Fall 2015 the magazine of the Memphis Bar Association Vol. 32, Issue 5

Child Support 101: p16Faughnan on Ethics p 14

The Pillow-McIntyre House History p 10

3

C O L U M N S

F E AT U R E S10 Building History: The Pillow-McIntyre House by STEPHEN LEFFLER

14 Faughnan on Ethics: The Revised RPC 7.3(b)(3): The Road to Constitutional Infirmity is Paved With

Good Intentions by BRIAN FAUGHNAN

14 Child Support 101: Compromise of Child Support Arrearages and Retroactive Modification

by MARY L. WAGNER

6 President’s Column: Are You a Lawyer for Justice? by THOMAS L. PARKER

20 MALS Corner: Time to Celebrate by DONNA HARKNESS

24 CLC: What, Exactly, Does the Community Legal Center Do? And How Can You Help?

by ANNE MATHIS

18 The Court Report by DEAN DECANDIA

26 People in the News

30 Classified Ads

D E PA R T M E N T S

Volume 32, Issue 5

4

MBA Communications DirectorSara K. Larson

MBA Publications Committee Pam Blair

Karen CampbellDean DeCandiaMichael GabelChastity Grice

Sean Antone HuntLiz Keough

Stephen LefflerHarrison D. McIver III

Jared RenfroeEllen Vergos

Mary WagnerChristy Washington

Mason Wilson

Cover Photo courtesy of Stephen LefflerPhoto of the lawyers of 707 Adams taken in front of the building on August 30, 1985 by Ernest C.

Withers and Sons. Left to right: Dedrick Brittenum, Russell Sugarman, Seymour Rosenberg, Wayne Em-mons, Jim Lockard, Jim Bingham, Richard Fields,

and Herman Morris

The Memphis Lawyer is a publication of the Memphis Bar Association, Inc. that publishes six 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 Sara K. Larson, Communications Director, at 901.527.3573 or sklarson@memphisbar.org

The MBA reserves the right to reject any advertisement or article submitted for publication.

The Memphis Bar Association145 Court Ave.

Suite 301Memphis, TN 38103

Phone: (901) 527-3573Fax: (901) 527-3582

www.memphisbar.org

MEMPHIS LAWYERthe magazine of the Memphis Bar Association 2015 MBA Officers

Thomas L. ParkerPresident

Shea WellfordVice President

Dean DeCandiaSecretary/Treasurer

Kirk CarawayPast President

2015 Board of DirectorsJeremy AlpertLara ButlerBetsy ChanceAnnie ChristoffAsia DiggsDamon GriffinJennifer HagermanJonathan HancockDavid HarrisMaureen HollandCarrie KerleyJana Davis LamannaEmily Landry

Andre MathisGigi Gaerig McGownElijah Noel, Jr.Mike RobbAbby Webb

Section RepresentativesStuart CanaleCam HillyerLinda HolmesKim KoratskyEarle SchwatrzJoshua Wallis

ABA DelgateDanny Van Horn

AWA RepresentativeLisa Gill

NBA RepresentativeAmber Floyd

Law School RepresentativeElizabeth Rudolph

YLD PresidentNicole Grida

MBA STAFF

Anne FritzExecutive Director

Lesia BeachCLE/Sections

Director

Sara K LarsonCommunications

Director

Charlotte GeanExecutive Assistant/

Membership Coordinator

Mary LynesAdvertising Sales &

Events Director

IPSCO—Insurance Planning & Service Company Denise Craig handles life, health, disability, long term care, dental, short term disability, cancer plans and vision on both an individual and group basis. She wel-comes the opportunity to share her 32 years of industry knowledge with the attor-neys of the Memphis Bar Association. Pam McGrath is your Professional Liability expert! She works closely with brand new lawyers just admitted to the bar, as well as tailoring errors and omissions policies to address the complex practices of larger firms. She can also update you on Cyber Liability, Data Breach and other business insurance. The experience and track record of IPSCO positions the insurance agency to offer you the very best coverage available, at the most competitive pricing to protect the assets of your practice. IPSCO has been a loyal partner of the Memphis Bar Association for over 10 years, and we ask for an opportunity to earn your business

and loyalty in return!

DENISE CRAIG- 901-761-2440; denisec@ipscoagency.com PAM MCGRATH- 615-460-1654; pam@assoc-admin.com

6

Are You a Lawyer for Justice?

October is Celebrate Pro Bono Month. Have you provided over 50 hours of pro bono service in the last 12 months? If so, the Tennessee Supreme Court wants to recognize you at the MBA Annual Meeting on December 3. Starting in 2013, the Tennessee Supreme Court initiated a Pro Bono Recognition Program. Then Chief Justice Gary Wade noted the goal of the program was to increase the number of lawyers providing pro bono services across the state, "Ensuring accessible legal services to those who could not otherwise afford them is most deserving of this recognition." In 2013, the percentage of lawyers providing such services was only 45% and, in 2014, the percentage of lawyers reporting over 50 hours of pro bono service dropped to 41% (although the number of hours per lawyer increased). I believe the number of lawyers who provide pro bono services is much higher than the statistics would suggest because lawyers do not always report the pro bono service they do. Now, if you do report your service to the community, you can be recognized as a "Lawyer for Justice."

I mistakenly thought it was enough to voluntarily report my pro bono hours to the Board of Professional Responsibility and the rest would take care of itself. However, there is a little more to it, if you want to be recognized. There are now two ways you can report your pro bono hours and become eligible for the award. First, you can report your hours to the Board of Professional responsibility and give them permission to release your name to the Tennessee Supreme Court. Second, the Supreme Court added another way - a very short application that states that you provided over 50 hours of pro bono service in the last 12 months and presto, you're a Lawyer for Justice. Here is the good news: it is not too late. If you want to qualify to be recognized by the Tennessee Supreme Court, you can go to the Access to Justice page on the Administrative Office of the Courts website and find the "Supreme Court Pro Bono Recognition Program" page and follow the links to the application for the recognition. It is incredibly easy to do. In most years, the deadline for the applications is in July but, this year, they are leaving it open through November. If you want your name called at the annual meeting, please get your applications in by November 15.

president’s column

Why, you ask, would I want to be recognized when the whole idea behind pro bono work is a selfless act? As Chief Justice Sharon Lee said recently, "Your work on behalf of those who cannot afford legal representation is not required - it is a choice." Plain and simple, it is peer pressure. The more lawyers who get recognized, the more other lawyers will stick out for not getting recognized and they will want to be part of the former group. The ultimate goal, of course, is to encourage lawyers to engage in pro bono service because we all benefit when that happens. For what it’s worth, I have to access the application myself because I did not check the box allowing the Board of Professional Responsibility to disclose my information to the Tennessee Supreme Court. I am filling out an application as we speak. Won't you join me?

Tommy

BARRISTERS' PANCAKE BREAKFAST OCTOBER 2, 2015

9

UPCOMINGMBA CLES

Nov. 20 29th Annual MBA Bankruptcy Section Seminar – 4.0 hours CLE – Lichterman Nature Center, 5992 Quince Rd.

Nov. 20 Gain the Edge! Negotiation Strategies for Lawyers Sponsored by the ADR Section 6.0 hours CLE & CME Holiday Inn Memphis, 3700 Central Ave.

Dec. 4 Labor & Employment Law Section Annual Seminar

Dec. 10Technology with Philip Hampton

Dec. 11 Mediation Ethics Sponsored by the ADR Section

Dec. 15 Health Law Section Seminar

Dec. 16Family Law Section seminar

Dec. 17 Annual Professionalism, Civility & Courtesy Seminar Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law, 1 N. Front St.

Dec. 21 Litigation Section Annual Seminar

Dec. 29 Wait…Can I Do That? Sponsored by the YLD1.5 hours Dual CLEMBA Office, 145 Court Ave., #301

Dec. 30 Last Minute Buy-the-Hour Seminar 6.0 total hours: 2 general / 4 dual Memphis Bioworks Foundation, 20 Dudley St.  All seminars are subject to change and cancellation. New seminars are always being added,and we have many online (distance learning) courses, so please check our website often at www.memphisbar.org.

Remember you  have until midnight December 31, 2015 to complete your 2015 CLE requirements.

MORE INFO: WWW.MEMPHISBAR.ORG

10

Building History:

The Pillow-McIntyre House By: Stephen Leffler

The Pillow-McIntyre House is a two-story Greek Revival home built by builder C.G. Richardson in 1847. Confederate General Gideon Pillow bought it in 1873. Pillow was a former district attorney general and brigadier general in the Tennessee Militia who man-aged to survive the Civil War. The building had its first brush with the law when Pillow and former Tennessee governor, Isham Green Harris, formed a law partner-ship. Harris died in 1878 from yellow fever. With its Corinthian columns and pedimented porch, 707 Adams is one of the only pre-Civil War Greek Revival houses left in Memphis. Bricks used in construction were made on-site. Memphis was a major center of the horse trade at the time and the plaster walls are mixed with mule and horsehair, The houses on Adams at that time were so plush it was called “Mil-lionaire’s Row.” After Pillow’s death in 1880, it was sold to Peter McIntyre, founder of the first glucose refinery in Mem-phis. Peter's daughter Florence McIntryre inherited the house and in 1942 it became the Memphis Art Asso-ciation's Free School. The Free School later became the Memphis College of Art. Florence, a painter, was known as the First Lady of Memphis Art and was the first director of the Brooks Art Museum Margie Polk, an interior decorator, trustee of the Memphis College of Art and wife of Circuit Judge Greenfield Q. Polk, used the property for her interior design studio. Judge Polk was known in Memphis as the judge who presided over the divorce of John W. Biggert who took exception to the judge’s ruling. For years, long-time Memphians may remember a bum-per sticker that would appear in various public places near the courthouse reading: "IMPEACH JUDGE GREENFIELD Q. POLK, Committee for Common Sense Divorce Laws." Margie transferredthe house to Ira Sachs in 1982.

Sachs lived in the Mollie Fontaine house at the time and decided to leave town. That is when he began renting it to lawyers. Later, a group of those lawyers, including Jim Lockard and Rusty Winston, bought the building. Since then, a long list of colorful local attorneys has occupied it at one time or another. Irvin Salky, Herman Morris, Russell Sugarman, Dedrick Brittenum and Rich-ard Fields, members of Memphis’s first multi-racial law firm, moved into the building when Marvin Ratner left and the firm disbanded. The building had significant musical connections. Salky’s long-time client was Jerry Lee Lewis. Seymour Rosenberg managed the musical career of Charlie Rich, the famous "Silver Fox" who had numerous hits on the country and pop charts. Rosenberg also represented Stax Records and Isaac Hayes. Rosenberg’s 80-year-old father was a frequent visitor to the building. Dedrick Brittenum recalls the elder Mr. Rosenberg inviting himself in frequently just to sit and chat. On one occasion, Brittenum was on the phone to a client and noticed Mr. Rosenberg writing something on a piece of paper. After Brittenum hung up the phone, Rosenberg showed him the paper and written on it was “Nem the Gelt.” Brittneum had no idea what that meant and Rosenberg explained it was Yiddish for “Get the Money.” Brittenum still has Rosenberg’s slogan on the paper it was written on all these years later. Richard Fields was a pre-eminent civil rights attorney most well known for his involvement in the desegrega-tion case that led to a landmark 1972 ruling requiring the busing of students in Memphis City Schools. He also represented plaintiffs in a decades-long lawsuit to deseg-regate Shelby County Schools. Current Memphis City Attorney Herman Morris had an office on the ground floor. He remembers that Mac Dickinson, the sometimes eccentric, always affable, criminal defense attorney had an office on the second

11

floor. Dickinson would regularly keep his two massive Rottweilers in his office. One day, the dogs came bound-ing down the steps as Morris walked into the building, causing Morris to have to rush into his office and close the door. When asked what Dickinson’s office was like, Morris responded, “I never found out.” Russell Sugarman is a retired judge and father of cur-rent judge, Tarik Sugarman. Current General Session Judge Lonnie Thompson had an office there before tak-ing the bench. Rusty Winston raced cars for a hobby and was in the building until his death in 1999. Congress-man Steve Cohen maintains it as a business address. Wayne Emmons had an office in the building for years. “Cousin Bubba” was the stage name for this law-yer / stand-up comedian / Church of Christ preacher. While there, Emmons published a little-known paper-back, “Getting Busted, A Practical Guide to Avoiding or Surviving an Arrest” which included “Bubba’s Top Ten Things You Never Say to the Arresting Police Officer.” Number 2: “They sell stuff at the drugstore for them pimples.” In addition to being an author, Emmons had a speaking role as a sleazy nightclub owner in “The Rain-maker” and as a judge in “Daddy and Them.” The building was used for location filming in “The People vs. Larry Flynt.” But Brittenum remembers it more as a bar at 5:00 pm most days. Lawyers would start arriving after work and would sit around telling stories and drinking until time to lock up.

12

13

14

Faughnan on Ethics

by BRIAN S. FAUGHNAN

As this issue of the Memphis Lawyer is focused on family law, this is a good opportunity to ask if you were aware that, since May 1, 2015, it has been a violation of our ethics rules for a lawyer to send any written communication to someone who has been sued for divorce letting them know that a divorce case has been filed and making the person aware of the lawyer’s interest in, and willingness to, be hired by the recipient of the letter, unless more than 30 days has passed since the complaint for divorce was filed. This state of affairs (pardon the pun) is the result of a revision to RPC 7.3(b)(3) adopted by the Tennessee Supreme Court, over the opposition of the Tennessee Bar Association.

Now why would the ethics rules need to be changed to prohibit such a communication? And why would the TBA have opposed such a change?

The process that led to the change started when one family law practitioner sent a letter to the Court expressing concerns about domestic violence. The newly-adopted Comment [5A] to RPC 7.3 is:

Some divorce or legal separation cases involve either an alleged history of domestic violence or a potential for domestic violence. In such cases, a defendant spouse’s receipt of a lawyers’ solicitation prior to being served with the complaint can increase the risk of a violent confrontation between the parties before the statutory injunctions take effect. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-4-106(d) (2014) (imposing specified temporary injunctions, including “[a}n injunction restraining both parties from harassing, threatening, assaulting or abusing the other,” that take effect “[u]pon the filing of a petition for divorce or legal separation, and upon personal service of the complaint and summons on the respondent or upon waiver and acceptance of service by the respondent”) (emphasis added). The prohibition in RPC 7.3(b)(3) against any solicitation within thirty (30) days of the filing of a complaint for divorce or legal separation is intended to reduce any such risk and to allow the plaintiff spouse in such cases to take appropriate steps to seek shelter, an order of protection and/or any other relief that might be available.

The problem, however, and the reason that the TBA publicly opposed such a revision is that the new rule is both not likely to be all that effective in accomplishing its goal and

unconstitutional. First, a word about effectiveness. Even with revised RPC 7.3(b)(3), the safety of the person filing for divorce will still be at risk as long as divorce filings are public records upon filing because there are any number of ways that the other spouse can learn of the filing well in advance of any “safety plan” being put into place. Here in Memphis, for example, each of the prior day’s divorce filings – just like other civil lawsuits – are published every day in the Memphis Daily News. Thus, the ban on solicitation doesn’t do much to further the stated goal of the rule because of all of the other ways that this information of public record could be learned by the other spouse. As part of its public opposition, the TBA signaled that – if the Court believed the expressed concern was a real risk, then the better solution would be for someone to seek a legislative change that would keep divorce filings from being available as public records for some period of time.

The significantly larger problem though is that there seems no possible way that RPC 7.3(b)(3), as amended, could survive a constitutional challenge. While the kinds and types of additional restrictions placed on things such as targeted mail solicitations vary among jurisdictions, it is worth pointing out two things: (1) a fairly uniform requirement is the imposition of an entirely unilateral, off-limits period of 30 days or so after a personal injury-inducing accident or disaster; and (2) there are almost no other jurisdictions that impose such a restriction in divorce cases. There is a good reason for both of these things. The 30-day off limits period in personal injury cases is the only absolute restriction in the realm of written lawyer advertising, post-Bates, to have withstood a First Amendment challenge in the United States Supreme Court. After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Bates that advertising legal services was commercial speech for which lawyers had First Amendment rights, the next 30 years involved a handful of successful First Amendment challenges in the Supreme Court to other kinds of restrictions on advertising, including a total restriction on direct mail solicitation. Shapero v. Ky. Bar Ass’n, 486 U.S. 466 (1988).

In Florida Bar v. Went For It, Inc., 515 U.S. 618 (1995), the Court indicated that this kind of restriction was constitutionally permissible largely because the mere receipt of the communication during this time period of close proximity to the original injury was shown essentially to be causing something akin to a second injury upon the recipient of the letter. Thus, this kind of regulatory provision was distinguishable from a total bar on such letters because it involved a scenario in which the idea of having to throw

THE REVISED RPC 7.3(b)(3): THE ROAD TO CONSTITUTIONAL INFIRMITY IS PAVED WITH GOOD INTENTIONS

15

the mail away was not just a minor inconvenience but was itself something that the record before the Court reflected was visiting an additional injury on those already suffering.

Tennessee has had such a provision in place in RPC 7.3(b)(3) for many years now prohibiting written solicitations of professional employment sent by lawyers (if a significant motive for doing so is the lawyer’s pecuniary gain) when the potential action in question was for “personal injury, worker’s compensation, wrongful death, or otherwise relates to an accident or disaster involving the person to whom the communication is addressed or a member of that person’s family” until after more than 30 days had gone by since the accident or disaster had occurred.

The problem with the Court’s extension of this restriction on commercial speech beyond the realm of personal injury into divorce lawsuits is that it turns the justification for restricting speech accepted in Florida Bar v. Went For It on its head. As amended, our rule goes beyond protecting the recipient of the letter containing the speech from harm and into attempting to protect someone not a party to the restricted communication whatsoever. RPC 7.3(b)(3) seems destined to be the subject of an expensive, but ultimately successful, First Amendment challenge. The TBA attempted to articulate this problem for the Court in its comment filed in opposition, also pointing out that the proposed amended rule would apply to all divorce filings, not just ones where there was concern for the safety of the filer. Thus, the revised rule manages to ban much more speech than could ever be considered necessary to attempt to further the stated goal. Between that fact, and the multitude of other ways the spouse who has been sued can learn about it from other public sources during the 30-day period, under the standard usually employed for First Amendment challenges to restrictions on commercial speech, intermediate scrutiny, it seemed hard to understand, even before May 1, 2015, how the amended version of RPC 7.3(b)(3) could ever withstand a First Amendment challenge.

Yet, the constitutionally-suspect nature of this new ethical restriction is even more apparent in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s most recent foray into First Amendment jurisprudence – Reed v. Town of Gilbert, decided on June 18, 2015. In Town of Gilbert, Justice Thomas, writing for the Court, appears to have unsettled the landscape of First Amendment jurisprudence by indicating that strict scrutiny is the test that must be applied in any circumstances where the government imposes any regulation on speech that are “content based on its face.” Though all Justices agreed with the outcome, three separate concurring opinions were written either to attempt to limit the reach of the opinion or to express concerns about its reach or both. Justice Kagan, for example, joined by two others ended her concurrence by questioning why “such an easy case call[ed] for us to cast

a constitutional pall on reasonable regulations quite unlike the law before us.” Post-Town of Gilbert, the premise that commercial speech regulations need only pass muster under intermediate scrutiny is in serious jeopardy as restrictions on lawyer advertising are, without question, describable as being content based on their face. For example, nothing in RPC 7.3(b) would restrict a lawyer from looking at the list of new divorce filings and sending a letter to a defendant informing him/her that a divorce lawsuit was filed against them and letting them know that they might not otherwise find out about the filing quickly because of rule changes that make it unethical for lawyers who might be interested in trying to get hired in the matter until 30 days after the filing. It is only when the content of a letter includes an expression of an interest in, or willingness to be, hired that this restriction on speech arises.

If strict scrutiny will be the new standard for evaluating restrictions on commercial speech, then even the prior version of RPC 7.3(b) would appear to be ripe for constitutional attack despite Florida Bar v. Went For It. Many have questioned the public policy of the settled version of RPC 7.3(b)(3) as it has never prevented communications from claims adjustors, insurance companies, or lawyers for potential defendants from communicating with victims or their families during the 30-day off limits period to seek to settle such claims before pursued or to gather potentially damaging factual admissions. There seems little doubt, however, that amending the rule to expand the scope to include divorce cases and changing its purpose from protecting a recipient of the letter to protecting someone other than the recipient of the letter makes a constitutional challenge much more likely to be mounted. It will be interesting to see how all of this plays out, but one seemingly likely outcome is that the Court, by adopting a revision to RPC 7.3(b)(3) expressly intended to protect potential victims of domestic violence, will have ended up making it harder for Tennessee’s ethics rules to continue to protect those who have actually already been physically injured from further unwelcome intrusions.

Brian Faughnan practices in the Memphis office of the statewide law firm of Lewis Thomason. Brian’s practice is focused on commercial litigation, appellate litigation, and solving ethics issues and legal problems for lawyers and law firms. Brian also shares his thoughts on legal ethics, professional responsibility, and other aspects of the law of lawyering at www.faughnanonethics.com. Contact Brian at bfaughnan@lewisthomason.com.

16

Yes, you read that right. As family law attorneys, we have long been taught the unbending rule that child support arrearages could not be compromised in any way and that child support could not be modified prior to the filing of a petition. To do so would be against public policy we were told. Well, with this year’s legisla-tive session that has all changed. In January 2015, Tennessee Senator Mark Nor-ris and Representative Gerald McCormick sponsored legislation bringing change to the long-standing rules governing child support arrearages and modification. Luckily for child support obligors, this legislation passed and became effective July 1, 2015. Public Chapter 200 amends Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(f ) by adding sec-tion (f )(6) to allow parents to compromise and settle child support arrearages under certain conditions. It is no longer against public policy to comprise the arrear-ages as long as the compromise serves the child’s best interests. How does one accomplish such a compromise?The amended statute contains very specific requirements for compromising child support arrearages. Any agree-ment must be approved by not only the obligor and obli-gee, but also the court. Additionally, in any Title IV-D case, the Department of Human Services or its contrac-tor must be a party to the agreement. The consent of the obligor and obligee must be in writing. Moreover, prior to consent, the obligee must be provided with a written explanation of the settlement and the obligee’s rights with respect to child support arrearages owed. In approving the agreement, the court must consider the best interest of the child and the obligor’s ability to pay. Any settlement agreement cannot include monies owed to the State of Tennessee or any other state. So where’s the catch? To be eligible for such a settle-ment and compromise, the obligor must have made full child support payments for the twelve (12) months im-mediately preceding the compromise and settlement. It is yet to be seen whether this requirement will signifi-cantly limit those eligible for this program.

The addition of section (f )(6) to Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101 offers significant relief to child support obligors. First, this section effectively pro-vides a mechanism for retroactive modification prior to filing of an action for modification. See Tenn. Code Ann.§ 36-5-101(f )(1). Moreover, it provides the obligor a process to cut off what oth-erwise might be a mounting child support debt. Child support arrearages, which are not discharge-able in bankruptcy, accumulate interest at the rate of 12% (much higher than the current judgment interest). The ability to compromise this debt pro-vides options to those who might otherwise quickly accumulate a sizeable debt with no prospect of sat-isfying it. More importantly, hopefully this change provides an incentive to an obligor to maximize the support provided to their children where otherwise they have might have chosen to only make mini-mum payments. While this addition to the child support statute does provide some relief to obligors, hopefully the end result will provide more financial support to children across Tennessee.

17

by DEAN DECANDIA

THECOURT REPORT

CRIMINAL COURT—Covers the weeks of July 20 to September 7, 2015

COURT JUDGE VERDICT

Criminal, Division I Skahan No jury trials to completion this period.

Criminal, Division II Wright 1. State v. Tommy Holmes: Trial from July 20 to 21. Indicted for Reckless Endangerment with Deadly Weapon into a Habitation. Verdict: Not guilty. Prosecution: Austin Scofield. Defense: Neil Umsted.

2. State v. Derrick Williams: Trial from Aug 3 to 5. Indicted for Carjacking. Verdict: Guilty of Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle. Prosecution: Lora Fowler. Defense: Sanjeev Memula.

3. State v. Dekarlos Johnson, Bryant Gooseberry: Trial from Aug 10 to 11. Both defendants indicted for Aggravated Robbery. Verdict: Johnson found guilty as indicted. Gooseberry found not guilty. Prosecution: Austin Scofield. Defense: Patrick Brooks (Johnson); Leslie Ballin (Gooseberry).

4. State v. Anthony Miller: Trial from Aug 31 to Sept 3. Indicted for Possession of Cocaine ≥ .5 g with Intent to Sell/Deliver, Possession of Marijuana with Intent to Sell/Deliver, Possession of Firearm During Commission of Dangerous Felony. Verdict: Guilty of Possession of Cocaine, Possession of Marijuana with Intent to Sell/Deliver, Possession of Firearm During Commission of Dangerous Felony. Prosecution: Bo Summers. Defense: Larry Fitzgerald.

Criminal, Division III Carter 1. State v. Jerry Williams: Trial from July 20 to 22. Indicted for Aggravated Burglary, Vandalism $10,000 to $59,999. Verdict: Guilty as indicted. Prosecution: Meghan Fowler, Jamie Kidd. Defense: Rob Felkner.

Criminal, Division IV Blackett No jury trials to completion this period.

Criminal, Division V Lammey 1. State v. Tevin Wilson: Trial from Aug 11 to 12. Indicted for Aggravated Robbery. Verdict: Guilty as indicted. Prosecution: Kirby May. Defense: Ben Katz.

2. State v. Devan Denton, Leon Denton: Trial from Aug 31 to Sept 3. Both defendants indicted for 4 alt counts of Aggravated Rape, Especially Aggravated Robbery, 2 counts of Aggravated Robbery. Verdict: Both defendants guilty of 3 counts of Aggravated Rape, 1 count of Facilitation: Rape, 3 counts of Facilitation: Aggravated Robbery. Prosecution: Josh Corman, Alanda Dwyer. Defense: James Thomas.

19

CRIMINAL COURT— Covers the weeks of May 25 to July 13, 2015

COURT JUDGE VERDICT

Criminal, Division VI Campbell 1. State v. Juan Cerano: Trial from July 20 to 24. Indicted for Rape of a Child, Aggravated Sexual Battery. Verdict: Guilty as indicted. Prosecution: Jessica Banti, Leslie Fouche. Defense: Robert Amann.

2. State v. Brian Adams: Trial from July 27 to 29. Indicted for Rape of a Child, Aggravated Sexual Battery (alt count). Verdict: Guilty as indicted. Prosecution: Abby Wallace, Katie Ratton. Defense: Sanjeev Memula, Will Muller.

3. State v. Cordalle Benton: Trial from Aug 10 to 12. Indicted for Rape of a Child. Verdict: Guilty as indicted. Prosecution: Cavett Ostner, Lessie Rainey. Defense: Constance Barnes, Terrance Tatum.

Criminal, Division VII Coffee 1. State v. Sarita Alston: Trial from July 27 to 30. Indicted for Aggravated Child Abuse of Child ≤ 8 yoa, Aggravated Child Neglect of Child ≤ 8 yoa, Aggravated Child Neglect or Endangerment of Child ≤ 8 yoa. Verdict: Guilty as indicted. Prosecution: Carrie Shelton, Jessica Banti. Defense: Jeff Woods.

2. State v. Jamie Jones: Trial from Aug 17 to 22. Indicted for 1st Degree Murder During the Perpetration of Aggravated Child Abuse, 1st Degree Murder During the Perpetration of Aggravated Child Neglect, Aggravated Child Abuse of Child 8 ≤ yoa, Aggravated Child Neglect of Child ≤ 8 yoa. Verdict: Guilty as indicted. Prosecution: Eric Christensen, Jennifer Nichols. Defense: Andre Wharton, Alexander Wharton.

3. State v. Jimmy Williams: Trial from Aug 31 to Sept 3. Indicted for Aggravated Rape. Verdict: Not guilty. Prosecution: Alanda Dwyer, Abby Wallace. Defense: Juni Ganguli.

Criminal, Division VIII Craft 1. State v. Trent Foster: Trial from July 20 to 24. Indicted for Aggravated Robbery. Verdict: Not guilty. Prosecution: Jose Leon. Defense: Scott Hall.

2. State v. William Heath: Trial from July 27 to 30. Indicted for Especially Aggravated Robbery, Criminal Attempt: 1st Degree Murder, Aggravated Assault (alt count). Verdict: Guilty of Especially Aggravated Robbery, Reckless Endangerment, Aggravated Assault. Prosecution: Chris Lareau. Defense: Ernest Beasley.

3. State v. Antonio Grandberry: Trial from Aug 24 to 27. Indicted for DUI. Verdict: Not guilty. Prosecution: Michael McCusker, Stephanie Johnson. Defense: Graham Cox.

Criminal Division IX Ward 1. State v. Edward Sample: Trial from July 28 to 31. Indicted for Carjacking, Criminal Attempt: 2d Degree Murder, Aggravated Assault (alt count), 2 counts of Employment of Firearm During Commission of Dangerous Felony, Intentionally Evading Arrest in Motor Vehicle, Evading Arrest. Verdict: Guilty as indicted. Prosecution: Josh Corman, Pam Fleming. Defense: Terrell Tooten.

2. State v. Steven Grayson: Trial from Aug 10 to 12. Indicted for Aggravated Child Abuse of Child ≤ 8 yoa. Guilty plea as indicted during trial. Prosecution: Josh Corman. Defense: David Kreher.

3. State v. Antwan Daniel: Trial from Aug 31 to Sept 3. Indicted for 3 counts of Rape of a Child, 3 counts of Aggravated Sexual Battery, 2 counts of Rape, 4 counts of Sexual Battery by an Authority Figure. Verdict: Not guilty. Prosecution: Jessica Banti, Cavett Ostner. Defense: Paul Springer.

Criminal, Division X Beasley 1. State v. Marcus Perry: Trial from July 20 to 24. Indicted for Aggravated Rape, 3 alt counts of Rape. Verdict: Not guilty. Prosecution: Cavett Ostner, Abby Wallace. Defense: Art Horne, Carlissa Shaw.

20

DONNA HARKNESS

MALS Corner

BY DONNA HARKNESS

TIME TO CELEBRATE! MALS & THE UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS LEGAL CLINIC:

25 YEARS PARTNERING FOR JUSTICE

This coming fall will mark the 22nd year of my teaching career at the University of Memphis Legal Clinic. Looking back, I can truthfully say that I have enjoyed and been challenged by every minute of it. Fortunately for me, the other clinical faculty, the Law School, the law students and our Legal Clinic clients, from the very first day that the Legal Clinic opened its doors some 25 years ago, Memphis Area Legal Servic-es has been an integral partner in our endeavor to pro-vide representation and achieve justice for our clients. The University of Memphis Legal Clinic first opened in 1990 as a consequence of the Law School’s receipt of funding from the U.S. Department of Education for a General Sessions Litigation Clinic. At the outset, the Clinic was housed in space provided by Memphis Area Legal Services, and the initial personnel consisted of one supervising attorney, Connie Ross, and the Clinic Director, Prof. Emeritus Lawrence Pivnick, and was staffed by 8 student attorneys, all specially admitted to practice by the Tennessee Supreme Court pursuant to Rule 7, Section 10.03, Tenn. R. Sup. Ct. During its first five years, the Legal Clinic ex-panded to add an appeals section to the Litigation Clinic (for cases appealed to Circuit Court from General Ses-sions), a Juvenile Clinic and an Elder Law Clinic. From the very beginning, the Clinic students were also encour-aged to engage in the kind of community legal educa-tion that MALS is renowned for, bringing information about the legal system, individual rights, benefits and responsibilities that help to empower those with limit-ed income and resources. Students enrolled in the El-der Health Law Advocacy Clinic that I supervised this spring had the opportunity to make such presentations to senior citizens throughout Shelby County, and found the experience to be both challenging and rewarding. In 2010, the Legal Clinic became a part of the down-town Law School building and hired a new Director of

Experiential Learning, Prof. Danny Schaffzin. A num-ber of additional clinic courses have been offered as re-sources have become available, so that we currently have a Child and Family Litigation Clinic, Elder Law Clinic, Elder Health Law Advocacy Clinic, Housing Adjudi-cation Clinic, Mediation Clinic, and Neighborhood Preservation Clinic. The recent launch of the Medi-cal-Legal Partnership (MLP) called Memphis CHiLD, a collaboration with MALS, the University of Mem-phis Cecil C. Humphrey School of Law and Memphis LeBonheur, punctuates our long-standing relationship. Despite the changes that have occurred over two and a half decades, the core partnership with MALS has re-mained at the center of much of the work that the Le-gal Clinic continues to do today. Of the close to 1300 students that have enrolled as student attorneys over the past 25 years, and the approximately 5000 clients that have been served, MALS has been the source of the cli-ents referred and the Clinic’s mainstay with regard to consultation concerning difficult cases and keeping us abreast of new developments in poverty law. It is there-fore TIME TO CELEBRATE this enduring PART-NERSHIP FOR JUSTICE, and to hope that it will continue to endure for many, many more years to come. t

Donna S. Harkness is Professor of Clinical Law at the Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law. She directs and supervises the Elder Law Clinic and the Elder Health Law Advocacy Clinic.

21

SAVE THE DATE

YLD ANNUAL MEETINGAND ELECTION

THURSDAY, NOV. 12

4:30-7:00 P.M

CENTRAL BBQ DOWNTOWN

23

24

What, Exactly, Does the Community Legal Center Do? And How Can You Help?

by Anne Mathes, Community Legal Center Executive Director

My husband and I don’t always make it to church – there seem to be so many other things we want to do on Sunday mornings. I am glad we made it that day about six months ago when my old friend and fellow church member, Mary Jo Miller, Chair of the Board of the Community Legal Center, asked me if we could talk about an opportunity I might be interested in. She told me that, after 15 years of devoted service, Meg Jones was considering retirement. After a lot of soul-searching, talks with other nonprofit administrators I knew, and meetings with Mary Jo, Meg and various CLC board members, I decided to leave my private law practice and accepted the position. I started at CLC about a month ago. Thankfully, Meg has stayed on to ease the transition and will be with us until mid-October. I’ve learned so much about CLC during this time; one thing I’ve learned is that a lot of Memphis lawyers do not know what CLC does, if they’ve even heard of CLC. I used to be one of those lawyers; I did a little pro bono through CLC, and went to a few fundraisers, but could not have told you the part CLC plays in delivering legal services to the underserved in Memphis. A large part of what I hope to do at CLC is to spread the word about what we do and engage the Memphis legal community in our efforts. Since its formation in 1994, CLC has filled in the gaps in the Memphis area’s civil legal service offerings, serving the working poor, their children and the elderly of limited means. Each year, we receive thousands of calls, help hundreds of people at our bi-weekly legal clinics and provide legal assistance, referral or representation to many others. Cases handled by CLC include family law matters, landlord-tenant disputes, consumer law cases, and estate and probate issues, for approximately $100 per client served. Recent articles in these pages have profiled CLC’s Immigrant Justice Program (IJP), which has grown tremendously

since its start in 2006, and CLC’s participation with other partner organizations dealing with elder abuse in the Collaborative Response to Elder Abuse (CREA) funded by a grant from the Plough Foundation. The IJP now receives grant funding to provide legal services for immigrant victims of domestic violence and sexual assault, including human trafficking. We also partner with the Administrative Office of the Courts to run the Shelby County Pro Se Legal Clinic, staffed by a part-time staff attorney under the direction of the

CLC to provide limited representation in divorce cases. For the years 2010 to 2014, such divorces involved over $1,200,000 in annual child support. Since 1994, CLC has received over 50,000 calls requesting assistance, over 31,000 clients were served, and over 500 attorneys have taken CLC cases pro bono. In addition to CLC’s two full time andtwo part time staff attorneys, the Community Legal Center currently maintains a list of more than 300 local attorneys who have volunteered to take pro bono cases. Yet the need for increased participation by the private bar in pro bono efforts is clear. CLC is not able to provide assistance to all who seek its help; we have a significant backlog of general civil and divorce cases. For those of you considering taking on a pro bono case, remember that lawyers who provide pro bono services through approved legal service providers like CLC now receive 1 hour of CLE credit for every 5 hours of service. If you would like to get involved, just give us a call at 543-3395.

After engaging in the private practice of law for more than 30 years, most of which were spent at Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, P.C., Anne Mathes recently became the new Executive Director of the Community Legal Center, a non profit legal services agency serving people of limited means in Memphis and Shelby County.

25

JOIN US!

MBA ANNUAL MEETING

THURSDAY, DEC. 3 5:30-8:00 P.M.

HOLIDAY INN MEMPHIS, 3700 CENTRAL AVE

26

Jessica L. Indingaro has joined Glankler Brown, PLLC as an associate. Indingaro concentrates her practice in the area of litigation. She most recently clerked in Shelby County Chancery Court for the late Chancellor Oscar C. Carr, III.

O. John Norris, III has been promoted to litigation manager of Jackson Lewis PC’s Memphis office. An experienced litigator, he handles management-side labor and employment cases.

Jason Fair with Wunderlich Securities has obtained the Certified Divorce Financial Analyst designation.

Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz shareholders Jackie G. Prester and Kristine L. Roberts have been named as new practice group leaders within the firm’s Financial Services Department. Prester was named chair of the firm’s Financial Services Transaction Group while Roberts was named chair of the Financial Services Litigation Group. In addition, Carmalita “CC” Carletos-Drayton has joined Baker Donelson’s Memphis office as a shareholder. Her practice primarily focuses on environmental law, economic development and government contracts. She began her career as a corporate litigator with a regional firm and later joined the Memphis City Attorney’s Office, where she became a senior assistant city attorney serving as manager of the transactional department of the law division and the Office of Grants Compliance.

Lucian T. Pera, a partner in the Memphis office of Adams and Reese LLP, has been appointed to chair the governing body of the ABA’s Center for Professional Responsibility, the umbrella group that is home to the ABA’s legal ethics and lawyer discipline work. In addition, Shawn D. Sentilles has joined the Memphis office of Adams and Reese as special counsel in the Special Business Services Practice Group. He has more than two decades of experience in intellectual property law, most recently as the in-house patent attorney for Wright Medical Technology.

Anne Mathes has been named Executive Director of the Community Legal Center, a non-profit that has been providing civil legal services to lower-income Memphians for more than 20 years. She received her B.S. from Rhodes College, her M.S. from the University of Memphis, and her J.D. from Fordham University. She practiced law in the areas of finance, commercial lending, and real estate for 30 years, chiefly at Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz. In her new role, she will manage the CLC office, supervise staff and volunteers, seek grant funding, and work with the board to raise money from donors.

Rob Ratton has joined Fisher & Phillips, LLP as of counsel. He received his undergraduate degree from Tulane University and his J.D. from the University of Iowa. He has served as an assistant district attorney and assistant city attorney. Prior to joining Fisher & Phillips, he was a staff attorney at TruGreen LP.

Anne Mathis

Lucian T. Pera

If you are a 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 must be submitted in writing and 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 sklarson@memphisbar.org.

Jason Fair

Rob Ratton Jackie G. Prester

Jessica L. Indingaro

Carmalita "CC" Carletos-Drayton

Kristine L. Roberts

27

Daniel Kiel, associate professor of law at the University of Memphis Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law, has been awarded a Fulbright Scholar grant for research at the University of the Free State in Bloemfontein, South Africa, during the fall 2015 semester. The fellowship will allow him to expand his research on American educational law and disparities in the South African context.

Glankler Brown, PLLC is pleased to announce that B. Douglas Earthman has been elected to become a Fellow of the American College of Bond Counsel.

Bass , Berry & Sims PLC is p leased to welcome a new attorney to the firm. Michael P. Kapel las w i l l be ba sed i n t h e f i r m’s M e m p h i s o f f i c e .

Cindy Cole Ettinghoff has joined Memphis Area Legal Services as director of pro bono programs. Her legal background includes private practice, most recently in her own firm, and previously with Weintraub Stock Bennett Ettingoff & Grisham (now Fisher & Phillips).

B. Douglas Earthman

Daniel Kiel

Michael P. Kapellas

Cindy Cole Ettinghoff

JUDGE D'ARMY BAILEY COURTHOUSE NAMING SEPT 25, 2015

photos byKaren Campbell

SUBMIT YOUR NEWS

AND UPDATES ONLINE AT:

WWW.MEMPHISBAR.ORG/BLOG/SUBMIT-CONTENT

30

PROFESSIONAL SERVICESAttorney Sheree L. hoffmAn, ALL mediAtion ServiceS, Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 31 Listed for Civil and Family Law Mediations. Will travel to Counties adjacent to Shelby County. www.memphisdivorcehelp.com. 901.754.9994.

forenSic PSychoLogicAL conSuLtAtionS. Competency, criminal responsibility, personal injury, and child custody. Attorney consultations and expert witness services. F.A. Steinberg, Ph.D., FACFP, 532 Monteigne Blvd., Memphis, TN 38103. Board certified fellow in forensic psychology. 901.527.3737.

JAmeS e. BinghAm, mediAtion And ArBitrAtion. 25 years’ litigation experience in business, domestic, and probate. Rule 31 listed. 901.525.8601.

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. No charge for our services.

CLASSIFIEDadver t i s ement s

OFFICE SPACEdowntown LAw officeS—executive office center At PeABody PLAce—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 high-speed 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 time-consuming business decisions such as office administration and equipment leases. If you want to create a professional appearance for your business, but you are not 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.

office SPAce — germAntown (east side) — Ideal for law firm. Currently a bank branch. Beautiful first floor space with pri-vate office, conference room and space that could be separated into additional private offices. Warm wood trim and fireplace on first floor. Stairs with outside and inside access to second floor. Open space to be partitioned as needed with two (2) private offices. Kitchen and eating areas also on second floor. Ample convenient parking. Call 316.2214.

LegAL office in hiSotoric diStrict of memPhiS for rent. Walking distance to Juvenile Court. Shared receptionsit, phone, and conference rooms. Free parking. Only 2 offices left. Call or text 901-240-0724.

OFFICE SPACE - 2157 Madison Ave. Super nice building with six solo practice law firms. Two office suite available now. Great location adjacent to Overton Square. For more info: www.memphisexecsuite.com Contact Sharon Younger 901-276-9323.

The Magazine of the Memphis Bar Association145 Court Avenue #300Memphis, TN 38103www.memphisbar.org

The Courtroom Advantage