Category: News Feeds

By grit and determination, brains, courage, compassion and a fiery commitment to justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg rose from modest beginnings to become one of the most respected, and most beloved, jurists of our time. She inspires women and men of all ages to realize that a democracy thrives to the extent that it provides every citizen equal footing to achieve their dreams. Justice Ginsburg has few peers in advancing the cause of human equality through the law.

— Amy Gutmann, President of the University of Pennsylvania and Berggruen Prize Juror, in remarks given following the announcement of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as the winner of the 2019 Berggruen Prize for Philosophy & Culture. Ginsburg was chosen from a pool of more than 500 nominees, and the $1 million award is given each year to thinkers whose ideas have profoundly shaped human ideals. “Throughout her career, Ginsburg has used the law to advance ethical and philosophical principles of equality and human rights as basic tenets of the USA. Her contributions have shaped our way of life and way of thinking and have demonstrated to the world the importance of the rule of law in disabling discrimination,” said Berggruen Institute Founder and Chairman Nicolas Berggruen. Ginsburg will accept the award in December, and plans to donate the prize money to charitable or non-profit organizations.

---

Staci Zaretsky is a senior editor at 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 Twitter or connect with her on LinkedIn.

Update on Statutory Instruments: Part 2

This bulletin continues where Bill Watch 52 of 16th October [“Statutory Instruments:  Part 1]” [link] stopped;  it will deal with Government Gazettes from SI 205/2019 of 20th September up to SI 221/2019 of 18th October.

But first we draw attention to Constitution Watch 8/2019 of 19th October [link] commenting on the implications of the High Court decision in the important case of Mlilo v Minister of Finance and Economic Development [link].  The judgment invalidated SI 2015 gazetted on 12th October 2018 – the statutory instrument that imposed the 2% transaction tax.  The government then made it lawful in the Finance No 2 Act gazetted on the 21st August 2019 and backdated it to the time the 2% tax was introduced.

This bulletin indicates three recent statutory instruments which amend Acts of Parliament  –their validity could be challenged in the High Court using the Mlilo decision as a precedent.

Gazette of 20th September 2019

Correction of maximum income tax rate to 40%

SI 205/2019 [link] which amends the Finance Act is the first of the statutory instrument that are open to challenge on the basis of Mlilo’s case.  The SI amends the income tax bands for the period 1st August to 31st December 2019, correcting the rate for the top taxable bracket to 40% from 45% specified in the Finance (No. 2) Act.  It has been plausibly suggested that the 45% may have been a typographical error in the Finance (No 2) Act, because the Budget Presentation itself specified 40%.  The change went undetected and uncorrected while the Bill was going through Parliament and a few days later appeared in the Finance (No. 2) Act.

Note: The Minister can easily resolve doubts about the SI’s validity by including in the next Finance Bill a clause confirming 40% as the highest income tax rate for the five-month period August-December 2019.  He will have the opportunity to do so when he presents the 2020 National Budget during November.

Insurance:  Increased minimum prescribed assets ratios for insurers

SI 206/2019 [link] is aimed at registered insurers.  It effectively doubles the minimum prescribed asset ratios, i.e., the proportions of an insurer’s total assets that must be held in “prescribed securities” such as stocks or bonds issued by the State, statutory bodies and local authorities [including, for non-life insurers, Treasury bills and similar short-term instruments] or other investments  approved by the Minister of Finance and Economic Development.  The SI replaces SI 24/2016, the previous SI on the subject and goes into far greater detail than its predecessor on the penalties that can be imposed by the Insurance and Pensions Commission [IPEC] for non-compliance.

Note: A “prescribed assets” mechanism for insurers is usually justified as protecting policy holders against the consequences of injudicious investments by their insurers.  Another view, however, is that these prescribed assets were increased so that the State has access to more financial resources that would not otherwise be available to the State from investors from the money market.

High Court civil cases fees: correction of error

SI 207/2019 [link] corrects an error in SI 187/2019 [link] by replacing item 2 of the Schedule of fees [item 2 deals with court fees chargeable for a summons in civil cases claiming payment of money.

Persons who may lawfully acquire, possess and supply industrial hemp

SI 208/2019 [link] is a set of regulations, made by the Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs in terms of section 161(g) of the Criminal Law Code, listing the following as persons who may lawfully acquire, possess and supply hemp:

• any “farmer” [the term is not defined] so authorised in writing by the Minister of Lands, Agriculture, Water, Climate and Rural Resettlement,
• the State or any of its organs on farms operated by the State or by any State organ,

as long as they are cultivating “industrial hemp” [there is a definition] for industrial purposes.  At least, that is how Veritas interprets the regulations, which could – and should – be much more clearly and tightly stated, given that the they are intended to create an additional class of persons exempted from the criminal penalties normally associated with possession of cannabis plants, prepared cannabis and cannabis resin.

Gazette of 23rd September 2019

New Standard Scale of Fines in ZWL dollars

SI 209/2019 [link] by the Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs amends an Act of Parliament – it repeals and replaces the First Schedule to the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act.  The enabling provisions cited by the Minister – section 280 of that Act and section 24(1) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019 (No. 7 of 2019) – expressly confer the power to amend Acts of Parliament.  This SI, too, is open to challenge on the basis of Mlilo’s case.

It is important to remember that the new figures apply only to offences committed on or after the date the SI was gazetted, 23rd September.  Some examples of the new levels are: level 1 is ZWL$ 40, level 3 is ZWL$ 100 [the maximum fine to be imposed by a police officer for a petty offence under the admission of guilt procedure], level 14, the highest level, is ZWL$ 30 000.

Gazettes of 27th September 2019

ZWL dollar wages and allowances for Cotton Industry

SI 210/2019 [link] records a collective bargaining agreement fixing wages and allowances in the cotton industry, back-dated to 1st June.

Customs duty suspensions (1) disabled persons and (2) commercial tyres imported by approved importers

SI 211/2019 [link] fine-tunes the effect of the suspension of duty for motor vehicles imported for disabled persons by section 4 of the principal regulations, SI 257/2003.

It also modifies the suspension allowed on commercial tyres imported by approved manufacturers by section 9EE of SI 257/2003.

Prohibition on the use of forex in domestic transactions

SIs 212 and 213/2019 have already been covered in Bill Watch 50/2019 dated 29th September [link].

SI 213/2019, which amends the Exchange Control Act under the powers conferred on the President by the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act, is the third recent SI open to challenge on the basis of Mlilo’s case.

Gazette of 4th October 2019

Annual registration fees for land surveyors

SI 214/2019 [link] – new fees, stated in ZWL, for land surveyors, land surveyors-in-training and land survey technicians.

Local authority by-laws

SI 215/2017 [link] – Chiredzi Town Council By-laws amending rents and refuse removal charges for the “incorporated area”, i.e., the high density township/s administered by the council.

Customs duty

SI 216/2019 [link] – amendment of the duty rebate for food, soap and cosmetics manufacturers.

SI 217/2019 – a lengthy set of Suspension Regulations giving effect to the Economic Partnership Agreement between the European Community (EC) and Eastern & Southern Africa states (ESA).  Veritas is trying to obtain this to post in on the Veritas website.

Collective bargaining agreement: ZESA

SI 218/2019 [link] – temporary interim hardship allowances for ZESA Grades A1 to D2, January to March 2019.

Gazette of 11th October 2019

No statutory instruments were published in this regular Friday gazette.

General Notices

Those interested in the mining sector should note the 32 General Notices from the Mining Affairs Board.  These GNs notified applications to the Board for Exclusive Prospecting Orders for a variety of minerals in most of the country’s mining districts.  The Board has set a deadline of 1st November for receipt by the Board of any objections to the orders being granted.

Gazette of 18th October 2019

Statutory Instruments

Local authority by-laws – Masvingo RDC and Epworth Local Board

SI 219/2019 [link] – the Masvingo Rural District Council (Environmental and Natural Resources Conservation) By-laws, 2019 is a 32-page set of controls for many aspects of use of land and natural resources within the area of the council.

SI 220/2019 [link] – the Epworth Local Board (Dog Licensing and Control) By-laws, 2019 is marred by a meaningless final section 21 which assumes that section 4 restricts the number of dogs that an individual can own – but neither section 4 nor any other section contains such a restriction.

Defence Forces – Medical Professions Cadets

SI 221/2019 [link] – the Defence (Regular Force) (Nursing, Radiography, Pharmaceuticals, Physiotherapy, Laboratory Science, Veterinary Science and other Medical Professions) (Cadets) Regulations, 2019 is a brief set of regulations for the engagement of cadets studying to qualify for one of the professions listed.  Cadets will be engaged as privates, but be subject to specified provisions of the regulations applicable to Defence Force officers.  During university/college vacations they will be liable for military duty as determined by the Commander.  They will be responsible for all training, registration, living and other expenses incurred while studying.  On qualification they will be commissioned and be obliged to serve for a further five years.

General Notices

New Special Economic Zone in Selous for Karo Resources

GN 1838/2019 [link] notifies the declaration by the Special Economic Zones Authority as a special economic zone of “a portion of Selous covering 50 667 hectares located on land covered by special mining grants issued to Karo Zimbabwe Holdings (Pvt). Ltd.”

Veritas makes every effort to ensure reliable information, but cannot take legal responsibility for information supplied.

Post published in: Featured

Earlier this year, we learned about the shocking case of Danielle Teuscher, and what she thought was the innocent activity of using a home DNA kit for her and her five-year-old daughter. You know, just like the rest of America is doing. Given that her child was conceived with the help of an unknown sperm donor, she thought it would be fun and informative to learn more about her daughter’s background and origins. She had no idea what a mess she was in for.

After the results to the DNA test came back, 23andMe identified a paternal grandmother of her daughter (aka the sperm donor’s mother) that was “open to contact” on the genealogy site. Teuscher sent a message through 23andMe’s portal, where she said that they were related and also open to contact. The surprised grandmother sent a confused message back. Teuscher apologized, and that was the end of their contact. It was not, however, the end of the saga to come. Two weeks later, Teuscher received a cease-and-desist letter from NW Cryobank, the sperm bank where she had purchased the donor sperm that had helped her conceive her daughter.

The letter notified Teuscher that she was in “flagrant violation” of the agreement she had signed with them. Pursuant to the liquidated damages clause barring such contact, the sperm bank said, they were entitled to at least $20,000 in damages from her. That was $10,000 for every breach whereby she failed to live up to her agreement that she would not “seek or make any effort to obtain any information not directly provided through NW Cryobank concerning the identity, background, or whereabouts of the Donor at any time and from any source whether directly or indirectly and/or by any means.” Wait, why two breaches? Well, the sperm bank counted merely having her daughter take a DNA test as one breach, and the message to the donor’s mother as the second breach.

It Gets Worse

The cease-and-desist letter didn’t just mention the $20,000. It also stated:

Moreover, we hereby notify you that as a direct result of your flagrant and material breach of the Agreement we are revoking your right to receive the four (4) additional vials of Donor’s sperm that you purchased. No refund will be given.

(The letter was wrong. Teuscher actually still had five vials of sperm, not four, still at the bank.)

The sperm also cut off Teuscher’s access to her online portal — unless she signed another agreement with the bank severely limiting her rights to testing purchased DNA and exonerating the bank for not providing medical information to donor recipients. The portal is used to access any updated medical information from the donor, as well as to communicate with other parents who conceived children using the same donor. Teuscher was now — absent signing the new agreement — unable to access any medical updates that could affect her child’s health.

Mom Sues Sperm Bank

Like any good American, what else could Teuscher do but, of course, sue. This summer, Teuscher filed suit against NW Cryobank in federal court in the Eastern District of Washington. Her arguments are thought-provoking and compelling.

Can They Take the Sperm Back?!

In her lawsuit, Teuscher is asking the court to grant an injunction against NW Cryobank for an immediate return of her property — the donor sperm vials. To her, the vials are her potential future children, fully genetically related to her daughter. She notes that nowhere in any of the agreements she signed with the sperm bank did it specify they could confiscate the sperm they were storing. They could, under the storage contract, terminate their duty to store the client’s gametes when “the customer or their doctor requests the release of the gametes, upon the written direction of the customer to destroy the gametes, or when payment is not delivered to NW Cryo.” Those conditions all seem fair. But none of those circumstances apply here.

Thirty years ago, in York v. Jones, a federal court established a now well-examined and frequently followed precedent concerning property rights to embryos. The court ruled against a fertility clinic that refused to release a couple’s embryos to them to be transferred to another clinic. The court deemed the clinic a “bailee,” and required it to return the plaintiffs’ property. Here, Teuscher clearly had ownership rights to the sperm specimens she purchased. NW Cryobank, like the Jones clinic, was merely holding these vials in storage, as a bailee. I’m not sure where NW Cryobank believed they derived the right to dispossess Teuscher of her property, even if she did violate their agreement.

Violations of Public Policy?

Teuscher further argues that the court should find that it’s against public policy for the sperm bank to prevent a donor-conceived person (or their parent on their behalf) from accessing their DNA information. She points to declarations by the U.S. Surgeon General’s Office in their Family Health History campaign encouraging everyone to trace illnesses suffered by blood relatives in order to assist their doctor in taking action to protect their health.

I can see NW Cryobank’s argument against contacting the sperm donor’s relatives. But it seems seriously problematic to claim that it was a violation of their contract to merely take the DNA test in the first place. We have a right to our own information, right? DNA, by its very nature, also reveals interconnected information about others. This, admittedly, has led to a number of problems and more information than anyone ever anticipated coming to light. But blocking off access to this type of critical information cannot possibly be the right answer.

I empathize that sperm banks previously assured their donors anonymity, and now those assurances are worthless. Clearly all sperm banks (and those facilitating egg and embryo donations) need to have long ago stopped making such assurances. Everyone now knows anonymity is not a promise anyone can keep. My unsolicited advice for sperm banks: when these situations arise, don’t go nuclear on your purchasers and their children. Explain to the donors, when they complain, that the world has changed. Information is out there. Offer mental health and educational resources on being a donor now identified by offspring. You can pay for those services with all the money saved from not sending cease-and-desist letters and not needing to defend against Teuscher-type lawsuits.

---

Ellen Trachman is the Managing Attorney of Trachman Law Center, LLC, a Denver-based law firm specializing in assisted reproductive technology law, and co-host of the podcast I Want To Put A Baby In You. You can reach her at babies@abovethelaw.com.

A third woman has come forward to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission with allegations about the inappropriate behavior of former DLA Piper partner Louis Lehot. Leah M. Christensen, a professor at the University of San Diego School of Law and former Professional Responsibility Counsel within the firm’s Office of General Counsel, claims Lehot acted like a “textbook bully” and was allowed to get away with it because of the size of his book of business, saying:

Lehot is a textbook bully. There is simply no other way to describe him. He bulldozed his way through DLA Piper like a tank, rolling over anything or anyone in his way. In order to get his way, Lehot yelled, threatened, intimidated and terrorized people around him. I know because I was one of the people around him.

She also says that when, in the course of her work, she spoke with Lehot about his interpretation of an ethics rule, he lashed out calling her a “dumb bitch”:

For example, one time when I told Lehot that he was not following the ethics rules, in front of other DLA staff, Lehot called me a “dumb bitch.” I reported Lehot’s abusive conduct and “loose” interpretation of the ethics rules during our weekly department meetings to my boss, Peter Lindau, Assistant General Counsel, and to Joe Davis, Associate General Counsel. Nothing was done.

The allegations against Lehot are starting to pile up. Earlier this month, DLA Piper partner Vanina Guerrero alleged that Lehot repeatedly sexually assaulted her. She asked the firm to release her from their mandatory arbitration agreement so she can pursue her claims in court. The firm has been conspicuously silent on the forced arbitration agreement — despite the attention their arbitration stance in this case has garnered, but, they did announce that Lehot had been let go from the firm. But the firm also put Guerrero on administrative leave, saying they’d uncovered allegations against her unrelated to Lehot during their investigation of her claims. Lehot released a statement contesting the allegations against him and saying Guerrero was “exploiting” the #MeToo movement. Then a second woman, an anonymous HR manager, came forward with her own allegations against Lehot, saying he made her “physically afraid,” and further alleging the firm let her go when she complained about Lehot.

As part of Christensen’s letter to the EEOC, she also says she’s been contacted by other women at the firm who’ve had similar experiences with Lehot but are “too scared” to come forward.

---

Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, and host of The Jabot podcast. 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).

Among the most vital examples of the application of business discipline and strong process to the legal function is the burgeoning field of IP operations. The capacity to carefully manage and extract maximum value from intellectual property assets can be the difference between a thriving company and a fading also-ran.

On October 31st at 1 p.m. ET, join us for a free webinar, The IP Operations Landscape, moderated by leading industry consultant Brad Blickstein. Brad will be joined by Annya Dushine of CPA Global and Amy Gagich of Koch Industries and our program will explore the following topics, among others:

• The four pillars of IP operations — people, processes, technology, data — that define the field;
• Benchmarking your organization by way of the IP ops “maturity spectrum”;
• Firsthand case study of how one of the U.S.’s largest privately held corporations implemented a successful IP ops function; and
• Analysis of the first-ever demographic study of the professionals developing the IP ops field.

While married life is a happy one (I say this solely based on my friends’ social media postings), sometimes student loans can be the homewrecker. Student loans have been blamed for people delaying marriages and starting families. It also complicates financial and tax planning for couples. Finally, it might be the deciding factor in a divorce. So let’s look at a few events in a married couple’s life and how student loans can affect them.

Before getting married

As I mentioned in a previous article, a large student loan should not be a barrier to marriage. A marriage can last even if one or both spouses have large student loan debts. Before getting married, each person should disclose their total student loan debt to the other and have a plan to manage and ultimately pay off or settle the loan.

Refinancing their loans while married

For some married couples, as their joint income increases, it might make them think differently about what to do with their debt. For example, a couple on an income-based repayment plan might want to pay the balance in full in 10 years rather than pay for 20 or 25 years until forgiveness if only a small amount of the debt will be forgiven.

In this case, the couple might want to either consolidate their loans or combine them into a private loan with a lower interest rate. But some banks will agree only if both spouses’ names are on the loan or if one spouse co-signs the other.

Personally, I would run from any lender that demanded this. If there is one thing I don’t want to share with the person I love, it is my massive debt.

For those who live in community property states, refinancing your pre-marriage student loan debt during marriage could convert it into a community debt where each spouse will be liable for one-half of the debt. In most community property states, any debt incurred during marriage is considered a community debt while any debt incurred outside of marriage is a separate property debt.

When a student loan is refinanced during marriage, some states view this as a community debt because community funds were being used to pay off older separate property debt. But other states do not see a refinance as a conversion into community property so long as only one spouse refinances his or her own debt without the other spouse’s involvement.

I think the latter is the better way to go. Otherwise, one spouse might be tempted to secretly refinance the loan in order to convert their separate property loan into a community property loan.

Divorce

Every state has its own rules and nuances on how student loans are divided (or not) between spouses in a divorce. While I am sure an entire column can be devoted to this topic alone, for now I suggest checking with your state’s rules to see when a spouse must pay the other’s student loans in a divorce.

The law may not be black and white. For example, in California, student loans generally must be paid by the party who received the education unless there is a written agreement to the contrary. But a court can say otherwise it if it thinks the result will be unjust. In this situation, the court looks at whether the community substantially benefitted from the training or the loan, whether the other spouse has a similar education, and whether the education or training resulted in gainful employment which reduced the need for support. For example, if student loan money was used to pay rent in a fancy apartment for the formerly married couple, the court is likely to find that the community benefitted from the loan proceeds.

Also, a couple where one or both spouses are on an IBR plan may be tempted to divorce and structure their dissolution in a way that minimizes loan payments and the cancellation of debt income tax described below. A few couples might divorce on paper while continuing to live as spouses. But most couples might have troubled marriages and the possibility of avoiding a huge income tax bill can be the incentive they need to divorce instead of staying together.

Tax planning

Tax planning for those on income-based repayment plans takes a different turn when student loans are involved.

Couples may need to determine whether it is financially efficient to file jointly or separately. An easy way to calculate a monthly repayment plan through an income-based repayment program is to look at the debtor’s adjusted gross income (AGI) on their tax returns. Most income based repayment programs look at only the debtor’s AGI when filing single or married filing separately. But when they file jointly, the monthly payment looks the joint AGI which can result in a higher monthly payment.

As a result, some married couples will file separately in order to pay lower student loan taxes. The problem is that in most cases, filing separately will result in higher taxes because they are taxed at a different bracket and lose certain deductions and credits — like the student loan interest deduction and the child tax credit, to name a few.

And of course, when the loans are forgiven, the forgiven amount is includible as taxable income — otherwise known as the infamous “tax bomb.” In a few years, we will see all kinds of techniques taxpayers can use to avoid or minimize the effects of the income tax bomb.

The most common way to minimize cancellation of debt income is to show insolvency. This is where the taxpayers show that their liabilities exceed their assets. Business structures will be customized to minimize income to the debtor spouse. Estate plans may include early gifting of assets. Divorces may be structured where the debtor spouse gets little to no assets. All of this could defuse the tax bomb.

Being married with student loans can be done with the proper planning before and during the marriage. But in case it does not work out at some point, at least it might give an opportunity to avoid a huge income tax debt.

If you live in Southern California and want to know more about some of the tax strategies I mentioned above, I am giving a presentation before the Pasadena Section of CalCPA on Monday, October 28, 2019 at 12 p.m. Click here for more details and registration information. This presentation may be eligible for CLE credit. But most importantly, the venue has fantastic Mexican food.

---

Steven Chung is a tax attorney in Los Angeles, California. He helps people with basic tax planning and resolve tax disputes. He is also sympathetic to people with large student loans. He can be reached via email at sachimalbe@excite.com. Or you can connect with him on Twitter (@stevenchung) and connect with him on LinkedIn.

A 35-minute documentary published today demonstrates how the 2018 presidential election was rigged through the use of 10,985 purportedly original V11s that were inputted into an Excel spreadsheet at the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) National Command Centre (NCC).

ZEC chairperson Priscilla Chigumba repeatedly claimed that she delayed the announcement of the presidential election result because she was verifying original V11s at the NCC. This now appears untrue.

Chigumba’s claim, made under oath, could not be true under any circumstances because there are no V11s at the NCC – all V11s are sealed into election residue at Ward Collation Centres. This election residue can only be opened through a court order and no such order was issued.

So where did the 10,985 V11s Chigumba claimed to verify at the NCC come from?

That question is the subject of this gripping documentary: Excelgate – Zimbabwe’s Stolen 2018 Presidential Election (video below).

Source: Kukurigo

Post published in: Featured

Ed. note: This post is by Will Meyerhofer, a former Sullivan & Cromwell attorney turned psychotherapist. He holds degrees from Harvard, NYU Law, and The Hunter College School of Social Work, and he blogs at The People’s Therapist. His books — Still Way Worse Than Being A Dentist, Bad Therapist: A Romance, Way Worse Than Being A Dentist, and Life is a Brief Opportunity for Joy (affiliate links) — are available on Amazon.

There’s no getting out of it: This is a column discussing a syndrome in which lawyers (I suspect mostly women lawyers) sometimes cry on the job in what are arguably inappropriate situations, and the often negative (and avoidable) fallout that results.

Maybe I shouldn’t post this one.  It’ll only get me into trouble.  But what the heck — I’m here to talk about what I see and hear happening in the world of law, and darn it, this falls under that heading.

So here goes nothing:

My client had done what a lot of lawyers wind up doing at some point in their careers — tried to get herself fired.

That’s a phenomenon I see all the time in Biglaw — the unconscious attempt to get yourself fired thing.  You can’t rationally convince yourself to quit, but the irrational part of you knows it isn’t about to let you stay, either.  So, in therapist speak, you “act out on unexamined feelings.”  That manifests itself in stuff like complaining about your job a bit too loudly in places that are a bit too public.  Or coming in late.  Or not coming in.  Or just acting weird at the office without owning the fact that people are going to notice and some of them aren’t going to like it.

I urge lawyers, if they have reached that point of no return (the place where you really cannot come back and work at your firm for one more day without losing your shit) then please, go ahead and own it, and make the decision to leave in a conscious way.  It’s best to reframe all aspects of your life as conscious choices, including your career, and put your decision process into words someplace safe (like a psychotherapist’s office) so you can take back your autonomy and be the actor in your own life, instead of acting out on unconscious, unexplored emotions.

You’re allowed to quit.  There will be consequences, especially if you don’t have another job lined up, or are saddled with a heap of school debt.  But everything in life involves a cost/benefit calculus; this is just another one of those things.

The person who most needs to know what’s going on with you, so she can deal with it, is your boss.  That way, instead of wondering what the heck is going on with that associate acting like a lunatic, she can process the news that you want out and, maybe even work together with you to find a solution.

My client freely admitted she’d been broadcasting her discontent to a lot of people — other associates, secretaries, paralegals, word processors, librarians, doc reviewers, you name it.  In fact, if you were with her for more than a few moments, you probably heard how miserable she was, along with a stream of complaints and criticism about her firm.

Sure enough, a partner she worked with eventually took her aside and said, “I’ve been hearing you’re unhappy.  Why don’t we set up a time to talk?”  They agreed my client would come by her office the next morning.

And that’s when my client called me.

Continue reading over at The People’s Therapist…

The results for the July 2019 administration of the New York bar exam are out, and following the news that the national average score on the MBE section of the exam saw the largest increase since 2008, they’re looking fantastic.

According to the New York State Board of Law Examiners, 10,071 examinees — an increase of 392 candidates from last year — sat for the test this summer. Of those examinees, 65 percent passed the New York bar exam, an increase of 2 percentage points from the July 2018 exam. The overall pass rate for first-time takers was 76 percent, an increase of 2 percentage points from the July 2018 exam. Compared to last year, this is great news.

Look at these New York bar statistics to see how the July 2019 results compare:

Year	All Candidates	All First-Time Takers	All First-Time ABA Takers
July 2004	67.4 percent passed	76.5 percent passed	83.1 percent passed
July 2005	67 percent passed	75.9 percent passed	82.7 percent passed
July 2006	69.5 percent passed	79.4 percent passed	86.7 percent passed
July 2007	70.6 percent passed	79.1 percent passed	87 percent passed
July 2008	74.7 percent passed	83.2 percent passed	90.5 percent passed
July 2009	72 percent passed	80 percent passed	88.2 percent passed
July 2010	70 percent passed	78 percent passed	86 percent passed
July 2011	69.2 percent passed	78.5 percent passed	86.1 percent passed
July 2012	68 percent passed	76 percent passed	83 percent passed
July 2013	69 percent passed	78 percent passed	86 percent passed
July 2014	65 percent passed	74 percent passed	83 percent passed
July 2015	61 percent passed	70 percent passed	79 percent passed
July 2016	64 percent passed	73 percent passed	83 percent passed
July 2017	68 percent passed	78 percent passed	86 percent passed
July 2018	63 percent passed	74 percent passed	83 percent passed
July 2019	65 percent passed	76 percent passed	86 percent passed

Some may blame the record high number of foreign-educated candidates who took the exam for this past summer’s results, which were pretty good but could have been even better. For the July 2019 exam, a record 3,559 foreign-educated examinees sat for the test, accounting for 35 percent of all candidates who took the exam. The overall pass rate for this group was just 43 percent (an increase of 2 percentage points from the July 2018 exam), and the overall first-time pass rate for this group was only 53 percent (an increase of 3 percentage points from the July 2018 exam) — and while these increases are worthy of kudos, these candidates still dragged down the overall pass rates for all others who sat for the exam this summer.

Let’s get back to the good news. First-time takers from ABA-accredited law schools saw their pass rates increase by 3 percentage points from the July 2018 exam to 86 percent, matching July 2017’s success rate. The pass rate for first-time takers from New York ABA-accredited law schools also rose to 85 percent (an increase of 4 percentage points from July 2018). Since we mentioned ABA schools, now is a good time to remind law schools that just because the UBE may be “easier” to pass than prior state iterations of the test, it is no excuse to admit students whose performance and success on the bar exam may be questionable at best. Admissions standards must remain stable so that those who bet their lives and careers on a legal education don’t wind up in a worse position than what they started with.

Congratulations to you if you were able to pass the bar exam in New York this summer. If you didn’t pass, don’t despair. Many successful people have failed the bar exam (see our list of famous bar exam failures). Focus on February and develop a plan for passing. Believe in yourselves, because you can — eventually — do it!

Press Release: NY Bar Exam Results – July 2019 [New York Board of Law Examiners]

---

Staci Zaretsky is a senior editor at 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 Twitter or connect with her on LinkedIn.

Senditoo has also signed a guarantee partnership with with leading financial institution, Banc ABC Zimbabwe, securing US dollar cash pick-ups in all Banc ABC branches across Zimbabwe.

Founded by UK based Zimbabwean Takwana Tyaranini and his Guinean business partner Ibrahima Soumano in 2016, Senditoo was an innovative service that solely focused on allowing migrants to send instant mobile phone credit to their loved ones in over 140 countries across the world.

The company’s revenue increased by over 600% globally in approximately 36 months and they have progressively become the favourite airtime transfer platform for Zimbabweans living in the UK, with 30% of their transaction volume coming from them.

The company is looking to become the leading transmittal enterprise, offering customers both the option to send airtime and money synchronously.

“We created an innovative way of sending mobile phone credit almost three years ago and it only seemed fitting to make another ground-breaking move that will make it easier for friends and family to remit money internationally at a very low cost,” Tyaranini said.

“In the last few years, Senditoo has built a sustainable brand based on transparency, and great user experience. As a result, every other week, we received emails from our current clients insisting that we add money transfer.

Our customers are at the centre of everything that we do and everything that we aim to achieve, or have achieved so far. As we continue to grow and revolutionise the way our customers transact, we want them to be part of our next journey,” he added.

Africa as a central hub for international remittance

Africa has one of the world’s most mobile populations, and African nations account for a large part of the expanding global remittance market.

Tyaranini said that with Africa’s infrastructure, the continent has a significant advantage that can drive remittances across the globe and promote financial inclusion, particularly through mobile money.

“Digital transformation is helping the flow of money and connecting more people around the world and that is where Senditoo comes in,” Tyaranini said.

Customers are being offered a number of incentives and signing up with Senditoo to remit money in the next three months will see them receive a £5 discount on their first transfer. They will also get £5 every time they refer a friend to the service and will receive a Senditoo T-shirt when they send £100 or more.

Post published in: Business