Legal AI Could Bridge Access To Justice Gap… But Should It? – Above the Law

If
someone
offers
a
solution
to
the
access-to-justice
crisis,
you
generally
should
say
yes.
The
legal
needs
of
millions
currently
receive
the
attention
of
a
handful
of
attorneys
and
beyond
the
profession’s
long,
abysmal
record
of
meeting
the
needs
of
low-income
folks,
middle
class
families
increasingly
find
themselves
priced
out
of
legal
help.
Or,
just
as
damaging,
they

feel

so
priced
out
that
they
don’t
even
bother
to
figure
out
if
they
need
legal
help
and
just
mainline
existential
dread
over
their
troubles.

Since
a
long
overdue
influx
of
resources
into
legal
aid
is
not
on
the
DOGE
agenda,
the
legal
tech
community
has
set
its
eyes
on
generative
AI
as
a
potential
vector
for
delivering
needed
legal
services.
That
is,
if
the
AI
is
carefully
and
competently
designed
to
provide
accurate
legal
help
and
not

a
psychadelic
journey
to
the
heart
of
the
Montreal
Convention
.

But
what
if
the

better

the
AI
tool,
the
more

dangerous

it
becomes?

That
uneasy
question
lingered
after
this
morning’s
ABA
TECHSHOW
panel
where
Kara
Peterson,
co-founder
of
justice
tech
startup

descrybe.ai

and
Jessica
Bednarz,
Director
of
Legal
Services
and
the
Profession
at
the

Institute
for
the
Advancement
of
the
American
Legal
System
,
led
a
lively
discussion
on
the
promises
and
perils
of
AI
in
the
justice
gap
arena.

One
of
the
potential
benefits
of
AI
Peterson
identified
is
“simplified
and/or
translated
explanations
of
legal
concepts
and
directions.”
The
first
step
to
solving
a
legal
problem
is
knowing
you
have
a
legal
problem.
Bednarz
noted
that
research
from
2021
revealed
that
most
people
seeking
legal
help
went
to
internet
search.
But
today,
this
is
shifting
toward
GenAI
as
ChatGPT
takes
over
the
public
imagination.

Still,
Peterson
pointed
out
that
most
people
don’t
exactly
have
a
sixth
sense
for
spotting
“good”
vs.
“bad”
AI
advice.
Given
how
often

lawyers

screw
this
up,
calling
this
a
challenge
feels
like
an
understatement.

If
folks
in
need
of
legal
help
flock
to
big
name,
consumer-facing
AI
tools,
the
legal
advice
they
get
can
range
from
hilarious
to
disastrous.
Which
is
where
the
designers
of
bespoke
legal
tools
come
in.
Legal
professionals
understand
what
people
might
actually

need

from
an
AI
legal
information
product.
An

idiot
man-child
feeding
his
AI
“all
court
cases”

does
not.
But
the
next
challenge
is
finding
a
way
to
connect
these
non-lawyers
with
the
good
tools.
Because
right
now,
the
average
person
is
more
likely
to
consult
HallucinabotGPT
than
find
a
tailor-made
access-to-justice
tool
buried
deep
in
a
conference
vendor
list.

At
a
gathering
of
experts
intended
to
open
the
conversation
about
this
and
the
regulatory
environment
generally,
Bednarz
reported
that
the
group
settled
on
a
phased
approach
beginning
with
a
“soft
power”
campaign
based
in
guidance,
sandboxes,
and
spreading
the
message
that
AI
is
not
(necessarily)
the
unlicensed
practice
of
law.
A
full
report
on
the
group’s
conclusions
will
be
coming
in
a
few
months.

Damien
Riehl
of
vLex
took
the
unlicensed
practice
of
law
issue
further
and
questioned
whether
these
regulatory
regimes
amount
to
a
case
of
the
emperor’s
new
clothes.
State
regulators
aren’t
going
to
sue
OpenAI
even
though
ChatGPT
is
the
one
delivering
shitty
legal
advice
at
scale
to
the
have-nots.
But
when
a
specially
designed
legal
AI
tool
emerges,
suddenly
the
regulators
are
quick
to
fire
off
complaints.

But
one
questioner
flagged
a
downside.
Non-lawyers
know
to
take
Google
with
a
grain
of
salt.
But
once
an
AI
can
posture
itself
as
a
more
authoritative,
legally
vetted
product,
along
with
its
improved
accuracy
and
value
is
an
imprimatur
of
trust
that
would
make
the
impact
of
a
mistake
more
pronounced.

There’s
a
paradox
at
play.
Riehl
describes
a
spectrum
from
no
legal
services
to
hiring
counsel.
Essentially
along
the
way
there’s
Google,
which
is
worse
than
consumer
AI,
which
is
worse
than
legal
AI,
which
is
worse
than
legal
AI
complemented
by
a
human
lawyer.
But
what
if
worse
is
better
in
some
contexts?

If
one
of
the
most
important
contributions
to
solving
access
to
justice
is
helping
people

realize

when
they
have
a
legal
problem
in
the
first
place,
to
what
extent
do
better
tools
erroneously
convince
them
that
they
have
problems
they
can
handle
themselves.
Maybe
a
clunky,
obviously
flawed
tool
is
less
dangerous
than
one
that
seems
polished
and
confident
(and
correct…
if
you
have
the
training
to
understand
the
nuance)
enough
to
inspire
false
confidence.

Consider
the
medical
profession,
where
arming
patients
with
more
“little
bits
of
knowledge”
spawned
a
population
of
morons

convinced
that
they
can
solve
measles
with
good
nutrition

because
they
conflate
the
fact
that
Vitamin
A
is
a
treatment
for
measles
with
the
idea
that
it’s
some
kind
of
vaccine
for
measles.

More
information

even
on
its
face
good
information

can
usher
in
the
maelstrom
of
misinformation
in
the
wrong
hands.

Though
the
damage
may
already
be
done
by
the
range
of
consumer
AI
products.
Google
gave
people
options
to
consider…
AI
gives
them
an
“answer.”
And
the
thing
about
consumer
AI
is
that
it’s
going
to
ACT
like
it
knows
what
it’s
doing.
We
don’t
call
it
Mansplaining
As
A
Service
for
nothing.
If
the
cat’s
out
of
the
bag,
the
only
benefit
of
cracking
down
on
artisanal
legal
AI
for
clients
is
leaving
them
at
the
mercy
of
the
loudest,
drunkest
large
language
model
at
the
bar.

In
other
words,
maybe
selling
contact
voltage
detectors
at
Lowe’s
increases
the
risk
of
ill-considered
home
electrical
projects,
but
since
many
more
folks
were
going
to
do
try
it
anyway
and
I’d
rather
they
have
voltage
testers
when
they
do.
Home
insurance
carriers
agree.

All
of
which
is
to
say
that
the
ethical
issues
surrounding
AI’s
role
in
bridging
the
access
to
justice
gap
remain
thorny.
On
balance,
society
is
probably
better
off
with
a
regulatory
environment
that
encourages
more
legal-need-specific
AI
products
than
not.
But
developers
should
be
mindful
of
the
risks
involved
when
handing
legal
help
to
non-lawyers
and
spend
at
least
as
much
time
pondering
how
the
tech
can
be
misapplied
as
they
do
thinking
about
how
much
it
can
help.




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

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

Bluesky

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

Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search
.

The Recipe For Disaster: What Not To Do In Post-Conference Follow-Ups – Above the Law

Getty
Images



Ed
note:
 This
is
the
eighth
in
a
series.
Read
the previous
installment
here
.

Picture
yourself
as
a
chef
in
the
grand
kitchen
of
networking.
The
conference
has
ended,
but
the
ingredients
you’ve
gathered

the
contacts,
the
conversations

are
fresh
and
ready
to
be
transformed
into
something
delectable.

Like
a
culinary
artist,
your
task
is
to
take
these
raw
interactions
and
craft
them
into
memorable,
long-lasting
relationships

By
avoiding
these
culinary-inspired
catastrophes,
you
ensure
your
post-conference
follow-ups
are
as
delectable
as
a
signature
dish.


  1. The
    Overcooked
    Email:

    Flooding
    their
    inbox
    with
    lengthy,
    rambling
    messages.
    Think
    less
    is
    more;
    your
    email
    isn’t
    a
    novel.

  2. The
    Underseasoned
    Approach:

    Sending
    generic,
    uninspired
    follow-ups.
    “Dear
    Sir/Madam”
    belongs
    in
    the
    trash
    can
    of
    networking.

  3. The
    Burnt
    Bridge:

    Arguing
    or
    being
    confrontational
    in
    follow-up
    interactions.
    Keep
    the
    heat
    for
    the
    kitchen,
    not
    your
    emails.

  4. The
    Forgotten
    Ingredient:

    Not
    remembering
    key
    details
    about
    the
    person
    or
    conversation.
    Imagine
    serving
    a
    peanut
    butter
    sandwich
    without
    the
    peanut
    butter.

  5. The
    Half-Baked
    Promise:

    Offering
    help
    or
    resources
    and
    not
    following
    through.
    It’s
    like
    promising
    a
    gourmet
    meal
    and
    delivering
    fast
    food.

  6. The
    Recipe
    Thief:

    Taking
    credit
    for
    others’
    ideas
    or
    insights
    shared
    in
    confidence.
    Respect
    is
    key.

  7. The
    Excessive
    Garnish:

    Overwhelming
    with
    too
    much
    flattery
    or
    unnecessary
    compliments.
    A
    sprinkle
    of
    praise
    is
    good,
    a
    bucketful
    is
    overkill.

By
embracing
the
role
of
a
Networking
Chef
in
the
post-conference
phase,
you
turn
simple
contacts
into
rich,
fulfilling
professional
relationships,
much
like
turning
basic
ingredients
into
a
gourmet
meal.

The
key
is
in
how
you
mix,
marinate,
and
present
your
follow-up
efforts.
So,
tie
your
apron,
sharpen
your
knives,
and
let’s
cook
up
some
unforgettable
networking
dishes!


The
Recipe
for
Disaster:
What
Not
to
Do

✔️ Sending
overwhelming,
generic,
or
confrontational
follow-ups.
✔️ Forgetting
key
details
and
failing
to
follow
through
on
promises.
✔️ Ending
conversations
negatively.
✔️ Engaging
in
excessive
flattery.


Sejal Patel



Sejal
Patel
is
a
Rainmaking
Consultant
and
the Founder
of
Sage
Ivy
,
a
New
York-based
consultancy
dedicated
to
helping
attorneys
turn
relationships
into
clients.
With
over
20
years
of
experience,
Sejal
strategically
analyzes
attorneys’
networks
to
uncover
revenue
and
relationship
opportunities,
crafting
individualized
approaches
that
align
with
their
unique
strengths
and
styles.
Learn
more
at www.sageivyconsulting.com.  

Are Point Solutions All They’re Cracked Up To Be?  – Above the Law

Many
profitable
and
well-run
law
firms
have
separate
legal
technology
systems
for
separate
tasks. 

But
could
these
firms
save
some
cash
and
become
more
efficient
if
they
were
to
consolidate
these
tools? 

Would
doing
so
provide
competitive
advantages
in
the
future? 

How
difficult
of
a
process

really

is
it
to
consolidate
separate
systems
and
the
data
they
contain? 

In
the
latest
“Adventures
in
Legal
Tech”
podcast,
host
Jared
Correia
is
joined
by
Dr.
Cain
Elliott
and
Keegan
Chapman
of
Filevine
to
explore
these
questions. 


The
Hidden
Perils

Consider
the
video
consumers
who
got
rid
of
basic
cable
for
a
mashup
of
streaming
apps.
For
many,
what
at
first
blush
seems
like
a
savvy
approach
can
end
up
being
more
costly. 

When
it
comes
to
business
risk,
however,
there’s
an
added
pitfall:
The
more
tools
you
have,
the
more
hidden
features
can
emerge.
Here,
the
panelists
discuss
hidden
risks
in
technology
tools.


Mailboxes
and
Doc
Management

Is
using
your
email
as
a
document
repository
an
effective
system?
Here,
the
panel
shares
an
analogy
from
the
physical
world.


Consider
the
Roomba

Using
a
general
AI
app
for
legal
work
can
be
like
letting
a
Roomba
run
wild
outside.
Here,
the
panelists
explain
why. 


Digging
Deeper

Curious
to
hear
the
full
episode?
Listen
here. 

Exclusive: In Major Alliance Of Legal Transformation Organizations, Digital Legal Exchange Joins Liquid Legal Institute

Two
leading
international
legal
transformation
think
tanks,

Digital
Legal
Exchange

(DLEx)
and

Liquid
Legal
Institute

(LLI),
are
joining
forces
effective
April
1.
The
strategic
union
brings
together
more
than
1,500
members
representing
more
than
140
multinational
corporations,
organizations,
institutions
and
agencies
across
more
than
20
countries,
creating
what
the
organizations
describe
as
a
formidable
global
forum
for
legal
transformation.

Going
forward,
DLEx
will
operate
within
LLI
as
a
curated
legal
executive
forum
called
the
Digital
Leaders
Exchange
@
Liquid
Legal
Institute
(DLE@LLI),
to
be
led
by
the
cofounders
of
DLEx,
Chairman

William
“Bill”
Deckelman

and
Chairman
Emeritus

Mark
A.
Cohen
.

The
union
aims
to
create
the
world’s
leading
think
tank
for
legal
transformation
under
the
motto,
“Together
we
design
the
future
of
legal.”

“Welcoming
the
distinct
DLEx
community
will
strengthen
LLI’s
vision
of
serving
as
an
international,
diverse
think
tank
focused
on
innovation
and
transformation
in
law,
embracing
all
parts
and
all
levels
of
the
organization,”
said

Dr.
Dierk
Schindler
,
co-founder
and
co-CEO
of
LLI,
along
with

Kai
Jacob
.

Deckelman,
who
is
currently
chief
legal
officer
at
Anderson
and
who
has
held
that
role
at
several
major
corporations,
added:
“The
opportunity
to
formalize
the
close
working
relationship
DLEx
has
had
with
LLI
is
very
exciting
and
will
create
a
powerful
capability
to
collaboratively
address
the
significant
challenges
facing
corporate
legal
organizations
in
the
AI
era.”

Complementary
Organizations

The
merger
reflects
the
two
organization’s
complementary
strengths
and
approaches.
Both
have
collaborated
in
the
past
and
even
share
some
overlapping
members.
Both
focus
on
applied
research,
community
building,
and
practice
solutions.
And
both
are
navigating
the
same
terrain
of
enhancing
the
legal
function.

In
an
interview
for
my

LawNext
podcast

that
will
air
tomorrow
with
Schindler
and
Cohen,
Schindler
explained
that,
while
LLI
started
as
an
association
for
the
“doers
and
shakers”
in
legal
organizations,
eventually
bringing
in
more
managing
partners,
general
counsel,
and
senior
business
leaders,
DLEx
began
from
the
outset
with
a
focus
general
counsels
and
senior
leaders.

With
this
union,
and
the
creation
of
DLE@LLI,
there
is
still
a
space
for
general
counsel
to
continue
to
have
an
exchange
in
the
spirit
fostered
by
DLEx,
while
also
opening
the
door
for
them
to
bring
in
more
of
their
teams
to
engage
in
projects,
initiatives,
roundtables,
and
the
like.

In
addition,
Schindler
said,
the
union
broadens
the
organization’s
geographic
scope.
Because
LLI
was
founded
in
Germany,
its
membership
is
strongest
in
Europe.
By
contrast,
the
bulk
of
the
membership
of
DLEx
is
in
the
United
States
and
the
United
Kingdom.

“It’s
a
win-win-win
all
around,”
Schindler
said.
“The
initial
feedback
that
we’ve
received,
both
from
the
Liquid
Legal
Institute
community,
but
also,
more
importantly,
from
the
DLEx
community,
is
super
positive
in
terms
of
seeing
that
added
value
and
additional
opportunity.”

One
Plus
One
Equals
11

Cohen,
an
internationally
known
legal
business
consultant
at

Legal
Mosaic

and
longtime

columnist
for
Forbes
,
described
the
union
as
one
in
which
“one
and
one
adds
up
to
11,”
noting
that
both
organizations
share
common
goals
and
methods.

“For
a
long
time,
Bob,
my
view
is
that
our
industry
has
been
too
vulcanized,”
Cohen
said
in
our
podcast
interview.
Too
many
legal
associations,
he
said,
are
too
heavily
driven
by
concerns
about
dues
and
sponsorships.
In
contrast,
neither
LLI
nor
DLEx
are
sponsor
driven,
but
rather
are
independent
and
have
as
their
primary
goal
creating
community.

Founded
in
2018,
DLEx
has
functioned
as
a
global,
non-profit
membership
forum
for
general
counsels,
business
leaders,
and
select
external
advisors
focused
on
accelerating
digital
transformation
of
the
corporate
legal
function.
LLI,
also
founded
in
2018,
is
an
international
think
tank
devoted
to
legal
transformation
with
a
broader
membership
representing
the
entire
legal
sector.

The
integration
creates
expanded
opportunities
for
member
organizations.
Former
DLEx
members,
who
typically
engaged
as
individuals
or
with
a
deputy,
can
now
bring
entire
teams
(up
to
30
members)
into
LLI
activities.
Current
DLEx
members
will
automatically
become
LLI
members
through
2025.

Benefits
to
members
will
include
expanded
community,
scholarship,
and
live
and
virtual
events,
drawing
on
the
expertise
of
each
group’s
members.
DLEx
entity
members
can
now
engage
more
of
their
colleagues
in
a
wide
range
of
LLI
transformation
activities
appropriate
to
their
level
and
role.

DLE@LLI
will
continue
to
host
DLEx’s
signature
Salons

invitation-only
virtual
events
for
GCs
and
senior
innovation
leaders
to
engage
in
candid
and
robust
exchanges
on
timely
topics.

A
dedicated
DLE
Executive
Office,
led
by

Robert
Dilworth
,
who
was
already
a
member
of
both
organizations,
will
ensure
a
smooth
transition
and
support
DLE
activities
within
the
broader
LLI
framework.

Joint
Events
Planned

A
series
of
initial
joint
projects
and
events
is
already
planned,
which
includes:

  • The
    April
    12
    publication
    of
    the
    book,


    Liquid
    Legal

    Sustaining
    the
    Rule
    of
    Law
    ,
    which
    includes
    contributions
    from
    some
    30
    members
    of
    both
    LLI
    and
    DLEx.
  • Featured
    content
    at

    Legal
    Tech
    Talk
    2025

    in
    London
    (June
    26-27)
    and
    LLI’s
    2025
    Summit
    in
    Düsseldorf
    (July
    7-8),
    including
    a
    private
    GC
    meeting
    and
    dinner
    associated
    with
    these
    events.
  • Publication
    of
    a
    collaborative
    white
    paper
    on
    gen
    AI-era
    legal
    sector
    talent.

The
organizations
share
a
vision
of
transforming
the
legal
function
to
better
serve
business
needs
in
a
digital
world.
“Transformation
has
a
lot
to
do
with
mindset,
first
and
foremost,”
Schindler
explained
in
our
podcast
interview.
“This
is
not
a
project.
This
is
not
about
technology,
first
and
foremost.
This
is
about
people,
yes,
but
first
of
all,
it’s
a
mindset.”

Cohen
emphasized
the
importance
of
creativity
and
curiosity
in
modern
legal
practice:
“When
I
was
a
baby
lawyer

you
were
not
encouraged
to
be
creative.
You
were
not
particularly
encouraged
to
be
curious.
And
I’m
delighted
to
say
that
in
today’s
world,
I
think
that
has
become
a
real
requisite
for
lawyers.”

Some Biglaw Firms Are Choosing Their Bottom Lines Over The ‘Costly’ Defense Of The Rule Of Law – Above the Law



Ed.
note
:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day
.


We
do
take
an
oath
to
uphold
the
Constitution
and
the
rule
of
law.
This
is
clearly
antithetical
to
that.
And
you
know
what
the
problem
is?
It’s
costly.
And
we’re
not
used
to
paying
a
price
for
our
freedom.
And
we’re
not
used
to
paying
the
price
for
constitutional
democracy.
And
we’ve
deferred
payment.




Professor

Bill
Henderson

of
Indiana
University
Maurer
School
of
Law,
in
comments
given
to

Bloomberg
Law
,
on
the
cultural
costs
that
Biglaw
firms’
capitulation
to
Donald
Trump’s
threats
may
have
on
the
legal
profession.


Thus
far,


Paul
Weiss
Skadden,

Willkie
,
and

Milbank

have
made
deals
with Trump
to
get
out
from
under
or
avoid
his
harmful
executive
orders,
while Perkins
Coie
Jenner
&
Block
,
and WilmerHale 
have
filed
suit
to
defend
their
firms
and
the
rule
of
law.


Staci Zaretsky




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 BlueskyX/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn.

Young Thug’s Parole Is Already In Jeopardy – Above the Law

(Photo
by
Derek
White/WireImage)

I
thought
that
we
were
done
with
this
episode!
Jeffery
Williams,
Barter
6
rapper
and
belt
holder
for
the
longest
trial
in
Georgia’s
history,
is
back
in
the
hot
seat.

It
took
a
lot
of
luck
and
chutzpah
for
Young
Thug
and
Brian
Steel
to
put
their
trust
in
the
judge’s
hands
for
sentencing,
but
they
hit
the
jackpot.
Instead
of
the
state’s
suggested
decades
of
imprisonment,

Judge
Whitaker
allowed
him
to
walk
with
15
years
of
probation
.
If
violated,
the
cuffs
magically
manifest
and
he
has
to
serve
20
years.

Georgia
just
filed
a
motion
claiming
that
the
“if”
moment
already
happened.

Billboard

has
coverage:

[T]he
crux
of
the
filing
revolves
around
what
prosecutors
have
labelled
“escalating
threats
and
witness
intimidation.”
They
note
that
Fulton
County
Investigator
Marissa
Viverito
is
in
the
process
of
testifying
in
a
“multi-defendant
gang
murder
preliminary
hearing”
which
has
seen
the
Court
order
witnesses
not
to
be
shown
on
television
while
testifying.
However,
a
user
on
social
media
posted
an
image
of
Viverito
online
with
a
caption
stating,
“She
doesn’t
want
to
be
shown
on
screen?
Well,
here
she
is.”

On
Tuesday
(April
1),
Thug
is
alleged
to
have
shared
a
since-deleted
repost
the
image,
pairing
it
with
a
caption
claiming
“Marissa
Viverito
is
the
biggest
liar
in
the
DA’s
office.”
According
to
the
filing,
the
post
“quickly
went
viral,”
resulting
in
over
two
million
views,
and
resulting
in
“direct
threats
to
Investigator
Viverito
and
her
family.”

Now,
it
would
be
one
thing
if
this
was
limited
to
Thugger’s
decision
to
call
her
a
liar
as
a
matter
of
protected
speech.
Unfortunately,
the
waters
are
murkier.
After
he
shared
the
image
and
caption,
other
social
media
users
started
throwing
around
what
appear
to
be
threats
toward
Viverito,
her
mother,
and
Fani
Willis.
The
real
question
is
if
Jeffery
shared
something
and
other
people
got
out
of
hand,
or
if
he
pulled
a
Will
no
one
rid
me
of
this
meddlesome
Investigator
?”
As
you
could
imagine,
the
prosecution
is
arguing
the
latter.
Young
Thug
tweeted
this
in
response:

That’s
the
thing
about
plausible
deniability
and
stochastic
terrorism,
it
allows
you
to
make
treats
[sic]
without
ever

actually

having
to
make
them.
Now,
do
I
think
Young
Thug
did
this
by
sharing
an
image
and
should
be
sent
to
prison
for
20
years?
Hell
no

while
the
prosecution
might
have
a
colorable
argument,
it
is
quite
the
stretch.
Again,

he

didn’t
say
or
do
anything
threatening,
random
people
on
social
media
made
the
threats.
That
discontent
was
already
out
there.
Pinning
its
origin
to
a
Young
Thug
tweet
is

about
as
bad
psychology
as
trying
to
use
rap
lyrics
to
incriminate
him
.
The
good
news
is
that
Thugger
won’t
have
to
rely
on
me
arguing
on
his
behalf;
Brian
Steel
is
probably
already
on
it.


Prosecutors
File
Motion
To
Revoke
Young
Thug’s
Probation

[Billboard]


Earlier
:

The
YSL
RICO
Trial
Is
Finally
Done
With
!


Desperate
For
Evidence,
Prosecutors
Will
Use
Young
Thug
Lyrics
In
Trial



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, a
published
author
on
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.

Several Hundred Law Professors File Amicus Brief Against Trump’s Attacks On Biglaw – Above the Law

‘The
board
actually
lists
all
the
arguments
for
the
Executive
Order
being
constitutional.’

The
Professors

The
Trump
administration’s
decision
to
retaliate
against
the
President’s
former
Biglaw
adversaries
is
unprecedented
in
American
history.
Most
of
the
focus
has
been
on
Trump’s
audacity
or
Biglaw’s
repeated
cowardice,
but
let’s
take
a
second
to
think
about
the
judges
who
have
to
deal
with
this
mess.
When
deciding
matters
of
first
impression,
you
really
want
to
make
sure
that
you’re
seeing
all
of
the
angles
as
clearly
as
you
can.
Deciding
the
matter
in
good
faith
may
require
re-reading
a
couple
of
cases

even
going
back
to
basics
and
dusting
off
some
Con
Law
readings
from
your
1L
years
is
fair
game.
But
you
know
what’s
better
than
consulting
the
textbook?
Whoever
wrote
the
book
you’re
consulting.
And
at
this
point,
that
might
apply
to

all

of
your
books.
Hundreds
of
law
professors
(363,
to
be
exact)
specializing
in
Constitutional
Law,
Legal
Ethics,
and
Legal
History
recently
submitted
an
amicus
brief
in
support
of
Perkins
Coie.
The
professors
aren’t
pulling
any
punches
either.
Here’s
a
snippet
of
the
summary
of
argument
from
the
brief:

The
President’s
Order
is
a
self-declared
act
of
retribution
that
targets
a
law
firm
for
representing
clients
and
causes
the
President
disfavors.
In
inflicting
this
retribution,
the
Order
contradicts
centuries
of
precedent
safeguarding
free
speech,
the
right
of
association,
and
the
right
to
petition.
These
precedents
establish
that
the
First
Amendment
“prohibits
government
officials
from
‘relying
on
the
threat
of
invoking
legal
sanctions
and
other
means
of
coercion
.
.
.
to
achieve
the
suppression’
of
disfavored
speech.”
Nat’l
Rifle
Ass’n
v.
Vullo,
602
U.S.
175,
176
(2024)
(quoting
Bantam
Books,
Inc.
v.
Sullivan,
372
U.S.
58,
67
(1963)).
Targeting
Perkins
Coie
for
representing
clients
and
espousing
views
the
President
dislikes
is
viewpoint
discrimination,
plain
and
simple.

It
goes
on
to
state
that
the
executive
order
targeting
Perkins
Coie
violates
the
5th
Amendment,
the
6th
Amendment,
and
threatens
the
rule
of
law.
Beyond
being
an
interesting
read
outright,
it
is
so
clearly
expressed
that
it
is,
unsurprisingly,
a
teaching
exercise.
It
is
ready
made
for
anyone
who
needs
to
brush
up
on
their
Con
Law
because
of
time
constraints,
be
it
because
they
are
presiding
over
a
declining
country’s
rapid
departure
from
the
rule
of
law
or
because
they
need
to
cram
for
an
upcoming
law
exam.
You
can
read
the
motion
for
leave
to
file
and
the
brief
proper
on
the
following
pages.


Earlier
:

The
American
Constitution
Society
Calls
On
Quiet
Law
School
Deans
To
Speak
Up


Thousands
Of
Lawyers
Sign
Open
Letter
To
Defend
The
Rule
Of
Law
From
Executive
Attack


Over
50
Bar
Organizations
Stand
Up
For
The
Rule
Of
Law



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, a
published
author
on
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.

REMOVAL FROM OFFICE OF CABINET MINISTER


3.4.2025


18:53

His
Excellency
the
President
of
the
Republic
of
Zimbabwe
Cde
Dr
E
D
Mnangagwa,
has
in
terms
of
section
340,
subsection
(1),
paragraph
(f),
as
read
with
section
108,
subsection
(1)
paragraph
(a)
of
the
Constitution
of
Zimbabwe,
removed
Sithembiso
Gile
Gladys
Nyoni
from
the
position
of
Minister
of
Environment,
Climate
and
Wildlife
with
immediate
effect.


Dr
M
Rushwaya
CHIEF
SECRETARY
TO
THE
PRESIDENT
AND
CABINET

Post
published
in:

Featured

4 charged over vehicle fires at Chivayo, Tagwirei and Mangudya offices 

HARARE

Four
men
appeared
in
court
Wednesday
charged
with
malicious
damage
to
property
after
allegedly
trying
to
burn
down
properties
owned
by
Zanu
PF-linked
businessmen
on
March
28
2025.

Last
Matarutse,
40,
Abel
Jobe,
47,
Kizito
Chinhanga,
40,
 and
Thomas
Chanetsa,
all
of
Chitungwiza,
were
not
asked
to
plead
when
they
appeared
before
Harare
magistrate
Marewanazvo
Gofa.

They
were
remanded
in
custody
after
being
advised
to
seek
bail
at
the
High
Court.

The
four
allegedly
drove
vehicles
and
set
them
on
fire
outside
the
offices
of
tenderprenuer
Wicknell
Chivayo,
petroleum
tycoon
Kudakwashe
Tagwirei,
a
DA
petrol
station
allegedly
linked
to
Tagwirei
and
a
business
complex
belonging
to
Kuvimba
Mining
CEO
John
Mangudya
in
Goromonzi.

The
events
came
hours
after
war
veteran
Blessed
Geza
named
Tagwirei
and
Chivayo
as
“criminals
around
the
president.”

The
National
Prosecuting
Authority
says
on
March
28,
2025,
at
about
2.15AM, 
Matarutse
“with
intent
to
destroy
the
premises
of
IMC
Communications
company
located
at
42
Lanack
Road
Avondale,
drove
his
silver
Toyota
Corolla,
to
the
premises.”

Upon
arrival,
he
allegedly
parked
his
vehicle
at
the
entrance
gate
and
set
it
on
fire
intending
to
destroy
the
entire
building
owned
by
Chivayo.
The
fire
damaged
to
the
lighting
system
and
a
sign
post
inscribed
“Starlink
Authorised
Dealer.”

It
is
alleged
that 
on
the
same
day
 Jobe
went
to
Sano
Complex
in
Goromonzi
driving
a
blue
Nissan
Sunny
which
he
parked
outside.

It 
is
alleged
that
his
intention
was
to
burn
the
complex 
and
he
set
his
vehicle 
on
fire.
The
vehicle
exploded
but
nothing
was
damaged.

Chinhanga
allegedly
went
to
Tagwirei’s
Sakunda
Holdings
at
number
11
Argyle
Road,
Avondale,
driving
in
a
blue
Nissan
X-Trail.

“Upon
arrival,
the
accused
parked
his
motor
vehicle
at
the
premises’
entrance
gate
and
set
the
vehicle
on
fire
intending
to
destroy
the
entire
premises,”
the
NPA
alleges.

Chanetsa
on
the
same
day
and
at
the
same
time
allegedly
went
to
DA
Service
Station
at
number
486A
Glennara
Avenue,
North
Highlands,
Harare,
with
the
intention
to
burn
down
the
premises.

 “Upon
arrival,
the
accused
parked
his
vehicle
at
the
premises’
forecourt
and
set
the 
vehicle
on
fire
intending
to
destroy
the
entire
service
station
but
the
fire
was 
extinguished
before
it
destroyed
any
property.”

Power struggle and internal revolt: What is fueling Zimbabwe’s political turmoil?



Speculation
about
Mnangagwa’s
intent
to
extend
his
term
beyond
2028
has
sparked
deep
divisions
within
the
ruling
Zanu-PF
party



One
faction
within
Zanu-PF
is
siding
with
Mnangagwa,
while
the
other
is
pushing
for
Vice
President
Constantino
Chiwenga
to
replace
him


HARARE,
Zimbabwe

Zimbabwe
is
facing
the
prospect
of
prolonged
political
turmoil
as
calls
grow
for
President
Emmerson
Mnangagwa
to
step
down
over
allegations
of
corruption
and
economic
mismanagement.

The
capital
Harare
and
other
major
cities
were
largely
deserted
on
Monday
as
the
government
deployed
police
in
heavy
numbers
to
thwart
a
call
for
protest
issued
by
a
rival
faction
within
the
ranks
of
Mnangagwa’s
ruling
Zanu-PF
party.

Authorities
said
they
arrested
at
least
95
people
on
charges
of
promoting
public
violence,
fueling
fears
of
escalating
anti-government
sentiment
and
more
protests
over
the
coming
days.

However,
Mnangagwa’s
supporters
within
the
ruling
party
are
still
dismissing
suggestions
of
any
imminent
threat
to
the
82-year-old’s
grip
on
power.

“The
president
is
not
facing
ouster.
What
happened
was
a
very
loud
call
for
demonstrations
on
social
media
which
failed
to
translate
to
reality,”
Farai
Marapira,
Zanu-PF’s
director
of
information,
told
Anadolu.

“In
fact,
as
Zanu-PF,
our
mandate
from
the
people
remains
the
economy,
and
bread-and-butter
issues.
We
are
not
distracted.
We
remain
focused
on
that.”


Why
is
there
a
power
struggle
within
Zanu-PF?

Mnangagwa
first
took
power
in
2017
after
Robert
Mugabe,
the
former
president
and
his
mentor,
was
ousted
in
a
military
coup.

He
is
currently
serving
his
second
and
final
term
in
office,
which
is
due
to
end
in
2028,
but
Zanu-PF
announced
in
January
that
it
was
looking
to
extend
Mnangagwa’s
rule
by
two
years
until
2030.

That
declaration
has
sparked
a
clear
divide
within
the
party,
as
one
faction
has
sided
with
Mnangagwa
and
the
other
is
pushing
for
Vice
President
Constantino
Chiwenga
to
replace
him.

The
faction
supporting
Chiwenga
has
received
a
major
boost
in
recent
days
as
veterans
of
Zimbabwe’s
independence
war,
who
were
previously
backing
Mnangagwa,
turned
against
the
president.

One
of
the
prominent
figures
has
been
Blessed
Geza,
a
war
veteran
and
member
of
Zanu-PF.

Geza,
also
known
by
his
wartime
alias
Comrade
Bombshell,
has
been
leading
the
calls
for
Mnangagwa
to
make
way
for
Chiwenga,
garnering
massive
social
media
popularity.

He
has
openly
accused
Mnangagwa
and
other
top
officials
of
orchestrating
corruption
schemes
and
failing
to
revitalize
Zimbabwe’s
troubled
economy,
leading
to
his
expulsion
from
Zanu-PF
and
accusations
of
treason
from
the
government.

As
Geza
and
others
supporting
Chiwenga
vow
to
continue
their
efforts
to
depose
Mnangagwa,
the
president
has
repeatedly
denied
that
he
intends
to
prolong
his
tenure,
but
messaging
from
his
allies
suggests
otherwise.

He
has
also
taken
steps
that
observers
believe
are
part
of
a
strategy
to
consolidate
power,
such
as
prominent
billionaire
Kudakwashe
Tagwirei’s
inclusion
in
Zanu-PF.

Earlier
this
week,
Tagwirei,
a
major
financial
backer
of
the
party
and
an
entrepreneur
with
expansive
interests
in
energy,
mining,
and
other
sectors,
was
added
to
the
Zanu-PF
Central
Committee,
sparking
speculation
about
him
potentially
being
Chiwenga’s
replacement.

Chiwenga’s
vocal
criticism
of
corruption
involving
Mnangagwa’s
associates
has
reportedly
strained
their
relationship.

At
an
event
in
January,
Chiwenga
indirectly
targeted
Mnangagwa’s
allies
as
he
called
out
corrupt
practices:
“Our
Vision
2030
is
for
all
of
us,
not
those
that
you
call
corrupt
‘tenderpreneurs.’”

Despite
apparent
tensions,
both
Mnangagwa
and
Chiwenga
have
maintained
public
composure,
with
the
latter
so
far
refusing
to
comment
on
the
protests
or
the
president’s
bid
to
extend
his
tenure.


What
next
for
Mnangagwa
and
Zimbabwe?

Analyst
Rashweat
Mukundu
emphasized
that
“premature
political
maneuvering”
surrounding
Mnangagwa’s
potential
third
term
has
fractured
Zimbabwe’s
ruling
party.

“President
Mnangagwa
either
wants
to
continue
beyond
2028,
which
is
constitutionally
impossible,
or
he
wants
to
use
this
chaos
to
create
a
situation
where
he
anoints
his
preferred
candidate,
who
may
not
be
Vice
President
Chiwenga,”
he
explained.

“This
is
a
struggle
for
the
soul
of
the
ruling
party.”

He
pointed
out
that
Zanu-PF
has
never
experienced
a
peaceful
transfer
of
power
in
its
over
six
decades
of
existence,
adding
that
Mnangagwa
has
“failed
to
create
a
new
legacy.”

“That’s
something
he
could
do
by
silencing
calls
to
amend
the
constitution
and
extend
his
tenure,”
said
Mukundu.

Political
observer
Mpumelelo
Hondo
attributes
Mnangagwa’s
declining
popularity
to
his
close
associations
with
controversial
business
figures.

“I
think
Mnangagwa’s
relationship
with
dubious
individuals
like
Wicknell
Chivayo,
who
flaunt
their
wealth
amidst
widespread
poverty,
is
why
he
is
facing
instability
within
Zanu-PF
and
possible
removal
from
office,”
Hondo
told
Anadolu.

Chivayo
gained
notoriety
after
allegedly
failing
to
deliver
on
the
multimillion-dollar
Gwanda
Solar
Project
awarded
by
the
Zimbabwe
Electricity
Supply
Authority.
Mnangagwa’s
public
appearances
alongside
Chivayo
have
further
tarnished
his
reputation.

Zivaishe
Zhou,
a
trade
unionist
and
coordinator
for
the
Zimbabwe
Agricultural
Professionals
and
Technical
Association,
cites
unfulfilled
economic
and
democratic
promises
as
the
key
reasons
for
Mnangagwa’s
waning
popularity.

“Mnangagwa
came
to
power
in
2017,
promising
democratic
and
economic
reforms.
However,
many
Zimbabweans
feel
he
has
reneged
on
these
promises,
presiding
over
an
economy
characterized
by
favoritism,
cronyism,
and
corruption,
causing
significant
fallout
even
within
his
own
party,”
Zhou
said.

With
Zanu-PF’s
internal
power
struggle
threatening
the
country’s
political
stability,
some
experts
feel
Zimbabwe’s
powerful
military
could
likely
play
a
decisive
role
in
who
comes
out
on
top.

“A
closer
look
at
transition
politics
both
at
the
level
of
party
and
state
in
Zimbabwe
reveals
the
continued
conflation
between
Zanu-PF
and
the
military
since
independence
in
1980,”
said
political
analyst
Stanford
Nyatsanza.

“It
is,
therefore,
a
question
of
who
between
the
two
factions
secures
the
military’s
support.”