ICE Accidentally Publishes A ‘Watch List’ Of Immigration Lawyers, Which Is Definitely A Normal Thing For The Government To Do – Above the Law

Posted on by TSA Press

Did
you
have
immigration
lawyer
watch
list
on
your
2025
authoritarianism
BINGO
card?
If
so,
congrats!
But
for
everyone
else,
it’s
yet
another
sad
slide
into
federal
control
to
learn
that
Immigration
and
Customs
Enforcement
(ICE)
posted
what
appears
to
be
a
covert
roster
of
immigration
attorneys
buried
on
its
own
website.

The
list
was
discovered
by
attorney
Arlene
Amarante,
who
stumbled
upon
the
list
while
interacting
with
ICE’s
website
and
found
her
own
name
on
it.
The
list
has
since
been
pulled
from
the
website,
which
is
usually
what
agencies
do
when
a
documents
is
totally
normal.
Now
Al
Otro
Lado,
an
immigration
advocacy
group,
has
filed
a
Freedom
of
Information
Act
request
demanding
to
know
who
created
the
list,
why
it
existed,
and
what
ICE
thought
it
was
doing
cataloging
attorneys
in
the
first
place.

Amarante
noticed
something
else
about
the
list
that
raised
even
more
concerns,
as

she
told
WGNO,
“One
of
the
troubling
patterns
I
suppose
that
I
recognized,
was
that
a
large
number
of
these
practitioners
on
the
list
were
people
of
color.”

Which
pushes
this
from
bureaucratic
weirdness
into
civil
liberties
nightmare
fuel.

Amarante
continued:

“Why
does
the
list
exist?
Whether
it’s
an
innocent
incursion
or
something
that
is
more
intentional
or
nefarious,
we
need
to
get
to
the
bottom
of
it.
It’s
troubling
because
there’s
a
pattern
of
threats
by
the
administration
—
the
implication
by
the
government
is
that
offering
support
to
a
client
is
the
harm
in
itself
and
the
names
on
the
list
sort
of
seems
to
support
that.”

Let’s
not
forget,
this
administration
has
not
been
subtle
about
its
hostility
toward
lawyers
in
general
and
immigration
lawyers
in
particular.
In
March
2025,
the
White
House
issued
a
memo
titled
“Preventing
Abuses
of
the
Legal
System
and
the
Federal
Court,”
which
attacked
the
act
of
lawyering,
accused
immigration
attorneys
of
“unscrupulous”
conduct,
and
directed
the
Attorney
General
to
take
action
against
lawyers
and
firms
that
cross
the
Trump
Administration.

Al
Otro
Lado
didn’t
mince
words,
alleging
that
the
database
raises
“grave
concerns
of
political
targeting
and
professional
intimidation
at
a
time
when
the
administration
is
openly
escalating
its
attacks
on
immigrant
advocates.”

Andrew
Fels,
a
staff
attorney
at
Al
Otro
Lado,
put
it
bluntly,
“There
is
no
obvious
legitimate
reason
for
ICE
to
be
compiling
what
appears
to
be
a
covert
roster
of
immigration
lawyers.
We
are
giving
ICE
an
opportunity
to
publicly
explain
the
watch
list’s
purpose.
Publishing
the
underlying
policies
governing
the
watch
list’s
creation
and
inclusion
criteria
will
conclusively
resolve
this
issue.”

Cassandra
Lopez,
Al
Otro
Lado’s
legal
director,
framed
the
situation
as
a
warning
to
all
lawyers.
“History
may
be
repeating
itself.
Once
again,
our
staff
and
colleagues
appear
on
a
government
watch
list
simply
for
doing
our
jobs—defending
the
constitutional
right
to
seek
asylum
and
holding
the
government
accountable
in
court.
The
pattern
is
unmistakable
and
deeply
alarming.”

Lopez’s
warning
is
particularly
poignant.
Since
the
start
of
his
second
term,
Donald
Trump
has
been
aggressively
attacking
lawyers
and
the
very
rule
of
law.
This
watch
list
appears
to
be
the
next
disturbing
step,
with
the
government
treating
adversarial
legal
representation
as
suspect
conduct.
That
is
a
direct
inversion
of
how
the
legal
system
is
supposed
to
function.

The
existence
of
the
list
suggests
a
bureaucratic
culture
that
views
immigration
lawyers
not
as
officers
of
the
court,
but
as
obstacles
to
be
monitored.
And
it
should
concern
anyone
who
still
believes
the
rule
of
law
depends
on
lawyers
being
able
to
do
their
jobs
without
being
cataloged
(or
worse)
by
the
very
agencies
they’re
tasked
with
challenging.



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].

Biglaw’s Latest Transatlantic Merger Will Be Complete Come May 2026 – Above the Law

Posted on by TSA Press



Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day.


It’s
what
we
believe
our
clients
want
from
their
law
firms.
To
be
able
to
provide
trans-Atlantic
service
that
aligns
with
their
own
business,
which
is
cross-border,
cross-risk
that
was
the
driving
force
about
this.




—

Steve
D’Amore,
chairman
of
Winston
&
Strawn,
in
comments
given
to
the

American
Lawyer,
on
the
decision
to

enter
into
a
merger
with
UK-based
Taylor
Wessing.
“I
think
taking
a
hard
look
at
the
incredible
growth
of
[Taylor
Wessing’s]
business
over
the
most
recent
period
is
really
important
to
understanding
why
this
makes
a
lot
of
sense
for
us,” he
continued,
after
being
presented
with
the
disparity
between
the
firms’
financials,
on
which
Winston
is
on
the
up
side.
When
the
tie-up
is
finalized
in
May
2026,
the
combined
firm
will
be
known
as
Winston
Taylor.




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 price of going home: Christmas boxes and the final return from South Africa to Zimbabwe

Posted on by TSA Press


Saana
Hansen,


University
of
Helsinki

The
old
industrial
city,
where
businesses
have
declined
and
shops
and
restaurants
struggle
to
survive,
fills
temporarily
with
cars
with
South
African
number
plates
and
people
dressed
in
trendy
clothes
signalling
urban
South
African
lifestyles.
Trailers
are
loaded
with
remittances
known
as
“Christmas
boxes”
containing
cooking
oil,
soap
and
other
groceries.
A
jumping
castle
is
erected
in
the
park,
and
popular
music
merges
with
laughter
in
the
restaurants.

These
are
historically
rooted
signs
of
achievement
and
success
earned
abroad.
They
are
a
refashioned
form
of
the
festive
season
of
colonial-era
injivas:
men
from
the
Matabeleland
region
of
Zimbabwe
who
worked
in
South
African
mines
and
farms,
returning
home
typically
once
a
year
with
gifts.

Yet,
it
is
common
knowledge
that
this
performance
is
often
hard-earned,
and
injivas
–
both
women
and
men
–
struggle
to
meet
these

expectations.
The
real-life
migration
experiences
include
economic
and
legal
uncertainties
and
discrimination
in
the
labour
market,
low
wages
and
difficulty
in
sending
remittances
home.

Amid
the
festive
return
lies
a
quieter
and
more
solemn
south-north
movement
–
that
of
Zimbabwean
migrants
who
have
passed
away
and
are
taking
their
final
journey
home.
Contrasting
with
the
festivities
surrounding
Christmas
visits,
the
coffin-shaped
trailers
along
the
A6
highway
from
the
Beitbridge
border
post
to
Bulawayo
are
a
reminder
that
migration’s
promise
of
prosperity
comes
with
risk
and
loss.

This
homecoming,
which
I
studied
for

my
PhD
in
anthropology
and
have
described
in
a
recent

paper,
is
shaped
by
bureaucracy,
cost
and
intergenerational
care.

The
study
reveals
how
a
life-sustaining
web
of
care
is
maintained.
It
contributes
to
anthropological
discussions
on
migration,
kinship,
the
state,
documentary
practices,
law
and
development.

The
moral
duty
and
economic
headache
of
return

The
migration
pattern
between
Zimbabwe
and
South
Africa
has
its
roots
in
colonial-era
labour
migration
and
has
intensified
since
Zimbabwe’s
independence
in
1980.
In
the
early
2000s,
Zimbabwe’s
economic
collapse,
marked
by
hyperinflation,
political
violence
and
mass
unemployment,
drove
millions
to
seek
economic
opportunities
and
protection
in
South
Africa.

Estimating
the
number
of
Zimbabweans
in
South
Africa
is
difficult
due
to
the
largely
unregulated
nature
of
this
mobility,
but

figures
generally
range
between
one
million
and
three
million.

Although
deceased
migrants,
documented
or
not,
can
be

buried
in
South
African
soil,
bringing
a
body
home
is
a
vital
act
in
Zimbabwe,
as
in
many
other
African
contexts.
It
is
to
restore
the
deceased
to
the
lineage
and
to
enable
the
spirit
to
be
mourned
and
settled
so
it
will
protect
younger
generations.
Failing
to
do
so
risks
spiritual
and
social
disorder.
The
respectful
return
in
death,
like
the
festive
Christmas
return
of
the
able-bodied
injivas,
reinforces
ties
between
generations.

Despite
the
religious
and
cultural
importance
of
burial
at
home,
repatriating
a
body
from
South
Africa
poses
economic
challenges
to
a
family.
It’s
not
only
a
moral
duty
but
also
a
financial
burden.
So,
in
principle,
only
those
whose
death
has
been
unforeseen
return
in
coffins.
Those
who
can
will
return
home
before
they
die
to
save
the
cost
of
repatriation.

Families
make
extraordinary
efforts
to
make
repatriation
possible.
Relatives
collect
and
borrow
money,
and
reach
out
to
kin
across
borders.
Burial
societies
mobilise
payments
from
their
members
to
collect
the
funds
for
embalming,
transportation,
paperwork
and
funerals.
These
obligations
reveal
the
importance
of
the
ancestral
continuity
being
an
economic
matter,
and
sustenance
of
family
welfare
continuing
after
death.

Formal
and
informal
burial
societies

Since
the
1990s,
Bulawayo’s
once-thriving
industries
have
largely
collapsed,
leaving
its
old
mills
and
factories
deserted
or
refunctioning
as
spaces
for
religious
congregations,
education
and
garages.
Amid
these
modest

ventures,
funeral
services
stand
out
in
the
city’s
otherwise
melancholic
landscape.

As
Zimbabwe’s

economic
and
political
instability
pushes
many
to
seek
livelihoods
in
South
Africa,
the
funeral
industry
has
expanded.
The
Beitbridge
border,
crossing
the
Limpopo
River
between
Zimbabwe
and
South
Africa,
has
long
organised
the
movement
of
labour
and
remittances,
governing
also
the
return
of
bodies.

Indeed,
funeral
parlours
and
burial
societies
date
back
to
the

colonial
era
when
injured
and
dead
migrants
had
to
be
sent
home.
Today,
carrying
prosperous
names
such
as
Doves,
Kings
&
Queens
and
African
Pride,
funeral
parlours
function
as
key
institutions
in
managing
transnational
death.

Besides
these
licensed
funeral
services,
people
belong
to
informal

money
pooling
societies
that
mobilise
money
collectively
to
cover
the
cost
of
death.
While
some
collect
steady
monthly
deposits,
others
gather
money
ad
hoc
during
emergencies.

These
societies
blur
boundaries
between

formal
and
informal
systems.
Many
“undocumented”
migrants,
who
cannot
have
bank
accounts,
participate
through
friends
or
relatives
with
legal
status,
contributing
to
pooled
funds
tracked
via
mobile
communication
apps
and
bank
transfer
receipts.
Societies
sustain
solidarity
networks,
and
transparent
contributions
signal
both
moral
and
financial

responsibility,
shaping
participants’
social
standing.

Bureaucracies
of
transnational
death

Between
the
death
and
the
burial,
numerous
legal
and
bureaucratic
steps
must
be
completed,
from
obtaining
death
certificates
and
health
clearances
to
coordinating
with
South
African
and
Zimbabwean
authorities.

Often,
identity
documents
from
Zimbabwe
need
to
be
collected
to
prove
that
the
deceased
is
a
Zimbabwean
national.
When
the
deceased
has
not
revealed
their
identity
to
the
South
African
authorities
and
remains
“undocumented”,
or
has
two
legal
identities,
the
disparity
needs
to
be
explained
in
affidavits.

These
administrative
steps
are
not
simply
procedural;
they
are
part
of
the
politics
of
death.
The
paperwork
that
allows
a
body
to
move,
such
as
a
stamp,
a
signature,
or
an
affidavit,
is
both
a
form
of
recognition
and
a
reminder
of
inequality.
While
some
deaths
can
move
across
borders
with
relative
ease,
others
become
delayed
or
trapped
in
institutional
procedures.

Bureaucracy
is
a
space
where
care,
legality
and
belonging
intertwine.
State
officials
may
draw
not
only
on
formal
guidelines
but
also
their
cultural
logics
of
care.
They
are
central
in
navigating
the
legal
and
bureaucratic
challenges.
Immigration
officers
might
be

sympathetic
and
share
the

cultural
understanding
of
the
importance
of
returning
home
respectably.

The
homecoming
of
the
dead
mirrors,
in
reverse,
the
December
journeys
of
the
living.
Both
are
seasonal
movements
that

bind
families
across
generations,
space
and
time.
The
same
routes
that
carried
migrants
south
in
search
of
work
now
carry
their
bodies
northward,
accompanied
by
papers,
payments
and
prayers.

In
the
end,
the
bureaucracies
that
regulate
transnational
death
are
not
merely
state
procedures,
but
central
to
how
families
remake
connection,
dignity
and
belonging
under
precarious
conditions.


Saana
Hansen,
Postdoctoral
Researcher
in
Social
and
Cultural
Anthropology,


University
of
Helsinki

This
article
is
republished
from

The
Conversation
under
a
Creative
Commons
license.
Read
the

original
article.

Two new booklets: young people and small towns in Zimbabwe’s land reform areas

Posted on by TSA Press


The
booklets
draw
from
our
blogs,
and
have
plenty
of
photos
illustrating
the
themes.
They
are
shared
within
our
research
areas
and
are
much
appreciated,
but
donors,
UN
officials
and
government
officers
also
seem
to
like
reading
them
too!
Our
booklets
are
central
to our
approach
to
‘impact’ and
also
provide
a
great
way
of
continuing
the
connection
with
our
study
areas.


Last
year
we
highlighted
three
themes
in
new
booklets (shared
online
in
January),
including
on small-scale
mechanisation, hidden
markets
and
value
chains and livestock
systems
in
dryland
areas.
Now
we
have
produced
two
more
booklets
to
add
to
the
series,
one
on
young
people
and
land
reform
and
the
other
on
small
towns
in
land
reform
areas.
Both
these
themes
have
been
central
to
our
recent
research.

Many
of
the
discussions
across
our
sites
have
focused
on
what
will
happen
to
the
next
generation
who
were
not
old
enough
to
get
land
after
2000.
Issues
of
generational
transition
and
succession
are
hot
topics
for
everyone,
and
we
have
highlighted
these
in several
blog
series over
the
years
(see here and here).
Young
people
of
course
are
carving
out
new
livelihoods
in
land
reform
areas,
often
not
replicating
the
styles
of
agriculture
employed
by
their
parents.
Instead
they
are
intensifying,
adding
value
and
connecting
to
off-farm
businesses
in
new
ways,
which
do
not
require
large
land
areas.

The
integration
of
rural
and
urban
areas
is
another
recurrent
theme
in
our
work,
highlighting
the
importance
of
‘small
towns‘
embedded
in
rural
areas,
as
highlighted
in
several
blog
series
(see here and here).
These
towns
are
places
where
rural
farmers
from
land
reform
areas
sell
their
produce,
but
also
where
they
invest
–
in
businesses
of
different
sorts,
as
well
as
in
real
estate.
With
surplus
production
coming
from
land
reform
areas
(particularly
A1
smallholder
sites),
agriculture
is
driving
local
economic
growth
and
the
rapid
expansion
of
small
towns.

We
thought
readers
might
like
to
have
a
look
at
these
new
booklets,
which
you
can
download
here
in
both
hi-res
and
low-res
formats
(for
when
Wi-Fi
connections
are
slow
and
phone
data
scarce,
links
below).

Next
week,
some
highlights
of
the
year,
before
a
short
break.

Post
published
in:

Agriculture

ACA Health Care Premiums Are Spiking… Is Your Firm Doing Anything About It? – Above the Law

Posted on by TSA Press

At
the
end
of
the
month,
the
enhanced
Affordable
Care
Act
premium
subsidies
that
millions
of
Americans
rely
on
to
make
health
insurance
remotely
affordable
expire.
It
didn’t
have
to
be
this
way,
but
Congressional
Republicans
are
still
angry
that
Barack
Obama
passed
a
popular
health
care
law
15
years
ago
and
Democratic
Party
leadership
cannot
abide
standing
up
for
something
when
cowardice
is
also
an
option.
The
Republicans
have
promised
something
“better,”
but
have
yet
to
come
up
with
a
single
proposal
over
the
past
decade
and
a
half
because
the
last
time
they
tried
to
get
behind
a
health
care
policy
in
the
early
1990s
to
counter
Bill
Clinton’s
campaign
promises
they
rallied
behind
managed
competition…
which
is,
you
know,

Obamacare.

Since
their
last
attempt
at
specifics
ended
up
becoming
a
Black
president’s
signature
achievement,
the
Republicans
have
resisted
any
effort
to
take
another
swing
at
it.

But
for
real
people,
the
numbers
are
brutal.
According
to
the
Kaiser
Family
Foundation,
marketplace
enrollees
will
see
their
premium
payments

more
than
double
on
average
—
“a
114%
increase
from
an
average
of
$888
in
2025
to
$1,904
in
2026.”
The
Congressional
Budget
Office
projects

up
to
4
million
people
could
lose
coverage
entirely.
A
60-year-old
couple
earning
just
over
400%
of
the
federal
poverty
level
could
see
their

annual
premiums
jump
to
$22,600.

Lawyers
have
health
insurance
through
their
employers,
so
this
isn’t
going
to
impact
them
directly.
Unless
the
economy
tanks
and
we
get
a
run
of
layoffs…
so
maybe
next
year.
In
the
meantime,
among
the
millions
of
affected
Americans
are
a
lot
of
nannies.

And
nannies,
as
it
happens,
provide
a
lot
of
structural
support
for
Biglaw
productivity.
The
day-to-day
reality
of
billing
2200+
hours
while
raising
children
depends
heavily
on
the
domestic
workers
who
make
it
all
possible.
Workers
who,
unlike
Biglaw
associates,
don’t
have
employer-sponsored
health
insurance
rely
heavily
on
the
exchanges.

What
happens
when
nannies
can’t
afford
to
keep
wiping
little
Billy’s
nose
without
healthcare
of
their
own?
Losing
a
nanny
because
they
can
no
longer
afford
health
insurance
creates
real
disruption
for
lawyers.
The
recruiting
hassle
involved
in
replacing
a
good
nanny
rivals
any
attorney
lateral
search.
Are
lawyers
going
to
step
up
and
cover
the
difference
for
their
in-home
workers?

Interestingly,
we’ve
heard
unverified
rumors
that
at
least
one
Biglaw
firm
may
be
working
on
a
solution
to
help
folks
close
the
ACA
subsidy
gap
for
non-firm
household
employees:
nannies,
home
health
aides,
and
the
other
domestic
workers
who
purchase
insurance
on
the
exchanges.

It
sounds
like
a
good
idea,
one
that
can
generate
significant
goodwill
while
protecting
productivity.
But
is
this
actually
happening?
And
where?

If
your
firm
is
offering
any
kind
of
benefit,
subsidy,
or
support
related
to
the
expiring
ACA
subsidies,
we
want
to
hear
about
it.
Email
us
at

[email protected].



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

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

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

Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.

IVF Zimbabwe brings hope to families through science and compassion

Posted on by TSA Press




Her
story
is
one
of
resilience,
faith
in
medical
innovation
and
the
compassionate
support
of
IVF
Zimbabwe.


Jane
explained
that
her
journey
began
with
routine
gynaecological
consultations.
Doctors
initially
reassured
her
that
conception
could
take
time.
After
two
years
without
success,
she
underwent
investigations,
including
dye
tests
to
check
for
blocked
fallopian
tubes. 


Results
showed
her
tubes
were
clear,
leaving
her
in
what
she
described
as
a
“grey
area.”
With
no
clear
medical
explanation,
she
said
she
sought
answers
elsewhere,
even
turning
to
churches
and
traditional
healers
before
discovering
IVF
through
online
research.


“My
husband
and
I
visited
IVF
Zimbabwe,
where
we
received
a
detailed
orientation
on
the
entire
IVF
journey,
beginning
with
initial
consultations
and
fertility
assessments,
through
ovulation
monitoring,
medication
protocols
and
egg
retrieval
to
sperm
collection,
fertilisation
in
the
laboratory
and
embryo
transfer. 


“The
medical
team
explained
each
stage
clearly,
ensuring
that
we
understood
what
to
expect
from
start
to
finish,
including
follow‑up
care
and
emotional
support
throughout
the
process,”
she
added.


IVF
typically
begins
in
sync
with
a
woman’s
menstrual
cycle.
Jane
said
she
was
introduced
to
fertility
medications
designed
to
stimulate
egg
production.
These
medications
prepared
her
ovaries
for
retrieval,
a
critical
step
in
the
process. 


“I
was
closely
monitored
by
the
IVF
Zimbabwe
team,
who
provided
round-the-clock
support,
answering
my
anxious
calls
and
offering
reassurance
at
every
stage.
When
the
time
came,
I
was
taken
to
the
theatre
for
egg
retrieval.
Nine
mature
eggs
were
harvested,
and
six
usable
embryos
developed. 


“Though
the
procedure
was
mildly
painful,
I
was
not
put
fully
to
sleep
and
recovered
quickly
after
two
days
of
rest,”
she
added. 


Jane
pointed
out
that
her
husband’s
role
was
equally
vital.
Sperm
retrieval
was
required
to
fertilise
her
eggs. 


“Initially
my
husband
was
hesitant
but
he
quickly
overcame
his
discomfort
after
witnessing
my
emotional
struggles
and
agreed
to
participate
in
the
process,”
she
said.


Once
fertilisation
was
complete,
embryos
were
transferred
into
Jane’s
womb.
She
explained
that
the
most
anxious
period
followed,
the
“two-week
wait.” 


“Although
I
was
advised
by
the
IVF
Zimbabwe
team
to
wait
ten
days
before
testing,
I
began
testing
at
home
on
day
seven.
Early
signs
of
pregnancy
filled
me
with
cautious
hope,
though
bleeding
left
me
fearful
of
miscarriage. 


“Nevertheless,
I
then
went
for
a
blood
test
and
the
medical
confirmation
brought
my
husband
and
I
immense
joy.
I
was
pregnant
after
my
very
first
IVF
cycle,”
she
added.


Jane
acknowledged
the
emotional
toll
of
infertility.
Each
failed
attempt
before
IVF
left
her
devastated.Yet
she
remained
determined,
buoyed
by
support
groups
and
the
logical
reassurance
of
science. 


“It
was
my
egg,
my
husband’s
sperm.
It
made
sense.
When
my
first
cycle
succeeded,
I
embraced
the
IVF
process
wholeheartedly. 


“Today
I
am
a
proud
mother
of
a
three-year-old
daughter.
I
am
also
currently
pregnant
with
my
second
child
through
a
frozen
embryo
transfer.
The
second
process
was
easy
and
cheaper
compared
to
the
first,”
Jane
added.


Aside
from
mild
pain
during
egg
retrieval
and
anxiety
throughout
the
process,
Jane
said
she
experienced
no
major
complications.
She
said
she
credits
the
IVF
Zimbabwe
team
for
their
patience
and
kindness,
describing
them
as
“family”
who
held
her
hand
through
every
step.


IVF
Zimbabwe
fertility
centre
provides
advanced
solutions
to
couples
with
subfertility
in
the
country,
combining
modern
science
with
compassionate
care. 


With
379
IVF
babies
born
to
date,
the
centre
reached
a
milestone
this
year,
with
57
births,
averaging
one
IVF
baby
born
every
week.
The
centre
continues
to
grow,
attracting
patients
from
Mozambique,
Kenya,
Botswana,
Namibia
and
Zimbabweans
abroad,
particularly
from
the
United
Kingdom. 


Jane’s
story
is
a
testament
to
perseverance
and
the
transformative
power
of
IVF. 


“Couples
should
not
hesitate.
IVF
is
a
solution
that
works,”
she
advised. 


Her
journey
reflects
IVF
Zimbabwe’s
mission
to
bring
hope
to
families
and
make
world-class
fertility
care
accessible
in
Zimbabwe.

Post
published
in:

Featured

Lindsey Halligan Humiliated In Court. Again. – Above the Law

Posted on by TSA Press
Lindsey
Halligan
(Photo
by
Al
Drago/Getty
Images)

Lindsey
Halligan
had
another
bad
week
at
her
pretend
job
as
US
Attorney
for
the
Eastern
District
of
Virginia.

First
Halligan
got
no-billed for
the
third
time when
she
tried
to
re-indict
New
York
Attorney
General
Letitia
James.
The
week
before,
a
grand
jury
in
Norfolk
bounced
an
attempt
to
charge
James
with
mortgage
fraud.
This
time
around,
a
grand
jury
in
Alexandria
did
the
honors.

Then
Judge
Colleen
Kollar-Kotelly
in
DC
reamed
Halligan’s
office
out
for
its
inexcusably
shoddy
—
not
to
say
unconstitutional!
—
work,
before
locking
her
out
of
the
evidence
she
was
relying
on
to
re-indict
former
FBI
Director
James
Comey.

It’s
enough
to
make
a
fake
prosecutor
want
to
give
up
and
go
get
a
real
job.

The
case
that
won’t
die

The
Comey
investigation
was
a
Frankenstein’s
monster
of
illegality
which
likely
would
have
collapsed
under
its
own
weight
even
if
Halligan had been
lawfully
appointed.
One
of
the
most
glaring
defects
was
its
reliance
on
evidence
seized
from
Comey’s
friend
and
sometime
lawyer,
Daniel
Richman.

In
2019
and
2020,
the
FBI
executed
four
separate
search
warrants
for
his
various
email,
hard
drive,
and
iCloud
accounts,
essentially
seizing
Richman’s
entire
digital
life.
Failing
to
find
evidence
that
Comey
had
leaked
classified
information
to
Richman
back
in
2017,
the
FBI
closed
that
investigation
in
2021.
The
data
was
then
tossed
in
a
locker,
where
it
sat
until
2025,
when
Halligan
pulled
it
out
and
started
rummaging
through
it
in
search
of
proof
that
Comey
lied
to
Congress
in
2020.

A
competent
prosecutor
would
have
sought
a
new
warrant
before
accessing
the
Richman
materials.
Judge
Kollar-Kotelly
and
Magistrate
Judge
William
Fitzpatrick,
who
was
tasked
with
adjudicating
discovery
disputes
in
the
Comey
case,
both
expressed
astonishment
that
no
one
bothered
to
get
a
court
to
bless
their
use
of
evidence
collected
six
years
ago
in
an
entirely
different
case.
Whether
this
was
due
to
incompetence
or
the
need
to
indict
Comey
before
the
statute
of
limitations
elapsed
was
never
explained.
But
that
procedural
omission
may
turn
out
to
be
costly.

On
November
26,
Richman
filed
a motion
for
return
of
property under
Federal
Rule
of
Criminal
Procedure
41(g).
He
argued
that
the
government
violated
his
Fourth
Amendment
rights
by
retaining
non-responsive
information
from
the
original
warrant,
failing
to
destroy
it
when
the
leak
investigation
was
closed
in
2021,
and
re-using
that
dataset
in
2025
without
a
warrant.

After
nine
days
with
no
appearance
by
lawyers
the
government,
Richman
moved
for
a
temporary
restraining
order.
Noting
that
DOJ
appeared
to
be
playing
games,
avoiding
assigning
a
lawyer
to
the
case
in
an
effort
to
keep
using
Richman’s
files,
Judge
Kollar-Kotelly
granted
the
TRO
and
ordered
the
DOJ
to
enter
an
appearance.
After
no
small
amount
of rigamarole,
Halligan
and
her
deputy
Robert
McBride
finally
complied.

The
best
defense
is
a
good
…
yeah,
not
that
one
either

Halligan
signed
the response to
Richman’s
motion
as
US
Attorney
for
the
Eastern
District
of
Virginia,
despite
conceding
in
the
filing
that
the
Comey
case
was
“dismissed
after
the
court
found
that
Lindsey
Halligan,
who
presented
the
proposed
indictment
to
the
grand
jury,
had
been
improperly
appointed
as
Interim
U.S.
Attorney
in
violation
of
the
Appointments
Clause
of
the
U.S.
Constitution
and
28
U.S.C.
§
546.”

Halligan
barely
bothered
to
defend
her
office’s
conduct,
instead
arguing
that
Judge
Kollar-Kotelly
should
dismiss
the
case
because
of
Richman’s
improper
motive.

“Petitioner’s
motion
is
a
collateral
(and
premature)
motion
to
suppress
evidence
in
another
criminal
proceeding,
masquerading
as
a
motion
for
return
of
property
under
Federal
Rule
41(g),”
she
insisted.
“It
is
impermissible
for
a
court
to
enjoin
a
criminal
investigation
and
potential
prosecution
in
another
district
by
restraining
use
of
evidence
to
benefit
a
third
party.”

Halligan
argued
that
the
government
can
retain
and
scrutinize
Richman’s
files
forever
— or
at
least
until
she
manages
to
convince
another
grand
jury
to
indict
James
Comey.
At
that
point
Comey
—
but
not
Richman!
—
can
file
a
suppression
motion.
As
for
Richman’s
interest
in
his
own
data,
Halligan
sneered
in
a
footnote
that
he
“plainly
has
an
adequate
remedy
at
law—he
could
bring
a Bivens action.”

That’s
a
patently
silly
argument.
Individuals
can
indeed
file Bivens actions
in
limited
circumstances
when
their
rights
have
been
violated
by
federal
officers,
but
those
actions
are
for
damages
—
i.e.,
money
—
and
not
for
the
return
of
property.

This
case
was
probably
always
going
to
be
a
loser
for
the
government.
But
Halligan’s
flippant
brief
almost
certainly
made
it
worse.

Give
it
up
already

A
few
days
later,
on
Friday,
Judge
Kollar-Kotelly granted Richman’s
motion
for
the
return
of
his
property,
ordering
the
Department
of
Justice
to
destroy
the
copies
of
his
data
in
its
possession.

“[T]his
Court
agrees
with
Petitioner
Richman
that
the
Government’s
retention
and
use
of
his
files
has
violated
his
Fourth
Amendment
rights,”
she
wrote,
adding
that
Halligan’s
decision
to
rummage
through
Richman’s
files
in
2025
without
getting
a
new
search
warrant
was
“a
remarkable
breach
of
protocol”
that
clearly
reflected
a
“callous
disregard”
for
Richman’s
constitutional
rights.

As
for
the
government’s
insistent
that
Richman’s
Rule
41(g)
motion
was
actually
an
improper
collateral
motion
to
suppress
evidence
in
Comey’s
case,
Judge
Kollar-Kotelly
brushed
that
aside
in
a
little
over
two
paragraphs,
dryly
noting
that
Halligan’s
brief
“misses
the
mark”
by
citing
“inapposite”
cases.

Judge
Kollar-Kotelly did throw
the
government
a
bone
of
sorts
by
ordering
it
to
deposit
a
single
copy
of
the
material
seized
from
Richman
with
the
district
court
in
the
Eastern
District
of
Virginia.
That
preserves
the
materials
in
the
event
that
Halligan’s
office
manages
to
(finally)
play
by
the
rules
and
seek
a
new
search
warrant
in
connection
with
its
ongoing
investigation
of
James
Comey.

And
although
Judge
Kollar-Kotelly
was
polite
enough
not
to
point
out
that
Halligan
is
inappropriately
trying
to
pass
herself
off
as
the
US
Attorney,
her
ruling
nevertheless
explicitly
adopted
Magistrate
Judge
Fitzpatrick’s
findings
from
the
prior
Comey
litigation
that
exposed
Halligan’s
incompetence,
including
his
conclusion
that
the
unconstitutional
search
was
performed
“apparently
with
the
concurrence
of”
the
US
Attorney’s
Office
for
the
Eastern
District
of
Virginia.

If
Halligan
were
capable
of
shame,
that
would
be
humiliating.
But
it’ll
probably
take
at
least
a
couple
more
no-bills
before
she
wanders
back
to
Washington
to de-woke-ify
the
Smithsonian.



Subscribe
to
read
more
at
Law
and
Chaos….




Liz
Dye and Andrew
Torrez produce
the
Law
and
Chaos Substack and podcast. You
can
subscribe
by
clicking
the
logo:


The Missing Piece In Agentic AI: Shape The Habits That Power Real Adoption – Above the Law

Posted on by TSA Press

Here’s
what
we
know:

80%
of
legal
teams
are
using
generative
AI
according
to
ILTA’s
2025
Technology
Survey.
That’s
impressive
adoption
for
a
technology
that
barely
existed
two
years
ago.
But
now,
as
we
enter
the
era
of
agentic
AI,
legal
teams
are
being
asked
to
rethink
everything
again.

The
question
isn’t
whether
agentic
AI
will
change
legal
work.
It’s
whether
firms
will
change
how
they
adopt
technology.
Successful
adoption
requires
both
well-designed
technology
and
robust
people-centered
strategies.
You
can’t
technology
your
way
out
of
habit
formation
challenges,
and
you
can’t
adoption-strategy
your
way
out
of
poorly
designed
tools.
Most
organizations
are
investing
heavily
in
one
while
underinvesting
in
the
other.


Why
Habits-Not
Technology-Determine
Adoption

I’ve
spent
my
career
studying
how
people
adopt
new
ways
of
working,
and
I’ve
learned
that
technology
transformations
fail
when
we
treat
them
as
technology
problems.
The
legal
industry
is
about
to
make
that
mistake
again
with
agentic
AI,
investing
in
sophisticated
orchestration
platforms
while
ignoring
the
basic
psychology
of
habit
formation.
We’re
solving
for
capability
when
the
real
bottleneck
is
adoption,
and
most
AI
adoption
strategies
don’t
plan
for
abandonment.

Forming
a
new
habit
or
way
of
working
takes
time
and
repetition.
Behavioral
science
tells
us
most
humans
fail
when
trying
to
start
a
new
habit,
not
because
they
lack
capability
or
commitment,
but
because
habits
require
sustained
practice
before
they
become
routine.
And
when
people
stumble,
which
they
will,
they
need
structured
support
to
restart.


Research
from
Prosci
shows
that
projects
with
excellent
change
management
are
seven
times
more
likely
to
succeed—proof
that
the
people
side
isn’t
optional.
But
most
firms
roll
out
AI
tools
with
a
pilot
group,
a
training
session,
a
Slack
channel,
and
the
best
of
intentions.
Then
six
months
later,
they’re
puzzled
when
usage
metrics
flatline.
The
technology
didn’t
fail.
The
adoption
design
did.


Designing
for
Adoption:
Expect
the
Dip,
Build
the
Restart

If
you’re
serious
about
adoption,
here’s
what
you
need
to
build
into
your
strategy—not
after
tools
fail,
but
from
day
one:


Expect
the
dip:
Usage
typically
drops
30-40%
after
the
initial
excitement.
Build
that
into
your
timeline
and
communicate
it
upfront
so
teams
don’t
interpret
the
dip
as
failure.


Create
restart
rituals:
Monthly
“office
hours”
where
someone
coaches
lawyers
through
their
actual
work
using
the
tool.
Not
generic
demos,
real-time
problem-solving
with
their
documents,
their
clients,
their
workflow
friction
points.


Showcase
wins:
Establish
a
regular
forum-lunch-and-learns,
showcase
sessions,
or
a
win-room
channel—where
early
adopters
share
what
they’re
accomplishing
with
the
tool.
Not
generic
success
stories,
but
specific:
“Here’s
how
I
used
it
to
catch
a
critical
disclosure
error”
or
“Here’s
how
it
saved
me
3
hours
on
this
negotiation.”
Make
visible
progress
contagious.
People
adopt
faster
when
they
see
peers
solving
real
problems.


Normalize
stopping
and
starting:
Send
a
focused
message
three
months
in:
“If
you
aren’t
still
using
a
new
tool
to
your
advantage,
here’s
how
to
restart.”
Give
permission
to
be
inefficient
to
allow
people
to
relearn.


Track
abandonment
as
a
success
metric:
If
you’re
not
measuring
who
stops
using
tools
and
why,
you’re
not
serious
about
adoption.
The
restart
data
is
more
valuable
than
the
initial
adoption
data.

These
restart
strategies
are
critical,
but
they
work
best
when
embedded
in
a
broader
readiness
approach.


Strategic
Readiness
for
Legal
Leaders

To
prepare
for
the
agentic
era,
legal
leaders
should
focus
on
readiness,
not
hype.
Here’s
what
that
actually
means:


Start
with
the
problem
and
your
skeptics.
Before
evaluating
any
tool,
identify
the
specific
problem
you’re
solving,
and
involve
your
skeptics
in
defining
it.
These
are
the
respected
practitioners
who
won’t
adopt
until
they
see
real
value.
When
they
help
identify
the
problem,
they’re
invested
in
finding
a
solution.
Adoption
fails
when
it’s
done

to
people
rather
than

with
them.
Your
skeptics
will
ask
the
hard
questions
that
prevent
expensive
failures
later.


Name
what’s
being
lost,
not
just
gained.
People
resist
change
when
they
can’t
articulate
what
they’re
giving
up.
Be
explicit:
“Yes,
this
changes
how
you
work.
You’ll
spend
less
time
hunting
for
precedents
and
more
time
applying
judgment
to
complex
negotiations.
That
means
learning
new
workflows
during
your
busiest
quarter.
Here’s
how
we’re
supporting
that.”


Create
psychological
safety
for
the
learning
curve.
Agentic
AI
isn’t
always
intuitive.
Teams
need
explicit
permission
to
be
inefficient
while
they
learn,
or
they’ll
abandon
tools
at
the
first
frustration.
Build
“protected
practice
time”
into
billable
hour
expectations
for
the
first
90
days.


Choose
the
right
workflows
and
fix
broken
processes
first.
Target
high-impact
areas
where
complexity
meets
volume—but
only
where
teams
have
capacity
to
learn.
Don’t
pilot
AI
on
your
most
time-pressured
process.
And
if
your
data
is
inconsistent
or
your
systems
don’t
talk
to
each
other,
pause
the
AI
conversation
entirely.
Agentic
systems
amplify
good
processes
and
expose
broken
ones,
they
don’t
fix
them.


Define
success
metrics
beyond
time
saved.
Track
error
reduction,
negotiation
speed,
surfaced
risks,
and
abandonment/restart
rates.
The
adoption
journey
matters
as
much
as
the
efficiency
gains.


Establish
governance
frameworks
with
auditability,
traceability,
and
clear
human-in-the-loop
controls.
This
isn’t
red
tape;
it’s
the
foundation
that
allows
teams
to
experiment
safely.


The
Path
Forward

The
future
of
legal
work
won’t
be
defined
by
who
adopts
AI
first,
but
by
who
adopts
it
wisely.
And
wisdom,
in
this
case,
means
understanding
that
technology
transformation
is
fundamentally
a
human
transformation,
one
that
requires
patience,
support,
and
planned
restarts
when
people
inevitably
stumble.

The
question
isn’t
whether
agentic
AI
will
change
legal
work.
It’s
whether
your
firm
will
change
how
it
adopts
technology.

Ready
to
see
technology
designed
with
adoption
in
mind?

Learn
more
about
Litera
One
and
Lito
and
Lito
or

Schedule
a
demo
today.

Boutique Firm Brings In A Fresh Breeze Of Bonuses! – Above the Law

Posted on by TSA Press

Choosing
to
work
at
a
boutique
firm
can
come
with
the
tradeoff
of
not
making
the
market
rate.
Unless,
of
course,
if
you’re
working
at
Cohen
Ziffer
Frenchman
&
McKenna!
The
boutique
firm
has
been
paying
out
the
big
bucks

since
they
got
their
start
in
2021
—
2025
marks
their
latest
year
of
keeping
up
with
the
financial
competition!

Here’s
the
scale:

To
everyone
at
Cohen
Ziffer,
you’ll
be
enjoying
the
money
very
soon
—
it’s
expected
to
paid
out
on
December
19th!
And
to
your
five
years
of
success,
Above
the
Law
wishes
you
many
more!

We
like
hearing
about
bonuses
almost
as
much
as
you
enjoy
spending
them.
As
soon
as
your
firm’s
memo
comes
out,
please email
it
to
us
(subject
line:
“[Firm
Name]
Bonus”)
or
text
us
(646-820-8477).
Please
include
the
memo
if
available.
You
can
take
a
photo
of
the
memo
and
send
it
via
text
or
email
if
you
don’t
want
to
forward
the
original
PDF
or
Word
file.

And
if
you’d
like
to
sign
up
for
ATL’s
Salary
&
Bonus
Alerts,
please
scroll
down
and
enter
your
email
address
in
the
box
below
this
post.
If
you
previously
signed
up
for
the
bonus
alerts,
you
don’t
need
to
do
anything.
You’ll
receive
an
email
notification
within
minutes
of
each
bonus
announcement
that
we
publish.


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.

Inside Biglaw’s Most Over-The-Top Holiday Competition – Above the Law

Posted on by TSA Press

Last
year,
I

covered
Seward
&
Kissel’s
annual
Ugly
Sweater
Contest
from
afar.
This
year,
the
firm
offered
me
the
opportunity
to
engage
in
authentic
participatory
journalism
as
a
member
of
the
judging
panel.
Perched
at
the
end
of
a
runway
in
the
firm’s
lobby
conference
room,
watching
well
over
100
of
the
firm’s
lawyers
and
staff
either
crowd
into
the
room
or
poke
their
heads
in
from
the
standing
room
overflow
in
the
hall,
it
becomes
abundantly
clear
that,
at
this
point,
calling
this
an
“ugly
sweater
contest”
is
like
calling
the
Super
Bowl
a
“football
game.”
Technically
accurate,
but
unable
to
capture
the
proceedings.

Because
this
is
Seward
&
Kissel
we’re
talking
about
—
a
firm
that
thrives
on
“extra”
when
it
comes
to
culture
—
the
sweater
contest
has
evolved
beyond
a
parade
of
garish
jumpers
into
a
full-blown
costume
pageant.
Themed
floor
entries!
Coordinated
performances!

Floats!

FLOATS!

Partner
Steve
Nadel
once
again
helmed
the
proceedings,
informing
the
judges
that
multiple
competitors
had
privately
assured
him
that
they
were
confident
that
they
would
win
this
year.
The
confidence
wasn’t
misplaced,
with
banger
after
banger
of
themed
productions:
a
tribute
to

Christmas
Vacation,
a
fully
committed
Whoville
encounter
complete
with
Grinch,
and
a
Holiday
Culkin
Mashup
weaving
together

Home
Alone
and

Succession.

In
the
end
though,
the
19th
floor
extended
its
winning
streak
with
a

Peanuts
tribute
that
rolled
down
the
runway
behind
a
literal
rolling
cart.
A
makeshift
float
pushing
the
floor’s
designated
Schroeder
down
the
runway
as
he
banged
away
at
a
miniature
red
piano.
It
was
absurd
and
delightful
in
all
the
expected
ways.
Charlie
was,
we
can
confirm,
unable
to
kick
the
football.

At
a
time
when
firms
across
Biglaw
are
wrestling
with
return-to-office
policies,
Seward
&
Kissel
is
putting
equal
effort
into
asking
the
more
important
question:
what
if
people
actually

wanted
to
come
to
work?

An
annual
sweater
contest
isn’t
the
lynchpin
that
brings
people
into
the
office
four
days
out
of
the
week
all
year.
But
seeing
an
annual
event
like
this
as
an
isolated
affair
misses
the
point.
This
crowd
doesn’t
gather
in
numbers
like
these
without
pre-existing,
constantly
cultivated
esprit
de
corps.
And
that
culture
doesn’t
form
without
a
willingness
to
regularly
break
outside
the
box
and
build
a

record-breaking
miniature
golf
hole.
It’s
a
virtuous
cycle
that
makes
then
office
more
pleasant
the
rest
of
the
year.

After
the
event,
one
refugee
from
another
Biglaw
firm
that
I
won’t
call
out
here
told
me
that
they
actually
look
forward
to
going
into
the
office
for
the
first
time
in
their
career.
Meanwhile,
a
client
who
joined
me
on
the
panel
made
a
point
of
noting
that
the
firm’s
culture
noticeably
spills
over
into
the
client
experience.
Happy
lawyers,
it
turns
out,
provide
better
service.
Revolutionary
concept.

Not
everyone
is
built
for
participating
in
a
holiday
pageant
—
and
that’s
fine.
The
number
of
spectators
proved
that
even
the
more
reserved
folks
appreciated
the
spectacle.
But
whether
they
were
watching
along
or
fully
suited
up
as
a
cartoon
character,
everyone
wanted
to
be
involved.
There’s
a
place
for
return-to-office
mandates,
but
firms
shouldn’t
overlook
the
carrot
half
of
the
carrot
and
stick
equation.

The
19th
floor’s
mini-dynasty
continues.
The
rest
of
the
firm
has
a
year
to
plot
their
responses.

Good
luck.

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

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

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

Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.