“Make
sure
you
join
a
study
group!”
is
great
one
size
fits
all
advice
that
1Ls
hear
all
the
time.
Why?
Because
you’re
there
to
be
a
cog
in
a
Biglaw
firm
learn,
and
the
immediate
feedback,
problem
solving,
and
note-sharing
opportunities
of
being
in
a
study
group
are
one
of
a
kind.
But
holing
yourself
up
with
3
other
cohort
members
isn’t
the
only
way
to
force
title
race
and
notice
title
schemas
into
your
memory
anymore.
AI
is
being
offered
as
an
answer
to
your
learning
and
practical
needs.
Students
are
starting
to
form
groups
meant
to
help
them
get
the
most
out
of
the
tech.
Reuters
has
coverage:
Juan
Ramirez
Sierra
expected
about
50
people
to
show
up
at
the
first-ever
event
held
by
the
newly
established
Artificial
Intelligence
and
Law
Society
at
the
University
of
Miami
School
of
Law
last
month.
Instead,
75
students
packed
in
to
hear
a
panel
of
law
firm
partners,
academics
and
artificial
intelligence
companies
discuss
the
ethical
considerations
of
using
AI
in
legal
work. … At
least
16
schools
have
such
groups,
including
Harvard,
Stanford
and
the
University
of
Pennsylvania,
most
founded
within
the
past
two
years
as
future
lawyers
seek
to
understand
the
rapidly
expanding
technology
and
how
it
will
affect
their
careers.
A
push
for
AI
societies
makes
sense
considering
the
tech’s
successes
in
legal
learning
and
accreditation.
Harvey
is
successfully
setting
up
shop
and
anchoring
its
role
as
an
educational
tool
for
students
and
ChatGPT
has
been
outperforming
the
average
scores
of
bar
takers
since
2023.
One
student
set
up
their
AI
society
because
“AI
was
obviously
going
to
be
a
big
part
of
the
profession.”
Just
keep
in
mind
that
2008
was
obviously
a
good
time
to
buy
a
house.
As
important
as
it
is
to
stay
on
the
top
of
trends
in
the
industry,
take
the
ever
popular
“AI
is
inevitable”
rhetoric
with
several
grains
of
salt
—
creating
infrastructure
centered
on
a
tech
industry
that
is
“light
years”
from
turning
a
profit
screams
of
building
a
multimillion
dollar
home
on
a
rapidly
eroding
sandbank.
Except
in
this
case,
it’s
multi
billions.
That
said,
AI
is
booming
in
the
short
term
and
not
showing
at
least
some
literacy
in
the
fad
could
look
bad
in
an
interview.
Joining
one
of
these
societies
is
an
easy
line
on
the
resume
and
who
knows,
you
might
even
learn
something
while
you’re
a
part
of
it.
Are
you
a
law
student
in
a
law
society?
Putting
a
Large
Language
Model
to
work
as
you
work
toward
your
LLM?
Let
us
know
what
it’s
like
at
[email protected].
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.
HARARE
–
The
Supreme
Court
has
dismissed
an
appeal
by
businessman
Lovemore
Kurotwi
and
his
company
Canadile
Miners
(Pvt)
Ltd
over
US$3.6
million
that
they
tried
to
claim
from
funds
originally
belonging
to
the
defunct
diamond
joint
venture
between
Core
Mining
and
Minerals
Resources
(Pty)
Ltd
and
the
state-owned
Marange
Resources.
In
a
judgement
given
shortly
after
hearing
arguments
on
Thursday,
Justices
Lavender
Makoni,
George
Chiweshe
and
Joseph
Musakwa
upheld
a
High
Court
ruling
which
found
that
the
money
–
held
by
AFC
Commercial
Bank
–
lawfully
belonged
to
Core
Mining
and
not
to
Canadile
or
its
former
directors.
The
dispute
traces
back
to
2010,
when
Canadile
Miners
–
then
operating
in
Chiadzwa
–
declared
a
US$3.3
million
dividend
to
its
South
African
partner,
Core
Mining.
The
funds
were
intercepted
and
frozen
by
the
United
States
Office
of
Foreign
Assets
Control
(OFAC)
under
sanctions
regulations.
More
than
a
decade
later,
in
March
2025,
OFAC
released
the
money
–
now
worth
US$3.525
million
with
interest
–
but
by
then
Canadile’s
bank
account
had
long
been
closed.
Kurotwi
and
his
associate
Cougan
Matanhire
claimed
the
funds
on
behalf
of
Canadile,
while
Core
Mining’s
joint
liquidators,
represented
by
Beatrice
Mtetwa,
said
the
money
was
rightfully
theirs.
High
Court
judge
Justice
Samuel
Deme
ruled
in
favour
of
Core
Mining,
finding
that
the
dividend
had
never
been
reversed
and
that
once
declared,
ownership
vested
in
Core
Mining.
He
said
Kurotwi
and
Matanhire
had
acted
“dishonestly,
recklessly
and
fraudulently”
and
ordered
them
to
pay
punitive
costs.
The
Zimbabwe
Mining
Development
Corporation
(ZMDC),
which
partnered
Core
Mining
through
Marange
Resources,
wrote
to
the
court
confirming
that
the
joint
venture
had
long
been
dissolved
and
that
the
funds
“rightfully
belonged
to
Core
Mining.”
The
Supreme
Court’s
dismissal
of
Kurotwi’s
appeal
this
week
effectively
closes
the
case,
affirming
that
the
recovered
US$3.6
million
belongs
to
Core
Mining,
whose
interests
were
represented
by
Advocate
Thabani
Mpofu
instructed
by
Lincoln
Majogo
of
Mtetwa
&
Nyambirai
Legal
Practitioners.
Edley
Mubaiwa
and
Samuel
Banda
appeared
for
Kurotwi
and
Canadile
Miners.
The
Canadile
Miners
joint
venture
was
formed
in
2009
between
Core
Mining,
a
South
African
investment
vehicle,
and
Marange
Resources,
a
subsidiary
of
ZMDC,
to
mine
diamonds
in
Chiadzwa.
The
venture
collapsed
spectacularly
in
late
2010
after
the
government
accused
Core
Mining’s
directors,
including
Kurotwi,
of
misrepresenting
their
financial
capacity
to
secure
the
licence.
Kurotwi
was
arrested
and
later
charged
with
fraud,
but
after
a
long
trial
was
acquitted
in
2017.
Since
then,
Core
Mining
has
been
under
liquidation
in
South
Africa,
while
Kurotwi
has
fought
numerous
legal
battles
to
regain
control
of
assets
once
tied
to
the
failed
diamond
project.
HARARE
–
Budget
airline
Fastjet
Zimbabwe
has
issued
a
public
apology
to
its
customers
after
a
spate
of
recent
flight
delays
and
cancellations
disrupted
travel
schedules,
admitting
that
its
usually
strong
on-time
record
had
slipped.
In
an
open
letter
to
passengers
and
business
partners
on
Thursday,
the
airline
said
its
on-time
performance
—
long
considered
one
of
the
best
in
the
region
—
had
fallen
short
of
expectations
in
recent
weeks.
“We
have
delayed
you
and,
in
some
cases,
amalgamated
flights,
resulting
in
disappointing
you,
our
valued
customers.
For
this,
we
are
sorry,”
said
Fastjet
spokesperson
Nunurai
Ndawana.
The
airline,
which
this
week
marked
its
10th
anniversary
since
launching
operations
on
October
28,
2015,
said
it
was
taking
corrective
measures
to
restore
reliability.
“Several
issues
within
and
beyond
our
control
have
caused
these
disruptions.
Our
teams
are
working
on
corrective
and
remedial
actions
to
address
these
challenges,”
the
company
said.
Fastjet
pledged
to
“regain
customers’
trust”
and
return
to
the
service
standards
that
helped
it
earn
a
reputation
for
punctuality.
The
carrier
operates
domestic
and
regional
routes
from
Harare,
Bulawayo
and
Victoria
Falls,
and
is
celebrating
a
decade
in
Zimbabwe’s
skies
this
week.
Traditional
in-house
IP
functions
often
rely
on
ingrained,
inertia-driven
systems
and
legacy
processes.
Inventors
hit
frequent
bottlenecks,
stifling
innovation
and
frustrating
organizational
goals.
Internal
customers
and
other
stakeholders
see
legal
as
gatekeepers
rather
than
collaborators.
This
white
paper
challenges
that
status
quo,
offering
a
framework
to
rethink
how
IP
teams
engage
with
the
business
by
aligning
around
customer
centricity.
We
outline
a
modern
approach
to
IP
function,
putting
people,
processes,
and
technology
at
the
center
of
a
modern,
innovation-ready
system.
This
paper
invites
you
to
reimagine
disclosure
workflows,
enhance
business
fluency,
and
adopt
tech
solutions
that
serve
the
entire
organization,
not
just
legal.
✔️Customer-Centric
IP
Starts
With
People A
high-performing
IP
team
prioritizes
cross-functional
relationships
and
alignment
with
business
goals
to
build
trust
and
engagement
into
every
interaction.
✔️Rethink
Processes
with
Stakeholders
in
Mind Friction-filled
invention
disclosures
and
ad
hoc
workflows
slow
innovation
and
create
bottlenecks.
Process
mapping
can
reveal
where
inventors
drop
off–and
how
to
bring
them
back.
✔️Tech
Should
Serve
Everyone,
Not
Just
Legal From
dynamic
disclosure
tools
to
real-time
dashboards,
the
right
tech
improves
visibility,
synergy,
and
stakeholder
engagement.
If
you
weren’t
already
super
psyched
for
the
Big
Beautiful
Bill
borrowing
caps
making
law
school
unaffordable
for
many,
get
ready
to
learn
that
most
lawyerly
public
service
is
no
longer
getting
loan
forgiveness.
Because
public
service
itself
is
going
to
“illegal.”
The
Trump
administration’s
ongoing
war
on
the
legal
profession
continues
with
the
Department
of
Education
releasing
its
finalized
Public
Service
Loan
Forgiveness
rule
—
a
process
kicked
off
in
March
when
Trump
issued
his
Restoring
Public
Service
Loan
Forgiveness
Executive
Order
— and
while
its
impact
will
be
felt
across
education,
the
new
rule
is
especially
brutal
for
law
school
graduates,
with
the
DOE
cutting
off
forgiveness
to
those
causes
it
deems
to
be
supporting
“illegal
activity.”
And,
if
you
hadn’t
already
guessed
what
it
means
to
support
“illegal”
activity
in
this
regime,
they
mean
jobs
like
“representing
immigrants”
and
“advocating
for
transgender
rights.”
“Taxpayer
funds
should
never
directly
or
indirectly
subsidize
illegal
activity,”
Under
Secretary
of
Education
Nicholas
Kent
said,
a
reasonable
premise
if
directed
at
graduates
aspiring
to
become
a
mob
consigliere.
As
it
happens,
that’s
not
the
sort
of
“illegal
activity”
Kent’s
talking
about.
“The
Public
Service
Loan
Forgiveness
program
was
meant
to
support
Americans
who
dedicate
their
careers
to
public
service
–
not
to
subsidize
organizations
that
violate
the
law,
whether
by
harboring
illegal
immigrants
or
performing
prohibited
medical
procedures
that
attempt
to
transition
children
away
from
their
biological
sex.”
By
this,
he
means
representing
people
in
immigration
proceedings.
His
remark
about
transgender
care
is
directed
at
medical
school
grads,
but
the
language
of
the
final
rule
would
cover
any
organization
that
provides
legal
aid
to
trans
folks.
The
final
rule
knocked
down
objections
that
giving
the
Education
Secretary
unilateral
authority
to
decide
if
a
public
service
is
“illegal”
would
be
unconstitutionally
vague.
By
the
DOE’s
account,
the
definition
is
clear.
Behold…
the
definition:
(i)
aiding
or
abetting
violations
of
8
U.S.C.
1325
or
other
Federal
immigration
laws; (ii)
Supporting
terrorism,
including
by
facilitating
funding
to,
or
the
operations
of,
cartels
designated
as
Foreign
Terrorist
Organizations
consistent
with
8
U.S.C.
1189,
or
by
engaging
in
violence
for
the
purpose
of
obstructing
or
influencing
Federal
Government
policy; (iii)
Engaging
in
the
chemical
and
surgical
castration
or
mutilation
of
children
in
violation
of
Federal
or
State
law; (iv)
Engaging
in
the
trafficking
of
children
to
another
State
for
purposes
of
emancipation
from
their
lawful
parents
in
violation
of
Federal
or
State
law; (v)
Engaging
in
a
pattern
of
aiding
and
abetting
illegal
discrimination;
or (vi)
Engaging
in
a
pattern
of
violating
State
laws
as
defined
in
paragraph
(b)(34)
of
this
section.
There’s
no
such
thing
as
a
public
service
coyote
operation,
so
that
first
prong
is
being
read
—
fairly
—
as
an
exclusion
aimed
at
organizations
providing
services
to
migrants
—
which
would
appear
to
include
representing
migrants.
Advocating
for
asylum
is
certainly
going
to
be
tagged
as
“aiding
and
abetting.”
Working
for
al
Qaeda
was
never
eligible
public
service
work,
but
the
new
rule
is
designed
to
expand
the
exclusion
to
groups
that
the
administration
decides
to
call
terrorists
or
cartel
members.
Since
this
administration
plans
to
designate
“Antifa”
as
a
terror
organization
and
can’t
figure
out
who
actually
belongs
to
a
cartel,
this
—
along
with
section
(vi),
which
lists
charges
often
(fairly
and
unfairly)
tacked
onto
protests
—
is
primed
as
a
catch-all
to
exclude
any
groups
that
represent
people
taking
direct
action.
The
“illegal
discrimination”
language,
as
we’ve
seen
with
the
administration’s
assault
on
universities,
is
meant
as
a
cudgel
for
any
group
with
a
diversity
plan
—
that’s
going
to
knock
out
pretty
much
any
public
service
organization
that
isn’t
already
covered
by
the
rest
of
the
definition.
As
one
would
expect,
the
Department
responds
with
feigned
shock
and
disbelief
to
the
idea
that
this
rule
is
a
rubber
band
designed
to
entangle
any
group
the
administration
considers
woke.
Advocates
for
student-loan
borrowers
criticized
the
final
rule
and
plan
to
take
legal
action.
In
a
joint
statement,
advocacy
groups
Democracy
Forward
and
Protect
Borrowers
said
the
rule
“is
a
direct
and
unlawful
attack
on
nurses,
teachers,
first
responders,
and
public
service
workers
across
the
country.”
The
worst
part
of
this
rotten
rule
is
that
it’s
designed
to
punish
those
who
are
already
underwater.
Lawyers
who
already
made
choices,
took
jobs,
or
even
moved
cities,
are
now
going
to
get
their
forgiveness
cut
off
because
representing
the
accused
now
counts
as
aiding
and
abetting
illegal
activity.
Because
kneecapping
the
institutions
protecting
the
powerless
is
a
key
pillar
of
the
administration’s
philosophy.
Undermining
the
rule
of
law
is
a
lot
easier
when
no
one’s
left
to
defend
it.
Ed.
Note:
A
weekly
roundup
of
just
a
few
items
from
Howard
Bashman’s
How
Appealing
blog,
the
Web’s
first
blog
devoted
to
appellate
litigation.
Check
out
these
stories
and
more
at
How
Appealing.
“All
It
Took
for
Trump
to
Dismantle
the
Justice
Dept.” Carol
Leonnig
has this
guest
essay online
at
The
New
York
Times.
“Second
Circuit
finds
Snapchat
parodies
of
George
Floyd
murder
fall
outside
school
purview;
The
New
York-based
appeals
court
reversed
the
dismissal
of
a
Sullivan
County
student’s
$1
million
defamation
suit
against
the
high
school
that
suspended
him
over
social
media
posts
that
caused
a
stir
locally
in
2021”: Josh
Russell
of
Courthouse
News
Service
has this
report on a
decision that
the U.S.
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
Second
Circuit issued
today.
“Cox
names
Outside
attorney
to
serve
as
Alaska’s
solicitor
general”: Iris
Samuels
of
The
Anchorage
Daily
News
has this
report.
“Texas
judges
can
now
refuse
to
officiate
gay
weddings
on
religious
grounds;
The
Texas
Supreme
Court
quietly
made
a
tweak
to
the
state
rules
on
judicial
conduct
that
could
make
it
harder
for
gay
couples
to
marry”: Gwen
Howerton
of
Chron
has this
report.
“Prediction
Markets
See
a
Close
Call
on
Trump
Tariff
Case
at
Supreme
Court;
Trump’s
tariffs
are
heading
for
a
Supreme
Court
showdown
and
bettors
see
a
close
call”: Laura
Curtis
of
Bloomberg
News
has this
report.
“This
Supreme
Court
decision
could
basically
guarantee
higher
inflation;
When
politicians
meddle
in
monetary
policy,
inflation
inevitably
follows”: John
W.
Snow
and
Christopher
Smith
have this
essay online
at
The
Washington
Post.
Ed.
Note:
A
weekly
roundup
of
just
a
few
items
from
Howard
Bashman’s
How
Appealing
blog,
the
Web’s
first
blog
devoted
to
appellate
litigation.
Check
out
these
stories
and
more
at
How
Appealing.
Getting
disqualified
as
US
Attorney
for
the
Eastern
District
of
Virginia
is
the
best
thing
that
could
happen
to
Lindsey
Halligan.
The
Florida
insurance
lawyer
currently
LARP-ing
as
a
federal
prosecutor
was
installed
on
a
statutory
basis
that’s
been
rejected
by
three
courts
already.
A
fourth
court
is
now
considering
motions
to
boot
her
filed
by
former
FBI
director
Jim
Comey
and
New
York
Attorney
General
Letitia
James.
No
other
lawyer
at
EDVA
would
touch
the
Comey
and
James
cases,
Halligan
presented
them
herself
to
the
grand
jury,
and
her
name
is
the
only
one
on
the
indictments.
So
if
she’s
out,
then
those
prosecutions
are
likely
DOA.
That
would
be
a
kindness,
if
only
because
it
would
spare
Halligan
the
ignominy
of
watching
the
humiliating
implosion
of
both
high-profile
cases.
Three
motions
filed
yesterday
by
Comey’s
legal
team
illustrate
the
fatal
flaw
in
the
prosecution.
The
barebones
indictment
—
just
a
page
and
a
half
stating
in
conclusory
fashion
that
Comey
lied
to
Congress
back
in
2020
—
is
so
vague
that
it
could
apply
to
two
alternate
theories
of
the
case.
Was
Halligan
saying
that
Comey
lied
about
authorizing
his
former
deputy
Andrew
McCabe
to
speak
to
the
Wall
Street
Journal?
Or
was
she
suggesting
that
he
lied
about
dispatching
his
friend
and
lawyer
Daniel
Richman,
to
speak
to
the
New
York
Times?
Comey’s
lawyer
Pat
Fitzgerald
said
that
he
himself
only
learned
that
“PERSON
3”
was
Richman
the
day
before
the
arraignment.
Neither
theory
of
the
case
makes
much
sense,
but
the
Richman
plot
seems
almost
comically
ridiculous,
since
the
testimony
in
question
very
clearly
pertained
to
McCabe
only.
The
first
motion
requests
a
bill
of
particulars
laying
out
specifically
how
Halligan
thinks
this
crime
went
down.
When
and
how
did
this
authorization
take
place?
What
did
Comey
order
Richman
to
leak?
What
was
the
Senate
inquiry
he
“corruptly”
influenced?
Which
statement
in
Comey’s
testimony
was
false?
Inquiring
minds
—
and
Jim
Comey
—
want
to
know!
The
second
motion
requests
the
disclosure
of
the
grand
jury
transcripts
for
all
the
reasons:
Halligan
was
installed
as
US
Attorney
after
the
president
pushed
out
her
predecessor,
a
career
prosecutor,
for
refusing
to
indict
Comey
and
James.
Four
days
later,
in
her
very
first
appearance
before
a
grand
jury,
she
secured
the
instant
indictment
—
after
first
getting
no-billed,
and
then
holding
the
jurors
over
until
almost
7
p.m.
No
line
attorneys
were
willing
to
put
their
names
on
the
indictment,
and
the
only
lawyers
willing
to
associate
themselves
with
the
prosecution
had
to
be
imported
from
North
Carolina.
The
theory
of
the
case
is
so
vague
that
it
suggests
an
inexperienced
prosecutor
(who
may
or
may
not
have
been
illegally
appointed)
might
have
fudged
the
details.
And,
on
top
of
all
that,
Comey
says
that
an
FBI
investigator
who
testified
before
the
grand
jury
was
likely
tainted
by
exposure
to
privileged
materials.
Whoopsie
doodle!
The
third
filing
was
a
Bronston
motion
to
dismiss
based
on
the
literal
truth
of
Comey’s
answers
to
Ted
Cruz’s
ambiguous
questions.
During
the
exchange,
the
senator
fired
off
a
series
of
accusations,
characterizing
prior
statements
by
Comey
and
McCabe
as
diametrically
opposed,
and
scarcely
providing
room
for
Comey
to
reply.
CRUZ:
Now,
as
you
know,
Mr.
McCabe,
who
works
for
you,
has
publicly and repeatedly
stated
that
he
leaked
information
to
the
Wall
Street
Journal and that
you
were
directly
aware
of
it and that
you
directly authorized it.
Now,
what
Mr.
McCabe
is
saying and what
you
testified
to
this
committee
cannot
both
be
true.
One
or
the
other
is
false.
Who’s
telling
the
truth?
COMEY:
I
can
only
speak
to
my
testimony.
I
stand
by
the
testimony
you
summarized
that
I
gave
in
May
of
2017.
CRUZ:
So
your
testimony
is
you’ve
never authorized anyone
to
leak? And Mr.
McCabe,
if
he
says
contrary,
is
not
telling
the
truth,
is
that
correct?
COMEY:
Again,
I’m
not
going
to
characterize Andy’s
testimony,
but
mine
is
the
same
today.
As
the
motion
points
out,
this
hectoring
was
not
a
careful
deposition
designed
to
elicit
clear
responses,
but
rather
an
exercise
of
political
rhetoric.
And
saying
“I
stand
by
my
testimony”
is
basically
a
non-response
to
an
inchoate
shouting.
It
is
literally
true,
and
the
lack
of
context
in
the
indictment,
which
claims
that
he
“falsely
stat[ed]
to
a
U.S.
Senator
during
a
Senate
Judiciary
Committee
hearing
that
he,
JAMES
B.
COMEY
JR.,
had
not
‘authorized
someone
else
at
the
FBI
to
be
an
anonymous
source
in
news
reports’
regarding
an
FBI
investigation,”
strongly
suggests
that
Halligan
painted
an
incomplete
picture
for
the
jurors.
If
Comey
does
manage
to
get
his
hands
on
those
grand
jury
transcripts,
he’ll
obviously
be
supplementing
the
Bronston
motion.
But
it
likely
won’t
come
to
that,
thanks
to
Judge
Cameron
McGowan
Currie,
the
senior
judge
from
South
Carolina
designated
to
hear
the
disqualification
motion.
If
she
agrees
with
courts
in
New
Jersey,
Nevada,
and
California
that
28
USC
§
546
permits
the
president
one,
and
only
one,
120-day
interim
appointment,
then
Halligan’s
installation
was
ultra
vires
and
prosecutions
she
alone
secured
are
likely
a
nullity.
Judge
Currie
has
also
ordered
Halligan
to
turn
over
“all
documents
relating
to
the
indictment
signer’s
participation
in
the
grand
jury
proceedings,
along
with
complete
grand
jury
transcripts”
so
that
she
may
“determine
the
extent
of
the
indictment
signer’s
involvement
in
the
grand
jury
proceedings.”
It
should
make
for
fascinating
reading.
Many
practicing
lawyers
know
all
too
well
that
courts
are
often
overburdened
with
busy
dockets
and
insufficient
resources
to
handle
all
of
the
tasks
associated
with
judicial
matters. This
can
lead
to
mistakes
since
courts
often
need
to
decide
upon
numerous
motions,
applications,
and
other
types
of
requests
at
a
single
time,
and
court
administrators
often
hold
judges
to
difficult
standards
about
resolving
matters
in
a
timely
fashion. In
order
to
streamline
the
judicial
process
and
save
resources,
more
courts
should
require
litigants
to
submit
proposed
orders
when
they
file
motions.
Judges
make
all
kinds
of
mistakes
when
it
comes
to
deciding
motions. Sometimes,
judges
fail
to
grant
the
precise
relief
requested
in
a
motion,
presumably
since
they
did
not
closely
read
the
papers
and
did
not
include
language
necessary
to
resolve
a
given
issue. At
other
times,
judges
might
draft
an
order
that
contains
ambiguities
which
require
follow-up
action
by
litigants
and
court
staff. In
other
recent
examples,
judges
might
use
artificial
intelligence
to
draft
opinions
that
might
contain
fabricated
authorities. These
types
of
errors
may
be
reduced
if
judges
commonly
receive
proposed
orders
from
litigants.
One
of
the
jurisdictions
in
which
I
practice
requires
litigants
to
file
a
proposed
order
whenever
they
file
a
motion. The
proposed
order
must
be
uploaded
in
a
Word
format
so
that
judges
can
make
edits
to
the
document
before
it
is
signed
and
entered. When
a
litigant
uploads
a
proposed
order,
it
includes
the
exact
relief
that
is
requested
and
any
follow-up
deadlines
or
other
ancillary
matters
that
are
attendant
to
the
relief
a
litigant
is
seeking. In
addition,
a
proposed
order
includes
all
of
the
rote
language
that
needs
to
be
included
in
a
given
order.
In
most
instances,
when
a
litigant
wins
a
motion,
the
court
does
not
act
as
a
“rubber
stamp”
since
judges
routinely
make
changes
to
proposed
orders
before
entering
them. Courts
often
make
changes
to
the
orders
to
reflect
some
of
the
reasoning
that
was
presented
by
the
party
opposing
the
motion
or
to
limit
the
extent
of
the
relief
sought
by
a
party
in
a
proposed
order. In
some
instances,
the
court
includes
some
of
its
own
reasoning
within
the
language
of
the
order
provided
by
the
movant.
Obviously,
proposed
orders
are
more
useful
for
some
types
of
cases
rather
than
others. For
instance,
a
proposed
order
might
be
less
useful
when
deciding
a
dispositive
motion
since
the
court
often
needs
to
provide
its
reasoning
when
coming
to
a
position,
and
the
outcome
might
be
more
nuanced
than
the
resolution
contained
in
a
proposed
order. Moreover,
sometimes
a
court
wishes
to
decide
a
matter
in
a
nonbinary
manner
that
does
not
in
any
way
resemble
the
outcome
envisaged
by
a
proposed
matter.
However,
the
vast
majority
of
motions
are
routine
and
usually
have
an
expected
outcome. For
instance,
motions
to
amend
a
pleading
are
often
granted,
so
it
might
make
sense
for
a
court
to
simply
sign
a
proposed
order
that
includes
deadlines
associated
with
the
proposed
amendment. Moreover,
motions
to
compel
discovery
are
also
frequently
granted
and
can
be
decided
by
a
simple
order
that
includes
a
discovery
schedule. In
such
instances,
courts
could
save
considerable
resources
by
having
parties
upload
proposed
orders
that
include
the
expected
language
litigants
seek.
Of
course,
courts
often
need
to
change
proposed
orders,
and
view
them
skeptically
since
a
party
will
always
try
to
include
language
that
is
most
favorable
to
that
party’s
position
in
a
case. However,
in
many
instances,
proposed
orders
can
be
helpful
to
courts
and
can
potentially
save
courts
judicial
resources
that
can
be
spent
on
other
tasks.
Jordan
Rothman
is
a
partner
of The
Rothman
Law
Firm,
a
full-service
New
York
and
New
Jersey
law
firm.
He
is
also
the
founder
of Student
Debt
Diaries,
a
website
discussing
how
he
paid
off
his
student
loans.
You
can
reach
Jordan
through
email
at jordan@rothman.law.
When
legal
headlines
talk
about
AI,
it’s
usually
all
hype
or
all
fear.
Either
we’re
replacing
lawyers
with
robots
or
bracing
for
doomsday.
But
back
on
Earth,
where
work
still
has
to
get
done,
AI
is
a
business
decision,
not
an
existential
dilemma.
An
important
decision
that
legal
departments,
especially
lean
ones,
need
to
make
with
clarity,
not
chaos.
Enter
the
Hanna
Center:
a
nonprofit
that
treated
AI
not
as
a
headline
but
as
a
workflow
challenge.
With
process
optimization
as
their
goal,
they
went
beyond
simply
testing
a
new
tool
and
built
a
repeatable,
resilient
system
that
made
their
limited
resources
go
further.
In
2025,
that
approach
evolved
into
a
full-scale
rollout
of
ChatGPT
Enterprise
accounts
for
50
staff
across
departments,
a
practical
experiment
in
how
AI
can
add
measurable
value
to
mission-driven
work.
Their
story
shows
how
structured
operational
thinking
can
turn
experimentation
into
meaningful,
measurable
progress.
Start
with
the
Why
Our
engagement
with
the
Hanna
Center
began
with
a
straightforward
challenge:
too
much
manual
work
for
a
small
team,
the
kind
that
drains
hours
and
focus
from
higher-impact
priorities.
Rather
than
chasing
the
next
shiny
tool,
we
zeroed
in
on
what
mattered
most:
value.
Together,
we
mapped
where
time
was
being
lost,
what
tasks
could
be
safely
offloaded,
and
how
to
safeguard
both
their
people
and
their
mission.
That
shift
in
focus
changed
everything.
By
grounding
the
project
in
a
real
operational
problem
instead
of
an
abstract
idea
of
“innovation,”
we
created
the
space
to
measure
outcomes
that
actually
mattered.
Hanna’s
goal
wasn’t
a
headline;
it
was
lasting
efficiency.
That
efficiency
began
with
a
workflow
audit
that
identified
nine
clear
use
cases,
each
ranked
by
complexity
to
create
a
roadmap
for
phased
adoption.
The
early
pilots
targeted
the
simplest
but
highest-friction
tasks.
As
these
proved
successful,
more
complex
efforts
followed,
and
the
program
was
rolled
out
more
broadly
across
the
organization.
When
ChatGPT
was
launched
to
all
50
staff
members,
we
worked
with
them
to
structure
the
rollout
for
measurable
impact.
It
was
a
mixed-methods
evaluation
that
included
surveying
27
users
and
conducting
seven
focus
groups.
The
results
showed
that
staff
saved
an
average
of
4.13
hours
per
week,
totaling
roughly
$22,767
in
monthly
value
across
departments.
Beyond
time
savings,
teams
reported
greater
autonomy,
faster
report
turnaround,
and
reduced
reliance
on
outside
consultants.
The
project
also
sparked
creative
thinking
and
enthusiasm,
generating
over
50
ideas
for
future
AI
use
cases.
That
same
value-first
approach
defines
our
every
engagement.
Whether
we’re
partnering
with
a
large
enterprise
or
a
small
nonprofit,
our
strategy
starts
with
what
the
team
needs
to
work
better.
Flashy
solutions
come
and
go.
Practical
ones
endure.
Pilot
Small,
Build
Smart
Hanna’s
rollout
built
on
that
same
clarity
of
purpose.
It
started
small
with
a
focused
pilot
to
automate
time-consuming,
overly
manual
tasks
that
were
slowing
the
organization
down.
The
project
was
scoped
intentionally,
with
cross-functional
alignment
from
the
start,
and
treated
like
a
test
kitchen:
structured,
transparent,
and
open
to
feedback.
The
initial
pilots
focused
on
high-value,
low-risk
workflows,
projects
where
AI
could
immediately
reduce
administrative
burden
without
disrupting
sensitive
processes.
Early
examples
included
automating
data
extraction
from
ancillary
services
invoices
and
high
school
transcripts,
simplifying
the
creation
of
program
manuals,
and
using
ChatGPT
to
draft
trauma-informed
care
(TIC)
policy
updates.
These
early
wins
built
staff
confidence
and
freed
up
time
for
deeper
strategic
work.
From
there,
the
team
expanded
into
moderate-complexity
use
cases,
including
building
automated
dashboards,
generating
impact
reports
that
combined
survey
data
and
narrative
insights,
and
drafting
curriculum
content
for
the
Hanna
Institute.
By
ranking
use
cases
by
complexity,
Hanna
avoided
overreach
and
ensured
that
each
new
deployment
was
built
on
proven
success.
Staff
testimonials
from
the
evaluation
captured
the
impact
in
human
terms.
One
grants
team
member
said,
“It
would
have
taken
me
a
good
20
to
30
minutes,
and
I
have
it
in
five,”
and
another
noted
that
reports
that
once
took
“three
to
four
hours
of
focused
time”
could
now
be
completed
“within
an
hour
or
less.”
Across
departments,
staff
described
the
same
pattern:
spending
less
time
on
formatting
and
searching
and
more
time
on
judgment,
planning,
and
collaboration.
Each
iteration
refined
not
just
the
technology
but
the
process
itself.
As
the
pilot
matured,
core
operational
principles
such
as
risk
management,
change
readiness,
and
metrics
kept
it
grounded.
Every
improvement
was
documented,
every
win
validated,
and
every
new
workflow
designed
to
be
repeatable,
not
one-off.
That
discipline
paid
off.
By
the
time
Hanna’s
ChatGPT
Enterprise
program
reached
full
adoption,
it
had
become
a
living
example
of
operations
transformation
in
motion:
start
small,
prove
value,
scale
with
intention.
Turning
Experimentation
into
Impact
By
mid-2025,
Hanna
Center’s
AI
adoption
had
gone
beyond
the
pilot
stage
and
had
become
a
model
for
practical,
mission-driven
transformation.
The
results
spoke
for
themselves:
measurable
time
and
cost
savings,
stronger
internal
capacity,
and
teams
empowered
to
solve
problems
independently.
For
leadership,
the
takeaway
was
clear:
when
you
treat
AI
as
an
operational
enhancement
rather
than
a
disruptive
overhaul,
adoption
sticks.
Staff
comfort
levels
averaged
4.1
out
of
5,
and
81%
of
users
cited
writing
and
editing
as
their
most
frequent
task.
For
every
organization
exploring
AI,
that’s
the
real
lesson:
progress
doesn’t
come
from
chasing
the
newest
tool,
but
from
applying
disciplined
operational
design
to
build
targeted,
simple
process
improvements
that
endure.
A
Thoughtful
Shift
This
takeaway
goes
beyond
technology
itself.
What
matters
most
is
the
mindset
behind
how
teams
choose
to
use
it.
Structured
operational
thinking
is,
at
its
core,
about
alignment:
connecting
how
work
gets
done
to
what
the
organization
is
trying
to
achieve.
Success
shows
up
in
time
saved,
smoother
processes,
and
stronger
trust
between
teams,
not
in
the
number
of
tools
deployed.
No
matter
the
project,
whether
it
is
automating
FAQs,
refining
workflows,
or
improving
coordination
across
departments,
the
same
principles
hold
true:
start
with
value,
test
intentionally,
communicate
openly,
and
design
for
real
use.
When
operations
lead
the
strategy,
AI
becomes
an
amplifier
for
good
work,
not
a
replacement
for
it.
Hanna
Center
showed
how
that
happens.
The
future
of
work
isn’t
defined
by
automation.
It’s
defined
by
how
we
use
technology
to
strengthen
the
organization,
one
deliberate
step
at
a
time.
Brandi
Pack has
a
diverse
background
that
spans
the
legal,
hospitality,
education,
and
technology
industries.
Over
the
course
of
her
career,
she
has
excelled
in
various
strategic
business
operations
roles
at
Hewlett
Packard
Company,
Constellation
Brands,
and
Goodwill
Industries.
Brandi
has
a
successful
track
record
in
project
management,
training,
business
development,
legal
operations,
and
IT
services.
She
is
a
thought
leader
in
the
emerging
space
of
AI
in
the
workplace,
particularly
as
it
impacts
the
legal
landscape.
I
hate
to
say
it,
but
it’s
true:
Marketing
professionals
love
to
give
“one-size-fits-all”
advice.
We
spend
so
much
of
our
time
urging
the
“best
practices”
that
really
do
work
for
the
vast
majority
of
situations
(and
many
of
which
clients
in
other
industries
find
easy
to
forget)
that
we
sometimes
find
it
challenging
to
take
a
step
back
and
assess
the
specific
needs
of
businesses
that
may
have
concerns
that
do
not
apply
to
other
business
types.
We
can
particularly
run
into
this
problem
when
we
are
addressing
the
very
precise
needs
of
law
firms
when
it
comes
to
email
marketing.
Email
sequences
can
be
a
crucial
component
of
any
digital
marketing
strategy,
but
the
special
nature
of
an
attorney’s
obligations
toward
even
prospective
clients,
as
well
as
the
obviously
area-specific
expectations
associated
with
particular
types
of
law,
need
to
play
a
leading
role
in
ensuring
that
the
sequences
work
as
intended.
Friendly
Reminders:
The
Function
of
Email
Sequences
in
Law
Firm
Marketing
Sales
professionals
will
tell
you
that
following
up
with
past
or
prospective
clients
via
email
is
a
reliably
effective,
low-cost
strategy
for
staying
“top
of
mind,”
collecting
positive
reviews,
and
generating
ongoing
interest.
One
of
the
major
advantages
of
email
marketing
strategies
is
that
they
allow
you
to
increase
name
recognition
(i.e.,
brand
awareness)
by
giving
you
opportunities
to
appear
in
front
of
likely
customers
(or
clients)
even
at
times
when
they
may
not
be
actively
looking
for
the
type
of
services
your
firm
offers.
Just
as
SEO
helps
law
firms
to
appear
in
front
of
prospective
clients
when
they
are
already
looking
for
legal
information
or
legal
services,
email
marketing
helps
to
“close
the
gaps”
in
coverage
by
creating
the
background
awareness
that
puts
your
firm
in
position
to
be
the
first
one
individuals
think
of
when
they
decide
it
is
time
to
hire
an
attorney.
In
addition,
usually
the
reason
your
law
firm
has
email
addresses
will
be
because
their
owners
have
provided
them,
which
serves
as
a
strong
indication
that
the
individuals
in
this
list
of
contacts
already
have
some
interest
in
the
type
of
legal
services
your
firm
offers.
The
Name
Recognition
Value
of
Email
Sequences
Exact
numbers
vary
from
study
to
study,
but
research
in
marketing
psychology
has
overwhelmingly
shown
that
most
people
need
to
encounter
a
brand
multiple
times
before
they
will
recognize
the
name
or
logo
when
prompted.
They
need
to
be
presented
with
the
same
information
even
more
times
before
they
will
remember
the
brand
without
prompting.
This
essential
truth
about
human
memory
is
why,
in
every
election
cycle,
you
will
probably
see
political
signage
strung
along
the
roadways
displaying
no
information
beyond
the
candidate’s
name:
The
signs
don’t
tell
travelers
anything
about
a
candidate’s
policy
positions,
and
in
many
cases
they
may
not
even
identify
the
party
on
whose
ticket
the
candidate
is
running,
or
the
office
they
hope
to
fill.
The
campaign
managers
are
not
worried
about
the
absence
of
these
details,
because
interested
people
can
easily
find
that
information
elsewhere;
the
purpose
of
the
signs
is
simply
to
make
sure
voters
feel
a
sense
of
recognition
when
they
step
into
the
voting
booth
and
see
the
candidate’s
name.
The
repeated
inbox
appearances
created
by
an
email
sequence
operate
on
the
same
basic
principle.
Tailored
Messaging
Opportunities
Luckily
for
law
firm
marketing,
the
space
constraints
of
emails
are
much
more
forgiving
than
those
of
highway
signage
for
a
political
campaign.
The
fact
that
emails
can
contain
a
great
deal
of
information
with
no
increase
in
costs
makes
them
an
especially
attractive
vehicle
for
client
outreach.
Beyond
the
name
recognition
benefits
of
showing
up
in
a
potential
client’s
inbox
on
a
recurring
basis,
a
well-structured
email
sequence
can
help
to
build
trust
and
foster
client
relationships.
Of
course,
all
email
sequences
are
not
created
equal!
Tailoring
your
strategies
to
your
target
audience
and
your
area
of
practice
is
crucial
to
maximizing
the
potential
of
an
email
sequence.
Tailoring
Strategy:
Consider
the
Lead
Source
The
“lead
source”
for
any
email
address
is
just
the
mechanism
by
which
your
law
firm
obtained
that
information.
Common
options
are
contact
forms
posted
to
your
law
firm’s
website
or
social
media
accounts
(ideally
these
should
be
separate
contact
forms,
with
distinctive
URLs;
to
track
lead
generation
effectively,
you
want
to
avoid
linking
social
media
posts
to
the
contact
form
posted
directly
on
your
public-facing
website)
and
the
referrals
some
law
firms
are
set
up
to
receive
through
third-party
websites
like
Avvo
or
FindLaw.
Using
the
Technology:
Leveraging
CRMs
for
Audience
Segmentation
Many
CRM
(customer
relationship
management)
systems
record
lead
source
automatically
as
part
of
the
intake
workflow,
so
you
may
be
already
tracking
this
information,
even
if
you
are
not
actively
using
it
on
a
regular
basis.
If
not,
make
it
a
priority
to
set
up
a
standardized
method
for
ensuring
that
your
team
always
notes
where
each
new
lead/customer
contact
comes
from
as
the
information
is
entered
into
whichever
system
your
law
firm
uses
for
managing
contacts
(if
you
can
automate
this
part
of
the
process,
so
much
the
better!).
Segmentation
for
Customization
Many
people
intuitively
recognize
that
lead
source
is
valuable
information
for
evaluating
where
your
queries
are
coming
from
and
which
platforms
are
giving
you
the
highest
conversion
rates.
Less
obviously,
lead
generation
tracking
is
also
very
useful
for
helping
you
to
effectively
“segment”
audiences
(in
this
case,
lists
of
email
recipients)
so
that
you
can
send
email
sequences
that
are
customized
based
on
the
path
the
prospective
client
followed
to
provide
you
with
their
contact
information.
“Segmentation”
is
a
term
you
will
see
used
frequently
in
relation
to
mass
emails,
but
for
customizing
email
sequences
based
on
lead
source
what
you
will
want
to
do
is
set
up
an
audience
“segment”
for
each
lead
source.
You
could
stop
there,
and
set
up
an
automation
that
triggers
a
specific
email
sequence
for
each
new
contact
based
on
the
segment
to
which
the
contact
belongs;
ideally,
however,
you
will
want
to
further
differentiate
within
segments,
whenever
your
lead
generation
model
relays
information
about
the
contact’s
areas
of
interest.
Factors
To
Consider
in
Tailoring
Email
Sequences
by
Lead
Source
As
you
think
about
the
role
of
lead
source
in
conditioning
the
structure
of
your
email
sequence,
there
are
a
few
factors
you
can
consider
to
help
shape
your
decisions.
Any
email
sequence
will
also
need
to
be
structured
with
your
law
firm’s
specific
practice
area(s)
in
mind,
but
using
lead
source
as
a
tool
for
tailoring
the
most
appropriate
messaging
for
a
specific
contact
can
significantly
enhance
your
ability
to
connect
with
potential
clients.
Past
Clients:
Email
Sequences
to
Solicit
Feedback
and
Reviews
Past
clients
may
be
a
great
target
for
generating
future
business
in
some
cases.
Depending
on
the
type
of
law
you
practice,
however,
getting
repeat
business
from
former
clients
may
not
be
realistic;
business
clients
may
need
help
with
contracts
several
times
per
year,
but
if
you
are
managing
a
personal
injury
firm,
you
probably
hope
that
most
of
your
clients
do
not
find
themselves
needing
your
services
on
a
regular
rotation.
With
this
caveat
in
mind,
one
type
of
email
sequence
you
can
count
on
to
be
relevant
to
past
clients
is
a
request
for
feedback
and
a
prompt
to
review.
Consider
scheduling
3-4
emails
in
this
sequence,
with
increasing
periods
of
time
between
emails.
Social
Media:
Email
Sequences
To
Deliver
Value
Contacts
who
provide
their
email
addresses
after
clicking
the
link
in
a
social
media
post
are
often
motivated
by
the
promise
of
additional
“content.”
The
content
will
of
course
depend
on
what
your
law
firm
has
developed
and
offered,
but
many
digital
marketing
agencies
will
recommend
posting
short
videos
and
“carousel”
posts
comprised
of
sequenced
infographics
as
lead
generation
materials,
usually
with
a
CTA
(call
to
action)
inviting
anyone
who
pauses
in
scrolling
to
take
a
closer
look
at
the
post
to
sign
up
for
free
tutorials,
guides,
or
other
resources.
That
format
will
often
mean
that
the
first
message
in
an
email
sequence
directed
at
contacts
from
social
media
needs
to
deliver
the
free
item
promised
in
the
post.
If
your
firm
offers
more
than
one
free
resource
via
social
media,
consider
setting
up
an
automation
that
will
select
the
subsequent
messages
in
an
email
sequence
based
on
the
specific
resource
a
contact
has
requested.
Keep
in
mind
that
contacts
who
provide
their
emails
in
response
to
a
social
media
prompt
tend
to
be
interested
in
informative
and
educational
content;
frequently
they
are
providing
their
contact
information
because
they
are
hoping
for
more
materials
that
are
similar
to
the
post
that
initially
caught
their
interest.
For
law
firms’
marketing
strategy,
this
means
that
email
sequences
directed
at
contacts
from
social
media
lead
generation
can
often
capitalize
on
the
topics
covered
in
the
lead-generating
posts.
Consider
setting
up
automations
at
two,
four,
and
six
weeks
after
initial
contact
inviting
each
recipient
to
view
a
related
post,
schedule
a
discovery
consultation,
and
sign
up
for
a
newsletter
(which
would
keep
the
contact
receiving
regular
emails).
Website
Contact
Form
Emails
addresses
entered
in
the
contact
form(s)
on
your
law
firm
website
indicate
an
especially
high
level
of
interest
(what
marketing
professionals
sometimes
call
“high-intent”
actions).
Often
you
will
be
wanting
to
follow
up
with
these
contacts
right
away;
sometimes
the
information
collected
by
your
contact
form
can
structure
the
form
that
follow-up
takes.
Consider
designing
your
contact
form
with
a
dropdown
menu
that
allows
site
visitors
to
indicate
their
level
of
intent
and
urgency,
for
instance
“just
learning”
vs.
“need
legal
advice.”
You
could
also
add
a
checkbox
inviting
visitors
to
indicate
that
they
would
like
a
callback
within
a
set
time
period
(e.g.,
24-48
hours).
If
you
are
soliciting
any
type
of
written
description
of
their
reason
for
reaching
out,
make
sure
that
you
practice
good
digital
security
in
protecting
that
information
(you
will
likely
also
want
to
set
your
contact
form
up
to
include
disclaimers
and
advise
against
entering
any
identifying
details).
That
said,
information
written
by
site
visitors
themselves
can
sometimes
be
difficult
for
CRM
automations
to
parse
accurately,
but
it
can
also
be
a
rich
source
of
information
for
tailoring
both
initial
follow-up
messages
and
the
email
sequences
that
follow.
Correlate
topical
interest
with
level
of
urgency
to
structure
email
sequences
that
align
with
the
information
site
visitors
have
provided
you;
try
immediate
contact
for
high-urgency
form
submissions,
and
emphasize
building
trust
with
authoritative,
topically
relevant
content
over
a
more
extended
sequence
for
“just
learning”
submissions.
Points
To
Remember
There
is
no
one
“right”
number
of
messages
to
include
in
an
email
sequence,
any
more
than
there
is
a
perfect
frequency
at
which
to
send
them.
The
crucial
thing
for
law
firms
to
remember
is
that
messaging
that
speaks
directly
to
the
concerns
and
interests
a
contact
has
already
expressed
will
always
be
in
a
better
position
to
build
trust
and
cement
reputation
than
a
“cookie-cutter”
message
that
could
apply
to
any
member
of
the
general
public.
Structuring
high-quality
email
sequences
that
deliver
high
conversion
rates
and
set
your
law
firm’s
office
phone
ringing
is
often
going
to
be
less
about
the
number
of
emails
and
the
schedule
on
which
you
send
them,
and
more
about
the
understanding
of
prospective
clients’
concerns
that
each
email
in
a
sequence
conveys.
Pay
attention
to
how
your
contacts
are
reaching
you
and
providing
their
information,
and
demonstrate
your
law
firm’s
value
by
responding
with
emails
that
show
topical
knowledge
and
situational
awareness.
Annette
Choti,
Esq.
is
the
founder
of Law
Quill,
a
legal
digital
marketing
agency
that
helps
growth-minded
law
firms
increase
their
online
visibility
and
convert
more
clients.
She
is
also
the
author
of
“Click
Magnet:
The
Ultimate
Digital
Marketing
Guide
for
Law
Firms”
and
Click
Magnet
Academy.
Annette
used
to
do
professional
comedy,
which
is
not
so
far
from
the
law
if
we
are
all
being
honest.
