The
Crisis
in
Zimbabwe
Coalition
(CIZC)
initiated
a
High
Court
challenge
concerning
the
constitutional
validity
of
the
Private
Voluntary
Act
(PVO).
This
application
was
filed
on
October
7,
2025,
with
the
Minister
of
Public
Service,
Labour
and
Social
Welfare
named
as
the
first
respondent
and
the
Attorney
General
as
the
second
respondent.
In
our
arguments,
we
identified
several
sections
of
the
PVO
Act
as
unconstitutional
and
violating
the
rights
of
non-governmental
organisations
(NGOs)
and
their
employees.
We
are
petitioning
for
these
sections
to
be
struck
down.
The
regulation
of
PVOs
is
an
issue
of
significant
public
interest,
impacting
not
only
our
operations
but
also
those
of
many
organisations
within
our
coalition
and
the
wider
civil
society.
The
respondents
have
a
window
of
10
working
days
to
contest
our
application.
Should
they
fail
to
file
an
opposing
affidavit
within
this
timeframe,
the
case
will
proceed
to
a
hearing
in
the
High
Court
located
in
Bulawayo
The
Trump
administration
literally
tore
down
the
White
House
yesterday.
After
lying
that
his
golden
imperial
ballroom
—
a
Versailles-powered-by-Home-Depot
monstrosity
—
“won’t
interfere
with
the
current
building,”
crews
destroyed
the
whole
East
Wing
—
all
during
a
government
shutdown
that
put
essential
government
services
on
hold.
This
all-too-on-the-nose
metaphor
wasn’t
lost
on
the
crowd
gathered
at
the
annual
summit
of
the
Society
for
the
Rule
of
Law.
The
organization,
comprised
of
mostly
conservative
and
libertarian
lawyers
conceived
during
the
first
Trump
administration,
convened
in
a
Washington
hotel
ballroom
for
a
day
long
lament
over
the
collapse
of
constitutional
order.
It
didn’t
take
long
for
a
speaker
to
link
the
physical
destruction
—
and
the
circumstances
around
it
—
to
the
topic
of
the
summit.
A
certain
gallows
humor
over
the
prospect
of
democratic
collapse
loomed
over
the
conference.
It
manifested
right
at
the
start.
After
being
wanded
and
searched
by
the
team
of
security
guards
whose
presence
never
quite
faded
into
the
background
in
this
cramped
space,
a
staffer
handing
out
badges
asked
if
I
was
a
Society
member.
“Press,”
I
declared.
Another
swooped
in.
“Press?
I’ll
take
care
of
them.”
The
table
laughed
and
repeated
“take
care
of
them”
in
mock
ominous
tones.
“Hey,
I
thought
this
was
the
other
kind
of
conference,”
I
replied.
Some
of
the
biggest
laugh
lines
of
the
day
came
when
people
would
make
suggestions
like
the
separation
of
powers
holding
or
asking
if
voter
suppression
efforts
are
intentionally
devious.
Early
in
the
day,
former
Maricopa
County
Recorder
Stephen
Richer
let
it
slip
that
the
Society’s
Executive
Director,
Gregg
Nunziata,
asked
moderators
to
try
to
coax
something
positive
from
each
panel,
which
felt
more
like
a
dare
than
advice.
Everyone’s
struggle
to
do
so
became
the
running
joke
of
the
day.
George
Conway
and
Norm
Eisen
kept
the
room
in
stitches
as
they
playfully
bantered
about
the
“strange
bedfellows”
that
constitutional
collapse
creates.
Paradoxically,
all
the
levity
conveyed
a
better
grasp
of
the
grim
reality
than
reading
stern
letters
penned
by
Democratic
leadership.
As
the
conference
explored
topics
ranging
from
the
unitary
executive
theory
to
election
security,
an
unspoken
theme,
which
only
a
few
of
the
speakers
seemed
to
grasp,
was
whether
the
work
of
this
is
an
opposition
organization
that
can
bring
the
old
conservative
legal
movement
back
from
the
brink,
or
if,
like
the
physical
East
Wing,
the
charge
of
the
moment
is
realizing
that
it’s
gone
and
figuring
out
what
gets
built
in
its
stead.
It’s
a
question
rooted
in
the
cognitive
dissonance
many
of
these
folks
must
feel.
Because
amidst
the
sea
of
blazers
and
bowties,
with
the
right
set
of
eyes,
you
could
still
pick
out
a
few
guys
dressed
as
overgrown
hot
dogs
assuring
the
audience
“we’re
all
looking
for
the
guy
who
did
this!“
The
event
took
place
in
the
same
hotel
where
I
lived
for
three
months
as
a
junior
Biglaw
associate.
Back
then,
George
W.
Bush
had
just
imposed
the
PATRIOT
Act,
built
an
offshore
prison
the
light
of
the
law
could
theoretically
never
touch,
and
prepared
to
take
over
Iraq
based
on
vague
claims
about
WMDs
that
never
existed
outside
the
administration’s
own
fever
dreams.
So
it
came
as
a
bit
of
a
jarring
juxtaposition
as
a
parade
of
Bush
alumni
and
Federalist
Society
exiles
who
would’ve
nodded
approvingly
at
torture
memos
twenty
years
ago
all
took
turns
lamenting
the
collapse
of
constitutional
order.
But
to
quote
the
Washingtonian
fantasy
that
inadvertently
poisoned
a
generation,
we
will
“forget
the
fact
that
you’re
coming
a
little
late
to
the
party and
embrace
the
fact
that
you
showed
up
at
all.”
Though
there
were
still
a
few
who
couldn’t
quite
let
go
and
spent
the
time
crafting
reasons
why
Trump’s
abuses
are
really
the
fault
of
Democrats
or
dismissing
Trump’s
power
grab
as
the
natural
and
logical
consequence
of
their
decades-long
push
for
a
limitlessly
powerful
unitary
executive.
These
coping
mechanisms
often
paired
with
a
charmingly
tragic
naiveté,
as
though
this
isn’t
the
natural
and
logical
conclusion
of
the
conservative
legal
movement’s
Nixonian
obsession
with
fluffing
the
legal
foundation
for
unchecked
executive
power.
Federalist
Society
minds
spent
their
careers
arguing
the
president
should
have
king-like
powers
over
the
executive
branch
and
are
now
shocked
—
SHOCKED
—
that
someone
might
use
those
to
be
king.
Like
a
Scooby-Doo
villain
voice
swearing
that
it
would’ve
worked
too,
if
it
weren’t
for
that
pesky
Trump!
“This
organization
needs
to
be
nonpartisan
and
focused
on
the
Constitution
and
the
rule
of
law,
and
not
just
be
anti-MAGA,
anti-Trump,”
Jonathan
Rauch
of
the
Brookings
Institution
explained.
“That
said,
it
is
equally
important
if
you’re
going
to
survive
in
the
wilderness,
you
must
not
confuse
tigers
and
pussycats.”
When
terms
like
unprecedented
get
thrown
around,
it’s
unproductive
to
spend
time
and
effort
attacking
the
slippery
slope
like
an
American
Ninja
Warrior
to
find
some
way
to
hang
this
on
something
a
backbencher
Democrat
said
20
years
ago
or
trying
to
square-peg-round-hole
Biden’s
student
loan
forgiveness
plan
as
the
precursor
to
Trump
zero-budgeting
the
Department
of
Education.
Judge
Michael
Luttig
had
no
trouble
distinguishing
the
tigers
from
the
pussycats.
In
what
can
best
be
described
as
measured
fury,
Judge
Luttig
called
out
the
administration’s
“explicit,
express
defiance”
of
the
judiciary
and
the
Supreme
Court’s
abject
failure
to
do
anything
about
it:
Every
day
of
the
week,
for
the
past
10
months,
judges
like
Judge
Gertner
and
Judge
Grimm
are
facing
the
President
of
the
United
States,
and
Attorney
General
of
the
United
States…
lying
to
their
face.
Lying
to
the
judges.
The
prosecutors
are
lying
to
the
federal
courts.
Meanwhile,
outside
the
courtroom,
the
President
of
the
United
States,
and
the
Attorney
General
of
the
United
States,
are
trashing
the
federal
courts.
Trashing
the
individual
judges.
Calling
them
every
name
in
the
book.
Never
in
American
history
has
this
ever
happened.
And
these
people
who
are
trying
to
do
their
job
under
those
circumstances,
are
looking
up
at
the
Supreme
Court
of
the
United
States,
who
they
know,
to
a
virtual
certainty,
would
reverse
them
in
a
second
if
they
held
Donald
Trump
in
contempt.
This
is
Supreme
Court
is
the
apotheosis
of
the
conservative
legal
movement.
For
all
the
talk
of
liberty
and
small
government,
when
the
chips
are
down,
all
it
seems
to
mean
to
the
justices
is
the
liberty
to
pollute
drinking
water
and
a
small
government
that
just
cuts
out
the
part
fighting
consumer
fraud.
Against
this
backdrop,
we
return
to
the
question:
what
is
the
role
of
the
principled
conservative
at
this
moment?
Richard
Bernstein,
a
former
Biglaw
partner
and
Scalia
clerk,
discussing
what
happens
if
Mike
Johnson’s
current
refusal
to
seat
a
duly
elected
member
metastasizes
into
a
full-scale
rejection
after
the
midterms,
“if
they
allow
people
duly
elected,
certified
in
their
states,
not
to
become
members
of
Congress,
then
the
game’s
over.
The
game’s
over.
Then,
then
we’re
not
at
the
opposition.
We’re
the
resistance.
And
I’m
too
chicken
to
be
the
resistance.”
The
omnipresent,
stone-faced
security
certainly
gave
more
of
a
resistance
energy.
Joking
aside,
is
this
an
opposition
or
a
resistance?
Former
Congresswoman
Barbara
Comstock
invoked
the
concept
of
“civil
society,”
which
played
such
a
profound
role
in
post-Soviet
transitions.
Norm
Eisen
didn’t
touch
on
this
subject,
but
it
struck
me
that
he
had
served
as
the
ambassador
to
the
Czech
Republic,
a
nation
held
up
as
an
example
of
how
robust,
underground
civil
society
structures
can
facilitate
post-authoritarian
recovery.
Is
that
the
future
of
this
group?
Building
a
“conservative”
legal
movement
from
the
rubble
of
the
last
one?
If
so,
it’s
going
to
require
even
more
folks
to
take
a
harsh
look
at
what
really
brought
Trump
to
this
point.
Whatever
the
answer
is,
the
Society
seems
committed
to
figuring
it
out.
Hopefully
before
next
year’s
conference
when
we’ll
be
probably
be
meeting
in
an
El
Salvadoran
labor
camp.
Lawyers
make
terrific
founders.
Some
might
say
it
is
counterintuitive.
Aren’t
lawyers
rigid
in
their
thinking?
Isn’t
it
all
about
minimizing
risk
above
all
else?
Yes,
for
lawyers
who choose
to
work
as
lawyers.
But
lawyers
who choose
to
start
companies are
making
a
conscious
choice
to
take
significant risks,
calculated
risks.
And
their
JD, far
from being limiting, is actually
beneficial.
Readers
of
this
column
know
that
Ex
Judicata
has
been
front
and
center
in
proclaiming
there
is
a
new,
modern
definition
of
the
JD
degree.
Old:
A
JD
is
a
law
degree.
New:
A
JD
is
a
degree
in
complex
problem-solving.
And
if
there
is
one
thing
every
single
business
needs more
of, it’s
complex
problem-solvers.
Read
on
to
see
how
this
applies
to
lawyers
who
start
companies.
When a
person wants
to
launch
a
business, whether
it
is
buying
a
liquor
store
or
offering
a
product
never
seen
before, the
majority
of people
if
asked
will
say
that it is
a
bad
idea. That’s
just
the
nature
of
new.
And
that
majority
will
almost
always
be
proven
right,
as 90% of
all
new
businesses
fail.
When
a
practicing
lawyer
wants
to
launch
a
nonlegal
business,
an
even
larger
majority
of
people
will
say
that
is
a
bad
idea
because
that
lawyer
has not worked
in
any
kind
of
business
before, has never
held
a “real
job.”
Thus, they
encounter
a
second
wall
of
doubt,
a
second
group
of
naysayers.
Here
they
question
the
sanity
of
leaving
the
practice
of
law
and
abandoning
their
law
degree.
This
is
the
double
whammy.
A
mistake
to
leave
law.
A
mistake
to
do
a
startup.
One
of
the more intriguing,
successful
entrepreneurs
in
the
EXJ
Community
is
Mark
Ferguson.
All
he
did
was
start
an
axe
company,
the
first
new
US
axe
manufacturer
since
World
War II. He knew
very
little
about
axes.
But
he
did
see
an
opportunity.
He
also
had
17
years
of prior
experience working
in
business in
a
nonlegal
job.
When
we interviewed
Mark,
he
told
us
that
after he
and
his
co-founder did their
research, they decided to
bounce
the
idea
off
some
blacksmiths
and
craftspeople over
pizza
and
beer.
You
might
be
able
to
guess
how
that
worked
out.
In
Mark’s
words:
We wound
up
getting
a
group
of
seven
or
eight
of
them
together
and
did
this
big
presentation
and then
said,
‘Isn’t
this
cool?
We’re going
to
do
this,
and
isn’t
this exciting?’
And
just
about
every single
person
said, in not
so
many words,
‘You
guys
are
idiots.
You
don’t
know what
you’re
doing.
You’re
not
going
to
be
able
to
do
this.’
But, Mark
had
an
ace
in
the
hole.
His
legal
training.
What
we
call
the
JD
skill
set.
In
his
case,
it was
particularly
helpful
when
it
came
to
selling
the
product.
Sales is just
like you’re
making your argument
and building
a
case
to
try
to
persuade
customers. You
do
the
research
and
organize
it
and
build
an
argument. I
think
law
school
and
being
a
lawyer
is
fantastic training
for this.
The
company
Mark
co-founded,
Brant
&
Cochran, is
now
16
years
old.
He
overcame all
doubts about the
likelihood
of his success. His
JD
skill
set
served
him
in
making
that
business
a
success.
At
our first startup, Ex
Judicata—the
foundation
for
the
EXJ
Community—we
had the opportunity
to
interview some
other
amazing
JD Founders
including:
In
their
interviews, which
can be
accessed above, each founder
credited
the
JD
skill
set
as
a
foundation
for
their
success.
What
is
the
JD
skill
set?
While
there
is
no
formal
list,
here
are
the
traits
we
reference
most
often
in
the
EXJ
Community.
• Analytical
thinking
• Issue
Spotting
• Risk
Assessment
• Delivering
under
pressure
• Superb
presentation
skills
• Driven
to
exceed
expectations
• Laser
focus
on
goal
attainment
• Ability
to
work late
into
the
night
Some
combination
of
these
skills
has
helped
every
non-practicing
lawyer
reading
this
to
advance
in
their
own
chosen
nonlegal
career.
We
highlight
founders
here
because
they have
to play
many
roles,
they
call
on
the entire toolbox.
Nicole
Clarke,
co-founder
&
CEO
of
legal
tech
company
Trellis
Research,
in
her
interview
with
Ex
Judicata,
made
this
point
and
along
the
way
added
some
additional
reasons
why
law
school
training
is
so
valuable
to
founders.
Law school
is
super
grueling,
and
starting
a
business
is incredibly hard.
It’s
a
grind
for
sure.
You’re
working
a
lot. Another
thing
I
took
away
from
law
school
is
that
I
could learn
anything.
I
remember
learning
securities
law. This
was
stuff I
didn’t
think
I’d
ever
come
across again. But
if
I
set my mind
to
it,
I knew
I could
learn
it. And
in
business,
especially
when
starting
a
new company,
you have
to wear many hats.
Many
of
these
roles
will
be
new
to
you.
But
believing
that
you
can
learn,
start
doing
it,
and
knowing that
you’ll
be
able
to
figure
it
out, that’s
core
to
starting a
business.
For
all
lawyers
reading
this
who
harbor
a
notion,
a
dream,
a
concrete
idea,
it
is
safe
to
say
that
you
will
have
a
leg
up
on
other
founders
because
of
your
JD.
The
authors
of The
Great
Escape column, Neil
Handwerker
and Kimberly
Fine, are
the
founders
of
exjudicata.com,
a
platform
designed
to
help
lawyers
move
to
nonlegal
careers.
They
just
launched a
new
related
platform,
the
EXJ
Community,
the
first
ever
peer-to-peer
network
of
non-practicing
lawyers.
Mr.
Bere
took
on
the
role
in
January
2020
during
a
pivotal
period
for
both
the
nation
and
the
organisation,
marked
by
shrinking
civic
space,
the
COVID-19
pandemic,
shifting
donor
priorities,
and
declining
confidence
in
people
movements.
Throughout
his
tenure,
Mr.
Bere
faithfully
and
effectively
led
ZimRights,
driving
a
turnaround
that
saw
the
launch
of
the
transformative
‘Shifting
Power
to
the
People’
strategy
(SP2P)
and
the
adoption
of
the
eight-action
zone
framework,
which
reinvigorated
the
movement.
He
re-engaged
development
partners,
restored
faith
in
grassroots
movements,
and
championed
robust
collaboration
with
global
bodies,
strengthening
the
Zimbabwe
solidarity
movement
on
various
international
platforms.
During
difficult
times
of
donor
fatigue
and
wavering
trust
in
civil
society,
ZimRights
expanded
its
ecosystem,
rallying
international
support
for
Zimbabwe’s
human
rights
cause.
The
SP2P
enabled
the
development
of
key
projects:
strengthening
ZimRights’
knowledge
resources
to
empower
communities
through
such
flagship
products
as
the People’s
Human
Rights
Manifesto,
the Annual
State
of
Peace
in
Zimbabwe
Reports,
and
the Annual
State
of
Civic
Space
in
Zimbabwe
Report.
ZimRights
also
reached
out
to
new
frontiers
of
human
rights
advocacy,
establishing
the
ZimRights
Diaspora
Chapter,
launching
the
Open
Up
Taskforce—providing
women
leadership
opportunities
within
the
human
rights
struggle—mobilising
youth
through
a
digital
activism
strategy
via
the
Youth
Zone,
and
facilitating
Persons
with
Disabilities
chapters
nationwide.
Within
the
Association,
ZimRights
implemented
a
leadership
development
programme
that
fortified
its
structures
at
the
secretariat
and
membership
levels.
These
efforts
have
cultivated
leaders
who
continue
to
make
an
impact
beyond
organisational
boundaries.
The
creation
of
the
Annual
Movement
Builders
Academy
and
the
National
Human
Rights
Leadership
Symposium
in
2023
and
2024
demonstrates
strong
trust
in
the
ability
of
Zimbabwe’s
local
communities
to
drive
the
human
rights
movement
forward.
Recognising
his
outstanding
leadership,
Mr.
Bere
received
the
NANGO
2024
Director
of
the
Year
Award,
highlighting
both
his
personal
commitment
and
the
collective
strength
of
ZimRights
as
a
movement.
As
Mr.
Bere’s
term
draws
to
a
close,
the
ZimRights
family
celebrates
his
contributions
and
wishes
him
success
in
his
future
endeavours.
In
recent
weeks,
ZimRights
leaders
have
met
with
all
the
structures
around
the
country
to
guide
a
smooth
transition.
Addressing
members
at
the
last
membership
engagement
meeting
in
Mashonaland
West,
National
Chairperson
Mr.
Takesure
Musiiwa
expressed
profound
gratitude
for
Bere’s
selfless
service,
stating
that
it
benefited
not
only
ZimRights
but
the
broader
human
rights
community.
He
paid
tribute
to
the
membership
for
their
unwavering
support,
which
keeps
the
movement
vibrant.
“We
do
not
doubt
that
Bere’s
commitment
to
human
rights
will
continue
beyond
his
tenure
as
the
National
Director.”
Said
Musiiwa,
“And
we
will
continue
to
work
together
in
other
capacities
to
advance
the
human
rights
struggle.
Once
a
human
rights
defender,
always
a
human
rights
defender.
The
roles
change,
the
struggle
continues.”
The
legal
tech
world
is
gushing
over Clio’s
announcement last
week
as
if
the
AI
landscape
just
changed
forever.
Maybe.
But
anytime
people
gush,
I
get a
little
skeptical.
I
thought
about
this
in
light
of
the Thomson
Reuters announcement
this
week
of
a a
new
partnership
with DeepJudge to
marry
AI
tools
over
both
internal
firm
data
and
external
data.
As
I previously
discussed, Clio offered
the
blockbuster
announcement
that its
AI
tools
would
now
work
not
only
on
the
internal
data
of
a
firm
but
also
on
external
data
like
cases
and
statutes. Clio’s
approach
essentially
lets
customers
use
one
vendor
for
its
AI
needs
since
that
vendor
can
supply
the
tools
for
use
with
internal
and
external
data.
This
all
under
one
roof
one
stop
concept
has
everyone
gushing
as
if
the
world
has
completely
changed
and
firms
will
flock
to
Clio.
Indeed,
it
sounds
simpler
than having
to
vet
and
select
several
vendors.
Or
cast
your
fate
with
vendors
with
partnerships
that
could
come undone. Or
face
the decision-making paralysis
when
you
have
two
vendors
having
to
decide
anything,
potentially
impairing
creativity
and
nimbleness.
But
I
always
get
suspicious
when
everyone
seems
to
conclude
that
a
tech
development
has
changed
the
world right
now
and
forever
more. As Roy
Amara famously
said: “We
tend
to
overestimate
the
effect
of
a
technology
in
the
short
run
and
underestimate
the
effect
in
the
long
run.” And
right
now,
the
Clio announcement is
less
than
a
week
old.
It
might
be
a
tad
bit
early
to
declare
game
over.
The
TR Announcement
According
to
the TR press
release, DeepJudge,
founded
by
former
Google
AI
researchers,
enables
professionals
to use
AI
tools
and
prompts across
internal
knowledge bases. Again,
according
to
the press
release,
“by
integrating DeepJudge’s AI
knowledge
platform
with
CoCounsel
Legal,
Thomson
Reuters
will
give
legal
teams
a
360-degree
view
that
unifies
internal
firm
know-how
and
exclusive
Thomson Reuters
content…
This
foundation enables
AI
agents
to
plan
and
execute
multi-step
legal
tasks,
helping
professionals
automate
components
of
end-to-end
workflows
with
the
governance
they
require.”
This
is
yet
another
attempt
at
enabling lawyers
and
legal
professionals
to
use
AI
not
only
on
external
data
like
cases
and
statutes,
but also on internal data
to
get
the
full use.
Says
Paulina Grnarova,
CEO
and
co-founder of DeepJudge,
“What
sets
firms
apart
is
how
they
leverage
their
unique
assets—their
expertise and
the
know-how
and
work
product
derived
from
it.”
Sound familiar?
The
Hype May
Be
a
Bit Premature
What Grnarova says
is
true, which
is
why
so
many
providers
are
looking
for
a
way
to
do just
this. For
example,
earlier this
year, Harvey and LexisNexis announced
a
partnership
to
try
to
do something
similar: they’re
using
this
partnership arrangement
to
apply
the
LexisNexis substantial AI
tools
to
external
data and Harvey
customers’
internal
data
as
well.
The
TR-DeepJudge
relationship
attempts a
similar integration.
Those
today
gushing
over
what
Clio
has
done would say what vendors TR
and
LexisNexis
have
done is
now sophomoric. It
reminds me
of
all
those
who
keep
declaring
the
billable
hour
dead,
soon
to
be
replaced
by
alternative
billing
models.
Maybe
someday
it
will
be. But
we’ve
written
that
obituary
more
than
once.
So,I wonder whether
it might
be
a
little
quick
to
conclude
that what
TR
and
LN
are
doing is really
not all
that
significant.
If
your
needs
can
be
met
by
using
tools
offered through the
partnership model from by
LN and
now
TR, there’s not
necessarily
a
need
to
change
horses
just
because
the
world
believes
Clio
has
left
everyone
else
in
the
dust. Especially
a
little over
a
week
after
the announcement. Just
as
there’s
no
reason
to
reflexively leave
the
Clio
stable
because TR has entered into this
partnership.
The
key
is
not
what
all
the
pundits
of
the
world
are
saying, it’s whether
your
needs
are
being
met
in
the
best
way
possible.
Power
Corrupts,
Absolute
Power
Corrupts
Absolutely
There’s
another
issue
at
play
here
too. Like the
tech
curmudgeon, Cory
Doctorow, I’m
always
suspicious
when
one
competitor
gets
too
much
market
power and
when
it
ties
customers
to
it
because it’s too difficult
to
go
someplace
else.
Clio
may
be
great today, but it
got
there because
it was driven
to
be
great
by competitive forces.
If too
many customers sign
up
with
Clio, there
is
a
risk that when
the
competitive
edge is
gone, decreased
services, increased
prices,
and
more onerous service terms will surface.
So, it’s
good
to
have
competition, and
as
a
customer,
you
need
to
consider
the
impact
if
Clio
gets
too
much
market
power
and
the
risk
it
could
pose
if
you
sign
up.
Certainly, there
are
advantages to
using
one
vendor
for
everything. But once
you
sign up
with
the
one
vendor,
the
ability
to
leave
that
vendor
should
services decline or prices increase is
constrained. As
I wrote
last
week, it would
require
you
to
replace
that
one vendor with
several
others
to
get
the
same
level
of service.
A headache
that
might
tempt
you
to
stay
with
the
one
when you
would otherwise be nimbler
and
more
flexible.
And
in
a
time
of
change
where
new
AI developments are
announced
every
day,
being
nimble
may
be
even
more
important
than
ever for
customers.
The ability to
pick
and
choose vendors
for
tasks
enables
you
to
pick
the
best
one for
the
tasks
and
then
flock
to
another
one if
and
when a
new
tool
is
offered.
One
More Thing
There’s
another
issue
when
pundits
rush
to
judgment
about
a
new
product
or
innovation before
it’s actually
tested out
in
the
field
and
the hype
is
proven.
It’s
a
sad fact too many
vendors
promote
products
that
don’t
do
everything
that’s
promised
or
products
that
don’t
yet
exist.
Talk
to
any
law
firm
IT
department
and
you
will
find
that
this
happens
quite
often.
They
pay
for
X
but
never
get
X. So it’s
good
to
be
cautious
for
a
bit
before
crowning
Clio
the
sweepstakes
winner.
I
was
talking
to Debbie
Foster,
CEO
of Affinity Consulting,
which
frequently advises law
firms
on
technology
and
its
use,
recently.
She told
me, “It’s really easy to
get
up
on
stage
and
show
a
lot
of
cool
things
a
set
of
products
can
do. It’s another
thing
to
walk
into
a
conference
room
full
of
lawyers and
get
asked
hard
questions
about
the tools
and
what
they
can
and cannot do.” That
proof
is
in
the
pudding:
concluding a
product
is
revolutionary
before
it’s
put
to
the real-world testing is
premature.
Write
Drunk
but
Edit
Sober
Don’t
get
me
wrong.
The
Clio
announcements
are
significant
and
should
be
applauded.
They
just
need
to
be viewed
through
a sobriety lens.
Just
because everyone jumps
on
the
team
Clio
bus
doesn’t
mean it’s right
for you.
In
fact,
I heard
several
lawyers
at
Clio
express
some reluctance to
sign
on
to
an all-powerful Clio.
The old
adage: write
drunk
but
edit
sober
applies
here. Too
many
of
those writing
about
Clio right
now are a
little
drunk
with
the
Clio
booze right
now.
They
need
to
sober
up.
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.
OK,
simmer
down.
You
know
that
I
am
not
fond
of
AI,
at least
so
far,
but
have
you
ever
tried
to
explain
the
relevant
Rules
of
Professional
Responsibility
to
a
nonlawyer
client,
which
is
most,
if
not
all,
clients?
Have
you
ever
tried
to
explain
even
one
rule
to
a
client?
Do
their
eyes
glaze
over?
Do
they
start
to
twitch?
Do
they
excuse
themselves
to
get
another
cup
of
coffee?
Can
you
blame
them?
Trying
to
explain
any
of
the
rules
—
and
usually
there’s
more
than
one
involved
in
client
representation
—
is
like
trying
to
put
lipstick
on
a
pig.
That
pig
squirms
and
squeals,
finally
wriggling
out
of
your
grasp,
running
everywhere,
anywhere,
to
avoid
explanations
of
rules
that
govern
us
but
not
them.
Consequences
of
running
afoul
of
the
rules
are
ours,
not
theirs.
These
are
our
rules,
prolix
and
constipated
as
they
are.
In
the
age
in
which
we
now
find
ourselves,
with
the
increasing
dominance
of
AI’s
role,
do
we
really
need
to
have
so
many
rules?
Are
we
the
only
profession
that
has
so
many
rules?
Try
explaining
to
a
client
that
we
have
dual
responsibilities:
we
represent
clients
but
we
are
also
officers
of
the
court.
A
client
may
well
ask
who
comes
first?
Me
or
the
court?
While
normally
our
stock
in
trade
answer
is
“it
depends,”
if
a
client
says
that
he
is
going
to
perjure
himself,
the
answer
is
easy.
The
lawyer
must
withdraw.
If
the
client
does
not
understand
why,
then
that
may
say
something
about
client
selection.
But
in
other
situations,
the
rules
may
not
be
as
easy
to
explain.
Clients
are
not
interested
in
knowing
the
rules;
all
they
care
about
is
winning
the
case,
negotiating
an
advantageous
contract,
or
sometimes
just
putting
the
screws
to
the
adversary,
without
worrying
about
consequences. Clients
do
not
care
about
the
rules.
In
fact,
most
clients
do
not
even
know
that
the
rules
exist.
All
they
care
about
is
results,
results,
results,
and
how
much
they
will
pay
in
fees,
fees,
fees.
How
about
thorny
conflicts
issues?
Just
another
example
of
how
hard
it
is
to
explain
the
rules.
Explaining
what
conflicts
are,
how
they
can
arise,
whether
real
or
potential,
is
not
easy.
Explaining
conflicts
in
a
letter
that
requests
a
conflict
waiver
is
hard.
Even
harder
is
explaining
that
while
there
is
no
conflict
now,
one
could
arise
in
the
future,
and
then
the
situation
gets
even
murkier.
AI
explains
conflicts
like
this:
“Conflicts
of
Interest:
Avoiding
representation
that
is
adverse
to
another
client
or
significantly
limited
by
other
responsibilities
or
personal
interests
without
consent.”
Simple,
straightforward.
We
think
in
terms
of
both
“belt
and
suspenders.” Do
we
need
to
explain
every
possibly
bad
thing
that
could
happen?
We
lawyers
are
voices
of
doom
as
we
outline
all
the
possible
parade
of
horribles.
Are
our
clients
as
risk
averse?
I
know,
I
know,
the
Rules
of
Professional
Responsibility
are
established
to
protect
clients
from
unscrupulous,
lying,
cheating,
defrauding
lawyers.
But
do
they
really
do
that?
By
the
time
some
cases
get
into
the
discipline
system,
that
lawyer
is
enjoying
life
in
a
country
where
he
can’t
be
reached.
AI
does
simplify
the
rules
so
that
ordinary
people
can
understand
them
and
what
the
attorney’s
responsibilities
are.
Granted,
AI’s
explanations
do
not
include
all
nuances
and
implications,
but
they
do
provide
basic
information
that
clients
are
most
likely
to
encounter
in
the
attorney-client
relationship.
AI
explains,
in
plain
English,
such
important
client-facing
rules
as
competence,
confidentiality,
communication,
and
conflicts.
(the
four
Cs).
If
AI
can
help
explain
a
lawyer’s
responsibilities
to
clients
in
terms
that
are
easy
to
understand,
then
I
am
all
for
it.
We
twist
ourselves
into
pretzels
trying
to
explain
every
permutation
that
could
rise
in
a
representation.
Do
we
really
need
to
do
that
with
clients
who
need
our
help
untying
the
knots
in
which
they
have
found
themselves?
Is
it
confusing
to
the
client
who
feels
intimidated
by
seeking
legal
counsel
in
the
first
place
and
now
is
second-guessing
that
decision?
Is
that
the
desired
outcome?
I
have
always
thought
that
the
rules
are
cumbersome
and
unwieldy.
Let
the
ethics
experts
chat
among
themselves.
Lawyers
in
the
trenches
need
cogent
digestible
explanations
to
provide
to
clients.
And
yes,
while
I
do
agree
with
Joe
Patrice
the
AI
can
make
lawyers
dumber,
AI
can
help
even
dumb
lawyers
explain
important
attorney
client
concepts.
Is
there
any
reason
why
the
rules
couldn’t
be
simplified
with
the
help
of
AI?
Is
it
time
for
a
rewrite? Should
the
acronym
“KISS”
(not
the
band)
be
used
here?
Should
we
try
to
“keep
it
simple,
stupid?”
Your
thoughts?
Jill
Switzer
has
been
an
active
member
of
the
State
Bar
of
California
for
over
40
years.
She
remembers
practicing
law
in
a
kinder,
gentler
time.
She’s
had
a
diverse
legal
career,
including
stints
as
a
deputy
district
attorney,
a
solo
practice,
and
several
senior
in-house
gigs.
She
now
mediates
full-time,
which
gives
her
the
opportunity
to
see
dinosaurs,
millennials,
and
those
in-between
interact
—
it’s
not
always
civil.
You
can
reach
her
by
email
at
[email protected].
Earlier
this
month
Jennifer
Mascott
became
Donald
Trump’s
most
recent
appointee
to
the
Third
Circuit.
It
was
done
over
the
objections
of
the
home
state
senators;
neither
senator
from
Delaware
returned
their
blue-slip
from
either
Delaware
senator
(the
tradition of
seeking
home
state
senator
approval
before
confirming
a
judge,
which
the
first
Trump
administration abandoned to
get
more
lifetime
appointment
for
conservative
nominees).
And
while
the
Democrats
from
Delaware
might
have
objected
to
a
great
many
potential
nominees,
the
fact
that
Mascott
is
not
a
member
of
the
Delaware
bar
just
added
salt
to
the
wound.
Those
tangential
ties
to
The
First
State
(she
owns
a
vacation
home
there)
—
and
all
the
conservative
bona
fides
—
were
enough
for
Mascott
to
get
the
nod
from
Trump.
As
reported
by
Jezebel:
Mascott,
a
former
law
professor
at
Catholic
University,
is
deeply
conservative,
having clerked for
Supreme
Court
Justice
Clarence
Thomas
and
for
then-appeals
court
judge
Brett
Kavanaugh.
During
Trump’s
first
term,
she worked for
the
Justice
Department
and
assisted
the
White
House
with
the
confirmation
of
Justice
Amy
Coney
Barrett.
She
also
joined
Trump
2.0
earlier
this
year
by
taking
a
job
in
the
White
House
Counsel’s
office.
Mascott
has praised the Dobbs decision
overturning Roe
v.
Wade,
after
saying
that Roebelonged in
“the
dustbin
of
history.” In
late
2021,
while
speaking
at
a
Senate hearing, she
also defended the
court’s
decision
not
to
strike
down
the Texas
bounty
hunter
abortion
ban that
nullified Roe.
Mascott
was
confirmed
by
a
50-47
vote,
with
pro-choice
Republican
Lisa
Murkowski
voting
against
the
nomination.
But
that
isn’t
the
most
controversial
thing
to
happen
to
the
Third
Circuit.
That
dubious
honor,
of
course,
goes
to
the
elevation
of
Emil
Bove.
Nothing
could
stop
the
former
Trump
henchman’s
lifetime
appointment
—
not
a
whistleblower,
not
900
former
DOJ
attorneys
all
screaming
NO,
nothing.
This
all
leaves
the
Third
Circuit
with
a
conservative
majority.
Of
the
14
active
judges
on
the
circuit,
8
were
appointed
by
Republican
judges
and
six
of
those
by
Donald
Trump
himself.
It’s
a
helluva
legacy
he’s
leaving
on
his
sister’s
(the
late
Judge
Maryanne
Trump
Barry)
home
circuit.
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].
If
you’re
a
Biglaw
associate
in
the
fall
of
2025,
two
things
are
probably
true:
(i)
you’re
billing
your
life
away
while
considering
if
a
lateral
move
is
right
for
you
while
the
market
is
still
hot,
and
(ii)
you’re
eagerly
waiting
to
receive
news
about
your
annual
bonus
(that
may
or
may
not
include
a
special
bonus
on
top),
which
may
be
right
around
the
corner.
To
kick
off
our
coverage,
we’re
asking
you
to
take
this
(always)
confidential,
(always)
brief
survey
to
share
your
thoughts
on
the
upcoming
bonus
season.
And
if
you’d
like
to
stay
on
top
of
any
changes
this
bonus
season,
enter
your
email
below
to
sign
up
for
our
free
bonus
alerts.
And
as
a
little
reminder,
we
love
covering
the
Biglaw
bonus
season,
but
we
need
your
help.
As
soon
as
your
firm’s
bonus
memo
comes
out,
please email
us (subject
line:
“[Firm
Name]
Bonus”).
We
always
keep
our
sources
on
bonus
stories
anonymous.
There’s
no
need
to
send
the
memo
using
your
firm
email
account;
your
personal
email
account
is
fine.
Please
be
sure
to
include
the
memo
as
proof;
we
like
to
post
complete
bonus
memos
as
a
service
to
our
readers.
You
can
take
a
photo
of
the
memo
and
attach
as
a
picture
if
you
are
worried
about
metadata
in
a
PDF
or
Word
file.
Don’t
forget,
if
you’d
like
to
sign
up
for
ATL’s
Bonus
Alerts,
please
enter
your
email
address
in
the
box
below.
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
—
including,
of
course,
the
first
such
announcement.
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.
Building
trust
with
clients
is
crucial
for
your
firm
and
its
reputation.
One
of
the
easiest
ways
to
enhance
the
client
experience
is
to
clearly
communicate
your
firm’s
guidelines
during
the
intake
process.
To
help
your
firm
ensure
high
client
satisfaction,
our
friends
at
8am
have
created
a
Legal
Billing
Templates
packet
to
get
you
started. This
packet
includes:
•
A
sample
credit
card
authorization
form •
A
sample
ACH/eCheck
authorization
form •
A
sample
employee
PCI/security
template •
A
sample
attorney
fee
agreement
Since
the
public
release
of
ChatGPT
in
November
2022,
solo
and
small
law
firms
have
been
inundated
with
ethics
opinions
by
the ABA and 20
different
states regarding
artificial
intelligence
use
and
client
disclosure
obligations.
While
these
ethics
considerations
are
important,
the
real
disclosure
requirements
that
firms
need
to
worry
about
are
emerging
state
laws
that
mandate
specific
AI
disclosures
and
that
carry
concrete
penalties
for
noncompliance.
State
AI
Disclosure
Laws
Currently,
three
states—Utah,
New
Jersey,
and
Maine—have
enacted
legislation
requiring
disclosure
when
businesses,
including
law
firms,
use
AI
to
interact
with
consumers.
What
makes
these
laws
particularly
significant
for
solo
and
small
firms
is
their
potential
extraterritorial
reach
and
the
specific
penalties
attached
to
violations.
Utah’s Artificial
Intelligence
Policy
Act
(AIPA) was initially
passed
as
SB149
in
2024.
The 2025
amendments
through
SB226 modified
the
mandatory
disclosures
to
apply
only
to
“high-risk
artificial
intelligence
interactions”
which
include
“financial,
legal,
medical,
or
mental
health
advice
or
services.”
This
means
that
if
a
solo
practitioner
uses
an
AI
chatbot
or
phone
receptionist
to
handle
initial
client
inquiries,
schedule
consultations,
or
provide
preliminary
legal
information,
they
must
clearly
disclose
the
AI’s
involvement.
New
Jersey bot
law makes
it
unlawful
to
use
an
online
bot
to
communicate
with
another
person
in
the
state
“with
the
intent
to
mislead
the
other
person
about
the
bot’s
artificial
identity”
to
incentivize
commercial
transactions
which
would
encompass
an
engagement
with
an
attorney.
The
penalties
for
violations
are
substantial:
$2,500
for
a
first
offense,
$5,000
for
a
second
offense,
and
$10,000
for
each
subsequent
violation. Similarly,
Maine’s AI
law prohibits
use
of
an
AI
bot
to
incentivize
a
transaction
unless
users
are
notified
that
they
are
not
interacting
with
a
human.
Civil
penalties
of
up
to
$1000
apply
for
each
violation.
The
Extraterritorial
Challenge
Many
solo
and
small
firms
may
assume
these
laws
don’t
apply
to
them
if
they’re
not
physically
located
in
Utah,
New
Jersey,
or
Maine.
This
assumption
could
prove
costly.
Modern
digital
marketing
and
client
acquisition
mean
that
law
firms
routinely
interact
with
potential
clients
across
state
lines.
A
firm’s
website,
online
advertising,
or
AI-powered
intake
systems
can
reach
residents
of
any
state,
potentially
triggering
that
state’s
disclosure
requirements.
Consider
this
practical
scenario:
A
small
immigration
law
firm
in
Texas
uses
an
AI-powered
chat
system
on
its
website
to
answer
common
questions
about
visa
applications.
If
a
potential
client
from
Salt
Lake
City
visits
the
website
and
interacts
with
the
chatbot,
the
firm
must
comply
with
Utah’s
disclosure
requirements—even
though
the
firm
itself
is
based
in
Texas.
The
connection
to
Utah
through
the
client’s
location
could
trigger
the
law’s
application.
The
reality
is
that
if
a
firm’s
AI
tool
interacts
with
someone
in
a
regulated
state,
the
firm
could
face
penalties
regardless
of
its
own
location.
This
is
particularly
challenging
for
small
firms
that
may
use
third-party
AI
services
for
client
intake,
document
review,
or
legal
research
without
fully
understanding
where
their
potential
clients
are
located
when
initial
contact
occurs.
Practical
Compliance
Steps
To
navigate
this
regulatory
landscape,
solo
and
small
firms
should
implement
several
protective
measures.
First,
incorporate
clear
AI
disclosure
language
at
the
beginning
of
any
automated
interaction,
whether
through
chatbots,
email
automation,
or
phone
systems.
Second,
don’t
rely
on
vendor
assurances
for
compliance;
fact-check
disclosures
yourself.
Third,
maintain
documentation
(or
insist
that
your
vendor
does)
showing
when
and
how
AI
disclosures
were
provided
to
protect
against
potential
enforcement
actions.
Looking
Forward
The
focus
on
ethics
rules,
while
important,
has
overshadowed
the
more
immediate
legal
requirements
imposed
by
state
legislation.
These
laws
don’t
merely
suggest
best
practices—they
mandate
specific
disclosures
with
real
penalties
for
noncompliance.
As
more
states
consider
similar
legislation,
the
patchwork
of
requirements
will
only
become
more
complex.
Solo
and
small
firms
must
recognize
that
AI
regulation
extends
far
beyond
bar
association
guidance.
State
consumer
protection
laws,
disclosure
requirements,
and
emerging
AI-specific
legislation
create
a
multi-layered
compliance
obligation
that
requires
immediate
attention.
The
firms
that
thrive
in
this
new
environment
will
be
those
that
proactively
address
both
the
ethical
and
legal
dimensions
of
AI
use,
ensuring
they
meet
not
just
professional
standards
but
also
the
growing
body
of
state
regulatory
requirements.
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.
Kathryn
