The
event
brought
together
key
stakeholders,
including,
senior
government
officials,
representatives
from
the
African
Development
Bank,
Clients,
the
banking
community
and
members
of
the
ZIMRA
Board.
Their
collective
support
has
been
invaluable
in
bringing
TaRMS
to
life.
The
launch
of
TaRMS
represents
more
than
just
a
technological
upgrade;
it
embodies
ZIMRA’s
commitment
to
embracing
a
future
where
digitalization
is
essential
for
economic
progress.
Deputy
Minister
of
Finance,
Honourable
D.
Mnangagwa,
remarked,
“This
moment
is
a
declaration
that
Zimbabwe
is
ready
to
embrace
the
future
—
a
future
where
digitalization
is
not
a
luxury,
but
a
necessity.”
Previously,
the
tax
administration
faced
numerous
challenges,
including
slow
compliance
processes
and
fragmented
systems.
With
the
implementation
of
TaRMS,
ZIMRA
is
poised
to
offer
a
more
citizen-centric
approach,
simplifying
tax
compliance
for
all
Zimbabweans.
To
date,
over
1.2
million
Taxpayer
Identification
Numbers
(TINs)
have
been
issued
through
the
system,
broadening
the
tax
net
to
include
all
sectors
of
the
economy—formal,
informal,
urban,
and
rural.
Looking
ahead,
ZIMRA
aims
for
every
economically
active
Zimbabwean
to
possess
a
TIN
by
2028,
in
line
with
the
broader
goals
of
Vision
2030
for
a
digital
economy.
Digitalization
is
not
merely
an
IT
solution;
it
is
a
national
imperative
that
will
enhance
voluntary
compliance,
improve
the
ease
of
doing
business,
and
reinforce
public
trust
in
state
institutions.
TaRMS
first
went
live
on 12
October
2023.
The
commissioning
of
TaRMS
marks
a
significant
milestone
in
tax
administration—one
that
prioritizes
efficiency,
transparency,
and
the
needs
of
citizens.
Key
Highlights
of
TaRMS
User
Management
Improvements:
TaRMS
enhances
communication
between
taxpayers
and
tax
authorities,
allowing
for
timely
notifications
and
efficient
resolution
of
queries.
Taxpayers
now
have
improved
access
and
control
over
their
tax
affairs.
Increased
Compliance:
The
on-time
filing
rate
has
dramatically
improved
from
13.94%
in
2023
to
38.07%
in
2024,
reflecting
a
173.05%
growth.
This
is
a
testament
to
the
system’s
effectiveness
in
streamlining
submission
processes.
Enhanced
Taxpayer
Registration:
The
introduction
of
TaRMS
has
eliminated
duplicate
Business
Partner
numbers,
leading
to
a
115.75%
increase
in
newly
registered
taxpayers
in
2024
compared
to
2023.
Automated
Debt
Management:
TaRMS
provides
a
comprehensive
overview
of
outstanding
tax
debts,
enabling
proactive
measures
and
enhancing
revenue
collections.
Streamlined
Refund
Management:
The
refund
process
is
now
fully
automated,
providing
real-time
updates
and
enhancing
transparency
for
taxpayers.
Improved
Payment
Systems:
Taxpayers
can
now
make
secure
online
payments,
view
real-time
account
balances,
and
receive
automated
reminders
for
timely
compliance.
Some
strong
“will
they,
won’t
they”
tension
may
make
for
great
rom-com
foundation,
but
the
dynamic
is
far
from
what
you’d
expect
of
a
licensing
organization.
After
a
disastrous
experimental
February
rollout
led
the
California
Bar
back
to
an
orthodox
NBCE
test
administration,
future
test
takers
and
rubbernecking
out-of-state
voyeurs
want
to
know
how
the
Cali
Bar
will
handle
the
next
bar
exam.
Bloomberg
Law
has
coverage:
California
State
Bar
leaders
showed
deep
divisions
Thursday
on
the
future
of
the
bar
exam,
as
the
clock
ticks
for
them
to
decide
whether,
after
their
first
attempt
failed,
they’ll
try
again
to
develop
a
test
unique
to
the
Golden
State.
The
bar
has
three
options,
staff
said:
Using
questions
developed
by
the
vendor
that
wrote
the
bulk
of
questions
on
the
February
test
temporarily,
as
a
“bridge”
to
creating
a
new
exam;
adopting
the
National
Conference
of
Bar
Examiners’
NextGen
test;
or
creating
a
new,
permanent
exam
that
could
be
streamlined
like
Nevada’s
shorter
100-question
multiple
choice
test
that
is
in
development.
A
couple
of
procedural
questions.
About
those
vendor
questions,
did
someone
remember
to
jot
down
which
questions
were
written
by
a
competent
evaluator
rather
than
a
large
language
model
prone
to
hallucinating
legal
solutions?
Because
they
didn’t
do
the
best
job
of
regulating
that
the
last
time
they
went
the
vendor
route.
The
second
question
applies
to
both
NCBE
adoption
and
the
R&D
route
of
making
a
new
test
from
new
cloth:
didn’t
all
of
this
start
because
the
California
Bar’s
budget
was
gunning
for
the
red?
It
looks
like
adopting
the
NCBE
would
cut
losses
and
put
them
back
on
track
to
bankruptcy.
A
new
test
has
some
promise,
but
even
if
you
were
to
look
past
the
associated
costs
of
developing
a
new
test,
it
isn’t
like
the
Cali
Bar
has
the
best
track
record
with
starting
over
from
scratch.
While
the
Committee
of
Bar
Examiners
have
some
time
to
weigh
their
options
moving
forward,
they
still
have
obstacles
to
face.
One
solution,
to
increase
the
bar
fee
by
$150
per
head
to
help
with
the
budget,
was
shot
down.
Whatever
they
ultimately
plan
to
do,
that
plan
has
to
then
be
approved
by
the
California
Supreme
Court.
Seems
like
a
rubber-stamping
situation
at
first
glance,
but
their
Supreme
Court
has
already
sent
them
back
to
the
drawing
board
in
recent
history.
Best
of
luck
to
the
folks
in
charge
of
the
Cali
Bar.
Godspeed
to
the
future
test
takers
that
have
to
deal
with
the
consequences.
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.
While
Biglaw
firms
continue
to
usher
attorneys
back
to
the
office
in
the
wake
of
the
pandemic,
hybrid
work
policies
still
remain
in
effect
in
some
way,
shape,
or
form,
with
fully
remote
policies
having
“nearly
disappeared.” But
what
do
those
hybrid
policies
look
like?
According
to
the
latest
study
by
Savills
Research
and
Data
Services
based
on
press
releases,
websites,
media
mentions,
and
job
postings
from
177
of
the
Am
Law
200,
more
than
half
of
those
firms
(55.9%)
are
using
a
flexible
hybrid
policy
and
39.5%
use
a
fixed
hybrid
policy.
Only
4%
of
those
firms
are
using
an
office-first
policy,
and
just
0.6%
of
firms
are
using
a
remote-first
policy.
The
American
Lawyer
has
additional
details:
A
total
of
82%
of
the
firms
require
specific
days
in
the
office,
with
nearly
half
of
them
requiring
three
days
in
the
office,
a
number
that’s
been
the
standard
for
several
years.
A
survey
by
Savills
Legal
Tenant
Practice
Group
in
early
2023 found that
three
days
a
week
in
the
office,
either
mandated
or
encouraged,
was
the
norm
at
Am
Law
100
firms.
In
the
new
study,
Savills
found
that
only
1.3%
of
the
firms
that
mandated
attendance
on
specific
days
asked
for
one
day
a
week,
while
7.7%
required
attendance
five
days
a
week.
At
the
other
18%
of
firms,
the
firms
expected
lawyers
in
the
office
for
a
range
of
days,
such
as
one
to
two,
or
three
to
five.
Tuesday
through
Thursday
in
the
office
is
most
common.
Return-to-office
mandates
continue
to
evolve,
and
as
the
Savills
study
notes,
“[t]his
may
include
more
defined
schedules,
anchor
days
and
stronger
policy
enforcement.”
Tom
Fulcher,
chair
of
the
Legal
Tenant
Practice
Group
at
Savills,
said,
“It
just
feels
like
there’s
going
to
be
a
gradual
move
toward
more
and
more
days,
more
and
more
obligations
to
be
in
the
office.”
It’s
worth
noting
that
17%
of
firms
are
punishing
attorneys
who
don’t
adhere
to
attendance
mandates,
and
those
“consequences”
include
but
are
not
limited
to
“paid
time
off
or
promotions,
or
eliminating
the
lawyer’s
opportunity
to
work
remotely.”
Bonuses
are
specifically
targeted
at
more
than
60%
of
the
firms
that
are
disciplining
lawyers
for
not
coming
to
the
office.
What
does
the
future
of
in-person
attendance
look
like
at
your
law
firm?
Stay
tuned,
because
things
are
changing
by
the
day.
As
soon
as
you
find
out
about
office
attendance
plans
at
your
firm,
please email
us (subject
line:
“[Firm
Name]
Office
Reopening”)
or
text
us
at
(646)
820-8477.
We
always
keep
our
sources
on
stories
anonymous.
There’s
no
need
to
send
a
memo
(if
one
exists)
using
your
firm
email
account;
your
personal
email
account
is
fine.
If
a
memo
has
been
circulated,
please
be
sure
to
include
it
as
proof;
we
like
to
post
complete
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.
Thanks.
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.
Ask
most
legal
or
business
leaders
what’s
buried
inside
their
contracts,
and
the
answers
are
usually
vague.
Someone
in
legal
knows.
It
depends
on
the
deal.
We
have
templates.
It’s
under
control.
But
the
reality
is,
few
companies
truly
understand
what’s
in
their
signed
agreements
across
the
board.
That
lack
of
clarity
comes
at
a
cost.
Contracts
aren’t
just
legal
paperwork.
They’re
business
signals.
They
reflect
what
you’re
willing
to
trade,
how
much
risk
you’re
comfortable
with,
and
what
kind
of
relationships
you
want
to
build
with
customers,
vendors,
and
partners.
They’re
not
just
about
enforcement.
They’re
about
alignment.
And
most
legal
teams
are
missing
the
opportunity
to
use
that
information
to
make
more
informed
decisions.
In
a
recent
episode
of
“Notes
to
My
(Legal)
Self,”
Flo
Nicolas,
a
legal
tech
strategist
and
founder
of
Get
Tech
Smart,
offered
a
perspective
many
legal
leaders
need
to
hear.
Flo
built
her
career
negotiating
and
managing
licensing
agreements
in
one
of
the
country’s
largest
telecommunications
companies.
She
wasn’t
sitting
in
a
legal
silo.
She
was
working
cross-functionally,
alongside
engineers,
vendors,
and
business
units,
and
using
contracts
as
operational
blueprints.
“When
you’re
reviewing
and
negotiating
license
agreements
across
departments,
you
see
firsthand
how
much
depends
on
clarity,”
she
explained.
That
clarity,
or
lack
of
it,
impacts
delivery,
accountability,
and
outcomes
across
the
entire
company.
And
yet,
in
most
organizations,
contracts
are
created
in
isolation
and
managed
as
one-offs.
Legal
negotiates
the
terms.
Business
teams
execute
the
deal.
After
that,
the
contract
gets
buried
in
a
shared
drive
or
a
CLM,
rarely
touched
again
unless
something
goes
wrong.
What
gets
lost
in
that
handoff
is
the
data,
the
patterns,
the
trends,
and
the
inconsistencies
that
could
be
used
to
improve
not
just
legal
performance
but
business
outcomes.
Flo
pointed
out
that
legal
operations
is
one
of
the
few
functions
capable
of
bridging
that
divide.
“Legal
ops
is
uniquely
positioned
as
a
conduit
across
departments,”
she
said.
“If
they
don’t
bring
this
stuff
to
light,
who
will?”
The
truth
is,
you
don’t
need
generative
AI
or
a
full
CLM
rollout
to
start
learning
from
your
contracts.
You
need
a
mindset
shift.
You
need
to
treat
contracts
as
data
because
they
are.
This
means
understanding
which
terms
you
negotiate
most,
which
positions
you
consistently
fall
back
on,
and
where
language
varies
across
geographies
or
departments.
It
means
looking
at
where
risk
shows
up
repeatedly
and
where
standardization
might
free
up
resources
for
more
strategic
work.
It
means
aligning
your
templates
not
just
with
legal
preferences
but
with
how
the
business
actually
operates.
Contracts,
after
all,
are
commitments.
And
broken
commitments
are
expensive.
Flo
also
addressed
something
every
in-house
lawyer
should
hear.
“You
can’t
talk
about
AI
to
a
legal
team
that’s
already
burning
out.”
The
same
goes
for
contract
transformation.
If
your
team
is
stuck
in
redlines
and
reactive
review,
the
solution
isn’t
another
piece
of
software.
It
has
better
visibility.
Legal
leaders
should
be
asking
what
their
contracts
actually
say,
where
things
are
getting
stuck,
and
how
much
of
that
can
be
solved
with
clarity
rather
than
complexity.
This
isn’t
about
perfection.
It’s
about
progress.
Start
with
your
most
common
agreement
types.
Focus
on
the
terms
that
slow
you
down
or
cause
confusion.
Talk
to
your
business
counterparts
about
what’s
working
and
what’s
not.
And
take
a
page
from
Flo’s
book.
Step
outside
the
legal
echo
chamber.
Look
at
contracts
the
way
a
business
leader
would,
as
tools
for
execution,
not
just
compliance.
Contracts
are
some
of
the
most
powerful
data
sets
your
company
owns.
They
govern
your
revenue,
your
expenses,
your
partnerships,
and
your
obligations.
If
you’re
not
extracting
insight
from
that
data,
you’re
flying
blind.
The
teams
that
win
in
the
next
decade
will
treat
contracts
not
just
as
legal
tools
but
as
strategic
inputs
into
how
the
business
runs.
Olga
V.
Mack is
the
CEO
of TermScout,
an
AI-powered
contract
certification
platform
that
accelerates
revenue
and
eliminates
friction
by
certifying
contracts
as
fair,
balanced,
and
market-ready.
A
serial
CEO
and
legal
tech
executive,
she
previously
led
a
company
through
a
successful
acquisition
by
LexisNexis.
Olga
is
also
a Fellow
at
CodeX,
The
Stanford
Center
for
Legal
Informatics,
and
the
Generative
AI
Editor
at
law.MIT.
She
is
a
visionary
executive
reshaping
how
we
law—how
legal
systems
are
built,
experienced,
and
trusted.
Olga teaches
at
Berkeley
Law,
lectures
widely,
and
advises
companies
of
all
sizes,
as
well
as
boards
and
institutions.
An
award-winning
general
counsel
turned
builder,
she
also
leads
early-stage
ventures
including Virtual
Gabby
(Better
Parenting
Plan), Product
Law
Hub, ESI
Flow,
and Notes
to
My
(Legal)
Self,
each
rethinking
the
practice
and
business
of
law
through
technology,
data,
and
human-centered
design.
She
has
authored The
Rise
of
Product
Lawyers, Legal
Operations
in
the
Age
of
AI
and
Data, Blockchain
Value,
and Get
on
Board,
with Visual
IQ
for
Lawyers (ABA)
forthcoming.
Olga
is
a
6x
TEDx
speaker
and
has
been
recognized
as
a
Silicon
Valley
Woman
of
Influence
and
an
ABA
Woman
in
Legal
Tech.
Her
work
reimagines
people’s
relationship
with
law—making
it
more
accessible,
inclusive,
data-driven,
and
aligned
with
how
the
world
actually
works.
She
is
also
the
host
of
the
Notes
to
My
(Legal)
Self
podcast
(streaming
on Spotify, Apple
Podcasts,
and YouTube),
and
her
insights
regularly
appear
in
Forbes,
Bloomberg
Law,
Newsweek,
VentureBeat,
ACC
Docket,
and
Above
the
Law.
She
earned
her
B.A.
and
J.D.
from
UC
Berkeley.
Follow
her
on LinkedIn
and
X
@olgavmack.
Employers
in
the
U.S.
are
projecting
a
median
increase
of
10%
in
healthcare
costs
for
2026,
a
new
survey
from
the
International
Foundation
of
Employee
Benefit
Plans
found.
The
International
Foundation
of
Employee
Benefit
Plans
is
a
nonprofit
focused
on
providing
educational
information
to
those
working
in
the
employee
benefits
industry.
It
has
more
than
31,000
employer
members
representing
over
25
million
lives.
The
organization’s
survey,
released
Thursday,
was
conducted
between
July
30
and
August
7
and
included
responses
from
150
corporate
and
single
employers.
The
10%
projected
increase
in
healthcare
costs
is
up
from
a
similar
report
last
year
that
projected
an
8%
median
increase
for
2025.
When
asked
what
the
primary
factors
contributing
to
the
increase
in
medical
plan
costs
were
for
2026,
31%
said
“catastrophic
claims,”
an
increase
from
20%
who
said
this
last
year.
Following
catastrophic
claims,
23%
said
specialty/costly
prescription
drugs,
15%
said
utilization
due
to
chronic
conditions
and
11%
said
medical
provider
costs.
Among
those
who
chose
specialty/costly
prescription
drugs
as
a
primary
factor
for
cost
increases,
59%
said
that
GLP-1
drugs
were
a
major
reason
(this
is
down
from
last
year,
when
75%
said
GLP-1s
were
responsible).
After
GLP-1s,
50%
said
cancer
drugs,
21%
said
cell
and
gene
therapy
and
26%
said
other
drugs.
To
combat
these
rising
costs
in
2026,
27%
of
respondents
said
that
implementing
cost-sharing
initiatives
—
such
as
through
deductibles,
coinsurance,
copays
or
premium
contributions
—
will
be
the
most
impactful.
This
is
up
from
21%
who
said
this
last
year.
In
addition,
this
is
consistent
with
what
Mercer
found
in
its
recent
survey,
in
which
51%
of
large
employers
said
they
are
likely
or
very
likely
to
shift
costs
to
employees
in
2026.
About
17%
of
respondents
in
the
International
Foundation’s
survey
said
that
implementing
plan
design
initiatives
will
also
be
effective.
This
includes
dependent
eligibility
audits,
high-deductible
health
plans,
spousal
surcharges
and
formulary
changes.
Another
17%
said
they
will
use
purchasing/provider
initiatives,
like
telemedicine,
price
transparency
tools,
centers
of
excellence,
healthcare
navigators
and
quality
initiatives.
Lastly,
12%
of
respondents
reported
that
they’ll
implement
utilization
control
initiatives,
such
as
prior
authorization,
case
management,
disease
management
and
nurse
advice
lines.
This
is
a
significant
decrease
from
last
year,
however,
when
27%
said
they’ll
use
utilization
control
initiatives.
“The
10%
projected
increase
is
attributed
to
a
variety
of
factors
impacting
organizations’
medical
plan
costs,
with
catastrophic
claims
and
specialty/costly
prescription
drugs
topping
the
list,”
said
Julie
Stich,
CEBS,
vice
president
of
content
at
the
International
Foundation
of
Employee
Benefit
Plans,
in
a
statement.
“Employers
have
indicated
that
cost-sharing,
plan
design
and
purchasing/provider
initiatives
will
be
the
most
impactful
techniques
to
manage
costs.”
*
Article
highlights
efforts
surrendering
firms
have
taken
against
Trump
administration,
which
certainly
seems
like
the
sort
of
publicity
those
firms
would
hope
to
promote
amid
talent
and
client
defections.
[American
Lawyer]
*
Supreme
Court
imposing
rule
of
guess
as
it
tries
to
obscure
its
actions.
[National
Law
Journal]
*
Burford
Capital
considers
moving
litigation
finance
to
new
level
with
equity
stakes
in
law
firms.
[Financial
Times]
*
Trump’s
D.C.
stunt
has
“no
exit
strategy.”
Though
as
its
own
exit
strategy
from
the
Epstein
files
it’s
doing
great.
[NPR]
*
Norton
Rose
tried
its
hand
as
a
tech
startup.
It
didn’t
work.
[Bloomberg
Law
News]
Sinai
was
admitted
to
the
clinic
from
July
3
to
July
9,
2025,
reportedly
for
heart
failure
and
sepsis,
receiving
IV
infusions
and
injections
as
part
of
her
treatment.
However,
her
family
was
alarmed
to
discover
upon
discharge
that
she
had
developed
a
necrotic,
blistered
wound,
which,
according
to
her
daughter
Eugenia
Kamanga,
had
worsened
in
less
than
10
days.
Said
Eugenia:
“My
mother
stated
that
the
nurses
were
very
aggressive
with
needles
despite
her
telling
them
to
stop.
“This
is
unacceptable
and
we
need
answers
and
possibly
sue
them.
She
cannot
sleep
at
night
due
to
pain
and
tissue
damage.
“No
one
at
the
clinic
is
taking
responsibility
for
this
action.
We
have
medical
aid;
they
collected
US$165
upfront
and
US$55
per
night.
“We
paid
for
unnecessary
tests
while
they
tried
to
figure
out
what
was
going
on
“We
need
closure
on
this
grave
violation
and
lack
of
nursing
skills.”
When
contacted
by
the Zimbabwe
Independent,
Samuel
Leon
Clinic
management
said
they
were
in
communication
with
the
family.
Ranganai
Mubvumbi,
president
of
the
Health
Professions
Authority
of
Zimbabwe,
confirmed
that
the
matter
had
been
referred
to
the
Medical
and
Dental
Practitioners
Council
of
Zimbabwe
(MDPCZ)
for
further
investigation.
Said
Mubvumbi:
“It
might
take
a
month
or
two,
depending
on
the
complexity
of
the
issue
and
the
number
of
people
who
took
care
of
the
person.
“If
you
feel
the
medical
council
was
not
fair
to
you,
you
can
appeal
to
us;
the
outcome
from
the
authority
will
then
be
revealed
at
the
High
Court
ruling.”
The
blaze,
which
started
on
Sunday
morning,
is
the
second
to
hit
the
furniture-manufacturing
hub
in
less
than
a
month,
following
a
similar
incident
on
27
July
2025,
also
on
a
Sunday.
The
Harare
Fire
Brigade
managed
to
extinguish
the
flames
by
afternoon,
but
not
before
significant
destruction
had
occurred.
Authorities
are
investigating
the
cause
of
the
fire,
the
extent
of
the
damage,
and
the
losses
incurred.
Harare
City
Council’s
Small
and
Medium
Enterprises
Committee
chairperson,
Councillor
Denford
Ngadziore,
said
the
Chemhanza
area
in
Glen
View
3
had
been
identified
for
the
temporary
relocation
of
affected
traders.
Last
month’s
fire
destroyed
approximately
25
per
cent
of
the
complex,
leaving
roughly
700
traders
to
count
their
losses.
While
the
exact
cause
has
not
yet
been
confirmed,
investigators
suspect
it
may
have
been
triggered
by
an
unattended
brazier
or
an
illegal
electricity
connection.
Following
the
July
incident,
Local
Government
and
Public
Works
Minister
Daniel
Garwe
announced
that
President
Emmerson
Mnangagwa
had
declared
the
fire
incident
a
state
of
disaster.
Such
a
declaration
extends
beyond
public
health
concerns
and
is
aimed
at
addressing
emergencies,
including
natural
disasters,
explosions,
acts
of
terrorism,
or
sieges.
Garwe
further
pledged
that
the
reconstruction
of
the
Glen
View
complex
would
include
improved
road
infrastructure,
water
reticulation,
food
courts,
and
modern
fire
safety
systems.
He
also
called
for
the
compilation
of
a
verified
list
of
affected
traders
to
ensure
targeted
assistance
through
the
Department
of
Civil
Protection.
One
If
By
Land,
Two
If
By
Subway:
DOJ
fires
lawyer
who
tossed
sandwich
at
federal
officer
and
this
administration
WILL
NOT
STAND
for
sandwiches
thrown
at
law
enforcmenet.
Trying
to
kill
them
with
fire
extinguishers
and
flagpoles,
though…
much
different
story.
The
Biglaw
Circle
Of
Life…:
Morris
Manning
defections
move
mid-sized
firm
into
merger
with
Taft,
creating
an
even
bigger
firm
to
one
day
get
stuck
in
a
proverbial
bathtub.
Speaking
Of
The
Bathtub
Of
Despair:
Willkie
begins
laying
off
staff
while
begging
associates
not
to
leave.
That
deal
with
Trump
is
working
out
great!
Party
Like
It’s
2009!:
Recession
seems
likely
for
the
legal
industry.
Marriage
Equality
On
The
Clock:
The
court
that
gave
us
the
end
of
Roe
makes
big
flirty
eyes
at
Obergefell.
Bonus
Round:
More
firms
join
the
summer
bonus
game.
Bar
Exam
Roulette:
California
once
again
treats
February
test-takers
like
Schrödinger’s
lawyers,
flipping
their
results
and
their
mental
health
in
one
click.
The
University
of
Zimbabwe’s
graduation
this
year
unfolded
with
all
the
usual
fanfare.
Families
travelled
from
across
the
country
to
see
their
children
receive
caps
and
gowns.
Students
smiled
for
the
cameras,
speeches
were
made,
and
the
air
was
thick
with
pride.
Yet
beneath
the
celebration,
there
was
an
unease
that
would
not
vanish
with
the
tossing
of
mortarboards.
This
was
not
an
ordinary
graduation.
It
was
one
born
in
the
shadow
of
a
lecturers’
strike,
dragged
through
a
courtroom,
and
stained
by
questions
that
a
judge’s
ruling
could
not
wash
away.
To
the
casual
observer,
the
story
might
seem
simple:
lecturers
demanded
better
pay
and
conditions,
went
on
strike,
and
when
the
university
decided
to
proceed
with
graduation,
they
went
to
court
to
try
to
stop
it.
The
case
was
dismissed
as
“moot,”
the
ceremony
went
ahead,
and
the
graduates
walked
out
into
the
world
with
their
degrees.
But
stories
that
seem
simple
at
first
often
conceal
deeper
fault
lines.
The
real
story
is
about
reputation,
credibility,
and
the
way
suspicion
clings
to
documents
in
the
international
arena.
For
this
class
of
graduates,
the
dispute
may
follow
them
long
after
the
confetti
has
been
swept
away.
The
lecturers’
strike
at
UZ
was
not
a
minor
disruption.
It
stretched
across
crucial
months.
When
final-year
students
needed
guidance,
supervision,
and
assessment.
Projects
were
left
half-marked.
Dissertations
sat
on
desks
without
feedback.
Exams
were
overseen
by
replacement
staff
hastily
hired,
often
without
the
experience
or
authority
to
properly
evaluate
work
at
that
level.
Lecturers
argued
that
this
created
a
situation
where
degrees
were
being
awarded
without
the
rigour
that
gives
them
value.
Their
union’s
decision
to
approach
the
High
Court
was
a
dramatic
escalation,
a
public
declaration
that
the
ceremony
itself
risked
becoming
a
farce.
The
university
administration
pushed
back,
insisting
that
protocols
had
been
followed.
They
wanted
to
send
a
clear
message:
academic
calendars
would
not
bend
to
strikes.
To
them,
delaying
graduation
would
be
an
admission
of
failure,
and
failure
was
not
an
option
in
a
political
environment
that
prizes
stability
above
honesty.
So
the
ceremony
went
on,
guarded
by
the
authority
of
a
court
dismissal
but
shadowed
by
doubts
that
could
not
be
dismissed
as
easily.
Here
lies
the
problem:
legal
outcomes
do
not
settle
reputational
disputes.
A
judge
may
dismiss
a
case
on
technical
grounds,
but
the
world
of
international
education
does
not
read
judgments;
it
reads
headlines.
Once
a
story
is
out
there
that
exams
were
compromised
or
supervision
was
absent,
it
becomes
part
of
the
institutional
record
in
the
eyes
of
those
abroad.
An
admissions
officer
in
the
UK
or
Canada
may
not
know
the
details
of
Zimbabwe’s
legal
system.
What
they
will
remember
is
a
short
line
in
a
briefing:
“UZ
graduation
contested
in
court
over
compromised
exams.”
That
one
line
is
enough
to
create
doubt.
Doubt
travels
quickly,
faster
than
clarifications,
faster
than
corrections.
And
once
it
lodges
itself
in
the
bureaucratic
imagination
of
an
overseas
admissions
committee,
it
hardens
into
policy.
Applications
from
that
university
may
start
being
flagged
for
additional
verification.
Requests
for
notarised
transcripts
become
standard.
Evaluations
by
third-party
credential
assessors
become
compulsory.
At
the
margins,
where
time
is
short
and
competition
high,
rejection
becomes
the
easier
option.
For
a
young
graduate
eager
to
study
or
work
abroad,
this
shift
is
devastating.
A
certificate
that
was
supposed
to
open
doors
now
carries
an
invisible
footnote.
A
postgraduate
office
in
London,
Toronto,
or
Melbourne
may
look
at
the
year
“2025”
on
the
degree
and
recall
the
controversy.
The
application
is
not
read
as
a
record
of
achievement
but
as
a
potential
risk.
And
risk
is
rarely
rewarded
in
systems
already
flooded
with
applicants.
The
cruel
irony
is
that
the
students
did
nothing
wrong.
They
sat
through
lectures
disrupted
by
strikes,
wrote
exams
under
chaotic
conditions,
and
handed
in
projects
without
the
guidance
they
deserved.
Yet
the
documents
they
now
hold
may
be
read
with
suspicion
not
because
of
their
own
efforts
but
because
of
the
circumstances
of
their
institution.
In
global
education,
trust
is
collective:
one
scandal
can
taint
thousands.
This
dynamic
is
not
unfamiliar.
Zimbabweans
have
lived
it
in
another
sector:
driving
licences.
For
years,
the
UK
accepted
Zimbabwean
Class
2
licences.
Then
doubts
arose
about
how
those
licences
were
issued,
recorded,
and
categorised.
The
UK
authorities
responded
by
tightening
recognition.
Suddenly,
drivers
who
had
done
nothing
wrong
found
themselves
unable
to
convert
their
licences.
They
were
forced
to
retest
or
go
through
convoluted
procedures
just
to
continue
working.
The
policy
did
not
target
individuals;
it
targeted
the
system.
But
the
individuals
were
the
ones
who
suffered.
That
is
how
reputational
spillover
works.
Once
doubt
creeps
in,
it
does
not
discriminate.
It
treats
every
certificate,
every
licence,
every
piece
of
paper
from
the
affected
system
as
potentially
flawed.
In
the
same
way,
if
foreign
universities
or
employers
begin
to
see
UZ’s
2025
graduation
as
disputed,
the
entire
cohort
of
graduates
will
pay
the
price.
The
deeper
cruelty
of
this
story
is
that
suspicion
often
lasts
longer
than
evidence.
A
headline
about
compromised
exams
will
be
remembered
years
after
detailed
clarifications
are
forgotten.
A
rumour
whispered
in
an
academic
office
can
linger
long
enough
to
derail
a
scholarship
application.
Graduates
who
should
be
thinking
about
building
careers
will
instead
be
forced
to
gather
proof
of
their
own
competence,
scrambling
for
supervisor
letters,
copies
of
marked
scripts,
or
endorsements
from
external
examiners.
They
will
spend
months
defending
themselves
against
doubts
they
did
not
create.
The
university
administration
may
argue
that
these
fears
are
exaggerated,
but
international
recognition
bodies
are
notoriously
conservative.
They
prefer
to
over-scrutinise
than
to
take
risks.
And
in
a
world
where
credentials
are
currency,
once
that
currency
is
suspected
of
being
counterfeit,
its
value
plummets
quickly.
It
is
easy
to
condemn
the
lecturers
for
their
decision
to
challenge
the
graduation.
To
many,
it
was
an
act
of
cruelty,
a
betrayal
of
the
very
students
they
had
taught.
In
trying
to
force
the
university’s
hand,
they
painted
the
entire
class
with
the
brush
of
illegitimacy.
That
accusation,
once
made,
cannot
be
withdrawn.
It
has
entered
the
bloodstream
of
global
reputation.
Yet
their
desperation
must
also
be
understood.
Lecturers
at
Zimbabwean
universities
have
endured
collapsing
salaries,
dwindling
resources,
and
administrative
neglect
for
years.
Their
attempts
at
dialogue
with
authorities
have
been
ignored.
Standards
have
slipped,
and
with
them
the
pride
of
professionals
who
once
saw
themselves
as
guardians
of
knowledge.
When
every
avenue
is
closed,
the
courtroom
becomes
the
only
stage
left.
Their
move
may
have
been
destructive,
but
it
was
also
a
signal:
the
value
of
a
degree
itself
was
in
danger.
As
reckless
as
it
seemed,
it
was
born
of
desperation,
and
desperate
times
call
for
desperate
measures.
The
real
tragedy
is
that
none
of
these
explanations
matter
to
the
institutions
abroad
that
will
decide
the
fate
of
these
graduates.
What
they
will
see
is
a
class
of
degrees
conferred
in
a
year
when
lecturers
claimed
exams
were
compromised.
That
is
enough
to
trigger
policies
that
treat
the
graduates
as
suspects
rather
than
scholars.
It
does
not
matter
that
the
court
dismissed
the
case.
It
does
not
matter
that
many
students
worked
hard
despite
the
strike.
International
systems
are
not
built
to
separate
nuance
from
noise.
They
are
built
to
protect
themselves
from
risk.
So
the
2025
graduate
from
UZ
faces
an
uphill
climb.
Applications
may
be
slowed.
Opportunities
may
vanish.
Employers
may
pass
over
résumés
for
fear
of
future
complications.
The
collateral
damage
is
real,
immediate,
and
deeply
unfair.
There
are
measures
the
university
could
take.
It
could
invite
external
auditors
to
verify
assessments,
publish
transparent
marking
records,
or
issue
independent
statements
of
validation
for
this
year’s
cohort.
Such
actions
might
reassure
some
institutions
abroad,
though
they
come
with
cost
and
complexity.
In
the
meantime,
the
burden
will
fall
on
graduates
themselves
to
provide
proof
of
legitimacy.
They
will
need
to
keep
every
scrap
of
academic
evidence,
be
ready
to
explain
their
circumstances,
and
prepare
to
wait
longer
for
responses.
The
damage
may
eventually
fade,
but
reputational
stains
linger
longer
than
administrators
admit.
For
many
of
these
graduates,
the
shadow
of
doubt
will
stretch
across
years,
shaping
the
trajectory
of
their
careers.
The
University
of
Zimbabwe’s
2025
graduation
was
a
contested
moment
that
revealed
the
fragility
of
academic
trust.
A
strike,
a
lawsuit,
and
a
court
dismissal
may
seem
like
temporary
drama,
but
in
the
world
of
international
recognition,
they
are
enough
to
leave
scars.
Degrees
are
not
judged
solely
by
what
is
printed
on
them
but
by
the
stories
attached
to
their
institution.
This
year’s
story
is
one
of
dispute
and
doubt.
The
lecturers’
decision
to
challenge
the
ceremony
was
harsh,
even
cruel,
to
the
students
who
now
carry
the
burden
of
suspicion.
Yet
it
also
came
from
a
place
of
despair,
born
of
a
system
that
has
ignored
its
own
rot
for
too
long.
In
the
end,
it
is
the
graduates
who
suffer
most,
forced
to
defend
themselves
against
rumours
that
spread
faster
than
truth.
And
as
this
generation
of
UZ
students
steps
into
the
world,
they
will
learn
quickly
how
fragile
credibility
can
be,
and
how
one
institution’s
crisis
can
become
an
entire
cohort’s
lifelong
obstacle.
That
is
the
cost
of
a
strike
that
turned
into
a
courtroom
battle
and
a
graduation
that
may
not
be
fully
believed.
