Category: News Feeds

Every
GC
I
know
is
preparing
AI
updates
for
their
board.
Some
send
quarterly
decks.
Others
prepare
deep-dive
strategy
sessions.
Many
scramble
to
distill
fast-moving
regulatory
developments
into
digestible
talking
points.
Yet
the
same
problem
keeps
surfacing.
Boards
walk
away
overwhelmed,
underinformed,
or
unsure
what
to
do
next.

The
issue
is
not
expertise.
The
issue
is
the
communication
structure.

AI
is
not
a
single
topic.
It
is
a
category
of
technologies,
risks,
opportunities,
and
governance
challenges
that
shift
every
quarter.
Boards
expect
GCs
to
make
sense
of
that
ambiguity,
but
most
legal
teams
still
present
AI
the
way
they
present
other
legal
updates.
They
start
with
the
complexity
and
hope
the
board
can
extract
the
insight.

This
is
backward.
Boards
need
a
narrative
spine
that
orients
them.
They
need
a
clear
answer
to
three
questions
before
anything
else.
What
is
happening?
Why
it
matters.
What
they
should
do.

This
is
where
many
well-intentioned
updates
fall
apart.

How
Complexity
Crowds
Out
Board-Level
Judgment

Boards
do
not
have
infinite
cognitive
bandwidth.
When
legal
teams
walk
in
with
dense
memos,
long
lists
of
risks,
or
technical
descriptions
of
model
behavior,
directors
lose
the
plot.
They
stop
hearing
what
they
need
and
start
trying
to
reconcile
details
that
are
irrelevant
to
their
role.

This
is
not
a
board
failure.
It
is
a
communication
failure.

The
board’s
job
is
not
to
understand
every
model
parameter,
regulatory
nuance,
or
implementation
detail.
Their
job
is
to
understand
what
the
company
is
trying
to
achieve
with
AI,
the
level
of
exposure
that
strategy
creates,
and
the
quality
of
the
decision-making
process
behind
it.
Anything
that
does
not
help
them
do
that
job
becomes
noise.

The
challenge
for
GCs
is
that
AI
produces
a
lot
of
noise.
Without
a
disciplined
way
to
structure
the
conversation,
the
board
gets
a
firehose
instead
of
a
signal.
That
is
how
misalignment
builds.
It
is
how
companies
end
up
with
boards
that
either
overreact
to
AI
risk
or
treat
it
as
a
passing
technical
curiosity.

Both
outcomes
hurt
the
business.

A
Simple
Principle:
Don’t
Communicate
AI
Until
You
Know
The
Story
Before
you
brief
the
board,
the
GC
must
answer
one
foundational
question.
What
is
the
story
of
AI
in
this
company
right
now?
Are
you
using
AI
to
improve
internal
efficiency?
Are
you
integrating
AI
into
customer-facing
products?
Are
you
navigating
heightened
regulatory
scrutiny?
Are
you
trying
to
get
ahead
of
competitors
who
are
moving
quickly?

If
you
cannot
articulate
the
story
in
one
sentence,
the
board
will
not
grasp
it
either.

Once
the
story
is
clear,
you
can
translate
it
into
the
governance
conversation.
But
most
lawyers
never
get
the
chance,
because
they
start
with
information
instead
of
meaning.
They
walk
the
board
through
the
activity
instead
of
the
direction.
They
overindex
on
what
legal
teams
are
seeing
rather
than
what
directors
need
to
understand.

This
is
where
the
What,
So
What,
Now
What
model
becomes
indispensable.

Why
The
What,
So
What,
Now
What
Model
Works
For
AI
The
model
forces
clarity.
It
requires
you
to
explain
the
situation,
the
significance,
and
the
next
steps
without
drowning
the
board
in
unnecessary
complexity.
It
aligns
the
GC’s
instinct
for
thoroughness
with
the
board’s
need
for
strategic
focus.
And
it
forces
the
GC
to
make
a
judgment
call,
not
a
data
dump.

AI
is
moving
too
quickly
for
meandering
updates.
Boards
want
to
understand
whether
AI
is
creating
opportunity,
introducing
exposure,
or
reshaping
operational
assumptions.
They
want
to
know
where
the
company
is
positioned
relative
to
peers.
They
want
to
feel
confident
that
management
is
not
only
aware
of
the
risks
but
is
actively
shaping
the
company’s
future.

The
model
helps
you
do
that
by
building
a
pathway
from
information
to
meaning
to
action.
It
guides
the
conversation
so
the
board
can
govern
with
clarity
rather
than
react
with
confusion.

How
GCs
Lose
Credibility
Without
a
Framework
Even
sophisticated
legal
teams
unintentionally
overwhelm
the
board
when
they
treat
AI
like
a
traditional
compliance
topic.
They
include
too
much
detail
about
regulations
that
have
not
been
finalized,
too
many
definitions,
or
too
many
examples
of
model
failure.
They
confuse
breadth
with
credibility.
They
think
thoroughness
builds
trust.

It
does
the
opposite.

Boards
trust
clarity.
They
trust
judgment.
They
trust
the
GC
who
can
walk
into
a
meeting
and
say
something
simple
and
true.
Here
is
what
is
changing.
Here
is
why
it
matters.
Here
is
what
we
recommend.
That
kind
of
communication
signals
maturity
and
strategic
leadership.
It
also
demonstrates
that
the
GC
understands
what
the
board
needs,
not
only
what
the
legal
team
knows.

This
is
the
difference
between
a
legal
update
and
a
governance
moment.

AI
Requires
A
Governance
Lens,
Not
A
Technical
Lens
AI
is
transforming
business
models,
cost
structures,
customer
expectations,
and
competitive
dynamics.
It
is
also
attracting
political
scrutiny,
regulatory
fragmentation,
and
public
uncertainty.
Boards
want
to
know
how
those
changes
affect
the
company’s
risk
profile
and
long-term
health.
They
do
not
need
a
technical
seminar.
They
need
a
governance
frame.

The
What,
So
What,
Now
What
model
shifts
the
GC
into
that
governance
posture.
It
distills
complexity
down
to
the
elements
directors
use
to
exercise
oversight.
It
keeps
the
conversation
grounded
in
business
impact,
not
technical
curiosity.
It
also
helps
the
GC
anticipate
the
kinds
of
questions
directors
will
ask.
How
exposed
are
we?
How
does
this
affect
our
strategy?
What
safeguards
have
we
built?
What
decisions
require
board-level
engagement?

Without
this
structure,
conversations
drift.
With
it,
conversations
sharpen.

A
Better
Path
Forward
For
AI
Board
Communication
The
resource
you
shared,
What,
So
What,
Now
What:
Effectively
Communicating
With
Your
Board
About
Transformative
Technology
Such
as
Artificial
Intelligence,
lays
out
this
communication
method
in
depth.
It
gives
GCs
a
repeatable
way
to
brief
boards
with
clarity,
conciseness,
and
credibility.
It
breaks
down
how
to
diagnose
the
core
message,
separate
operational
detail
from
governance
insight,
and
close
the
conversation
with
a
clear
recommendation.

It
is
a
practical
tool
for
every
in-house
lawyer
navigating
AI
conversations
with
directors,
and

you
can
access
it
here.

The
model
does
not
oversimplify
AI.
It
helps
you
explain
it
in
a
way
that
empowers
better
oversight.
For
boards,
that
is
the
real
value.

The
GC’s
Role
Is
Evolving,
And
Communication
Is
Now
A
Core
Skill
AI
is
accelerating
the
evolution
of
the
GC
role.
Directors
expect
legal
leaders
to
steward
risk,
influence
strategy,
and
communicate
with
clarity
in
environments
that
lack
stable
answers.
Frameworks
like
What,
So
What,
Now
What
help
GCs
deliver
that
clarity
consistently.

They
also
help
legal
teams
build
stronger,
more
confident
relationships
with
their
boards.
And
they
prepare
the
organization
for
a
future
in
which
the
pace
of
technological
change
will
continue
to
accelerate.

If
you
want
to
sharpen
your
ability
to
communicate
about
complex
emerging
technologies,
start
with
a
structure
that
makes
meaning
out
of
complexity
instead
of
amplifying
it.

Boards
do
not
need
more
information.
They
need
a
signal.
And
the
GC
who
delivers
it
becomes
indispensable.

---

Olga
V.
Mack
is
the
CEO
of
TermScout,
where
she
builds
legal
systems
that
make
contracts
faster
to
understand,
easier
to
operate,
and
more
trustworthy
in
real
business
conditions.
Her
work
focuses
on
how
legal
rules
allocate
power,
manage
risk,
and
shape
decisions
under
uncertainty.


A
serial
CEO
and
former
General
Counsel,
Olga
previously
led
a
legal
technology
company
through
acquisition
by
LexisNexis.
She
teaches
at
Berkeley
Law
and
is
a
Fellow
at
CodeX,
the
Stanford
Center
for
Legal
Informatics.


She
has
authored
several
books
on
legal
innovation
and
technology,
delivered
six
TEDx
talks,
and
her
insights
regularly
appear
in
Forbes,
Bloomberg
Law,
VentureBeat,
TechCrunch,
and
Above
the
Law.
Her
work
treats
law
as
essential
infrastructure,
designed
for
how
organizations
actually
operate.

Over
the
past
decade
plus
of
extreme
political
polarization
(not
originated
by,
though
dramatically
worsened
through,
Donald
Trump),
boycotts
have
been
deployed
by
activists
on
both
ends
of
the
political
spectrum
to
mixed
results.
Turns
out
it
is
really
hard
to
get
enough
Americans
to
give
up
convenience
in
acquiring
the
real-world
products
they
need
such
that
you
can
make
a
meaningful
political
statement
to
the
intended
recipient.

This
month,
however,
podcast
host,
author,
and
marketing
professor
Scott
Galloway
has
been
waging
a
unique
campaign
to
strike
back
in
the
face
of
ICE’s
lawless
operations.
Called
Resist
and
Unsubscribe,

Galloway’s
initiative
“targets
tech
and
AI
companies
and
inflicts
maximum
damage
with
minimum
impact
on
consumers.”

Resist
and
Unsubscribe
is
premised
on
the
idea
that
the
president
is
unfazed
by
citizen
outrage,
the
courts,
or
the
media.
Rather,
Trump
responds
to
only
one
thing:
the
market.

Galloway
correctly
recognizes
that
boycotting,
say,
certain
retailers
is
unlikely
to
have
a
significant
enough
effect
on
the
broader
stock
market
to
move
the
president.
On
the
other
hand,
seven
tech
companies
alone
account
for
more
than
a
third
of
the
S&P
500
index,
many
of
them
propped
up
by
massive
spending
on
AI
of
late.

Hurting
the
bottom
line
of
the
largest
tech
firms,
as
well
as
the
sycophantic
CEOs
running
them
in
accordance
with
Trump’s
whims,
would
actually
be
noticed.
Tech
companies
also
have
the
unique
flaw
(or
in
this
case,
advantage)
of
often
being
highly
reliant
on
speculative
measures
of
future
potential
revenues,
like
number
of
subscribers,
as
opposed
to
companies
selling
tangible
goods
that
are
valued
on
more
established
metrics.
Forgoing
a
few
of
many
available
subscriptions
is
also

a
relatively
easy
sacrifice
to
ask
of
the
individual
consumer.

All
this
means
that
consumers
like
ourselves
can
have
a
much
bigger
influence
on
market
capitalization
by
canceling
Amazon
Prime
than
we
can
by
skipping
a
few
trips
to
Target.
It
also
means
that
the
market
is
uniquely
vulnerable
to
consumers
who
are
willing
to
shun
AI
products.

The
first
step,
according
to
Galloway,
is
unsubscribing
from
OpenAI’s
ChatGPT
and
Anthropic’s
Claude
(if
you
are
among
these
platforms’
few
paying
users).
The
next
line
of
attack
consists
of
unsubscribing
from
other
tech
services
provided
by
companies
that
have
“outsized
influence
over
the
national
economy
and
our
president”
—

including
the
services
offered
by
Amazon,
Apple,
Google,
Microsoft,
Paramount+,
Meta,
Uber,
Netflix,
and
Twitter
(X).
Lastly,
Galloway
identifies
a
number
of
consumer-facing
companies
as
“active
enablers
of
ICE”
which
may
not
be
susceptible
to
the
standard
tech
industry
subscription
revenue
multiplier
of
10x
in
calculating
the
implied
market
capitalization
effect,
but
are,
nonetheless,
also
obviously
worth
avoiding
(I
will
provide
a
link
directly
to
Galloway’s
website
in
the
final
paragraph
so
you
can
easily
access
the
full
list
of
companies
along
with
convenient
“unsubscribe”
links).

Well,
I’m
a
little
late
to
this
party.
I
also
don’t
have
many
services
that
I
can
unsubscribe
from
to
begin
with
(two,
to
be
precise).
Nevertheless,
in
the
spirit
of
solidarity,
I
just
jettisoned
50%
of
my
subscriptions.
Goodbye
Netflix,
and,
hopefully,
hello
to
a
future
where
we
all
have
something
more
concrete
to
look
forward
to
than
the
next
season
of
“3
Body
Problem.”

The

Resist
and
Unsubscribe
campaign
runs
(at
least)
through
the
end
of
February.
If
this
is
the
first
you’re
hearing
of
it,
let
me
be
the
first
to
welcome
you
aboard.
I
have
friends
everywhere
(if
you
need
something
to
watch
now
that
you’ve
completed
your
unsubscribing
mission,
check
out
“Andor”
on
Disney+,
that
one’s
not
on
Galloway’s
list).
As
to
whether
or
not
this
is
working,
well,
all
I
can
say
for
now
is
that
as
of
market
close
on
February
24,
the
NASDAQ
and
the
S&P
500
are
definitely
down
for
the
month.

---

Jonathan
Wolf
is
a
civil
litigator
and
author
of Your
Debt-Free
JD (affiliate
link).
He
has
taught
legal
writing,
written
for
a
wide
variety
of
publications,
and
made
it
both
his
business
and
his
pleasure
to
be
financially
and
scientifically
literate.
Any
views
he
expresses
are
probably
pure
gold,
but
are
nonetheless
solely
his
own
and
should
not
be
attributed
to
any
organization
with
which
he
is
affiliated.
He
wouldn’t
want
to
share
the
credit
anyway.
He
can
be
reached
at [email protected].

There
was
a
refreshing
change
of
pace
during
recent
Supreme
Court
oral
arguments,
when,
instead
of
the
barely
concealed
hostility
and
opinion-by-opinion
sniping
that
defined
the
Court’s

sprawling
tariffs
decision,
a
few
justices
decided
to
take
a
beat,
crack
a
joke,
and
acknowledge
the

absurdity
of
their
own
output.

During
arguments
in

Enbridge
Energy
v.
Nessel,
the
Court
briefly
stepped
away
from
the
now-familiar
dynamic
of
public
judicial
feuding
and
leaned
into
something
far
rarer
—
self-deprecating
humor
about
the
institution
itself.
For
a
Court
that
recently
used
some
170
pages
to
yell
at
itself
in
formal
legal
prose,
the
levity
landed
as
a
small
but
welcome
palate
cleanser.

Enter
Samuel
Alito,
who
immediately

seized
the
opportunity
for
some
rare
bench
banter.

“Well,
if
—
well
—”
Alito
began,
pausing
just
long
enough
for
the
room
to
sense
where
this
was
going.

(laughter)
“That’s
certainly
a
goal
to
aim
for.”

(more
laughter)

And
then,
because
the
Court
cannot
resist
a
little
intra-chambers
meta
commentary,
Alito
added:

“I
felt
very
left
out
in
the
tariffs
case.
Justice
Sotomayor
didn’t
write
and
I
didn’t
write
opinions.
But,
if…”

At
which
point
Sonia
Sotomayor
swooped
in
to
land
the
punchline:

“Maybe
we’ll
have
a
chance
here.”

This
is
what
passes
for
Supreme
Court
comedy.
When
advocates
are
openly
begging
for
brevity
and
the
justices
are
cracking
jokes
about
who
didn’t
get
to
write,
you
know
the
Court
is
at
least
dimly
aware
that
maybe,
just
maybe,
170
pages
is
a

lot.

To
be
fair,
this
is
about
as
close
as
the
Supreme
Court
ever
gets
to
admitting
excess.
For
a
fleeting
moment,
the
justices
acknowledged
what
every
clerk,
practitioner,
and
long-suffering
reader
already
knows:
judicial
maximalism
is
exhausting
(even
—
or
maybe
especially
—
when
it’s

filled
with
judicial
sniping).

Will

Enbridge
Energy
v.
Nessel
be
a
case
that
produces
a
tight,
elegant
opinion
that
clocks
in
under
triple
digits?
Who
knows!
But
hope
springs
eternal.
After
all,
as
Justice
Alito
put
it,
it’s
“certainly
a
goal
to
aim
for.”

---

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].

The
Department
of
Justice
and
the
state
of
Ohio

filed
an
antitrust
lawsuit
against

OhioHealth
this
week,
alleging
the
health
system
used
“all-or-nothing”
contracting
practices
to
force
payers
to
include
every
hospital
and
physician
affiliated
with
OhioHealth
in
their
networks.

Essentially,
the
lawsuit
claims
that
the
Ohio-based
health
system
has
used
its
market
dominance
to
impose
restrictive
payer
contracts
that
harm
competition
and
drive
up
healthcare
costs
for
patients
and
employers. 

According
to
the
lawsuit,
OhioHealth
requires
payers
to
include
all
of
its
hospitals
and
employed
physicians
in
their
networks
if
they
want
access
to
any
of
them,
which
has
prevented
payers
from
selectively
contracting
with
lower-cost
facilities
or
excluding
higher-priced
ones.

The
DOJ
argues
this
has
left
payers
with
little
negotiating
leverage,
as
well
as
hurt
their
ability
to
design
more
affordable
health
plans.

“Americans
deserve
low-cost,
high-quality
healthcare
—
not
anticompetitive
hospital
system
contracts
that
make
healthcare
less
affordable,”
Attorney
General
Pam
Bondi
said
in
a

statement.

The
DOJ
and
Ohio
contend
that
OhioHealth’s
provisions
violate
federal
and
state
antitrust
laws
by
suppressing
competition
among
hospitals
and
physician
groups
in
central
Ohio.
The
complaint
alleges
that
foreclosing
rivals
from
competing
for
inclusion
in
payer
networks
helped
OhioHealth
maintain
its
dominant
market
position
while
insulating
it
from
price
competition.

OhioHealth
is
one
of
the
largest
healthcare
systems
in
Ohio,
spanning
16
hospitals,
three
joint
venture
hospitals
and
more
than
200
ambulatory
care
sites.
It
has
a
significant
presence
in
the
Columbus
region,
where
regulators
say
its
scale
gives
it
substantial
bargaining
power
over
commercial
insurers. 

The
lawsuit
comes
amid
heightened
federal
scrutiny
of
hospital
consolidation
and
contracting
practices,
as
lawmakers
seek
to
rein
in
healthcare
costs
that
continue
to
rise
faster
than
wages
and
inflation.

The
government
is
asking
the
court
to
block
OhioHealth
from
using
the
disputed
contract
provisions
and
to
restore
competition
in
the
affected
markets. 

The
health
system
has
denied
the
allegations,
saying
that
its
contracting
practices
are
lawful
and
benefit
patients
by
ensuring
broad
access
to
care.

This
type
of
lawsuit
is
part
of
a
broader
wave
of
antitrust
enforcement
targeting
hospital
consolidation
and
restrictive
contracts
nationwide.
In
recent
years,
the
DOJ
and
state
attorneys
general
have
challenged
similar
“all-or-nothing”
or
“full-service”
contracting
practices
in
markets
from
California
to
Florida,
arguing
that
such
terms
harm
payer
competition
and
increase
healthcare
prices. 

Outcomes
in
those
cases
may
influence
how
courts
view
OhioHealth’s
contracts.

Photo:
imageBROKER/Harry
Laub,
Getty
Images

*
Majority
of
Supreme
Court
justices
skip
out
on
Trump’s
State
of
the
Union.
[Daily
Beast]

*
Isaac
Hayes
estate
secures
settlement
in
copyright
dispute
with
Trump
campaign
over
unauthorized
use
of
the
singer’s
work.
[Rolling
Stone]

*
Judges
want
control
of
crumbling
judicial
infrastructure.
[ABA
Journal]

*
Court
blocks
government
access
to
Washington
Post
reporter’s
devices
it
seized.
[Reuters]

*
SEC
announces
new
enforcement
approach.
[Law360]

*
As
technology
provides
a
better
picture
of
a
company’s
real-time
situation,
the
whole
concept
managing
legal
risk
needs
to
change
along
with
it.
[Catylex]

*
Inquiries
about
tariff
refunds
have
made
life
“chaotic”
for
trade
attorneys.
[National
Law
Journal]

https://www.flickr.com/photos/zimbabwevigil/55112630549/sizes/m/

Thanks
to
those
who
came
today:
Elizabeth
Chitenga,
Munashe
Madziyauswa,
Chantelle
Manyande,
Philip
Maponga,
Samantha
Pfupajena,
Ephraim
Tapa,
Peter
Tatchell
and
Tatenda
Tsumba.
Photos: https://www.flickr.com/photos/zimbabwevigil/albums/72177720332170607.

Zimbabwe
Vigil
activists
were
happy
to
receive
veteran
human
rights
activist,
Peter
Tatchell,
who
made
a
special
visit
as
he
always
does
whenever
he
has
the
chance.

In
buoyant
mood,
Peter
congratulated
the
Vigil,
describing
it
as
arguably
the
longest
campaign
in
British
history. The
Zimbabwe
Vigil,
which
started
in
October
2002,
will
reach
24
years
in
existence
this
year,
a
milestone
achieved
by
few.

Peter
cited
the
resilience,
commitment
and
courage
displayed
by
activists
to
have
come
this
far
commenting,
‘no
dictatorship
stays
forever
and
even
that
of
Mnangagwa
will
fall
one
day’.
He
added,
‘it
only
takes
activists
like
you
to
remain
standing
and
pushing,
giving
those
trapped
in
Zimbabwe
a
voice,
victory
is
yours’.

Poignantly,
Peter
reminded
activists
that
he
had
participated
in
the
1970s
liberation
war,
fundraising
for
ZANU
and
securing
medicare
for
the
ZANLA
cadres,
then
in
the
bush. He
said
it
was
sad
and
hypocritical
that
today’s
ZANU
PF
had
a
strong
aversion/dislike
of
its
1970s
manifesto,
which
had
human
rights
and
democracy
as
central
to
the
war.
In
support,
Vigil
activist
Samantha
Pfupajena
remarked,
‘power
corrupts!’.

Another
Vigil
long-time
activist,
Phillip
Maponga
said,
‘that’s
why
we
remain
standing
here
to
say
no
to
the
2030
agenda’,
which
was
described
as
a
ploy
by
Mnangagwa
to
buy
time
for
his
boys,
so
they
are
in
a
position
to
take
over
at
the
end
of
ED
Mnangagwa’s
reign,
thereby
establishing
the
Mnangagwa
dynasty’.

Peter
ended
his
visit
by
chanting
‘aluta
continua!’

For
Vigil
pictures
check: http://www.flickr.com/photos/zimbabwevigil/.
Please
note:
Vigil
photos
can
only
be
downloaded
from
our
Flickr
website.

Events
and
Notices: 

• 
  Next
  Vigil
  meeting
  outside
  the
  Zimbabwe
  Embassy. Saturday
  7^th March
  from
  2
  –
  5
  pm.
  We
  meet
  on
  the
  first
  and
  third
  Saturdays
  of
  every
  month.
  On
  other
  Saturdays
  the
  virtual
  Vigil
  will
  run.
• 
  The
  Restoration
  of
  Human
  Rights
  in
  Zimbabwe
  (ROHR) is
  the
  Vigil’s
  partner
  organisation
  based
  in
  Zimbabwe.
  ROHR
  grew
  out
  of
  the
  need
  for
  the
  Vigil
  to
  have
  an
  organisation
  on
  the
  ground
  in
  Zimbabwe
  which
  reflected
  the
  Vigil’s
  mission
  statement
  in
  a
  practical
  way.
  ROHR
  in
  the
  UK
  actively
  fundraises
  through
  membership
  subscriptions,
  events,
  sales
  etc
  to
  support
  the
  activities
  of
  ROHR
  in
  Zimbabwe.
• 
  The
  Vigil’s
  book
  ‘Zimbabwe
  Emergency’ is
  based
  on
  our
  weekly
  diaries.
  It
  records
  how
  events
  in
  Zimbabwe
  have
  unfolded
  as
  seen
  by
  the
  diaspora
  in
  the
  UK.
  It
  chronicles
  the
  economic
  disintegration,
  violence,
  growing
  oppression
  and
  political
  manoeuvring
  –
  and
  the
  tragic
  human
  cost
  involved. It
  is
  available
  at
  the
  Vigil.
  All
  proceeds
  go
  to
  the
  Vigil
  and
  our
  sister
  organisation
  the
  Restoration
  of
  Human
  Rights
  in
  Zimbabwe’s
  work
  in
  Zimbabwe.
  The
  book
  is
  also
  available
  from
  Amazon.
• 
  
  Facebook
  pages:   
• 
  Vigil : https ://www.facebook.com/zimbabwevigil
• ROHR: https://www.facebook.com/Restoration-of-Human-Rights-ROHR-Zimbabwe-International-370825706588551/
• ZAF: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Zimbabwe-Action-Forum-ZAF/490257051027515

The
Vigil,
outside
the
Zimbabwe
Embassy,
429
Strand,
London
meets
regularly
on
Saturdays
from
14.00
to
17.00
to
protest
against
gross
violations
of
human
rights
in
Zimbabwe.
The
Vigil
which started
in
October
2002
will
continue
until
internationally-monitored,
free
and
fair
elections
are
held
in
Zimbabwe.

Tonight’s
Rambling
Will
Be
Legendary:
Empty
your
cups
and
mental
health
listening
to
the
President
our
country
deserves.
ABA
Tells
Trump
To
Mind
His
Manners:
It
is
rude
to
badmouth
the
Court
just
for
doing
their
jobs,
Mr.
President.
Does
Sharing
With
Chat-GPT
Make
It
Discoverable?:
Great
question!
Read
to
find
out!
Judge
VanDyke’s
Dissent
Looks
Like
A
Job
Application:
Pick
me
to
replace
Alito!
Pick
me!
Judge
Takes
Leave
From
The
Bench:
A
sober
decision
to
make
during
trying
times.

Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!

According
to
data
collected
by
Law.com,
for
the
year
ending
Sept.
30,
2025,
which
4
Biglaw
firms
added
100+
partners?

Hint:
The
20
Biglaw
firms
most
active
in
the
lateral
partner
market
accounted
for
more
than
a
third
of
all
partner
additions
last
year.

See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.

In
this
episode
of
“Be
That
Lawyer,”
I
sit
down
with
Jennifer
Gillman,
President
and
Founder
of
Gillman
Strategic
Group,
to
break
down
a
distinction
that
quietly
shapes
every
legal
career:
the
difference
between
lawyers
who
control
their
work
and
lawyers
who
are
controlled
by
it.

Jennifer
draws
from
her
experience
as
both
a
former
practicing
attorney
and
a
trusted
recruiter
to
explain
why
business
development
is
the
gateway
to
flexibility,
autonomy,
and
long-term
career
satisfaction.

Lawyer’s
Secret:
Become
a
Rainmaker

Jennifer
explains
the
difference
between
being
a
service
partner
and
a
rainmaker,
and
why
that
distinction
matters
at
every
stage
of
a
legal
career.
Rainmakers
bring
in
the
work,
which
gives
them
meaningful
influence
over
staffing,
timelines,
and
how
matters
are
managed.
That
control
allows
lawyers
to
align
professional
responsibilities
with
personal
priorities,
whether
that
means
attending
family
events,
taking
time
off,
or
setting
realistic
deadlines.

Service
partners,
by
contrast,
often
operate
on
schedules
set
by
others.
Jennifer
emphasizes
that
this
has
nothing
to
do
with
talent
or
intelligence.
It
comes
down
to
understanding
the
business
of
a
law
firm
and
committing
to
client
development
early,
even
in
small
ways.
She
encourages
lawyers
to
view
business
development
as
an
investment
that
compounds
over
time,
much
like
interest.
Even
15
minutes
a
week
done
consistently
can
lead
somewhere
meaningful.

Monthly
Networking
Event:
Build
Connections
&
Reputation

Steve
shares
how
a
simple
one
hour
monthly
networking
event
can
create
real
value
without
pressure
or
pitching.
By
bringing
lawyers
together
in
a
relaxed
setting,
participants
walk
away
with
genuine
connections
rather
than
transactional
exchanges.
The
focus
is
on
generosity,
visibility,
and
giving
people
a
reason
to
remember
you.

Jennifer
adds
that
building
a
wide
network
allows
lawyers
to
be
useful
in
many
different
ways,
not
just
legally.
When
people
see
you
as
someone
who
can
help
solve
problems
or
make
thoughtful
connections,
referrals
follow
naturally.
Reputation
is
built
through
consistent
presence
and
genuine
interest
in
others,
not
through
aggressive
selling.

Networking:
How
Junior
Professionals
Build
Connections

Jennifer
offers
practical
guidance
for
lawyers
earlier
in
their
careers,
emphasizing
that
networking
is
not
about
chasing
senior
decision
makers
exclusively.
Peers
and
junior
contacts
often
grow
into
positions
of
influence
over
time.
Building
relationships
at
your
level
creates
a
future
referral
network
that
matures
alongside
you.

She
also
highlights
the
importance
of
follow
through.
Being
the
person
who
sends
a
resource,
makes
an
introduction,
or
responds
promptly
leaves
a
lasting
impression.
Small
acts
of
helpfulness
signal
reliability
and
care,
which
are
qualities
people
remember
when
opportunities
arise.

“If
you
can
develop
one
dollar
of
business,
you
can
develop
a
million
dollars
or
ten
million,”
Jennifer
says.

Watch
the
full
conversation
here.

---

Steve
Fretzin
is
a
bestselling
author,
host
of
the
“Be
That
Lawyer”
podcast,
and
business
development
coach
exclusively
for
attorneys.
Steve
has
committed
his
career
to
helping
lawyers
learn
key
growth
skills
not
currently
taught
in
law
school.
His
clients
soon
become
top
rainmakers
and
credit
Steve’s
program
and
coaching
for
their
success.
He
can
be
reached
directly
by
email
at [email protected].
Or
you
can
easily
find
him
on
his
website
at www.fretzin.com or
LinkedIn
at https://www.linkedin.com/in/stevefretzin.