Author: TSA Press

* A Miami lawyer has been charged for allegedly offering to make a defendant’s criminal case go away in exchange for sex. Seems like we have been discussing Florida lawyers acting badly a lot lately… [USA Today]

* Harvey Weinstein’s defense lawyer told jurors that the prosecutors have presented an “alternate universe” when arguing their case. [CNN]

* Thirty-nine prosecutors are blasting the actions of Attorney General Barr. [Washington Post]

* Female Connecticut high school athletes are filing suit to prevent transgender students from competing in female sporting events. [Fox News]

* The Los Angeles County District Attorney has announced the dismissal of 66,000 marijuana convictions. That’s not a pipe dream… [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.

Harare City Council has identified 3 470 housing stands in Eyestone, Mabvuku and Tafara which will be offered to workers to cover up for salary arrears dating back to 2017.

However, residents, under the banner of Cleveland Action Alliance and Gosden Conservation Trust from Mabvuku and Tafara, have since written to the Harare City Council Town Clerk, Hosiah Chisango and the Provincial Minister for Harare, Senator Oliver Chidawu seeking to stop the move by the council.

The residents contend that wetlands are the major source of water for Harare after run off and council should make efforts to save the water sources from destruction.

Council intends to issue 1 832 stands in Mabvuku, 342 stands in Tafara and 1 000 stands in Eyestone.

The Harare Wetlands Trust (HWT) has since raised concern over the intended move by council. HWT has engaged council as well as the Environmental Management Agency (EMA).

In a letter of response to HWT, the Provincial Manager for EMA, Harare Province, Robson Mavondo said that no Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) certificate had been issued with regards to the Mabvuku and Tafara stands as no application had been made with the agency.

However, Zimbabwe Urban Council Workers Union Secretary General Kudakwashe Munengiwa said council ‘cannot prioritize frogs at the expense of human beings’.

“Other countries are building in the sea but here people are complaining of wetlands which are located on firm ground. To say those stands are wetlands is an indirect attack on our colleagues because those stands are approved by workers in the planning department who are so competent and cannot stoop so low to approve stands on wetlands.

“Surely, we cannot have laws prioritizing frogs at the expense of human beings particularly those working at a zero reward,” said Munengiwa.

However, Council Human Resources Committee Chairperson, Councilor Jacob Mafume said it was not council policy to allocate stands on wetlands.

“We are watching the process closely and we will not do anything that will harm the ecosystem of Harare. Due cognizance will be taken to protect our wetlands,” said Mafume.

The Chairperson of Cleveland Action Alliance, Jimmy Mahachi said they were unrelenting in their fight to stop council from issuing residential stands on wetlands adding that public litigation remains on top of their action plans.

Last week, Harare Mayor, Herbert Gomba said council will formulate a wetlands policy as a way of protecting the water sources from further destruction.

Post published in: Featured

This year’s Legalweek conference was the tenth that I’ve attended, and has it ever changed over the years. Gone are the days of barely clothed angels hired by an exhibitor to lure in attendees from the cold. But truth be told I don’t miss the nearly naked angels one bit. Thankfully that marketing ploy — using scantily clad women to gain attention for legaltech products — has gone the way of the dinosaur.

That being said, the angels would have been a lot more comfortable this year since there was no snow to be seen. It was downright balmy outside, ringing in at 57 degrees at one point. Quite honestly it felt a bit surreal. But then again, in many ways so did the entire conference.

For starters the conference providers steadfastly insist on sticking with the altogether confusing name and structure change. There continue to be multiple “conferences” within a conference (for example, Legaltech, Legal CIO, Legal Business Strategy, and more) that are, for all intents and purposes “tracks,” since they all occur in the exact same venue at the exact same time. They share the same expo hall, the same keynotes, and more. Nevertheless they’re billed as separate conferences.

Then there’s the case of the ever-shrinking Expo Hall, with portions that are increasingly difficult to locate. Halfway through the first day, I approached an attendant manning the door of one entrance to ask him where one of the expo halls was located since I couldn’t find it for the life of me. While he was answering my inquiry, two other people approached him with the exact same question, so it was comforting to know I wasn’t alone in my confusion.

Then there were the meetings. The designated press meeting area shared space with a vendor presentation area and a podcast recording area, among other functions. There was little privacy to be had, and many meetings occurred elsewhere. And, as Joe Patrice observed in his post about the conference, more meetings than normal seemed to occur in hotel suites this year, which definitely led to some awkward moments.

For example, at one point the meeting before mine was running late, so I was left to loiter in the hallway in front of a plain, unmarked hotel room door, nary a vendor sign in sight. My only saving grace was that between my blazer and the Legalweek pass around my neck, my prolonged presence in the hallway would (hopefully) be perceived as somewhat official by unwitting observers who passed by.

That being said, in many ways it was still the same old Legaltech conference I’ve come to know and love over the years, where like-minded legaltech aficionados meet up, connect, and talk about the latest trends in legal technology. This year was no different, and now that I’ve had a few days to reflect on this year’s Legalweek conference, here are my thoughts.

For starters, a few themes emerged: consolidation, platforms, and content, content, content! You’ll learn more about the content trend later in this post, but first, let’s take a look at the consolidation and platform trends.

The shrinking expo hall was evidence of an overall consolidation trend in legal technology — and most notable for this conference — in the ediscovery space in particular. The whack-a-mole days of seemingly endless ediscovery companies popping up are long gone, and a handful of companies remain that withstood the test of time and came out at the top, as others folded or were acquired.

That same phenomenon is occurring in the legaltech space as a whole, as shown by the vast number of acquisitions that occurred last year alone. Inevitably, over time, the dust will settle. And when it does, a few companies will be left standing in each major category of legal software, including document management, law practice management, legal billing, contract analytics, and legal research.

But enough about consolidation. Next up, platforms. The concept of legal technology “platforms” came up repeatedly throughout the conference, but there was very little agreement as to what that concept actually meant. Two definitions stood out but rest assured, most everyone had their own take on the subject, and there has yet to be any consensus on the subject.

One of the top definitions of a legal software “platform” involved an open API a la Salesforce, where a single, basic product was linked to many others via integrations — the costs of which quickly add up as the number of integrations increase. Notably, for those who favored this definition, the complexity inherent in the functionality of that concept was often glossed over. Salesforce is a notoriously complicated tool, and many organizations have one or more employees whose sole job function is to manage the company’s Salesforce platform and integrations. Definitely not a pretty picture for law firms of the future if this particular vision wins out.

Others viewed a platform as an all-in-one experience for the end user with the end goal being a seamless experience provided by both extensive built-in functionality and integrations when needed. In other words, a robust core software platform and necessary, complementary integrations. This approach is far less complicated and likely more cost-effective. That being said, those who favor the former definition typically argue that this concept reduces the amount of customization available.

In other words, no matter which concept you prefer, there are always trade-offs. And only time will tell which concept will prevail.

That being said, the second interpretation closely aligns with how Intapp representatives viewed the concept of a platform. At the conference, Intapp shared news of the rollout of their OnePlace CRM acquisition into the Intapp portfolio of products. They explained that their end goal is to provide a platform concept that offers seamless access to the tools a law firm requires throughout its business cycle, from client intake to invoicing needs, regardless of whether it’s an integration or native tool.

Speaking of acquisitions, during my meeting with Litera representatives, I learned that they’re in the process of merging their two recent acquisitions, Doxly and Workshare into their product. The end result will be to provide seamless document creation and collaboration tools to their customers.

I learned from Casepoint that their ediscovery platform has always been cloud-based, and that in 2019 they released the updated Casepoint platform with an open API. They’ve seen an increased interest from public sector agencies seeking to move ediscovery functions to the cloud. They were recently chosen by the SEC, and serve Federal Public Defenders offices as well.

I also met with NetDocuments, another company that has always been cloud-based. NetDocuments is seeing a lot of growth in both the large and small firm space, and emphasized that they provide a single document management platform for all users, regardless of firm size. Notably, NetDocuments is adding a new layer to their document management software and is building in document collaboration tools, including tasks and annotation features.

During my iManage meeting the focus was on the functionality offered by their Ravn acquisition, which allows law firms to use machine learning and AI to intelligently search contracts and obtain necessary insights. They plan to expand their content through APIs with other products, so that the built-in AI tools can glean even more useful information from the increased data points.

Speaking of contract analytics, I learned during my Thought River meeting that there is a similar focus in the year to come. The goal is to add to their content database through key integrations in order to help enterprise clients solve their problems without friction.

Last, but not least, I met with LexisNexis and Lex Machina (acquired by LexisNexis a few years ago). During the Lex Machina meeting, I learned that the focus has been on acquiring more data, specifically from state courts so that their AI litigation analytics software can provide increasing insights from the state-level data to law firms.

And while meeting with LexisNexis I was informed that a large focus in the coming year is … wait for it … to obtain more content. They’ve invested $1.2 billion into their technology infrastructure, which included significant investments into the acquisition of new content. I learned that they view data as the backbone of search, and that the future of search will involve conversations with users via chatbots, as I discussed more fully in this post.

And with that, it’s a wrap. Legalweek 2020 has come and gone. A lot changed, and a lot stayed the same. The best part, as always, was the networking and catching up with old friends. If you couldn’t make it this year, I hope to see you in 2021!

And if you’ll be at ABA TECHSHOW later this month, let me know. I’ll be speaking this year and would welcome the opportunity to connect. Drop me an email or make sure to stop by the MyCase booth and say hi!

Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York attorney and Director of Business and Community Relations at MyCase, web-based law practice management software. She’s been blogging since 2005, has written a weekly column for the Daily Record since 2007, is the author of Cloud Computing for Lawyers, co-authors Social Media for Lawyers: the Next Frontier, and co-authors Criminal Law in New York. She’s easily distracted by the potential of bright and shiny tech gadgets, along with good food and wine. You can follow her on Twitter at @nikiblack and she can be reached at niki.black@mycase.com.

Our decisions should not be driven by a desire to be revered or lionized for reaching certain outcomes. We are not mass media icons. We are judges, nothing more and nothing less.

— Justice Clarence Thomas, in comments given during the dedication ceremony for the new Nathan Deal Judicial Center in Atlanta, Georgia. Thomas continued, adding, “[W]e judges … must be disciplined and on guard to make sure that we do not overstep our bounds. Each time a judge sidesteps or manipulates the law to achieve the desired outcome, the rule of law suffers.”

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.

In celebration of Black History Month this year, we’ve compiled a list of five black women attorneys we think everyone needs to know. These women made history by breaking down barriers everywhere they went, and admirably, used their positions as leaders to serve and support the black communities where they lived.

Olivia Warren clerked for the late Stephen Reinhardt, known as the liberal lion of the Ninth Circuit, from 2017 until his death in 2018. Today, Warren testified at a House Judiciary subcommittee hearing on sexual misconduct in the federal judiciary about the judge’s shocking behavior while she was a clerk.

As she noted in her written testimony, Warren said she was not looking “to destroy Judge Reinhardt’s legacy, to erase his significant contributions to the law, or to condemn him.” However, her oral testimony noted, “I saw the bad in him,” saying Reinhardt was “a judge who demeaned his employees, a man who demeaned women, and a man who sexually harassed me.” That’s a hard thing to reconcile with anyone’s idea of a progressive champion.

The allegations in Warren’s testimony are downright shocking. Here are some of the worst ones:

• The alleged harassment began on the very first day Warren began work as a clerk for Reinhardt. In her testimony, she indicated on that day she came across a sine chart with “two round dots to the top of the curves such that the chart resembled a woman’s breasts.” Reinhardt added the dots.
  Her testimony continues, “In addition to emphasizing how proud he was of the nipples he had drawn on the chart and confirming that he and the clerk had made it, he asked me a question about whether or not it was ‘accurate.’ Based on his tone and demeanor, I understood his question to be asking whether or not the drawing looked like my breasts.”
• Warren also testified that Reinhardt would she her photos of female law clerk applicants and say “which candidate was more attractive and which candidate had nicer or longer legs.”
• She testified that the judge “routinely and frequently made disparaging statements about my physical appearance, my views about feminism and women’s rights, and my relationship with my husband (including our sexual relationship).”
  “Often, these remarks included expressing surprise that I even had a husband because I was not a woman who any man would be attracted to. In that vein, Judge Reinhardt often speculated that my husband must be a ‘wimp,’ or possibly gay,” Warren testified. “Judge Reinhardt would use both words and gestures to suggest that my ‘wimp’ husband must either lack a penis, or not be able to get an erection in my presence.”
• “He frequently discussed and always cast doubt upon credible allegations of sexual harassment. The doubts he expressed were sometimes based on his assessment of the attractiveness of the accuser, and sometimes based on his general incredulity that men could be harassing women.” Warren continued, “For example, Judge Reinhardt told me that the allegations of sexual harassment that came out against people like Louis CK and Harvey Weinstein were made by women who had initially ‘wanted it,’ and then changed their minds.”
• Warren attempted to engage Reinhardt on the subject of sexual harassment by describing sexual harassment she’s experienced, Reinhardt “became enraged.”
  “He yelled at me to stop speaking, and said that none of what I had just said was true. He explained to me that I had never been sexually harassed because no one had ever been sexually attracted to me.”
  “He said that to the extent that I believed I was sexually harassed, it was because men wanted to silence me and used harassment to do so—which, he added, was within their rights to free speech.”
• When the sexual misconduct allegation against disgraced former Ninth Circuit judge Alex Kozinski — reportedly a close friend of Reinhardt — became public, Warren says Reinhardt told her “that women were not to be trusted and that he did not ever want to be alone in a room with a female law clerk again; he suggested that he would not hire any more female clerks or other female employees for these reasons.”
  “Judge Reinhardt also repeatedly told me that he intended to publicly confront one of the women who accused Judge Kozinski at an event at UC-Irvine, with the intention of humiliating or silencing her. I later learned that when he met the woman at the event, he pointedly and publicly insulted her intellect.”

Warren also testified that she feared reporting the harassment because of Reinhardt’s power and position and that she feared he would retaliate if she came forward.

Jerrold Nadler, House Judiciary Committee chair, released the following  statement after the hearing:

“Culture change starts with the recognition that the judiciary is more than just its judges, and that protecting powerful judges from accountability and embarrassment is not the same as protecting the integrity of the judiciary, especially if it leaves law clerks and other employees more vulnerable to misconduct,” he said.

You can watch Warren’s testimony below, which begins at the 34:22 mark.

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).