Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature
Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!
According
to
the
most
recent
Vault
ranking.
which
Biglaw
firm
is
ranked
#1
for
associate/partner
relations?
Hint:
Though
the
firm
was
founded
in
Philadelphia,
it
now
has
30
offices
around
the
globe.
See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.
AHIP,
an
advocacy
organization
for
health
insurers,
is
sounding
the
alarm
over
the
potential
impact
of
the
2025
budget
reconciliation
legislation,
which
includes
significant
cuts
to
Medicaid
and
the
individual
market.
“We
are
very
concerned
about
the
impact
on
coverage
of
some
of
the
proposals,
the
impact
on
coverage
for
people
in
the
individual
market,
the
impact
on
coverage
for
people
in
Medicaid,”
said
Mike
Tuffin,
president
and
CEO
of
AHIP.
“People
served
by
Medicaid
are
clinically
complex.
Often
these
are
people
with
real
economic
insecurity
in
their
lives,
people
from
working
families,
often
doing
really
demanding
jobs
that
don’t
come
with
benefits.
So
we
are
advocating
that
Medicaid
be
kept
stable
for
the
people
who
count
on
it.”
Tuffin
made
these
comments
during
a
Tuesday
press
briefing
at
the
AHIP
2025
conference
held
in
Las
Vegas.
It
comes
after
the
Senate
Finance
Committee
released
its
draft
version
of
the
bill
on
Monday,
which
includes
even
more
significant
cuts
to
Medicaid
than
the
House
legislation
that
passed
in
May.
For
example,
the
House
bill
would
add
work
requirements
for
childless
adults
on
Medicaid,
but
the
Senate
bill
would
expand
this
to
parents
of
older
children.
Medicaid
work
requirements
would
mean
that
enrollees
have
to
verify
that
they’re
working,
volunteering
or
going
to
school
in
order
to
receive
coverage.
This
is
a
proposed
change
that
AHIP
takes
issue
with.
“That
is
a
foundational
shift
to
how
Medicaid
and
the
expansion
work
today
…
coupled
with
significant
changes
to
the
financing
of
Medicaid,
with
some
changes
to
both
provider
taxes
as
well
as
state-directed
payments.
[These]
do
result
in
some
really
significant
cuts
to
Medicaid
that
we
feel
will
have
a
significant
impact
on
coverage,”
said
Jeanette
Thornton,
executive
vice
president
of
policy
and
strategy
at
AHIP,
during
the
briefing.
Tuffin
added
that
most
people
on
Medicaid
are
working
already.
AHIP
is
also
concerned
about
the
budget
bill’s
impact
on
the
individual
market
and
the
expiration
of
the
Affordable
Care
Act
enhanced
premium
tax
credits,
which
is
set
for
the
end
of
2025.
“If
the
tax
credits
are
allowed
to
expire,
we’re
really
concerned
that
this
market
could
be
fundamentally
disrupted,”
Tuffin
said.
“That
would
come
at
a
time
when
we
potentially
would
have
people
losing
eligibility
for
Medicaid,
and
they
may
be
encountering
an
individual
market
that
is
disrupted
and
with
higher
premiums,
with
fewer
choices.”
Many
Republicans
have
argued
that
the
proposed
changes
will
address
fraud,
waste
and
abuse
in
healthcare.
Thornton
noted
that
while
AHIP
supports
efforts
to
reduce
fraud,
waste
and
abuse,
it’s
“clear
that
this
goes
beyond”
that
and
will
instead
result
in
significant
coverage
losses.
To
prevent
some
of
these
changes,
AHIP
is
doing
a
“lot
of
education
and
a
lot
of
outreach,”
Tuffin
said.
The
organization
is
meeting
with
members
of
Congress,
as
well
as
partnering
with
patient
advocates,
healthcare
providers,
hospitals
and
employers.
Some
of
its
partners
include
the
Modern
Medicaid
Alliance
and
Keep
Americans
Covered.
Photo:
claudenakagawa,
Getty
Images
Ed.
note:
This
is
the
second
article
in
a
series.
In
our
first
article,
we
laid
the
groundwork
for
your
CLE
by
focusing
on
choosing
the
right
topic
and
leveraging
technology
for
research
and
idea
generation.
Now,
as
we
move
forward
in
our
series,
it’s
essential
to
recognize
that
the
foundation
of
a
successful
CLE
isn’t
just
about
the
topic
you
choose
—
it’s
also
about
how
you
build
upon
that
foundation.
Structuring
your
content
effectively,
incorporating
ethics,
and
adding
a
touch
of
humor
are
critical
elements
that
transform
your
CLE
from
a
mere
transfer
of
information
into
an
engaging,
memorable
experience.
These
steps
are
not
just
about
meeting
requirements;
they’re
about
crafting
a
presentation
that
truly
resonates
with
your
audience,
ensuring
they
walk
away
informed,
inspired,
and
ready
to
apply
what
they’ve
learned
in
their
own
practice.
CREATING
A
BLUEPRINT
Once
you
have
a
solid
topic
and
research
in
place,
the
next
step
is
to
organize
your
material
into
a
logical
and
engaging
framework.
Think
of
this
process
as
drafting
a
blueprint
for
your
CLE,
ensuring
that
all
key
elements
are
in
place
to
guide
your
audience
through
the
learning
experience.
Effective
Content
Structuring:
•
Introduction,
Body,
Conclusion:
Begin
with
a
compelling
introduction
that
captures
your
audience’s
attention
and
outlines
the
key
points
you’ll
cover.
Follow
this
with
a
well-organized
body
that
delves
into
the
main
content
of
your
presentation.
Finally,
wrap
up
with
a
concise
conclusion
that
reinforces
the
key
takeaways
and
leaves
a
lasting
impression.
•
Learning
Objectives:
Clearly
define
the
learning
objectives
at
the
outset.
What
should
participants
be
able
to
do
or
understand
by
the
end
of
the
CLE?
These
objectives
will
guide
the
structure
of
your
content
and
help
you
stay
focused
on
delivering
value.
•
Use
of
Statutes
and
Case
Law:
Incorporate
relevant
statutes
and
case
law
to
illustrate
key
points.
This
not
only
makes
your
presentation
more
engaging
but
also
helps
attendees
apply
what
they’ve
learned
in
practice.
•
Interactive
Elements:
Consider
adding
hypothetical
scenarios
or
interactive
questions
to
engage
your
audience
and
encourage
participation.
These
elements
can
make
your
CLE
more
dynamic
and
memorable.
STRENGTHENING
YOUR
FOUNDATION
After
laying
out
a
solid
structure
for
your
CLE,
it’s
time
to
consider
how
to
add
even
more
value.
One
of
the
most
impactful
ways
to
do
this
is
by
incorporating
an
ethics
component
into
your
presentation.
Ethics
CLE
is
a
critical
component
of
any
legal
education
and
can
significantly
enhance
its
value.
Most
attorneys
are
required
to
earn
ethics
credits,
and
these
sessions
are
often
in
high
demand
due
to
their
importance
and
scarcity.
Why
Ethics
is
Essential
•
Mandatory
Compliance:
Ethics
credits
are
often
a
required
part
of
continuing
legal
education,
making
them
essential
for
attorneys
to
maintain
their
licenses.
Many
attorneys
struggle
to
find
high-quality
ethics
CLEs,
so
offering
one
can
meet
a
critical
need.
•
Increased
Attendance
and
Appeal:
Including
an
ethics
component
in
your
CLE
can
significantly
boost
attendance.
Ethics
topics
are
in
high
demand,
and
by
incorporating
them,
you
make
your
program
more
attractive
to
a
wider
audience.
Engaging
Your
Audience
Ethical
topics
often
involve
controversial
cases
or
dilemmas,
providing
an
excellent
opportunity
for
audience
engagement.
Here’s
how
you
can
make
the
most
of
this:
1.
Leverage
Hypotheticals:
Introduce
a
hypothetical
scenario
based
on
a
controversial
ethical
issue.
Present
the
case,
then
turn
to
your
audience
and
ask
for
a
show
of
hands
on
what
they
believe
the
correct
course
of
action
would
be.
This
is
particularly
effective
in
large
audiences,
as
it
encourages
participation
and
provides
a
visual
gauge
of
the
room’s
opinion.
2.
Group
Discussions:
In
smaller
or
group-format
settings,
ask
the
audience
to
discuss
the
ethical
dilemma
among
themselves
before
sharing
their
thoughts
with
the
larger
group.
This
fosters
deeper
engagement
and
allows
participants
to
consider
multiple
perspectives
before
arriving
at
a
conclusion.
3.
Follow-Up
Questions:
After
the
audience
has
weighed
in,
present
the
actual
outcome
of
the
case
(if
applicable)
and
discuss
why
it
was
decided
that
way.
Encourage
further
discussion
on
whether
the
audience
agrees
with
the
decision
and
what
they
would
have
done
differently.
This
approach
not
only
makes
the
ethics
component
more
interactive
and
engaging
but
also
helps
attendees
think
critically
about
the
ethical
dimensions
of
legal
practice.
Lightening
the
Load
Legal
topics
can
be
dense
and,
at
times,
dry.
Injecting
humor
into
your
presentation
is
a
powerful
way
to
keep
your
audience
engaged
and
make
the
content
more
relatable.
However,
it’s
crucial
to
strike
the
right
balance
between
humor
and
professionalism.
Why
Humor
Matters
•
Engagement:
Humor
grabs
attention
and
keeps
the
audience
alert
and
interested
in
the
material.
A
well-placed
joke
or
witty
remark
can
make
your
presentation
memorable.
•
Relatability:
Humor
can
help
break
down
complex
concepts,
making
them
more
accessible
and
less
intimidating.
It
can
also
create
a
connection
between
the
presenter
and
the
audience,
fostering
a
more
interactive
and
enjoyable
learning
environment.
•
Stress
Relief:
CLE
sessions
can
be
intense,
especially
when
dealing
with
complex
legal
issues.
A
bit
of
humor
can
lighten
the
mood,
helping
to
relieve
stress
and
making
the
learning
experience
more
enjoyable.
•
Know
Your
Audience:
Tailor
your
humor
to
fit
the
audience.
If
possible,
obtain
the
attendee
list
before
presenting
and
do
some
research
on
your
participants.
Understanding
their
background
can
help
you
gauge
what
kind
of
humor
will
resonate.
Remember,
what
works
in
one
setting
may
not
work
in
another.
FORTIFYING
YOUR
CLE
By
structuring
your
CLE
content
effectively,
incorporating
an
ethics
component
with
interactive
engagement,
and
injecting
a
bit
of
humor,
you
add
layers
of
strength,
value,
and
engagement
to
your
program.
These
elements
not
only
ensure
that
your
CLE
is
comprehensive
and
engaging
but
also
make
it
more
appealing
and
enjoyable
for
a
broader
audience.
Structuring
Your
Content:
✔️ Create
a
clear
introduction
that
outlines
the
key
points.
✔️ Organize
content
into
a
logical
sequence:
Introduction,
Body,
Conclusion.
✔️ Define
specific
learning
objectives
for
the
CLE.
✔️ Incorporate
relevant
statutes
and
case
law
to
support
key
points.
✔️ Include
interactive
elements
like
hypotheticals
to
engage
the
audience.
Incorporating
Ethics:
✔️ Ensure
your
CLE
includes
an
ethics
component
to
meet
mandatory
compliance
requirements.
✔️ Design
your
ethics
segment
to
boost
attendance
and
appeal.
✔️ Use
hypotheticals
and
group
discussions
to
make
the
ethics
section
interactive.
✔️ Follow
up
with
the
actual
outcomes
of
ethical
cases
and
encourage
audience
reflection.
In
the
next
article,
we
will
explore
how
to
engage
your
audience
further,
enhance
interactivity,
and
make
your
presentation
visually
compelling
—
key
components
that
will
bring
your
CLE
to
life
and
ensure
it
leaves
a
lasting
impact.
Sejal
Bhasker
Patel is
a
Rainmaking
Consultant
and
Author
of Rainmaker:
Unleashed
—
a
sharp,
strategic
playbook
for
attorneys
who
don’t
fit
the
traditional
mold.
She’s
the
founder
of
Sage
Ivy,
a
consulting
firm
that
works
directly
with
law
firms
and
attorneys
to
turn
relationships
into
revenue
—
without
selling
their
soul.
Her
work
is
blunt,
tailored,
and
built
on
one
core
belief:
Authenticity
isn’t
a
liability
—
it’s
your
strongest
competitive
edge.
www.sageivyconsulting.com
Ed.
Note:
A
weekly
roundup
of
just
a
few
items
from
Howard
Bashman’s
How
Appealing
blog,
the
Web’s
first
blog
devoted
to
appellate
litigation.
Check
out
these
stories
and
more
at
How
Appealing.
“Boeing
737
MAX
victims’
relatives
ask
judge
to
reject
deal
ending
criminal
case”: David
Shepardson
of
Reuters
has this
report.
“Supreme
Court
Set
to
Leave
Town
With
Trump
Challenges
Unsettled”: Greg
Stohr
and
Zoe
Tillman
of
Bloomberg
News
have this
report.
“Senate
Democrats
Are
Letting
Trump’s
Judicial
Nominees
Off
the
Hook;
The
president’s
first
batch
of
nominees
included
some
eye-popping
answers
in
their
written
questionnaires;
If
only
Democrats
had
thought
to
ask
the
questions
in
person
when
they
had
the
chance”: Jay
Willis
has this
essay online
at
Balls
and
Strikes.
“Law-Skepticism
On
The
New
Right;
A
Sympathetic
Critique”: Adrian
Vermeule
has this
post at
“The
New
Digest”
Substack
site.
“Companies
Ask
Supreme
Court
to
Fast-Track
Challenge
to
Tariffs;
Two
toy
manufacturers
asked
the
court
to
greatly
expedite
their
case,
in
an
unusual
request”: Adam
Liptak
of
The
New
York
Times
has this
report.
“Supreme
Court
Justices
Disclose
International
Travel
and
Book
Deals;
Annual
financial
disclosures
revealed
some
of
the
perks
of
being
on
the
Supreme
Court,
including
international
teaching
and
book
sales”: Abbie
VanSickle
of
The
New
York
Times
has this
report.
There
are
multiple
ways
to
earn
a
slot
in
University
of
Michigan
Law
Review.
Grading-on
is
the
dream,
but
law
students
that
fall
on
other
points
of
the
curve
still
have
a
path
to
victory.
While
the
lesser
known
noting-on
is
an
option,
the
lion’s
share
of
people
that
didn’t
get
in
on
their
grades
alone
are
admitted
based
on
the
write-in
process.
Chances
are
you
know
what
that
entails
if
you’re
a
regular
ATL
reader
—
you
get
assigned
an
annoying
packet
to
work
through,
you
submit
your
less
than
stellar
grades
along
with
a
personal
statement
and
wish
for
the
best.
The
personal
statement
is
meant
to
offer
each
applicant
a
second
shot
at
the
Law
Review.
Your
application
is
already
a
little
scuffed
by
virtue
of
not
automatically
being
eligible
from
your
grades
alone:
the
work
you
show
in
the
write-on
process,
coupled
with
the
tales
of
loving
hard
work
and
not
being
paid
for
that
you
crammed
in
your
personal
statement,
are
meant
to
flesh
out
your
odds
and
provide
a
second
bite
at
the
apple.
But
that
isn’t
how
FASORP
sees
it.
Instead,
they
view
the
personal
statement
as
a
dastardly
tool
that
roots
meritocracy
out
of
the
selection
process
in
favor
for
wanton
race
and
sex
based
discrimination.
Is
that
what’s
actually
happening?
Probably
not;
the
group
has
fought
and
failed
twice
in
similar
suits
against
NYU
and
Harvard,
but
why
suffer
the
burden
of
writing
better
personal
statements
when
you
can
sue
another
big
name
law
school?
Reuters
has
coverage:
A
conservative
legal
group
sued
the
University
of
Michigan’s
flagship
law
journal
on
Wednesday,
claiming
its
process
for
selecting
student
editors
and
scholarly
articles
illegally
discriminates
against
heterosexual
white
men
by
giving
preference
to
women,
minority,
gay
and
transgender
applicants.In
a
lawsuit
filed
in
a
Michigan
federal
court,
the
group
called
Faculty,
Alumni,
and
Students
Opposed
to
Racial
Preference
said
it
represents
three
unnamed
tenured
or
tenure-track
white
male
heterosexual
law
professors
whose
submitted
articles
were
rejected
by
the
Michigan
Law
Review.
The
group
is
also
representing
an
anonymous
white
male
incoming
second-year
Michigan
law
student
who
has
applied
to
be
a
member
of
the
law
review—a
competitive
position
that
helps
bolster
law
student
resumes.
I’ll
give
credit
where
it’s
due:
the
last
time
Stephen
Miller
&
Co.
tried
to
represent
an
anonymous
white
male
who
wanted
to
make
law
review
they
didn’t
even
wait
for
him
to
apply
first.
Progress!
This
really
does
scream
of
throwing
spaghetti
at
the
wall
until
something
sticks.
If
the
Michigan
case
doesn’t
go
how
FASORP
wants,
they’ll
just
donate
more
resources
toward
the
same
lawsuit
they
have
against
Harvard
until
they
get
what
they
want.
If
that
doesn’t
do
it,
maybe
they’ll
take
the
witch
hunt
to
Columbia?
In
the
meantime,
I’ll
leave
the
unnamed
rejected
professors
and
students
with
a
bit
of
advice
many
Black
children
have
grown
up
knowing:
Who
knows?
Maybe
you
would
have
got
your
article
published
or
accepted
on
to
law
review
if
you
were
just
a
stronger
applicant?
Better
luck
with
your
future
endeavors.
Stephen
Miller
Takes
Break
From
Suing
Gay
Pop-Tarts
To
Sue
NYU
Law
Review
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.
In
a
best-case
scenario,
a
lawsuit
or
some
other
kind
of
legal
matter
settles
with
everyone
signing
a
settlement
agreement
and
one
party
paying
the
other
a
lump
sum
for
a
release
of
claims. However,
sometimes
parties
do
not
have
enough
money
to
make
payments
under
a
settlement
agreement
all
at
once
and
a
longer
payment
period
is
needed. In
my
practice,
I
have
seen
payment
periods
of
a
few
months
to
a
few
years.
The
longest
payment
period
I
have
ever
seen
was
10
years!
Although
it
might
seem
easy
to
simply
agree
to
a
long
payment
plan,
lawyers
need
to
evaluate
certain
considerations.
Continued
Involvement
Lawyers
might
think
that
once
a
settlement
agreement
is
signed,
their
involvement
in
a
case
ends. This
is
not
always
the
case. For
instance,
a
lawyer
can
be
ethically
connected
to
a
lawsuit
after
a
settlement
agreement
is
signed
if
the
lawsuit
is
not
discontinued
until
after
the
last
settlement
payment
is
made. This
can
be
difficult
for
lawyers. Sometimes
attorneys
are
relieved
at
being
done
with
cases
for
a
variety
of
reasons,
usually
because
clients
are
difficult
to
handle
or
the
subject
matter
of
the
case
is
troubling. However,
if
a
settlement
agreement
comes
with
a
long
payment
period,
there
can
be
months,
if
not
years,
of
additional
work
that
a
lawyer
needs
to
perform
on
a
file. As
the
case
may
not
end
when
the
ink
dries,
lawyers
need
to
have
their
eyes
wide
open
when
they
are
involved
in
a
settlement
agreement
with
a
longer
payment
period.
Keep
Paperwork
After
a
matter
settles,
it
can
be
easy
to
close
a
file
on
a
case
and
forget
about
information
related
to
a
matter. However,
if
settlement
payments
are
interrupted,
or
after
all
of
the
settlement
payments
are
made,
the
lawyer
might
need
to
get
involved
in
the
case
once
again
either
to
file
a
motion
related
to
the
settlement
or
to
take
the
proper
steps
to
discontinue
a
lawsuit.
Over
the
course
of
my
career,
I
was
involved
in
multiple
settlement
agreements
that
called
for
two-year
payment
periods. In
each
of
these
instances,
I
was
informed
by
the
client
that
all
of
the
settlement
payments
had
been
made
and
that
the
cases
needed
to
be
discontinued. In
each
instance,
I
needed
to
refresh
my
recollection
about
the
files
and
review
all
of
the
documents
I
had
for
the
matters
to
see
what
needed
to
be
done
to
finally
put
the
matters
to
rest.
In
each
instance,
when
I
reached
out
to
other
stakeholders
to
the
settlement,
they
were
usually
just
as
surprised
as
I
was
that
the
settlement
payment
term
had
expired
and
that
they
needed
to
take
steps
to
close
a
file. Lawyers
can
prepare
for
this
eventuality
by
drafting
a
summary
of
the
case
and
next
steps
for
themselves
in
the
future
so
it
is
easier
to
recall
important
facts
about
the
case
at
the
critical
time.
Don’t
Burn
Bridges
Lawyers
often
do
not
end
cases
on
the
best
terms
with
stakeholders
to
a
legal
dispute. Clients
might
think
that
their
counsel
did
a
poor
job
on
a
matter
resulting
in
a
less-than-optimal
resolution,
and
this
can
strain
the
attorney-client
relationship. Moreover,
the
act
of
negotiating
a
settlement
agreement
can
be
heated
and
can
disrupt
relationships
that
lawyers
have
with
their
adversaries. However,
it
is
important
for
attorneys
to
maintain
their
connections
with
stakeholders
to
a
deal
when
a
settlement
agreement
that
has
a
long
payment
term. Chances
are
that
counsel
will
need
to
engage
with
stakeholders
to
a
deal
throughout
a
payment
period
and
this
is
easier
if
everyone
gets
along.
In
any
event,
I
am
not
opposed
to
longer
payment
terms
under
the
right
circumstances,
since
this
empowers
parties
to
settle
cases
when
they
do
not
have
cash
available
to
make
a
settlement
payment
immediately. However,
lawyers
should
take
steps
to
prepare
themselves
for
settlement
agreements
with
long
payment
terms.
Jordan
Rothman
is
a
partner
of The
Rothman
Law
Firm,
a
full-service
New
York
and
New
Jersey
law
firm.
He
is
also
the
founder
of Student
Debt
Diaries,
a
website
discussing
how
he
paid
off
his
student
loans.
You
can
reach
Jordan
through
email
at jordan@rothman.law.
20.6.2025
19:48
Tobacco,
a
key
pillar
of
Zimbabwe’s
economy,
is
mainly
exported
to
China
and
South
Africa,
boosting
export
earnings
and
rural
livelihoods.
Zimbabwe
has
set
a
new
tobacco
production
record
after
more
than
300
million
kilo
of
leaf
tobacco
worth
over
$1
billon
have
been
sold
since
the
marketing
season
opened
in
March,
the
country’s
industry
regulatory
body
announced
on
Wednesday.
The
Tobacco
Industry
and
Marketing
Board
(TIMB)
confirmed
that
Zimbabwe
has
officially
surpassed
its
all-time
national
tobacco
production
record
of
296
million
kilogrammes
achieved
in
2023,
after
this
year’s
seasonal
cumulative
sales
reached
over
300
million
kg
on
Wednesday.
“This
year’s
marketing
season
has
been
historic.
As
of
June
18,
Zimbabwe
has
sold
over
300
million
kg
of
tobacco,
a
new
and
all-time
record,”
Chelesani
Tsarwe,
a
TIMB
public
affairs
officer,
told
Xinhua
in
an
interview,
adding
that
the
one-billion-dollar
revenue
for
farmers
is
another
milestone
worth
celebrating.
She
noted
that
while
the
production
milestone
reflects
resilience
and
hard
work
across
the
value
chain,
the
ideal
future
is
not
just
about
record
volumes,
but
also
about
increased
local
processing,
enhanced
farmer
earnings,
diversified
markets,
and
environmentally
sustainable
practices
in
the
tobacco
sector.
“We
must
shift
from
volume-driven
horizontal
growth
to
value-driven
growth,”
she
said.
In
2021,
Zimbabwe
launched
a
tobacco
value
chain
transformation
plan,
aiming
to
increase
leaf
tobacco
production
to
300
million
kilos
annually
and
transform
the
industry
into
a
$5
billion
industry
by
2025.
As
a
pillar
of
Zimbabwe’s
economy,
tobacco
is
primarily
exported
to
China
and
South
Africa,
among
other
countries,
significantly
contributing
to
export
earnings
and
rural
livelihoods.
Post
published
in:
Agriculture
20.6.2025
19:29
A
project
from
our
Zimbabwe
Chapter
is
helping
local
beekeepers
overcome
challenges
and
monitor
their
beehives
remotely.
Fadziso
Mudzingwa
sighed
in
frustration.
It
was
June
2024,
the
middle
of
winter
in
Zimbabwe,
and
the
low
temperatures
were
killing
her
bees.
She
was
tired,
too—she’d
spent
the
day
trekking
between
her
home
and
her
hives
in
the
forest,
checking
them
frequently
in
the
hope
of
saving
both
the
colonies
and
her
barely
profitable
honey
business.
Despite
her
protective
gear,
Fadziso
had
been
stung
twice,
and
she
was
falling
behind
in
her
other
tasks.
The
sun
was
setting,
and
her
children
were
waiting
for
dinner.
She
didn’t
know
it
yet,
but
everything
was
about
to
change
for
the
better.
She
was
about
to
take
part
in
a
pilot
project
in
her
hometown,
Marondera,
led
by
the
Internet
Society
Zimbabwe
Chapter,
learning
to
monitor
hive
conditions
remotely
and
in
real
time
using
a
mobile
app
connected
to
smart
sensors.
This
technology
would
truly
make
a
difference—one
year
later,
Fadziso’s
work
is
much
easier
and
her
hives
are
thriving,
as
is
her
business.
While
she
sold
just
50
liters
of
honey
in
2024,
before
the
project
began,
she
has
already
produced
130
liters
in
the
first
half
of
2025.
Beekeeping
can
be
profitable
in
Zimbabwe,
especially
as
people
commonly
use
honey
and
other
apiary
products—beeswax,
pollen,
propolis,
and
royal
jelly—for
medicinal
purposes.
The
industry
is
also
a
positive
force
for
the
environment,
acting
as
a
catalyst
for
forest
renewal
and
biodiversity
conservation
through
plant
pollination.
Yet
things
weren’t
always
positive
for
Marondera
beekeepers,
most
of
whom
faced
challenges
similar
to
Fadziso’s.
Chamunorwa
Rupiya
also
struggled
to
juggle
multiple
responsibilities.
“As
the
owner
of
a
tuck
shop,
I
needed
to
pay
someone
to
fill
in
for
me
while
I
was
away
inspecting
my
hives,”
he
said.
Many
struggled
to
find
time
to
sell
products.
“I
spent
most
of
my
days
tending
to
my
bees,”
said
John
Chivamba.
“I
worried
about
them
constantly.
Then,
when
I
had
the
chance,
I
would
go
and
sell
honey
on
the
road
leading
to
Harare.”
And
when
poor
conditions
or
predators
harmed
their
colonies,
the
resulting
drop
in
yields
meant
greater
financial
hardship
for
beekeepers.
In
late
2024,
the
Zimbabwe
Chapter
launched
a
project
designed
to
solve
these
challenges
and
safeguard
the
beekeepers’
livelihoods
as
well
as
the
community’s
food
security.
Partnering
with
Shift
Organic
Technologies
and
the
Harare
Institute
of
Technology,
they
developed
an
Internet
of
Things
(IoT)
solution
comprising
hive
sensors
and
a
user-friendly
mobile
app.
Beekeepers
can
use
this
app
to
check
factors
such
as
temperature,
humidity,
and
bee
activity
at
a
glance,
from
anywhere,
without
having
to
open
up
their
hives
or
disturb
the
bees.
The
data
collected
can
also
predict
potential
health
issues
and
environmental
changes,
enabling
farmers
to
take
proactive
measures.
This
project,
called
IoT
for
Apiary
Analytics,
included
training
for
the
beekeepers.
The
20
initial
participants
not
only
learned
to
use
the
technology
but
also
received
instruction
in
advanced
techniques,
such
as
protecting
hives
from
winter
temperatures.
“The
trainers
taught
us
which
flowers
to
plant
around
our
hives
so
our
bees
can
always
get
their
favorite
pollen,”
said
Fadziso.
“We
also
learned
to
set
up
water
points
to
maintain
the
hives’
natural
humidity.”
Being
able
to
monitor
their
hives
remotely
has
revolutionized
beekeeping
for
Fadziso,
Chamunorwa,
and
John.
“Now,
instead
of
hiking
into
the
forest
first
thing
every
morning,
I
simply
look
at
my
phone
for
hive
updates,”
said
Fadziso.
“I
can
check
on
them
in
minutes,
not
hours,
so
I
have
more
time
for
my
children,
household
chores,
and
developing
new
products
like
floor
wax.”
This
IoT
solution
has
been
a
game
changer!
I
can
now
keep
an
eye
on
my
bees
while
selling
honey
on
the
road.
I
make
more
money
and
enjoy
peace
of
mind.”
Meanwhile,
Chamunorwa
saves
money
by
relying
on
hired
help
less
often,
since
he
can
manage
his
hives
from
his
shop.
The
project
has
yielded
undeniable
improvements
in
bee
health
and
hive
productivity.
“My
production
has
risen
30
percent
and
the
wax
quality
is
better
too,”
said
Fadziso.
Chamunorwa
has
seen
similar
improvements,
noting
that
his
colonies
have
grown
since
the
installation
of
the
devices.
This
solution’s
arrival
has
been
transformative
for
the
entire
Marondera
community.
“Local
markets
now
resell
our
honey,
since
people
have
seen
that
it’s
pure,
not
mixed
with
brown
sugar,”
said
Fadziso.
“This
is
vital
when
people
take
honey
as
medicine.”
This
improvement
in
honey
quality
has
also
attracted
out-of-town
bulk
buyers,
leading
to
higher
sales
for
everyone.
And
with
their
additional
income,
the
beekeepers
can
more
easily
pay
their
children’s
school
fees,
an
advantage
for
the
community
over
time.
“Seeing
what
we’ve
achieved,
our
neighbors
are
becoming
curious
about
beekeeping
and
technology
in
general,”
Fadziso
said.
She
has
shared
her
experience
at
public
events
organized
by
the
project
leaders.
This
remote-sensing
technology’s
benefits
are
clear,
demonstrating
the
potential
of
technology
in
agriculture.
“Joining
in
this
project
has
opened
my
eyes
to
new
things,”
said
John.
“Today,
I’m
constantly
advising
people
to
learn
about
technology.”
Looking
to
the
future,
the
beekeepers
plan
to
invest
their
extra
earnings
in
more
sensors
to
expand
their
businesses.
“My
new
aim
is
to
sell
in
major
cities,
like
Harare
and
Bulawayo,
and
even
to
export
my
honey!”
Fadziso
said
with
a
smile.
They
hope
to
see
further
tech
innovations
in
areas
such
as
pest
management
and
honey
harvesting.
Learning
to
build
the
IoT
sensors
locally
to
bring
down
their
cost
is
another
goal.
All
agree
that
embracing
technology
has
been
life-changing.
Being
part
of
this
project
means
a
lot
to
me.
It’s
empowered
me
to
take
control
of
my
work
and
improve
my
family’s
quality
of
life.”
This
project
was
funded
by
an
Internet
Society
Foundation Beyond
the
Net
Grant.
Post
published
in:
Agriculture
Today,
the
Supreme
Court
handed
down
its
decision
in
Stanley
v.
City
of
Sanford,
Florida.
The
majority
decision,
penned
by
Neil
Gorsuch,
limited
the
application
of
the
Americans
with
Disabilities
Act,
saying
an
ex-firefighter
did
not
have
the
right
to
sue
her
former
employer
over
benefits.
But
more
than
just
further
eroding
discrimination
law
in
this
country,
the
decision
also
gave
us
a
peek
into
the
petty
back-and-forth
of
the
High
Court.
We
know
that
SCOTUS
is
not
immune
to
partisan
differences
causing
personal
rifts
between
co-workers.
And
that
seems
to
be
what’s
going
on
in
the
Stanley
case.
Because
Gorsuch
takes
the
time
to
call
out
Ketanji
Brown
Jackson’s
dissent,
strongly
implying
Jackson
seeks
a
judicial
methodology
that’s
sufficiently
“pliable
to
secure
the
result
they
seek.”
Failing
all
else,
Ms.
Stanley
and
the
dissent
ask
us
to
look
beyond
text
and
precedent.
Brief
for
Petitioner
29,
47;
post,
at
18
(opinion
of
JACKSON,
J.).
Finding
“pure
textualism”
insufficiently
pliable
to
secure
the
result
they
seek,
they
invoke
the
statute’s
“primary
purpose”
and
“legislative
history.”
Post,
at
1,
15,
22.
As
they
see
it,
the
ADA’s
goal
of
eradicating
disability-based
discrimination
would
be
best
served
by
a
decision
extending
Title
I’s
protections
beyond
those
who
hold
or
seek
a
job
to
retirees.
LOL.
Every
accusation
is
an
admission.
But
I
don’t
need
to
get
too
in
the
weeds
defending
KBJ,
she’s
got
that
pretty
well
covered.
It’s
a
glorious
footnote
that’s
deserving
of
the
hype
it’s
getting.
Here
it
is
in
its
entirety:
The
majority’s
contention
that
I
reject
“‘pure
textualism’
[a]s
insufficiently
pliable
to
secure
the
result
[I]
seek,”
ante,
at
10,
stems
from
an
unfortunate
misunderstanding
of
the
judicial
role.
Our
interpretative
task
is
not
to
seek
our
own
desired
results
(whatever
they
may
be).
And,
indeed,
it
is
precisely
because
of
this
solemn
duty
that,
in
my
view,
it
is
imperative
that
we
interpret
statutes
consistent
with
all
relevant
indicia
of
what
Congress
wanted,
as
best
we
can
ascertain
its
intent.
A
methodology
that
includes
consideration
of
Congress’s
aims
does
exactly
that—
and
no
more.
By
contrast,
pure
textualism’s
refusal
to
try
to
understand
the
text
of
a
statute
in
the
larger
context
of
what
Congress
sought
to
achieve
turns
the
interpretive
task
into
a
potent
weapon
for
advancing
judicial
policy
preferences.
By
“finding”
answers
in
ambiguous
text,
and
not
bothering
to
consider
whether
those
answers
align
with
other
sources
of
statutory
meaning,
pure
textualists
can
easily
disguise
their
own
preferences
as
“textual”
inevitabilities.
So,
really,
far
from
being
“insufficiently
pliable,”
I
think
pure
textualism
is
incessantly
malleable—that’s
its
primary
problem—and,
indeed,
it
is
certainly
somehow
always
flexible
enough
to
secure
the
majority’s
desired
outcome.
Shorter
footnote
12:
fuck
you
and
your
textualism.
She
literally
says
everything
liberals
have
thought
about
textualism
for
generations,
but
says
it
much
more
forcefully
and
elegantly.
And
she’s
right
too
—
for
crying
out
loud:
“textualism”
was
used
to
determine
sanitation
does
not
refer
to
keeping
things
clean
because
that
would
not
align
with
conservative
policy
goals.
KBJ
is
exactly
spot
on
here.
Some
have
complained
explicitly
Sonia
Sotomayor
carved
footnote
12
out
of
her
signing
on
to
Jackson’s
opinion.
And
maybe
it
is
Sotomayor
trying
to
keep
the
peace
with
her
right-wing
colleagues.
But
this
is
the
same
justice
that
issued
a
dissent
“in
sadness”
this
week,
so
I
see
a
little
more
nuance
here.
It
was
Jackson
that
Gorsuch
picked
a
fight
with,
and
perhaps
not
joining
in
footnote
12
was
just
Sotomayor’s
way
of
letting
Jackson
have
the
stage
to
say
exactly
what
she
want
to
say.
And
this
footnote
is
a
real
*moment*
for
Justice
Jackson
—
one
Jackson
(and
Jackson
alone)
deserves
all
the
accolades
for.
Earlier:
The
Supreme
Court
Justices
Have
As
Much
Contempt
For
Each
Other
As
The
Rest
Of
America
Has
For
Them
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].
After
the
hideous
events
of
September
11,
2001,
we
spoke
of
a
“new
normal”
for
Americans.
Are
we
now
in
a
new
“new
normal”?
Have
we
normalized
authoritarianism,
given
all
that
has
gone
on
over
the
past
week
or
so?
Ever
since
January
20?
What
does
that
mean?
While
we’re
thankfully
not
totally
in
authoritarian
grips,
at
least
not
yet,
there
have
been
disturbing
signs
of
that
normalization,
especially
here
in
the
past
week
in
Los
Angeles.
And
no,
Los
Angeles
has
not
been
on
fire,
except
for
those
two
destructive
fires
that
swept
through
part
of
Los
Angeles
city
and
county
in
January.
And
no,
except
for
the
approximately
one
square
mile
curfew
in
downtown
LA
(since
lifted),
life
in
La-La
Land
goes
on
without
any
hiccups.
Jimmy
Kimmel
quipped
last
week
that
Los
Angeles
has
more
destruction
and
trouble
after
any
of
our
sports
teams
wins
a
championship.
And
yes,
the
National
Guard
is
still
here
and,
yes,
ditto
700
or
so
Marines.
Sorry
47,
but
L.A.’s
death
has
been
greatly
exaggerated
once
again.
So
let’s
focus
on
the
mundane,
the
ridiculous,
and
of
course,
the
“what
were
they
thinking,”
that
grips
our
profession
nonstop.
Doing
that
shows
that
the
world
still
turns
in
some
fashion.
Let’s
start
with
former
San
Bernardino
County
District
Attorney
Michael
Ramos,
who
lost
his
re-election
bid
in
2018.
He
has
stipulated
to
a
six-month
suspension
of
his
law
license.
For
what?
For
deleting
text
messages
and
emails
in
the
context
of
criminal
charges
that
his
office
brought
and
could
not
prove
beyond
a
reasonable
doubt.
If
you
are
like
me,
you
hate
doing
litigation
holds
and
collecting
emails
and
texts
and
producing
them
when
demanded,
especially
when
there
could
be
one
or
more
“smoking
guns”
that
do
not
help
your
case
and
may
tank
it
altogether.
However,
the
duty
of
preservation
is
paramount.
Every
lawyer
is
required
to
know
the
rules.
Am
I
right
or
am
I
right?
Ramos
claimed
he
was
ignorant
of
record
keeping
laws.
Wait!
What?
He
was
the
DA
for
16
years
and
didn’t
know
about
record
keeping
laws?
Really?
He’s
been
in
practice
for
more
than
30
years.
What
about
the
requirement
that
the
government
turn
over
all
evidence
it
has
to
the
defense?
What
about
the
requirement
that
the
turnover
must
include
all
kinds
of
evidence?
Ramos’s
stipulation
has
yet
to
be
approved
by
the
California
Supreme
Court.
I
wonder
if
the
court
will
approve
it,
given
that
he
was
the
district
attorney
for
16
years
with
an
office
of
more
than
200
deputy
DAs.
He
was
also
a
public
official,
as
well
as
an
attorney.
The
California
State
Bar
determined
that
Ramos’
excuse
lacked
credibility.
No
surprise
there.
Switching
now
to
the
appellate
court,
just
because
you’ve
retired
as
an
appellate
justice
doesn’t
necessarily
mean
that
you
get
a
hall
pass.
California’s
Commission
on
Judicial
Performance
now
has
its
sights
on
retired
appellate
justice
William
J.
Murray,
Jr.
He
retired
from
the
Third
Appellate
District
bench
in
Sacramento.
In
its
20-page
complaint
and
with
another
20
pages
of
exhibits,
CJP
alleges
that
the
now
retired
justice
Murray
engaged
in
willful
misconduct
in
office,
“persistent
failure
or
inability
to
perform
his
duties,
conduct
prejudicial
to
the
administration
of
justice
that
brings
the
judicial
office
into
disrepute,
improper
action,
and
dereliction
of
duty
within
the
meaning
of
article
VI,
section
18
of
the
California
Constitution,
providing
for
removal,
censure,
or
public
or
private
admonishment
of
a
judge
or
former
judge.”
Clearly,
former
judges
are
not
exempt.
Among
the
charges
alleged
is
that
Murray
delayed
issuing
a
significant number
of
decisions
from
2012
to
2022.
California
law
requires
that
an
appellate
decision
be
issued
within
90
days
of
submission
to
the
court.
In
failing
to
comply
with
that
requirement
the
former
justice
allegedly
violated
various
canons
of
judicial
ethics.
And
last,
but
not
least,
the
Wall
Street
Journal
reported
last
week
that
the
State
Bar
of
California
has
opened
an
investigation
into
Gloria
Allred’s
firm
amid
claims
from
dissatisfied
clients
who
alleged
that
they
were
pressured
into
settling.
Sounds
like
these
claims
may
be
what
every
litigator
who
has
ever
settled
a
case
calls
“settlor’s
remorse.”
Over
the
years,
I
had
a
number
of
cases
with
Allred’s
partners.
We
resolved
every
case
at
mediation.
Both
sides
were
unsatisfied
but
litigation
was
over.
My
client
paid
more
than
it
wanted
(kicking
and
screaming
all
the
way
with
an
occasional
tantrum)
and
I
imagine
that
the
firm’s
clients
received
less
than
they
thought
they
deserved.
So
what
else
is
new?
While
I
know
nothing
about
any
other
issue
mentioned
in
the
Journal’s
reporting,
I
do
know
that
a
good
resolution
means
both
parties
are
pissed
and
unhappy.
That’s
as
it
should
be.
Jill
Switzer
has
been
an
active
member
of
the
State
Bar
of
California
for
over
40
years.
She
remembers
practicing
law
in
a
kinder,
gentler
time.
She’s
had
a
diverse
legal
career,
including
stints
as
a
deputy
district
attorney,
a
solo
practice,
and
several
senior
in-house
gigs.
She
now
mediates
full-time,
which
gives
her
the
opportunity
to
see
dinosaurs,
millennials,
and
those
in-between
interact
—
it’s
not
always
civil.
You
can
reach
her
by
email
at
[email protected].