Well,
this
is
how
progress
dies
in
Biglaw…
with
governmental
posturing
and
a
whole
lot
of
institutional
cowardice.
Diversity
Lab
announced
today
that
it’s
pausing
the
Mansfield
certification
program,
the
widely
adopted
initiative
designed
to
encourage
law
firms
to
consider
diverse
candidates
for
leadership
roles.
Thanks
to
the
Trump
administration’s
latest
weaponization
of
federal
agencies,
Mansfield
certification
is
effectively
being
bullied
out
of
existence.
The
Federal
Trade
Commission
decided
to
flex
by
sending
warning
letters
to
42
Biglaw
firms,
suggesting
that
participation
in
Mansfield
certification
might
violate
antitrust
laws.
Which,
to
be
clear,
is
not
at
all
how
antitrust
works.
Actual
antitrust
experts
say
the
program
doesn’t
run
afoul
of
competition
law.
But
that
doesn’t
matter
when
your
goal
is
intimidation,
not
legal
accuracy.
Biglaw,
famously
brave
when
billing
$2,000
an
hour,
is
apparently
far
less
courageous
when
asked
to
stand
up
to
an
administration
openly
hostile
to
diversity
initiatives
and
perfectly
willing
to
sic
the
FTC,
DOJ,
and
EEOC
on
anyone
who
steps
out
of
line.
Rather
than
fight
—
for
the
law,
for
their
own
prior
commitments,
or
for
diversity
itself
—
firms
blinked.
And
so
the
damage
landed
squarely
on
Diversity
Lab.
“The
FTC’s
public
statement
has
triggered
more
than
30
press
articles
in
a
single
week,
and
prompted
hundreds
of
concerned
emails
from
clients,”
Diversity
Lab
founder
Caren
Ulrich
Stacy
wrote
in
a
letter
to
clients
reported
by
Law.com.
“We’ve
retained
a
senior
antitrust
lawyer
from
a
top
50
firm
with
deep
FTC
experience
and
are
working
with
them
to
educate
the
agency
on
Mansfield.
But
I
fear
the
damage
is
already
done.”
Stacy
explained
that
the
Trump
administration’s
scrutiny
has
led
to
“many
clients”
pausing
their
work
with
Diversity
Lab,
which
has
“substantially
depleted”
the
organization’s
operating
funds.
“With
this
dark
cloud
hovering,
many
clients
are
pausing
their
work
with
us,”
she
wrote.
“Our
operating
funds
have
already
been
substantially
depleted
by
the
need
to
respond
to
Executive
Orders,
DOJ
law-firm
lawsuits,
and
EEOC
letters
to
law
firms.
With
little
to
no
near-term
revenue
to
cover
expenses,
we
are
concerned
about
our
future.”
One
law
firm
diversity
leader
summed
it
up
bluntly,
“Disappointed,
heartbreaking
would
not
be
hyperbolic.
The
organization
has
been
such
a
long-standing
advocate
for
diversity
in
the
industry.”
And
that’s
the
real
takeaway
here.
Mansfield
certification
didn’t
fall
because
it
was
unlawful.
It
didn’t
fall
because
it
failed.
It
didn’t
even
fall
because
the
government
proved
its
case
(it
hasn’t).
Mansfield
certification
fell
because
Biglaw
decided
that
diversity
was
not
worth
the
risk
of
annoying
the
Trump
administration.
Stacy
says
Diversity
Lab
will
continue
to
keep
clients
“posted
as
we
fight
this
latest
effort
to
dismantle
progress.”
And
this
is
what
dismantling
progress
looks
like
in
2026.
Regulatory
bullying,
bad-faith
legal
theories,
and
a
profession
too
risk-averse
to
push
back.
The
sugar
tax,
introduced
on
1
January
2024,
was
designed
to
discourage
excessive
sugar
consumption
and
generate
revenue
for
the
treatment
of
lifestyle-related
diseases
such
as
cancer.
The
levy
was
initially
set
at
US$0.02
per
gram
but
was
later
reduced
to
US$0.001
per
gram
in
February
2024
after
objections
from
industry.
By
late
last
year,
authorities
had
reported
collecting
more
than
US$30
million
from
the
measure.
During
a
recent
question-and-answer
session
in
the
National
Assembly,
Bulawayo
Central
MP
Surrender
Kapoikilu
asked
the
Ministry
of
Finance
and
Economic
Development
to
clarify
how
the
funds
were
being
deployed.
“What
are
the
government’s
policies
on
the
use
of
revenue
from
the
sugar
tax?
What
is
it
supposed
to
be
used
for?”
he
asked.
Responding,
Deputy
Finance
Minister
Kudakwashe
Mnangagwa
said
the
policy
had
not
changed
since
the
levy
was
announced
in
the
2024
national
budget.
“The
idea
of
these
sin
taxes
was
to
ring-fence
them
for
lifestyle
diseases
such
as
cancer,
among
others,”
he
said.
“We
are
guided
by
the
Minister
of
Health
on
the
equipment
that
they
want
to
purchase.
Some
of
these
proceeds
have
already
gone
towards
such.
So
the
policy
still
stands.”
But
Kapoikilu
said
conditions
on
the
ground
did
not
reflect
any
meaningful
improvements
in
cancer
care
at
public
hospitals.
“The
ministry
says
the
money
is
supposed
to
be
used
for
cancer
therapeutic
services
and
buying
cancer
machines,”
he
said.
“But
my
worry
is
how
come
our
radiotherapy
centres
in
our
main
hospitals
are
still
in
the
state
they
are
in.”
He
cited
Mpilo
Central
Hospital
in
Bulawayo,
where,
he
said,
the
radiotherapy
section
had
not
treated
a
patient
since
2022.
“We
have
been
collecting
sugar
tax
from
February
2024.
I’m
very
concerned
about
what
is
happening
to
the
money,
because
our
institutions
are
in
a
poor
state,”
Kapoikilu
added.
Chipinge
MP
Clifford
Hlatshwayo
also
called
for
greater
transparency,
arguing
that
taxpayers
deserved
clear
information
on
how
the
revenue
was
being
used.
“Sugar
tax
is
being
contributed
by
every
citizen.
It
is
important
for
people
to
know
what
is
happening
to
the
money,”
he
said.
“People
must
get
treatment.”
Zimbabwe
has
long
struggled
with
shortages
of
cancer
treatment
equipment,
with
patients
often
facing
long
waiting
times
or
being
forced
to
seek
care
in
private
facilities
or
outside
the
country,
at
high
cost.
The
concerns
were
raised
on
Wednesday
during
a
city-wide
decongestion
consultative
meeting
organised
by
the
Bulawayo
Vendors
and
Traders
Association
(BVTA)
and
the
Bulawayo
Progressive
Residents
Association
(BPRA).
The
meeting
brought
together
residents,
informal
traders,
micro,
small
and
medium
enterprises
(MSMEs)
and
transport
operators
to
discuss
challenges
facing
the
informal
economy
and
urban
order.
MSMEs
Apex
Board
chairperson
Vincent
Donga
said
most
traders
cannot
afford
the
rentals
being
charged
for
partitioned
shops.
“The
partitioned
shops
are
not
bringing
anything
to
us
as
informal
traders.
They
are
there
to
kill
small
businesses
because
they
are
very
expensive,”
he
said.
“You
can
rent
a
partitioned
shop
today,
but
after
two
months
you
are
forced
to
go
back
to
the
street.”
Donga
said
traders
are
being
quoted
rentals
ranging
between
US$800
and
US$1,000
per
month,
figures
he
described
as
unrealistic
for
small-scale
operators.
“Even
if
they
were
meant
to
decongest
the
city,
look
at
how
expensive
they
are.
At
the
end
of
the
day
they
will
become
white
elephants,”
he
said.
He
added
that
poor
infrastructure
in
many
trading
areas
continues
to
expose
traders
to
harsh
weather
conditions.
“When
it’s
raining
we
don’t
sell.
When
it’s
hot,
it’s
usually
very
hot,”
he
said,
urging
traders
to
support
efforts
to
improve
sheds
and
infrastructure,
including
plans
linked
to
the
reopening
of
Fifth
Avenue.
Responding
to
the
concerns,
MSMEs
adviser
Dumisani
Ncube
said
government
was
aware
of
challenges
around
rental
charges
and
would
soon
move
to
review
the
rent
board.
“There
has
been
an
introduction
of
a
valuation-in-time
(VIT)
system
on
rentals,
which
will
give
us
information
on
how
people
are
being
charged,”
he
said.
“Very
soon
the
Minister
of
Industry
and
Commerce
is
going
to
revise
the
rent
board.
We
cannot
leave
people
to
exploit
others
while
government
is
there.”
However,
Ncube
said
one
of
the
obstacles
is
that
some
traders
do
not
disclose
the
actual
rents
they
pay,
making
it
difficult
for
authorities
to
act.
“When
people
come
to
collect
information,
you
hide
it,
yet
you
are
complaining
about
the
same
problem,”
he
said.
Ncube
alleged
that
some
large
shops
are
making
huge
profits
by
subdividing
and
subletting
their
premises.
“There
are
shops
that
used
to
pay
about
US$3,000
in
rent
but
are
now
making
as
much
as
US$75,000
after
partitioning
and
subletting,”
he
said.
He
also
warned
that
government
is
planning
tighter
regulation
of
public
transport
and
vending
as
part
of
efforts
to
restore
order
in
the
city.
“The
President
has
said
we
cannot
allow
more
lawlessness
to
continue,”
Ncube
said,
adding
that
councils
are
expected
to
be
granted
arresting
powers
in
future.
Bulawayo
has
in
recent
years
struggled
with
congestion
in
the
central
business
district,
driven
largely
by
the
rapid
growth
of
informal
trading
as
unemployment
remains
high.
City
authorities
and
trader
organisations
say
finding
affordable,
serviced
trading
spaces
is
key
to
balancing
livelihoods
with
urban
management.
Last
week,
legal
tech
stocks
in
companies
like
Thomson
Reuters
and
RELX
(Lexis’
parent)
plummeted
in
response
to
Anthropic’s
release
of
legal
plug-ins
for
its
AI
product,
Claude.
According
to
TechCrunch,
the
plug-ins
will
handle
specialized
tasks
like
document
review
and
contract
drafting,
and
produce
more
consistent
outcomes.
Here
at
Above
the
Law,
Stephen
Embry
predicted
that
GenAI
giants
like
Anthropic
will
gobble
up
large
chunks
of
the
enterprise
legal
tech
space.
But
in
the
solo
and
small
space,
I
don’t
see
a
real
upset
to
the
status
quo
any
time
soon.
For
starters,
non-legal
tech
tools
have
always
competed
with
specialized
legal
tech
products
in
the
solo
and
small
firm
space.
Solos
have
always
had
access
to
cloud-based
platforms
like
Google
Drive,
Basecamp,
Monday,
Airtable,
and
even
Outlook
to
run
their
practices.
Many
of
these
general-purpose
tools
actually
preceded
the
launch
of
Clio
and
MyCase,
today’s
market
leaders
in
cloud-based
practice
management
software.
In
fact,
every
edition
of
my
book
on
starting
a
law
firm,
Solo
by
Choice,
since
2008
has
included
a
dedicated
section
comparing
the
pros
and
cons
of
non-legal
tech
tools
with
legal-specific
platforms.
In
short,
the
idea
that
a
big
tech
company
might
offer
a
cheaper
alternative
to
legal
tech
isn’t
exactly
breaking
news
for
this
segment
of
the
market.
Yet
even
though
general
purpose
tools
(first
practice
management
and
now
AI)
have
always
been
available
to
the
solo/small
firm
market
at
lower
cost,
inertia
has
consistently
pushed
solos
toward
legal
applications.
After
all,
most
solos
and
small
firms,
especially
just
starting
out,
get
the
bulk
of
their
information
about
legal
products
from
resource-constrained
bar
associations
that
rely
on
hefty
sponsorships
from
legal
vendors
in
exchange
for
member
access.
A
lawyer
launching
a
law
firm
today
is
going
to
hear
about
Clio
or
MyCase
at
a
CLE
or
through
a
bar
association
discount
program
long
before
they
stumble
across
a
YouTube
video
showing
how
to
deploy
Gemini
or
Claude
in
legal
practice.
Bar
affiliation
also
conveys
to
legal
products
an
imprimatur
of
professional
legitimacy
and
trustworthiness.
Just
as
nobody
ever
got
fired
for
hiring
IBM,
many
solos
and
smalls
believe
that
no
one
ever
was
disciplined
for
relying
on
Westlaw/Lexis/fill
in
the
blank.
[Author
FYI:
That’s
no
longer
true
when
it
comes
to
hallucinations.]
And
there’s
the
tech
capacity
issue.
Solo
and
small
firms
don’t
typically
have
a
deep
tech
bench.
For
many,
the
appeal
of
a
law
practice
management
platform
is
that
right
off
the
shelf,
it
does
80
percent
of
the
tasks
law
firm
owners
need,
from
intake
forms,
payment
processing,
calendaring,
client
portals,
and
even
legal
research
with
Clio’s
vLex
acquisition.
As
powerful
as
Claude’s
Legal
Skills
may
be,
they’re
also
a
strictly
DIY
operation.
Claude
skills
are
open-source
files
hosted
on
GitHub
that
need
to
be
downloaded
into
Claude
Cowork,
which
itself
needs
to
be
installed
and
configured.
For
solos
who
haven’t
even
opened
up
a
chat
window
on
ChatGPT,
that’s
a
pretty
big
stretch.
Now
that’s
not
to
say
that
general
purpose
AI
tools
won’t
ever
make
in-roads
in
the
solo/small
firm
space.
There’s
a
place
for
general
AI
at
either
end
of
the
solo
growth
curve.
Starting
out,
both
cash-strapped
and
tech-savvy
solos
will
opt
for
general
over
legal
AI
either
because
they
have
the
skill
to
deploy
it
or
lack
an
affordable
alternative.
Down
the
road,
for
those
small
firms
that
edge
towards
10
or
more
team
members,
multiple
seats
can
become
cost
prohibitive
or
legal
platforms
may
prove
too
rigid
to
accommodate
a
firm’s
unique
workflows
and
protocols.
At
that
point,
some
firms
will
look
beyond
Clio
or
MyCase
to
explore
general
AI
solutions
or
to
build
custom
tools
and
implement
more
agentic
workflows.
But
significantly,
by
the
time
a
firm
reaches
that
stage,
it
typically
has
the
resources
to
bring
on
a
developer
or
consultant.
In
most
cases,
it’s
not
the
head
of
the
firm
who’s
configuring
plug-ins
and
tinkering
with
markdown
skill
files
at
midnight.
Don’t
get
me
wrong.
Right
now,
general
AI
tools
are
cheaper
and
more
powerful
(not
to
mention
equally
secure)
as
their
legal
tech
counterparts.
Solo
and
small
firm
lawyers
who
don’t
take
the
time
to
familiarize
themselves
with
the
basics
of
general
AI
tools
are
missing
out
on
tremendous
cost
savings
and
quality
improvements.
But
having
been
in
the
solo
and
small
firm
space
as
long
as
I
have,
I
know
that
at
the
end
of
the
day,
bar
associations
wield
more
influence
over
technology
choices
than
economics
or
markets.
The
choice
between
gen
AI
versus
legal
AI
is
just
the
latest
chapter
in
a
continuing
saga
of
cheap-but-DIY
versus
pricier-but-turnkey
solutions.
And
the
ending
is
always
the
same:
some
lawyers
will
innovate
but
the
vast
majority
will
stick
with
legal
tools.
In
other
words,
they’ll
choose
IBM.
Carolyn
Elefant
is
one
of
the
country’s
most
recognized
advocates
for
solo
and
small
firm
lawyers.
She
founded
MyShingle.com
in
2002,
the
longest-running
blog
for
solo
practitioners,
where
she
has
published
thousands
of
articles,
resources,
and
guides
on
starting,
running,
and
growing
independent
law
practices.
She
is
the
author
of
Solo
by
Choice,
widely
regarded
as
the
definitive
handbook
for
launching
and
sustaining
a
law
practice,
and
has
spoken
at
countless
bar
events
and
legal
conferences
on
technology,
innovation,
and
regulatory
reform
that
impacts
solos
and
smalls.
Elefant
also
develops
practical
tools
like
the AI
Teach-In to
help
small
firms
adopt
AI
and
she
consistently
champions
reforms
to
level
the
playing
field
for
independent
lawyers.
Alongside
this
work,
she
runs
the
Law
Offices
of
Carolyn
Elefant,
a
national
energy
and
regulatory
practice
that
handles
selective
complex,
high-stakes
matters.
Speaking
during
the
union’s
annual
national
council
meeting
held
in
Bulawayo
over
the
weekend,
ZDAMWU
General
Secretary
Justice
Chinhema
said
many
mine
workers
are
operating
without
health
insurance
despite
being
exposed
to
hazardous
working
conditions.
“Mine
workers
do
not
have
insurance
yet
most
of
them
are
sick,”
“We
have
seen
employers
pushing
workers
to
take
up
funeral
policies
without
necessarily
providing
health
care
cover.
That
must
be
addressed
through
proper
health
insurance
schemes
supported
by
the
salaries
workers
earn,”
said
Chinhema. He
said
ensuring
health
insurance
coverage
for
miners
is
part
of
the
union’s
broader
2026
strategic
pillars
which
focus
on
worker
welfare,
community
engagement
and
advocacy. He
said
the
union
plans
to
expand
its
role
beyond
workplace
representation
to
include
working
closely
with
community
leaders
and
civil
society
organizations
to
promote
safe
and
sustainable
mining
practices. “As
a
union,
one
of
our
pillars
for
2026
speaks
about
community
engagement
and
community
advocacy.
We
will
be
focusing
on
working
with
community
leaders
and
civil
society
organizations
on
safe
mining
and
standard
mining
practices,”
he
said. ZDAMWU
intends
to
collaborate
with
organizations
such
as
the
Centre
for
Natural
Resources
Governance
(CNRG),
Zimbabwe
Environmental
Law
Association
(ZELA)
and
other
relevant
government
ministries
including
the
Ministry
of
Mines. Chinhema
emphasized
the
need
for
mining
companies
to
rehabilitate
their
operations
once
extraction
activities
cease. “We
need
to
engage
mining
companies
to
rehabilitate
their
mining
operations
so
that
when
they
leave,
they
do
not
leave
gullies
and
environmental
degradation
behind.
“If
an
employer
deliberately
leaves
environmental
damage,
there
must
be
a
remedy,”
suggested
the
ZDAMWU
General
Secretary. The
union
also
wants
to
play
a
more
active
role
in
occupational
safety
and
health
matters.
Chinhema
said
while
many
companies
have
safety
departments,
trade
unions
have
often
been
sidelined
in
advocacy
and
monitoring. “Our
coming
in
as
a
union
means
we
must
be
at
the
forefront
and
be
involved
in
safety,
health
insurance
and
health
care
issues,”
he
said.
He
added
that
employers
must
comply
with
established
safety
and
health
standards,
including
periodic
medical
check-ups
and
testing
for
diseases
commonly
associated
with
mining
activities. The
union
also
plans
to
engage
regulatory
bodies
such
as
the
National
Social
Security
Authority
(NSSA),
Ministry
of
Health,
Ministry
of
Energy
as
well
as
the
Ministry
of
Mines
to
ensure
enforcement
of
safety
regulations. “Where
safety
is
not
prevalent,
what
is
the
remedy?
We
are
there
to
push
for
that
remedy
as
an
organization.
We
want
to
ensure
that
compensation
happens
where
necessary
and
that
preventive
measures
are
put
in
place,”
Chinhema
added. ZDAMWU
said
it
will
also
intensify
advocacy
efforts
to
ensure
mining
companies
are
held
accountable
for
worker
welfare
and
environmental
protection
as
part
of
its
expanded
mandate
to
safeguard
both
miners
and
the
communities
in
which
they
operate.
This
call
for
stronger
enforcement
and
rehabilitation
measures
follows
renewed
concerns
about
the
dangers
posed
by
abandoned
and
poorly
managed
mining
or
quarry
sites.
Over
the
past
weekend
in
Bulawayo, two
11-year-old
girls
drowned
while
swimming
with
friends
in
a
disused
water-filled
pit
in
Pumula
North,
in
an
incident
confirmed
by
police
that
has
spotlighted
the
risks
of
open
pits
left
in
residential
and
peri-urban
areas.
The
pit,
which
filled
with
rainwater
was
among
abandoned
excavation
holes
that
have
become
deadly
traps
for
children
and
others
in
the
community.
Across
Zimbabwe,
similar
hazards
have
underscored
the
human
and
environmental
cost
of
poorly
rehabilitated
mining
sites.
In
Shurugwi
and
other
districts,
villagers
have
recounted
how
abandoned
pits
from
chrome
and
other
mineral
extraction
have
claimed
lives
and
livestock
over
the
years
because
they
were
neither
reclaimed
nor
properly
fenced
off
once
operations
ceased.
Elsewhere,
communities
in
the
Umzingwane
Dam
area
of
Matabeleland
South
have
decried abandoned
mining
pits
allegedly
left
by
Chinese-linked
operations which
have
turned
once-safe
grazing
and
watering
areas
into
“death
traps”
for
livestock,
forcing
local
residents
to
repeatedly
recover
trapped
cattle.
Judge
Jeanine
Pirro
(Photo
by
MIKE
THEILER/AFP/Getty
Images)
“I
have
never
heard
of
a
situation
where
every
single
grand
juror
rejected
an
indictment,”
former
federal
prosecutor
Joyce
Vance
wrote.
“Every
single
one.”
The
Trump
administration
has
made
a
habit
of
failing
to
secure
indictments
—
a
process
so
infamously
easy
that
everyone
jokes
about
how
the
government
could
indict
a
ham
sandwich
—
but
it’s
still
unheard
of
to
fail
to
persuade
even
one
grand
juror
to
indict.
Achievement
unlocked!
NBC
reports
that
the
administration
not
only
flubbed
its
attempt
to
indict
the
six
Democratic
lawmakers
who
starred
in
a
video
reminding
military
personnel
that
the
law
requires
them
to
reject
unlawful
orders,
but
it
could
not
find
a
single
grand
juror
willing
to
bite.
The
case
against
the
lawmakers
was,
of
course,
frivolous.
The
Uniform
Code
of
Military
Justice
does,
in
fact,
impose
a
duty
on
the
military
to
disobey
illegal
orders,
rendering
any
charge
against
the
legislators
an
uphill
battle.
It
was
also
a
battle
that
the
career
prosecutors
in
the
D.C.
U.S.
Attorney’s
Office
probably
didn’t
want
to
fight.
U.S.
Attorney
Offices
around
the
country
have
suffered
drastic
attrition,
with
principled
public
servants
refusing
to
bring
garbage
charges
to
appease
their
political
appointee
bosses.
To
fill
out
the
ranks
in
her
office,
former
Fox
News
host
Jeanine
Pirro
apparently
tried
to
“get
the
band
back
together”
from
her
days
as
the
Westchester
County
DA,
bringing
on
a
former
assistant
DAs
from
the
old
days
to
help
her
out.
Steven
Vandervelden,
the
long-time
local
prosecutor,
drew
the
case
against
the
lawmakers
—
along
with
another
lawyer
with
limited
federal
prosecutorial
experience,
Carlton
Davis
—
suggesting
Pirro
couldn’t
convince
one
of
the
career
prosecutors
left
in
the
office
to
touch
this
case.
And
it’s
possible
that
even
Vandervelden
knew
this
was
a
lost
cause
because
according
to
Bloomberg
Law
News,
Vandervelden
continued
to
run
his
dance
photography
studio
while
pitching
in
to
help
his
old
boss
pursue
political
prosecutions.
Apparently
Vandervelden
went
into
this
business
in
2023,
telling
the
Rockland/Westchester
Journal
News
he
appreciated
a
career
where
he
could
“look
for
the
light
and
find
beauty
as
opposed
to
the
grime”
after
34
years
prosecuting
homicide
and
organized
crime
cases.
Pirro’s
office
sent
a
statement
to
Bloomberg
pushing
back
against
the
news
that
he
runs
a
photography
studio:
In
a
statement,
Pirro
said,
“Steven
Vandervelden
is
one
of
the
best
prosecutors
and
best
investigators
that
I
have
worked
with
in
well
over
three
decades
in
the
criminal
justice
system.
Any
attempt
to
undercut
his
expertise
is
nothing
more
than
an
effort
to
detract
from
his
excellent
prosecutorial
record
to
which
few
can
compare.
And
by
the
way,
everybody
has
a
hobby.”
Based
the
DOJ’s
redaction
choices
and
Attorney
General
Pam
Bondi’s
testimony
yesterday,
“everybody
has
a
hobby”
also
appears
to
be
the
administration’s
official
stance
on
the
Epstein
files.
Seriously
though,
Pirro’s
statement
is
frankly
disrespectful
of
Vandervelden.
This
isn’t
a
hobby,
it’s
his
business!
And
taking
a
look
at
the
photos
on
his
site,
he’s
pretty
good
at
it!
It
also
misunderstands
the
criticism,
which
is
probably
to
be
expected
of
an
administration
dominated
by
the
dullest
tools
in
the
metaphorical
shed.
The
knock
on
Vandervelden
isn’t
that
he’s
a
photographer,
it’s
that
a
small
business
owner
who
retired
three
years
ago
is
running
a
case
with
grave
constitutional
implications
as
a
side
hustle.
Trying
to
charge
sitting
legislators
with
treason
—
or
whatever
nonsense
charge
the
DOJ
dreamed
up
—
probably
shouldn’t
be
a
gig
economy
job.
But
that’s
what
happens
when
the
DOJ
has
embarked
on
a
campaign
of
lawlessness
that
saw
its
public
integrity
unit
all
run
for
the
hills
rather
than
be
associated
with
behavior
that
should
by
all
rights
end
in
disbarment.
So
Pirro’s
office
called
in
Vandervelden
like
hiring
a
prosecutor
off
Fiverr
and
gave
him
a
guaranteed
loser
of
a
case.
Man,
it’s
not
worth
it.
Just
stick
to
the
photography
because
working
with
this
DOJ
is
nothing
but
grime
all
the
way
down.
The
one
with
no
clean
story.
No
righteous
client.
No
obvious
villain
on
the
other
side.
No
theme
that
fits
neatly
on
a
PowerPoint
slide
or
a
jury
consultant’s
whiteboard.
The
facts
are
messy.
The
law
is
worse.
Your
client
did
some
things
right
and
some
things
that
make
you
wince.
The
jury
is
going
to
dislike
someone,
and
there’s
a
non-zero
chance
it
could
be
your
client.
These
are
the
cases
where
you
don’t
get
to
charge
up
the
hill
waving
a
flag.
These
are
the
cases
where
you
don’t
win
by
brute
force,
volume,
or
theatrics.
You
win
these
cases
by
threading
the
needle.
And
threading
the
needle
is
a
very
different
skill
set
from
winning
the
obvious
case.
The
First
Mistake:
Pretending
This
Is
a
“Normal”
Case
Most
lawyers
lose
tough
cases
long
before
voir
dire
because
they
treat
them
as
they
would
any
other
case.
They
over-argue.
They
over-explain.
They
over-defend.
They
tell
the
jury,
“My
client
did
nothing
wrong,”
when
the
jury
already
knows
that’s
not
true.
In
needle-threading
cases,
absolutism
kills
you.
Jurors
are
remarkably
tolerant
of
imperfection.
They
are
deeply
suspicious
of
denial.
If
your
entire
theory
depends
on
jurors
believing
your
client
is
blameless,
you
are
already
in
trouble.
Your
job
is
not
to
prove
perfection.
Your
job
is
to
define
where
responsibility
ends.
That’s
the
needle.
Pick
the
Hill
You’re
Willing
to
Die
On
—
And
Abandon
the
Rest
I
once
knew
a
seasoned
defense
trial
lawyer
who
described
himself
as
a
mercenary
dropped
into
the
jungle.
He
wasn’t
there
to
debate
philosophy
or
explain
corporate
culture.
He
was
there
to
seize
one
hill,
blow
up
the
target,
and
get
out.
That
mentality
matters
most
in
tough
cases.
You
cannot
defend
everything.
You
cannot
fix
every
bad
document.
You
cannot
rehabilitate
every
witness.
So
stop
trying.
Identify
the
one
issue
that
actually
matters
to
the
verdict
—
not
the
10
issues
that
make
you
uncomfortable.
Then
ruthlessly
narrow
your
case
around
that
issue.
Ask
yourself:
If
the
jury
believes
only
one
thing
we
say,
what
does
it
have
to
be?
If
we
lose
every
side
skirmish
but
win
this
one
point,
do
we
still
win
the
case?
Everything
else
becomes
background
noise.
Threading
the
needle
is
about
restraint.
And
restraint
is
hard
for
lawyers
because
we
are
trained
to
respond
to
everything.
But
juries
don’t
reward
completeness.
They
reward
clarity.
Stop
Trying
to
Win
the
Case
in
Depositions
In
tough
cases,
depositions
are
not
about
dominance
or
“gotcha”
moments.
They
are
about
information,
tone,
and
credibility.
I
once
defended
a
case
where
the
plaintiff
claimed
a
serious
cognitive
injury.
Instead
of
attacking,
I
let
her
talk
—
at
length.
Calmly.
Comfortably.
On
video.
At
trial,
we
played
that
deposition.
In
her
case-in-chief,
she
suddenly
couldn’t
remember
basic
facts.
The
jury
noticed.
Threading
the
needle
often
means
doing
less
in
discovery,
not
more.
Let
the
record
develop
naturally.
Let
inconsistencies
reveal
themselves
without
your
fingerprints
all
over
them.
Aggression
in
depositions
feels
good.
It
rarely
helps
in
close
cases.
Give
the
Other
Side
a
Way
to
Save
Face
In
tough
cases,
opposing
counsel
is
often
under
pressure
too.
They
may
know
the
case
has
problems.
They
may
also
know
that
backing
down
looks
like
weakness
—
to
their
client,
their
firm,
or
themselves.
If
you
corner
them,
they
flip
the
board.
I
learned
this
lesson
over
coffee
at
a
Cuban
cafeteria
near
the
courthouse.
A
plaintiff
lawyer
friend
summed
it
up
perfectly:
If
he
knows
he’s
going
to
lose,
give
him
a
way
to
save
face.
That
advice
applies
equally
to
mediation,
discovery
disputes,
and
trial.
You
don’t
need
to
humiliate
the
other
side.
You
need
to
finish
the
game
according
to
the
rules.
Threading
the
needle
means
lowering
the
temperature,
not
raising
it.
The
calmer
lawyer
usually
wins
the
close
case.
Jury
Selection
Is
Where
You
Actually
Win
These
Cases
In
needle-threading
cases,
voir
dire
matters
more
than
openings.
You
are
not
looking
for
jurors
who
will
like
your
client.
You
are
looking
for
jurors
who
will
draw
lines.
You
need
jurors
who
believe:
Responsibility
has
limits.
Bad
outcomes
don’t
always
mean
wrongdoing.
You
can
acknowledge
mistakes
without
awarding
damages.
If
a
juror
believes
every
injury
requires
compensation,
thank
them
for
their
honesty
and
move
on.
You
are
not
converting
anyone.
You
are
identifying
landmines.
Jury
selection
is
not
about
charm.
It
is
about
risk
management.
Tell
the
Jury
the
Truth
—
But
Only
the
Parts
That
Matter
This
is
where
most
lawyers
panic.
They
hear
“tell
the
truth”
and
think
it
means
confessing
every
flaw
in
their
case.
That’s
not
honesty.
That’s
abdication.
Threading
the
needle
means
acknowledging
the
bad
fact
once,
cleanly,
and
without
drama
—
then
reframing
it
in
its
proper
context.
“Yes,
this
happened.” “No,
that
does
not
mean
what
they
want
it
to
mean.”
Then
move
on.
The
jury
does
not
need
you
to
apologize.
They
need
you
to
orient
them.
When
you
linger
on
the
bad
facts,
you
elevate
them.
When
you
normalize
them,
you
deflate
them.
Openings
Should
Be
Shorter
Than
You’re
Comfortable
With
In
tough
cases,
long
openings
are
a
mistake.
The
more
you
talk,
the
more
you
explain.
The
more
you
explain,
the
more
you
sound
defensive.
Your
opening
should
do
three
things:
Define
the
narrow
issue
that
matters.
Acknowledge
the
imperfection
without
surrender.
Tell
the
jury
what
not
to
decide.
“This
case
is
not
about
whether
something
unfortunate
happened.
It’s
about
whether
my
client
is
legally
responsible
for
it.”
That
sentence
alone
threads
more
needles
than
most
hour-long
openings.
Cross-Examination
Is
About
Control,
Not
Destruction
In
needle-threading
cases,
you
don’t
need
to
destroy
witnesses.
You
need
to
guide
them.
Over-aggressive
cross
creates
sympathy.
An
under-controlled
cross
creates
confusion.
The
sweet
spot
is
calm
inevitability
—
where
the
witness
helps
you
without
realizing
it.
If
you’re
trying
to
“win”
every
exchange,
you’re
missing
the
point.
You’re
not
scoring
points.
You’re
building
permission.
Closing
is
when
you
ask
for
the
line.
By
the
time
you
close,
the
jury
already
knows
the
case
is
imperfect.
They’re
waiting
to
see
if
you
respect
them
enough
to
say
it
out
loud.
This
is
where
you
draw
the
line
clearly
and
unapologetically.
“You
may
not
like
everything
you
heard.
That’s
okay.
The
law
doesn’t
ask
you
to
approve
of
everything.
It
asks
you
to
decide
one
thing
—
and
only
one
thing.”
Threading
the
needle
means
giving
jurors
a
verdict
they
can
live
with.
Not
a
heroic
verdict.
Not
a
dramatic
verdict.
A
rational
verdict.
The
Hard
Truth
About
These
Cases
Some
cases
can’t
be
won
cleanly.
Some
can
only
be
managed
to
a
win.
These
cases
reward
patience,
humility,
preparation,
and
judgment.
They
punish
the
ego.
Young
lawyers
often
think
great
trial
lawyers
are
great
because
they’re
aggressive,
charismatic,
or
fearless.
In
my
experience,
the
best
trial
lawyers
in
the
toughest
cases
are
the
ones
who
know
when
not
to
swing.
Threading
the
needle
is
not
flashy.
But
it
wins.
And
if
you
can
win
those
cases,
the
easy
ones
take
care
of
themselves.
Frank
Ramos
is
a
partner
at
Goldberg
Segalla
in
Miami,
where
he
practices
commercial
litigation,
products,
and
catastrophic
personal
injury. You
can
follow
him
on LinkedIn,
where
he
has
about
80,000
followers.
During
yesterday’s
Epstein
hearing,
Pam
Bondi
gave
the
nation
a
master
class
in
misleading
debate
tactics:
whataboutism
and
tu
quoque.
When
asked
a
hard-hitting
question
like
“Will
you
take
responsibility
for
breaking
the
law
by
sharing
the
names
of
Epstein
victims?”
she
responded
with
“Well,
what
about
Merrick
Garland?!”:
Pam
Bondi
is
asked
directly
why
she
personally
shut
down
the
child
trafficking
investigation
into
former
Prince
Andrew
while
being
shown
direct
evidence
of
his
crimes.
Her
response:
“But
you
didn’t
ask
Merrick
Garland
these
questions
when
he
was
Attorney
General.”
pic.twitter.com/YbHf0SdOjb
Just
so
we’re
clear
—
responding
to
“Why
didn’t
you
do
your
job?”
with
“Well,
the
guy
before
me
didn’t
either!”
doesn’t
even
fly
for
line
cooks.
It
definitely
shouldn’t
work
for
the
United
States
Attorney
General.
When
asked
why
she
was
protecting
a
class
of
rapacious
billionaires,
she
responded
by
praising
the
DOW
and
pulling
a
“no
u”
on
Jamie
Raskin’s
trading
finesse:
She
also
called
Raskin
a
“washed-up
loser
lawyer.”
Missed
opportunity
to
tell
her
that
she
stole
the
words
right
out
of
his
mouth.
Thankfully
Rep.
Balint
didn’t
miss
the
chance
to
get
a
biting
quip
in.
Take
note
of
the
“Did
that
just
happen?”
eye
roll
in
the
background:
Despite
the
dossier
that
should
have
prepared
her
to
attack
her
questioner’s
character
instead
of
answering
their
questions:
as
of
now,
pam
bondi
has
spent
more
investigative
powers
within
the
doj
to
look
into
congresspersons
asking
about
her
role
in
the
epstein
coverup,
than
the
billionare
pedophiles
themselves!
https://t.co/dadtQsiOBI
And
as
bad
as
it
was
for
the
American
public
to
get
a
temper
tantrum
instead
of
answers
on
why
America’s
Chapter
Black
Tapes
aren’t
being
investigated,
it’s
a
double
injury
for
the
survivors
who
had
to
sit
and
see
their
trauma
get
used
for
political
theater:
This
is
a
picture
that
should
be
published
everywhere:
@PamBondi
refusing
to
even
look
at
the
Epstein
survivors
in
the
eye
as
they
say
they’ve
been
ignored
by
the
DOJ.
Someone
who
made
their
pain
a
political
point
just
months
ago.
Cowardly
and
Disgusting.
If
there
is
any
silver
lining
to
this,
she
was
caught
lying
under
oath
and
any
person
with
a
shred
of
moral
decency
would
do
the
right
thing
and
step
down:
Lieu:
Pam
Bondi
lied
under
oath.
She
said
there
was
no
evidence
of
wrongdoing
in
the
Epstein
files
of
Donald
Trump.
That’s
just
a
lie.
There
are
multiple
documents
that
show
wrongdoing
of
Donald
Trump.
I
showed
one.
A
witness
had
called
into
the
FBI
National
Threat
Operations…
pic.twitter.com/hMSllfYjBD
Who
am
I
kidding?
She’s
gonna
keep
covering
for
Trump
until
it’s
decided
that
someone
has
to
be
found
in
the
wreckage.
We
can
take
some
solace
in
knowing
that
her
days
as
the
fall
guy
draw
near.
Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s
.
He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boatbuilder
who
is
learning
to
swim, is
interested
in
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected]
and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.
Which
is
not
to
say
AI
isn’t
a
powerful
technology
that
can
significantly
impact
the
legal
industry.
That’s
exactly
what
happened
at
the
Ad
Astra
Law
Group,
a
six-lawyer
shop
in
San
Francisco.
The
firm
didn’t
embark
on
a
half-cocked
effort
to
layoff
its
lawyers
in
favor
of
robots,
but
when
an
eighth-year
associate
took
another
job,
Ad
Astra
decided
that
instead
of
hiring
and
training
a
replacement
—
an
expense
(and
a
risk)
—
they
would
see
if
AI
could
help
their
remaining
team
stay
ahead
of
the
game.
[Managing
Partner]
Katy
[Young]
acknowledges
the
counterintuitive
economics:
“It
used
to
take
two
days
to
draft
a
complaint,
now
it
takes
me
two
and
a
half
hours.
So
immediately,
yes,
there
is
an
impact
on
my
billing—
I’m
billing
two
and
a
half
hours
instead
of
eight
hours.”
But
she’s
taking
the
long
view.
For
Ad
Astra’s
core
clientele
—
small
and
medium-sized
businesses
and
individuals
—
the
difference
between
a
$1,500
complaint
and
a
$5,000
complaint
can
determine
whether
they
can
afford
to
pursue
a
dispute
at
all.
Mere
months
later,
clients
were
thrilled,
referrals
were
up,
and
the
firm
had
more
flexibility
to
take
on
smaller
matters
that
wouldn’t
warrant
the
time
and
resources
a
human-only
engagement
would
require.
A
lot
of
the
legal
AI
conversation
focuses
on
Biglaw.
Which
makes
sense,
because
that’s
where
you
find
firms
built
around
throwing
bodies
at
problems
and
with
the
resources
to
build
out
expensive
AI
capabilities.
But
the
Ad
Astra
experience
shows
the
potential
benefits
for
small
firms.
Young
also
reports
better
results
because
the
time
savings
translate
to
more
thorough
filings
produced
under
tight
time
pressure.
This
opens
new
pre-litigation
strategy
advantages.
“That’s
a
45-page
complaint,”
she
said.
“That
looks
like
I
already
poured
10,000
bucks
into
it
and
we’re
damn
serious.
I’m
getting
way
better
responses.”
It’s
not
science
fiction,
it’s
a
simple
—
if
unusually
powerful
—
productivity
tool.
Working
with
Legion,
Ad
Astra’s
AI
efforts
focus
in
large
part
on
solving
“the
blank
page
problem.”
For
those
of
us
litigators
who
preferred
the
markup
over
the
first
draft,
it
doesn’t
matter
that
AI
isn’t
going
to
write
a
perfect
first
draft.
It
matters
that
it
produced
a
first
draft
ready
for
editing
without
costing
the
client
hundreds
of
dollars
and
delaying
the
editing
process
by
several
days.
That’s
not
a
message
that
OpenAI
or
Anthropic
would
want
to
tell
their
investors,
but
AI
doesn’t
need
to
be
perfect
to
be
valuable.
Second-year
associates
are
far
from
perfect,
but
we
still
hire
them.
And
pay
them
a
lot
of
money
too.
The
legal
profession
has
spent
the
last
few
years
engaged
in
a
bizarre
debate
that
essentially
boils
down
to
“will
AI
completely
replace
lawyers
or
is
it
totally
useless?”
The
answer,
obviously,
is
neither.
AI
makes
certain
tasks
faster.
It’s
not
going
to
argue
your
motion.
It’s
not
going
to
spot
the
issue
in
a
deposition
that
changes
the
case.
But
it
can
scan
a
complaint
and
crank
out
a
first
draft
of
interrogatories
that
a
senior
attorney
can
edit.
And
that’s
not
a
mark
of
failure,
because
the
junior’s
draft
was
going
to
need
heavy
editing
anyway.
It’s
a
matter
of
attitude.
If
lawyers
approach
AI
like
a
junior
that
they
would
never
trust
to
complete
multiple,
iterative
tasks
without
interventionist
supervision,
then
they’ll
discover
a
powerful
productivity
tool.
If
they
approach
it
as
“GPTsus
take
the
wheel,”
they’ll
end
up
getting
sanctioned.
Don’t
be
seduced
by
AI’s
speed
and
projected
confidence.
Maintain
professional
vigilance
and
you’ll
be
rewarded.
No
matter
the
size
of
the
firm.
Long
gone
are
the
days
when
demonstrating
the
value
of
legal
work
was
more
art
than
science.
Today’s
organizations
are
increasingly
demanding
data-backed
evidence
to
measure
the
work
of
law
departments
and
outside
counsel.
And
with
the
rapid
pace
of
advancement,
legal
technology
provides
ever
more
ways
to
track
the
full
scope
of
this
work
—
along
with
the
value
it’s
providing.
Join
our
expert
panel
on
March
3rd
at
1
p.m.
ET
for
an
exploration
of
the
traditional
and
emerging
ways
your
law
department
can
proactively
showcase
its
value
in
2026.
Along
with
our
friends
at
LinkSquares,
we’ll
be
discussing:
The
emerging
KPIs
that
businesses
are
examining
Why
these
metrics
are
important
and
how
you
can
track
them
yourself
The
opportunities
to
turn
your
contract
portfolio
into
a
source
of
revenue
The
evolving
role
of
the
billable
hour
and
AI’s
impact
Register
today!
1
Hour
CLE
credit
is
available
for
live
attendees.
