Morning Docket: 03.05.20

Robert Durst

* A Nassau County judge has dismissed a lawsuit against Robert Durst brought by members of his wife Kathie’s family for the alleged murder of Kathie and the disposal of her body. Please let there be another season of The Jinx. [New York Post]

* President Trump is apparently happy that former attorney general Jeff Sessions didn’t win the Alabama Senate primary outright and needs to face a runoff vote. [Washington Post]

* A lawyer is accused of stealing millions of dollars from an estate he was managing in order to pay for cosmetic surgery and gambling trips to Vegas and elsewhere. Guess when it comes to stealing, you gotta go big or go home… [Dayton Daily News]

* President Trump is arguing that a lawsuit involving sexual assault allegations against him should be put on hold. [ABC News]

* A lawyer accused of sexual harassment alleges that the accuser created a hostile environment by hanging a giant penis in an attorney’s office. The accused’s nickname around the office was also apparently “Douchebag McBully.” [Vice]

* A federal judge has tossed a lawsuit filed by Tulsi Gabbard against Google for briefly suspending her campaign ads. Maybe she would have gotten more delegates in American Somoa if the ads weren’t suspended… [The Hill]


Jordan Rothman is a partner of The Rothman Law Firm, a full-service New York and New Jersey law firm. He is also the founder of Student Debt Diaries, a website discussing how he paid off his student loans. You can reach Jordan through email at jordan@rothmanlawyer.com.

Alteration of Maximum Farm Sizes : Why? – The Zimbabwean

Introduction

On the 14th February 2020, the Minister of Lands, Agriculture, Water and Rural Resettlement published the Rural Land (Farm Sizes) (Amendment) Regulations, 2020 (No. 2) (SI 41 of 2020) [link] which announced new maximum farm sizes permitted at law in all the agricultural regions in the country.  State-controlled media reported that this designation of farm sizes was meant to accommodate more new farmers on the land expropriated during the Fast Track Land Reform process that started in 1999.

The Government expropriated nearly 12 million hectares of land in the course of that process, but the resettlement of people on the land has been chaotic with no definite figures of how many people or households were resettled, and several hundred cases of multiple farm allocations to the same beneficiaries.  However, there are thousands more Zimbabwean citizens who are clamouring for land and who are looking to be resettled.  It is in this context, apparently, that the Government has sought to amend the maximum permissible farm sizes.

Legal Background to SI 41 of 2020

In 1999 the then Minister of Lands and Agriculture published a set of regulations [SI 419 of 1999] under the Rural Land Act which sought to regulate farm sizes according to the “natural regions” in which the farms were situated.  The regions ranged from Natural Region I, an area of high rainfall, to Natural Region V, an area of low and erratic rainfall, and the maximum sizes of farms permitted in each of the regions were as follows:

          Natural Region                                     Max Farm Size

                I                                                       250 hectares

              IIa                                                          350 ha

              IIb                                                          400 ha

               III                                                           500 ha

              IV                                                         1 500 ha

               V                                                         2 000 ha

In 2017 the Rural Land Act was replaced by the Land Commission Act, which retained the earlier Act’s provisions for fixing farm sizes in substantially the same form ‒ though with important differences which we shall deal with later.

Now the Minister of Lands, Agriculture, Water and Rural Resettlement [his title has expanded since 1999] has used his powers under the 2017 Act to alter the regions and the maximum farm sizes, as follows:

          Natural Region                                     Max Farm Size

                I                                                            250 ha

               II                                                           500 ha

               III                                                           750 ha

              IV                                                         1 500 ha

               V                                                         2 000 ha

The changes the Minister has made with his new SI are the following:

  • Natural Regions IIa and IIb have been conflated into one, so there are now five regions rather than six.
  • The maximum permissible farm sizes in Natural Regions II and III have gone up.  Whereas in the old Natural Regions IIa and IIb the maximum sizes were 350 ha and 400 ha respectively, they are now 500 ha for the new composite Natural Region II.  And in Natural Region III the maximum size has gone up from 500 ha to 750 ha.

Why the Changes?

The Government has not offered any explanation for changing the Natural Regions and the maximum permissible farm sizes.  The reason given by State media, that the changes will enable more people to be resettled, seems obviously wrong:  if more people are to be resettled on the land then farm sizes have to be reduced, not increased, to accommodate them.  It is difficult to fathom what other legitimate reason the Government could have for the changes.

Ineffectiveness of the amendments made by the new SI

Whatever the reason for the amendment, the new SI is unlikely to go far towards achieving it because the Farm Sizes regulations of 1999, even with the new amendments, have a very limited application indeed.

The regulations, as their name suggests, apply to farms, and the word “farm” is defined in the regulations as:

“farm” means a piece of rural land, whatever it is used for, which is described as a single piece of land in any deed of grant, transfer or other certificate of title registered in the Deeds Registry

That definition was appropriate in 1999 when much of rural Zimbabwe was taken up with large commercial farms, all of which were registered in a Deeds Registry.  Since the Fast Track Land Reform programme, however, those farms have been seized by the Government and their title deeds ‒ i.e. their deeds of grant or transfer ‒ have been cancelled.  They have reverted to being State land.  The plots or stands allocated to A1 and A2 farmers are not registered in a deeds registry and are not “farms” as defined in the regulations.  Hence the regulations, even with the amendments, do not apply to them.

This makes it even more inexplicable that the Government should want to amend the regulations.

Future Problems?

Section 21(2) of the Land Commission Act [link], under which the new regulations were made, gives the responsible Minister powers that are worryingly wide, perhaps not even intended.  The section states that the “appropriate Minister”, i.e. the Minister responsible for State land, may make regulations providing for:

  1. Limiting the numbers of “pieces of land” that any one person may own or hold “for farming or other purposes” [This power could be used to stop multiple farm ownership, but it has never been exercised]
  2. Limiting the size of any “piece of land” that may be owned or held “for farming or other purposes” [This is the power under which the Minister has amended the maximum farm sizes]
  3. Limiting the right of individuals who are not indigenous citizens of Zimbabwe to own, lease or occupy State land
  4. Restricting the right of non-citizens and non-residents, or companies controlled by such people, to own, lease or occupy land in Zimbabwe.

The first two powers ostensibly go no further than those given to the Minister under section 15 of the old Rural Land Act [which, as we have said, was repealed by the Land Commission Act] but there is one important difference:  whereas the Rural Land Act applied only to rural land other than Communal Land [see section 3 of that Act]the Land Commission Act extends to all “pieces of land”, i.e. land registered in a deeds registry, whether they are urban or rural and whether they are used for farming, commercial, industrial or residential purposes.  Hence the Minister can limit the size of stands in urban areas and prohibit people from owning two or more such stands.  It may be doubted if that is what Parliament intended, but that is what the Act says.

The third power listed above, by which the Minister can prevent non-indigenous people from occupying State land, was probably intended to keep white farmers off resettlement land which currently vests in the State.  The power goes further than that, however, and could be used to prevent non-indigenous people occupying State land in urban areas.  And even if the Minister has not exercised the power, the fact that he may do so in the future will render the title of any newly-resettled white farmers rather precarious.

The fourth power, under which the Minister can prevent non-citizens and companies controlled by them from occupying land in Zimbabwe, is more far-reaching and disturbing because it makes the title of any non-citizen anywhere in Zimbabwe extremely precarious.

If Zimbabwe is to attract foreign direct investment, foreigners must be confident that they will have secure title to any property, including land and buildings, which they may acquire here.  Their title cannot be secure if a government Minister has power, at the stroke of a legislative pen, to prohibit them from owning, leasing or occupying land in this country.

If Zimbabwe is to be open for business, the Minister’s powers under section 21 of the Land Commission Act must be repealed or at least severely curtailed.

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

Post published in: Agriculture

State Paranoia Plumbs New Depths in Zimbabwe – The Zimbabwean

5.3.2020 7:05

ZIMBABWEAN authorities on Wednesday 4 March 2020 accused a human rights lawyer and some trade unionists of plotting to foment civil disobedience in the country after they were allegedly caught in possession of a book entitled “Pedagogy of the Oppressed”.

Beatrice Mtetwa

Human rights lawyer Douglas Coltart, Amalgamated Rural Teachers Union of Zimbabwe Secretary-General Robson Chere, Jessica Drury, Munyaradzi Ndawana and Precious Ndlovu appeared at Rotten Row Magistrates Court before Magistrate Usheunesu Matova for commencement of their trial on charges of participating in a gathering with intent to promote public breaches of peace or bigotry as defined in section 37(1)(a) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act.

Prosecutors claimed that Coltart aged 28, Chere aged 35 years old, Drury aged 33 years old, Ndawana aged 32 years old and Ndlovu aged 32 years old, plotted a rebellion by gathering unlawfully at Zambezi Roots Lodge in Harare’s Greystone Park suburb on 27 April 2019, where they held a training workshop to strategise on ways of “spearheading a host of civil disobedience in Zimbabwe.”

The state charged that some Zimbabwe Republic Police (ZRP) officers who arrested Coltart, Chere, Drury, Ndawana and Ndlovu recovered some material which were being used during the alleged training and which included a book written “Pedagogy of the Oppressed” written by Brazilian educator Paulo Freire, five paper sheets with various messages, some crayons, assorted pens, a cup, point markers and sticky notes among other materials.

However, their trial could not commence after their lawyer Beatrice Mtetwa of Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights, protested against the state’s failure to furnish her clients with some relevant state papers and some exhibits relevant to their case.

Mtetwa also told Magistrate Matova that some of her clients were tortured by some state security agents who apprehended and detained them while the network at her law firm, Mtetwa and Nyambirai Legal Practitioners, where Coltart works was tempered with after police officers confiscated a laptop belonging to the budding human rights lawyer.
Magistrate Matova ordered the state to carry out a probe into complaints filed by Mtetwa and postponed the matter to 6 April 2020 for commencement of trial.

Post published in: Featured

Coronavirus Continues To Hit The Profession — See Also

Performance Evaluations — Phooey!  

That’s what I thought as an HR lawyer and that’s what I think to this day. Why phooey? My thoughts:

It’s a perfect opportunity to sandbag employees you supervise. Rather than giving them feedback and coaching during the appraisal period, the supervisor waits until the annual review to critique an employee’s performance. Instead of helping employees improve, a disappointing annual review — or what I call a “sandbag” review — only exacerbates performance issues and creates hard feelings.

Lawyers aren’t any different than other employers. They wish problem employees would just magically disappear. However, as many employers have learned to their dismay, that usually doesn’t happen and, if it does, it’s often accompanied by a severance agreement.

Even if a performance evaluation is more frequent than annually, that doesn’t necessarily solve the problem. The employee and the employer (supervisor, manager, whatever the title) disagree about what the performance issues are and how to resolve them. Merely giving the employee a “PIP” (Performance Improvement Plan) doesn’t mean a thing. It’s the coaching and the mentoring to improve performance, rather than merely discussing the plan (if there is even any discussion), asking the employee to sign it, and returning it to the HR Department.

What are performance deficiencies? One of the biggest ones for lawyers is, of course, billable hours. How about insufficient client development? Not “up to snuff” work product, inability to get along with colleagues, and there’s always the “just doesn’t fit in”  ever popular “round peg in square hole” fallback?

Often, it’s “up or out,” bill more hours or you’re toast. Bring in more clients, or at least a client or two. Polish up that work product, and be kind and respectful of colleagues, especially support staff. You either improve forthwith or you’re gone, and in today’s “eat what you kill” environment, those seem to be the choices.

Not a very pleasant “either/or” but one that many lawyers face, whether as newbies or as whatever career stage they are in. It’s never too late to show a colleague the door, and the psychic, reputational, financial devastation may never be completely alleviated.

Spending time writing and then administering performance evaluations is never fun. There are more than half a million samples (who knew?) of language to use in writing them and in responding to them. One need never be at a loss for words, not that we ever are.

Even if it’s a good evaluation, but not quite as good as previous ones, there’s still pushback. The supervisor is different from the prior one and decides to evaluate on “a curve.” Employees who previously received stellar evaluations now receive ones that are merely “meh.” Affected employees are knocked back on their heels. “The goal posts have moved,” which is often the refrain as the explanation for the downgrade, the unstated goal of that supervisor to manage that employee out.

Since in most, if not all, cases, writing and discussing performance evaluations are not considered billable time, they often go to the bottom of the to-do pile unless human resources gets on the case. Even then, the task falls by the wayside.

Whatever supervisors may think about their direct reports, they owe them the courtesy and candor of performance evaluations provided on a timely basis. Some supervisors may disagree. Disagree to your heart’s content, but when it’s time to terminate an employee for poor performance or other metric, and there’s nothing in the file to support the termination request, it’s not a pretty picture.

When an employee protests the evaluation and writes a response, too often the response is just made part of the employee record, without any evaluation as to whether the employee’s complaints may be justified or meritless.

Humans are pains in the butts. How many times have we thought or said to each other that the practice of law would be fun without the clients? Too many times to count.

There are people who make good, if not great, managers, and there are others that should be only individual contributors and have no management responsibility. Managing your staff, having frequent conversations about what is working and what is not, and encouraging your subordinates to improve are definite time sucks.

Almost twenty-five years ago, Mr. I.’s supervisor wrote his evaluation, saying that “He is not an enlightened or brilliantly creative man, but with a strong board, he could absolutely do the job.” Fifteen years ago, an associate dean at the Yale School of Management said that Mr. I. was “a loyal drone” and that expectations for him were low. How cutting and what a lack of insight.

Now, in 2020, that “loyal drone,” that “not enlightened or brilliantly creative man” also known as Robert Iger, the CEO who expanded the Mouse House (aka Disney) and transformed the entire entertainment industry, has stepped down as CEO. Why do I mention him?

He is Exhibit A for why performance evaluations do not necessarily mean that one is doomed to permanent professional failure. An evaluation that is thoughtful, carefully crafted, and encouraging (let’s agree that the employee always does at least one thing well) can go a long way.

However, if the evaluation is harsh and unforgiving, then all we have to do is look at the rates of depression, addiction, and death by suicide among us to know the toll that such an evaluation can take. So, for the employee: keep going. For the employer: recognize that ability and talent can take many forms and can take time to flourish. Very few of us are overnight successes.


Jill Switzer has been an active member of the State Bar of California for over 40 years. She remembers practicing law in a kinder, gentler time. She’s had a diverse legal career, including stints as a deputy district attorney, a solo practice, and several senior in-house gigs. She now mediates full-time, which gives her the opportunity to see dinosaurs, millennials, and those in-between interact — it’s not always civil. You can reach her by email at oldladylawyer@gmail.com.

Do androids dream of electric lawsuits? Current IP law ill-suited for AI in drug discovery, panelist says – MedCity News

L-R: Richard Assmus, David Opderbeck, Lori Bennett, Brian Nolan

As more companies use artificial intelligence and machine learning in the process of drug discovery and development, that raises a big question: Who owns the intellectual property?

That emerged as a significant topic of discussion in a panel Thursday afternoon at the Hot Topics in Life Sciences Law symposium, sponsored by the law firm Mayer Brown. The symposium took place at the Seton Hall Law School in Newark, New Jersey. Mayer Brown partner Brian Nolan moderated the panel, which included fellow Mayer Brown partner Richard Assmus; Lori Bennett, general counsel of Aetion; and David Opderbeck, a professor of law at Seton Hall.

“It’s almost like there’s something new going on here that current IP law is not well-suited to protect,” said panelist Richard Assmus, a partner at Mayer Brown’s Chicago office.

Use of AI/ML in drug discovery and development has fed the growth of a number companies and drawn interest from large pharmaceutical and biotech firms as well. One such firm is Salt Lake City-based Recursion Pharmaceuticals, which already has a drug discovered through machine learning, REC-994, in Phase I development. Another company, Oxford, U.K.-based Exscientia, has formed partnerships with multiple drugmakers like GlaxoSmithKline, Bayer, Sanofi and Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma, to discover drugs using AI. On Jan. 30, Exscientia and Sumitomo Dainippon announced that their first drug candidate created using AI, DSP-1181 for obsessive-compulsive disorder, had entered the clinic.

Significant advancements have also taken place in academia. Nolan brought up the Feb. 20 announcement by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology that its researchers had used a machine learning algorithm to identify halicin, a new antibiotic compound with in vitro and in vivo efficacy against antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Halicin, previously investigated as a potential treatment for diabetes, was identified using an algorithm capable of combing through 100 million chemical compounds in days to pick out potential antibiotics using mechanisms of action different from those of existing drugs. The name halicin came from HAL-9000, the malevolent AI in “2001: A Space Odyssey.”

But Assmus said MIT’s work is an example of where legal language has not kept up with technological development. “Was that a derivative work of that data? Was it an improvement of those compounds?” he asked.

In other words, if an AI discovers that an existing diabetes drug works as an antibiotic, the question is who discovered it, whether that’s the human programmers who built the algorithm or someone else.

“I feel like we need new language to talk about what’s going on here,” Assmus said.

Photo: Alaric DeArment, MedCity News

How Bad Do You Have To Be To Lose An Abortion Restriction Case With This Supreme Court?

The Supreme Court finally has the dyed-in-the-wool conservative majority that right-wingers have dreamt about since they finally saw Earl Warren put in the ground. There would be no more David Souters. The Federalist Society’s lifetime vetting machine has seen to that. Anthony Kennedy and his squishy “conservatism but not for more friends” judicial philosophy was put out to pasture in exchange for getting jobs for his old clerks. Now was the time to take a good solid run at Roe v. Wade.

It was never going to be taken out in one swoop. Chief Justice Roberts is all about the death of a thousand cuts. But that’s good enough for most anti-reproductive freedom activists. With Kavanaugh installed and a nice, quiet period where he didn’t have to offer his thoughts on what he wants to do with women’s bodies in the rearview mirror, this was the conservative moment.

Louisiana rolled up with a law requiring abortion providers to have admitting privileges in an explicit assault on Whole Women’s Health and… wow, Louisiana might actually lose.

Ian Millhiser’s assessment of the SG’s argument was more blunt:

Obviously, pointed questions asked at oral argument don’t always guarantee an outcome. When the justices retire to their conference in the Highest Locker Room In The Land, rookie Brett Kavanaugh is going to try and sell the Chief hard on his interpretation, clear from the the questioning, that there’s some contrived way to distinguish Louisiana’s case from WWH.

John Roberts doesn’t like WWH. He dissented in that case and generally thinks about as highly of reproductive freedom as he does of voting rights for minorities. But a man has to live by a code and for Roberts, that code is not to make the Court look like a collection of partisan hacks that overturns decisions year to year based on the composition of the Court as opposed to any “laws” or “facts.”

Roberts wanted that answer from Louisiana SG Elizabeth Murrill (or alternatively the Trump administration’s representative Jeffrey Wall). He’s just out here begging these states to give him the hook to claim that the Court isn’t wildly shifting from precedent to precedent based on political whim. How hard is it to give the guy what he wants? Is it possible the true hacks are just so wrapped up in their own ideology that they can’t bring themselves to step away from their righteousness and give Roberts the mealy-mouthed, lawyerball response he craves? Or maybe there’s just no good way for Roberts to deliver on the conservative promise without compromising the integrity of his vision for the Court.

Make no mistake, the Chief still wants to uphold this law and if he can come up with a solution to his conundrum, he’ll take it. But for now, what appeared to be a surefire win for conservatives is looking like a toss-up and that’s a stunning turn of events.


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 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.

‘Your Debt-Free JD’ Explains How To Get A Full Law School Scholarship And Graduate Without Student Loan Debt

(Image via Getty)

I had an idyllic childhood, in a small-town America sort of way. Before I was old enough to work, I rode my bike down to the Long Prairie River to cast for northern pike in the summers. I defended our backyard fort from neighborhood invaders with my brother. I got a good public-school education. Other than a rough six months when my old man was healing from two busted knees (he had to thereafter transition from carpet layer to public-school custodian), we always had our basic needs met. My mom was a dental hygienist at the same small-town dental office for 30-some years. That kept the household bills paid.

But, household bills aside, one thing a small-town dental hygienist and a public-school custodian were not going to be able to do was contribute tens of thousands of dollars to pay for their sons’ higher education. So, I worked hard in high school. When I finished, I accepted a full academic scholarship at an undergraduate institution. After that, I applied to eight law schools. Four of them offered me full scholarships. I accepted one of the full scholarships, graduated from law school without debt, and never looked back.

In addition to my private practice experience, I’ve now been teaching legal writing as an adjunct law professor for as long as I was in law school myself. Obviously, I’ve been writing for Above the Law as well, often about financial issues impacting law students and new lawyers. And in all the time since I went to law school, with all my diverse experience, it has been reinforced more and more to me that my approach to law school scholarships wasn’t a fluke. It wasn’t just chance. Yes, I worked hard and got good grades, but I was also strategic. I followed a defined process, with a specific goal in mind, and achieved it. This could be replicated.

Your Debt-Free JD: How to Graduate from Law School Without Incurring Student Loan Debt is a guide on how to strategically apply for and get through law school with maximum opportunities but at minimal cost. I set out to write Your Debt-Free JD to share my expertise with any prospective law students who don’t want to graduate handcuffed to six figures of student loan debt. I particularly have a place in my heart for those potential law students who, like me, have no family members in the legal profession to help in navigating the dizzying world of law school applications.

Most potential law students base their school selection on only one factor: perceived prestige. This means, basically, that most law students just go to the school they get into with the highest U.S. News rank. Your Debt-Free JD argues that law school rankings and claimed prestige have little to do with the quality of the legal education actually provided, and that school rankings and prestige have even less to do with real-world outcomes for most law students and new lawyers (career outcomes ultimately have a lot more to do with you than with what school you go to). Law students who understand how to play the U.S. News rankings to their advantage can finagle their way into tens, and probably hundreds, of thousands of dollars in scholarship money while giving up virtually nothing in terms of educational quality or career outcomes.

The biggest part of getting your JD without getting buried in debt is properly understanding what is important about the U.S. News rankings — how you can use them to your financial advantage, at the expense of the prestige-obsessed. But the last two sections of the book are dedicated to what you can do while you’re actually in law school to ensure you remain at least relatively debt-free. There is material for current law students as well as prospective ones. I wanted to empower more people to be able to pursue meaningful work with nonprofits, in government offices, or even out of the legal field entirely, rather than everyone being stuck with high-paying private sector work after law school to pay off debts they never should have incurred.

Having been a relatively active player in the literary community for a few years now, I initially sent out some query letters to literary agents and book proposals to small publishers. The response I got (if I got one) was either sorry, we don’t work with this kind of book topic, or we don’t think there is a big enough market of potential law students who both don’t want to incur debt and are openminded about the U.S. News rankings maybe being meaningless garbage. I figured the publishing industry insiders might be wrong, and I also figured that my manuscript was neither helping anyone nor earning me a bit of scratch on the side sitting unused on my jump drive.

I just self-published a draft of Your Debt-Free JD on Amazon for download to your Kindle or other device, which you can find by following the link in this sentence. It’ll only set you back $9.99, and I guarantee you’ll get at least that much value out of it. The manuscript is a little over 70,000 words, making it roughly equivalent to Scott Turow’s One L in length. If you like the book or find it helpful, please tell your friends and leave a five-star Amazon review. If you don’t like the book or have any nonformatting criticisms, feel free to let me know (but leave a five-star review anyway). And if you really want a paper copy, email me at the address below and we’ll work something out.


Jonathan Wolf is a litigation associate at a midsize, full-service Minnesota firm. He also teaches as an adjunct writing professor at Mitchell Hamline School of Law, has written for a wide variety of publications, and makes it both his business and his pleasure to be financially and scientifically literate. Any views he expresses are probably pure gold, but are nonetheless solely his own and should not be attributed to any organization with which he is affiliated. He wouldn’t want to share the credit anyway. He can be reached at jon_wolf@hotmail.com.

Who Wants To Help Steve Cohen Build A Trading Cyborg?