It
was
far
from
a
typical
day
at
the
office
for
the
EU
Delegation
to
Zimbabwe.
In
place
of
briefings
and
meetings,
staff
and
family
members
gathered
for
a
hands-on snake
awareness
and
safety
training with
Zimbabwe’s
renowned
snake
expert Chawatama
“Chawa”
Marimo.
Known
affectionately
as Chawa,
Marimo
is
a self-taught
snake
rescuer
and
conservationist who
has
spent
years
safely
relocating
snakes
from
residential
and
commercial
areas
around
Harare.
His
work
bridges
the
vital
gap
between human
safety
and
wildlife
conservation —
a
balance
that
grows
ever
more
important
as
urban
development
increasingly
overlaps
with
natural
habitats.
The
training
brought
participants face-to-face
with
some
of
Zimbabwe’s
most
formidable
reptiles:
pythons,
snouted
cobras,
puff
adders,
brown
house
snakes,
and
even
the
elusive
Gaboon
viper.
Initial
reactions
ranged
from
nervous
excitement
to
cautious
curiosity,
but
Chawa’s
calm
confidence
and
engaging
teaching
style
quickly
turned
fear
into
fascination
—
and
ultimately,
respect.
Among
the
session’s
highlights
were
Chawa’s
insights
on snakebite
first
aid,
where
he
outlined
practical
steps
that
could
make
the
difference
between
life
and
death,
or
between
full
recovery
and
lasting
injury.
Drawing
from
his
own
field
experiences,
he
vividly
explained what
to
do
—
and
what
not
to
do
—
in
the
event
of
a
snakebite,
grounding
each
lesson
in
real-life
stories
of
rescues
and
medical
emergencies.
Equally
eye-opening
was
his
discussion
on anti-venom
accessibility
in
Zimbabwe —
where
it
can
be
found,
how
the
medical
system
responds
to
snakebite
cases,
and
why
acting
swiftly
and
calmly
is
key.
This
practical
knowledge
offered
valuable
perspective
not
just
on
wildlife
safety,
but
on
how
Zimbabwe’s
healthcare
infrastructure
supports
communities
living
close
to
nature.
Perhaps
the
most
memorable
part
of
the
session
came
when
several
brave
colleagues
—
under
Chawa’s
careful
supervision
— handled
snakes
themselves,
while
others
provided
enthusiastic
moral
support
from
a
safe
distance.
Either
way,
everyone
left
with
a
new
appreciation
for Zimbabwe’s
rich
biodiversity and
for
the dedicated
conservationists
working
to
protect
it.
The
Delegation
extends
warm
thanks
to Chawatama
Marimo for
his
time,
expertise,
and
unwavering
commitment
to
both
wildlife
and
community
safety.
Nothing
Says
Happy
New
Year
Like
Attendance
Mandates:
Cooley
is
starting
the
new
year
off
with
stricter
rules!
Former
Biglaw
Partner
Accused
Of
Killing
His
Wife:
He
plead
no
contest
to
abuse
charges.
Keeps
Your
Pants
On,
Officer:
Officer
shows
up
to
Zoom
Court
in
partial
uniform.
Public
Safety
Or
Free
Speech?:
Public
university
goes
to
court
after
booting
a
student
over
an
antisemitic
tweet.
Don’t
Miss
Out
On
ATL’s
16th
Legally
Themed
Halloween
Contest!:
Submit
your
spooky
outfits!
According
to
reporting
by
Roy
Strom,
after
hiring
almost
300
litigators
since
the
beginning
of
last
year,
Kirkland
&
Ellis
is
set
to
rake
in
how
much
money
for
their
litigation
business?
Hint:
“[Litigation]
was
always
a
good
business,
but
it
historically
had
been
lower
margin
than
our
transactional
business,”
Jon
Ballis,
the
firm’s
chairman,
said.
“Now
we’re
seeing
the
same
margins
as
on
the
transactional
side
and
it’s
become
a
great
business.”
Mr
Massa
argues
that,
but
for
the
FIA’s
handling
of
the
crash,
he
would
have
won
the
drivers’
championship. These
declarations
treat
the
court
as
a
sports
‘debating
club’,
asking
it
to
embark
upon
a
counterfactual
exercise
concerning
the
‘refereeing’
of
a
sporting
event
which
took
place
nearly
17
years
ago.
—
David
Quest
KC,
attorney
for
former
F1
head
Bernie
Ecclestone,
in
a
statement
concerning
the
lawsuit
filed
by
former
Ferrari
driver
Felipe
Massa.
Massa
finished
second
in
the
2008
F1
championship,
one
point
behind
McLaren
driver
Lewis
Hamilton.
Massa’s
lawsuit
alleges
F1
failed
to
properly
handle
“Crashgate”
during
the
2008
season,
wherein
rival
constructor
Renault
ordered
their
driver
Nelson
Piquet
Jr.
to
crash
his
car
during
the
Singapore
Grand
Prix
in
order
to
stage
a
win
for
his
teammate
Fernando
Alonso,
thereby
leading
to
a
safety
car,
compromising
his
strategy
and
costing
Massa
the
world
championship.
Quest
continued,
noting,
Massa’s
claim
would
“deprive
Mr
Hamilton
of
his
2008
title”
despite
Hamilton
being
“equally
exposed
to
the
crash.”
Anneliese
Day
KC,
for
Formula
One
Management,
wrote,
“In
truth,
it
was
not
the
deployment
of
the
safety
car
which
changed
the
course
of
history
for
Mr
Massa,
but
rather
a
series
of
subsequent
racing
errors
by
him
and
his
team
during
the
remaining
47
laps
of
the
race.”
John
Mehrzad
KC,
attorney
for
the
FIA,
agreed,
saying
Massa’s
claim
is
as
“torturous
as
it
is
overly
ambitious”
and
“conspicuously
overlooks
a
catalogue
of
his
own
errors.”
Those
“errors”
famously
include
Massa
driving
away
from
a
pit
stop
prematurely
with
the
fuel
hose
still
attaching
and
knocking
down
a
member
of
his
pit
crew.
Ecclestone,
the
FIA
and
Formula
One
Management
are
seeking
dismissal
of
the
lawsuit.
Halloween
is
always
a
terrific
time
for
members
of
the
legal
community
—
especially
law
students
—
who
are
able
to
celebrate
the
holiday’s
festivities
with
costumes
of
note.
As
usual,
we
want
to
see
your
creativity
in
action.
For
the
sixteenth
year
in
a
row,
we
here
at
Above
the
Law
are
soliciting
legally
themed
costumes
for
our
annual
Halloween
contest.
We’re
continually
impressed
with
how
creative
lawyers
and
law
students
can
be
when
they
take
their
noses
out
of
their
books.
Please email
us or
text
us
(646-820-8477)
your
pictures
and
then
we’ll
vote
on
the
winner
of
our
annual
competition.
Please
send
us
your
submissions
as
soon
as
you
can.
We’re
all
looking
forward
to
judging
you!
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.
Like
the
swallows
returning
to
Capistrano,
every
year,
someone
will
predict
the
demise
of
the
billable
hour,
and
every
year
we
all
smugly
dismiss
their
naiveté.
Lawyers
cannot
change!
The
model
is
too
entrenched!
Clients
will
never
go
for
it!
Be
gone
from
us
with
your
silly
“hot
take.”
But
here’s
the
thing…
the
Capistrano
swallow
population
isn’t
as
predictable
anymore.
The
population
has
dwindled
over
the
years
and
the
culprit
is
modern
development
(specifically
new
construction
that
reduced
the
local
insect
population
if
you’re
a
nerd
and
wanted
to
know
why).
Like
those
birds,
law
firms
aren’t
going
to
give
up
their
routine
on
a
whim,
but
must
when
they’re
forced
into
it
by
slamming
headfirst
into
the
full-length
window
of
technology.
Which
is
all
a
round
about
way
of
placing
myself
in
the
oft-mocked
role
of
announcing
the
looming
demise
of
the
billable
hour.
I
take
on
this
task
fully
aware
of
the
historic
recalcitrance,
but
assured
of
one
unassailable
truth:
lawyers
really
like
money.
A
new
white
paper
from
DISCO
surveying
112
legal
professionals
reveals
an
industry
coming
to
grips
with
the
need
to
adopt
generative
AI
—
somehow
—
or
risk
becoming
the
Blockbuster
Video
of
the
Am
Law
rankings.
Some
43
percent
of
the
law
firm
participants
felt
pressure
from
leadership
to
adopt
AI.
For
in-house
legal
departments,
the
number
climbed
to
64
percent.
Of
course,
like
every
other
industry,
legal
still
has
to
consider
exactly
what
this
technology
can
do
other
than
make
them
the
butt
of
Above
the
Law
jokes,
but
lawyers
are,
furtively,
figuring
out
the
right
use
cases.
“People
realize
that
generative
AI
is
here
and
that
you
need
to
adapt
or
die,
so
there
is
no
resistance
from
people
who
want
to
stay
employed;
they
are
adapting,”
concluded
one
respondent
who
has
fully
internalized
the
bleak,
dystopian
hell
of
late
stage
capitalism.
Bringing
us
to
the
billable
hour
problem
waiting
around
the
bend.
The
billable
hour,
the
beautiful,
terrible
engine
powering
Biglaw
since
the
names
behind
the
most
prestigious
law
firms
in
the
world
were
busy
fighting
integration,
isn’t
exactly
designed
for
a
world
where
document
review
takes
minutes
instead
of
weeks.
“There
is
also
a
billing
issue
because
the
premise
that
speed
will
reduce
revenue
remains
a
challenge,”
notes
the
report.
It’s
a
challenge
that
isn’t
going
away
unless
law
firms
radically
change
their
business
model.
How
do
these
law
firms
make
so
much
money?
For
some
it
might
be
crime,
but
let’s
stick
to
the
firms
where
it’s
leverage.
It’s
sitting
atop
a
pyramid
scheme
of
junior
lawyers
billing
out
$550/hour
to
do
300
hours
a
month
on
menial
tasks
in
exchange
for
a
vague
promise
to
consider
their
equity
partnership
bids
down
the
road
and
then
yanking
the
rug
out
and
making
them
permanent
senior
associates.
That
falls
apart
when
a
vendor
provides
an
AI-driven
point
solution
that
handles
that
work.
An
important
semantic
aside:
AI
won’t
replace
young
lawyers,
but
it
will
mean
firms
need
a
lot
fewer
of
them.
Even
in
the
eDiscovery
space
—
one
of
the
areas
where
AI
is
best
suited
to
take
on
a
huge
bundle
of
the
tasks
typically
handled
for
juniors,
the
report
notes,
“While
there
is
increasing
confidence
in
using
GenAI
tools
for
large-scale
legal
reviews,
lawyers
still
see
an
ongoing
need
for
human
verification,
prompt
creation
and
oversight
to
get
the
most
out
of
the
technology
while
being
able
to
responsibly
manage
it.”
Because,
despite
the
messianic
claims
of
the
Silicon
Valley
bros
shoveling
VC
cash
into
a
furnace
to
make
bots
that
hallucinate
1
percent
less,
AI
simply
isn’t
capable
of
replacing
the
broad
range
of
judgment
even
the
lowliest
of
associates
provides.
But
it
can
empower
the
lowliest
of
associates
to
cover
the
work
previously
handled
by
several
associates.
And
when
the
lawyers
at
the
bottom
rack
up
fewer
hours
per
client
and
the
base
of
the
whole
pyramid
contracts,
there
are
only
three
ways
to
get
that
money
back.
Remembering,
again,
that
our
lodestar
remains:
lawyers
really
like
money.
They
can
“get
more
clients
and
do
more
work!”
a
business
strategy
that
reads
less
like
a
global
law
firm
and
more
like
“what
the
underpants
gnomes
taught
me
about
B2B
marketing.”
There
are
segments
in
the
legal
market
—
specifically
the
small
to
mid
market
—
where
efficient
firms
can
replace
revenue
by
serving
presently
unmet
legal
needs.
But
there’s
a
limit
and
at
the
top
of
the
food
chain,
where
clients
already
maximize
their
legal
use
cases,
this
is
a
fanciful
plan.
They
can
charge
a
whole
lot
more
per
hour.
This
is
the
infamous
$10,000/hour
claim
floated
earlier
this
year.
It
could
replace
the
revenue,
but
are
there
any
clients
with
the
appetite
to
report
that
they’re
paying
someone
$10,000/hour?
Bringing
us,
inevitably,
to
rethinking
the
billable
hour.
It’s
one
thing
to
tell
the
market
that
you’re
spending
$10,000/hour
and
quite
another
to
say,
“we
had
been
spending
X
on
annual
M&A
services
and
we’re
still
paying
X
on
annual
M&A
services.”
If
firms
begin
value
pricing
specific
tasks,
they
can
hand
clients
bills
that
unmoored
from
hours
that
keep
the
revenue
constant.
Clients
will
yelp
about
wanting
to
enjoy
the
fruits
of
AI
efficiency,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day
they’ll
suck
up
the
cost
of
legal
services
like
they
always
do.
This
is
the
only
path
for
Biglaw
that
makes
any
sense.
To
revisit
an
earlier
quote
with
a
slightly
less
cynical
spin,
will
firms
realize
that
generative
AI
is
here
and
that
they
need
to
adapt
or
die?
Because
while
on
the
surface
that
quote
spoke
to
lawyers
who
wanted
to
stay
employed
adapting,
it’s
equally
if
not
more
true
for
firms
that
want
to
stay
in
business.
It’s
possible
to
learn
to
coexist
with
modernity,
but
it
takes
adaptation.
Look
at
the
swallows
who
are
now,
finally,
returning
to
Capistrano.
They’ve
found
a
way
to
thrive
even
without
the
same
diet
they
enjoyed
for
decades.
How’s
that
for
a
heavy
handed
metaphor?
Legal
business
management
company
Aderant
today
announced
it
has
acquired
Virtual
Pricing
Director
(VPD),
the
London-based
company
that
created
the
legal
industry’s
first
practice
management-agnostic
pricing
platform.
The
acquisition
brings
together
Aderant’s
financial
and
matter
management
products
with
VPD’s
AI-powered
pricing
tools
and
the
expertise
of
VPD
founder
Richard
Burcher,
who
is
internationally
recognized
as
a
leading
authority
on
law
firm
pricing.
Founded
in
2017
in
the
U.K.,
VPD
specializes
in
providing
cloud-based
software
that
leverages
artificial
intelligence,
structured
logic
and
adaptive
workflows
to
help
law
firms
automate
and
optimize
their
pricing
strategies.
The
platform
uses
AI
to
combine
firm
data
with
established
pricing
principles,
enabling
lawyers
to
scope
engagements,
model
multiple
pricing
scenarios,
and
forecast
profitability.
VPD
works
across
different
practice
management
systems,
making
it
accessible
to
firms
regardless
of
their
existing
technology
infrastructure.
Burcher,
a
former
managing
partner
who
also
founded
the
legal
pricing
consultancy
Validatum,
has
worked
with
leading
law
firms
worldwide
to
develop
client-focused
pricing
models
and
commercial
strategies.
Plans
For
Integration
Richard
Burcher
“Virtual
Pricing
Director
and
Richard
Burcher
have
defined
what
best-in-class
pricing
looks
like
for
the
world’s
top
firms,”
said
Chris
Cartrett,
president
and
CEO
of
Aderant.
“By
bringing
this
thought
leadership
and
innovation
into
Aderant,
we’re
giving
firms
everywhere
the
ability
to
make
smarter,
faster
and
more
transparent
pricing
decisions
that
directly
drive
profitability.”
VPD
will
remain
available
as
a
standalone
platform,
maintaining
its
practice
management-agnostic
approach.
However,
Aderant
plans
to
deepen
integration
with
its
existing
products
over
the
next
year,
connecting
pricing
intelligence
with
time
and
billing,
financial
management,
and
analytics
capabilities.
The
acquisition
comes
as
law
firms
face
mounting
pressure
to
move
beyond
traditional
hourly
billing
models.
Clients
increasingly
expect
fee
transparency,
alternative
fee
arrangements,
and
predictable
value
delivery
—
demands
that
require
sophisticated
pricing
intelligence
and
data
analytics.
By
integrating
VPD’s
AI-driven
modeling
and
profitability
forecasting
with
Aderant’s
comprehensive
practice
management
ecosystem,
the
combined
platform
aims
to
connect
how
legal
work
is
priced,
delivered
and
measured,
Aderant
said.
“For
years,
our
focus
has
been
helping
firms
approach
pricing
as
both
a
science
and
a
client
experience
—
balancing
commercial
intelligence
with
trust
and
transparency,”
Burcher
said.
“With
Aderant’s
scale
and
vision,
we
can
now
embed
those
best
practices,
powered
by
AI,
into
the
everyday
operations
of
law
firms
around
the
world.”
The
companies
did
not
disclose
the
terms
of
the
deal.
On
October
27th,
2024
the
wife
of
former
Duane
Morris
tax
partner
Adam
P.
Beckerink,
Caitlin
Tracey,
was
found
dead
in
the
stairwell
of
Beckerink’s
apartment
building
in
Chicago’s
South
Loop.
Tracey’s
severed
foot
was
found
nearby.
Exactly
one
year
later,
Cook
County
prosecutors
issued
an
arrest
warrant
accusing
Beckerink
of
throwing
Tracey
over
the
stairwell
railing
in
his
apartment
building
where
she
fell
24
floors
to
her
death.
After
Tracey’s
death,
the
allegations
of
abuse
she
made
against
her
husband
became
public.
Duane
Morris
removed
Beckerink
from
the
partnership,
saying,
“This
is
a
shocking
and
tragic
case,
and
we
send
our
deepest
condolences
to
the
family
and
friends
of
Caitlin
Tracey.
Our
firm
was
not
aware
of
the
domestic
violence
and
other
allegations
against
Adam
Beckerink
asserted
in
various
legal
proceedings
until
recent
media
accounts
of
her
death.
Once
we
confirmed
key
facts,
the
partners
board
swiftly
removed
Adam
as
a
partner
of
Duane
Morris
LLP.
He
is
no
longer
associated
with
our
firm.”
This
summer,
Beckerink
pleaded
no
contest
to
charges
he
abused
Tracey,
and
interfered
with
a
call
she
made
to
911.
Additionally,
Beckerink
entered
a
guilty
plea
to
a
contempt
of
court
charge
for
violating
a
no
contact
order.
The
charges
stem
from
a
2024
incident
two
months
before
Tracey
was
found
dead.
Beckerink
is
currently
serving
three
months
in
a
Michigan
jail
on
those
charges.
Tracey’s
family
issued
a
victim
impact
statement
during
sentencing.
“The
defendant
pled
no
contest
to
this
case
so
he
could
avoid
describing
the
brutal
acts
and
crimes
he
inflicted
on
Caitlin,”
Monica
Tracey
said.
“Judge,
please
know
that
our
daughter
never
stood
a
chance
against
this
brute.
She
was
only
4’11”.
She
weighed
103
pounds.”
“Instead
of
meeting
our
daughter
for
dinner,
my
husband
and
I
visit
her
grave,”
Monica
Tracey
continued.
“There
is
no
justice
that
can
heal
our
pain,
no
means
to
bring
her
back,
or
to
take
away
the
physical
and
mental
brutality
this
monster
caused
her.
If
you’re
a
victim
of
familial
or
domestic
violence,
reach
out
if
you
need
help.
If
you
feel
that
you
are
in
immediate
danger,
please
call
the National
Domestic
Violence
Hotline at
1-800-799-SAFE
(7233).
Assistance
is
available
in
English
and
Spanish.
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].
This
administration
has
hit
pretty
hard
against
schools
found
lacking
in
their
fight
against
antisemitism.
Threats
about
losing
accreditation,
snatching
away
billions
in
ear
marked
federal
funding…
dire
consequences
all
around.
Given
the
climate,
universities
—
especially
public
ones
—
are
and
should
be
on
high
alert
to
punish
and
distance
themselves
from
actual
instances
of
antisemitism.
Being
associated
with
a
student
who
boldly
declared
that
“Jews
must
be
abolished
by
any
means”
definitely
wasn’t
a
good
look
for
University
of
Florida.
My
position
on
Jews
is
simple:
whatever
Harvard
professor
Noel
Ignatiev
meant
by
his
call
to
“abolish
the
White
race
by
any
means
necessary”
is
what
I
think
must
be
done
with
Jews.
Jews
must
be
abolished
by
any
means
necessary.
This
student
also
gained
infamy
for
writing
a
White
supremacist
constitutional
law
paper
that
advocated
for,
among
other
things,
shoot
to
kill
orders
at
the
border.
Once
word
of
his
digital
footprint
got
out,
the
university
expelled
Preston
Damsky
from
the
school.
The
expulsion
prompted
Damsky
to
sue
the
school
for
violating
his
right
to
free
speech.
The
Gainsville
Sun
has
coverage:
A
federal
judge
heard
arguments
Oct.
29
in
the
case
of
a
University
of
Florida
law
student
expelled
for
antisemitic
tweets. … [Damsky’s
lawyer]
said
Damsky’s
statements
were
not
literal
or
targeted.
“It
was
basically
trolling,”
he
said.
Damsky
tweeted
that
Jews
should
be
abolished
to
around
25
followers.
It
wasn’t
until
a
UF
law
professor
responded,
asking
if
Damsky
would
murder
her
and
her
family,
that
the
tweet
raised
broad
concerns
among
UF
law
students
and
faculty.
“Your
Honor,
my
client
would
have
been
fine
if
one
of
his
teachers
just
kept
her
mouth
shut.”
Nice
way
to
deflect
the
blame
on
to
a
professor
asking
questions
about
safety!
The
tension
between
“limiting
free
speech
off
campus”
and
the
duty
to
protect
students
and
faculty
from
threats
is
palpable.
It
would
be
an
easier
question
if
Damsky
ended
his
tweet
with
“and
I
will
do
my
part,”
but
the
tweet’s
lack
of
immediacy
makes
it
harder
to
read
as
a
time-sensitive
“true
threat.”
That
said,
the
tone
and
context
can
still
reasonably
be
received
as
threatening
or
at
least
the
intentional
creation
of
a
hostile
environment.
Legal
scholars
have
taken
a
turn
at
navigating
the
conflict
between
protecting
speech
and
protecting
victims
of
discriminatory
acts.
Can
institutions
even
fulfill
their
legal
obligations
to
students
without
punishing
other
students
in
ways
that
suppress
political
speech?
Academic
questions
aside,
one
thing
to
know
about
trolling
is
that
the
trolls
are
going
to
keep
pushing
the
limit
as
far
as
they
can.
The
point
is
to
use
their
freedom
to
make
others
feel
threatened
or
excluded,
and
they’ve
gotten
very
good
at
it
over
the
history
of
the
country.
So
whatever
the
law
concludes,
if
Damsky
wins
this
case,
expect
that
he
and
others
will
take
it
and
be
emboldened
to
go
out
and
make
similar
tweets
in
the
future.
And
maybe
even
test
out
being
a
little
more
aggressive
in
tone.
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.
Kathryn
