019. Verdict: Not Guilty . Prosecution: Gavin Smith and Holly Palmer. Defense: Tarus Bailey



1. STATE V. MARVIN STINNETT: Indicted for CA: First Degree Murder, Convicted Felon in Possession of a Handgun. Trial lasted September 24 through September 27, 2018. Verdict: Guilty as Charged in the Indictment . Prosecution: Michael McCusker and Alexis Crump. Defense: Ed Lenow 2. STATE V. JERRY STRONG: Indicted for Rape and Sexual Battery . Trial lasted from October 29 through November 2, 2018. Verdict: Not Guilty. Prosecution: Devon Lepeard and Gavin Smith . Defense: Mike Scholl 3. STATE V. MARIN RYKHLOV: Indicted as Patronizing Prostitution. Trial lasted March 19 through March 20, 2019. Verdict: Guilty as Charged. Prosecution: Paige Munn and Michael McCusker. Defense: Steven Leffler 4. STATE V. COYNICK BOSWELL: Indicted as First Degree Murder. Trial lasted from April 15 to April 22, 2019. Verdict: Aggravated Assault Resulting in Death . Prosecution: Paul Haggerman . Defense: Mike Working 5. STATE V. WARREN SMITH: Indicted as Sexual Battery . Trial lasted April 23 through April 26, 2019 . Verdict: Guilty as Charged in the Indictment . Prosecution: Michael McCusker. Defense: John Dolan 6. STATE V. DEANGELO ANDERSON: Indicted as Aggravated Rape and Aggravated Robbery . Trial lasted April 29 through May 3, 2019. Verdict: Not Guilty . Prosecution: Devon Leopard and Alyssa Hennig. Defense: Larry Fitzgerald 7. STATE V. DEJUAN PARKER: Indicated as Leaving the Scene of an Accident Causing Death . Trial lasted May 13 through May 15, 2019. Verdict: Not Guilty . Prosecution: Michael McCusker. Defense: Michael Working




ur digital lives are becoming more dynamic every week. With all of the new technology, features and updates that propel us forward, it’s increasingly important to manager our personal information & privacy.

There is value in your personal information about you, such as your location, purchase history and your online habits. Be aware about when it’s collected through apps and websites and who has access.

What Does This Mean?

Take the time to set the privacy and security settings on web services and devices. It’s okay to share information, it can be incredibly useful and is often critical to your online activities. Be aware and when necessary, limit how and with whom you share information.

• Actively manage your privacy • Stay current with safe online practices • Manage your online presence • Be aware of your networks • Know who you’re sharing with

Why Should I Care? Chances are high that there is more information about you available in cyberspace than you think. Everything you do online (social media, browsing habits, email/ communication and all of your accounts) contributes to your digital footprint. You can influence your online impact.

What Should I Do? Personal Information - it’s a Currency. Value it. Protect it.

Be Aware of What You’re Sharing

Be Kind Think before posting about yourself and others online. Just because you may delete content does not mean that it’s disappeared. Consider what a post reveals, who might see it and how it could be perceived now and in the future. If you can’t say something nice… don’t post it online!

Keep a Clean Machine To protect against data loss from infections and malware, keep all software, operating systems (mobile and PC) and apps up to date. 


Circuit Court Report by STEPHEN LEFFLER

Covers October 31, 2017 to February 28, 2018 DIV. 1: FELICIA CORBIN-JOHNSON No contested cases this reporting period. DIV. 2: JAMES F. RUSSELL No contested cases this reporting period. DIV. 3: VALERIE L. SMITH 1. CT-004060-17: 3-8-19, Anthony Janet v. Madison Auto Care, LLC, Auto Accident, Jury, Henry E. Reaves, III and Eric J. Lewellyn for Plaintiff, Kevin D. Bernstein for Defendant. Gross Plaintiff verdict for $1,387,762.92 (Medical Expenses: $90,262.92, Lost Earning Capacity: $630,000.00, Pain and Suffering: $135,000.00, Loss of Enjoyment of Life: $82,500.00; Permanent Injury: $450,000.00) (85% Fault to Defendant, 15% Fault to Plaintiff; Net Verdict of Plaintiff: $1,179,598.40) (Net Verdict reduced to Ad Damnun: $1,000,000.00).

DIV. 4: GINA C. HIGGINS 1. CT-000641-16: 3-8-19, Levi Robinson v. John Doe and Allstate Insurance Company, Auto Accident, Jury, Steven F. Libby for Plaintiff, H. Lynne Smith for Defendant, Plaintiff Verdict for $10,000.00. 2. CT-003990-16: 3-26-19, Chestine Montgomery v. Franklin Burleson, Auto Accident, Jury, Ashley Schuerman Bennett for Plaintiff, Dawn Davis Carson for Defendant, Defense Verdict. 3. CT-000330-18: 4-9-19, Chanti Taylor v. Devin Murry, Breach of Contract (Construction), Non-Jury, Darrell N. Phillips for Plaintiff, Marcus D. Ward for Defendant, Plaintiff Verdict for $13,975.00 4. CT-005204-16: 4-13-19, Angela Wilson v. Anjelika T. Dumas, Auto Accident, Jury, Aaron A. Neglia for Plaintiff, Ashleigh C. Kiss for Defendant, Plaintiff Verdict for $3,400.00. (Stipulated Liability).

DIV. 5: RHYNETTE HURD 1. CT-000415-15: 3-6-19, Chad Billings Smith and Constance Leigh Smith v. Lillian Ann Hill, Auto Accident, Jury, J. Houston Gordon and Amber Griffin Shaw for Plaintiff, Darryl D. Gresham for Defendant, Plaintiff Verdict for Constance Leigh Smith for $118,600.00 ($23,600.00: Medical Expenses; $10,000.00 Permanent Injury; $10,000.00; Loss of Enjoyment of Life; 16

$75,000.00: Pain and Suffering). Chad Billings Smith awarded $0 for Loss of Consortium. 2. CT-003916-17: 3-20-19, Quinton Barnett v. Neighborhood Tire and Battery, Damage to Personal Property, Non-Jury, Plaintiff, Quinton Barnett, Pro Se, April Bostick for Defendant, Plaintiff Verdict $276.34. 3. CT-002268-17: 3-25-19, Karis Smith v. Adrienne Biggers, Auto Accident, Jury, Derek Fairchilds for Plaintiff, Lawrence White for Defendant, Plaintiff Verdict (Gross Verdict: $44,000.00; 88% fault for Defendant, 12% fault for Plaintiff; Net Plaintiff Verdict: $38,720.00) 4. CT-0508-19: 4-18-19, Marathon Management, LLC v. Wane Bright and Elizabeth Pruitt, Breach of Contract (Landlord Tenant), Non-Jury, Lawrence Baer for Plaintiff, Defendants Wane Bright and Elizabeth Pruitt, Pro Se, Plaintiff Verdict for $1,166.00.

DIV. 6: JERRY STOKES 1. CT-004366-17: 3-7-19, Dale Bregenzer v. Denyne Williams, Landlord/Tenant, Non-Jury, J. Jeffrey Lee for Plaintiff, Scottie Wilks for Defendant, Defense Verdict on Counter-Complaint for $5,181.00. 2. CT-001373-16: 3-22-19, Frank Inderbitzen v. Michael Hunt and Naturally Green, Inc., Auto Accident, Jury, Matthew V. Proter and John B. Bartles for Plaintiff, Richard Sorin for Defendant, Plaintiff Verdict for $125,000.00. 3. CT-003046-17: 4-12-19, Totally Amazing Properties, LLC v. Southern Comfort Air, Heating and Plumbing, LLC and Stephen Matlock, Breach of Contract (Construction), Jury, Michael J. Floyd for Plaintiff, Stephen R. Leffler for Defendants, Plaintiff Verdict for $15,500.00. 4. CT-003252-16: 4-29-19, Karin Biggerstaff v. Sherrie Moss and Davante Henderson, Auto Accident, Jury, Eric A. McEnerney for Plaintiff, Craig B. Flood II, for Defendant-Sherrie Moss, James D. Duckworth, for Defendant-Davante Henderson, Plaintiff Verdict against Sherrie Moss for $25,000.00. (Medical Expenses: $10,000.00; Pain and Suffering: $7,500.00; Loss of Ability to Enjoy Life: $7,500.00). Defense verdict for Davante Henderson. 5. CT-000335-18: 5-3-19, Irma M. Balard v. David C. Reece, Auto Accident, Non-Jury, Glen K. Vines, Jr. for Plaintiff, Defendant David C. Reece, Pro Se, Plaintiff

Verdict for $28,500.00 (Mediacla Bills: $7,045.83), Punitive Damages: $25,000.00 (Pre Se Plaintiff testified: (1) He had approximately 30 beers the night before the wreck; (2) He drank alcohol in two bars during the night; (3) He had smoked marijuana and was on penicillin the night before the wreck; (4) He fled the scene and only called the police when his car stalled from damage in the wreck; and (5) He made a conscious decision to drive while intoxicated and impaired in the moments before the wreck).

DIV. 7: MARY L. WAGNER 1. CT-002867-15: 1-24-19, Franchesca Thompson and Alonzo Thompson v. Brittany Batts, Auto Accident, Jury, Andrew C. Clarke and Eric Espey for Plaintiff, Paul L. Burson for Defendant, Defense Verdict (Stipulated Liability). 2. CT-002819-14: 3-18-19, Donald L. Scholand ,Individually and as Surviving Spouseand Administrator of the Estate of Mary Ellen Scholand and Everest National Insurance Company a/s/o Calrion Security, LLC IIntervenor) v. Eric Dewayne Blakney, M.D., Med Mal, Jury, William B. Walk, Jr. and Carl Jacobsen for Plaintiff, W. Bradley Gilmer and Katherine M. Anderson for Defendant, Defense Verdict. 3. CT-000906-18: 3-25-19, Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company, as Subrogee of Rita Pas and Joseph Pass v. Jonathan David Logan, Auto Accident, Jury, Ashleigh Kiss for Plaintiff, Hal S. Hank Spragins, Jr. for Defendant, Defense Verdict (Plaintiff found 85% at fault). 4. CT-0361-19: 3-28-19, Enclave Apartment Homes v. Portia Barber, Breach of Contract (Landlord Tenant), Non-Jury, Ben Sissman for Plaintiff, Defendant Portia Barber, Pro Se, Plaintiff Verdict for $6,348.11. 5. CT-001283-16: 3-29-19, Tiffany C. Roby v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC and U.S. Bank, N.A., Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, Non-Jury, Kevin Snider for Plaintiff, Lauren Paxton Roberts and Leo Bearman, Jr. for Defendants, Defense Verdict (On Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict). 6. CT-005523-18: 4-11-19, Randy Moore v. Jerre Heard, Breach of Contract (Landlord Tenant), Non-Jury, Ben Sissman for Plaintiff, Defendant Jerre Heard, Pro Se, Plaintiff Verdict for Possession. 7. CT-003193-14: 4-18-19, Martha Flautt v. Mary C. Palmertree, Auto Accident, Jury, David A. McLaughlin and David A. Gold for Plaintiff, Robert L. Moore and Kitty Boyte for Defendant, Defense Verdict. 8. CT-004020-14: 4-26-19, Amanzie McGuahey v. Heather Austill and Tina Ray, Auto Accident (Admitted Fault), Jury, Allen Gressett for Plaintiffs, Robert L. Moore for Defendant, Defense Verdict.

DIV. 8: ROBERT S. WEISS 1. CT-005067-16: 2-8-19, Alvin Williams v. Capstone Building Corporation and Pro-Site Construction, LLC, Civil Trespass, Non-Jury, Plaintiff, Alvin Williams, Pro Se, Chris Patterson and Austin Rainey for Defendants, Defense Verdict. 2. CT-003486-17: 2-14-19, Alvin Ray and Carla Ray v. Anthony Willoughby, Breach of Contract (Dispute between two guarantors on note), Non-Jury, Both sides Pro Se, Plaintiff Verdict for $29,666.00. 3. CT-004128-16: 3-1-19, Battery Alliance, Inc. v. Jeffrey N. Tunks, Monica Tunks and Ann Neal Corporation d/b/a Batteries Now, Breach of Contract (Promissory Note), Non-Jury, Bruce S. Kramer for Plaintiff, Richard Underwood and Henry Talbot for Defendant, Plaintiff Verdict for $155,103.72. 4. CT-003434-14: 4-3-19, Dale Patrick Miller v. Brittany McDonald, Tiffany Germany, Needum Germany City of Memphis and John Doe, Auto Accident, Non-Jury, A. Wilson Wages for Plaintiff, Roane Waring for Defendant, City of Memphis and Keith Alexander for remaining defendants, Plantiff Verdict for $55,028.00. Costs were assessed 20% to the city and 80% to Brittany McDonald. 5. CT-000360-18: 4-26-19, Albert Fleming, Sr. and Mattie Fleming v Sandra Cook and Tennessee Carriers, Inc., Auto Accident, Jury, William B. Ryan and Drew Davis for Plaintiff, Joseph L. Broy and Scott C. Campbell for Defendant, Defense Verdict.

DIV. 9: YOLANDA R. KIGHT 1. CT-000905-18: 4-1-19, Debra Grant v. Rebecca Kerns, Auto Accident, Jury, Linda K. Garner for Plaintiff, Nicholas J. Owens, Jr. for Defendant, Plaintiff Verdict for $7,500.00 (Trial on damages only). 4-1-19, Crye-Leike Property 2. CT-005575-18: Management v. Jamie Micknes and Edward Musgrove, Breach of Contract (Damage to Leasehold), Non-Jury, Derek E. Whitlock for Plaintiff, Christopher L. Kelley for Defendant, Plaintiff Verdict for $27,526.28.

WILIAM B. ACREE, JR. (SITTING BY DESIGNATION) 1. CT-005257-17: 4-30-19, Pamela Moses v. Terry Roland and Shelby County Government, Slander, Non-Jury, Plaintiff, Pamela Moses, Pro Se, John Marshall Jones for Defendants, Slanderous Remarks: “…and this lady, right here, is the one that Homeland Security had better be watching. Okay, Ms. Moses, over here, because she is not supposed to be in here without a – someone to escort her” and “Ms. Moses has been in the – as a matter of fact, she has threatened judges…she has threatened everybody… but I can tell you, this dog ain’t gonna run, okay?” Plaintiff Verdict for $500.00. 17


It is an effective, confidential, and cost-efficient alternative to litigation or court. KEVIN A. SNIDER

Rule 31 Listed General Civil/Family Mediator


Rule 31 Listed General Civil/Family Mediator

A Germantown Firm Dedicated to Resolving Conflicts

integrity v impartiality Professional Competence Over 40 years of Combined Legal Experience Mr. Snider or Ms. Horner can serve as a mediator to help resolve a conflict or dispute involving a civil matter or a family law matter. In addition, Snider & Horner Mediation Services is one of the few mediation providers in West Tennessee to offer co-mediation, an innovative and cuttingedge approach that can be provided for about the same cost as one mediator. In particular, they jointly mediate your conflict as a team – bringing both of their distinct personalities, individual experiences, and gender balance to the mediation process.


(901) 751-3777 frontdesk@kevinsnider.com www.kevinsnider.com

“Your Co-Mediation Team” 9056 Stone WaLK PLaCe

Sometimes two heads are better than one!

GeRMantoWn, tn 38138-7824 teLePHone (901) 751-3777 FaCSiMiLe (901) 759-0041 eMaiL FRontdeSK@KevinSnideR.CoM



“Your Co-Mediation Team”

The Community Legal Center has a New Office!


n 1994 a group of determined and generous lawyers saw an unmet need in Memphis and sought to find a way to help people access justice. Started as the AWA Family Mediation Center, the Community Legal Center’s original mission was to provide free mediation services to people of limited means. Over the past 25 years the Community Legal Center has evolved into a legal aid agency offering a number of civil legal services to those of limited financial means and those at risk, including populations not served by other legal aid agencies. For many years, the CLC occupied less-than-ideal space in the MIFA building, eventually outgrowing the space completely. After careful thought and strategic planning, the CLC decided we needed to move to a larger, more functional space that would not only allow us to better serve our existing clients, but also enable us to grow our capacity, helping even more under-served people and increasing our reach in the community. We are happy to announce that we have been able to do just that. We officially moved into our new office space in June. Please find us at: 243 Adams Avenue Memphis, TN 38103 Located downtown, we are close to the U of M Law School, and just steps from the courthouse. We have a formal reception area to properly greet our clients, and

private consult rooms in which to discuss sensitive and confidential legal matters. Every staff member has a dedicated workstation, and we have multiple work areas for volunteers and interns. We even have communal spaces to gather and connect in less formal ways throughout the day. While we are still unpacking a few things, we are already hard at work for Memphians in need of justice. A big thank you to everyone who helped us make this dream a reality, especially our incredibly supportive and hardworking Board members who have always been our greatest champions. We are beyond grateful to each and every one of our supporters who helped make this possible for us. You have helped move the needle for our community as a whole, as we will now have the ability to advocate for even more people in need. ď ´ 19


Judge Tommy Parker Interviewed By DEAN DECANDIA


arker received a Bachelor of Science degree in 1985 from the University of South Carolina. He received a Juris Doctor in 1989 from Vanderbilt University School of Law. Parker began his legal career as an associate at Waring Cox Lawyers in Memphis, Tennessee. He then served as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Western District of Tennessee for nine years. Before becoming a federal judge, he was a shareholder in the Memphis office of Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, P.C., where he represented clients in civil litigation and criminal matters. Additionally, he previously served as President of the Memphis Bar Association and is a fellow in the American College of Trial Lawyers. On July 13, 2017, President Donald Trump nominated Parker to serve as a United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, to the seat vacated by Judge Samuel H. Mays Jr., who had taken senior status. On January 10, 2018, the United States Senate confirmed his nomination 98–0. He received his commission on January 30, 2018 and was sworn into office on February 2, 2018.

What do you miss about private practice?

I am thoroughly enjoying my new role for many reasons. But I also miss quite a bit about practicing law. I miss the feeling of teamwork with colleagues working toward a common goal. Being part of a law firm provides many opportunities to share in the successes of others on a regular basis. I miss that. Mostly I miss the daily interaction with colleagues in the office or courthouse. My daily routine included walking around the 19th floor at Baker Donelson with a cup of coffee to chat with other lawyers or staff about cases, sports or life in general. I’m sure my former colleagues are all much more productive without my interruptions but I must say that I miss those friendships and the daily interaction. Now that I am a judge, lawyers understandably keep some distance which can feel isolating at times. So as a trial judge, I do enjoy the steady flow of lawyers and clients coming to court.

Who has had the greatest influence upon your legal career? Who have been your mentor(s)?

Listing all of the lawyers and judges who have influenced me is an impossible task. I cannot think of a case that I had with another lawyer or an appearance I had before a judge in which I didn’t learn something. One of the things that I loved about practicing law and 20

continue to enjoy in my new role is the interaction with other lawyers who have their own style that will get your attention and will teach you different ways of operating. As a child, I knew my grandfather was a lawyer but I didn’t know much about his practice. Although I was young when he passed away, his career path influenced mine. My first professional mentor was Louis Allen. Louis is a fantastic lawyer, who taught me that even the most difficult cases can be settled. He was a fantastic trial lawyer, but he recognized that it was most often in the client’s interest to dispose of a matter quickly and efficiently. Another mentor for me was Jim Manire with whom I worked late in his career. Mr. Manire had tried hundreds of cases and had seen it all. He had a word of wisdom or a suggestion for any situation but I remember him telling me that every decent lawyer has their own style and the most effective lawyers are authentic. He told me to aim for authenticity. Another mentor for me is Leo Bearman, the quintessential scholar, lawyer and gentleman. Among his many admirable qualities, one that sticks out for me is that Leo still makes sure that the newest lawyers in his firm are assigned to work with him on cases. At the US attorney’s office, I had the privilege of appearing before Judge Turner, Judge Horton, Judge McCalla, Judge Breen, and Judge Gibbons on a daily

basis. Each of those judges consistently impacted me in profound ways. But when I think of the judge who possesses those qualities I most admire in a judge, I think of Judge Julia Gibbons. She is humble yet self-assured, quick to smile, gracious, and always prepared.

What is the worst thing a lawyer can do in court? Best thing?

Thankfully, my experience is that the overwhelming majority of lawyers who come to federal court are very well prepared and ready to conduct whatever matter we have. In my view, that is the best thing a lawyer can do. I have had very few situations that one might consider aggravating. As a judge in the WD-TN, I am not worried about anyone offending me personally but I do find myself watching out for this district, the federal courts and the law generally. So I suppose the worst thing a lawyer could do around me is to demonstrate a lack of respect for the institution or its role in our system of governance. I am pleased to report that I cannot think of many examples of that happening during my first year on the bench. The overwhelming majority of lawyers who appear in Courtroom #2 are ready to go. For that reason, as far as I’m concerned, we’re getting along fine.

What has been your most satisfying experience on the bench?

This is a hard question to answer, because I have found something meaningful in virtually everything I have done since becoming a judge. It is incredibly rewarding to work with really fine lawyers and their clients to achieve the right result under the law. Another meaningful part of this position is the opportunity to learn about new areas of the law. The caseload here is quite diverse so I am regularly digging into areas of the law with which I have very limited experience. So almost every day comes with a new learning experience. Finally, a unique and thrilling feature of this position is that I have the privilege of presiding over Naturalization Ceremonies. Each month we swear in about 60 new citizens and we recognize the commitment that each of them has to this country. To see their pride and excitement to join our ranks as citizens is a reminder that, even though we have problems, this country remains truly special.

How does current practice differ from your early days as a trial lawyer?

Technology makes everything different. When I started practicing law in 1989, we did not have computers

on our desks. Waring Cox, the law firm where I started practicing, was in the forefront of technology and yet we didn’t get computers in our offices until the early 1990’s. Obviously, so much has changed with lawyers now filing pleadings with their cell phones. The other change is that lawyers don’t see each other as often in their regular course of business. That is an unfortunate result of the use of technology, in my view.

Was it an easy transition to the bench?

Perhaps when I am finished with that transition, I will let you know.

Having practiced in other jurisdictions, what is different or unique about WD-TN from practicing in other federal districts?

I think the biggest difference is that lawyers in Memphis get along pretty well overall. In other jurisdictions, the culture among lawyers is more aggressive and more combative. I think that lawyers here strike a pretty good balance between advocating for their clients’ positions without losing civility in the process.

What do you for enjoyment and relaxation off the bench?

I enjoy spending free time with my wife and family. Now that my children have grown we are starting to enjoy traveling quite a bit. I enjoy music, movies, reading and sports.

You have been in extra-official duties throughout your career? What civic or professional activity(ies) have you found most fulfilling? Are there any you recommend to lawyers?

I suppose you could call me a “bar junky.” I worked regularly in the local bar association and have not regretted that for a moment. It provided countless opportunities to meet and work with fellow lawyers to serve our legal and broader community. It was a win-win proposition for me. If I can recommend one thing to younger lawyers, it is to find a way to interact with other lawyers. I am a believer that eye contact matters. Sometimes it is hard to place a tangible value on those interactions, but getting to know your fellow lawyers will come in handy when you least expect it. Also your life will be better for the friendships and professional associations you make by working within the Bar Association--whether it is local, state or even national.  21


From Surviving to Thriving By JUDGE STEVEN C. HORNSBY, JD, CLC


t was 2008 when I realized that my life consisted of sprinting from one crisis situation or critical deadline to another. I was in a high stress, high profile leadership position in state government with major responsibilities and the ever-present eyes of the media, state legislators and interest groups on almost everything we did. I told a colleague that it felt like we were earning degrees in “Crisis Management and Damage Control” where every day was a pop quiz, our scores were published in the newspaper, and we had no idea when or if graduation would occur. My personal life had recently undergone a major upheaval with a divorce from my wife of 25 years who was also my law partner. Intellectually, I knew that divorce was the best thing for both of us, but that was little comfort to the emotional pain, family turmoil, and social and financial disruption it generated. I was doing nothing to take care of myself and my alcohol intake had become a daily routine as a way to “relax”. I had practiced meditation for decades, but that had decreased for several years as the amount of busyness increased. Needless to say, this was NOT the plan I had for my life at age 54. Instead, Life was bringing things to my attention, up close and personal. I remember thinking, “I’m barely surviving … there HAS to be a better way. I want to THRIVE, not just survive”. So, I took David Bowie’s advice and “…turned myself to face me …”, stared long into the mirror, swallowed real hard, and made a commitment to change the way I was living. It turns out that I wasn’t alone in my search for a better way of living. Over the past couple of decades, scientific research in the fields of neuroscience, positive psychology and human growth and development has been growing and providing a road map forward. The ABA Path to Lawyer Well-Being and the Well-Being Toolkit define lawyer well-being “… as a continuous process whereby lawyers seek to thrive in each of the following areas: emotional health, occupational pursuits, creative or intellectual endeavors, sense of spirituality 22

or greater purpose in life, physical health, and social connections with others.” Or, in shorthand, “Well-Being = a continuous process toward thriving across all life dimensions.” Over the next year, I began making lifestyle changes that were more life affirming and supported a new vision for how I wanted to experience Life: • Resumed a daily mindfulness practice with time for spiritual reading, writing and reflecting (spiritual and emotional); • Got outside into nature more often, gave up alcohol, started eating better, began getting massages every month, (physical): • Expanded my social circle to include more people with diverse interests, including a wonderful woman who would eventually become my wife (social); • Decreased substantially the amount of television I watched and began reading for fun and growth, not just work (intellectual); • Researched, learned and began implementing novel approaches to team-building and creating a positive organizational culture at work (occupational); and, • Took on a personal life coach to help keep things moving in the right direction. I began to see positive results almost immediately. By replacing the life-diminishing habits I had fallen into, suddenly Life expanded multi-dimensionally into panoramic technicolor. I had more moments of “flow” or periods of losing track of time by being totally absorbed in something, which was often accompanied by moments of happiness and joy. Daily meditation, reading and reflection improved my inner sense of peace and calmness, which significantly reduced anxiety, and also improved my mental clarity, focus and emotional intelligence. Creativity became more robust, which directly benefitted my career and made work more like play. New friends and places to go that were interesting,

stimulating and just plain fun brought more texture and color to life. I took an art class (acrylic painting) and was shocked to discover how much I enjoyed it! And, my body responded well with weight loss, a return to normal blood pressure, more muscle tone, and much more energy.

The Wellness Committee of the MBA embraces the Six Dimensions of Well-Being set forth by the ABA. We strongly believe that legal professionals - both as individuals and organizations - will benefit greatly by using the Toolkit and the Six Dimensions. In fact, this year’s Annual John Dice Wellness Seminar and Fair classes and activities include at least one topic from each of the Six Dimensions with sections on: • - the importance of sleep; • - natural approaches to health; • - juicing; • - addressing the stigma associated with depression and substance use dependence; • - yoga; • - meditation; • - nature walk;

It began to dawn on me that life really was so much more than career, position, status, possessions, achievements, money, or being comfortable. And while life’s challenges didn’t completely disappear, I adopted a ‘learner’s mind’ and felt better equipped to handle and learn from them.

• - environmental awareness, • - living from your strengths; • - alternative paths to practice; and a wellness roundtable, discussing wellness tips from Committee members and the audience. When I turned myself to face me in 2008 and made a choice to thrive instead of just survive, I had no idea that I was embarking on a ‘multi-dimensional approach’ that would later show up as an ABA ‘Path’ or ‘Toolkit’. But it is abundantly clear to me that taking a multidimensional, whole-life approach has yielded multidimensional benefits far greater and richer than I ever imagined. I hope you will mark your calendars for October 16 and join us at the Lichterman Nature Center for a day devoted to helping you THRIVE instead of just survive.  23


THRIVING NOT JUST SURVIVING Wednesday, October 16, 2019 Lichterman Nature Center 5992 Quince Road

6.75 Hours Dual CLE Credit (Full Day) Half-Day Option (Morning or Afternoon) Lunch Included with Full Day and Half Day

The Annual John Dice Wellness Seminar promotes physical, mental and emotional health and wellness with speakers who discuss ways to incorporate wellness into our daily lives and a Wellness Fair where participants experience firsthand various wellness and relaxation techniques and products. Walking shoes, active wear, and yoga mats are encouraged! This year’s Seminar focuses on 6 Areas of THRIVING: emotional health, occupational pursuits, creative or intellectual endeavors, sense of spirituality or greater purpose in life, physical health, and social connections. 8:00 – 8:15 a.m. Registration & Continental Breakfast 12:00 – 1:30 p.m. 8:15 – 8:30 a.m. Mindful Living Judge Steven C. Hornsby, JD, CLC

12:15 – 1:00 p.m.

Yoga Cindy Pensoneau, Attorney, Certified Yoga Teacher

12:30 – 1:30 p.m.


8:30 – 9:30 a.m. “Sleep – the Fourth Leg of Health” Dr. Robert Schriner, FCCP, FAASM 9:30 – 10:15 a.m. Think Globally, Act Locally: How Our Personal Choices and Practices Can Cumulatively Save the Planet Scott Banbury

1:15 – 1:30 p.m.

Introduction of Sponsors, Team MBA

1:30 – 2:45 p.m.

Living from Your Strengths Judge Steven C. Hornsby, JD, CLC

10:15 – 10:30 a.m. Break, Celery Juicing Demo Dr. April Sullivan & Yvette Kirk, Attorney 2:45 – 3:00 p.m. 10:30 – 11:00 a.m. Naturopathic Medicine & Alternative Healing Dr. April Sullivan, ND

3:00 – 3:15 p.m.

11:00 – 12:00 p.m. Stigmas Around Depression and 3:15 – 4:15 p.m. Substance Abuse Theodore Rice, M.Ed., LPC-HSP, CEAP 12:00 – 12:15 p.m. Break, Walking Meditation Cindy Pensoneau, Attorney, Certified Yoga Teacher


Wellness Fair & Registration for Afternoon CLE

4:15 – 4:45 p.m.

Guided Meditations Christy Washington, Attorney, Certified Yoga Teacher Break Alternative Paths to Practice Panel Taylor Berger, Attorney, Erin Shea, Attorney, Joanna McCracken, Attorney, Judge Steven C. Hornsby, CLC Wellness Roundtable Leigh-Taylor White, Attorney

Included in your Registration:



Presented by the MBA Wellness Committee




egardless of the nature of the practice, all lawyers need to have a bank for their business accounts. And in Memphis, the choices are endless.

So how should a lawyer go about selecting a bank that will meet the needs of that particular lawyer’s practice? Real estate closing attorneys have different needs than criminal defense attorneys. Personal injury attorneys have different needs than probate attorneys. Choosing a bank for your law firm is more than opening an account or picking a bank that is closest to your office. A wise selection requires digging deeper. You want a bank that understands the nature and requirements of your particular practice. A bank needs to be prepared to provide creative solutions, so you can go back to doing the thing that prompted you to go to law school in the first place: helping your clients and running your firm. To get the most value from your banker for present and future needs, invest some time visiting potential bankers and asking about their services and opportunities. Here are 4 things to consider when researching your banking partner.

1. Who do your peers recommend for banking? To get your search started, ask other attorneys whom they selected as their banker and why. How has that bank helped their firm? Did they strike out with other banks before selecting their current bank? If so, what was it about the other banks that caused them to make a move? The local bar association can also be a great help in recommending good banking options.

2. What type of relationship do you want with your banker? Do you want a place that is convenient to make simple transactions, or do you want personalized attention from a competent advisor who helps you find the right solution? In the beginning of your legal career, you may only need to make deposits and write a few checks, but as you grow, there may be a need for financing a new office or obtaining a line of credit. What is the broad array of services the bank offers that you may not even be aware of? Bankers are to lawyers on the rise as court clerks are to lawyers just getting started. The right banker can make life a lot easier. You want to be sure that you have the right banking partner from the start and that you

maintain good ties with your banker. It’s much easier to get a loan or have minor issues resolved if you have built a solid relationship with your banker.

3. Who do you call at the bank? Do you want to always call an 800 number and go through an automated process to get answers? Or, do you want to get your banker who answers the phone when you call? Time is money, and when you have questions or concerns, you want answers. Your banker should be there to listen to you and understand your needs.

4. Does your banker understand the legal profession? It is critical that you have a banker who has expertise with accounts specialized for legal professionals including IOLTA, estates, conservatorships and guardianships. To help you save time and money, your banker should offer the latest technological services while currently providing solutions such as mobile and online banking, remote capture, cash management, merchant card processing, ACH and sweep services, direct deposit origination, zero balance accounts, lockbox and positive pay. These are services that not only save time but help protect your money and your clients’ money.  25

Race Judicata


The Run for Justice September 21, 2019


aunched in 1982, the 36th Annual Race Judicata (The Run for Justice!) is now one of the oldest 5k races in Memphis - bringing the legal community together for an excellent cause yet also strongly appealing to elite runners, casual runners, walkers and families of all stripes.

Nick Rice Rule 31 Mediator

For this year, we have designed a singular racecourse beginning on the site voted best law school building in the U.S., passing by Memphis’s stately courthouses, circling around Victorian Village, affording panoramic downtown views from the Jefferson overpass on the return, enjoying a backstretch on Adams that passes a number of Memphis’s most historically and architecturally significant buildings, and finishing behind the law school right on the promenade overlooking the Mississippi river. There will be plenty of hot food, interesting booths and live music. Pre/post-race festivities will take place at the Fourth Bluff Park and the Promenade. All proceeds raised go directly to the Memphis Bar Foundation’s [a 501(c)(3)] Access to Justice programs. Unlike many other Memphis races, there is no paid race director. Just a labor of love featuring a partnership between the MBA and the UofM Law School’s SBA. We are honored to have Judge Gardner, who incidentally finished second in the Race Judicata’s inaugural run, to be the emcee. Follow the MBA Wellness Facebook page for updates - facebook.com/MemphisBarWellness

901.526.6701 firm@ricelaw.com

Tax Problems? Jerry H. Schwartz, Attorney & CPA     

Serving Memphis attorneys and their clients Over 30 years tax experience Rated A+ by the Better Business Bureau Confidential and dedicated service Professional effective tax resolution

6260 Poplar Avenue | (901) 683-8766 Memphis, TN 38119 | attycpa1040@gmail.com www.jerryhschwartz.com


The New Standard In Mediation In the world of mediation, experience is vital. That’s why Memphis Mediation Group was established. John R.Cannon, Jr., Michael G. Derrick, and Frank S. Cantrell are each Tennessee Rule 31 Listed General Civil Mediators with decades of combined state and federal litigation and mediation experience. With their deep backgrounds and continual proven success, John, Mike and Frank are setting the new standard for mediation in Tennessee.

Schedule a case with Memphis Mediation Group at



The University of Montevallo, where he serves as a member of the Board of Trustees.

TIMOTHY M. LUPINACCI Timothy M. Lupinacci has assumed the role of chairman and chief executive officer of Baker Donelson. Mr. Lupinacci, who was elected as the incoming chairman and CEO by the Firm’s board of directors in October 2018, assumes the role from Ben C. Adams, who has served as the Firm’s chairman and CEO for the last 16 years. Mr. Adams is remaining with Baker Donelson and will continue his practice focused on estate planning and corporate law. Mr. Lupinacci’s practice of more than 28 years focused on the representation of financial institutions throughout the country in complex issues arising in restructuring. He is a Fellow of the American College of Bankruptcy and a member of the American Bankruptcy Institute. Mr. Lupinacci is a graduate of the University of Vanderbilt School of Law and


Special Needs Trusts

Structured Settlements

Structured Attorney Fees

Court-Restricted Accounts

Private Money Management


Senior Managing Director albert@wundernet.com wunderlichsecurities.com/settlementsolutions

Settlement Solutions 28

JACKIE G. PRESTER Jackie G. Prester, a shareholder in Baker Donelson’s Memphis office, has been elected a member of the Firm’s board of directors. Ms. Prester, who serves as chair of the Firm’s Financial Services Transactions Group, has a practice focused on providing corporate, regulatory and securities advice to financial institutions, public company clients, brokerdealers and investment advisers. ANDREW BATTLE SANDERS Stites & Harbison, PLLC welcomes attorney Andrew Battle Sanders as Counsel to the firm based in the Memphis, Tenn., office. He is a member of the Business Litigation and Trust & Estate Planning Groups. Sanders has more than 13 years of experience in Memphis. He represents parties in business litigation matters, trust or probate litigation, breach of fiduciary matters and creditors’ rights litigation, for example. Additionally, he assists families with estate and trust planning and coordinates them through elder law issues. Sanders is a Veterans Administration accredited attorney. CHAD M. WILGENBUSCH Baker Donelson has elected 11 new shareholders across the Firm, including Chad M. Wilgenbusch of the Firm’s Memphis office. He is a member of the Firm’s Real Estate and Finance Group where he focuses his practice on commercial real estate, secured lending and economic development. He counsels clients in a wide array of matters including real estate sales and purchases, lending, leasing, state and local incentives, and general corporate matters.


If you are an MBA member in good standing and you’ve moved, been promoted, hired an associate, taken on a partner, or received an award, we’d like to hear from you. Talks, speeches, CLE presentations and political announcements are not accepted. In addition, we will not print notices of honors determined by other publications (e.g., Super Lawyers, Best Lawyers). Notices are limited to 100 words; they are printed at no cost to members and are subject to editing. E-mail your notice and hi-resolution photo (300 dpi) to cdoorley@memphisbar.org.

Upcoming Events July July 9 – SLIP Graduation July 17 – MBA & YLD Soccer Night July 18 – Levitt Shell at Overton Park July 19 – Breakfast At The Bar July 24 – Professionalism Committee Mid Year Ethics CLE

August August 9 – Breakfast At The Bar August 20 – Free CLE: Trauma & PTSD – How It Relates to the Law

September September 13 – Breakfast At The Bar September TBD - Kimberly Papillon September 21 – Race Judicata

October October 4 – YLD Golf Tournament October 8 - Free CLE: Trust Accounting October 11 – Breakfast At The Bar October 16 – John Dice Seminar

November November 7 – Swearing In Ceremony November 7 – YLD Annual Meeting November 8 – Breakfast At The Bar

December December 5 – Annual Meeting December 7 –  Team MBA, Marathon



December 13 – Breakfast At The Bar

visit memphisbar.org to learn more 29

CLASSIFIED adver tisements

Office Space

Professional Services

Downtown Law Offices- Executive Office Center at Peabody Place.

Glenda Moore, RN, Certified Legal Nurse Consultant. Over 30 years of nursings experience in

119 S. Main Street, Suite 500, Memphis, TN 38103. Our lease terms are flexible allowing you to rent by the hour, day, month or year. All the services that you need are available including: administrative/secretarial service, T1 highspeed Internet access, notary, telephone service, furniture, information technology services/consulting and conference rooms. The executive suite concept allows you to do business in a cooperative environment without having fixed monthly overhead, by eliminating the distractions and timeconsuming business decisions such as office administration and equipment leases. If you want to create a professional appearance for your business, but you aren’t ready to lease an office, take a look at our business identity packages. For as little as $150 per month you can have the appearance of a professional office. Contact Beverly Johnson, 901.312.5500, beverly@executiveofficecenter.com.

critical care and med-surgical nursing. The most costeffective Medical Expertise available on your side. Call for a FREE initial consultation. www.glendamooreclnc.com 901.626.9490.

Attorneys/Law Clerks Looking









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.

experience, Knowledge, integrity… George Brown and James Lockard are highly effective mediators who have helped parties resolve hundreds of civil matters through the mediation process. Both employ a combination of facilitative and evaluative mediation styles. Each has completed state certified 40-hour mediation and advanced mediation training courses, and are approved Rule 31 mediators. Their background, experience and skill make them very successful mediators with a proven track record for resolving cases. Hon. George H. Brown, Jr. (ret)

James O. Lockard, Esq.

Resolute Systems, LLC Mediation, aRbitRation & adR ConSuLting


To schedule a case with Judge Brown or James Lockard, call Mike Weinzierl at 901-523-2930 (ext. 125) or email at mweinzierl@resolutesystems.com 1-901-523-2930 • Fax: 1-901-523-2931 707 adams avenue, Memphis, tn 38105 www. MemphisMediators.com

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



Teresa Perkins universal banker Megan Goodman teller LaShawnda McKinney teller Steven Liles manager Brian Lowery commercial loan officer

30 North Second at Court Square



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


The Magazine of the Memphis Bar Association 145 Court Avenue #300 Memphis, TN 38103 www.memphisbar.org

Profile for Memphis Bar Association

Memphis Lawyer - Volume 36: Issue 2  

Memphis Lawyer - Volume 36: Issue 2

Memphis Lawyer - Volume 36: Issue 2  

Memphis Lawyer - Volume 36: Issue 2