Author: TSA Press

The
Nigerian
industrial
titan,
Africa’s
richest
man,
came
back
to
Zimbabwe
not
simply
to
tour,
but
to
seal
what
could
be
one
of
the
country’s
largest-ever
private-sector
investments.
A
decade
earlier,
his
ambitions
had
stalled.
This
time,
the
stage
was
different,
and
so
was
the
script.

Dangote’s
arrival
was
no
secret.
Reports
from
Zimbabwean
media
outlets
in
the
weeks
leading
up
to
his
trip
spoke
of
a
US$1
billion
deal
in
the
making,
covering
cement,
coal
mining,
and
power
generation.
For
a
country
long
hungry
for
industrial
revival,
the
scale
of
commitment
was
breathtaking.
State
officials
carefully
arranged
a
welcome:
he
was
received
not
just
by
senior
bureaucrats
but
by
none
other
than
President
Emmerson
Mnangagwa
himself,
underscoring
how
high
the
stakes
were.

At
a
highly
publicized
signing
ceremony
in
State
House,
Dangote
laid
out
the
plan:
“We
have
just
signed
an
agreement
…
to
undertake
various
investments
across
several
sectors
including
cement,
power
generation,
and
petroleum
products,”
he
told
journalists,
flanked
by
Zimbabwean
Finance
Minister
Mthuli
Ncube.
The
scale
of
the
project
was
formidable,
a
fully
integrated
industrial
complex
that
would
include
a
cement
factory
with
its
own
limestone
quarry
and
grinding
plant,
a
coal
mine,
and
a
power
station.

Yet
the
vision
stretched
even
further.
According
to
Deputy
Chief
Secretary
for
Presidential
Communications
George
Charamba,
the
deal
also
includes
a
transnational
oil
pipeline
running
from
Walvis
Bay
in
Namibia,
across
more
than
2,200
kilometres
to
Zimbabwe.
In
his
words,
this
is
not
just
about
building
factories—it’s
about
reconfiguring
regional
infrastructure.
The
pipeline
would
land
in
Bulawayo
and
continue
to
Harare
via
Gweru,
inserting
Zimbabwe
into
Dangote’s
ambitious
southern
Africa
energy
network.

For
Mnangagwa’s
government,
the
timing
could
not
be
better.
The
deal
aligns
neatly
with
his
Vision
2030
national
development
plan
to
industrialize
Zimbabwe
and
create
jobs. 
Presidential
Investment
Advisor
Dr.
Paul
Tungwarara,
who
helped
facilitate
the
engagement,
spoke
of
the
visit
as
a
long-awaited
opportunity:
“We
are
now
handling
the
final
logistical
preparations
…
to
ensure
this
engagement
leads
to
tangible,
long-term
investment,”
he
said,
underscoring
that
this
time,
the
government
was
personally
invested
in
turning
talks
into
delivery.

Dangote
himself
was
candid
about
why
he
chose
Zimbabwe
now.
Reflecting
on
his
unsuccessful
previous
attempts
in
2015
and
2018,
he
said:
“There’s
been
quite
a
lot
of
change
between
when
we
came
and
now.
The
government
is
solid
…
When
you
look
at
what
His
Excellency
has
done
in
turning
the
economy
around,
that
gave
us
the
confidence
…
this
is
the
right
time
for
us
to
come
and
invest.”
He
framed
his
return
as
a
form
of
national
examination:
“When
you
pass
an
exam
…
people
have
to
come
and
give
you
a
good
mark.
His
Excellency
has
passed
that
exam
…
that’s
why
we’re
here
…
to
give
him
a
very
big
mark.”

The
deal,
as
laid
out,
promises
tangible
benefits
for
Zimbabwe—perhaps
even
transformative
ones.
The
cement
factory
could
reduce
Zimbabwe’s
dependence
on
imports,
saving
the
country
millions
annually
and
feeding
into
its
massive
reconstruction
needs.
The
power
plant,
powered
by
coal,
could
contribute
to
easing
the
country’s
chronic
energy
shortages.
And
the
pipeline,
if
built,
would
not
only
secure
product
flow
but
also
embed
Zimbabwe
into
a
broader
southern
African
energy
corridor.

One
of
the
more
unexpected
but
critical
parts
of
the
agreement
is
in
fertilisers.
Zimbabwean
officials
note
that
Dangote
recognizes
the
country’s
agricultural
potential
and
sees
investment
in
fertiliser
production
as
a
way
to
support
regional
food
security.
By
helping
strengthen
agribusiness,
this
deal
could
boost
Zimbabwe’s
export
competitiveness
and
potentially
create
ripple
effects
through
rural
economies.

Behind
the
scenes,
the
deal
was
carefully
orchestrated.
Local
business
facilitators
played
a
major
role.
Journalist-turned-investment
broker
Josephine
Mahachi
who
was
involved
in
Dangote’s
earlier
attempt
emerged
as
a
key
intermediary.
She
described
her
role
as
“humbling,”
adding
that
the
renewed
engagement
involved
direct
dialogue
with
State
House
through
Tungwarara.
Financial
advisory
firm
Bard
Santner
Markets
Inc.,
led
by
CEO
Senziwani
Sikhosana,
backed
the
negotiations,
showing
how
Zimbabwe’s
financial
sector
is
leaning
into
industrial
diplomacy.

Not
everyone
is
blind
to
the
risks,
though.
Skeptics
note
that
Dangote’s
earlier
Zimbabwe
forays
fell
apart
under
unclear
conditions.
In
2015,
for
instance,
what
appeared
to
be
a
concrete
deal
to
develop
coal-fired
power
collapsed
amid
reports
of
bureaucratic
delays
and
a
lack
of
cost-reflective
tariffs.
There
remains
a
question
of
whether
this
time,
the
structures
will
hold
up
once
the
grand
vision
meets
ground
reality.

Yet,
for
many
Zimbabweans,
Dangote’s
presence
represents
a
vote
of
confidence,
not
only
in
the
Zimbabwean
economy,
but
in
Mnangagwa’s
ability
to
deliver
real
change.
“The
richest
man
in
Africa
is
coming
to
Zimbabwe
at
the
personal
invitation
of
President
Mnangagwa
…
We
are
keen
to
ensure
that
he
makes
a
significant
investment
…
and
avoid
what
happened
during
his
previous
visit,”
advised
Tungwarara.
If
Dangote
fulfills
even
half
his
vision
for
Zimbabwe,
it
could
herald
a
new
era:
industrial
growth,
energy
security,
and
real
jobs.
But
for
now,
the
world
watches
as
signs
become
contracts
and
contracts,
if
kept,
become
legacy.

*Culled
from December Issue
of PAV Magazine

Post
published
in:

Business

Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!

In
1659,
Christmas
celebrations
were
banned
in
what
U.S.
city?

Hint:
The
ban
was
revoked
in
1681,
but
it
wasn’t
until
the
19th
century
that
Christmas
celebrations
became
more
prevalent.

See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.

Just
when
you
thought
you’ve
mastered
generative
AI,
it’s
time
to
enter
the
world
of
agentic
AI.

With
all
of
these
new
developments,
how
can
lawyers
feel
comfortable
leveraging
tech’s
benefits?

David
Colarusso,
a
lawyer,
developer,
educator,
and
data
scientist,
joins
host
Jared
Correia
in
this
episode
of
“Adventures
in
Legal
Tech”
to
discuss
how
AI
is
disrupting
law
practice
and
legal
education.

What
Does
‘Agentic’
Really
Mean?

The
first
step
in
understanding
how
to
use
agentic
AI
is
to
simply
understand
what
it
is
and
how
it
works.
Here,
David
explains.

AI
in
Law
School

How
is
AI
changing
legal
education?
Here,
David
shares
some
ways
he’s
using
it
in
his
teaching.

The
Follow-Up

Even
in
an
AI-centric
exercise,
law
students
still
have
human
review
of
their
work.
Here’s
how
David
evaluates
the
exercise.

Hear
the
Full
Conversation

Curious
to
learn
more?
Check
out
this
episode
below.

AI
here,
AI
there,
AI
everywhere.
That
seems
to
be
the
trend.
But
are
we
willing
to
cede
good
lawyer
skills
to
a
bot?
That
seems
to
be
a
risk
according
to
a

white
paper
from

Thomson
Reuters.

There’s
a
famous
quote
attributed
to
the
science
fiction
writer

William
Gibson:
“The
future
is
already
here
—
it’s
just
not
evenly
distributed.”
The
white
paper
demonstrates
this
very
point:
AI
is
eroding
critical
thinking
skills
at
an
alarming
rate.
The
future
will
be
distributed
to
those
who
figure
out
how
to
retain
and
enhance
these
skills.

The
Paper

The
white
paper
amplifies
a
troubling
trend
that
I

have
discussed
before:
AI
is
eroding
lawyers’
critical
thinking
skills.
Reading
the
paper
confirms
what
many,
including
me,
have
feared:
“As
AI
becomes
more
capable,
lawyers
risk
becoming
less
so.”
Without
these
critical
thinking
skills,
a
lawyer
simply
cannot
exercise
analytical
skills
to
identity
and
define
legal
problems,
much
less
find
solutions.

The
paper
was
written
by

Valerie
McConnell,
Thomson
Reuters
VP
of
solutions
engineering
and
former
litigator
and

Lance
Odegard,
Thomson
Reuters
director
of
legaltech
platform
services.

The
Current
Threat

The
findings
should
scare
the
hell
out
of
seasoned
lawyers:

The
headline?
Research
from
the

SBS
Swiss
Business
School
found
significant
correlations
between
AI
use
and
cognitive
offloading
on
the
one
hand
and
a
lack
of
critical
thinking
on
the
other.
Critical
thinking
down,
cognitive
offloading
up. 

McConnell
says
that
“cognitive
muscles
can
atrophy
when
lawyers
become
too
dependent
on
automated
analysis.”
Odegard
adds
an
even
more
concerning
fact:
AI
is
different
than
previous
technologies
given
its
speed
and
depth.
And
the
fact
that
it
can
perform
some
cognitive
tasks
creates
a
greater
risk
of
overreliance
on
it.

I
recently
attended
a
panel
discussion
of
law
librarians
on
the
use
of
AI
in
their
law
firms.
One
telling
remark:
more
experienced
lawyers
were
able
to
form
better
prompts
because
they
understood
and
could
better
articulate
the
problem
than
less
experienced
ones.
And
they
could
quickly
determine
whether
the
output
was
bogus:
when
it
didn’t
look
or
sound
quite
right.
They
got
these
skills
through
developing
a
critical
way
of
thinking
from
seeing
patterns
and
prior
experiences.
AI
short
circuits
and
replaces
the
pattern-recognition
experiences.

The
classic
example
of
this
is
where
the
AI
tool
explains
a
legal
concept
with
certainty
but
the
explanation
doesn’t
not
look
right
to
an
experienced
lawyer
who
has
dealt
with
that
concept
and
understands
how
and
why
it
was
developed.

The
Accelerated
Risks
Of
Agentic
AI

But
there’s
more
danger
ahead
according
to
the
paper. Agentic
AI
can
perceive
its
environment,
plan
and
execute
complex
multistep
workflows,
make
real-time
decisions
and
adapt
strategies,
and
proactively
pursue
goals,
all
without
human
input.
This
means,
according
to
the
paper,
that
agentic
AI
could
intensify
cognitive
offloading.
In
other
words,
we
turn
off
our
brains
and
let
AI
do
the
thinking
for
us.
And
as

discussed
before,
we
don’t
have
a
clue
how
it
is
doing
all
this.

McConnell
and
Odegard
believe
agentic
AI
creates
“unprecedented
professional
responsibility
challenges.”
How
can
lawyers
ethically
supervise
the
systems?
What
levels
of
competency
will
we
expect
and
demand
from
human
lawyers?
How
will
lawyers
ethically
communicate
with
clients
about
strategies
developed
by
the
“black
box”?
Lawyers
have
an
ethical
duty
to
explain
the
risks
and
benefits
of
strategic
options:
how
can
we
do
that
when
those
risks
and
benefits
are
developed
in
ways
we
don’t
understand?

I

recently
wrote
about
the
phenomenon
of
legal
tech
companies
buying
law
firms
and
the
danger
of
a
reduced
lawyer
in
the
loop.
Agentic
AI
magnifies
these
dangers
significantly.

Do
We
Need
Critical
Thinking?

As
with
any
“truism”
it’s
always
useful
to
pause
and
reflect
whether
it’s
really
a
truism:
how
much
will
future
lawyers
even
need
critical
thinking
skills
when
AI
can
do
it
for
them?

McConnell
and
Odegard
certainly
believe
that
future
lawyers
will
need
these
skills.
They
believe
that
AI
cannot
replicate
these
skills,
nor
can
it
yet
replace
the
creativity
and
nuanced
understanding
of
a
good
human
lawyer.

I
agree
with
them
on
this
point.
I
see
it
frequently
as
AI
spits
out
solutions
as
if
handed
down
from
above.
And
it
sticks
to
its
guns
even
if
wrong.
The
fact
that
the
tools
are
so
easy
and
quick
to
use
also
makes
it
pretty
tempting
to
just
accept
what
it
says
without
thinking
it
over.
This
is
especially
the
case
for
busy
lawyers. 

And
that’s
one
reason
we
are
continuing
to
see
hallucinated
cases
cited
in
briefs
and
even
judicial
opinions.

But
what
happens
when
we
rely
on
the
bot
instead
of
our
own
instincts
borne
out
of
experience?
A
few
years
ago,
I
trusted
the
handling
of
a
significant
hearing
to
local
counsel.
The
day
before
the
hearing,
I
got
the
feeling
after
talking
to
the
local
counsel
that
something
was
not
quite
right.
So,
I
quickly
hopped
on
a
plane
and
went
to
the
hearing
myself.
Good
thing:
the
local
counsel
didn’t
show
and
sent
a
first-year
associate
to
handle
the
critical
hearing.
I
doubt
a
bot
would
have
picked
up
that
nuance.

The
Risks
For
Future
Generations

McConnell
and
Odegard
also
cite
the
danger
of
overreliance
on
AI
to
replace
these
skills
will
erode
younger
lawyer
development.
It
may
result
in
lawyers
depending
too
much
on
AI
instead
of
thinking
for
themselves.
It
may
result
in
“lawyers
skilled
at
managing
AI
but
lacking
independent
strategic
thinking.” 

I
too
have

discussed
this
very
real
problem.
Doing
what
many
call
scut
work
as
a
young
lawyer
was
boring
and
tedious,
but
it
helped
you
begin
to
see
patterns
that
could
be
helpful
later
in
similar
circumstances. 

But
now
we
are
urged
to
dump
these
tasks
into
a
chatbot
and
forget
it.
The
result
in
10
years?
Minds
full
of
mush.
The
old
notion
of
thinking
like
a
lawyer
may
be
replaced
by
thinking
like
a
bot.

Another
danger:
the
erosion
of
legal
education.
According
to
the
paper
“students
increasingly
arrive
with
diminished
critical
thinking
skills
due
to
pre-law
AI
exposure
while
expecting
to
use
AI
tools
throughout
their
careers.”
If
we
don’t
take
steps
to
disrupt
that
expectation,
we
can
be
sure
that
these
students,
when
they
become
lawyers,
will
continue
to
use
AI
tools
in
exactly
the
same
way.

Can
The
Risks
Be
Managed?

To
be
fair,
McConnell
and
Odegard
believe
these
risks
can
all
be
managed
by
responsible
use
of
existing
AI
tools.
That
may
be
true
but
as
with
most
technology,
some
lawyers
and
legal
professionals
will
figure
out
how
to
do
this
and
become
future
superstars.
Many
will
not.
And
maybe
that’s
OK
since
many
legal
jobs
and
work
done
by
humans
will
be
replaced
by
AI. 

Certainly,
AI
will
allow
lawyers
and
legal
professionals
to
do
the
high-end
stuff
for
which
they
were
trained.
But
let’s
be
real
here:
there
is
not
enough
demand
for
the
high-end
work
to
go
around.
And
many
lawyers
and
legal
professionals
are
not
that
good
at
it. 

The
Future:
It
Won’t
Be
Evenly
Distributed

So,
want
to
prepare
for
the
future?
Figure
out
how
to
encourage
and
develop
critical
thinking
skills
among
your
work
force
in
the
age
of
AI.
Figure
out
what
to
do
when
the
only
work
to
be
done
is
high-end
thinking.
That
means
preparing
for
a
law
firm
that
looks
very
different
from
today. 

Get
ready
for
the
future,
it’s
not
going
to
be
evenly
distributed.

---

Stephen
Embry
is
a
lawyer,
speaker,
blogger,
and
writer.
He
publishes TechLaw
Crossroads,
a
blog
devoted
to
the
examination
of
the
tension
between
technology,
the
law,
and
the
practice
of
law. 

Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day.

I
doubt
that
Cadwalader
will
be
the
last
firm
that
needs
to
find
a
merger
partner
to
survive.

—
A
Biglaw
senior
partner,
in
anonymous
comments
given
to

Law.com,
concerning

Cadwalader’s
recently
announced
merger
with
Hogan
Lovells.
Kent
Zimmermann,
a
strategic
adviser
on
the
Hogan
Lovells-Cadwalader
merger,
noted
that
even
more
merger
talks
are
going
on
behind
the
scenes,
including
between
Am
Law
50
firms
and
more
transatlantic
partners.

---

Staci
Zaretsky is
the
managing
editor
of
Above
the
Law,
where
she’s
worked
since
2011.
She’d
love
to
hear
from
you,
so
please
feel
free
to

email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
comments,
or
critiques.
You
can
follow
her
on Bluesky, X/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn.

When
Kara
Peterson
co-founded
descrybe.ai,
she
wasn’t
just
launching
a
legal
tech
startup.
She
was
applying
the
logic
of
public
health
to
the
legal
system.
She
saw
something
lawyers
often
miss:
that
legal
information,
like
clean
water
or
vaccines,
becomes
life-altering
only
when
it
is
accessible,
understandable,
and
widely
distributed.

Kara
is
not
a
lawyer.
Her
background
is
in
public
health
and
communications.
Yet
she
now
leads
a
company
that
has
used
AI
to
summarize
more
than
3.3
million
judicial
opinions
and
made
them
free
and
publicly
available.
In
our
conversation
on
“Notes
to
My
(Legal)
Self,”
she
explained
how
justice,
like
health,
is
a
public
good.
And
access
to
law
is
one
of
its
critical
delivery
systems.

Legal
Transparency
Is
A
Health
Equity
Issue

Kara
grew
up
in
Madison,
Wisconsin,
in
a
culture
steeped
in
social
justice.
Her
early
experiences
shaped
a
worldview
that
makes
her
uniquely
suited
to
build
bridges
between
legal
complexity
and
everyday
reality.
As
she
puts
it,
“Access
to
the
law
is
so
deeply
connected
to
other
systemic
problems.
This
is
a
way
to
attack
something
that’s
been
broken
for
generations.”

From
a
public
health
lens,
the
connection
is
obvious.
People
struggle
to
find
housing,
defend
themselves
at
work,
or
navigate
family
law
—
not
because
they
lack
intelligence
but
because
they
lack
access.
And
when
legal
literacy
is
only
triggered
by
trauma,
as
when
someone
is
fired,
evicted,
or
sued,
we
are
setting
up
millions
of
people
to
fail.

Legal
information,
when
made
legible
before
the
crisis
hits,
becomes
preventive
infrastructure.
It
is
no
different
than
distributing
hand-washing
guides
or
vaccination
instructions.

Human
Bias
Already
Exists.
AI
Just
Makes
It
Visible

Much
of
the
fear
surrounding
AI
in
law
is
valid.
But
Kara
is
quick
to
point
out
that
many
of
the
risks
we
associate
with
machines
are
already
deeply
embedded
in
human
systems.

“If
we
had
a
judicial
system
that
was
completely
fair
and
didn’t
ever
take
people’s
biases
into
account,
that
would
be
hard
to
match.
But
we
know
that’s
not
how
it
works.”

Her
point
is
not
that
AI
is
perfect.
It
is
that
our
current
legal
infrastructure
is
far
from
it.
And
if
we
judge
new
tools
by
perfection
while
accepting
the
flaws
of
legacy
systems
as
inevitable,
we
stall
innovation.
Instead,
she
suggests
we
approach
AI
as
we
would
a
new
public
health
tool.

We
evaluate
its
safety.
We
understand
its
limits.
We
measure
impact.
And
we
keep
a
human
in
the
loop
not
to
preserve
tradition,
but
to
preserve
context
and
accountability.

Law
Should
Not
Be
A
Trauma-Only
Language

One
of
the
most
striking
moments
in
our
conversation
came
when
we
discussed
how
most
people
“learn”
the
law.

We
don’t
learn
employment
law
until
we’re
fired.
We
don’t
understand
custody
law
until
we
divorce.
We
don’t
engage
with
IP
law
until
our
work
is
stolen.

“It’s
always
after
something
painful,”
Kara
noted.
“And
even
when
you’re
educated,
even
when
you
have
attorneys
in
the
family,
it’s
still
incredibly
hard
to
understand
the
system.”

This
is
exactly
where
legal
tech
can
intervene,
not
just
to
reduce
time
or
cost,
but
to
reduce
the
harm
of
delayed
understanding.

It’s
why
at
TermScout,
we
certify
contracts
not
just
for
fairness,
but
for
clarity.
We
want
contract
reviews
to
feel
less
like
damage
control
and
more
like
informed
consent.
When
people
can
see,
compare,
and
understand
the
terms
of
a
deal
in
plain
language,
they
gain
agency.

Justice
Tech
Is
Business
Tech
For
The
Rest
Of
Us

What
Kara
and
her
team
at
descrybe.ai
are
doing
parallels
what
we
do
at
TermScout.
They’re
making
judicial
opinions
legible.
We’re
making
contracts
legible.
Both
models
are
designed
to
scale

clarity,
not
just
output.

And
that’s
the
deeper
takeaway
here.

The
justice
gap
and
the
contract
gap
are
part
of
the
same
problem:
society
has
accepted
legal
opacity
as
normal.

But
it
doesn’t
have
to
be.

If
we
can
explain
a
30-page
legal
opinion
to
a
nonlawyer,
we
can
explain
a
vendor
contract
to
a
startup
founder.
If
we
can
summarize
a
complex
ruling
with
an
AI
model,
we
can
certify
a
set
of
terms
with
a
standard.

Kara
reminded
us
that
not
all
impact
lives
in
the
courtroom.
Some
of
the
most
meaningful
change
comes
when
you
give
people
tools
before
they’re
in
crisis.

The
law
is
not
just
for
the
few.
It
is
infrastructure.
And
when
we
treat
access
to
it
like
a
public
health
mission,
we
stop
asking
how
much
harm
we
can
tolerate
and
start
designing
systems
that
prevent
it
altogether.

---

Olga
V.
Mack is
the
CEO
of TermScout,
an
AI-powered
contract
certification
platform
that
accelerates
revenue
and
eliminates
friction
by
certifying
contracts
as
fair,
balanced,
and
market-ready.
A
serial
CEO
and
legal
tech
executive,
she
previously
led
a
company
through
a
successful
acquisition
by
LexisNexis.
Olga
is
also
a Fellow
at
CodeX,
The
Stanford
Center
for
Legal
Informatics,
and
the
Generative
AI
Editor
at
law.MIT.
She
is
a
visionary
executive
reshaping
how
we
law—how
legal
systems
are
built,
experienced,
and
trusted.
Olga teaches
at
Berkeley
Law,
lectures
widely,
and
advises
companies
of
all
sizes,
as
well
as
boards
and
institutions.
An
award-winning
general
counsel
turned
builder,
she
also
leads
early-stage
ventures
including Virtual
Gabby
(Better
Parenting
Plan), Product
Law
Hub, ESI
Flow,
and Notes
to
My
(Legal)
Self,
each
rethinking
the
practice
and
business
of
law
through
technology,
data,
and
human-centered
design.
She
has
authored The
Rise
of
Product
Lawyers, Legal
Operations
in
the
Age
of
AI
and
Data, Blockchain
Value,
and Get
on
Board,
with Visual
IQ
for
Lawyers (ABA)
forthcoming.
Olga
is
a
6x
TEDx
speaker
and
has
been
recognized
as
a
Silicon
Valley
Woman
of
Influence
and
an
ABA
Woman
in
Legal
Tech.
Her
work
reimagines
people’s
relationship
with
law—making
it
more
accessible,
inclusive,
data-driven,
and
aligned
with
how
the
world
actually
works.
She
is
also
the
host
of
the
Notes
to
My
(Legal)
Self
podcast
(streaming
on Spotify, Apple
Podcasts,
and YouTube),
and
her
insights
regularly
appear
in
Forbes,
Bloomberg
Law,
Newsweek,
VentureBeat,
ACC
Docket,
and
Above
the
Law.
She
earned
her
B.A.
and
J.D.
from
UC
Berkeley.
Follow
her
on LinkedIn and
X
@olgavmack.

In
this
episode
of
the
Jabot
podcast,
I
chat
with
Sandra
Cohen,
co-managing
partner
at
Cohen
&
Buckmann.
Sandra
shares
her
journey
from
HR
to
law,
specializing
in
executive
compensation
and
employee
benefits.
Discover
the
challenges
and
rewards
of
running
a
boutique
law
firm
and
gain
insights
into
the
niche
legal
field
of
ERISA.
It’s
a
must-listen
for
those
curious
about
dynamic
law
careers
and
the
evolving
landscape
of
boutique
legal
practices!

Episode
Highlights

• Why
  Sandra
  Cohen
  pursued
  law.
• Transition
  from
  Biglaw
  to
  personal
  practice.
• The
  elusive
  work
  of
  corporate
  lawyers.
• Complexities
  of
  executive
  compensation.
• Navigating
  tax
  and
  ERISA
  specializations.
• Founding
  a
  boutique
  law
  firm.
• Teaming
  up
  with
  small/boutique
  firms.
• The
  importance
  of
  smart
  hiring.
• Networking
  as
  making
  friends,
  not
  just
  connections.
• Promoting
  a
  law
  firm’s
  unique
  strengths.

The
Jabot
podcast
is
an
offshoot
of
the
Above
the
Law
brand
focused
on
the
challenges
women,
people
of
color,
LGBTQIA,
and
other
diverse
populations
face
in
the
legal
industry.
Our
name
comes
from
none
other
than
the
Notorious
Ruth
Bader
Ginsburg
and
the
jabot
(decorative
collar)
she
wore
when
delivering
dissents
from
the
bench.
It’s
a
reminder
that
even
when
we
aren’t
winning,
we’re
still
a
powerful
force
to
be
reckoned
with.

Happy
listening!

---

Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of

The
Jabot
podcast,
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
AtL
tipsters
are
the
best,
so
please
connect
with
her.
Feel
free
to
email

her
with
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments
and
follow
her
on
Twitter

@Kathryn1 or
Mastodon

@[email protected].

Few
things
brighten
up
the
holiday
season
like
lump
sums
hitting
your
bank
account.
Seward
&
Kissel
is
in
the
giving
spirit
and
announced
a
round
of
bonuses
and
special
bonuses
for
their
hardworking
employees.

Here’s
the
bonus
scale:

The
firm
is
taking
a
special
approach
to
the
special
bonuses.
To
qualify,
associates
need
to
hit
a
2,200-hour
threshold
(with
up
to
150
of
them
being
qualified
non-billable
hours).
The
special
bonuses
are
below:

The
associates
that
went
above
and
beyond
the
2,200-hour
threshold
will
be
eligible
for
even
more
bonus
money.
To
the
hard
workers
at
Seward
&
Kissel,
enjoy
the
payday!
The
cash
will
be
sent
out
in
the
first
quarter
of
2026.

We
like
hearing
about
bonuses
almost
as
much
as
you
enjoy
spending
them.
As
soon
as
your
firm’s
memo
comes
out,
please email
it
to
us
(subject
line:
“[Firm
Name]
Bonus”)
or
text
us
(646-820-8477).
Please
include
the
memo
if
available.
You
can
take
a
photo
of
the
memo
and
send
it
via
text
or
email
if
you
don’t
want
to
forward
the
original
PDF
or
Word
file.

And
if
you’d
like
to
sign
up
for
ATL’s
Salary
&
Bonus
Alerts,
please
scroll
down
and
enter
your
email
address
in
the
box
below
this
post.
If
you
previously
signed
up
for
the
bonus
alerts,
you
don’t
need
to
do
anything.
You’ll
receive
an
email
notification
within
minutes
of
each
bonus
announcement
that
we
publish.

---

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.