Author: TSA Press

Kim
Kardashian’s
effort
to
become
a
real
life
lawyer
just
like
her
dad
has
provided
a
steady
stream
of
content
here
at
Above
the
Law.
In
2019,
Kardashian
officially
announced
that
she
was studying
to
become
a
lawyer without going
to
law
school
(seeing
as
she’s
without
a
bachelor’s
degree,
a
requirement
for
the
traditional
lawyer
route)
and
instead
studying
through
an
apprenticeship.
The
process

took
six
years
—
thanks,
COVID
—
and
now

she’s
waiting
on
her
bar
exam
results.

Because
it’s
a
Kardashian
we’re
talking
about
here,
she’s
documented
much
of
the
process

on
social
media.
She
shared
her
hatred
of

con
law,
struggles

with
evidence,
and
a criminal
law
issue
spotter that
cast
Justin
Bieber
as
a
criminal
mastermind.
She’s
complained
about
the
fact
that law
student
life
sucks,
explained
that
she
neglected
her Keeping
Up
With
the
Kardashians livetweeting
duties
to keep
up
with
torts
homework, bailed
on
summer holiday
festivities as
she continued
with
her
contracts
homework,
and
dealt
with
personalized questions
all
about
her.
She
even
has
a
favorite
law
professor
—
University
of
Washington
contracts
professor Steve
Calandrillo —
who she’s
shouted
out
on
Insta. Kardashian
even
has
her
“just
like
us”
moment,
like
when she
posted
about
shooting
tequila
while
studying
torts.

Speaking
of
Kardashian’s
test-taking
troubles,
Kim
learned
that
ChatGPT
isn’t
an
ideal
study
partner.
In
a
Vanity
Fair
lie
detector
test
(because
everyone
needs
a
gimmick
these
days),
Kardashian
dished
about
her
use
of
ChatGPT.

Kardashian
told

her
All’s
Fair
co-star
Teyana
Taylor
that
she
has
used
ChatGPT
for
“legal
advice.”
And
it
didn’t
go
great.

“When
I
need
to
know
the
answer
to
a
question,
I’ll
take
a
picture
and
snap
it
and
put
it
in
there.
It
has
made
me
fail
tests
…
all
the
time,”
Kardashian
explained.
“And
then
I’ll
get
mad
and
I’ll
yell
at
it.”

“So
she’s
a
frenemy?”
Taylor,
followed
up.
And
Kardashian
agreed,
“Yes,
a
frenemy.
And
then
it’ll
say
back
to
me,
‘This
is
just
teaching
you
to
trust
your
own
instincts.
So
you
knew
the
answer
all
along.’
“

Actually,
Kardashian
has
a
bit
of
a
parasocial
relationship
with
the
popular
AI
tool.
“But
they
need
to
do
better
because
I’m
leaning
to
them
to
really
help
me
and
she
is
teaching
me
a
life
lesson
and
then
becoming
my
therapist
to
tell
me
why
I
need
to
believe
in
myself
after
they
got
the
answer
wrong,”
Kardashian
continued.
“It’s
like
a
thing.
I
screenshot
all
the
time
and
send
it
in
my
group
chat.
Like,
can
you
believe
this
bitch
is
talking
to
me
like
this?
This
is
insane.”

Yeah,
this
is
why
law
professors
get
the
big
bucks.

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].

Leading
a
law
firm
during
a
time
of
rapid
technological
change
and
heightened
political
and
cultural
tension
requires
balancing
innovation
with
stability,
and
progress
with
principle.
Managing
partners
must
modernize
their
firms
while
at
the
same
time
navigating
a
polarized
social
climate
that
affects
clients,
employees,
and
the
public
at
large.
Decisions
are
no
longer
just
about
business
strategy,
but
about
values,
ethics,
and
maintaining
trust
in
an
era
where
missteps
can
quickly
become
headlines.

How
can
a
managing
partner
balance
the
demand
for
innovation
with
the
need
to
preserve
traditional
legal
values?
How
can
a
managing
partner
guide
their
firm’s
public
stance
on
social
issues
to
maintain
morale
and
a
sense
of
purpose
among
attorneys
and
staff?
Who
better
to
ask
than
the
leader
of
a
prominent
law
firm?

I
recently
had
the
pleasure
of
chatting
with

Jaime
Drozd,
managing
partner
of
Davis
Wright
Tremaine,
to
get
her
thoughts
on
the
matter.
Just
last
year,
Drozd
was
unanimously
chosen
to
serve
as
the
first
woman
to
ever
lead
the
firm.
With
her
guidance,
the
firm
has
not
only
remained
on
the
cutting
edge
of
AI
adoption,
but
has
also
continued
to
champion
diversity
and
progressive
values.
Here
is
a
(lightly
edited
and
condensed)
write-up
of
our
lively
conversation
on
law
firm
leadership
during
a
time
marked
by
transformative
technological
shifts
and
societal
flux.

Staci
Zaretsky
(SZ):
As
co-founder
of
the
Women’s
Affinity
Group
and
now
the
firm’s
first
female
managing
partner,
how
do
you
continue
to
foster
a
culture
of
inclusion
and
provide
leadership
development
for
women
and
underrepresented
attorneys
—
especially
at
a
time
when
DEI
is
facing
external
pushback?

Jaime
Drozd
(JD):
Davis
Wright
Tremaine
has
a
long
history
of
empowering
women
leaders.
Two
of
our
four
executive
committee
chairs
over
the
past
15
years
have
been
women,
as
are
many
of
our
practice
group
and
office
leaders.
I’m
proud
to
build
on
that
foundation
as
the
firm’s
first
female
managing
partner
and
proud
to
be
part
of
a
growing
community
of
women
leading
Am
Law
100
firms.
I
hope
that
others
who
might
not
have
seen
the
possibilities
for
themselves
—
especially
those
who’ve
felt
underrepresented
—
can
see
a
path
to
law
firm
leadership
in
their
future.

Although
diversity,
equity
and
inclusion
are
under
attack
today,
our
firm
remains
committed
to
the
culture
that
we
have
very
intentionally
established
here.
For
excellent
lawyers
who
want
to
build
successful
practices
serving
clients
on
our
platform,
we
have
created
an
atmosphere
of
openness,
acceptance,
and
support.
Our
culture
and
values
long
predate
the
term
“DEI,”
and
they
are
not
going
to
change.
We
will
continue
to
invest
in
developing
our
people,
which
includes
programs
focused
on
both
analytical
and
soft
skills
that
are
essential
for
successful
lawyers.

SZ:
You’ve
integrated
AI
into
the
firm’s
practice
through
De
Novo,
your
lean
technology
innovation
team,
at
a
pivotal
moment
for
legal
technology.
What
have
been
the
biggest
challenges
and
opportunities
in
integrating
new
technology
like
AI,
and
how
are
you
preparing
lawyers
to
use
it
responsibly?

JD:
We
launched
De
Novo
in
2014
to
combine
lean
management
principles
with
creative
thinking
about
technology,
and
it
has
positioned
us
well
for
this
moment
of
AI
transformation.
De
Novo
is
driving
innovation
on
two
different
fronts
—
building
proprietary
tools
that
solve
client
problems,
and
also
leading
changes
in
the
way
we
use
technology
at
DWT.
Within
the
firm,
we’ve
arrived
at
a
real
sweet
spot
in
which
we’re
introducing
homegrown
innovations
as
well
as
using
existing
technology
on
the
market
that
makes
sense
for
us.

The
biggest
area
of
challenge
and
opportunity
for
our
firm
(and
others)
may
be
one
and
the
same:
identifying
the
best
points
in
our
workflow
to
integrate
AI
in
service
of
our
clients.
We’re
approaching
that
in
part
through
formal
training,
which,
in
addition
to
teaching
our
lawyers
how
to
use
AI
responsibly,
addresses
client-facing
use
cases.
Equally
important
is
what
I
call
“disruptive
learning,”
where
we
encourage
peer-to-peer
sharing
and
real-time
experimentation.
Some
of
our
most
valuable
progress
has
come
from
tapping
the
experience
of
attorney
leaders
and
power-users
of
AI
to
discover
and
drive
the
adoption
of
valuable
uses
of
AI.

I’m
especially
excited
about
AI’s
potential
to
enrich
junior-lawyer
development.
For
too
long,
talented
young
lawyers
have
spent
their
early
years
on
repetitive
work.
AI
can
help
shift
that
model,
giving
junior
lawyers
earlier
exposure
to
higher-value,
judgment-based
tasks
—
a
win
for
both
clients
and
the
next
generation
of
legal
talent.

SZ:
With
so
many
forces
reshaping
the
legal
industry
—
regulatory,
geopolitical,
technological,
even
cultural
—
what’s
your
vision
for
steering
the
firm
forward
over
the
next
five
to
ten
years?

JD:
DWT
has
always
been
a
place
where
exceptional
lawyers
come
to
build
lasting
careers
—
and
where
clients
bring
their
most
complex,
high-value
matters.
We’re
doubling
down
on
six
key
industries
—
technology,
healthcare,
financial
services,
energy,
media
and
entertainment,
and
food
and
beverage
—
and
our
stronghold
in
the
Pacific
Northwest.
At
the
same
time,
we’re
expanding
along
the
Northeast–Mid-Atlantic
corridor
and
in
California
to
better
serve
clients
nationwide.

My
vision
builds
on
what
has
always
distinguished
us:
our
people
and
our
culture.
We’re
a
values-driven
firm
where
colleagues
bring
their
whole
selves
to
the
office
and
are
fully
committed
to
serving
our
clients’
needs.
We
attract
lawyers
and
business
professionals
who
strive
for
excellence,
who
are
collaborative,
and
who
have
an
entrepreneurial
spark.
Our
people
have
a
combination
of
open-mindedness
and
hustle,
both
of
which
keep
us
nimble
—
a
trait
that
is
essential
in
navigating
the
pervasive
uncertainty
in
the
industry.

Over
the
next
decade,
our
goal
is
to
stay
true
to
that
culture
while
continuing
to
evolve
to
meet
the
challenges
and
opportunities
of
the
changing
landscape.
As
we’ve
done
historically,
we
want
to
help
clients
thrive
in
times
of
change
and
create
an
environment
where
our
own
people
can
grow
and
do
their
best
work.

SZ:
Looking
ahead,
what
excites
you
most
about
the
future
of
the
firm
and
the
profession,
and
what
do
you
hope
your
legacy
will
be
as
managing
partner?

JD:
What
excites
me
is
the
pace
of
change
—
both
in
the
law
and
in
the
world
that
our
clients
are
navigating.
The
law
never
stands
still,
and
neither
can
we.
Both
the
challenge
and
the
privilege
of
this
profession
lie
in
anticipating
what’s
next
and
shaping
the
future,
as
opposed
to
reacting
to
it.

Technology
plays
a
big
role
in
that,
now
more
than
ever.
AI
and
other
innovations
are
transforming
not
just
how
we
work
but
how
lawyers
deliver
efficient,
valuable
service.
I’m
excited
by
the
potential
to
use
tools
in
a
way
that
strengthens
—
not
replaces
—
the
judgment,
creativity,
and
trust
that
define
great
lawyering.

As
for
my
legacy
at
DWT,
I
aim
to
leave
the
firm
stronger
in
every
dimension:
financially
resilient,
strategically
focused,
and
even
more
widely
recognized
for
our
excellence
and
integrity.
At
the
same
time,
I
want
this
to
remain
a
place
of
opportunity
—
a
firm
where
talented
people
can
see
a
future
for
themselves
and
build
fulfilling,
balanced
lives.
If
I
can
be
a
good
steward
of
that
culture
and
open
doors
for
the
next
generation,
then
I
will
have
succeeded.

On
behalf
of
everyone
here
at
Above
the
Law,
we’d
like
to
thank
Jaime
Drozd
of
Davis
Wright
Tremaine
for
taking
the
time
to
help
answer
some
pressing
questions
on
leading
a
law
firm
through
an
unprecedented
era
of
innovation
and
social
change.

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.

I
unironically
believe
that
keeping
abreast
of
The
Onion
and
The
Daily
Show
are
some
of
the
best
ways
to
stay
up
to
date
on
current
events.
I’ve
been
tuned
in
to
the
latter
recently
because
the
light
leaving
John
Stewart’s
eyes
once
he
realized
Kamala
Harris
has
learned
nothing
from
her
loss
continues
to
haunt
me:

He
started
off
the
most
recent
Daily
Show
with
a
pat
on
the
back:
it
is
entering
its
30th
year
of
being
on
air!
Which
made
for
an
easy
lay-up
joke
about
meandering
30-somethings
considering
law
school:

Great
joke,
yes
—
but
what’s
a
great
joke
without
an
accompanying
dissertation?

While
there
is
a
definite
skew
toward
youth
—
about
70%
of
incoming
1Ls
are
26
or
younger,
the
30
and
over
crowd
made
up
a
sizeable
~20%
of
2024
enrollment

according
to
LSAC.
In
case
anyone
past
their
20s
is
reading
this
and
is
parsing
through
“am
I
too
old
for
law
school?”
anxiety,
know
that
you’re
fine.
Age
ain’t
nothing
but
a
number,
but
know
which
numbers
matter:
school
ticket
price,
the
student
loans
you
might
rack
up,
and
the
pressure
to
get
a
job
that
lets
you
pay
off
that
student
loan
debt
before
the
regulators
mount
up.

Law
school’s
trend
toward
rising
costs
has
been
so
steep
that
tuition

only
going
up
a
little
this
year
was
newsworthy.
And
it’s
a
legitimate
question
to
ask
if
the
cost
is
worth
its
value,
not
just
in
terms
of
law
school
over
the
years.
You
also
have
to
consider
what
you
could
be
doing
with
the
money
instead.
If
you’re
in
law
school
for
the
money,
you
may
get
a
better
ROI
going
for
banking
and
finance
instead.
Or
maybe
you’re
in
it
for
the
meaning
and
want
to
go
to
law
school
to
do
public
interest
work?
You
better
make
sure
that
the
clients
you’ll
be
representing
won’t
be
deemed
“illegal”
at
a
moment’s
notice
and
put
your
public
service
loan
forgiveness
payment
plan
in
jeopardy.
You
might
even
be
better
off
going
directly
into
selling
hot
dogs

before
the
government
shutdown
pushes
you
into
chasing
that
dream.

Would
it
be
the
end
of
the
world
if
you
decided
to
go
to
law
school
to
chase
down
some
career
opportunities?
No,
but
it
very
well
could
be
the
end
of
you
not
having
six
figures
of
student
loan
debt.
It’s
the
sort
of
thing
that
could
make
you
push
off

buying
a
home,

having
children,

dating,
and
treating
yourself
to
that
limited
edition
copy
of
Silksong.
If
you’re
seriously
thinking
about
going
to
law
school
—
and
this
part
applies
to
30-somethings
as
much
as
it
applies
to
aspiring
K-JDs
—
familiarize
yourself
with
the
terms
“golden
handcuffs”
and

bimodal
salary
distribution.
Oh,
and
sit
through
this
rite
of
passage:

Damn.
Elaborating
on
a
joke
really
does
ruin
it.
Sorry,
John.

Earlier:

Law
School
Tuition
Bubble
Eases
Because
No
One
Wants
To
Go
A
Half
Million
In
Debt
For
A
LinkedIn
Badge

New
Trump
Rule
Declares
Most
Public
Service
Work
‘Illegal,’
Ineligible
For
Loan
Forgiveness

Furloughed
IRS
Lawyer
Opens
Hot
Dog
Cart,
Finally
Starts
Serving
The
Public

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.

Just
before
Halloween,
we
asked
our
readers
to
submit
their
legally
themed
costumes
to
us
for
our
annual
contest.
We
got
a
great
crop
of
entries,
and
there
even
some
creative
costumes
related
to
political
pop
culture.
We
think
you’re
going
to
like
them
a
lot.

We’ve
got
three
awesome
finalists
for
you
to
choose
from,
and
voting
starts
today.
Who
will
be
the
winner
of
the
sixteenth
year
of
our
competition?

But
before
we
get
to
our
finalists,
we’ve
got
a
super-cute
honorable
mention.
Aww,
it’s
none
other
than
Ruth
Baby
Ginsburg.

The
first
of
our
finalists
is
doing
a
#GRWM
for
…
robbing
the
Louvre.
Oh
mon
dieu!
C’est
super,
pas
de
notes.

Next
up,
we’ve
got
a
contestant
with
some
90s
flair
that
everyone
will
remember
from
their
1Ls
case
books.
It’s
the
star
of
the
infamous
ad
that
gave
rise
to

Leonard
v.
PepsiCo,
the
contracts
case
we
all
know
and
love.

Last,
but
certainly
not
least,
we’ve
got
perhaps
the
most
meaningful
Halloween
costume
contest
entry
to
date.
Given
the
state
of
the
rule
of
law
in
America,
this
is
a
depiction
the
battered,
beaten,
and
bruised
Justicia,
better
known
as
Lady
Justice,
2025
A.D.

You’ve
seen
the
finalists,
so
now
it’s
time
to
vote.
Who
wore
the
best
law-related
Halloween
costume
this
year?
It’s
all
up
to
you!
Polls
close
on SUNDAY,
NOVEMBER
9,
at
11:30
P.M. (Eastern
time).

Click


HERE
to
vote!

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.

Pfizer
now
has
the
required
regulatory
approval
for
its

$4.9
billion
acquisition
of
obesity
drug
developer
Metsera,
but
whether
and
when
that
deal
closes
may
hinge
on
the
outcome
of
two
lawsuits
the
pharmaceutical
giant
has
filed
in
opposition
to
Novo
Nordisk’s
eleventh
hour
submission
of
a
competing
offer.

The
Federal
Trade
Commission
on
Friday

granted
early
clearance
for
Pfizer’s
proposed
acquisition
of
Metsera,
underscoring
a
key
point
in
the
company’s
lawsuit
against
Metsera
and
Novo
Nordisk
alleging
breach
of
contract.
Pfizer
said
its
acquisition
proposal
offered
the
likelihood
of
a
faster
deal
close
because
the
pharma
giant’s
small
presence
in
metabolic
medicines
was
less
likely
to
spark
antitrust
concerns.
Notably,
Pfizer’s
effort
to
develop
an
oral
obesity
drug

flamed
out
earlier
this
year
due
to
a
safety
signal
in
a
Phase
1
study. 

By
contrast,
Novo’s
weekly-injectable
GLP-1
drug
Wegovy
is
currently
the
top-selling
obesity
medication
and
the
Denmark-based
drugmaker
has
a

broad
pipeline
of
additional
obesity
drugs
in
various
stages
of
development
—
many

from
other
business
deals.
Last
week,

Novo
Nordisk
made
an
unsolicited
$6.5
billion
bid
for
Metsera,
whose
lead
program
is
a
longer-acting
GLP-1
agonist
with
the
potential
for
once-monthly
dosing.
Metsera
said
it
would
accept
Novo’s
offer,
which
it
claims
is
a
superior
proposal.

Pfizer
argues
that
Novo’s
offer
cannot
qualify
as
superior
under
the
terms
of
its
merger
deal
with
the
biotech
due
to
the
significant
antitrust
risk.
Metsera’s
regulatory
filings
regarding
Pfizer’s
agreement
noted
that
regulatory
review
of
a
Novo
acquisition
could
take
up
to
two
years
and
the
deal
may
not
close
at
all.
Pfizer
said
in
its
suit
that
these
risks
led
Metsera’s
board
to
turn
down
a
previous
Novo
offer
and
those
risks
remain
unchanged.

The
Pfizer
suit
was

filed
Friday
in
the
Delaware
Court
of
Chancery.
Besides
breach
of
contract,
Pfizer
alleges
Metsera’s
acceptance
of
Novo’s
offer
constitutes
breach
of
fiduciary
duty
and
tortious
interference
in
a
contract.
Pfizer
claims
Novo’s
offer
represents
a
dominant
obesity
drug
company’s
attempt
to
suppress
competition.
The
pharma
giant
also
contends
Novo’s
deal
is
structured
to
deliberately
evade
antitrust
review.

Per
deal
terms,
Novo
would
pay
$56.50
for
each
Metsera
share,
amounting
to
$6.5
billion.
This
payment
would
not
require
regulatory
approval
of
the
deal
and
would
come
before
any
FTC
action.
In
exchange
for
the
payment,
Metsera
would
issue
Novo
non-voting
stock
representing
50%
of
the
company’s
shares,
according
to
the
agreement.
Ten
days
later,
Metsera
would
issue
its
shareholders
a
$56.50
per
share
dividend.
Pfizer
said
this
special
dividend
violates
Delaware
law,
adding
that
Metsera’s
directors
have
breached
their
fiduciary
duties
by
“securing
a
self-interested
indemnification
provision
from
Novo
Nordisk
designed
to
cover
their
unlawful
conduct.”

Pfizer
expands
on
its
anti-trust
allegations
in
a
second
lawsuit

filed
Monday
in
U.S.
District
Court
for
the
District
of
Delaware.
This
suit
argues
that
Novo’s
Metsera
bid
violates
Section
7
of
the

Clayton
Antitrust
Act,
which
bars
M&A
activity
in
instances
where
the
effect
lessens
competition
or
creates
a
monopoly.
Pfizer
said
a
Novo
acquisition
of
Metsera
would
have
anticompetitive
effects
in
the
GLP-1
drug
market.

The
pharma
giant
also
argues
that
Novo’s
deal
with
Metsera
amounts
to
a
conspiracy
that
leads
to
a
restraint
of
trade
in
violation
of
Section
1
of
the

Sherman
Act.
Pfizer
further
alleges
the
deal
is
an
attempted
monopolization
and
conspiracy
in
violation
of
Section
2
of
the
act.
The
suit
claims
Metsera’s
controlling
stockholders
—
Validae
Health,
Population
Health
Partners,
and
funds
of
Arch
Venture
Partners—
are
part
of
this
anticompetitive
conspiracy.

In
its
announcement
of
the
federal
lawsuit,
Pfizer
said
it
“is
taking
this
action
to
preserve
and
enhance
competition
in
this
important
therapeutic
area
and
to
stop
Novo
Nordisk
from
illegally
paying
off
Metsera
and
its
controlling
stockholders
to
gain
control
of,
and
impair
and
potentially
kill,
an
emerging
U.S.
competitor.
Metsera’s
and
its
controlling
stockholders’
actions,
as
well
as
those
of
Novo
Nordisk,
are
in
clear
violation
of
the
antitrust
laws.”

Metsera
issued
a

brief
statement
late
Friday
saying
it
disagreed
with
Pfizer’s
allegations
in
the
first
suit
and
would
address
them
in
court.
The
company
elaborated
slightly
in
a

Monday
statement
issued
in
response
to
the
federal
suit.

“Pfizer
is
trying
to
litigate
its
way
to
buying
Metsera
for
a
lower
price
than
Novo
Nordisk,”
Metsera
said.
“Metsera’s
Board
of
Directors
will
continue
to
stand
firm
on
behalf
of
shareholders
and
patients.
Pfizer’s
litigation
arguments
are
nonsense,
and
Metsera
will
address
them
in
court.”

Meanwhile,
merger
deadlines
are
looming.
Pfizer’s
merger
agreement
with
Metsera
states
that
notification
of
a
superior
offer
gives
the
pharma
giant
four
business
days
to
revise
its
offer.
That
deadline
is
the
close
of
business
Tuesday.
Metsera’s
announcement
of
Novo’s
bid
noted
that
the
Pfizer
agreement
remains
in
full
effect,
and
the
biotech’s
board
of
directors
reaffirms
its
recommendation
that
shareholders
approve
adoption
of
this
agreement.
Metsera
had
scheduled
a
Nov.
13
special
meeting
for
shareholders
to
vote
on
the
Pfizer
proposal.

Photo:
Getty
Images

Ed.
note:
This
is
the
latest
in
the
article
series, Cybersecurity:
Tips
From
the
Trenches, by
our
friends
at Sensei
Enterprises,
a
boutique
provider
of
IT,
cybersecurity,
and
digital
forensics
services.

The
law
has
always
been
a
deeply
human
affair:
attorneys
arguing,
judges
deliberating,
juries
weighing
credibility,
precedent,
and
plain
old
common
sense.
But
now,
something
new
has
entered
the
courtroom
—
and
it
doesn’t
bill
by
the
hour
or
even
need
a
coffee
break.
Artificial
intelligence
(AI)
has
arrived,
and
it’s
quietly
moving
closer
to
the
bench.
AI
is
no
longer
just
lurking
in
the
background.
Judges,
clerks,
and
law
firms
are
using
it
to
draft,
summarize,
and
“streamline.”
Some
courts
are
even
testing
it
to
predict
outcomes
or
suggest
sentencing.
The
question
isn’t
whether
AI
will
become
part
of
the
justice
system
—
it’s
how
far
we’ll
let
it
go
before
someone
objects
on
constitutional
grounds.

Humans
vs.
Algorithms

Many
in
the
legal
field
are
excited
about
the
efficiency
AI
offers.
Others
are
quietly
appalled.
One
senior
judge
recently
said
there
are
“some
things
AI
can’t
do,
and
which
it
is
desirable
it
doesn’t
do.”
That’s
judicial
code
for:
let’s
not
have
a
robot
judge
handing
down
sentences
just
yet.

Still,
AI’s
scope
continues
to
expand.
Law
students
are
now
learning
to
use
it
as
part
of
their
curriculum.
Clerks
are
using
it
to
organize
case
files.
And
let’s
be
honest
—
more
than
a
few
partners
are
using
it
to
draft
legal
documents
they’ll
later
falsely
claim
they
“reviewed
extensively.”

The
line
between
legal
aid
and
legal
authority
is
blurring
rapidly.
When
AI
begins
helping
determine
who
wins
and
loses,
we’re
not
just
talking
about
convenience
—
we’re
talking
about
the
very
definition
of
justice.

What’s
Really
at
Stake

At
risk
are
the
pillars
that
support
the
entire
system:
fairness,
accountability,
and
transparency.
Human
judgment
—
flawed
though
it
may
be
—
at
least
provides
reasons,
ethics,
and
sometimes
mercy.
Machines
don’t
understand
nuance.
They
process
data.

Imagine
explaining
to
a
client
that
an
algorithm
decided
their
fate
based
on
pattern
similarity.
That
may
sound
efficient,
but
it’s
a
long
way
from
the
“independent
and
impartial
tribunal”
that
due
process
promises.

Some
courts
have
already
banned
AI
use
in
affidavits
and
witness
statements
after
experiencing
too
many
AI
hallucinations.
It
turns
out,
citing
fake
cases
doesn’t
sit
well
with
judges
—
human
or
otherwise.
The
bigger
concern
isn’t
that
AI
will
turn
evil;
it’s
that
it
will
become
just
another
normal
tool.
As
we
start
to
accept
machines
reasoning
for
us,
the
problem
quietly
grows.
No
evil
robot
overlord
needed
—
just
a
generation
of
lawyers
who
stop
questioning,
“Is
this
argument
actually
sound?”

What
Lawyers
Should
Do

1.
Audit
your
own
workflows

If
you
or
your
associates
use
AI
tools
for
drafting,
research,
or
analysis,
ensure
you
understand
what
they
are
doing.
You
can’t
delegate
professional
judgment
to
an
algorithm
and
still
consider
yourself
a
professional.

2.
Document
and
verify
everything

Keep
a
record
of
what
the
AI
generated,
how
you
verified
it,
and
who
reviewed
it.
When
something
goes
wrong
(and
it
will),
“the
bot
did
it”
is
not
an
acceptable
excuse.

3.
Review
your
contracts
and
policies

If
you’re
advising
clients,
update
your
engagement
letters
and
vendor
agreements
to
include
AI
use.
Someone
must
be
responsible
for
the
risk
if
a
model
hallucinates
a
citation
—
ideally,
not
your
client.

4.
Preserve
the
human
parts
of
law

Machines
can
process
data,
but
they
can’t
replicate
judgment,
empathy,
or
persuasion.
A
closing
argument
still
needs
a
heartbeat,
not
a
heatmap.
The
day
AI
can
move
a
jury
to
tears
is
the
day
we
should
all
pack
it
in.

Leverage
Without
Losing
Control

AI
won’t
replace
lawyers,
but
it’s
already
taking
over
some
of
their
tasks.
The
risk
isn’t
losing
our
jobs
—
it’s
losing
our
judgment.

Treat
AI
like
a
talented
but
unreliable
intern.
Let
it
draft,
summarize,
and
organize
information,
but
never,
ever
let
it
speak
for
you.
When
the
robotic
gavel
finally
drops
and
someone
asks,
“Who
made
this
decision
—
you
or
the
algorithm?”
you’d
better
be
ready
to
answer
“you”
confidently,
not
with
confusion.

After
all,
the
future
of
law
may
be
digital,
but
accountability
still
must
be
human.

Michael
C.
Maschke
is
the
President
and
Chief
Executive
Officer
of
Sensei
Enterprises,
Inc.
Mr.
Maschke
is
an
EnCase
Certified
Examiner
(EnCE),
a
Certified
Computer
Examiner
(CCE
#744),
an
AccessData
Certified
Examiner
(ACE),
a
Certified
Ethical
Hacker
(CEH),
and
a
Certified
Information
Systems
Security
Professional
(CISSP).
He
is
a
frequent
speaker
on
IT,
cybersecurity,
and
digital
forensics,
and
he
has
co-authored
14
books
published
by
the
American
Bar
Association.
He
can
be
reached
at [email protected].

Sharon
D.
Nelson
is
the
co-founder
of
and
consultant
to
Sensei
Enterprises,
Inc.
She
is
a
past
president
of
the
Virginia
State
Bar,
the
Fairfax
Bar
Association,
and
the
Fairfax
Law
Foundation.
She
is
a
co-author
of
18
books
published
by
the
ABA.
She
can
be
reached
at [email protected].

John
W.
Simek
is
the
co-founder
of
and
consultant
to
Sensei
Enterprises,
Inc.
He
holds
multiple
technical
certifications
and
is
a
nationally
known
digital
forensics
expert.
He
is
a
co-author
of
18
books
published
by
the
American
Bar
Association.
He
can
be
reached
at [email protected].

*
Eleventh
Circuit
benchslaps
Aileen
Cannon
for
refusing
to
release
Jack
Smith’s
full
report.
[MSNBC]

*
It’s
a
good
time
to
do
a
transatlantic
merger.
[Law.com
International]

*
SBF’s
lawyers
want
a
new
trial.
[Reuters]

*
Pam
Bondi
announces
a
new
title
for
Lindsey
Halligan
in
effort
to

save
Comey
prosecution.
The
administration
will
do
just
about
anything
except
“nominate
someone
and
let
them
be
confirmed
by
the
Senate.”
[Bloomberg
Law
News]

*
States
file
suit
over
Department
of
Education’s
new
“loan
forgiveness
but
only
if
you
aren’t
helping
migrants
or
trans
folks”
rule.
[Courthouse
News
Service]

*
Lawyer
disciplined
for
lying
about
degree
result.
[Legal
Cheek]

*
Deep
dive
into
DeepJudge.
[Forbes]

This
is
not
a
coincidence
since

COMALISO is
a
liberal
think
tank.
We
believe
Zimbabwe
can
only
thrive
in
an
environment
where
the
government
‘allows’
(for)
unrestricted
functioning
of
a
free
market
economy.
Governments
(should)
make
laws
that
protect
freedom
of,
freedom
to
and
freedom
for
citizens.
This
is
neither
negotiable
nor
conditional.
And
so
when
we
argue
our
case
for
market
freedom,
we
are
on
the
side
of
disadvantaged
citizens
who
suffer
where
EVERYTHING
is
controlled
by
the
government.
Yet
in
order
to
achieve
this, COMALISO constantly
analyses
government
policy
and
engages
Parliament
of
Zimbabwe
to
ensure
what
we
preach
is
backed
with
official
legislation.

#TeamComaliso
and
I
are
therefore
excited
to
report
that
we
now
see,
hear
and
read
how
some
of
our
proposals
are
being
implemented.
Not
that
the
war
is
won
as
yet,
but
that
our
battle
is
one
step
at
a
time.
Here’s
what
am
I
saying,
in
brief:

1. 
   TITLE
   DEEDS
   FOR
   THE
   URBAN
   POOR

For
the
past
five
years
or
so,
our “TitleDeeds4All”  campaign
has
advocated
that
all
citizens
who
‘own’
property
in
urban
areas
–
particularly
those
located
in
so-called
informal
settlements
or
urban
high-density
areas
–
enjoy
secure
shelter
by
having
access
to
title
deeds.
Title
deeds
are
not
for
the
wealthy
or
‘educated’
only.
Safe
and
affordable
shelter
is
a
right
for
every
Zimbabwean
citizen.
As
you
can
see
from
(some
of)
the
included
links,  
both
the
central
and
local
government
have
taken
steps
to
ensure
registration
of
property
is
not
only
simplified
but
also
made
safer
through
digitalisation.
Registration
and
transfer
of
property
is
not
free
or
cheap,
the
very
reason
why
Parliament
of
Zimbabwe
is
currently
discussing
our
petition
to
address
this
anomaly
–
especially
our
suggestion
for
a
National
Shelter
Fund
where
low
income
and
unemployed
citizens
can
contribute
a
small
fee
to
enable
support
of
property
transfer
and
registration.
Our
colleagues
at
Kwangu/Kwami
Trust
have
made
commendable
progress
in
this
direction.

COMALISO
Takes
Title
Deeds
War
to
Parliament.

Zimbabwe
moves
to
modernise
property
ownership
with
new
digital
title
deeds
regulations
–
Zimbabwe
News
Now

https://www.zbcnews.co.zw/govt-begins-issuing-title-deeds-to-garikai-hlalani-kuhle-beneficiaries/

https://x.com/ZimTreasury/status/1982025800116212018

https://www.heraldonline.co.zw/title-deeds-for-beneficiaries-of-operation-garikai/

https://www.heraldonline.co.zw/new-govt-finalises-farm-mortgage-arrangements-begins-issuing-title-deeds/

https://www.facebook.com/100088888383506/posts/645160645123543/?mibextid=WC7FNe&rdid=6PQecyIbkP8x7q4D#

https://x.com/obertjiri/status/1899317958897242298?s=19

https://www.newsday.co.zw/southerneye/local-news/article/200039773/title-deeds-programme-behind-schedule

https://www.herald.co.zw/decentralisation-of-title-deeds-issuance-paces-up/

2. 
   SMALL
   PARTITIONED
   SHOPS
   CREATE
   NEW
   ENTERPRISES

Within
the
same
period,
our ‘20m²
Mall
Millionaire’ advocacy
focused
on
thousands
of
young
entrepreneurs
who
occupy
small
partitioned
shops
in
CBD
malls.
This
wave
has
created
new
wealth
opportunities
for
young
Zimbabweans
who
cannot
secure
jobs
in
scarce
manufacturing
and
service
industries. 
The
20m²
Mall
Millionaires
require
skills
in
sourcing
products
that
respond
to
the
needs
of
customers.
They
need
skills
in
responding
to
customer
preferences,
identification
of
suppliers,
managing
inventory,
effective
merchandising,
space
optimisation,
health
and
product
insurance
and
ensuring
product
quality
does
not
violate
intellectual
property
rights.
COMALISO
continues
to
encourage
tax
compliance,
formal
banking,
record
keeping
and
also
a
representative
business
chamber
network where
they
can
share
ideas,
expertise
and
advocacy.

Partitioned
mall
retail
units
take
over
Zimbabwe
–
TellZim
News

https://x.com/newswireZW/status/1950251469195923668?t=E1kmSCHLPX5RH0KGa4SMDw&s=08

Huge
fire
consumes
Harare
shopping
mall
–
herald

3. 
   AFFORDABLE
   AND
   AVAILABLE
   ELECTRICITY
   FOR
   CITIZENS

For
the
past
two
or
so
years,
our “Power2ThePeople” campaign
has
engaged
all
key
stakeholders
in
the
electricity
supply
value
chain,
arguing
that
monopoly
by
and
state-control
of
Zimbabwe
Electricity
Supply
Authority
(ZESA)
make
it
difficult
for
private
investors
to
participate
in
provision
of
accessible
and
affordable
electricity.
We
are
pleased
to
report
that
while
our
petition
is
still
making
its
rounds
in
Parliament,
the
Government
and
ZERA
(Zimbabwe
Energy
Regulation
Authority) 
have
taken
a
policy
decision
that
allows
for
private
investors
to
supply
electricity.
Let
me
clarify
that
this
is
a
small
part
of
our
advocacy
because
we
believe
ZESA
should
not
only
be
privatised
completely,
 but
also
laws
should
be
in
place
to
ensure
sustainable
private
electricity
generation
and
removal
of
all
tariffs
and
taxes
on
solar
products.
Successful
advocacy
is
one
step
at
a
time.

https://youtu.be/gfSgor0npv4

(21)
newZWire
on
X:
“The
government
has
now
opened
up
the
distribution
and
selling
of
electricity
to
private
players.
This
means
a
company
can
get
a
licence
to
buy
power
from
a
supplier,
such
as
ZESA
or
a
solar
plant,
and
supply
it
to
a
neighbourhood.
Explaining
the
model,
ZERA
CEO
Edington
https://t.co/PD1LMC8xwF”
/
X

https://www.newsday.co.zw/local-news/article/200038219/zim-electricity-woes-blamed-on-outdated-laws

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/roselyn-musarurwa-charehwa-a1359544_energyreform-smesmatter-zimbabwerising-activity-7295768326297837568-0rCf?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_android

https://www.chronicle.co.zw/competitive-regulations-to-drive-private-sector-energy-investments/

https://news.pindula.co.zw/2025/05/15/zimbabwe-moves-to-liberalise-electricity-transmission-and-distribution/#:~:text=Private%20entities%20in%20Zimbabwe%20will,senior%20government%20official%20has%20said.

(21)
Nick
Mangwana
on
X:
“The
Minister
of
Energy,
Hon
July
G.
Moyo
launched
the
Zimbabwe
Energy
Compact.
This
is
a
collaborative
blueprint
for
energy
security
and
economic
growth.
It
drives
private
investment
in
captive
power,
eliminates
“Dark
Cities,”
and
offers
investor-friendly
regulations.
With
a
https://t.co/ACBHunCxdl”
/
X

PRIVATISATION
OF
WATER
SUPPLY

Yes, COMALISO agrees
with
our
colleagues
at
Combined
Harare
Residents
Association
(CHRA),
Harare
Residents
Trust
(HRT)
and
all
residents’
associations
in
Mutare,
Gweru
and
Bulawayo
–
that
water
is
not
only
life,
but
also
a
human
right.
However,
monopolistic
storage,
supply
and
metering
by
Municipalities
and
ZINWA
(Zimbabwe
National
Water
Authority)
is
not
the
answer
to
accessible,
clean
and
affordable
water.
Just
like
our  “Power2ThePeople” campaign, COMALISO agrees
with
Bulawayo
City
Mayor
David
Coltart
that
private
entities
must
be
allowed
to
supply,
distribute
and
meter
water.
The “Water2ThePeople” ideology
that
prevails
in
Harare
on
the
narrative
of
private
participation
and
water
pre-payment
is
part
of COMALISO’s
belief
that
free
market
economics
delivers.

Bulawayo
Sets
Up
Water
Utility,
Dismisses
Privatisation
Fears
–
AfroGazette

Government
pushes
for
privatisation
of
water
provision
and
other
services
as
councils
falter 
–
NewZimbabwe.com

Zimbabweans
React
Strongly
To
Government’s
Plan
To
Privatise
Water
From
Public
Dams-
iHarare
News

President
to
launch
Harare
water
privatisation
–
herald

‘Pay
first,
drink
later’:
Harare
launches
prepaid
water
meters
despite
rights
concerns
–
Zimbabwe
News
Now

4. 
   Rural
   Citizens
   Also
   Deserve
   Secure
   Homes

Finally,
from
now
until
end
of
2026
next
year,
our ‘MyVillageDeeds4Life’ will
not
only
engage
key
stakeholders
but
also
Central
Government,
Chiefs,
Headmen
and
Rural
District
Councils
on
the
idea
of
rural
citizens
securing
ownership
of
their
homesteads,
businesses,
schools,
churches
and
crop
fields
through
title
deeds.
Secure
and
safe
property
ownership
is
NOT
a
preserve
of
urban
citizens
or
commercial
farmers
only.
Property-based
prosperity
should
apply
to
the
majority
of 
10
million
or
so
Zimbabweans
who
reside
in
rural
areas.
This
does
not
undermine
the
authority
of
Chiefs
and
Headmen.
It
merely
makes
their
work
easier.

https://expressmail.co.zw/2025/10/23/majority-zimbabweans-dont-own-their-properties/

COMALISO
Session
1
Securitisation
of
Title
Deeds
2
October
2025
Cresta
Lodge
Harare
Zimbabwe

Therefore,
as
the
year
2025
ends, #TeamComaliso wishes
to
thank
our
key
stakeholders
–
including
policy
makers
and
Parliament
of
Zimbabwe
–
for
their
support.
In
all
this,
our
partnership
with
Atlas
Network
is
invaluable.
It
is
their
global
experience
and
incredible
international
networks
that
keep COMALISO’s
work
on
the
cutting
edge
of
free
market
innovation.
We
also
pay
homage
to
our
friends
at
Friedrich
Naumann
Foundation
(Zimbabwe),
Free
Market
Foundation
(South
Africa),
IMANI
(Ghana),
TECA
(Zimbabwe),
Liberty
Sparks
(Tanzania)
and
of
course,
Kwangu/Kwami
Trust
(Zimbabwe)
from
whom
we
draw
inspiration.
Without
these
partners,
our
work
would
be
incredibly
difficult.

Post
published
in:

Featured