Dave was extremely professional but more importantly I was treated as a person not a case. He always returned calls and emails in a very timely manner. I would definitely recommend Dave to help with legal needs! -Jennifer S.

As someone who never had a lawyer, David made everything as simple as possible. He is very easy to communicate with and provides all the answers and support you will ever need. If I ever need a lawyer again, David will be my first choice to contact. -Andrew

I was falsely accused of something and had an order filed against me. Ben represented me during court and successfully had the order dismissed. He also went above and beyond to make sure it would not show up on my record. – Brittany.

Home » Blog » Bail Bonds

Bail Bonds


Case:  In Re: Cumberland Bail Bonding

Facts:  Bail Bond Company’s bonding privileges were suspended due to violation of a local rule requiring a bonding agent be present for a defendant’s first court appearance.

Appellate Decision:  The intermediate court reversed, holding that because the rules already require a bonding company require the company to notify the defendant of upcoming court appearances, the appearance requirement “is arbitrary, capricious, and illegal” because it “appears to be redundant and places an additional burden on the bonding company.”

Review Granted:  August 16, 2019.

Prediction:  Ben thinks the supreme court will affirm in part and reverse impart. While arguably unnecessary, the appearance requirement does not rise to the level of being “arbitrary, capricious, and illegal.” However, noncompliance with the local rule in two isolated cases does not merit wholesale suspension of bonding privileges, particularly when there has been no violation of the conditions specified in Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-11-125(a).