BULAWAYO-
The
High
Court
has
sharply
criticised
and
overturned
a
15-year
prison
sentence
handed
down
to
a
Beitbridge
man
convicted
of
dealing
in
cannabis,
citing
gross
misapplication
of
the
law
and
a
failure
to
consider
mitigating
factors
and
sentencing
guidelines.
Tapfuma
Moyo
was
convicted
on
21
May
2025
after
he
was
caught
with
40.56
kilograms
of
cannabis
(locally
known
as
mbanje)
at
the
Beitbridge
Border
Post.
He
pleaded
guilty
and
was
sentenced
by
a
regional
magistrate
to
15
years
imprisonment,
with
six
years
suspended.
However,
in
a
strongly
worded
review
judgment,
Justice
Mutevedzi—sitting
with
Justice
Ndlovu—ruled
that
the
sentence
imposed
was
both
procedurally
flawed
and
excessively
harsh.
The
court
noted
that
under
Zimbabwean
law,
cannabis
is
not
classified
among
the
dangerous
drugs
that
attract
mandatory
minimum
sentences
when
dealt
with
in
aggravating
circumstances.
Justice
Mutevedzi
pointed
out
that
cannabis
has
been
“separated
from
all
other
dangerous
drugs
and
placed
in
a
special
category,”
noting
its
growing
acceptance
globally
and
locally
for
medicinal
and
economic
purposes.
“The
maximum
sentence
an
offender
can
receive
for
unlawful
dealing
in
mbanje
is
15
years’
imprisonment,”
the
judge
ruled.
“The
jurisprudence
in
sentencing
is
that
the
maximum
penalties
must
be
reserved
for
the
worst
types
of
a
given
crime.
The
trial
magistrate
erred
in
treating
15
years
as
a
presumptive
sentence.”
The
judgment
also
emphasised
that
courts
must
consider
imposing
fines
before
resorting
to
imprisonment,
especially
for
first-time
offenders—a
principle
that
was
ignored
in
Moyo’s
case.
Moreover,
the
court
found
fault
with
the
magistrate’s
order
to
destroy
the
confiscated
dagga,
despite
Zimbabwe
having
liberalised
cannabis
cultivation
for
medicinal
and
research
purposes
in
2018.
“Throwing
40
kgs
of
mbanje
down
an
incinerator
simply
because
it
is
tradition
may
be
uneconomical,”
Justice
Mutevedzi
remarked.
Ultimately,
the
High
Court
reduced
Moyo’s
sentence
to
9
years
imprisonment,
with
3
years
suspended
on
condition
of
good
behaviour
for
five
years.
The
revised
sentence
reflects
an
attempt
to
strike
a
balance
between
discouraging
drug
trafficking
and
ensuring
proportional
punishment.
The
court
directed
that
the
trial
magistrate
recall
Moyo
to
inform
him
of
the
amended
sentence.
This
ruling
is
likely
to
influence
future
sentencing
in
cannabis-related
offences
and
may
accelerate
policy
discussions
around
the
treatment
of
cannabis
in
Zimbabwe’s
legal
system.
The
widespread
use
of
AI
has
hit
higher
ed
hard.
First
the
teachers
complained
about
students
using
ChatGPT
on
their
assignments.
Then
the
punishments
came.
Plagiarism
software
was
updated
to
account
for
its
use
and
students
could
face
serious
consequences
for
outsourcing
their
thinking
to
AI.
It
didn’t
take
long
for
the
tables
to
turn:
students
began
to
complain
about
how
often
teachers
were
using
AI!
Some
teachers
are
transparent
with
the
process
—
Ithaca’s
Diane
Gayeski
runs
her
student’s
papers
through
ChatGPT
for
suggestions
on
how
they
should
be
graded
and
she
suggests
that
students
do
the
same
to
their
work
as
a
way
to
proofread.
But
are
these
fringe
uses
or
signs
of
how
ubiquitous
AI
usage
will
be
in
the
classroom.
The
University
of
Michigan
Law
School
is
interested
in
that
answer
and
they
want
applicants
to
get
some
contributions
from
AI
when
they
answer
it.
ABA
Journal
was
able
to
grab
the
text
of
a
new
question
on
the
application,
here
it
is:
“Essay
Ten—To
be
answered
using
generative
AI:
How
much
do
you
use
generative
AI
tools
such
as
ChatGPT
right
now?
What’s
your
prediction
for
how
much
you
will
use
them
by
the
time
you
graduate
from
law
school?
Why?”
What
a
strange
way
to
get
at
this
sort
of
information!
First,
the
posing
of
this
question
seems
to
be
a
strong
exception
from
UMichigan’s
general
stance
toward
AI
use
in
the
classroom.
The
ABA
was
quick
to
point
out
that
it
can’t
be
used
for
the
applicant’s
personal
statements
or
any
other
supplemental
essay
questions.
If
a
student
were
to
answer
along
the
lines
of
”
I
use
AI
a
moderate
amount”
or
“I
use
AI
so
much
that
it
heavily
impacts
my
life
choices.
I’ve
only
applied
to
this
law
school
because
it
told
me
getting
in
would
finally
make
my
parents
proud
of
me,”
wouldn’t
that
run
the
risk
of
making
the
applicant’s
reader
question
if
the
student
inappropriately
used
ChatGPT
or
some
other
large
language
model
to
answer
other
sections
of
the
application?
It
seems
like
the
safest
route
would
be
to
offer
conservative
answers
like
“I
don’t
use
AI
tools
very
often”
and
“I
think
that
my
usage
of
such
tools
will
depend
on
the
school’s
honor
code
and
the
degree
to
which
my
teachers
require
its
usage.”
Out
of
curiosity,
I
ran
the
questions
through
ChatGPT
and
got
this
response:
Current
Use
of
Generative
AI
Tools:
Right
now,
I
use
generative
AI
tools
like
ChatGPT
occasionally,
mainly
for
tasks
like
brainstorming,
summarizing
legal
concepts,
or
clarifying
complex
topics.
It’s
particularly
useful
for
getting
a
quick
overview
of
case
law,
generating
outlines,
or
even
simplifying
dense
legal
language
when
I
need
a
fresh
perspective.
However,
I
still
rely
heavily
on
traditional
sources
like
textbooks,
casebooks,
and
class
notes
for
in-depth
study
and
analysis.
Predicted
Future
Use
in
Law
School:
By
the
time
I
graduate
from
law
school,
I
expect
to
use
generative
AI
tools
significantly
more.
As
the
technology
improves
and
becomes
better
integrated
into
legal
research
platforms,
I
foresee
using
it
for
drafting
practice
memos,
issue
spotting,
synthesizing
rules
from
multiple
cases,
and
perhaps
even
checking
my
writing
for
clarity
and
conciseness.
It
could
also
be
a
helpful
tool
for
exam
preparation,
time
management,
and
simulating
Socratic-style
questioning.
Why:
The
legal
field
is
increasingly
adopting
AI-assisted
tools,
and
as
a
student,
I
want
to
stay
ahead
of
that
curve.
Law
school
involves
managing
an
overwhelming
amount
of
information,
and
generative
AI
can
help
streamline
that
workload.
As
I
gain
more
experience
and
confidence,
I’ll
likely
trust
the
tools
more—though
always
with
a
critical
eye,
since
legal
accuracy
and
ethical
standards
are
non-negotiable.
On
balance,
that’s
a
pretty
damned
good
answer.
And
while
inviting
students
to
answer
questions
with
AI
may
not
the
best
way
to
assess
their
knowledge
or
reasoning
skills,
at
least
its
not
nearly
as
bad
as
the
California
Bar
sneaking
AI-generated
questions
onto
the
bar
exam.
Best
of
luck
to
any
prospective
students
applying
to
UMichigan.
Remember,
this
should
be
the
only
question
you’re
using
AI
to
help
you
answer!
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.
Afraid
african
woman
isolated
on
gray
background
looking
shy
or
terrified
covering
hiding
her
face
with
hands
peeping
through
fingers
is
shocked
by
horror
movie
or
frightened
by
what
she
saw
concept
Remember
when
nine
major
law
firms
bowed
to
Trump’s
demands,
agreeing
to
vaguely
worded
pro
bono
commitments
to
avoid
retaliatory
executive
orders?
Because
they
sure
hope
Trump
doesn’t!
According
to
American
Lawyer
reporting,
seven
of
the
nine
have
“pledged
to
maintain
independence
in
their
pro
bono
practices”
per
internal
memos.
Promising
to
do
something
would
seem
to
do
incredible
violence
to
the
word
“independence.”
Do
students
“independently”
agreed
to
pay
off
their
loans
when
they
fulfill
their
end
of
a
contractual
agreement?
The
pro
bono
payola
agreements
seemed
a
little
informal
—
most
contracts
aren’t
memorialized
in
all
caps
on
a
social
media
platform
—
but
these
internal
memos
are
giving
a
lot
of
“anticipatory
breach”
energy.
But
three
months
after
the
deals
were
made,
firms
are
staying
quiet
about
how
they
plan
to
fulfill
their
pro
bono
commitments
to
President
Donald
Trump
and
his
administration.
None
of
the
nine
firms
that
made
deals
responded
to
questions
from
The
American
Lawyer
about
pro
bono
work
they’ve
done
that
counts
toward
their
financial
commitments.
But
after
all
the
fanfare
surrounding
these
deals,
why
hasn’t
the
administration
called
in
its
debts?
Firms
may
be
keeping
a
low
profile
in
hopes
that
the
president
moves
on
to
something
else,
said
New
York
Law
School
ethics
professor
Rebecca
Roiphe.
“Neither
side
has
an
interest
here
in
pushing
things
too
far
because
the
Trump
administration
has
kind
of
walked
away
with
a
win
here
regardless
of
what
the
courts
do,”
Roiphe
said.
And
just
as
firms
don’t
want
negative
attention
that
could
jeopardize
their
good
standing
with
the
administration,
Roiphe
added,
Trump’s
win
over
firms
could
turn
into
a
loss
if
the
president
presses
for
something
firms
can’t
or
won’t
give,
forcing
them
to
fight
him
in
court.
This
would
make
sense
in
normal
times,
but
nothing
about
this
is
normal.
These
parties
do
not
have
equal
bargaining
positions.
Trump
already
proved
that
these
firms
will
cave.
They
forfeited
their
bargaining
position
already.
All
that’s
left
is
him
forgetting
that
he
has
the
upper
hand.
There’s
no
downside
to
Trump
pushing
these
deals
if
it
came
to
it
because
he
holds
all
the
cards
over
these
firms.
He
can
just
reinstate
the
executive
orders.
Are
they
illegal?
Sure,
but
they
were
always
illegal.
The
firms
didn’t
make
these
deals
because
they
thought
they’d
lose
the
court
fight
over
the
executive
orders
—
at
least
not
unless
I’m
grossly
overestimating
their
judgment
as
lawyers
—
they
made
the
deals
to
avoid
the
hassle
of
fighting
the
case.
Trump
can,
at
almost
zero
cost,
bring
back
the
hassle.
Firms
with
some
backbone
actually
challenged
these
orders
and
won
and
Trump
is
still
appealing.
He
doesn’t
care
about
taking
repeated
losses
in
court
because
he’s
exacting
inconvenience
and
he
can
just
turn
those
losses
into
more
fuel
for
the
“all
the
activist
leftist
Reagan
judges
are
out
to
get
me”
agitprop.
The
idea
that
Trump
is
playing
3D
chess
against
Biglaw
to
prevent
a
black
eye
in
court,
gives
way
to
the
simpler
explanation:
the
firms
know
they’re
dealing
with
an
excitable
dementia
patient
and
expect
him
to
move
on
to
the
next
shiny
object.
Personally,
I
wouldn’t
bank
a
firm’s
liquidity
on
a
toddler’s
promise
to
eat
his
veggies,
but
here
we
are.
Though
even
if
the
White
House
never
comes
calling
—
though
they
will
—
the
deals
are
already
hurting
people.
The
implicit
flipside
of
firms
keeping
their
heads
down
to
avoid
doing
work
for
Trump
is
that
the
firm
has
to
avoid
doing
work
that
gets
back
on
Trump’s
radar.
And
it
goes
beyond
the
firms
themselves,
as
pro
bono
work
is
taking
a
hit
across
Biglaw
in
large
part
because
of
the
lead
these
firms
took
in
bending
the
knee.
No
one
wants
to
be
out
there
defending
folks
that
could
irk
Trump
or
Miller.
Maybe
they
can
help
him
with
the
Epstein
list.
Trump’s
not
going
to
get
far
litigating
against
Rupert
Murdoch
without
some
big
guns
and
it’s
not
like
he’s
actually
going
to
pay
a
firm
to
handle
it.
Matthew
Wallin
at
Slate
argues
that
railing
against
judges
that’ve
done
Trump
wrong
is
simply
part
of
his
brand
at
this
point.
Trump
administration
has
a
very
different
relationship
with
legal
action
than
any
previous
administration.
They
do
not
seem
to
view
legality,
or
effective
administration
of
existing
laws,
to
be
a
primary
or
even
desirable
goal.
Rather,
they
seem
to
view
state
action
primarily
as
a
means
of
political
advocacy,
in
which
an
ultimate
loss—or
a
few
constitutional
violations—doesn’t
really
matter
as
long
as
those
losses
manage
to
move
the
conversation.
(This
is
a
lesson
that
Democrats
could
stand
to
learn
from.)
Appealing
this
decision
plays
exactly
into
this
strategy,
because
it
allows
the
Trump
administration
to
keep
threatening
lawyers
representing
political
opponents
because
they
get
to
keep
talking
about
it.
…Which
checks
out.
And
of
course
there’s
the
elephant
at
1
First
Street.
These
appeals
(obviously
at
this
point
they’re
expected
in
the
WilmerHale
and
Susman
cases)
are
how
Trump
gets
in
front
of
his
favorite
justices.
Wallin
acknowledges
that
the
Supreme
Court’s
tendency
to
bend
over
backwards
for
Trump
means
that
what
should
be
an
easy
call
at
the
High
Court
gets
a
lot
more
dicey,
“The
government
could
appeal
an
issue
that
they
never
argued
in
the
lower
court
(despite
the
fact
that
they’re
not
supposed
to
be
able
to
do
that),
and
the
Supreme
Court
could
agree
with
them
on
that.
The
Trump
administration
might
do
something
so
new
and
crazy
that
OK’ing
this
executive
order
suddenly
seems
like
a
‘moderate’
decision.”
You
won’t
go
poor
betting
on
the
Roberts
court
selling
out
the
norms
and
precedent
of
the
legal
system,
so
it’s
definitely
on
the
table
that
SCOTUS
backs
Trump
on
this
one.
I
still
think
these
orders
are
such
an
affront
to
legal
institutions
and
the
very
rule
of
law
that
the
EOs
won’t
get
the
green
light
from
the
Court.
But
it’s
not
100%
—
and
that’s
terrifying.
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].
In
our
enthusiasm
to
adopt
and
use
GenAI,
are
we
ignoring
a
critical
problem:
what
are
the
tools
doing
to
our
critical
thinking
skills?
And
just
why
are
experienced
partners
better
at
using
GenAI
than
younger
lawyers?
I
attended
an
interesting
panel
discussion
on
Monday
at
the
American
Association
of
Law
Librarians
(AALL)
conference
in
Portland.
It
was
entitled
I
Hate
Hallucinations:
How
to
Combat
Misconceptions
Around
GenAI
Accuracy.
It
was
advertised
to
be
a
discussion
on
the
misconception
of
GenAI
inaccuracies,
how
to
reduce
hallucinations,
how
to
ask
GenAI
questions
the
right
way
to
reduce
risk,
and
what
the
future
holds.
The
panelists
included
Andrea
Guldalian,
Director
of
Library
Services
at
Duane
Morris,
Saskia
Mehlhorn,
Director
of
Knowledge
Services
at
Norton
Rose
Fulbright,
and
Patrick
Parsons,
the
Director
of
the
Law
Library
at
the
University
of
Pittsburgh
School
of
Law.
The
Critical
Discussion
But
despite
the
session
description,
the
conversation
quickly
pivoted
to
something
more
fundamental:
the
implicit
dangers
of
GenAI
and
the
problems
the
profession
faces
in
the
training
of
young
lawyers.
(I
recently
discussed
this
issue
in
an
article
on
the
development
of
gut
instinct
in
the
days
of
GenAI.)
This
part
of
the
discussion
raised
some
troublesome
and
challenging
issues.
These
issues
can
be
clearly
seen
in
the
context
of
legal
research.
Here’s
the
reasoning
of
the
panel.
First,
the
use
of
GenAI
for
everyone
but
particularly
law
students
and
young
lawyers
is
tempting
because
it’s
so
easy.
Parsons
summed
it
up
this
way:
“It’s
too
easy
and
really
tempting
to
just
rely
on
what
it
gives
you.”
The
other
problem
is
that
GenAI
is
really
good
at
doing
rote
tasks,
summarizing
and
manipulating
data,
and
easing
the
everyday
burdens.
But
legal
research
is
different.
It’s
the
Process,
Stupid
Parsons
believes,
and
so
do
I,
that
legal
research
is
a
process.
“Legal
research
is
not
finding
the
law.
It’s
not
a
one-sentence
answer.”
Legal
research
involves
finding
a
case,
reading
a
case,
reading
similar
cases,
reading
cases
that
come
to
an
opposite
conclusion,
and
understanding
not
just
the
holding
of
the
case
but
the
context
and
nuance.
None
of
the
GenAI
tools
can
do
this,
at
least
not
yet.
The
danger,
of
course,
is
that
the
more
younger
lawyers
—
and
for
that
matter,
the
rest
of
us
rely
—
on
GenAI
for
the
rote
tasks,
the
more
we
are
tempted
to
use
it
for
more
complicated
things
like
legal
research
to
get
quick
answers.
“Legal
research
is
not
just
finding
a
quote,”
said
Parsons.
Certainly,
in
my
years
of
practice,
I
saw
plenty
of
lawyers
who
tried
to
take
the
easy
way
out
with
research
pre-GenAI.
These
were
the
ones
who
relied
on
headnotes
instead
of
reading
the
cases.
This
often
led
to
disastrous
results
when
their
opposition
(me)
actually
read
their
cases.
But
today,
it’s
even
easier
and
more
tempting
than
ever.
The
Problem
is
the
Problem
Which
raises
another
more
fundamental
concern.
Sound
legal
research
(and
solving
many
other
complicated
problems)
involves
thinking
through
the
problem
on
the
front
end.
There
is
a
well-known
adage
that
has
been
applied
to
things
from
therapy
to
business
management:
“the
problem…is
the
problem.”
One
of
my
mentors
used
to
always
ask
me:
what’s
the
first
thing
you
do
in
any
case?
It’s
not
reading
cases
or,
in
today’s
parlance,
asking
ChatGPT
for
an
answer.
It’s
sitting
back
and
looking
out
at
the
Ohio
River
(our
offices
overlooked
the
River).
What
he
meant
of
course
was
thinking
through
the
problem
was
the
key.
Or
as
Albert
Einstein
put
it,
“If
I
had
an
hour
to
solve
a
problem,
I’d
spend
55
minutes
thinking
about
the
problem
and
5
minutes
thinking
about
solutions.”
But
here’s
what’s
going
on
now,
according
to
the
panel:
as
Mehlhorn
put
it,
“Critical
thinking
has
left
the
house.
Too
often
younger
lawyers
don’t
think
through
the
problem,
they
just
want
information
quickly.”
Senior
Lawyers
Better
at
Using
GenAI?
What?
The
erosion
of
critical
thinking
skills
makes
another
panelist’s
observation
particularly
telling:
an
observation
that
on
first
blush
seems
surprising
but
really
shouldn’t
be.
Mehlhorn
observed
that
it
was
the
more
senior
lawyers
who
are
the
best
users
of
AI
products.
Why?
Mehlhorn
says
it’s
because
they
know
what
they
are
looking
for.
In
other
words,
they
have
a
better
grip
on
the
problem.
They
also
know
when
an
answer
looks
right.
And
when
it
looks
wrong.
How
do
they
know
these
things?
I
think
it’s
because
of
their
experience
with
the
research
process
that
Parsons
talked
about,
over
and
over
again,
so
that
they
perhaps
subconsciously
see
patterns,
as
I
discussed
in
my
article.
It’s
this
pattern
that
triggers
what
I
referred
to
as
“gut
instinct.”
But
as
someone
smarter
than
me
observed
after
reading
my
article,
it’s
not
gut
instinct
but
wisdom.
The
Real
Challenge
But
here
is
the
danger
and
the
challenge
we
as
a
profession
are
facing.
As
we
rely
more
and
more
on
GenAI
tools,
we
risk
losing
the
process
that
develops
the
critical
thinking
skills,
the
wisdom
that
more
experienced
lawyers
have.
We
have
to
find
some
ways
to
first
instill
among
our
young
lawyers
the
respect
for
critical
thinking
and
the
process
necessary
to
solve
legal
problems.
We
have
to
develop
ways
to
ensure
that
they
develop
and
use
those
skills
and
processes.
We
have
to
make
sure
that
with
all
the
benefits
of
GenAI,
we
don’t
come
to
expect
and
even
demand
that
quick
answer.
That
isolated
and
seemingly
reliant
quote.
We
need
to
demand
that
they
show
us
that
they
have
thought
through
the
problem,
not
asked
ChatGPT
for
an
easy
answer.
The
solution
isn’t
to
abandon
GenAI.
But
we
need
to
be
intentional
about
preserving
and
encouraging
the
critical
thinking
skills
that
make
good
lawyers.
This
means
building
training
programs
that
emphasize
process
over
speed,
creating
mentorship
opportunities
where
senior
lawyers
can
pass
on
their
pattern
recognition
skills,
and
perhaps
most
importantly,
giving
young
lawyers
permission
to
take
the
time
to
think.
Let’s
Not
Kid
Ourselves
As
with
everything,
reliance
and
use
of
GenAI
comes
with
a
price.
We
are
only
starting
to
see
that
price.
We
have
to
find
ways
to
minimize
and
control
that
price
else
our
future
lawyers
won’t
be
humans.
They
will
be
robots
with
simplistic
non-answers
to
complicated
problems
that
go
nowhere.
Just
as
it
has
always
been,
the
future
of
law
depends
on
lawyers
who
can
think.
A
GenAI
tool
that
spends
55
minutes
thinking
about
a
problem
would
be
a
laughingstock
today.
Let’s
not
give
our
profession
the
same
treatment.
Stephen
Embry
is
a
lawyer,
speaker,
blogger
and
writer.
He
publishes TechLaw
Crossroads (Opens
in
a
new
window),
a
blog
devoted
to
the
examination
of
the
tension
between
technology,
the
law,
and
the
practice
of
law.
Ed.
note:
Please
welcome
Vivia
Chen
back
to
the
pages
of
Above
the
Law.
Subscribe
to
her
Substack,
“The
Ex-Careerist,”here.
I
HAVE
MIXED
FEELINGS
about Ryan
Powers, the
second-year
associate
who
was
fired
by
Wall
Street
law
firm
Davis
Polk
&
Wardwell.
Though
he’s
been
lauded
on
social
media
and
various
news
outlets
(The
Parnas
Perspective and Above
the
Law)
for
standing
up
to
Big
Law
and
speaking
truth
to
power,
I
am
not
quite
ready
to
call
him
a
hero.
Here’s
what
happened: According
to
Powers,
he
was
fired
on
June
12
merely
four
hours
after
he
informed
the
firm
that
he
intended
to
publish
an
article
about
the
threat
to
civil
liberties
posed
by
government
surveillance.
Just
a
day
before,
the
firm
warned
him
that
his
writings
in
various
news
publications
had
breached
internal
policy
–
a
policy,
he
explains,
that
“gave
the
firm
broad
discretion
to
block
employee
speech
on
any
topic
it
chose
to
view
as
relevant
to
its
interests.”
The
firm
offered
no
explanation,
“only
that
something
had
been
flagged,
and
I
was
expected
to
stop.”
He
refused
to
comply: “I
believed
the
issues
I
was
raising
mattered
–
and
I
rejected
the
idea
that
writing
about
fundamental
rights
and
democracy
was
somehow
wrong.”
He
makes
a
broader
point:
“This
isn’t
just
about
one
firm.
It’s
about
Big
Law:
an
industry
increasingly
beholden
to
power,
where
employers
are
quietly
deciding
what
their
lawyers
are
allowed
to
say
–
not
just
in
the
office,
but
in
their
lives
beyond
it.”
OK,
I’m
with
him
so
far.
Powers
then
rails
against
Big
Law’s
hypocrisy
—
suppressing
speech
in
the
name
of
maintaining
neutrality
when,
in
fact,
“the
clients
we
serve,
the
cases
we
take,
and
the
influence
we
exert
make
us
inherently
political.”
I’m
with
him
on
that
too.
But
then
he
cites
Davis
Polk’s
representation
of
Trump
Media
&
Technology
Group
on
a
crypto
venture
as
Exhibit
A.
That
last
point
left
me
scratching
my
head.
If
Davis
Polk
is
now
representing
a
precious
Trump
interest
(his
crypto
ventures
have
made $57
million so
far),
why
would
Powers
think
the
firm
would
allow
him
to
shoot
his
mouth
off
on
anything
remotely
critical
of
Trump?
What’s
more,
Powers
was
writing
about
the
dangers
of
government
surveillance
and
how
companies
like Peter
Thiel’s
Palantir
Technologies,
whose
financial
advisors
Davis
Polk had
represented,
are
helping
to
erode
individual
liberty.
It’s
not
like
Davis
Polk
has
been
subtle
about
its
pivot
towards
Trump. This
spring,
the
firm
hired
former
Trump
White
House
counsel
Stefan
Passantino
to
beef
up
its
lobbying
presence,
and
quietly
scrubbed
all
mention
of
partners Greg
Andres and Uzo
Asonye’s
roles
in
the
Mueller
investigation.
Given
all
that,
Powers’s
decision
to
keep
publishing
articles
critical
of
Trump
world
under
his
real
name
(Davis
Polk
was
never
mentioned
by
name;
Power
was
usually
identified
as
a
Harvard
Law
School
graduate
who
works
at
“an
international
law
firm”)
was
asking
for
trouble.
Though
his
writings
weren’t
angry
screeds,
they
were
still
jabs
at
MAGA.
But
even
without
the
Trump
factor,
I
wonder
how
many
firms
would
tolerate
a
direct
hit
on
a
major
client.
Powers
knew
what
he
was
doing
was
going
to
piss
off
management. Which
is
why
I
found
it
a
bit
disingenuous
when
he
suggested
that
he
was
caught
off-guard
by
his
firing:
“I
understand
why
they
are
doing
what
they’re
doing.”
he told Bloomberg
Law.
“At
the
same
time,
it’s
very
sad
on
a
personal
level
because
it
ends
my
Big
Law
career
sooner
than
I
had
anticipated
and
in
a
very
different
way
than
I
had
anticipated.”
Clearly,
he
wanted
to
force
the
issue,
make
a
grand
statement,
and
come
off
as
an
avatar
of
defiance
in
the
face
of
authoritarianism.
The
only
question
is
whether
he
pulled
it
off.
While
I
too
am
alarmed
at
how
Big
Law
is
capitulating
to
the
Trump
administration
—
turning
its
back
on
diversity
and
social
justice,
paying
extortion
money
(nearly
a
$1
billion
in
free
legal
services)
to
get
off
his
shitlist,
and
generally
contorting
itself
to
curry
favor
with
Trump
—
I’m
put
off
by
Powers’s
grandstanding.
His
après-firing
post
on Instagram shows
how
his
ego
has
taken
over:
Today,
I’m
exposing
a
culture
of
unchecked
power,
secret
conversations,
and
dark
money
that’s
long
overdue
for
public
scrutiny.
Because
when
lawyers
with
the
most
privilege
and
protection
are
too
afraid
to
speak,
democracy
dies.
Not
in
chaos,
but
in
comfort
—
behind
closed
doors,
in
shadowy
back
rooms,
on
billion-dollar
yachts.
I
know
Davis
Polk
partners
are
taking
home
a
tidy
bundle
(its
profit
per
partner
is
$7.8
million)
but
I
doubt
they’re
hanging
out
on
billion-dollar
yachts
like
Russian
oligarchs.
As
for
“exposing”
Big
Law’s
dark
side,
didn’t
we
already
know
that
many
of
the
muckety-mucks
of
the
most
profitable
firms
in
the
nation
will
sell
their
own
mothers
to
keep
the
money
machine
flowing?
He
also
says
that
he
wrote
his
articles
to
make
the
legal
implications
of
Trump’s
actions
“easier
to
understand,”
but
couldn’t
he
have
done
so
under
a
pseudonym?
I
AM
ON
THE
SAME
PAGE
with
Powers
on
almost
all
of
the
points
he
raised
about
the
state
of
the
legal
profession
and
sincerely
want
to
cheer
him
on.
But
deliberately
getting
himself
fired
then
wrapping
himself
in
the
flag
of
victimhood
strikes
a
false
note.
I
know
what
he
did
takes
guts
and
that
he’s
sacrificed
a
lot
—
a
good
salary,
health
insurance,
and
security
—
yet
his
approach
feels
self-indulgent.
But
perhaps
I’m
being
too
harsh.
Perhaps
I’m
missing
the
whole
point.
Perhaps
this
kind
of
grandstanding
is
what
it
takes
to
drive
home
a
point
that
needs
constantly
reminding
—
that
Big
Law
is
bending
to
an
authoritarian
leader
and
jeopardising
the
rule
of
law.
So
is
Powers
heroic,
naive
or
annoying.
Well,
who
says
he
can’t
be
all
three?
Vivia
Chen writes “The
Ex-Careerist” column
on
Substack
where
she
unleashes
her
unvarnished
views
about
the
intersection
of
work,
life,
and
politics.
A
former
lawyer,
she
was
an
opinion
columnist
at
Bloomberg
Law
and
The
American
Lawyer.
Subscribe
to
her
Substack
by
clicking
here:
The
Centers
for
Medicare
&
Medicaid
Services
unveiled
a
proposed
rule
that
would
raise
Medicare
outpatient
payments
next
year,
as
well
as
introduce
a
key
change
to
how
physicians
are
reimbursed.
Provider
groups
aren’t
convinced
that
these
changes
would
benefit
them
in
the
long
run,
though.
The
rule,
which
was
released
last
week,
would
raise
Medicare
payment
rates
for
hospital
outpatient
services
by
a
net
2.4%
in
2026.
The
increase
reflects
a
3.2%
market
basket
update,
which
CMS
partially
offset
through
a
0.8%
productivity
adjustment.
The
agency
proposed
a
2.4%
payment
bump
for
ambulatory
surgery
centers
in
2026
as
well.
CMS’
proposal
also
introduced
two
distinct
conversion
factors
for
physician
payment
—
one
for
clinicians
participating
in
alternative
payment
models
and
another
for
those
who
aren’t.
This
change
stems
from
a
longstanding
provision
in
the
Medicare
Access
and
CHIP
Reauthorization
Act
of
2015
(MACRA),
which
is
aimed
to
shift
Medicare
away
from
fee-for-service
reimbursement
and
toward
value-based
care
by
encouraging
providers
to
participate
in
risk-bearing
payment
models.
In
other
words,
if
CMS’
proposed
rule
takes
effect,
the
agency
will
use
two
separate
conversion
factors
when
calculating
physicians’
payment
rates
hinging
on
their
participation
in
value-based
care
arrangements.
The
proposal’s
conversion
factor
for
doctors
in
alternative
payment
models
is
$33.59,
which
is
a
3.8%
year-over-year
increase,
and
the
conversion
factor
is
$33.42
for
doctors
not
in
these
models,
which
is
a
3.6%
hike.
The
American
Academy
of
Family
Physicians
said
it
is
heartened
by
this
payment
boost
—
but
worried
it
won’t
be
enough
to
help
providers
improve
their
margins
in
the
long
run.
“We
are
also
encouraged
that
CMS
proposed
to
increase
the
conversion
factor
for
2026
by
3.8%
for
qualifying
alternative
payment
models
and
3.6%
for
all
other
physicians.
However,
the
majority
of
the
increases
for
2026
are
temporary
adjustments
attributable
to
H.R.
1,
which
will
expire
at
the
end
of
the
year.
In
2027,
practices
will
face
another
pay
cut
and
struggle
to
keep
pace
with
inflation,”
the
group
said
in
a
statement.
The
American
Medical
Group
Association
also
voiced
concern
that
these
incremental
increases
fall
short
of
keeping
pace
with
inflation
and
rising
practice
costs
—
perpetuating
a
multiyear
decline
in
physician
reimbursement.
The
group
emphasized
that
emergency
fixes
are
not
enough
and
is
advocating
for
a
fundamental
overhaul
of
the
Medicare
physician
fee
schedule.
“Health
systems
and
medical
groups
continue
to
bear
the
brunt
of
an
outdated
and
underfunded
reimbursement
model,”
AMGA
CEO
Jerry
Penso
said
in
a
statement.
“Without
systematic
reform,
Medicare’s
current
fee-for-service
framework
will
remain
misaligned
with
the
shift
toward
high-value
care.”
Unless
CMS
enacts
comprehensive
reforms,
physician
groups
warn
that
temporary
payment
fixes
won’t
be
enough
to
protect
healthcare
access
or
providers’
financial
sustainability.
*
DOJ
trying
to
unseal
Epstein
grand
jury
records
knowing
those
won’t
add
anything
but
hoping
it
sounds
official
enough
to
get
their
own
followers
off
their
backs.
[New
York
Law
Journal]
*
John
Roberts
is
responsible
for
every
bit
of
this.
[The
Atlantic]
*
Breonna
Taylor
killer
sentenced
to
3
years
after
Trump
DOJ
asks
for…
nothing.
[CNN]
*
Trump
administration
invents
zombie
U.S.
Attorney
role.
[ABA
Journal]
*
FTC
commissioner’s
reinstatement
following
illegal
firing
put
on
hold.
[Reuters]
Latham
&
Watkins
Is
Bumping
Up
Their
Clerk
Compensation:
Check
out
the
new
numbers
here!
Shon
Hopwood
Convicted
In
Domestic
Violence
Case:
He
could
be
facing
several
more
years
behind
bars.
There
Goes
Another
Litigation
Partner!:
Goodbye
A&O
Shearman,
hello
Freshfields!
Take
A
Hike!:
No
seriously,
Quinn
Emanuel
hosts
great
outdoors
trips.
Keep
It
Simple,
Stupid
Applies
To
Lawyers
Too:
Judge
chastises
lawyer’s
overly
purple
apology.
Kathryn
