How Much Do Lawyers In Small And Midsize Practices Make? – Above the Law

Every
year,
Above
the
Law
surveys
solo
practitioners
and
small
firm
lawyers
about
their
compensation
for
an
annual

compensation
report
.
This
year,
we
are
asking
attorneys
who
work
in
midsize
law
firms
to
participate
as
well. 

If 
you
are
a
lawyer
at
a
firm
with
fewer
than
250
attorneys,
please


click
here

to
take
this
brief,


completely
confidential
survey
.

Feel
free
to
share
the
survey
with
colleagues
and
peers;
the
more
responses
we
receive,
the
more
comprehensive
the
information
we’ll
have
to
share.


The Law Schools That Provide The ‘Best Value’ For Students (2025) – Above the Law

There
are
many
ways
to
rank
law
schools,
but
the
way
that
the
National
Jurist’s
preLaw
Magazine
does
it
is
quite
interesting.
Rather
than
concentrating
on
the
prestige
factors
that
usually
dominate
law
school
ranking
systems,
this
ranking
focuses
solely
on
factors
that
provide
the
“best
value”
for
students.
That
said,
this
is
a
list
that
is
typically
dominated
by
public
schools,
with
a
smattering
of
private
schools
mixed
in.
Curiously,
for
the
past
few
years,
a
private
school
had
come
out
on
top
of
the
National
Jurist
ranking

but
that
has
stopped,
and
a
new
value
victor
reigns
supreme
in
2025.

Before
we
get
to
the
Top
20
ranking,
let’s
discuss
the
methodology
used
to
suss
out
which
law
schools
are
providing
the
best
value
for
students.
The
National
Jurist’s
ranking
takes
into
account
a
law
school’s
tuition,
students’
cost
of
living
expenses,
students’
average
indebtedness
upon
graduation
(collectively
weighted
55%),
the
percentage
of
graduates
who
got
a
job
after
graduation
(30%),
and
bar
passage
rates
(two-year
difference
between
first-time
pass
rate
and
average
state
pass
rate;
two-year
ultimate
pass
rate;
and
two-year
first-time
raw
pass
rate)
(15%).

As
noted
previously,
based
on
these
inputs,
the
ranking
tends
to
skew
heavily
towards
public
schools,
but
private
schools
made
a
showing
in
this
year’s
ranking.
One
private
school
cracked
the
Top
20,
while
10
others
followed
behind
later.
For
what
it’s
worth,
the
2025
Best
Value
ranking
reminds
us
a
bit
of
U.S.
News
law
school
rankings,
in
that
we’ve
got
an
18-way
tie
for
21st
place
and
a
20-way
tie
for
22nd
place.

Without
further
ado,
here
are
the
National
Jurist’s Top
20
Best
Value
Law
Schools
:

  1. Florida
    State
    University
  2. Brigham
    Young
    University
  3. University
    of
    Georgia
  4. University
    of
    Florida
  5. University
    of
    Kansas
  6. University
    of
    Alabama
  7. University
    of
    North
    Carolina
  8. University
    of
    Missouri
  9. Texas
    A&M
    Law
  10. University
    of
    Illinois
  11. University
    of
    Nebraska
  12. University
    of
    Oklahoma
  13. University
    of
    Tennessee
  14. Georgia
    State
    University
  15. University
    of
    Iowa
  16. University
    of
    Montana
  17. University
    of
    Kentucky
  18. University
    of
    Buffalo
    School
    of
    Law
  19. University
    of
    Texas
  20. Texas
    Tech
    University

Erin
O’Hara
O’Connor,
dean
of
FSU
Law,
attributes
the
school’s
success
in
the
2025
Best
Value
ranking
to
the
school’s
overall
philosophy,
that
affordability
plus
opportunity
equals
freedom

the
freedom
to
build
their
desired
careers.
“Per
dollar
invested
in
their
legal
education,
our
students
cannot
and
will
not
receive
a
better
education
and
better
opportunities,”
O’Connor
said.

The
lesson
to
be
learned
here
is
simple:
if
you
want
to
keep
your
debt
low,
consider
enrolling
at
a
public
law
school.
If
you
don’t
mind
up
to
a
six-figure
debt
load,
enroll
in
the
best
law
school
you
can
get
into
(let’s
say
the top
50
),
because
those
are
the
schools
where
you’ll
be
able
to
get
jobs
that
will
allow
you
to
service
your
loans.

Congrats
to
the
law
schools
that
offer
their
students
the
“best
value.”


Best
value
law
schools

[preLaw
Magazine
/
National
Jurist]


FSU
Law,
BYU
Law
and
UGA
School
of
Law
take
top
spots
for
best
value
law
schools

[preLaw
Magazine
/
National
Jurist]


Staci Zaretsky




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 BlueskyX/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn.

When Harvey Talks Competition, Legal Tech Better Listen – Above the Law

The
competition
for
law
firm
customers
for
legal
specific
AI
tools
is,
to
say
the
least,
intense.
Virtually
every
legal
tech
player
almost
daily
touts
enhancement
and
upgrades
designed
to
give
them
an
edge.
From
Clio,
whose
user
conference
takes
place
this
week,
to
NetDocuments,
whose
users
conference
takes
place
next
week,
to
legal
research
vendors
like
LexisNexis
and
Thomson
Reuters,
all
are
trying
to
gain
market
share.
Add
to
this
the
fact
that
almost
all
of
these
vendors’
models
run
or
are
built
on
OpenAI
or
similar
models
and
you
have
the
makings
of
a
potentially
interesting
competitive
upheaval.

It
was
this
very
upheaval
that
the
founders
of

Harvey
,
the
new
100-pound
gorilla
in
the
field,
noted
in
a

recent
interview

published
in

Business
Insider

(subscription
required).
Winston
Weinberg
and
Gabe
Pereyra
built
Harvey
seemingly
by
magic
and
almost
overnight
into
a
big
player,
lapping
the
competition
as
I

discussed
recently
.

They
launched
a
stealth
player
by
evaluating
the
field
and
needs
of
law
firms,
and
by
understanding
law
firm
needs
and
motivations.
In
essence,
they
figured
out
how
to
beat
their
competition
before
the
competition
even
realized
what
was
happening.
Beyond
their
success,
they
have
a
proven
ability
to
understand
and
anticipate
market
dynamics.


When
Weinberg
and
Pereyra
Talk…

So,
when
Weinberg
and
Pereyra
talk
about
competition
in
the
market,
it’s
worth
listening.

As
most
now
know,
Harvey
was
founded
in
2022.
Within
three
years,
it
grew
in
value
to
$5
billion
and
now
has
over
50
law
firm
clients
in
the
Am
Law
100
according
to
the
article.
Harvey
offers
domain-specific
AI
tools
for
law
firms
and
works
off
the
firm’s
internal
data.
It
has
also
entered
into
a
recent
partnership
with
LexisNexis
to
seamlessly
provide
legal
research
capabilities.


What,
Me
Worry?

So
why
are
Harvey’s
founders
who
built
such
a
powerhouse
in
such
a
short
time
worried?
Harvey
is
built
on
OpenAI’s
infrastructure.
Indeed,
OpenAI
is
one
of
Harvey’s
financial
backers.
But
Harvey’s
founders
now
see
OpenAI
as
both
a
partner
and
an
indirect
competitor.

According
to
the
Business
Insider
interview,
they’re
less
concerned
about
legal
tech
vendors
and
more
about
competition
from
OpenAI
itself.
Somewhat
candidly,
they
admit
that
OpenAI
could
enter
the
legal
tech
space
directly
and
cut
out
the
middleman
legal
tech
vendors.
Moreover,
even
if
OpenAI
never
targets
the
legal
field
directly,
it
very
well
could
release
general
tools
offering
the
strong
privacy
protections,
enhanced
accuracy,
and
stronger
security
lawyers
and
legal
professionals
crave.
In
fact,
OpenAI

recently
mentioned

a
contract
review
tool
it
developed
and
is
using
internally.

And
all
that
would
threaten
Harvey’s
value
proposition
and
differentiation.
Add
to
this
the
fact
that
many
lawyers
already
use
tools
like
ChatGPT
to
do
all
sorts
of
legal-related
tasks.
Lawyers
and
legal
professionals
are
already
used
to
using
these
tools,
which
could
make
for
easy
future
adoption.

All
these
things
keep
Weinberg
and
Pereyra
up
at
night.
They
realize
that
OpenAI
is
already
its
biggest
indirect
competitor.
They
realize
that
Harvey
must
continue
to
up
its
game
to
try
to
stay
ahead
of
what
entities
like
ChatGPT
offer.
While
they
believe
that
Harvey
offers
value
by
deeply
integrating
legal
domain
knowledge,
law
firm
workflows,
and
firm
specific
customizations,
as
OpenAI
develops
stronger
and
perhaps
less
expensive
advances,
it
also
may
make
it
easier
for
big
players
to
encroach.

The
threat
is
real.


Why
Now?

Historically,
legal
tech
vendors
have
been
somewhat
immune
from
this
kind
of
upstream
competition.
Microsoft,
for
example,
has
dipped
its
toe
in
legal
tech
for
some
time
but
hasn’t
gone
after
the
downstream
customers
like
law
firms.
It
has
been
content
to
offer
services
and
products
to
legal
tech
vendors
that
can
be
wrapped
and
sold
to
their
customer
law
firms.

The
reasons
Microsoft
and
so
far
the
LLM
players
haven’t
gone
head-to-head
with
legal
tech
vendors
likely
stem
from
the
uniqueness
of
legal
market
needs.
And
also
from
the
fact
that
the
upside
profits
haven’t
appeared
to
be
enough
to
invest
the
time
and
energy
needed
to
compete
directly
with
the
vendors.

But
that
may
be
changing.
Various

reports

confirm
the
amount
of
investment
capital
going
into
legal
has
exploded
exponentially
recently,
signaling
there
may
be
profits
for
the
taking.
And
AI
and
GenAI
make
mastering
the
legal
needs
and
unique
issues
much
easier
than
ever
before.

So,
it
stands
to
reason
that
the
big
players
may
start
jumping
in.
Why
let
the
legal
tech
vendors
skim
the
profit
when
you
can
cut
them
out
and
charge
the
downstream
customers
for
services
directly?


The
Irony
of
It
All

Somewhat
ironically,
I
recently

wrote
a
piece

on
the
possibility
that
legal
tech
vendors
might
make
a
play
to
sell
their
services
directly
to
clients
and
take
a
chunk
of
the
law
firm
profits.
I
say
ironically
because
the
legal
tech
vendors
themselves
may
end
up
being
subject
to
the
same
phenomenon
if
the
ChatGPTs
of
the
world
decide
to
compete
directly.
It’s
ironic
too
that
the
very
AI
tool
responsible
in
large
part
for
the
increased
investment
and
explosion
of
products
in
legal
tech
may
itself
enable
and
encourage
the
bigger
players
to
try
to
cut
out
current
legal
tech
providers.

So
when
Weinberg
and
Pereyra
who
built
an
empire
on
evaluating
and
outmaneuvering
their
competition
are
worried
about
an
existential
competitive
threat
like
OpenAI,
the
rest
of
legal
tech
better
listen.




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
.

Defense Trade Press Statement on Pentagon Media Restrictions

For
decades,
the
defense
trade
media
has
been
a
trusted
source
of
news
and
insight
about
Defense
Department
programs,
budgets,
and
strategy.
Ethical,
accurate,
and
timely
reporting
makes
that
possible.
The
public,
industry,
and
indeed
the
department
itself
benefit
from
granting
credentialed
defense
reporters
access
to unclassified
areas in
the
Pentagon
and
from
the
trust
engendered
by
that
access.

The
Pentagon
has
been
seeking
to
impose
unprecedented
restrictions
on
journalists’
ability
to
cover
the
military
for
several
months.
Having
restricted
where
unescorted
media
may
go
in
the
Pentagon—such
that
even
visiting
the
public
affairs
offices
of
the
military
services
now
requires
an
escort—department
leaders
are
asking
reporters
to
sign
a
document
acknowledging
a
vague
new
policy
that,
on
its
face,
appears
to
contravene
the
First
Amendment.
This
policy
threatens
to
punish
reporters
who
ask
legitimate
questions
in
the
course
of
their
daily
work
and
to
impose
material
harm
on
our
news
organizations
for
factual
reporting.

Journalists
from
the
undersigned
defense
trade
publications
will
not
sign
this
new
policy.
Our
newsrooms
will
continue
to
cover
topics
of
military,
defense,
and
national
security
fairly
and
independently.

  • Breaking
    Defense
  • Aviation
    Week
  • Defense
    &
    Aerospace
    Report
  • Defense
    Daily
  • Defense
    One
  • Defense
    News
  • Inside
    Defense
  • Military
    Times
  • USNI

Morning Docket: 10.16.25 – Above the Law

*
Law
school
applications
up
33
percent.
Or
nearly
half

as
some
lawyers
would
say.
[Reuters]

*
Supreme
Court’s
voting
rights
argument
reveals
justices
more
than
willing
to
roll
back
the
law
to
1950s.
[Bloomberg
Law
News
]

*
Michigan
State
Title
IX
investigators
may
have
collaborated
with
university
lawyers.
[State
News
]

*
The
lawyer-to-blacksmith
pipeline
is
alive
and
well.
[CBS
News
]

*
Trump
DOJ
wastes
tons
of
taxpayer
money
on
frivolous
cases,
but
the
costs
to
the
accused
matter
almost
as
much
winning.
[NPR]

*
Billboard
lawyer
drops
a
partner
“adds
new
one
with
familiar
sounding
name.”
[Houston
Chronicle
]

*
Administration
plans
to
close
CFPB
in
2-3
months.
This
comes
on
the
heels
of
the
administration
announcing
a
settlement
to
drop
case
over
company

fleecing
our
troops
.
[Law360]

Adios, Tokyo – See Also – Above the Law

O’Melveny
&
Myers
Winds
Down
Their
Tokyo
Office:
The
news
comes
after
almost
40
years
of
operation.
Downplaying
Or
Propagandizing?:
The
Media
needs
to
be
careful
about
how
it
covers
Trump
soft
launching
the
Insurrection
Act.
Lawyer
Fired
After
Being
Outed
As
A
Racist
Group
Chat
Member:
Surprise
surprise,
a
bunch
of
alt-right
Republicans
say
mean
things
in
private.
Donna
Adelson
Sentenced
For
Involvement
In
Dan
Markel
Murder:
She
plans
to
appeal.
Where
Does
AI
All
The
Way
Down
Leave
Us?:
Is
it
making
lawyers
worse
at
their
jobs?

GOP Operative/Lawyer Out Of A Job After Offensive And Racist Messages Revealed – Above the Law

Yesterday,
Politico
released

a
bombshell
expose

on
a
young
Republican
group
Telegram
chat
with
wildly
offensive
rhetoric.
It’s
being
referred
to
in

the
press

as
the
“I
love
Hilter”
chat
because…
yeah,
that’s
one
of
the
things
they
said.
Along
with
multiple
variations
on
the
N-word,
“the
watermelon
people,”
pro-slavery
chatter,
talk
about
raping
their
enemies,
slurs
galore,
putting
their
political
opponents
in
gas
chambers,
and
much
more.
Politico
calls
it
“an
unfiltered
look
at
how
a
new
generation
of
GOP
activists
talk
when
they
think
no
one
is
listening,”
and
it’s
truly
a
horrifying
collection
of
id
gone
wild.

The
private
chat
reportedly
got
leaked
to
Politico
as
the
result
of
a
Young
Republicans
internal
feud.
The
chat
included
a
variety
of
Young
Republican
leaders
in
New
York,
Kansas,
Arizona
and
Vermont,
including
William
Hendrix,
vice
chair
of
the Kansas
Young
Republicans;
Bobby
Walker,
head
of
the
New
York
State
Young
Republicans; Peter
Giunta,
the
former
chair
of
the
New
York
State
Young
Republicans;
Annie
Kaykaty,
New
York’s
national
committee
member; Alex
Dwyer, the
chair
of
the
Kansas
Young
Republicans;
Samuel
Douglass, a
state
senator from
Vermont; Luke
Mosiman, chair
of
the
Arizona
Young
Republicans;
and
Rachel
Hope,
the
Arizona
Young
Republicans
events
chair.
And,
of
course,
there
are
some
attorneys
on
the
chat.
Michael
Bartels,
senior
adviser
in
the
office
of
general
counsel
for
the
U.S.
Small
Business
Administration
and
Joe
Maligno,
id’d
himself
as the
general
counsel for
the
New
York
State
Young
Republicans.

Politico
notes
Bartles
was
mostly
quiet
in
the
chat.
But
Maligno
used
racial
slurs
and
joked
about
Nazism,
saying,
“Gas
chambers
don’t
fit
the
Hitler
aesthetic.”

Life’s
coming
fast
at
the
members
of
the
group.
The
Young
Republican
National
Federation called on
them
to
“immediately
resign
from
all
positions.”
New
York
Governor
Kathy
Hochul,
a
Democrat,
called
for
them
to
be
kicked
out
of
the
Republican
party,
“This
bullshit
has
to
stop.”
New
York
Republicans
Rep.
Elise
Stefanik
and
state
Senate
Minority
Leader
Rob
Ortt
renounced
the
chat.
The
Kansas
Republican
party deactivated their
state’s
Young
Republican
organization.
Douglass,
the
Vermont
state
senator,
is
facing
calls
for

his
resignation.

Vermont
Governor
Phil
Scott condemned
the
messages.
(Vice
President
JD
Vance
turned
it
into
an

opportunity
to
attack
Democrats
,
because
of
course.)

And,
yes.
Several
members
have
already
lost
their
jobs.
Many
of
them
were
out
of
work

as
Politico
investigated

the
story.
Now,
only
a
day
later,
there’s

more
fall
out.

Maligno
*was*
the
Associate
Court
Attorney
to
Hon.
Mary
A.
Kavanagh,
but
no
more.
A
spokesperson
for
the New
York
State
Unified
Court
System
confirmed
he’s
no
longer
an
employee.

Bartels,
the
only
member
of
the
group
chat
to
be
confirmed
as
a
member
of
the
Trump
administration,

still
has
a
job
.




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].

California Attorney Pleads Guilty For Role In $912M Ponzi Scheme – Above the Law

Rule
of
thumb:
you
should
never
represent
your
client
in
a
way
that
will
make
you
need
a
lawyer
down
the
line.
As
much
as
it
is
in
your
rights
to
argue
up
and
down
that
your
client
is
on
the
straight
and
narrow,
once
you
cross
in
to
moving
money
and
making
up
misleading
documents
to
make
your
case,
it
is
only
a
matter
of
time
before
you’re
going
to
be
on
the
other
side
of
the
law.
That
time
eventually
caught
up
with
Ari
Lauer.


Reuters

has
coverage:

A
California
attorney
on
Tuesday
pleaded
guilty
a
week
before
he
was
set
to
face
trial
on
criminal
charges
stemming
from
his
role
in
an
estimated
$912
million
Ponzi
scheme
involving
California
solar
power
supply
company
DC
Solar.

Ari
Lauer
pleaded
guilty
before
U.S.
District
Judge
Dale
Drozd
in
Sacramento
to
23
counts,
including
bank
fraud
and
wire
fraud
affecting
a
financial
institution.

The
finer
details
of
the
scheme
reads
like
one
of
those
You
have
two
cows

entries.
Over
the
span
of
about
7
years
DC
Solar
entered
contracts
promising
to
sell
solar
generators.
Totally
fine
at
face
value,
but
things
go
south
pretty
quickly
once
you
realize
DC
only
actually
had
about
half
of
the
17,000
or
so
generators
they
promised
to
sell
and
padded
out
the
numbers
that
didn’t
add
up
with
fraud.

Lauer’s
sentencing
is
scheduled
for
January
26th.
If
the
members
of
his
cohort
are
any
indication
of
what
he’s
in
for,
he’s
looking
at
some
serious
time.
Both
of
the
owners
of
DC
Solar
earned
a
good
deal
of
time
behind
bars:
Paulette
Carpoff
got
11
years
and
her
husband
Jeff
got
30.
That
said,
whatever
amount
of
money
Lauer
is
going
to
be
on
the
hook
for
will
be
dwarfed
by
the
$790M
Jeff
was
ordered
to
pay
back
to
the
people
he
frauded.
That
said,
this
might
be
the
end
of
his
law
license.


Solar
Firm’s
Lawyer
Pleads
Guilty
To
Ponzi
Scheme
Charges

[Reuters]



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.

Police hunt youth service graduates as tension mounts over Geza protest call

HARARE

Police
on
Tuesday
said
nearly
a
dozen
National
Youth
Service
graduates
were
“persons
of
interest”
after
they
appeared
in
a
viral
video
calling
for
the
fall
of
President
Emmerson
Mnangagwa’s
government,
amid
rising
tensions
ahead
of
protests
called
for
October
17
by
war
veteran
Blessed
Geza.

In
a
statement
on
Tuesday,
national
police
spokesperson
Commissioner
Paul
Nyathi
said:
“Reference
is
made
to
a
video
that
has
gone
viral
on
social
media
platforms,
in
which
some
members
of
the
Zimbabwe
National
Youth
Service
Graduates
Association
are
engaged
in
an
unsanctioned
gathering.
These
members
are
persons
of
interest.”

The
warning
comes
as
Geza

a
former
Zanu
PF
central
committee
member
and
vocal
critic
of
Mnangagwa

has
urged
citizens
to
join
what
he
calls
the
“Million
Citizens
March
for
Zimbabwe’s
Future”
on
Friday.

The
protest
call
has
cast
a
shadow
over
Zanu
PF’s
annual
conference
in
Mutare,
which
runs
from
October
13
to
18.

In
the
video,
a
spokesman
for
the
youth
service
graduates

flanked
by
nine
others,
some
wearing
uniform

said
the
2017
military
coup
was
meant
to
“restore
the
dignity
of
black
people,
fight
corruption
and
stop
those
abusing
President
Robert
Mugabe’s
powers
for
personal
gain.”

“Now
to
our
horror,
the
conditions
that
led
to
the
military’s
2017
Operation
Restore
Legacy
have
returned
twenty-fold.
As
trained
graduates
of
the
youth
service,
we
call
upon
Zimbabweans
to
join
us
in
fighting
corruption,”
the
speaker
declared.

He
added:
“We
are
encouraged
that
the
vice
president
(Constantino
Chiwenga)
has
called
for
the
arrest
of
these
corrupt
individuals.
We
are
giving
law
enforcement
24
hours
to
act.
If
it
fails,
we
will
go
into
the
streets

all
Zimbabweans
must
reaffirm
that
Zimbabwe
does
not
belong
to
one
person
but
to
all
of
us.”

In
a
series
of
letters
dated
October
11
and
posted
on
his
X
account,
Geza
and
a
group
calling
themselves
the
Concerned
Citizens
of
the
Republic
of
Zimbabwe
appealed
directly
to
Mnangagwa
to
order
the
arrest
of
businessmen
Kudakwashe
Tagwirei,
Wicknell
Chivhayo
and
Scott
Sakupwanya
over
alleged
“grand
corruption”
and
“criminal
capture
of
the
state.”

Geza
accused
the
trio
of
looting
billions
of
dollars
from
public
coffers
through
government
contracts,
mining
deals
and
opaque
financial
arrangements,
and
demanded
their
arrest,
prosecution
and
the
forfeiture
of
their
assets.

“We
are
compelled
to
address
you
not
out
of
malice,
but
from
a
place
of
profound
national
duty
and
deep-seated
concern
for
the
future
of
the
Republic
of
Zimbabwe,”
Geza
wrote.

“The
avenues
of
accountability
which
your
government
is
constitutionally
mandated
to
uphold
appear
entirely
compromised
and
unresponsive
to
one
of
the
most
staggering
acts
of
brazen
looting
in
our
nation’s
history.”

He
alleged
that
Chivhayo
defrauded
the
government
of
US$192,761,700
through
six
companies

IMC
Technologies,
IMC
Communications,
Kings
Excellence,
IMC
Agriculture,
IMC
Plant
Hire
and
Eden-breeze

all
allegedly
linked
to
inflated
or
non-existent
government
contracts.

Geza
demanded
“the
immediate
arrest
and
prosecution
of
Wicknell
Chivhayo
and
every
single
government
official
and
accomplice
named
in
this
scheme,”
as
well
as
a
“transparent
forensic
audit”
involving
the
Ministry
of
Finance,
the
Reserve
Bank
of
Zimbabwe
and
all
commercial
banks.

In
another
letter,
he
accused
Sakunda
Holdings
boss
Tagwirei
of
masterminding
the
“fraudulent
extraction
of
US$1.9
billion”
through
Kuvimba
Mining
House

a
transaction
he
said
diverted
state-owned
mining
assets
into
private
hands.

“A
forensic
juxtaposition
of
the
CBZ
Capital
Valuation
Report
of
October
2023
with
the
known
history
of
the
assets
reveals
a
scheme
of
staggering
brazenness,”
Geza
wrote,
alleging
that
Tagwirei
had
seized
control
of
mines
previously
owned
by
the
military

including
Great
Dyke
Investments
and
Sandawana
Mines

and
calling
for
international
investigations.

On
Sakupwanya,
Geza
claimed
the
Zanu
PF
MP
and
gold
dealer
presided
over
a
“sophisticated
financial
fraud
scheme”
known
as
the
“Gold
Tollgate”,
which
he
said
siphoned
between
US$800
million
and
US$1.2
billion
from
the
treasury.

“It
is
with
deep
respect
for
your
office
and
a
firm
belief
in
the
principles
of
justice
and
accountability
that
we
lay
these
facts
before
you,
appealing
for
your
immediate
and
decisive
intervention,”
he
wrote.

In
all
three
letters,
Geza
urged
Mnangagwa
to
“choose
the
path
of
integrity”
and
“side
with
the
millions
of
suffering
Zimbabweans,”
warning
that
his
legacy
would
be
defined
by
how
he
responded
to
what
he
called
“a
moment
of
profound
crisis.”

“The
people
of
Zimbabwe
are
watching,”
he
warned.
“Act
decisively
to
end
this
grand
corruption
and
ensure
justice
is
served.”

While
Geza’s
previous
calls
for
nationwide
protests
have
largely
fizzled,
the
timing
of
this
latest
one

coinciding
with
Zanu
PF’s
conference
and
amid
reported
tensions
between
Mnangagwa
and
Chiwenga

together
with
the
police
statement,
points
to
growing
official
concern
over
the
convergence
of
youth
groups
and
activists
ahead
of
the
planned
demonstrations.