3 Questions For Another Court Access Crusader (Part I) – Above the Law

Last
fall,
this
readership
and
I
were
fortunate
to

hear

from
the
head
of
the
Free
Law
Project
(FLP),

Michael
Lissner
.
FLP
is
a
nonprofit
that
brings
innovation
and
equity
to
the
legal
ecosystem
through
a
host
of
open
tools
and
data
including
CourtListener,
the
RECAP
Suite,
and
Bots.law.
As
I
noted
in
my
interview
with
Michael,
“These
platforms,
alongside
their
numerous
open-source
tools
for
data
collection
and
analysis,
empower
millions
of
users

from
journalists
and
academics
to
everyday
Americans.”
(I
continue
to
encourage
those
interested
to
reach
out
to
FLP
with
inquiries
about
how
to
support
their
efforts.)
In
that
interview,
I
asked
Michael
about
FLP’s
continued
development
of
new
tools
that
can
advance
FLP’s
mission
of
expanding
legal
access
for
all.
At
the
time,
he
reiterated
FLP’s
commitment
to
“to
open-source
development
and
privacy,”
alongside
the
goal
of
increasing
the
usability
of
FLP’s
tools
for
the
general
public,
including
by
integration
of
AI-driven
capabilities
such
as
“AI-powered
search
tools.”

With
such
a
commitment
to
continued
innovation,
it
is
no
wonder
that
less
than
a
year
from
my
interview
with
Michael
we
can
now
discuss
a
major
enhancement
to
one
of
FLP’s
best-known
offerings,
the

RECAP
Archive

in
CourtListener.
Helping
us
understand
this
new
feature
launch
will
be
Stephanie
Taube,
a
product
manager
and
user
researcher
contributing
to
FLP. 
Stephanie
has
prior
experience
as
director
of
product
at
an
AI
startup,
and
as
a
research
fellow
at
Harvard
University.
She
holds
a
master’s
degree
in
public
policy
from
the
University
of
California,
Berkeley. 

I
very
much
welcome
the
opportunity
to
share
Stephanie’s
insights
with
this
audience.
As
usual,
I
have
added
some
brief
commentary
to
the
answer
to
my
first
question
below,
but
have
otherwise
presented
her
answer
as
she
provided
it.


Gaston
Kroub:
Tell
us
about
Free
Law
Project’s
newest
feature
launch.
Why
is
it
a
gamechanger?


Stephanie
Taube:

On
June
18,
we

launched

RECAP
Search
Alerts
for
PACER.
The

RECAP
Archive

in
CourtListener
is
the
biggest
open
collection
of
federal
court
data
on
the
internet.
For
years,
our
docket
alerts
have
enabled
users
to
track
existing
federal
dockets.
Now,
with
search
alerts
for
RECAP,
users
can
set
alerts
for
specific
keywords,
receiving
a
notification
whenever
there’s
a
match
in
a
new
PACER
case
or
filing.
This
allows
users
to
follow
topics,
organizations,
people,
and
lots
of
other
things.
For
example,
a
lawyer
may
want
a
notification
when
their
client
is
sued,
or
when
there
is
a
new
case
with
a
particular
nature
of
suit
code.

This
feature
has
been
on
our
backlog
for
eight
years,
so
we’re
really
excited
to
be
launching
it.
We
think
it
will
be
hugely
powerful
for
attorneys,
journalists,
and
more.
Our
commitment
to
providing
free,
public
access
to
primary
legal
materials
means
we
make
five
daily
alerts
available
to
every
user
at
no
charge.
As
far
as
we
know,
we’re
the
only
organization
providing
this
type
of
service
for
free.


GK
:
It
is
hard
to
overstate
just
how
helpful
FLP’s
newest
innovation
can
be
for
those
concerned
with
goings
on
in
the
federal
court
system.
As
an
IP
litigator
who
currently
has
docket
alerts
set
for
dozens
of
active
cases,
the
additional
functionality
now
on
offer
from
FLP

for
free,
no
less
–-
will
only
enhance
my
ability
to
track
issues
of
interest
across
a
wider
swath
of
active
cases.
Moreover,
in
a
fast-moving
field
like
patent
litigation,
the
ability
to
receive
alerts
when
issues
of
interest
are
addressed
by
courts
around
the
country
can
provide
a
critical
edge
to
practitioners,
so
I
expect
to
see
rapid
uptake
of
FLP’s
new
tool
by
the
IP
litigation
community.

Likewise,
I
can
see
a
lot
of
value
for
those
interested
in
legal
topics
that
have
resonance
across
different
practice
areas.
What
comes
to
mind
would
be
something
like
an
alert
setting
for
all
decisions
in
federal
cases
where
the
court
deals
with
issues
relating
to
litigation
finance,
for
example.
Rulings
on
discoverability
of
funding
arrangements
or
disclosure
obligations
relating
to
funding
can
have
cross-disciplinary
impact,
making
FLP’s
new
tool
a
powerful
addition
to
the
arsenal
of
those
hoping
to
remain
on
the
cutting-edge
of
fast
moving
legal
developments.
All
in
all,
it
will
be
very
interesting
to
see
how
users
decide
to
utilize
this
new
tool.
We
should
also
commend
the
team
at
FLP
for
again
delivering
a
tool
that
promises
to
increase
access
to
the
court
system
for
us
all.

I
will
continue
with
Stephanie’s
answers
to
my
remaining
two
questions
next
week.
In
the
meantime,
please
take
the
opportunity
to
sign
up
for

CourtListener

and

RECAP
.

Please
feel
free
to
send
comments
or
questions
to
me
at

[email protected]

or
via
Twitter:

@gkroub
.
Any
topic
suggestions
or
thoughts
are
most
welcome.




Gaston
Kroub
lives
in
Brooklyn
and
is
a
founding
partner
of 
Kroub,
Silbersher
&
Kolmykov
PLLC
,
an
intellectual
property
litigation
boutique,
and 
Markman
Advisors
LLC
,
a
leading
consultancy
on
patent
issues
for
the
investment
community.
Gaston’s
practice
focuses
on
intellectual
property
litigation
and
related
counseling,
with
a
strong
focus
on
patent
matters.
You
can
reach
him
at 
[email protected] or
follow
him
on
Twitter: 
@gkroub.

It’s Time To Reconsider Technological Competency And The Value Of Legal Services – Above the Law

Last
week,
the
Puerto
Rico
Supreme
Court
came
out
with
a
much
more
realistic
and
impactful
definition
of
a
lawyer’s
technological
competence
obligations
than
that
promulgated
by
some
40
states.
The

Puerto
Rican
rules

are
a
stronger
statement
about
competence
and
suggest
why
it
is
so
important.

The
State
tech
competency
obligations
are
all
based
on
a
Comment
of
the
American
Bar
Association
to
the
Rule
1.1
Model
Competency
Rule.
In
general,
the
comment
provides
that
lawyers
should
keep
abreast
of
the
risks
and
benefits
of
relevant
technology.

The
comment,
which
was
written
in
2012
when
technology
was
far
less
pervasive,
is
hampered
by
squishy
language
like
“should”
(not
must)
and
“relevant.”
Its
impact
is
further
blunted
by
the
fact
that
it’s
just
a
comment,
not
a
rule.
Better
than
nothing,
but
a
little
weak,
especially
in
the
age
of
AI
(more
on
that
in
a
minute).


The
Puerto
Rico
Competency
Rule

Here
is
what
the
recent
Puerto
Rican
Supreme
Court
Rule
says
about
technological
competence:

Persons
practicing
law
must
acquire
the
necessary
skills
and
maintain
a
reasonable
knowledge
of
technological
developments
that
may
impact
legal
practice
and
notarial
functions.
This
includes
the
duty
to
use
technology
diligently
and
with
awareness
of
its
benefits
and
risks
in
order
to
provide
competent
and
effective
legal
representation
or
notarial
services.

Note
that
unlike
Comment
8,
the
Puerto
Rico
Rule
uses
the
word
must.
(In
the
U.S.,
only
West
Virginia
has
adopted
the
word
must
instead
of
should.)
And
it
does
not
rely
on
the
concept
of
relevance
(which
lets
lawyers
argue
that
tech
is
not
relevant
if
the
lawyer
doesn’t
use
it)
but
on
reasonableness.
It
also
highlights
the
need
to
diligently
use
technology
and
be
aware
of
the
risks
and
benefits.
No
doubt
this
is
a
stronger
version
the
ABA
should
consider.

The
Puerto
Rico
Comments
to
the
Rule
also
provide
additional
considerations.
They
describe
technology
as
an
“indispensable
tool”
and
emphasize
its
dynamic
nature.
Competence,
according
to
the
comments,
means
reasonably
understanding
a
tool’s
capabilities,
benefits,
limitations,
and
risks;
verifying
the
accuracy
of
its
output;
and
maintaining
independent
professional
judgment.
Finally,
the
comments
highlight
that
technological
diligence
means
using
tech
tools
in
a
timely
and
responsible
way
without
causing
unnecessary
delays
or
harm.

It’s
a
stronger,
more
grounded
rule.
But
its
real
power
lies
in
what
it
implies:
that
tech
competence
isn’t
just
another
checkbox

it’s
now
foundational
to
how
we
fulfill
every
ethical
duty
we
have.


The
Importance
of
Technological
Competence

The
Puerto
Rico
Rule
is
better
than
our
Comment
in
a
number
of
ways.
It
underscores
the
fact
that
understanding
the
benefits
and
risks
of
technology
today
is
the
bedrock
of
ethical
compliance
in
general.
Yes,
it’s
important
to
understand
the
obligation
to
keep
client
confidences.
But
technology
is
so
pervasive
in
so
many
ways,
it’s
hard
to
see
how
a
lawyer
can
ensure
confidentiality
without
understanding
things
like
the
cloud
or
the
risks
of
on
prem
digital
hosting.
The
same
with
communications.
The
same
with
supervision.
So,
knowing
the
benefits
and
risks
(or
perhaps,
better
put,
understanding
why
you
need
to
understand
the
benefits
and
risks)
is
critical.
Those
lawyers
who
quote
hallucinated
cases?
They
erred
in
not
understanding
the
technological
shortcuts
they
were
using.


Ethical
Valuation
of
Legal
Service

But
recognizing
the
ethical
importance
of
tech
competence
isn’t
enough.
If
we
want
lawyers
to
actually do it,
the
rules
and
incentives

especially
around
how
we
bill

need
to
catch
up.

Even
under
Puerto
Rico’s
stronger
rule,
it’s
hard
to
see
how
compliance
gets
meaningfully
enforced
without
something
more.
Are
bar
associations
or
courts
really
going
to
sanction
a
lawyer
for
being
tech-ignorant
when
the
rules
are
peppered
with
words
like
“should,”
“relevant,”
and
“reasonable”?
Probably
not,
except
for
extreme
cases.
So
perhaps
instead
of
relying
on
discipline,
we
should
be
thinking
about
how
to
incentivize
tech
competence
in
other
ways.

Both
the
ABA
and
Puerto
Rican
ethical
rules
emphasize
that
legal
fees
must
be
“reasonable.”
Historically,
the
profession
has
interpreted
that
to
solely
mean
how
much
time
was
spent.
ABA
Rule
1.5,
for
example,
prohibits
“unreasonable”
fees
and
lists
time
and
labor
as
the
very
first
factor
in
determining
reasonableness.
There
are
other
factors
but
for
most
of
the
profession
the
first
thing
anyone
asks
when
evaluating
value
is,
“How
much
time
did
it
take?”
The
Puerto
Rico
rule
goes
a
step
further,
insisting
that
lawyers
only
bill
for
time
actually
spent
on
a
matter.

But
the
more
important
question
in
the
future
is
how,
and
for
what,
lawyers
will
bill.
Artificial
intelligence
now
lets
us
do
in
seconds
what
used
to
take
hours.
For
firms
that
still
cling
to
the
billable
hour
model,
this
is
unsettling
territory.
The
profession
is
already
grappling
with
what
AI
means
for
that
model
and
for
how
legal
services
should
be
valued.
Exclusive
reliance
on
time-based
billing
may
no
longer
make
sense.

Yet,
the
profession’s
fixation
on
time
as
the
only
determination
of
value
will
create
problems
when
the
time
to
complete
tasks
is
substantially
reduced,
especially
now
that
the
public
understands
just
how
fast
AI
can
get
things
done.
It’s
inevitable
that
we
will
see
ethical
complaints
or
even
malpractice
claims
against
lawyers
who
fail
to
use
tech
efficiently.
 We
need
to
rewrite
the
rules
to
reflect
a
new
reality:
in
the
future,
value
won’t
be
exclusively
measured
in
hours.

Rule
makers
have
a
real
opportunity
here
to
guide
the
profession
and
redefine
what
an
ethical
and
fair
fee
is
now
and,
in
the
future,
will
be.
But
it
all
starts
with
understanding
the
benefits
and
risks
of
technology,
which
is
another
reason
why
defining
that
obligation
is
so
key.


Bottom
Line

Puerto
Rico’s
rule
is
an
improvement.
But
the
deeper
challenge
is
aligning
our
rules,
ethics,
and
business
models
with
the
technological
reality.

Comment
8
was
written
way
back
in
2012
when
technology
was
not
nearly
as
pervasive
and
impactful.
It’s
time
for
a
change.




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
.

Kirkland’s Nonequity Partners Are Such ‘Hot Sh*t’ That Almost All Other Biglaw Firms Have Been Driven To Copy Their Partnership Model – Above the Law



Ed.
note
:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day
.


They’ve
done
a
perfect
job
of
it.
You
have
Kirkland
non-share
partners
on
the
recruiter’s
speed
dial,
because
they’re
hot
sh*t.
It
doesn’t
matter
that
they
aren’t
equity.
The
recruiting
firm
gets
to
tell
all
their
people,
and
clients,
that
we’ve
collared
a
Kirkland
partner,
a
real
one.
And
they
love
it.
It
changes
how
the
firm
is
seen
in
the
market,
the
whole
vibe.
It
makes
firms
feel
like
they’re
players.





A
former
Kirkland
&
Ellis
partner,
in
anonymous
comments
given
to
the

American
Lawyer
,
concerning
the
impact
that
the
top-ranked
Biglaw
firm’s
nonequity
partnership
tier
has
had
on
the
rest
of
the
industry.
The
partner
went
on
to
refer
to
Kirkland’s
salaried
partnership
tier
as
a
“market
changing
hydra.”
Now,
all
but
a
few
of
Biglaw’s
best
have
announced
the

introduction
of
income
partnership
tiers
.


Staci Zaretsky




Staci
Zaretsky
 is
a
senior
editor
at
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.

Biglaw Partner Makes A Mistake, Decides To Respond With Humility And Humor – Above the Law

Typos
happen.
That
is
just
a
fact
of
our
increasingly
digital
life.
We
write
so
much

on
social
media,
emails,
texts

that
not
everything
gets
the
intense
scrutiny

of,
say,
a
filed
brief,

and
yes,
mistakes
get
made.
There’s
not
much
you
can
do
except
own
up
to
it
and
move
on.

One
Biglaw
partner,
Holland
&
Knight’s
Christopher
Nolan,
showed
a
good
deal
of
humor
when
he
made
an
oopsie.
He
recently
posted
this
on
LinkedIn:

Did
you
catch
the
mistake?
Or
is
your
brain
so
conditioned
by
Biglaw
it
switched
assassins
to
associates?
And,
because
it’s
the
internet,
Nolan
was
called
out
on
his
error,
with
responses
to
his
post
noting,
“I
presume
you
mean
‘associates,’
not
‘assassins.’”
And
Nolan
responded,
“Get
to
know
us
better

your
assumption
is
not
correct!”

And
he
continued
the
bit.
When
a
colleague
coyly
noted
the
mistake:

Nolan
responded:

Now,
Nolan
has

since
edited

the
post,
but
not
before
it
was
documented
by
the

good
folks
at
RollOnFriday
.
But
what
a
pleasant
reaction
to
an
honest
mistake
(well,
we
assume
it
was
an
error,
not
a
confession).




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].

Amy Wax Loses Bid To Enjoin Sanctions – Above the Law

Amy
Wax

Amy
Wax
continues
to
drape
herself
in
high-minded
concepts
like
the
“First
Amendment”
and
“academic
freedom”
as
she
fights
the
sanctions
placed
on
the
law
professor
by
the
University
of
Pennsylvania.
But
a
federal
judge
just
slapped
down
her
bid
for
a
preliminary
injunction,
noting
what
many
of
us
have
said
over
and
over
since
this
saga
began.
“We
reiterate
that
this
is
not
a
First
Amendment
case,”
Judge
Timothy
Savage
wrote.
“It
is
a
breach
of
contract
case.
Wax’s
efforts
to
characterize
it
otherwise
are
of
no
avail.”

It’s
the
latest
in
a
long,
drawn
out
affair.
The
school
afforded
Wax
years
worth
of
a
leash
to
continue
embarrassing
the
institution
with

racist
op-eds

and

unfounded
insults
against
minority
students

before,
finally,
after
a
lengthy
and
cautious
investigation,
sanctioning
her to
one
year
at
half
pay,
a
public
reprimand,
the
loss
of
her
named
chair,
and
a
requirement
that
she
must
always
clarify
that
she’s
not
speaking
for
or
as
a
member
of
Penn
Law.
That’s
it.
She
keeps
her
job
and
tenure.

But
that
wasn’t
enough,
so
Wax
took
the
school
to
court.

Wax
has
always
clung
to
a

flimsy
academic
freedom
argument
.
While
higher
education
thrives
because
it
honors
a
scholar’s
freedom
to
pursue
unorthodox
hypotheses
in
the
quest
for
truth,
the
doctrine
loses
a
lot
of
juice
when
a
professor
trades
peer
reviewed
papers
for
“Zooming
with
Tucker
Carlson.”
She’s
basically
hit
the
“Easy”
button
on
her
career,
opting
for
rants
with
friendly
audiences
rather
than
face
scrutiny
from
colleagues,
and
then
demanded
the
protections
reserved
for
scholars
out
there
doing
the
hard
work.

As
part
of
this
crusade,
she
claims
the
university
has
trampled
her
core
First
Amendment
freedoms.
But
the
court
notes
that
Wax
can’t
bolt
free
speech
onto
the
contract
dispute
with
her
employer:

Wax
argues
we
should
presume
irreparable
harm
because
the
Third
Circuit
has
recently
“presum[ed]
that
First
Amendment
harms
are
irreparable.”
Id.
(citing
Roman
Cath.
Diocese
of
Brooklyn
v.
Cuomo,
592
U.S.
14,
19
(2020)
(per
curiam)).
This
is
not
a
First
Amendment
case.
It
is
a
breach
of
contract
case.

For
the
record,
Wax
teaches
labor
and
employment.
Maybe
she
really
should
stick
to
writing
op-eds
instead.

While
Wax
gave
the
school

a
lot
of
reasons

to
sanction
her,
it
was
the
impugning
of
student
ability
and
inviting
white
nationalists
to
campus
that
gave
the
school
its
strongest
arguments.
There’s
no
academic
freedom
excuse
for
discriminatory
remarks
about
students
or
introducing
a
potential
safety
issue.
That’s
core
employment
fodder.

Not
that
Wax
had
much
of
an
argument
for
irreparable
harm
anyway.

Wax
claims
the
sanctions
damage
her
reputation.
As
evidence
of
irreparable
harm,
she
points
to
the
cancellation
of
a
scheduled
radio
appearance
and
an
attempted
cancellation
of
a
speech
at
Yale.
However,
she
has
not
shown
any
connection
between
those
incidents
and
the
sanctions.
She
also
has
not
shown
that
the
cancellation
and
attempted
cancellation
were
not
simply
a
result
of
her
more
widely
publicized
views.

Ha.
In
the
words
of
The
Dude,
“This
is
not
a
First
Amendment
thing,
man.”

The
judge
also
noted
that
whatever
reputational
harm
she
could
conceivably
tie
to
the
sanctions
has
already
occurred,
making
a
preliminary
injunction
useless
and
that
she’s
still
free
to
take
whatever
speaking
engagements
as
long
as
she
affirmatively
dispels
any
confusion
that
she’s
speaking
for
Penn
Law.

And
she
wants
the
teaching
suspension
lifted,
but
the
judge
noted
that
the
harm
isn’t
teaching,
it’s
the
half
pay

a
damage
that
doesn’t
get
cured
with
equitable
relief.


(Check
out
the
opinion
on
the
next
page…)




HeadshotJoe
Patrice
 is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer
.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or

Bluesky

if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a

Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search
.

Doug Emhoff Heads To Top Law School To Serve As Visiting Professor – Above the Law

Doug
Emhoff
(Photo
by
CHARLY
TRIBALLEAU/AFP
via
Getty
Images)

Doug
Emhoff,
America’s
first
ever
Second
Gentleman,

returned
to
Biglaw

after
his
stint
at
the
White
House,
landing
at
Willkie
Farr
&
Gallagher.
Emhoff,
of
course,
was
critical
of
the
firm’s
decision
to
capitulate
to
Trump,
as
he

wanted
to
fight

the
threat
of
what
he
saw
as
a
blatantly
unconstitutional
executive
order,
but
was
ultimately
overruled.
Emhoff
will
remain
a
partner
with
Willkie,
but
for
now,
he’s
headed
back
to
his
alma
mater
as
a
distinguished
visiting
professor
of
law,
where
he
hopes
to
make
a
lasting
impression
on
the
next
generation
of
lawyers.

The
University
of
Southern
California
Gould
School
of
Law

recently
announced

that
Emhoff
will
teach
a
class
focused
on
entertainment
disputes,
starting
on
July
1.
He
previously

taught
a
similar
class
at
Georgetown
Law

when
his
wife,
Kamala
Harris,
served
as
vice
president.

Here’s
what
Emhoff
had
to
say
about
his
return
to
campus:

“It
is
great
to
be
back
home
in
Los
Angeles,
and
I
am
excited
and
honored
to
return
to
USC
Gould,
where
my
legal
journey
began,”
Emhoff
said.
“In
Washington,
I
had
the
privilege
of
not
just
serving
as
Second
Gentleman,
but
also
serving
as
a
professor
to
law
students
at
Georgetown
University.
One
of
the
best
parts
of
my
time
as
Second
Gentleman
was
spending
time
with
these
students
and
young
people
all
around
the
country

so
I
look
forward
to
continuing
to
share
my
experiences
with
the
next
generation
and
hearing
from
them
in
the
vibrant
academic
community
at
USC.”

Emhoff
continued:
“In
this
difficult
moment
for
the
legal
community,
I
believe
it
is
more
important
than
ever
to
instill
in
the
next
generation
of
lawyers
the
same
principles
that
drove
me
to
the
legal
profession:
the
imperative
of
speaking
out
on
behalf
of
the
vulnerable,
standing
up
for
the
rule
of
law,
defending
every
citizen’s
fundamental
rights,
and
always
fighting
for
justice,
without
fear
or
favor.”

Dean
Franita
Tolson
noted
that
USC
Gould
was
“thrilled”
to
welcome
Emhoff
back
as
a
member
of
the
faculty,
saying,
“His
extensive
legal
expertise,
coupled
with
his
commitment
to
public
service,
will
elevate
our
students’
learning
experience
and
enrich
our
scholarly
environment.”

Best
of
luck
to
Doug
Emhoff
in
his
new
role
as
a
law
professor
at
his
alma
mater.


Doug
Emhoff
joins
USC
Gould
faculty
as
Distinguished
Visiting
Professor

[USC
Gould
Law]


Doug
Emhoff
to
Return
to
Alma
Mater
as
Law
Professor
in
California

[Law.com]


Staci Zaretsky




Staci
Zaretsky
 is
a
senior
editor
at
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.

Rising criticism over Gukurahundi hearings amid fears of intimidation and exclusion

The
announcement
by
the
National
Council
of
Chiefs
that
the
hearings
will
be
held
privately,
with
each
victim
appearing
alone
or
with
minimal
family
support
before
a
14-member
panel
led
by
the
local
chief,
has
triggered
unease
among
former
liberation
war
fighters
and
political
activists.

“These
are
not
public
hearings,”
stated
Chief
Fortune
Charumbira,
Deputy
President
of
the
National
Council
of
Chiefs,
during
a
recent
press
conference
in
Bulawayo.

However,
many
see
this
model
as
intimidating,
especially
for
women
and
elderly
survivors.

Vice
Chairperson
of
the
ZPRA
Veterans
Association
Grace
Noko, 
outrightly
rejected
the
format.

“I
am
totally
not
in
agreement
with
the
hearing,”
Noko
told
CITE.

“Gukurahundi
brought
fear
into
people’s
lives
and
until
today,
people
are
still
not
free,
they
remain
traumatised.
A
panel
of
14
against
one
instills
fear.
Real
victims
might
not
attend,
but
the
imposed
ones
will.”

Noko
also
criticised
the
selection
of
chiefs
to
lead
the
hearings,
arguing
that
many
were
too
young
during
the
1980s
genocide
to
fully
understand
its
gravity.

“Most
chiefs
were
young
or
not
yet
born
during
Gukurahundi.
To
them,
it’s
like
playing
old
music
with
no
meaning,
just
a
passing
office
duty
or
taking
orders
from
the
top,”
she
claimed.

The
former
fighter
also
questioned
the
government’s
sincerity,
referencing
past
commissions
such
as
Sandura
and
Catholic
Commission
for
Justice
and
Peace,
which
also
held
closed
hearings.

“Why
were
those
not
made
public
either?”
she
asked,
adding
the
government
must
rethink
its
approach
or
risk
deepening
the
wounds
it
claims
to
heal.

“For
us
in
ZPRA,
this
is
a
waste
of
time,
a
dirty
campaign
to
brainwash
people.
Gukurahundi
is
a
genocide.”

Political
activist
and
interim
leader
of
the
Assemblies
of
Minorities
(AM)
party,
Chilumbo
Mudenda,
echoed
these
concerns,
saying
the
process
lacks
credibility
and
legal
grounding.

“It
has
been
our
argument
that
such
a
process
should
be
inclusive
of
all
stakeholders,
with
the
government
playing
a
role
but
not
monopolising
the
entire
process,”
Mudenda
said.

He
argued
that
the
current
approach,
government-led
and
dominated
by
traditional
leaders,
fails
to
address
the
personal,
communal,
political,
and
socio-economic
consequences
of
Gukurahundi.

“The
chiefs-led
process
falls
far
short
in
addressing
any
aspect
of
this
problem.
It
does
not
respond
to
the
deep
political
and
developmental
damage
caused
by
the
genocide,”
Mudenda
said.

“Many
of
these
chiefs
are
victims
themselves,
now
forced
to
sanitise
the
perpetrators
without
clarity
on
when
the
perpetrators
will
even
speak.”

Mudenda
added
that
the
absence
of
a
legal
framework
governing
the
process
undermines
its
legitimacy.

“There
should
be
a
law
to
prescribe
the
process’s
terms
of
reference,
grievance
mechanisms,
and
overall
credibility.
The
Zimbabwean
authorities
have
ignored
consistent
calls
for
a
neutral,
regional
or
internationally-led
process,
like
the
Motlanthe
Commission,”
he
noted.

Like
Noko,
Mudenda
insisted
that
genuine
reconciliation
must
be
rooted
in
truth,
accountability,
not
secrecy
or
political
control.

“Victims
deserve
an
independent,
inclusive,
and
transparent
process.
Not
one
directed
by
those
accused
of
wrongdoing,”
Mudenda
concluded.

CSOs urge inclusive development and swift passage of key bills


By
Ndumiso
Tshuma

Speaking
at
the
Convening
of
CSOs
Networks
for
Collective
Action
meeting
held
on
Friday
in
Bulawayo,
Noble
Hands
Zimbabwe
Executive
Director
and
founder
Willard
Musiyarira
called
for
greater
inclusivity
as
the
country
transitions
from
the
National
Development
Strategy
1
(NDS1)
to
National
Development
Strategy
2
(NDS2).

The
meeting
focused
on
strengthening
civil
society
alliances
on
accountability
and
monitoring
of
gender
equality
in
Zimbabwe.

“As
a
strategic
opportunity
to
embed
gender
equality
inclusion
at
the
heart
of
Zimbabwe
national
development
planning,
all
of
us
should
act
collectively
to
promote
an
inclusive
accountable
gender
responsive
development
gender.”
said
Musiyarira.

He
also
urged
government
action,
calling
upon
the
Ministry
of
Public
Service
and
Social
Welfare
to
act
swiftly
to
have
measures
and
structures
in
place
to
support
organisations
with
submission
for
registration
under
the
newly
PVO
act.

Musiyarira
also
stressed
the
urgent
need
for
the
passage
of
several
critical
bills
such
as
the
Gender
Equality
Bill,
National
Youth
Bill
and
the
Disability
Bill
to
make
sure
that
Zimbabwe’s
legislative
framework
guarantees
gender
equality
and
protects
the
rights
of
women,
girls
and
youth,
and
persons
with
disabilities
across
all
sectors.

“We
urge
the
inclusion
of
men
and
boys
in
the
campaign
against
gender
based
violence,
promoting
positive
activities
to
foster
gender
equity,”
Musiyarira
said.

Musiyarira
called
for
stronger
partnerships
between
CSOs
and
the
government.

“We
encourage
structured
collaboration
between
CSO
and
government
through
institutionalised
platforms
for
monitoring
and
evaluating
gender
responsive
policy
implementations,”
he
said,
calling
for
full
alignment
of
national
laws
with
international
standards.

“We
call
for
the
full
alignment
of
the
disability
bill
of
the
constitution
of
Zimbabwe,
on
2021
disability
policy
and
the
international
human
rights
instruments
including
the
UNCRPD,”
said 
Musiyarira.

Addressing
the
issue
of
drug
and
substance
abuse
among
the
youth,
Musiyarira
called
for
urgent
measures
that
include 
community
based
treatment,
integration
and
affected
urban
centres.

“We
also
call
for
urgent
measures
to
address
the
drug
and
substance
abuse
amongst
youth
including
community
based
treatment,
integration
and
affected
urban
centres,”
said
Musiyarira.

He
emphasised 
the
need
for
improved
data
collection.

“We
recommend
the
recreation
of
the
national
monitoring
and
evaluation
learning
framework
that
collects
gender
disaggregated
data
to
track
and
inform
urban
best
decision
making,”
said
Musiyarira.

Musiyarira
also
urged
inclusive
communication
and
fair
resource
distribution.

“We
also
call
upon
the
government
ministries
and
agencies
of
the
government
and
donor
community
to
adopt
the
inclusive
information
dissemination
mechanism
and
ensure
equitable
distribution
of
resources
and
funding
in
all
regions
of
Zimbabwe,”
said
Musiyarira.

Musiyarira
issued
a
call
to
action
for
certain
ministries
to
take
immediate
action.

“Our
call
to
action,
is
to
respectfully
call
upon
the
following
to
take
immediate
action:
The
Ministry
of
Women
Affairs,
Community
Small
and
Medium
Enterprises
Development,
the
Ministry
of
Industry
and
Commerce,
the
Ministry
of
Finance,
Economic
Development
and
Investment
Promotion,
the
Ministry
of
Public
Service
Labour
and
Social
Welfare,
the
Ministry
of
Youth
Empowerment
Development
and
Vocational
Training,
the
Ministry
of
Primary
and
Secondary
Education,
the
Zimbabwe
Gender
Commission,
the
Zimbabwe
Human
Rights
Commission,
the
Zimbabwe
Youth
Council
and
the
donor
community,”
said
Musiyarira.

He
stated
that
these
institutions
are
encouraged
to
collaborate
with
civil
society
actors.

“These
institutions
are
encouraged
to
collaborate
with
civil
society
actors
to
make
sure
that
Zimbabwe
development
trajectory
is
inclusive
and
anchored
on
constitutional
and
international
obligations,”
said
Musiyarira

Onboard Your Clients Like A Boss: The Modern Approach For Firm Sales And Onboarding – Above the Law

Image
courtesy
of
Barbri.

In
law,
first
impressions
aren’t
just
important,
they’re
everything.
Onboarding
a
new
client
isn’t
a
back-office
chore;
it’s
your
first
real
chance
to
show
how
your
firm
delivers
value.
Every
interaction,
from
initial
contact
to
the
first
signed
agreement,
sets
the
tone
for
your
relationship
and
reflects
your
firm’s
professionalism,
priorities,
and
commitment
to
service.

Clients
expect
responsiveness,
clarity,
and
convenience,
and
firms
can’t
afford
to
lean
solely
on
reputation
or
outdated,
paper-based
processes.
Today,
technology
is
more
than
a
helpful
tool,
it’s
the
backbone
of
a
streamlined,
client-friendly
onboarding
system
that
builds
trust,
saves
time,
and
scales
with
your
growth.



Sales
Funnel:
Yes,
You
Need
One

Sales
is
not
about
pressure,
it’s
helping
clients
understand
the
value
you
provide
and
how
you
can
help
them
solve
a
legal
problem.
That
means
you
must
be
clear,
confident,
and
responsive
from
the
very
first
touchpoint.
Start
by
mapping
your
client
journey
from
awareness
to
onboarding.
Identify
key
touchpoints
like:
where
do
most
clients
find
you,
what
happens
after
they
inquire,
how
fast
does
your
team
respond?
Every
dropped
call,
delayed
follow-up,
or
confusing
intake
process
can
lose
a
case
before
it
ever
begins.

During
your
consultation
think
of
it
as
a
valuable
conversation,
not
just
a
Q&A
session.
Clients
don’t
just
want
information;
they
want
to
know
you

understand

their
problem
and
have
a
clear
plan
to
help.
Remember,
not
everyone
signs
on
the
spot.
Have
a
process
in
place
for
follow-ups:
a
quick
email,
a
text,
or
a
scheduled
follow-up
call
to
finalize
the
strategy
and
details.

Once
they’re
ready
to
move
forward,
make
your
onboarding
simple
and
user
friendly.
Use
e-signatures,
automated
fee
agreements,
and
online
payment
tools
to
remove
friction.
Your
team
should
move
quickly
when
the
client
wants
to
hire.



The
Modern
Onboarding
Experience

What
today’s
clients
expect:
clarity,
speed,
and
transparency.
Clients
aren’t
just
comparing
you
to
other
lawyers,
they’re
comparing
you
to
Amazon,
Uber,
and
their
online
bank.
Their
expectations
are
evolving
with
what
other
businesses
are
providing.

Give
clarity
with
what
happens
after
signing
the
agreement.
Explain
who
will
handle
their
case
and
advise
them
when
they
will
hear
from
your
team.
Send
a
customized
checklist
of
what
the
client
is
responsible
for
such
as
documents
and
provide
them
with
a
secure
upload
portal.
Provide
them
with
instant
confirmations,
timely
updates,
and
quick
access
to
what
they
need.
Most
case
management
softwares
provide
the
clients
a
client
portal
to
access
information
about
their
case.
Throughout
the
process,
lay
out
realistic
timelines
and
deliver
ongoing
communication.

If
your
onboarding
process
is
unclear,
slow,
or
paper-based,
you’re
missing
an
opportunity
to
build
trust
and
reduce
anxiety
at
a
moment
when
your
client
is
looking
for
certainty.



Power
Your
Process

A
Client
Relationship
Management
(CRM)
system
like
Lawmatics,
if
legal-based,
if
it
is
not,
there
are
systems
like
Zoho,
Hubspot,
or
ClickUp,
that
allows
you
to
track
every
lead,
automate
follow-ups,
and
measure
your
conversion
rate.
You
can
see
where
clients
drop
off
in
the
intake
pipeline
and
send
automated
emails
to
nurture
leads
who
aren’t
ready
to
sign
right
away.
You’ll
be
able
to
send
your
client
agreements
and
fee
agreements
through
this
platform.

Every
intake
form,
welcome
email,
and
checklist
doesn’t
need
to
be
created
from
scratch.
Build
templates
for
initial
consult
notes,
welcome
emails
and
checklists,
document
request
lists,
and
case
milestone
updates.

Choosing
the
right
case
management
software
like
Filevine,
MyCase,
or
Clio
can
help
by
assigning
internal
workflows
so
your
team
knows
exactly
what
happens
next
and
it
keeps
clients
in
the
loop
through
portals
or
updates
without
constant
manual
outreach.
Client
portals
give
clients
24/7
access
to
documents,
updates,
and
messages
without
waiting
for
callbacks.
Text
and
email
automation
keeps
them
in
the
loop.
Auto-reminders
keep
both
clients
and
staff
on
track
with
deadlines
and
document
collection.
When
clients
see
that
your
firm
uses
modern
tools,
they
perceive
you
as
organized,
responsive,
and
forward-thinking.



Issues
to
Avoid

Even
the
best
intake
process
can
break
down
if
you’re
not
intentional.
Potential
clients
often
need
time
to
decide,
especially
with
legal
matters
that
involve
money,
fear,
or
uncertainty.
If
you’re
not
following
up
consistently,
they’ll
go
with
the
firm
that
does.

If
you
don’t
know
your
numbers,
you’re
flying
blind.
How
many
inquiries
become
consultations?
How
many
consultations
turn
into
paying
clients?
Where
are
you
losing
people?
Track
metrics
like
lead-to
consultation
ratio
and
consultation
to
contract
ratio.
This
data
helps
you
pinpoint
where
to
improve
and
where
you’re
leaving
money
on
the
table.

Delegation
is
powerful
but
only
when
it’s
supported
by
structure.
Sending
intake
or
onboarding
tasks
to
a
staff
member
without
clear
steps
or
expectations
often
leads
to
inconsistency,
delays,
and
dropped
balls.
Build
systems
before
you
delegate.
Use
checklists,
templates,
and
automated
task
assignments
to
ensure
everyone
follows
the
same
process,
every
time.


Onboard
Like
a
Leader

A
clear,
consistent,
tech-powered
process
is
a
reflection
of
your
leadership.
It
shows
clients,
staff,
and
even
future
hires
that
your
firm
is
intentional,
organized,
and
built
to
deliver
excellence
from
day
one.
When
you
equip
your
team
with
systems,
templates,
and
the
right
tools,
you
free
them
up
to
do
their
best
work.
They’re
no
longer
just
handling
files,
they’re
guiding
people
through
some
of
the
most
important
moments
in
their
lives.
And
when
your
team
feels
empowered,
clients
feel
it
too.




Ruby
L.
Powers is
a
Board
Certified
immigration
attorney
and
founder
of
Powers
Law
Group,
P.C.,
a
full-service
immigration
law
firm
in
Houston,
TX.
She
has
over
16
years
of
experience
in
law
practice
management.
She
is
the
author
of Power
Up
Your
Practice and
AILA’s Build
and
Manage
Your
Successful
Immigration
Law
Practice.
Through
Powers
Strategy
Group,
she
provides
consulting
and
hosts
the Power
Up
Your
Practice podcast.
She
serves
on
various
boards including
the
ABA
TECHSHOW
and
Mobile
Pathways. Ruby
empowers
attorneys
with
strategies
in
legal
innovation
and
business
growth—helping
them
build
client-focused,
efficient,
and
thriving
law
firms.  

The Top Biglaw Firms In Washington, DC (2026) – Above the Law

Life
as
a
DC
lawyer
may
be
tough
right
now
due
to
the
whims
and
fancies
of
the
current
administration,
but
for
many
lawyers,
Washington
is
the
place
to
be
if
they
want
to
do
work
related
to
the
government,
be
it
litigation,
transactional,
or
even
lobbying.
But
which
firms
are
considered
the
best
in
the
nation’s
capital?

Thanks
to
Vault’s
recently
released
regional
rankings,
we
now
know
which
Biglaw
firms
are
dominating
the
legal
scene
in
DC.
This
ranking
is
based
on
votes
tabulated
from
associates
who
were
asked
to
rate
firms
on
a
1
to
10
scale
based
on
their
prestige
within
the
region.

Here
are
the
top
10
most
prestigious
firms
in
Washington,
DC
(you
can
see
the
full
list
from
Vault
by
clicking

here
):

  1. Covington
    &
    Burling
  2. Williams
    &
    Connolly
  3. Latham
    &
    Watkins
  4. Skadden
    (replacing
    Gibson
    Dunn)
  5. Gibson
    Dunn
    (replacing
    Skadden)
  6. Kirkland
    &
    Ellis
  7. Sidley
    (replacing
    Hogan
    Lovells)
  8. Hogan
    Lovells
    (replacing
    Sidley)
  9. Paul,
    Weiss
    (replacing
    WilmerHale)
  10. Arnold
    &
    Porter

Congrats
to
all
of
the
Biglaw
firms
that
made
the
latest
edition
of
Vault’s
Washington,
DC
rankings.
How
did
your
firm
do
this
time?

Email
us(Opens
in
a
new
window)
,
text
us
at

(646)
820-8477(Opens
in
a
new
window)
,
or
tweet
us @atlblog(Opens
in
a
new
window)

to
let
us
know
how
you
feel.


Staci Zaretsky




Staci
Zaretsky
 is
a
senior
editor
at
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.