*
Remember
when
Foley
&
Lardner
fired
a
new
associate
after
she
expressed
support
for
the
citizens
of
Gaza?
After
winning
a
preliminary
battle
over
certain
claims,
the
firm
will
have
to
go
to
court.
[Reuters]
*
This
will
totally
shock
you,
but
big
banks
may
still
be
loaded
with
misogyny.
[Law360]
*
Former
Biglaw
partner
returns
to
the
U.S.
from
Asia
transformed
as
a
poet.
Isn’t
that
the
Colonel
Kurtz
story
arc?
[Law.com
International]
*
Media
begins
to
worry
about
law
students
when
AI
fully
arrives.
Maybe
ask
more
questions
about
how
AI
is
supposed
to
fully
arrive
when
the
biggest
AI
company
is
teetering
on
collapse?
[NY
Times]
*
The
Atlantic
invites
torture
enthusiast
John
Yoo
to
write
an
article
explaining
why
we
shouldn’t
have
international
law.
[The
Atlantic]
Trump’s
Lawyers
Should
Be
Disbarred:
Time
for
accountability.
Mike
Johnson
Wants
To
Impeach
Judges:
Not
the
best
time
to
signal
that
sort
of
thing.
So
Much
For
Perp
Walking
Don
Lemon:
Gotta
try
harder
than
that
when
the
law
and
facts
aren’t
on
your
side.
About
George
Washington
And
Georgetown
Rejecting
ICE:
No
such
luck
this
time.
Interested
In
Entertainment
Law?:
These
law
schools
should
be
on
your
list!
According
to
data
pulled
from
Lobbying
Disclosure
Act
(LDA)
filings,
which
Am
Law
200
Biglaw
firm
took
in
the
most
lobbying
money
in
2025?
Hint:
The
law
firm’s
record
$73.8
million
in
total
LDA
revenue
is
impressive,
but
falls
behind
the
LDA
revenue
($88.3
million)
of
Ballard
Partners,
a
lobbying-only
firm.
Ed.
note:
This
article
first
appeared
in
an
ILTA
publication.
Artificial
intelligence
is
more
than
the
latest
new
tool
to
land
on
lawyers’
desks.
This
time
feels
different
from
earlier
waves
of
technology.
Just
as
the
internet
started
as
a
novelty
and
became essential infrastructure,
AI
is
now
leading
us
to
another
platform
shift.
It
is
not
a
discrete
product,
but
a
new
layer
that
shapes
how nearly
every legal
task
is,
or
can be, performed.
As
someone
who
teaches
and serves as
a
member
of
the
Vanderbilt
Artificial
Intelligence
Law
Lab
(VAILL),
I
have
the
privilege
of
helping
prepare
the
next
generation
for
our
profession.
VAILL
has
become
both
a
model
and
a
hub
for
what
AI
education
can
look
like
in
law
schools.
Our
work
encompasses
more
than
just
training
students
to
navigate
specific
platforms.
We
equip
them
with
AI literacy,
blending-tool awareness,
general capabilities,
critical
thinking,
ethical
grounding,
and
adaptability.
These
are
the
skills
that
future
lawyers
and
legal
leaders
need
to
thrive
in
legal
environments
undergoing
unprecedented
layers
of
rapid
change.
Vanderbilt’s
Approach
and
the
Role
of
VAILL
Vanderbilt
Law
School
embraced
this
shift
through
a
bold
commitment
to
create
VAILL
and
prioritize
a
human-centered
approach
to
exploring
how
AI
intersects
with
law
and
legal
education.
Through
VAILL
and
our
broader
curriculum,
we
create
and
launch
courses
that
directly
address
students’
needs
in
AI
education.
Our
approach
includes
introducing
them
to
the
types
of
tools
they
are
most
likely
to encounter in
practice,
exploring
how
generative
AI
is impacting and
reshaping
workflows,
and
empowering
them
to
engage
with
AI
as
informed
professionals
who
can
confidently
interact
with
it.
For
example,
one
course
enables
students
to
act
as
decision-makers
by
evaluating
tools,
developing
implementation
strategies,
and
addressing
practical
challenges
related
to
data
security
and
firm
policies.
More
importantly,
our
courses
help
students
understand
the
risks
and
benefits
and
how
these
tools
will
complement
their
future
practice
more
broadly.
If
law
schools
neglect
AI
education
now,
they
do
their
students
a
disservice.
The
myth
of
the
“digital
native”
can
lull
us
into assuming
that younger
generations
intuitively
understand
technology. In
reality,
I regularly
see
students
who
can
navigate
TikTok
with
ease
but
struggle
to
understand
why
an
AI
tool
might
hallucinate
legal
citations
or fail
to grasp
the
ethical
implications
of
feeding
client
data
into
ChatGPT.
Law
students
are
learning
AI
at
the
same
pace
as
everyone
else.
Waiting
until
they
arrive
at
a
firm
to figure
it out
may
be
too
late.
There
is
positive
momentum
as
law
schools
rise
to
the
occasion,
with
an
increase
in
AI-related
courses
each
year.
Defining
AI
Literacy
When
I
teach
my
students
about
AI
literacy,
I
emphasize
that
it
extends
beyond
knowing
which
buttons
to
click
on
the
latest
drafting
assistant
or
research
bot.
True
literacy
encompasses
understanding
the
foundational
concepts
behind
the
technology,
the
ability
to
evaluate
outputs,
the
ability
to
adapt
to
evolving
tools,
and
awareness
of
the
ethical
and
professional
duties
that
accompany
its
use.
Our
students
will
go
on
to
work
in
various
settings,
but
we
want
them
to
have
a
clear
picture
of
the
role
technology
will
play
wherever
they
land.
What I’ve learned
is
that
AI
literacy
is
about
understanding
a
tool’s
place
in
workflows, anticipating risks,
and
imagining
new
possibilities.
Once
we
know
what
is
possible,
strategic
thinking
becomes
more
accessible.
Our
students
are
poised
to
spot
the
“possible”
and
serve
as
voices
of
innovation.
Embracing Students’ Uncertainty Boosts
Engagement
When
students
talk
about
using
AI,
their
reactions
often
mirror
those
of
the
profession:
a
mix
of
skepticism,
anxiety,
and
curiosity.
Some
are
understandably
concerned.
After
all, they’re investing
three
years
and
substantial
tuition
in
legal
education,
only
to
read
headlines
predicting
that
AI
will
automate
their job
away.
We
are
happy
to
help
temper
those
fears.
But
what
strikes
me
most
is
that
those
skeptical
students
are
also
the
ones
who
voluntarily
enroll
in
our
courses
and
engage
deeply.
Our
goal
is
not
to
produce
AI
advocates,
but
rather
to
cultivate
future
lawyers
who
can
think
critically
about
when
and
how
to
deploy
these
tools
effectively.
Students
want
to
understand
what
lies
ahead
rather
than
fear
it.
Education
becomes the antidote
to
uncertainty.
We
also
hear
regularly
from
students
returning
from
summer
jobs
that
AI
is
present
at
their
firms,
but
often
without
clear
policies,
structured
training,
or
consistent
implementation.
That
lack
of
guidance
can
leave
young
lawyers
unsure
of
how
to
contribute
or
engage
responsibly.
By
equipping
them
with
frameworks
for
evaluating
tools
and
understanding
ethical
obligations,
we
prepare
them
not
just
to
use
AI
but
to
lead
conversations
about
its
role
in
practice.
Law
Students
as
Future
Leaders
That
leadership
will
hopefully emerge sooner
than
we
might
expect.
Our
students
are
being
exposed
to
AI
literacy
in
ways
that
graduates
just
a
few
years
ago
never
were.
This
positions
them
to
step
into
meaningful
roles
in
firm
innovation
and
governance
much
earlier
in
their
careers.
I
do
not
subscribe
to
the
belief
that
AI
will
reduce
the
need
for
new
associates.
Who
will
become
senior
associates
and
partners
if
we
cut
off
the
pipeline?
Instead,
I
view
AI
as
an
opportunity
to reframe what
early
practice
looks
like.
Rather
than
spending
their
first
years
bogged
down
in
repetitive
but
necessary
tasks,
associates
will
be
able
to
focus
earlier
on
rewarding
intellectual
work.
In
some
ways,
this
may
help
students
become
better
lawyers
more
quickly.
This
shift
could
accelerate
their
growth
by
channeling
their
energy
toward
the
uniquely
human
aspects
of
practice,
such
as
strategic
thinking,
creative
problem-solving,
and
nuanced
client
advice.
They
will
still
learn
the
fundamentals,
but
without
being
defined
by
rote
work
that
technology
can
now
handle.
That
is
a
profound
shift
in
how
lawyers
receive
on-the-job
training.
I
hope
that
partners
understand
and
adapt
to
this
change,
engaging
new
associates
in ways different
from
the
past.
We
have
long operated under
the
principle
of
“doing
more
with
less,”
but
AI
flips
that
script
for
new
associates,
enabling
them
to
learn
more
substantive
skills
with
less
time
spent
on
repetitive
tasks.
Looking
five
to
ten
years
ahead,
I
envision
law
schools
empowering
students
to
innovate
in
ways
that
were
previously
impossible.
For
the
first
time,
non-technical
students
can
imagine,
design,
and
even
create
tools
that
serve
their
practice
or
their
clients. I
am
already
seeing
students
prototype
simple
legal
workflows
using
no-code
platforms
or
design
AI-assisted
client
intake
processes. AI
is
lowering
the
barriers
to
innovation
in
law,
and
that
should
excite
us
all.
A
Shared
Mission
If
I
could
leave
readers
with
one
message,
it
would
be
this:
preparing
the
next
generation
of
AI-literate
lawyers
is
not
a
solo
mission.
Law
schools
around
the
country
are
doing
their
part,
but
the
journey
requires
collaboration
with
firms,
technologists,
and
professional
organizations
to
fully
realize
its
potential.
Our
goal
is
not
to
graduate
students
who
know
how
to
use
one
tool,
but
rather
to
produce
professionals
who
can
lead
in
a
world
where
technology
will
constantly
change
and
prove
essential
for
competent
representation.
Firms
should
continually
educate
their
employees
through
clear
policies,
practical
training,
and
an
environment
that
fosters
openness
to
exploration
and
experimentation.
At
VAILL,
we
are
committed
to
equipping
students
not
just
to
survive
in
an
AI-enabled
profession,
but
to
shape
it.
And
for
those
already
in
practice,
the
lesson
is
clear:
be
open
to
learning
from
the
newest
members
of
your teams.
Their
AI
literacy
will
help
your
firm
navigate
the
changes
ahead.
T.
Kyle
Turner
is
the Assistant
Director
of Emerging
Technology
and
Digital
Initiatives
at
Vanderbilt
Law
School,
where
he
is
a
member
of
the
Vanderbilt
Artificial
Intelligence
Law
Lab
(VAILL).
His
work
focuses
on
legal
technology,
AI
literacy,
and
preparing
students
and
practitioners
to
engage
with
AI ethically and effectively.
President
Donald
J.
Trump
begins
the
public
portions
of
his
Cabinet
meetings
by
going
around
the
table
having
all
of
the
Cabinet
members
praise
Trump
to
the
heavens.
How
embarrassing.
Embarrassing
for
Trump,
who
is
so
insecure
that
he
insists
that
others
publicly
praise
him. But
also
embarrassing
for
the
members
of
the
Cabinet,
who
have
chosen
to
publicly
debase
themselves
for
the
chance
to
hold
power
(and,
for
those
named
Vance
and
Rubio,
the
possibility
of
holding
yet
more
power
in
the
future).
I’ve
attended
an
awful
lot
of
meetings
with
powerful
people
in
my
life
—
CEOs,
managing
partners,
and
the
like. Not
one
has
insisted
on
starting
with
praise
of
the
boss
before
moving
on
to
the
rest
of
the
agenda. In
fact,
if
you’d
tried
to
start
a
presentation
by
flattering
the
boss,
most
bosses
would
have
shut
you
up. Those
who
didn’t
shut
you
up
would
have
simply
fired
you.
That
doesn’t
mean
folks
don’t
suck
up
to
the
boss. Of
course
they
do. Folks
flatter
the
boss
in
private. They
laugh
at
his
or
her
jokes. They
stay
at
the
company
holiday
party
until
five
minutes
after
the
boss
leaves. But
no
boss
insists
on
reverential
praise
in
public.
Except
Trump.
What
a
sad,
pathetic
little
man.
Foreign
leaders
have
learned
this
lesson. Praise
Trump
publicly,
and
perhaps
he’ll
treat
you
better. Heads
of
state
across
Europe
now
play
this
disgraceful,
but
effective
game.
Maria
Corina
Machado,
the
Venezuelan
opposition
leader
who
won
the
Nobel
Peace
Prize,
recently
gave
her
prize
to
Trump. She
accompanied
that
gift,
naturally,
with
flattery. If
you’d
like
Trump’s
help
to
install
you
as
the
leader
of
Venezuela,
flatter
the
man.
A
person
with
a
shred
of
dignity
would
have
refused
to
accept
Machado’s
prize.
Not
our
guy.
I
checked
the
comments
on Breitbart to
see
what
the
Trump morons loyalists
were
saying
about
Machado’s
presentation. The
loyalists
figure
Machado
was
sincere: “She
said
great
things
about
Trump. It
was
touching. He
must
be
a
great
man,
and
she
sees
it.”
Did
those
commenters
miss
the
way
Cabinet
meetings
start? What’s
your
explanation
for
that?
Just
coincidence?
Trump
is
not
great. He’s
a
sad,
pathetic
little
man.
John
McCain
was
captured
in
Vietnam
and
then
declined
an
early
release
from
prison
because
he
feared
the
North
Vietnamese
would
use
his
release
to
score
public
relations
points. Private
Bone
Spurs
didn’t
like
McCain.
Bone
Spurs
said
he
likes
the
guys
who
don’t
get
captured.
Like
himself,
maybe. Avoid
the
draft;
avoid
the
risk
of
capture.
Trump
knows
what
a
real
hero
is,
and
he
knows
that
he
doesn’t
look
like
one. That’s
what
really
bothers
Trump
about
McCain.
Guys
who
died
on
the
beaches
of
Normandy
were
“suckers
and
losers.”
Right. I
can
see
Trump
going
over
the
side
of
a
Higgins
boat
on
June
6,
1944,
into
freezing
water,
in
the
face
of
enemy
fire,
at
Normandy
Beach.
Wait
—
my
aching
bone
spurs!
Only
once
in
history
—
in
the
aftermath
of
9/11
—
has
any
member
of
NATO
invoked
Article
5,
which
says
that
an
attack
on
one
NATO
member
will
be
deemed
an
attack
on
all.
Our
NATO
allies
heeded
the
United
States’
call
to
duty. Those
allies
paid
a
price
for
their
loyalty.
Of
the
roughly
3,500
service
members
from
NATO
countries
who
were
killed
in
Afghanistan,
about
1,000
were
from
countries
other
than
the
United
States.
But
last
week
Trump
said
of
those
1,000
dead
that
the
U.S.
never
“needed
them.” According
to
Trump,
“they’ll
say
they
sent
some
troops
to
Afghanistan
or
this
or
that.
And
they
did.
They
stayed
a
little
back,
little
off
the
front
lines.”
Tell
that
to
the
grieving
sons
and
daughters,
you sad,
pathetic
little
man.
On
the
night
before
D-Day,
General
Dwight
D.
Eisenhower
wrote
a letter in
the
event
that
the
Normandy
invasion
failed. He
praised
the
troops
and
took
all
the
blame
for
the
failure.
When
President
Donald
Trump
was
asked
if
he
took
responsibility
for
the
problems
with
COVID
testing,
he
heroically responded,
“No.
I
don’t
take
responsibility
at
all.”
Of
course
not.
You
sad,
pathetic
little
man.
What
president
—
indeed,
what
person
—
would
give
visitors
free
admission
to
national
parks
on
their
birthday,
post
insulting
plaques
about
former
presidents
on
the
walls
of
the
White
House,
or
put
their
name
before
that
of
the
assassinated
John
F.
Kennedy
on
the
facade
of
the
Kennedy
Center?
Yes,
yes: The
answers
to
those,
and
all
the
other,
questions
are
the
same:
Last
week,
we
covered
Georgetown
Law
students’
valiant
effort
to
stop
ICE
from
showing
up
to
their
career
fair.
There
are
many
reasons
to
do
so,
but
the
most
obvious
is
that
it
cuts
against
the
school’s
tradition
of
trying
to
be
on
the
right
side
of
history.
It
was
a
joint
effort
with
George
Washington
Law
to
keep
abductors
off
their
campus.
There’s
good
praxis
in
recognizing
that
things
don’t
immediately
go
full
tilt
fascist
overnight
—
you
make
a
few
appeals
to
diversity
of
thought,
throw
in
a
few
handshakes
and
jobs,
until
you
suddenly
find
yourself
sitting
in
a
Nazi
bar.
And
while
the
law
students
did
see
victory,
it
was
only
partial.
GW
Hatchet
has
coverage:
Students
condemned
GW
Law
officials’
decision
not
to
revoke
U.S.
Immigration
and
Customs
Enforcement’s
invitation
to
a
public
interest
career
fair
on
Friday
after
more
than
1,000
students
signed
a
petition
calling
on
officials
to
bar
them
over
concerns
about
its
immigration
enforcement
practices.
Students
petitioned
to
disinvite
two
ICE
divisions
from
GW
Law
and
Georgetown
University
Law
Center’s
joint
annual
virtual
Public
Sector
Recruiting
Program
last
week,
gathering
over
1,200
signatures
and
gaining
a
meeting
on
Wednesday
with
Dean
Dayna
Bowen
Matthew,
who
ultimately
chose
not
to
bar
the
organization,
citing
free
expression,
University
policy
and
accreditation
rules.
…
Though
ICE’s
Office
of
the
Principal
Legal
Advisor
pulled
out
of
the
program,
the
second
participating
ICE
division,
the
Human
Rights
Violators
and
War
Crimes
Center,
continued
to
participate,
students
said.
The
Human
Rights
Violators
division?
Isn’t
that
just
ICE
proper?
More
appalling
news
from
Minnesota
yesterday,
where
it
appears
a
man
engaged
in
acts
of
human
rights
defence
–
namely
documenting
human
rights
violations
and
assisting
those
subjected
to
such
violations
–
was
shot
dead
by
ICE
agents
while
pinned
to
the
ground
by
numerous…
pic.twitter.com/y1kMoeeazw
—
Mary
Lawlor
UN
Special
Rapporteur
HRDs
(@MaryLawlorhrds)
January
25,
2026
And
as
nice
as
it
is
that
Dean
Matthew
can
throw
her
hands
up
and
explain
away
letting
ICE
set
up
camp
as
“free
expression,”
it
is
worth
noting
that
ICE
is
exactly
the
sort
of
arrested
expression
organization
that
could
decide
to
punish
her
if
she
said
otherwise:
Greg
Bovino
is
openly
threatening
free
speech.
He
says
if
you
call
federal
agents
“kidnappers”
or
“Gestapo,”
there
will
be
“consequences.”
The
minimizing
response
is
to
say
that
all
of
this
is
blown
out
of
proportion
because
the
unobjectionable
prong
of
ICE
fighting
human
rights
violations
and
war
crimes
isn’t
as
bad
as
the
one
killing
people
in
broad
daylight.
But
that’s
the
trick:
it
starts
well
meaning
and
unobjectionable
until
it
doesn’t
stay
that
way.
ICE
on
campus
is
ICE
on
campus.
And
according
to
GW
Hatchet,
at
least
20
employers
withdrew
from
the
career
fair
in
response
to
ICE’s
invitation
not
being
rescinded.
Both
GW
and
Georgetown
students
voiced
disappointment
in
their
schools
sitting
on
their
hands
despite
the
1,000+
students
who
signed
a
petition
asking
them
to
get
off
their
asses.
The
next
time
either
of
these
schools
reads
off
some
boilerplate
language
about
how
much
their
students’
voices
matter
to
the
administration,
they
should
be
summarily
booed.
Respect
to
the
students
and
employers
who
stood
on
their
principles
enough
to
do
something,
especially
when
the
schools
were
too
inept
to
change
course.
GULC’s
dean,
Joshua
Teitelbaum,
told
the
student
body
that
the
PSRP
has
never
disinvited
an
employer
before,
and
that
he
did
not
believe
this
was
an
appropriate
time
to
deviate
from
that
policy.
Makes
you
wonder
what
the
threshold
of
dead
soccer
moms
and
ICU
nurses
and
rising
deaths
in
custody
and
Germans
calling
out
Nazi
shit
for
looking
like
Nazi
shit
or
“giving
your
heart
out”
gestures
and
white
supremacist
dog
whistles
in
recruitment
ads
it
would
take
to
be
an
“appropriate
time
to
deviate”
from
the
policy.
Reads
like
complicity
to
me,
but
what
do
I
know?
I’m
not
a
law
school
dean.
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.
There
is
nothing
to
panic
about.
It
is
just
that
Cravath
is
not
immune
to
all
the
market
forces
that
are
affecting
every
other
top
firm.
Cravath
has
an
amazing
franchise.
None
of
the
luster
is
lost.
Their
brand
is
solid
and
sustainable.
There
is
no
vaccine
that
will
immunize
law
firms
from
the
new
fight
for
talent.
— Alisa
Levin,
principal
and
founder
of
recruiting
firm
Greene-Levin-Snyder,
in
comments
given
to
the
American
Lawyer,
concerning
recent
lateral
partner
departures
from
Cravath,
a
firm
long
known
to
hold
onto
attorney
talent
from
the
cradle
to
the
grave.
“This
isn’t
a
Cravath
story,”
a
Biglaw
partner
told
Am
Law.
“It’s
a
[Biglaw]
story.”
Staci
Zaretsky is
the
managing
editor
of
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 Bluesky, X/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn.
By
matching
households
from
the
earlier
rankings
in
2017,
we
were
able
to
assess
whether
in
2025
a
particular
household
was
placed
in
the
same
rank
or
whether
they
had
moved
up
or
down
in
the
intervening
eight
years.
Through
discussions
in
the
ranking
workshops,
we
were
able
to
explore
why
these
changes
had
occurred
and
what
the
consequences
were.
In
some
cases,
these
were
individual,
idiosyncratic
circumstances
–
a
death
or
illness
in
the
family,
the
sudden
loss
of
assets,
such
as
livestock
and
so
on
–
but
in
most
cases
the
explanations
emerged
from
understanding
the
type
of
constraints
discussed
in
the
previous
blog,
where
demographic
pressures,
generational
change
or
remittance
windfalls
from
diaspora
based
relatives
made
all
the
difference.
Transitions
in
success
over
time
The
following
tables
and
summary
statistics
offer
the
data
on
transitions
for
the
three
sites.
Gutu
South
communal
area,
near
Wondedzo
A1
areas
in
Masvingo
district
2025
rankings
2017
rankings
SG1
SG2
SG3
Total
SG1
3
12
3
18(16.7%)
SG2
4
23
14
41(38.0%)
SG3
3
11
35
49(45.4%)
Total
10(9.3%)
46(42.6%)
52(48.1%)
108(100%)
Summary:
56.5%
(61
households)
remained
static
(3
households
remained
in
SG1,
23
households
remained
in
SG2
and
35
households
remained
in
SG3).
26.9%
(29
households)
decreased
their
rank
moving
down
or
two
categories
over
the
period.
16.7%
(18
households)
increased
their
ranking
moving
one
or
two
rankings
over
the
period.
Overall,
43.5%
(47
households)
had
changed
rank.
Serima
communal
area,
near
Clare
and
Lonely
A1
land
reform
sites
in
Gutu
district
2025
rankings
2017
rankings
SG1
SG2
SG3
Total
SG1
2
7
5
14(12.2%)
SG2
1
10
29
40(34.8%)
SG3
0
14
47
61(53.0%)
Total
3(2.6%)
31(21.0%)
81(70.4%)
115(100%)
Summary:
51.3%
(59
households)
remained
static
(2
households
remained
in
SG1,
10
households
remained
in
SG2
and
47
households
remained
in
SG3).
35.7%
(41
households)
decreased
their
rank
moving
down
or
two
categories
over
the
period.
13.0%
(15
households)
increased
their
ranking
moving
one
or
two
rankings
over
the
period.
Overall,
48.7%
(56
households)
had
changed
rank.
Khumalo
East
communal
area,
near
Vimbi
and
Luma
A1
sites
in
Matobo
district
2025
rankings
2017
rankings
SG1
SG2
SG3
Total
SG1
0
7
1
8(6.6%)
SG2
0
22
28
50(41.0%)
SG3
0
8
56
64(52.5%)
Total
0(0%)
37(30.3%)
85(69.7%)
122(100%)
Summary:
63.9%
(78
households)
remained
static
(0
households
remained
in
SG1,
22
households
remained
in
SG2
and
56
households
remained
in
SG3).
29.5%
(36
households)
decreased
their
rank
moving
down
or
two
categories
over
the
period.
6.6%
(8
households)
increased
their
ranking
moving
one
or
two
rankings
over
the
period.
Overall,
36.1%
(44
households)
had
changed
rank.
Across
these
three
areas,
we
see
that
the
largest
proportion
of
households
were
ranked
in
the
lowest
success
rank
(3),
and
that
this
proportion
has
increased
between
2017
and
2025.
There
are
few
ranked
today
in
the
top
success
group
(0-9%)
and
this
proportion
has
declined
over
time.
Very
few
increased
their
ranking
over
this
period,
and
many
had
declined.
In
other
words,
in
terms
of
people’s
perceptions,
the
success
of
those
living
in
these
villages
has
declined,
with
fewer
livelihood
opportunities
and
access
to
assets
and
other
resources.
The
criteria
used
in
the
recent
rankings
are
listed
in
our
earlier
blog.
They
cover
a
range
of
features
from
farm
production
to
asset
ownership
to
having
a
‘good
home’
to
having
access
to
off-farm
work
or
remittances,
as
well
as
less
material
factors
such
as
being
in
‘good
health’.
These
criteria
combine
in
the
composite
ranking
agreed
by
the
group
for
each
household.
Deep
knowledge
of
all
households
and
much
debate
for
some
results
in
agreed
rank.
Of
course,
over
time
criteria
change
as
do
perceptions,
so
there
are
inevitable
limitations
when
comparing
time
periods.
However,
many
of
the
same
participants
were
involved
in
the
recent
rankings
so
continuity
between
the
assessments
did
exist.
These
are
relative
assessments
across
a
sample
and
can
never
be
definitive,
but
the
ranks
ring
true
and
correlations
between
ranks
and
more
conventional
poverty
assessment
indicators
are
always
significant
(see
xxx).
Comparing
A1
and
communal
area
‘success’
The
following
table
compares
the
percentages
of
households
in
each
transition
category
for
A1
(including
self-contained
sites,
SC)
and
communal
area
study
sites.
The
A1
data
has
been
shared
in
a
previous
blog
series,
while
the
communal
area
data
is
repeated
(with
rounded
figures)
from
the
tables
above.
The
communal
area
site
which
is
closest
to
the
A1
sites
is
in
the
column
immediately
to
the
left.
A1
(SC)
A1
CA
A1
(SC)
A1
A1
CA
A1
CA
Clare
Lonely
Serima
Wondedzo
Ext
Wondedzo
Wares
Sanangwe
Gutu
South
Matobo
A1
Khumalo
East
Static
37
52
51
47
47
47
56
56
64
Decrease
31
36
36
6
20
45
27
12
29
Increase
31
12
13
47
33
7
17
30
7
Overall,
with
two
exceptions,
the
percentage
of
households
whose
ranks
increased
over
time
was
higher
in
the
A1
sites.
The
two
exceptions
were
Lonely
and
Sanangwe
A1
sites
where
there
were
significant
decreases
in
ranks
over
time.
In
the
Gutu
areas,
Serima
communal
area
had
a
pattern
quite
similar
to
nearby
Lonely,
whilst
the
Clare
self-contained
site
saw
many
more
increases
in
success
rank.
This
reflects
the
particular
story
of
these
A1
sites
(see
earlier
blogs,
here
and
here).
Lonely
A
has
seen
real
challenges
of
generational
transition,
with
previously
very
successful
male
farmers,
who
were
leaders
in
horticulture
production
in
wetland
areas,
passing
on
and
widows
and
children
struggling
to
continue
this
work.
In
relative
terms,
success
groups
2
and
3
in
Lonely
are
probably
higher
in
terms
of
actual
assets
and
production
than
in
Serima
but
the
pattern
of
decline
is
still
clear.
Serima’s
declines
are
for
similar
reasons,
along
with
the
general
lack
of
resources
described
in
the
previous
blog.
Overall,
both
these
areas
are
struggling,
with
around
half
of
households
remaining
static.
In
Clare
farm,
by
contrast,
we
see
people
moving
up,
down
and
remaining
static
in
almost
equal
proportions,
reflecting
an
area
in
flux,
as
new
people
and
investments
arrive
resulting
in
improvements,
while
others
suffer
from
generational
transitions.
In
the
Masvingo
areas,
we
see
big
contrasts
between
Wondedzo
(Extension
and
Wares)
and
Sanangwe
A1
sites.
The
former
show
significant
success,
with
47%
and
33%
of
households
increasing
their
ranks.
By
contrast,
in
Sanangwe,
only
7%
managed
a
positive
transition,
whereas
nearly
half
declined
in
ranks
(47%).
Sanangwe
shows
greater
declines
and
fewer
increases
than
the
comparator
communal
area
because,
as
described
in
the
earlier
blog
series,
this
area
has
been
flooded
by
new
arrivals,
and
in
many
respects
resembles
a
communal
area
with
shrinking
land
areas
and
few
resources.
This
contrasts
significantly
with
the
Wondedzo
sites,
which
show
a
much
more
positive
set
of
transitions,
with
significant
accumulation
from
below.
In
the
Matobo
area,
the
difference
between
the
communal
areas
and
the
A1
areas
is
the
most
striking
of
all.
The
A1
areas
had
30%
of
households
with
rank
increases
compared
to
only
7%
for
the
communal
area.
The
pattern
of
declines
is
almost
exactly
the
reverse
(12%
and
29%)
as
the
proportion
remaining
static
was
fairly
similar.
Has
land
reform
made
a
difference?
With
the
notable
exceptions
where
either
generational
transition
(Lonely)
or
in-migration
(Sanangwe)
had
limited
opportunities,
the
A1
areas
have
shown
more
increases
in
success
rank
over
the
past
eight
years.
These
emerge
substantially
from
‘accumulation
from
below’,
greater
production
leading
to
more
income
and
so
investments,
although
in
all
cases
off-farm
income
sources
are
important
too.
The
increases
in
success
rank
in
the
communal
areas,
by
contrast,
have
not
come
from
such
endogenous
accumulation
dynamics
as
resource
limitations
largely
mean
that
such
opportunities
are
impossible
in
these
sites.
Structural
factors
mean
that
many
are
simply too
poor
to
improve
livelihoods from
locally-based
activity,
even
with
external
aid
subsidies.
Instead,
sustained
improvements
have
come
almost
exclusively
from
investments
from
outside,
notably
through
diaspora
remittances.
Success
comes
from
outside,
as
structural
poverty
limits
opportunities
within
the
communal
areas.
Reasons
for
decline
overlap
between
A1
and
communal
areas,
with
the
challenges
of
generational
transition
on
the
death
of
a
male
household
head
being
especially
prominent
across
all
sites,
whether
A1
or
communal.
In
sum,
answering
the
question
‘has
land
reform
made
a
difference?’
is
difficult.
It
depends
on
the
area
and
the
particular
circumstances.
Overall,
though,
the
opportunities
for
accumulation
(particularly
from
agriculture/livestock
and
so
from
below)
is
greater
in
A1
areas,
although
challenges
remain,
as
our
outlier
cases
clearly
show.
These
particular
experiences
point
to
some
important
policy
considerations:
how
to
manage
generational
transitions
(a
theme
that
we
have
emphasised
repeatedly
in recent
blogs)
and
how
to
avoid
the
re-congestion
of
land
reform
areas
and
sustain
the
benefit
of
having
more
land
through
redistribution.
We
will
be
returning
to
these
challenges
in
future
blogs
as
we
continue
to
analyse
our
longitudinal
data.
This
blog
has
been
written
by
Tapiwa
Chatikobo
and
Ian
Scoones,
with
inputs
from
Felix
Murimbarimba
(who
facilitated
the
workshops).
Prudence
Hove
(Chiweshe),
Sydney
Jones
and
Guidance
Gobvu
(Kumalo
East),
Kennedy
Suwayi
(Gutu
South)
and
Manika
Manaka
(Serima)
helped
to
coordinate
the
workshops.
This
blog
first
appeared
on Zimbabweland.
Representing
celebrity
clients
is
likely
to
catapult
your
name
into
the
news
and
turn
your
business
into
a
household
topic
of
conversation.
Maybe
that’s
one
of
the
many
reasons
why
you’re
so
interested
in
pursuing
a
career
in
entertainment
law.
Attorneys
who
practice
in
the
field
of
entertainment
law
have
worked
with
some
of
the
most
celebrated
—
and
sometimes
reviled
—
clients
in
the
country
(or
the
world),
and
that’s
exactly
the
kind
of
career
experience
you
envision
for
yourself.
The National
Jurist’s
preLaw
magazine recently
released
its
specialty
ranking
of
the
best
law
schools
for
entertainment
law
on
its
Entertainment
Law
Honor
Roll,
highlighting
schools
for
the
strength
of
their
programs.
Here’s
the
methodology
that
was
used:
preLaw
magazine
grades
law
schools
based
on
the
breadth
of
their
curricular
offerings.
The
scores
are
figured
as
follows:
30%
for
a
concentration,
24%
for
a
clinic,
12%
for
a
center,
12%
for
an
externship,
9%
for
a
journal,
8%
for
a
student
group,
5%
for
a
certificate
and
added
value
for
additional
offerings.
Without
further
ado,
according
to
preLaw
magazine,
these
are
the
law
schools
that
earned
A+,
A,
and
A-
grades
for
their
entertainment
law
programs
(listed
in
grade
and
alphabetical
order):
Benjamin
N.
Cardozo
School
of
Law,
Yeshiva
University
(A+)
Southwestern
Law
School
(A+)
UCLA
School
of
Law
(A+)
Chapman
University
Fowler
School
of
Law
(A)
Oklahoma
City
University
School
of
Law
(A)
Thomas
Jefferson
School
of
Law
(A)
UC
Berkeley
School
of
Law
(A)
Fordham
University
School
of
Law
(A-)
Texas
A&M
University
School
of
Law
(A-)
Villanova
University
Charles
Widger
School
of
Law
(A-)
Click here to
read
all
about
the
programs
highlighted
in
this
specialty
Honor
Roll.
Congratulations
to
all
of
the
law
schools
that
made
the
cut
for
this
important
ranking.
Staci
Zaretsky is
the
managing
editor
of
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 Bluesky, X/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn.
The
threat
environment
for
federal
judges
is
pretty
awful
right
about
now.
For
federal
judges
—
ones
appointed
by Democrats
and
Republicans alike
—
who
have
presented
speed
bumps
to
Donald
Trump‘s
authoritarian
takeover,
the
GOP
responded
with name-calling and
articles
of impeachment.
And
House
Speaker
Mike
Johnson
just
poured
gasoline
on
the
fire.
Despite
previously
putting
the
pause
on
impeachment
talk
around
judges
who
rule
against
the
Trump
administration,
last
week
Johnson
changed
his
tune.
When
asked
about
impeachment
efforts
against
judges,
he
didn’t
even
pretend
this
was
a
bad
idea
in
theory
but
impractical
in
reality.
He
said,
plainly,
“I’m
for
it.”
To
be
sure,
Johnson
offered
a
little
in
the
way
of
throat-clearing.
Impeachment
would
be
“an
extreme
measure,”
he
acknowledged,
adding
“we’ll
see
where
it
goes.”
Seems
like
that
whole
we-don’t-have-67-votes
issue
is
rearing
its
head.
But
then
he
doubled
down,
suggesting
that
some
judges
have
strayed
“so
far
outside
the
bounds
of
where
they’re
supposed
to
operate”
that
Congress
should
“lay
down
the
law”
and
“make
an
example
of
some
of
the
egregious
abuses.”
That
rhetoric
might
play
well
on
right-wing
cable
news,
but
it’s
also
profoundly
dangerous.
There’s
a
sharp
increase
in
threats
against
federal
judges
— up
327% in
the
Trump
II
era.
Bullying
judges has
become
a
mainstream
tactic
that
Johnson
is
playing
into,
floating
impeachment
casually
and
often
without
any
plausible
allegation
of
impeachable
conduct.
That
casualness
is
precisely
the
problem.
When
leaders
normalize
the
idea
that
judges
should
fear
reprisal
for
doing
their
jobs,
the
most
unhinged
actors
hear
permission,
not
caution.
And
that
is
what’s
happening.
The
relevant
backdrop
against
which
the
Speaker
of
the
House
is
publicly
endorsing
impeachment
as
a
response
to
unfavorable
rulings
is
a
spike
in
death
threats,
a
record
numbers
of
investigations
by
the
U.S.
Marshals,
increased
security,
and
judges
with
a
genuine
fear
for
themselves
and
their
families.
Impeachment
is
not
a
tool
for
correcting
legal
error.
It
is
not
a
substitute
for
appellate
review.
But
we
have
the
Speaker
of
the
House
publicly
musing
about
“making
an
example”
of
judges.
Threatening
impeachment
because
you
don’t
like
the
outcome
is
intimidation,
and
it’s
a
warped
view
of
accountability
to
suggest
otherwise.
This
is
the
modern
GOP
game
plan.
Sustained
pressure.
Delegitimization.
The
steady
drumbeat
of
consequences
for
disobedience.
And
powerful
politicians
arguing
that
judges
who
rule
the
“wrong”
way
deserve
what’s
coming.
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].
Kathryn