Why are Zimbabwe Police Chasing Off Some of the Economy’s Biggest Players?


Linda
Mujuru,
GPJ
Zimbabwe
Municipal
police
raid
street
vendors
in
Harare’s
central
business
district.
Despite
the
informal
sector
supporting
more
than
80%
of
Zimbabwe’s
population,
the
Harare
City
Council
has
escalated
crackdowns,
raising
concerns
over
the
cost
and
effectiveness
of
such
operations.

HARARE,
ZIMBABWE

The
vendors
rarely
see
it
coming.
The
municipal
police,
some
in
plainclothes
and
others
in
uniform,
move
through
the
crowd
silent
and
unnoticed.
When
they
finally
strike,
panic
erupts.
Vendors
scatter,
trampling
their
goods
and
grabbing
what
they
can.
A
few
are
arrested.
Their
wares
are
seized
and
tossed
into
the
back
of
a
police
truck.

“They
have
no
mercy
at
all.
Once
they
take
your
stock,
you’ll
never
get
it
back,”
says
Saul
Nhema,
an
informal
vendor
who
has
been
selling
vegetables
for
three
months
after
losing
his
job
as
a
construction
worker.

On
the
day
of
this
interview,
the
municipal
police
had
already
raided
these
informal
vendors
selling
along
Park
Street
in
Harare’s
central
business
district
twice.
As
Global
Press
Journal
reporters
interviewed
Nhema,
they
struck
again.
He
grabbed
his
stock
and
fled
in
the
middle
of
the
interview.

The
Harare
City
Council
has
for
years
waged
such
crackdowns
on
vendors,
often
destroying
goods
and
deploying
heavy
police
forces.
Local
government
insists
these
crackdowns
are
necessary
to
enforce
city
bylaws,
citing
vending
from
illegal
spots,
littering
and
health
concerns.

Yet
the
scale
and
intensity
of
recent
operations,
backed
by
expanding
police
presence
and
significant
public
spending,
have
raised
questions.
Critics
argue
that
the
government
is
wasting
scarce
resources
targeting
informal
vendors
all
while
it
struggles
to
provide
city
residents
with
basic
services,
such
as
clean water.

In
2024,
the
council’s
revenue
stood
at
just
US$3
million.
But
policing
costs
for
these
crackdowns
exceeded
US$24
million,
eight
times
the
council’s
income.

In
2025,
the
council
escalated
its
crackdown
by
creating
a
specialized
police
unit
to
target
vendors,
further
deepening
the
financial
strain
with
a
slight
budget
increase

and
pushing
the
total
to
around
12
times
its
income,
which
is
projected
to
fall
to
just
US$2
million.

As
the
council’s
income
dwindles,
the
central
government
shoulders
much
of
the
financial
burden.

Linda
Mujuru,
GPJ
Zimbabwe

Gamuchirai
Masiyiwa,
GPJ
Zimbabwe

Zvikomborero
Guvheya
serves
customers
while
Saul
Nhema
arranges
vegetables
at
their
vending
posts
along
a
Harare
sidewalk.
Informal
vendors
like
Guvheya
and
Nhema
play
a
vital
role
in
Zimbabwe’s
struggling
economy
but
face
frequent
raids,
bribe
demands
and
constant
threats
from
municipal
police
crackdowns.

Global
Press
Journal
made
numerous
requests
for
an
interview
with
the
mayor.
He
did
not
respond.

The
additional
cost
of
the
special
police
unit
is
hard
to
justify,
given
the
potential
benefits
of
supporting
informal
vendors,
says
Reuben
Akili,
director
of
the
Combined
Harare
Residents
Association.

“If
we
examine
the
funds
allocated
for
enforcement
covering
salaries,
fuel
and
operational
costs,
those
resources
could
have
been
redirected
toward
rehabilitating
markets
or
public
restrooms
in
the
city,”
Akili
says.

The
informal
sector
already
sustains
over
80%
of
Zimbabwe’s
population
and
contributes
nearly
72%
to
the
country’s
gross
domestic
product.
Street
vendors
dominate
the
sector
in
many
African
countries,
accounting
for
over
85%
of
jobs,
many
held
by
women.

In
Zimbabwe,
the
vendors
are
becoming
increasingly
critical,
as
the
country’s
currency
crisis
forces
many
retail
shops
to
shut
down.

Despite
this
central
role
in
many
economies
across
the
continent,
vendors
face
common
struggles.
Many
work
in
hostile,
unregulated
spaces,
and
they
are
routinely
evicted
under
the
pretext
of
urban
order
or
dismissed
as
a
threat
to
the
health
of
formal
economies.

A
special
municipal
police
unit
to
push
out
this
critical
population
in
Harare
will
only
inflate
the
city’s
workforce,
which
ultimately
burdens
taxpayers,
Akili
says.
Instead,
he
says
the
council
should
build
infrastructure
where
vendors
can
comfortably
work.

Gamuchirai
Masiyiwa,
GPJ
Zimbabwe

An
aerial
view
shows
a
municipal
police
truck
carrying
goods
confiscated
from
vendors.
Vendors
who
are
arrested
during
crackdowns
often
lose
their
stock
permanently,
with
little
recourse
to
reclaim
their
goods.

There
are
some
designated
spaces
within
the
central
business
district,
but
many
vendors
shun
these,
citing
the
high
cost
of
renting
stalls
and
a
lack
of
foot
traffic,
which
limits
their
ability
to
attract
customers.
Additionally,
these
spaces
require
a
formal
business
license,
which
costs
between
US$400
and
US$800
per
year.
In
an
economy
that
has
struggled
for
decades,
this
cost
is
prohibitive
for
many.

The
council
must
strike
a
balance
between
tackling
these
issues
without
undermining
the
livelihoods
of
those
who
depend
on
the
informal
economy,
says
Samuel
Wadzai,
director
of
Vendors
Initiative
for
Social
and
Economic
Transformation,
a
nonprofit
that
represents
vendors.

Raids
haven’t
been
effective,
he
says,
not
even
when
a
former
minister
of
local
government
requested
deployment
of
the
army
to
push
out
vendors.

“Despite
this
central
role
in
many
economies
across
the
continent,
vendors
face
common
struggles.
Many
work
in
hostile,
unregulated
spaces,
and
they
are
routinely
evicted
under
the
pretext
of
urban
order
or
dismissed
as
a
threat
to
the
health
of
formal
economies.”

“Did
that
result
in
any
significant
change
in
terms
of
the
challenges
that
we
are
seeing?
I
think
it’s
a
big
no,”
Wadzai
says.

At
times,
vendors
resort
to
bribing
officers
to
avoid
the
disruption
of
evictions.
Jesman
Guvheya
has
worked
as
an
informal
vendor
for
two
years.
The
widowed
mother
of
five
says
the
police
sometimes
demand
US$1
a
day
from
each
vendor.

“But
there
can
be
three
or
four
groups
that
move
at
different
times
per
day
and
you
may
end
up
paying
4
US
dollars
to
avoid
being
raided,”
she
says.

And
that
bribe
is
never
a
guarantee
one
will
trade
without
interruption.
The
police
could
swoop
in
and
confiscate
everything,
even
after
a
vendor
has
paid
the
bribe.
“Sometimes
we
are
left
with
little
stock
that
we
will
have
secured
elsewhere,”
she
says,
preparing
to
flee
from
police
she
has
just
spotted.

Although
Guvheya
escaped
arrest
that
day,
her
son,
also
a
street
vendor,
wasn’t
as
fortunate.
The
council
police
apprehended
him,
and
she
had
to
follow
the
truck
to
pay
a
bribe
so
he
could
be
freed.

Law Review Puts Out Full Issue Of Articles Written With AI – Above the Law

While
practicing
lawyers
embrace
generative
AI
as
a
quicker
and
more
efficient

avenue
to
sanctions
,
law
professors
have
mostly
avoided
AI
headlines.
This
isn’t
necessarily
surprising.
Lawyers
only
get
into
trouble
with
AI
when
they’re
lazy.
It
becomes
a
problem
when
someone
along
the
assembly
line
inserts
AI-generated
slop
without
taking
the
time
to
properly
cite
check.
Legal
scholarship,
on
the
other
hand,
is
all
about
cite
checking

usually
to
a
comically
absurd
degree.

A
10-page
article
doesn’t
get
250
footnotes
because
someone’s
asleep
at
the
switch.

But
that
doesn’t
mean
legal
scholarship
is
somehow
shielded
from
the
march
of
technology.
Generative
AI
will
find
its
way
into
all
areas
of
written
work
product
eventually.

The
Texas
A&M
Journal
of
Property
Law,
decided
to
take
the
bull
by
the
horns

horns
down,
as
the
case
may
be

and
begin
grappling
with
AI-assisted
scholarship
with

a
full
volume
of
AI-assisted
scholarship
.

In
the
course
of
publishing
the
2024–25
Volume
of
the
Texas
A&M
Journal
of
Property
Law,
we,
the
Editorial
Board,
were
presented
with
the
opportunity
to
publish
a
collection
of
articles
drafted
explicitly
with
the
assistance
of
Artificial
Intelligence
(“AI”).
After
some
consideration,
we
made
the
decision
to
do
so.
The
following
is
our
endeavor
to
share
with
our
peers
and
colleagues—who
may
soon
find
themselves
in
similar
situations—what
we
have
learned
in
this
process
and,
separately,
contribute
some
forward-looking
standards
that
can
be
implemented
in
the
arena
of
legal
scholarship
for
the
transparent
signaling
and
taxonomizing
of
AI-assisted
works.

A
foreword
prepared
by
Spencer
Nayar
and
Michael
Cooper,
Editor
in
Chief
and
Managing
Editor
respectively,
laid
out
the
issues
encountered
by
the
staff
in
putting
together
the
volume
and
explained
how
they
dealt
with
these
issues.

The
four
articles,
technically
authored
by
Kansas
Law
professor

Andrew
W.
Torrance

and

Bill
Tomlinson
,
a
professor
of
Informatics
and
Education
at
UC-Irvine,
dealt
with
biodiversity
loss
and
associated
legal
issues.
But
the
real
action
in
these
articles
resides
in
a
footnote:

Portions
of
this
article
were
drafted
and/or
revised
in
collaboration
with
ChatGPT
(GPT-4o,
Sept.
2024),
Anthropic’s
LLM
Claude
(Sonnet,
Sept.
2024).
All
content
was
reviewed
and
verified
by
the
research
team.
To
ensure
ethical
and
responsible
use
of
AI,
we
engaged
with
ChatGPT
in
line
with
the
best
practices
described
by
Bill
Tomlinson,
Andrew
W.
Torrance,
and
Rebecca
W.
Black,
as
well
as
the
recommendations
outlined
in
Nature
Editorials.
Bill
Tomlinson
et
al.,
ChatGPT
and
Works
Scholarly:
Best
Practices
and
Legal
Pitfalls
in
Writing
with
AI,
76
SMU
L.
REV.
F.,
108
(2023);
Tools
Such
as
ChatGPT
Threaten
Transparent
Science;
Here
Are
Our
Ground
Rules
for
Their
Use,
NATURE
(Jan.
24,
2023),
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00191-1
[https://perma.cc/PD4R-2GM8].

In
the
foreward,
Nayar
and
Cooper
identify
three
key
factors
in
weighing
legal
scholarship:
authorship
(can
we
use
this
to
grant
tenure?);
reliability
(did
we
put
in
enough
footnotes?);
effort
(have
we
made
ourselves
miserable
enough
in
writing
this
to
consider
it
a
valuable
contribution?).
Along
with
the
more
elusive
category
of
“merit,”
the
editors
determined
that
AI
won’t
undermine
and
might
even
enhance
an
article’s
value
along
these
factors.
Its
human
authors
remain
on
the
professional
hook
for
the
output,
the
potential
high-profile
embarrassment
of
hallucinations
will
keep
editors
focused
on
chasing
down
verification,
and
while
AI
will
make
the
slog
of
writing
easier,
it
can’t
replace
the
soul-sucking
draft-turning
process.
As
for
“merit,”
AI
can
open
up
new
inquiries
that
purely
human
scholarship
couldn’t
get
at:

AI
reifies,
rather
than
offends,
the
value
of
merit
in
the
legal
paradigm
because
AI
carries
with
it
the
capacity
to
help
unleash
creativity
through
the
automation
of
various
tasks.
As
scholars
endeavor
to
find
the
next
complex
issue
in
law,
their
research
may
require
in-depth
pattern
mining
or
other
form
of
quantitative
analysis
or
literature
review.
These
are
tasks
that
AI
can
help
with
by
not
only
conducting
rudimentary
research
but
also
by
aiding
scholars
in
their
quest
to
find
new
connections
between
old
dots.

Embarking
on
this
new
AI-assisted
world,
the
editors
proposed
some
best
practices.
It’s
largely
common
sense

edit
carefully
and
look
out
for
unintentional
plagiarism

but
the
journal
also
proposed
a
five-level
taxonomy
for
signaling
the
level
of
AI
involvement
in
a
work.
Purely
human
output
on
one
end
and
purely
AI
on
the
other.
In
between,
there
are
signals
for
using
AI
as
a
research
aid,
using
it
to
draft
outlines
or
early
drafts,
and
using
it
to
put
together
substantial
clips
of
text.
They
propose
disclosing
this
at
the
top
of
the
article:

To
inform
readers
of
a
specific
article
about
the
extent
of
AI
use,
the
author
should
include
a
disclosure
within
their
article’s
biographical
footnote.
This
disclosure
should
include
a
basic
description
of
the
AI
used
and,
in
brackets,
the
level
of
assistance.
For
example:
John
Doe,
Professor
of
Constitutional
Law
at
Arpeggio
University.
The
Author
used
Artificial
Intelligence
in
the
researching
and
investigation
of
this
topic.
[AI
Assistance
Level
2].

This
is
probably
overkill
and
might
not
even
be
feasible
over
the
long-term.
It’s
like
suggesting
authors
flag
every
article
based
on
how
much
they
used
the
internet

it
might’ve
been
interesting
in
1996,
but
now
that
it’s
fully
integrated
into
daily
life,
it’s
hard
to
draw
a
line.
It’s
also
a
disclosure
that
might
be
counterproductive…
if
the
author
intended
to
create
a
first
draft
and
happened
to
prompt
the
AI
well
enough
that
the
output
only
required
minor
edits,
it
would
move
up
the
scale
unintentionally.

For
that
matter,
what
does
it
mean
to
move
“up”
and
“down”
the
scale?
Using
AI
as
a
research
aid
clocks
in
closer
to
purely
human
output
than
using
it
to
draft
substantial
amounts
of
text,
though
as
the
growing
ranks
of
sanctioned
lawyers
can
attest,
research
assistance
can
be
a
lot
more
problematic
than
spitting
out
filler
prose.

But
in
any
event,
this
is
a
project
that
someone
needed
to
take
on,
so
the
editors
should
be
commended
for
taking
the
initiative
here.

OK Zimbabwe Edges Closer To US$30 Million Capital Raise

This
development
was
shared
in
a
further
cautionary
announcement
released
on
June
4,
2025,
following
an
earlier
advisory
issued
on
May
2.

In
the
statement,
the
company’s
board
of
directors
advised
shareholders
and
the
investing
public
that
full
details
of
the
transaction
will
be
disclosed
in
due
course.
The
statement
reads:

Further
to
the
cautionary
announcement
dated
2
May
2025,
Directors
of
OK
Zimbabwe
Limited
wish
to
advise
shareholders
and
the
investing
public
that
discussions
regarding
the
proposed
capital
raise
in
the
sum
of
up
to
US$30
million
are
now
at
an
advanced
stage
and
are
nearing
finalisation.

Further
details
will
be
announced
in
due
course.
The
Company
will
then
publish
a
circular
to
shareholders
incorporating
notice
of
an
Extraordinary
General
Meeting
of
Members
for
the
purpose
of
considering
and
approving
the
capital
raise.

Accordingly,
shareholders
and
the
investing
public
are
advised
to
continue
exercising
caution
when
dealing
in
the
Company’s
shares.

Further
announcements
will
be
made
in
accordance
with
regulatory
requirements
as
and
when
there
are
material
developments.

ADRA Zimbabwe collapse looms as director flees embezzlement probe

HARARE

Judith
Musvosvi,
the
country
director
for
the
global
humanitarian
organisation
Adventist
Development
&
Relief
Agency
(ADRA),
has
fled
Zimbabwe
after
a
forensic
audit
uncovered
her
alleged
involvement
in
a
$1.4
million
embezzlement
scheme
that
threatens
to
collapse
the
organisation’s
local
operations.

The
65-year-old
executive
absconded
days
after
her
subordinate,
ADRA
finance
director
Fortune
Goredema,
was
arrested
on
fraud
charges.

According
to
church
sources,
Musvosvi
travelled
to
South
Africa
by
bus
before
continuing
on
to
Eastern
Europe.
She
told
friends
she
was
attending
her
niece’s
wedding.

A
senior
Seventh
Day
Adventist
(SDA)
insider
confirmed:
“Powerful
contacts
within
the
church
warned
her
of
imminent
arrest.”

The
scandal
unfolded
after
ADRA
International,
which
runs
relief
programmes
in
over
120
countries,
received
an
anonymous
whistleblower
report
in
July
2022.
A
forensic
audit

conducted
by
the
SDA’s
General
Conference
Auditing
Service
and
international
firm
Baker
Tilly

uncovered:


Goredema
falsified
accounting
records
to
embezzle
$1,209,387.76
designated
for
tax
payments
to
ZIMRA.


He
diverted
$160,437.57
meant
for
NSSA
pensions.


The
finance
director
overpaid
himself
by
$118,578.69
between
2023
and
2024.

Musvosvi,
who
has
led
ADRA
Zimbabwe
since
2013,
was
found
complicit
in
the
scheme.
Auditors
confirmed
she
authorised
fraudulent
transactions
and
personally
received
“undue
payments
and
personal
loans”
violating
ADRA’s
financial
policies.

The
fraud
has
pushed
ADRA
Zimbabwe
to
the
brink
of
dissolution
over
the
massive
tax
hole
and
overdue
periodic
payments.

Pastor
Zibusiso
Ndlovu,
the
executive
secretary
of
SDA
North
Zimbabwe
Union
which
covers
Harare,
declined
repeated
requests
for
comment.

The
mother-of-three’s
husband,
Jonathan
Musvosvi,
remains
an
active
SDA
pastor
in
Zimbabwe
and
no
church
disciplinary
action
has
been
announced.

Musvosvi’s
relocation
to
Romania
severely
complicates
prosecution,
as
Zimbabwe
has
no
extradition
treaty
with
the
Eastern
European
nation.
Interpol
may
be
consulted,
according
to
legal
sources.

The
scandal
threatens
critical
ADRA
programmes
supporting
food
security
and
healthcare
across
Zimbabwe’s
most
vulnerable
communities,
including
people
living
with
HIV.

“This
isn’t
just
theft

it’s
a
betrayal
of
the
world’s
poorest,”
said
a
Harare-based
aid
coordinator
familiar
with
ADRA’s
operations.

ADRA
Zimbabwe
was
previously
targeted
for
takeover
by
controversial
petroleum
tycoon
Kudakwashe
Tagwirei.
Musvosvi
was
allegedly
not
opposed
to
a
greater
role
for
the
SDA
“elder”
in
the
organisation,
but
there
was
no
consensus.

When
Tagwirei
did
not
succeed
he
went
and
formed
his
Bridging
Gaps
Foundation
(BGF),
but
it
lacks
the
reach
and
prestige
of
ADRA
within
the
SDA
community
of
nearly
one
million
members
in
2,523
churches,
which
he
still
craves.

How Brent Dyer Reframes Biglaw, And What In-House Counsel Should Expect Instead – Above the Law

In
my
experience,
few
moments
feel
as
disorienting
as
receiving
a
hefty
law
firm
invoice
that
reads
like
a
puzzle
and
realizing
no
one’s
available
to
explain
it.
That’s
not
luxury,
that’s
just
expensive
confusion.

If
that
sounds
familiar,
you’ll
want
to
hear
more
from
Brent
Dyer,
director
of
legal
operations
at
Trend
Micro.
In
our
full
conversation,
Brent
breaks
down
what
outside
counsel
should
really
be
delivering,
and
how
in-house
teams
can
raise
their
expectations.
Check
it
out
here:


Redefining
What
We’re
Paying
For

Brent’s
core
message
is
clear:
just
because
something
costs
a
lot
doesn’t
mean
it
delivers
value.
Many
law
firms
pitch
themselves
as
luxury
providers,
but
the
in-house
experience
tells
a
different
story.
What’s
being
sold
as
high-touch
service
often
translates
into
poor
communication,
delayed
billing,
and
rigid
engagement
models
that
ignore
what
the
client
actually
needs.

This
isn’t
just
philosophical.
Brent’s
insights
give
in-house
lawyers
a
practical
framework
to
evaluate
firms
and
take
control
of
the
relationship.


3
Things
To
Expect

And
Demand

If
you’re
managing
outside
counsel,
here
are
three
areas
where
you
can
and
should
set
higher
expectations:


  1. Billing
    that
    saves
    you
    time,
    not
    creates
    more
    work.

    Push
    for
    itemized,
    timely,
    and
    clear
    billing.
    If
    your
    firm
    takes
    months
    to
    send
    an
    invoice
    or
    if
    you’re
    doing
    the
    cleanup
    they
    should
    have
    done,
    speak
    up.
    Brent
    suggests
    making
    timely,
    clean
    billing
    a
    non-negotiable
    part
    of
    your
    engagement.

  2. A
    clear
    understanding
    of
    your
    legal
    and
    business
    goals.

    Don’t
    let
    outside
    counsel
    assume
    what
    you
    want.
    Build
    in
    a
    30-
    to
    45-minute
    alignment
    call
    before
    each
    matter
    kicks
    off.
    Have
    them
    repeat
    back
    your
    objectives
    in
    writing.
    Brent
    has
    seen
    this
    one
    step
    turn
    an
    engagement
    from
    reactive
    to
    results-driven.

  3. A
    reliable
    channel
    for
    feedback
    and
    escalation.

    If
    you’ve
    ever
    flagged
    a
    concern
    that
    goes
    nowhere

    or
    worse,
    triggers
    defensiveness

    you’re
    not
    alone.
    Brent
    recommends
    asking
    upfront
    who
    you
    can
    talk
    to
    if
    something
    goes
    wrong.
    Treat
    this
    like
    vendor
    management,
    not
    a
    favor
    you’re
    asking.


For
Legal
Operators:
Build
Better
Expectations
Into
The
System

If
you’re
in
legal
ops,
take
this
further
by
institutionalizing
these
expectations.
Add
billing
accuracy
metrics
to
your
firm
scorecards.
Include
matter
kickoff
questions
that
capture
business
goals
in
plain
language.
Create
a
simple
feedback
form
clients
can
use
post-matter.

And
if
a
firm
refuses
to
align
on
these
basics?
You
know
what
to
do.


The
Real
Luxury:
Being
Heard
And
Understood

Brent’s
final
takeaway?
“Find
your
inner
assertiveness
and
enjoy
it.
Don’t
feel
guilty
about
it.”
When
a
firm
treats
you
like
you’re
too
small
to
matter,
remind
them
that
every
big
client
once
started
small.
Respect
is
not
a
reward,
it’s
a
requirement.

As
in-house
lawyers,
we
are
not
just
cost
centers
or
inboxes
to
be
managed.
We
are
the
client.
And
that
means
we
get
to
define
what
good
service
looks
like.


Your
Turn

How
are
you
setting
expectations
with
outside
counsel?
What
practices
have
worked
best
for
you

or
completely
backfired?
Share
your
tips,
stories,
or
even
your
favorite
intake
forms.
Let’s
keep
building
a
smarter
way
to
partner
with
the
firms
we
rely
on.




Olga
V.
Mack is
a
Fellow
at
CodeX,
The
Stanford
Center
for
Legal
Informatics,
and
a
Generative
AI
Editor
at
law.MIT.
Olga
embraces
legal
innovation
and
had
dedicated
her
career
to
improving
and
shaping
the
future
of
law.
She
is
convinced
that
the
legal
profession
will
emerge
even
stronger,
more
resilient,
and
more
inclusive
than
before
by
embracing
technology.
Olga
is
also
an
award-winning
general
counsel,
operations
professional,
startup
advisor,
public
speaker,
adjunct
professor,
and
entrepreneur.
She
authored 
Get
on
Board:
Earning
Your
Ticket
to
a
Corporate
Board
Seat
Fundamentals
of
Smart
Contract
Security
,
and  
Blockchain
Value:
Transforming
Business
Models,
Society,
and
Communities
. She
is
working
on
three
books: Visual
IQ
for
Lawyers
(ABA
2024), The
Rise
of
Product
Lawyers:
An
Analytical
Framework
to
Systematically
Advise
Your
Clients
Throughout
the
Product
Lifecycle
(Globe
Law
and
Business
2024),
and
Legal
Operations
in
the
Age
of
AI
and
Data
(Globe
Law
and
Business
2024).
You
can
follow
Olga
on 
LinkedIn and
Twitter
@olgavmack.

Landing A Federal Judgeship In The Trump Administration – Above the Law

(Photo
by
Brendan
McDermid-Pool/Getty
Images)

We’ve
known
for
years
that
Donald
Trump
despises
liberal
judges.

Back
in
his
first
term,
Trump
categorized
judges
who
ruled
against
him
as
“haters”
or
“so-called
judges.”
When
Judge
Arthur
Engoron
ruled
against
Trump
in
Letitia
James’s
civil
fraud
against
him,
Trump labeled Engoron
a “Trump-hating,
radical
left,
Democrat
operative.”

The
attacks
haven’t
changed
over
time.

Last
month,
Trump told supporters
that, “We
cannot
allow
a
handful
of
communist
radical-left
judges
to
obstruct
the
enforcement
of
our
laws
and
assume
the
duties
that
belong
solely
to
the
president
of
the
United
States.”

That
shows
a
fine
understanding
of
the
American
system
of
justice.

Recently,
however,
it
turned
out
that
Trump
doesn’t
simply
despise
liberal
judges. He
also
despises
conservative
ones.

After
a
court
blocked
Trump’s
attempt
to
impose
universal
tariffs,
Trump
went
after
Leonard
Leo,
a
heavy
hitter
in
the
conservative
Federalist
Society
who
had
advised
Trump
on
judicial
nominations
in
his
first
term. Leo
had
apparently duped Trump
into
appointing
conservatives: “I
was
new
to
Washington,
and
it
was
suggested
that
I
use
The
Federalist
Society
as
a
recommending
source
on
Judges,”
Trump
said.
“I
did
so,
openly
and
freely,
but
then
realized
that
they
were
under
the
thumb
of
a
real
‘sleazebag’
named
Leonard
Leo,
a
bad
person
who,
in
his
own
way,
probably
hates
America,
and
obviously
has
his
own
separate
ambitions.”

Trump
will
apparently
no
longer
solicit
the
Federalist
Society’s
opinion
in
choosing
his
judicial
nominees.

This
left
me
scratching
my
head: Trump
doesn’t
like
liberal
judges. He
doesn’t
like
conservative
judges. He
doesn’t
like
nonpartisan
judges.
(He fired
17
 inspectors
general
back
in
January.) So
who
exactly
does
he
like?

It
couldn’t
be
that
he
likes
only
judges
who
rule
in
his
favor,
could
it? Because
that
would
mean
that
he
doesn’t
like
judges
at
all;
he
simply
likes
lickspittles.

On
the
off
chance
that
lickspittling
is
the
way
to
go,
I’m
thinking
of
starting
a
new
society
to
train
potential
judges. My
society
won’t
veer
either
to
the
left
or
the
right,
so
we
won’t
offend
Trump. There’ll
be
no
ACLU
or
Federalist
Society
in
my
house.  

No,
no,
no.

I’ll
simply
train
people
to
be
subservient
to
Trump. Folks
in
my
society
will
learn
to
say
that
Trump
is
“right.” But
I
won’t
stop
there! Trainees
will
also
learn
to
say
that
Trump
is
“always
right.”
And
“brilliant,”
“God’s
messenger
on
earth,”
“the
greatest
President
who
ever
lived,”
and
“a
likely
candidate
for
the
Nobel
Peace
Prize.”

That
should
do
the
trick.

Join
my
society,
and
I’m
almost
certain
that
I
can
land
you
on
the
federal
judiciary!

But
be
careful: You
might
not
end
up
being
appointed
a
judge.

You
might
wind
up
on
the
Cabinet.




Mark Herrmann spent
17
years
as
a
partner
at
a
leading
international
law
firm
and
later
oversaw
litigation,
compliance
and
employment
matters
at
a
large
international
company.
He
is
the
author
of 
The
Curmudgeon’s
Guide
to
Practicing
Law
 and Drug
and
Device
Product
Liability
Litigation
Strategy
 (affiliate
links).
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at 
[email protected].

Turning the CIO into a party militia


Fulton
Mangwanya



BY
MATTHEW
TAKAONA

A
red
Honda
Fit
notorious
for
political
violence
in
Gutu
District
screeches
to
a
halt
and
stops
in
the
middle
of
the
highway
cowboy
style.

Clad
in
a
blue
suit,
eyes
rolling
like
a
chameleon,
the
driver
jumps
out
leaving
doors
open
as
he
advances
menacingly
towards
me.
Four
other
men
emerge
from
the
little
car
and
make
an
oxbow
formation
as
if
I
had
any
intentions
to
run
away.

One
would
be
pardoned
for
thinking
that
the
gang
was
moving
in
on
a
wanted,
dangerous
armed
criminal.
I
was
only
a
parent
clearing
grass
and
shrubs
along
a
road
used
by
kids
on
their
way
to
school.

Almost
at
the
same
time,
Zanu
PF
Councillor
for
Ward
35
Gutu
and
a
former
Gutu
RDC
CEO,
Benson
Kurauone
Dandira’s
white
Nissan
twin
cab
pulls
to
a
halt
from
the
opposite
direction
and
parks
in
the
middle
of
the
road
in
front
of
the
Honda
Fit.
From
it
jumps
a
group
of
party
hangers-on
who
looked
like
they
were
ready
to
pounce
on
someone
and
turn
him
into
mincemeat.

There
is
a
desperate
show
of
invincibility
as
hapless
villagers
only
armed
with
sickles
and
slashers
that
they
were
using
to
clear
the
road
look
on.

A
green
CIO
Ford
Ranger
twin
cab
had
earlier
passed
through
the
road
in
a
Zanu
PF
convoy
to
a
campaign
rally
in
Gutu
East.
The
unregistered
vehicle
carried
equipment
for
the
rally
including
speakers.
The
question
that
lingers
is;
is
this
the
Central
Intelligence
that
we
need?
Is
this
the
role
of
the
Central
Intelligence
in
a
normal
functional
state?
Is
this
what
the
once
revered,
almost
mystique
Central
Intelligence
Organisation
(CIO)
has
become;
an
embedded,
rag-tag
outfit
that
openly,
brazenly
and
without
a
drop
of
shame
moves
around
with
Zanu
PF
leaders
and
hooligans,
coercing,
threatening
and
beating
up
innocent
civilians?

A
State
intelligence
whose
operatives
go
around
harassing
people
on
behalf
of
friends,
connections
and
politicians?
What
does
the
State
benefit
from
operatives
who
are
characterised
by
communities
as
bullies
and
terror
agents?
Imagine
a
country’s
secret
service
leaving
office
to
go
and
arrest
villagers
cutting
grass
by
the
roadside?

This
is
the
situation
in
Gutu
District
and
the
Zimbabwe
Human
Rights
Commission
captured
something
akin
to
this
in
a
report
published
last
year.

Central
Intelligence
is
by
nature
and
rule
secretive
but
not
in
Gutu
where
operatives
are
visible
in
bars,
townships,
at
political
gatherings,
political
activities
and
familiar
to
everybody.
They
are
some
sort
of
notorious
celebrities.

Dr
Fulton
Mangwaya,
the
CIO
Director
General
must
be
ashamed
to
lead
such
an
unprofessional
outfit
which
takes
instructions
from
all
and
sundry
as
long
as
they
are
Zanu
PF
and
they
have
money
and
power.
The
long-term
effect
of
allowing
this
free
spirit
to
men
and
women
in
the
CIO
is
chilling;
the
consequences
are
dire
and
difficult
to
reverse.

A
State
intelligence
organisation
in
that
form
and
shape
is
a
loose
cannon,
dangerous
and
available
to
the
highest
bidder.
The
bottom
line
is
that
it
is
a
militia.

Zimbabwe
has
walked
the
road
before;
2008
is
a
gory
and
dark
hour
in
the
history
of
our
country.
The
violence
that
people
went
through
makes
sacrifices
of
the
liberation
struggle
and
independence
pointless.

“What
do
you
think
you
are
doing?”
barked
the
CIO
operative
who
I
realised
is
nicknamed
Stavo.
“We
are
cutting
overgrown
grass
to
make
the
road
safe
for
school
kids,”
I
replied
trying
hard
to
suppress
my
swelling
anger
at
the
abuse
that
I
was
being
subjected
to.

He
grabbed
my
phone
and
tried
to
wrestle
it
away
but
I
kept
my
hands
tight
on
it
until
he
gave
up.
He
then
snatched
away
Tendai
Jayben’s
(one
of
the
parents)
phone
that
had
US$300
under
its
cover.
The
money
was
stolen,
she
did
not
get
it
when
the
phone
was
handed
back
to
her
five
hours
later.
Gutu
residents
said
this
precisely
is
Stavo’s
character.
A
village
bully!

“You
have
been
arrested,”
he
further
said.

I
asked
him
to
identify
himself
otherwise
I
would
not
co-operate.
He
said
I
was
being
arrested
by
Feret,
adding
that
he
would
explain
the
meaning
of
Feret
later.
I
still
insisted
on
an
ID
until
he
instructed
one
Police
Officer
called
O
Sibanda
to
produce
his
ID.
I
was
told
that
this
Sibanda
is
notorious
for
accompanying
this
gang
wherever
it
goes
to
harass
and
violate
people.

I
later
learned
from
a
lawyer
that
Feret
is
a
system
used
by
the
ruling
party
to
abuse
real
or
perceived
opponents.
Feret
which
consists
of
a
member
each
from
every
State
security
department;
CID,
CIO,
Army,
Prisons
and
Police
is
used
for
arresting
“enemies”.

However,
arresting
powers
rest
with
the
Police;
it’s
not
the
duty
of
secret
service.
In
my
case,
I
was
arrested
by
a
CIO
agent
who
led
the
whole
process.
So
much
about
law
and
order
in
our
country!
It
was
Stavo
who
questioned
me,
forced
me
into
his
car
and
took
me
to
Gutu
Police
Station
without
any
arresting
powers.
None
of
the
things
that
he
did
is
legal.
Sibanda
who
instead
should
have
led
the
process
was
no
actor.
If
this
is
not
lawlessness
and
violation
of
people’s
rights
then
what
is?

Stavo
forced
me
to
leave
my
car
unlocked
and
unguarded.
He
speeded
towards
the
Gutu
Police
Camp
and
at
one
time
we
all
yelled
as
he
almost
rammed
into
an
oncoming
vehicle.

I
sat
for
five
hours
at
the
Police
Station
guarded
by
three
members
of
the
gang.
Dandira
had
told
me
that
I
was
being
arrested
for
cutting
grass
on
the
roadside
without
his
approval
as
a
councillor.
For
all
those
five
hours
no
one
really
advised
me
of
the
specific
crime
I
had
committed.
There
was
no
warned
and
cautioned
statement.That
is
blatant
violation
of
a
suspect’s
rights
by
men
and
women
who
think
they
are
above
the
law.
Initially,
they
told
me
that
I
had
cut
grass
without
permission.
When
they
realised
that
there
was
no
such
law,
the
Officer-in-charge
and
another
senior
Cop
said
I
was
not
a
resident
of
the
ward
and
therefore
I
was
not
supposed
to
cut
that
grass.
But
I
am
a
resident
of
Gutu.
They
later
tried
to
link
the
case
to
an
unlawful
political
gathering
hoping
that
parents
who
were
slashing
grass
were
bussed
from
elsewhere.
It
emerged
that
all
were
residents
of
the
area
and
the
case
fell
flat.

They
tried
to
accuse
me
of
endangering
the
parents
by
slashing
grass
by
the
roadside
but
they
again
abandoned
that
line.

Realising
that
there
was
no
crime
committed,
they
then
invited
EMA
to
see
if
the
Authority
could
raise
a
case
against
me.
After
a
lengthy
meeting,
EMA
noted
that
what
I
did
was
correct,
if
at
all
it
is
the
Government
that
is
on
the
wrong
side
of
the
law
by
not
clearing
the
road.

Without
the
involvement
of
the
CIO
and
with
Zanu
PF
officials
not
directing
operations
of
a
State
organ,
a
frivolous
case
like
this
one
would
never
have
been
raised,
wasting
a
whole
day,
fuel
and
human
resources
running
after
the
wind.

This
is
what
happens
when
State
security
organs
become
captured
and
allow
themselves
to
become
thuggish.
A
bigger
danger
awaits
Zimbabwe.

Currently
Government
is
facing
millions
of
dollars’
worth
of
lawsuits
for
wrongful
arrests.
A
responsible
and
efficient
Government
would
not
allow
such
a
waste
of
resources
but
who
cares
about
the
economy
or
the
people
in
our
Government?

Security
agents
involved
in
wrongful
arrests
against
advice
must
be
sued
in
their
personal
capacities.
Meanwhile
US$300
disappeared
into
the
hands
of
a
State
security
agent.

Post
published
in:

Featured

Partners Are Running From The Stink Of Paul, Weiss’s Capitulation – Above the Law

Paul,
Weiss

shocked
the
world
of
Biglaw

in
March
when
they

became
the
first


though

not
the
last


firm
to
bend
a
knee
to
Donald
Trump
to
get
out
from
under
an onerous
Executive
Order

designed
to extract
a
financial
penalty 
for
being
affiliated
with
cases
and
causes
that
displeased
the
president.
Since
then,
the
firm
has
been
experiencing
the
consequences
of
their
actions

the
deal
with

Trump
keeps
getting
worse
,
there’ve
been

congressional
investigations
,

client
concerns
,
and
so
many
lawyers

bailing

on

the
firm

to

distance
themselves

from
the
craven
capitulation.

Over
the
last
few
days,
the
talent
loss
at
Paul,
Weiss
has
seen
a
noticeable
uptick.
On
Friday,
Damian
Williams,
former
U.S.
attorney
for
the
Southern
District
of
New
York,

announced

he
was
leaving
the
cowardly
Paul,
Weiss.
Williams’s
new
Biglaw
home?

Jenner
&
Block


one
of
the
four
Biglaw
firm
fighting
the
Trump
Biglaw
executive
orders
in
court.
And…
that
tells
you
pretty
much
everything
you
need
to
know
about
what
Williams
thinks
about
making
a
deal
with
Trump.

But
that
isn’t
the
only
noteworthy
recent
partner
departure.
Three
litigation
partners:
Melissa
Zappala,
Rush
Atkinson
(who
worked
on
the
Mueller
investigation),
and
Kyle
Smith
are
dipping
from
Paul,
Weiss
and
heading
to
the
new
litigation
boutique
Dunn
Isaacson
Rhee.

Dunn
Isaacson
Rhee
was
recently
formed
by
four
now-former
Paul,
Weiss
partners
looking
to
practice
law

free
from
the
shadow
of
the
Trump
deal.

In
addition
to
the
seven
partners,
three
associates

Erica
Spevack,
Lyle
Gruby,
and
Leah
Hibbler

have
joined
Dunn
Isaacson
Rhee.
And

the
firm
is
reportedly

recruiting
even
more
lawyers
to
join
their
ranks.

That’s…
a
lot
of
litigation
talent
loss
at
Paul,
Weiss.
It’s
almost
like
showing
the
world
you
aren’t
willing
to
defend
the
rule
of
law
in
court
is
a
bad
business
decision
for
a
major
law
firm.




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].

Legal Ethics Roundup: Messy Mexico Judicial Elections, Angry Clients, Pro Bono For DOJ, Bondi Complaint & More – Above the Law



Ed.
note
:
Please
welcome
Renee
Knake
Jefferson
back
to
the
pages
of
Above
the
Law.
Subscribe
to
her
Substack,
Legal
Ethics
Roundup, here.


Welcome
to
what
captivates,
haunts,
inspires,
and
surprises
me
every
week
in
the
world
of
legal
ethics.

Happy
Monday!

It
was
a
busy
week
for
me,
both
a
beginning
and
an
end.
I’m
teaching
two
summer
courses,
so
it
was
the
start
of
the
semester
for
students
in
my
Professional
Responsibility
course
and
my
Leadership,
Law,
and
Power
writing
seminar.
(A
special
welcome
to
students
joining
us
here
at
the
Roundup!)
It
was
also
the
end
of
the
school
year
for
my
daughter,
celebrated
with
a
tennis
banquet
and
yearbook
banquet.
She’s
officially
a
senior
in
high
school.
Sigh.
I
know
I’ve
written
it here before,
but
to quote Mary
Louise
Kelly
:
“It.
Goes.
So.
Fast.”
In
other
personal
news,
I
learned
last
week
that
I’ve
been
appointed
to
a
one-year
term
on
the American
Bar
Association
Center
for
Innovation
Governing
Council
.
I
was
a
reporter
for
the ABA
Commission
on
the
Future
of
Legal
Services
,
which recommended the
creation
of
the
Center
for
Innovation
back
in
2016,
and
I’m
looking
forward
to
serving
in
this
new
role.


And
now
for
your
headlines.

Highlights
from
Last
Week

Top
Ten
Headlines


#1
 “The
Law
Firms
That
Appeased
Trump—and
Angered
Their
Clients.”
 From
the Wall
Street
Journal
:
“Support
for
the
law
firms
that
didn’t
make
deals
has
been
growing
inside
the
offices
of
corporate
executives.
At
least
11
big
companies
are
moving
work
away
from
law
firms
that
settled
with
the
administration
or
are
giving—or
intend
to
give—more
business
to
firms
that
have
been
targeted
but
refused
to
strike
deals,
according
to
general
counsels
at
those
companies
and
other
people
familiar
with
those
decisions.
Among
them
are
technology
giant Oracle,
investment
bank Morgan
Stanley
,
an
airline
and
a
pharmaceutical
company. Microsoft expressed
reservations
about
working
with
a
firm
that
struck
a
deal,
and
another
such
firm
stopped
representing McDonald’s in
a
case
a
few
months
before
a
scheduled
trial.
In
interviews,
general
counsels
expressed
concern
about
whether
they
could
trust
law
firms
that
struck
deals
to
fight
for
them
in
court
and
in
negotiating
big
deals
if
they
weren’t
willing
to
stand
up
for
themselves
against
Trump.”
Read
more here (gift
link).


#2
 “The
Justice
Crisis
Nobody’s
Talking
About,
And
How
Innovation
Can
Save
Legal
Aid.”
 From
the Law
Droid
Manifesto
 Substack:
“Last
Friday,
while
most
of
us
were
wrapping
up
our
workweek,
the
White
House
quietly
proposed
something
that
should
have
made
headlines
everywhere:
the
complete
elimination
of
the Legal
Services
Corporation 
(LSC).
For
those
of
you
who
may
be
unfamiliar,
LSC
was
established
by
Congress
in
1974
and
represents
the
federal
government’s
primary
commitment
to
ensuring
legal
representation
for
Americans
who
can’t
afford
it.
For
51
years,
through
Republican
and
Democratic
administrations,
it
has
survived;
a
testament
to
the
bipartisan
belief
that
justice
shouldn’t
depend
on
wealth.
So,
this
isn’t
just
another
budget
cut.
It’s
a
decision
that
would
strip
legal
protections
from
millions
of
Americans,
including
domestic
violence
survivors,
veterans,
and
nearly
a
million
children.”
Read
more here.


#3
 “Election
Observers
Voice
Serious
Concerns
About
Mexico’s
Contentious
Judicial
Elections.”
 From
the Washington
Post
:
“Abysmal
voter
turnout,
political
polarization
and
voting
‘cheat
sheets’
were
among
the
reasons
an
observation
mission
for
Mexico’s
historic
judicial
elections
on
Friday
issued
a
recommendation
to
other
countries
in
the
region:
don’t
try
this
at
home.
In
their
report,
the
electoral
mission
from
the Organization
of
American
States
 said
the
June
1
election
was
‘extremely
complex’
and
‘polarizing,’
and
was
marked
by
a
‘widespread
lack
of
awareness’
among
voters
about
what
they
were
voting
for
and
who
the
thousands
of
candidates
were.
Given
the
findings,
the
mission
concluded
that
‘it
does
not
recommend
this
model
of
judge
selection
be
replicated
in
other
countries
in
the
region.’
In
Sunday’s
vote,
Mexicans
elected
881
federal
judges,
including
a
new
Supreme
Court,
and
another
1,800
state
judges
as
part
of
a
complete
overhaul
of
the
judiciary.
The
process
was
carried
out
following
a
constitutional
reform
approved
last
year
by
a
Congress
with
a
ruling-party
majority.
The
overhaul
fueled
protests
and
criticism
within
Mexico
and
by
the
U.S.
and
Canadian
governments,
which
warned
of
a
potential
loss
of
judicial
independence
and
the
politicization
of
justice
in
Mexico.”
Read
more here (gift
link).


#4
 “We
Must
Close
the
Loophole
Helping
Judges
Evade
Accountability.”
 An
op-ed
from Aliza
Shatzman
 (Legal
Accountability
Project)
in Bloomberg
Law
:
“Berating
judicial
law
clerks
as
‘stupid’
and
‘useless’
and
demeaning
them
for
perceived
mistakes.
Forcing
them
to
watch
pornography.
Firing
them
for
no
stated
reason.
Concealing
a
neurological
condition
that
prevents
a
judge
from
serving.
In
each
instance
of
judicial
misconduct
over
the
past
decade,
these
perpetrators
retired
or
resigned
from
judicial
service
without
facing
discipline—their
reputations,
pensions,
and
legal
careers
intact.
Fortunately,
a
new bill,
the Transparency
and
Responsibility
in
Upholding
Standards
in
the
Judiciary
Act
,
would
close
the
disturbing
legal
loophole
that
allows
judges
to
step
down
to
evade
accountability
for
misconduct.”
Read
more here.
(Full
disclosure:
I
am
a
member
of
the Legal
Accountability
Project’s
Advisory
Board
).


#5
 “DOJ
Alumni
Aid
Group
Launches
Pro
Bono
Legal
Network.”
 From Law360:
Justice
Connection
,
a
group
founded
by
former
U.S.
Department
of
Justice
attorneys
in
response
to
the
Trump
administration’s
ongoing
purge
of
the
department,
has
launched
a
pro
bono
legal
network
to
represent
DOJ
attorneys
being
‘unfairly
targeted’
by
the
Trump
administration.”
Read
more here.


#6
 “Erin
Brockovich
Lawyer
and
‘Real
Housewives’
Husband
Gets
7
Years
in
Prison
for
Embezzlement.”
 From
the New
York
Times
:
Tom
Girardi
,
a
former
high-profile
trial
lawyer
known
for
winning
a
record
settlement
for
the
environmental
activist Erin
Brockovich
,
was
sentenced
on
Tuesday
to
more
than
seven
years
in
prison
for
embezzling
tens
of
millions
of
dollars
of
his
clients’
settlement
money.
In
addition
to
receiving
an
87-month
prison
term,
Mr.
Girardi,
86,
of
Seal
Beach,
Calif.,
who
was
convicted
in
August
of
four
counts
of
wire
fraud,
was
ordered
by Judge
Josephine
L.
Staton
of
U.S.
District
Court
for
the
Central
District
of
California
 to
pay
more
than
$2.3
million
in
fines
and
restitution.”
Read
more here (gift
link).


#7
 “Is
the
American
Bar
Association’s
Accreditation
Monopoly
About
to
End?”
 An
op-ed
from Jonathan
Adler
 (Case
Western)
in
the Civitas
Outlook
:
“The American
Bar
Association
 (ABA)
is
the
nation’s
largest
lawyers’
organization.
While
representing
only
a
small
fraction
of
lawyers,
it
is
also
the
sole
accrediting
body
for
law
schools.
Whereas
universities
generally
are
accredited
by
regional
accrediting
organizations,
the
ABA’s
Section
of
Legal
Education
and
Admissions
to
the
Bar
is
the
only
game
in
town.
Federal
student
loans
are
only
available
to
accredited
institutions,
and
the
vast
majority
of
states
require
a
degree
from
an
ABA-accredited
school
to
take
the
bar
exam.
Could
this
soon
change?
As
the
cost
of
legal
education
continues
to
rise
and
technological
changes
threaten
to
transform
the
delivery
of
legal
services,
the
ABA’s
de
facto
monopoly
on
legal
accreditation
is
under
siege. Texas and Florida,
the
states
with
the
third
and
fourth-most
lawyers
in
the
country,
are
both
considering
whether
to
stop
requiring
bar
applicants
to
have
attended
an
ABA-accredited
school.”
Read
more here.


#8
 “Pam
Bondi
Accused
of
‘Serious
Misconduct’
in
Florida
Bar
Complaint.”
 From Newsweek:
US
Attorney
General
Pam
Bondi
 has
been
accused
of
‘serious
professional
misconduct’
in
an
ethics
complaint
filed
with
the
Florida
Bar,
signed
by
70
people.
The
signatories
include
liberal
and
moderate-leaning
law
professors,
attorneys,
and
retired
chief
justices
of
the
Florida
Supreme
Court.
They
accused
Bondi
of
misconduct
that
‘threatens
the
rule
of
law
and
the
administration
of
justice.’”
Read
more here.


#9
 “Foley
&
Lardner
Says
Palestine
Support
Didn’t
Doom
Job
Offer.”
 From Law360:
Foley
&
Lardner
LLP
 asked
an
Illinois
federal
judge
Wednesday
for
an
early
win
in
a
bias
suit
from
a
former
summer
associate
who
claims
that
the
firm
pulled
a
job
offer
because
of
her
public
support
for
the
Palestinian
people,
arguing
that
the
rescission
did
not
occur
because
she
was
an
Arab
Muslim
but
rather
because
her
statements
about
Hamas’
October
2023
attack
on
Israel
‘not
only
violated
the
firm’s
core
values,
but
also
constituted
a
display
of
incredibly
poor
judgment.’”
Read
more here.


#10
 “Attorney
Discipline
Moves
Into
Public
Eye.”
 From Bloomberg
Law
:
“Most
attorney
disciplinary
complaints
come
from
people
with
personal
knowledge
of
the
lawyer’s
conduct,
but
a
recent
rise
in
filings
based
on
public
information
has
stirred
up
questions
about
standing,
the
public
interest,
confidentiality,
and
regulators’
handling
of
duplicate
filings.
Speaking
May
30
at
the
American
Bar
Association’s
50th
National
Conference
on
Professional
Responsibility, Renee
Knake
Jefferson
,
Professor
of
Law
at
the
University
of
Houston,
observed
that
nonprofit
advocacy
groups
such
as
Fix
the
Court
and
The
65
Project
have
played
a
role
in
the
increased
number
of
public
complaints.
She
said
that
approximately
30
US
jurisdictions
allow
these
kinds
of
complaints.”
Read
more here.


Get
Hired

Did
you
miss
the
100+
job
postings
from
previous
Roundups?
Find
them
all here.


Upcoming
Ethics
Events
&
Other
Announcements

Did
you
miss
an
announcement
from
previous
Roundups?
Find
them
all here.


Keep
in
Touch


  • News
    tips?
    Announcements?
    Events?
     A
    job
    to
    post?
     Reading
    recommendations?
     Email [email protected] –
    but
    be
    sure
    to
    subscribe
    first,
    otherwise
    the
    email
    won’t
    be
    delivered.



Renee
Knake
Jefferson
holds
the
endowed
Doherty
Chair
in
Legal
Ethics
and
is
a
Professor
of
Law
at
the
University
of
Houston.
Check
out
more
of
her
writing
at
the Legal
Ethics
Roundup(Opens
in
a
new
window)
.
Find
her
on
X
(formerly
Twitter)
at @reneeknake(Opens
in
a
new
window)
 or
Bluesky
at legalethics.bsky.social(Opens
in
a
new
window)

Top 50 Biglaw Firm Announces Nonequity Partnership Tier, Mainstains Lockstep Compensation – Above the Law

Biglaw
firms
with
single
partnership
tiers
are
now
few
and
far
between,
with
more
big-name
firms
showing
that
they’re
ready,
willing,
and
able
to
welcome
nonequity
partners
to
their
ranks.

Cravath
was
one
of
the
first
longtime
holdouts
to
cut
bait
and
create
“salaried
partner
tier”
 (i.e.,
nonequity
partners)
back
in
November
2023.
That
move
gave
other
highly
ranked
firms
permission
to
tread
the
same
path,
including
Paul
Weiss,
which
announced
its new
two-tier
partnership
plan
 in
March
2024;
WilmerHale,
which added
a
nonequity
partnership
tier
 in
August
2024;
Cleary,
which
announced
its
own new
partnership
platform
 in
October
2024;
Skadden,
which
began
considering
nonequity
level
 in
February
2025;
Schulte
Roth
&
Zabel,
which
announced
an

income
partnership
tier

in
March
2025;
and
Ropes
&
Gray,
which
began

weighing
the
benefits
of
a
nonequity
tier

in
early
June.

Now,
we’re
seeing
reports
that
Debevoise
&
Plimpton,
the
#33
firm
in
the
country
by
gross
revenue,
has
decided
to
create
its
own
nonequity
partner
tier,
while
at
the
same
time
retaining
lockstep
compensation
across
the
firm.
The

American
Lawyer

has
the
scoop:

After
close
to
a
year
of
deliberations
and
discussions,
the
partnership
voted
in
the
spring
“overwhelmingly”
to
reinforce
its
current
lockstep
model,
firm
presiding
partner
Peter
Furci
said
in
an
interview,
while
at
the
same
time
creating
a
nonequity
tier
the
firm
believes
will
help
in
talent
acquisition
and
retention.

“In
addition
to
approving
the
non-equity
partnership,
as
part
of
that
firmwide
discussion,
the
partnership
voted
overwhelmingly
to
ratify
our
lockstep
equity
model
and
recommit
to
the
team
approach
our
clients
appreciate
so
much,”
Furci
said.
“We
may
be
[one
of]
the
last
lockstep
firms,
but
just
because
we
are
last
doesn’t
mean
we
are
wrong.
Clients
see
the
benefits.”

The
firm’s
new
nonequity
partnership
tier
goes
into
effect
on
July
1,
at
the
same
time
as
its
partner
promotions

and
the
new
partnership
class
has
some
nonequity
partners,
to
boot.

Furci
went
on
to
say
that
the
new
tier
will
be
a
“relatively
small
percentage
of
the
overall
partnership”
and
that
it
will
be
reserved
for
“attorneys
who
have
shown
excellence
in
their
legal
acumen
and
also
show
potential
for
further
development.”

Debevoise

which
brought
in
$5,336,000
in
profit
per
equity
partner
in
2024

was
one
of
the
last
firms
in
the
Am
Law
100
to
retain
an
all-equity
partnership.
As
previously
noted
by Bloomberg
Law
,
the
largest
law
firms
in
America
could
soon
have
more
nonequity
partners
than
equity
partners
by
the
end
of
2025.

Best
of
luck
to
Debevoise
&
Plimpton
as
it
moved
ahead
with
its
“narrowly
tailored”
nonequity
partnership
program.

Is
your
firm
planning
to
increase
its
nonequity
partnership
ranks?
Please
please
text
us
(646-820-8477)
or email
us
 and
let
us
know.
Thanks.


Locked
In:
Debevoise
Votes
to
Keep
Lockstep
Comp
but
Creates
Nonequity
Tier

[American
Lawyer]


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.