Author: TSA Press

We used to have, and up until very recently, this has been the history of the United States, the expectation — which was the Framers’ expectation — that from time to time, the chief executive would abuse his power, in the sense of either doing something that the Constitution didn’t permit, or somehow overdoing the powers that the Constitution gives to the president. And the expectation was not that you were going to jump every time that happened to impeachment. There are other ways that the Congress, either by political pressure or by using the power of the purse, would be able to rein in presidential excess. The idea was that, you know, there is a lot of area between something that is wrong and something that is impeachable.

— Andy McCarthy offering a bold take on the Framers over at Fox News. While there’s little to no evidence that the Framers imagined an executive branch that ignores congressional edicts on a personal whim, the key to becoming a Fox legal analyst is to say whatever pops into your head and throw the phrase “the Framers’ expectation” in there.

A disciplinary complaint by the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission against former Vedder Price partner Robert Hankes has all the trappings of a throughly entertaining story. There is a fired parter, alleged fake invoices, misused client accounts and golf fees that just have to be paid.

According to the complaint, Hankes, a one-time member of Vedder Price’s transportation finance team, faked invoices for more than $130,000 in fraudulent payments. Hankes was allegedly terminated by Vedder Price on Oct. 2, 2019 over the scheme, which had begun in January of 2018. Hankes was home grown at Vedder Price, he began working there in 2005 as a summer associate, and was made partner in 2014. Before joining the firm, Hankes, also a CPA, was auditor at Arthur Andersen and a financial analyst with Winston & Strawn.

As for the details of the alleged fraud, Law.com has the skinny:

The complaint asserts that while Hankes was employed by Vedder Price, the firm did work for a unnamed financial institution and sometimes billed fees for services to the financial institution’s customers, as the client directed.

Sometime before January 2018, the firm billed about $23,783 in work for a customer of the financial institution. Hankes allegedly reactivated an unrelated client account, fabricated an invoice for the billed amount, and deposited the payment as a credit into the reopened account, which he controlled. Hankes also billed the financial institution with the correct billing number and applied the payment to its account.

There were another eight allegedly fabricated invoices according to the complaint the resulted in double-billing the financial institution and its clients. The complaint also alleges that during this period Hankes would charge the dormant account for expenses including golfing, dining and travel and got reimbursed to the tune of at least $79,790.

Hankes has not issued a statement about the complaint, but he his bar status is voluntarily inactive and not licensed to practice in Illinois. As for the firm, they say they’ve refunded clients who were double-billed but did not provide further comment.

---

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).

Just in time for the Senate impeachment trial, the White House has announced its dream team of Trump defenders. Let’s meet this motley crew of legal eagles!

Quarterback Pat Cipollone, current White House Counsel, will reprise his role from the House impeachment hearings. If history is any guide, he’ll confine himself to shouting “Congressional oversight is ILLEGAL!” in response to any and all questions. You pay his salary.

Heading up the defensive line we have Jay Sekulow, the president’s private attorney. This one’s a wild card, since he appears to have facilitated the pressure campaign on Ukrainian President Volodymr Zelensky in concert with Rudy Giuliani and Lev Parnas, and so may be called as a witness.

Next up is Alan Dershowitz, author of the recent book “The Case Against Impeaching Trump” which claims that colluding with a foreign government against the interests of the United States is not illegal. His theories on Supreme Court intervention in impeachment may be questionable, but one thing is for sure: He absolutely, positively kept his underpants on when he got that massage at Jeffery Epstein’s house.

Impeachment buffs will remember veteran Independent Counsel Ken Starr, who’s been at the game longer than anybody. At his last at-bat, he exposed President Clinton’s penis. But of late he’s become a lot more squeamish. In 2016, Starr resigned as president of Baylor University after the school was found to have systemically failed to address sexual assaults on students. And his current position is that, while lying about sex is definitely impeachable, using congressionally-allocated foreign aid to extort a criminal investigation of your political opponent is “defining impeachment down” in a shocking miscarriage of justice.

Robert Ray succeeded Ken Starr as Independent Counsel. You may recognize him from such hits as the final report on the Whitewater scandal, the final report on the White House travel office scandal, the final report on the White House FBI files controversy, and the prosecution of former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy, whom a jury acquitted on all 30 counts of receiving an improper gift. There’s no one better to make the case against politically motivated prosecutions.

Jane Raskin, the quiet one, is an experienced federal practitioner from Florida who successfully steered Trump through the Mueller investigation. And she managed it all without weekly appearances on Fox News. How does she even do it?

Bringing up the rear is former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, an adept multitasker who occasionally moonlighted as a Fox host while serving as chief lawyer of the Sunshine State. After receiving an illegal campaign donation from Donald Trump’s charitable foundation, she dropped an enforcement action against Trump University and became one of his staunchest defenders. She’s now employed at the White House as a “special government employee” whose impeachment job is to “attack the process.” You pay her salary, too!

CNN reports that the entire cast will have a speaking role in next week’s impeachment hearings, which may put a crimp in Mitch McConnell’s plans for a dignified, serious process. But let’s keep it PG, kids! In the people’s house, everybody wears pants. (Sorry, Dersh.)

Trump adds Ken Starr and Alan Dershowitz to impeachment defense team [CNN]

---

Elizabeth Dye lives in Baltimore where she writes about law and politics.

Dying is expensive. The American health care system extracts its final tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars (or, if you’ve got something really good, maybe millions) from your rapidly deteriorating flesh, and then, once you’re gone, it costs a ton more to actually dispose of your mortal remains.

The zombie of Sears Holdings knows all about this. It spent gobs of money it didn’t have in a futile effort to cheat the grim reaper, as its own medical professionals hacked off parts health and gangrenous to give it a few more months or years with its one true love. Eventually, however, death comes to us all, and that’s where the lawyers come in. After all, extracting one-third of what your estate is owed from the guy who killed you is pretty damned expensive.

MUREWA, Zimbabwe

The 46-year old Miranda Chihota’s life took a turn four years ago when her husband died in a tragic road accident.

When she was still convalescing from the tragedy, she was forcibly married to her husband’s brother, whose wife, she claimed, had succumbed to AIDS two years before Miranda’s husband died.

As a result, Miranda now shares the disease with her new husband due to the culture of spousal inheritance still practiced across Zimbabwe.

“I had no choice, because in our culture if one loses a husband or wife, he or she is inherited by the relative of the spouse,” Miranda told Anadolu Agency.

Miranda, from Murewa — a rural district approximately 80 kilometers (49.7 miles) east of the Zimbabwean capital Harare — said she also now bears the brunt of nursing an HIV positive child.

Meanwhile, Tinashe Chipako, a Zimbabwean legal expert, said women in most cases are the lead victims when it comes to inheritance.

“Men can choose to marry without necessarily being forced to inherit the wife of a dead relative, unlike women who are given no choice, so this inheritance culture is very unfair,” Miranda told Anadolu Agency.

There is no specific legislation in the southern African nation forbidding wife or husband inheritance.

Sithembiso Mlauli of the Women of Zimbabwe Arise (WOZA) based in Bulawayo — Zimbabwe’s second-largest city – said women are largely at the receiving end of the inheritance.

“A woman, the wife in particular, here in Zimbabwe, is being inherited like property after her husband dies even from AIDS, automatically becoming a wife of a husband’s relative who she never knew either had AIDS or not, thus putting herself at risk,” Mlauli told Anadolu Agency.

Cultural fanaticism behind AIDS spread 

Despite culture fanatics insisting to continue the norms of spousal inheritance in this country, HIV/AIDS activists have fought tirelessly against the custom.

“Inheritance of a wife or husband after either dies has contributed to the swift spread of HIV and AIDS in Zimbabwe, especially in rural areas,” Trynos Tirivavi, who has been living with HIV for the past 16 years and also a member of the Zimbabwe National Network of People Living with HIV (ZNNP plus), told Anadolu Agency.

He got the disease at the age of 23 after he inherited his late brother’s wife. “People just wade into inheriting someone’s wife or husband with no knowledge about what led to the death of their spouse, which is dangerous,” he said.

Traditional leaders back inheritance 

Although many HIV positive individuals, like Trynos, testify about how they live their fate, some traditional leaders, including Elvis Mugumba from Maranda area in Mwenezi — a district in southern Zimbabwe – believes that the inheritance culture has to continue unhindered.

“Our forefathers lived and made sure the family continued to grow even after a husband died, by making sure his wife was inherited to keep bearing children with the help of the husband’s relative,” Mugumba told Anadolu Agency.

“One cannot, therefore, today tell us that this culture is responsible for spreading AIDS. People simply need to be faithful even in marriages resulting from an inheritance,” he said.

Yet, as traditional leaders like Mugumba maintain this stance, millions of Zimbabweans succumb to HIV and AIDS daily.

According to UNAIDS, an estimated 1.3 million Zimbabweans are currently living with HIV/AIDS.

In 2018 alone, 38,000 Zimbabweans were newly infected with HIV while 22,000 people died from an AIDS-related disease, it said.

This is despite the last year’s figures by UNAIDS, showing progress in the number of AIDS-related deaths since 2010, with a 60% drop from 54,000 to 22,000 deaths.

Even as cultural norms of inheritance threaten to thwart the gains made so far in combatting the sexually transmitted disease, UNAIDS last year also said the number of new HIV infections has fallen from 62,000 to 38,000.

AIDS activists against inheritance custom

For many HIV/AIDS activists like Tirivavi, “to stop further spread of AIDS in family circles, the culture of wife or husband inheritance should stop forthwith.”

“Imagine how HIV keeps spreading in family circles through inheritance simply because it is a culture that people ought to uphold,” he said.

Typically, therefore, according to HIV/AIDS activists like Tirivavi, “in this era of HIV/AIDS, the inheritance custom is extremely risky.”

An official from the National AIDS Council (NAC) who spoke to Anadolu Agency on condition of anonymity, because she was not authorized to speak to the media, said the organization does not condone or condemn the practice of inheritance.

”But we urge people to know their HIV status before they are inherited following their loss,” the official said.

“For as long as the inheritance cycle keeps going, so goes also the AIDS scourge in families that uphold the culture without precautions being taken,” said the NAC official.

NAC is a Zimbabwean organization enacted through an Act of Parliament in 1999 to coordinate and facilitate the national multi-sectoral response to HIV and AIDS. The organization is also mandated to administer the National AIDS Trust Fund collected through the AIDS levy.

Post published in: Featured

One African country that has been in the sanctions parameters of the news is Zimbabwe. The southern African country has in the last few years undertaken a series of efforts aimed at the lifting of western sanctions imposed against it since 2001.

In 2019 alone, the ruling ZANU-PF called for sanctions to be lifted early in the year. The government bemoaned the sanctions and declared a day of prayer and protest against sanctions. Harare also got regional bloc, SADC, to weigh in on the issue as did the African Union Commission chief shortly after SADC.

The most recent development on the issue being when the Chinese Foreign Minister called for lifting of the sanctions he described as all but illegal.

“The unilateral sanctions imposed by some countries and organizations on Zimbabwe have no basis in international law and they violate the legitimate development rights and interests of Zimbabwe,” Wang Yi, told reporters in Harare.

“China fully supports the just aspirations of Zimbabwe and African countries to remove those sanctions on Zimbabwe,” he stressed at a press briefing with his Zimbabwean counterpart, Sibususo Moyo. Zimbabwe was the final stop of Yi’s five-nation tour of Africa.

‘Western’ sanctions and how EU usually gets wrongly listed

The use of “western” in describing the nature of the sanctions have more often than not been in reference to the United States, U.S. and the European Union, E.U. But the European Union has stressed that as a bloc, it did not have any sanctions against Zimbabwe.

The BBC in an October 2019 publication under its Reality Check section wrote: “The United States and the European Union (EU) have both maintained sanctions, citing a lack of progress in democratic and human rights reforms as well as restrictions on press freedom. They both target specific individuals and companies.”

Reuters news agency also carried the EU sanctions claim during the October 2019 protests. The report read in part: Mnangagwa, like Mugabe, blames the sanctions imposed by the United States and European Union since 2001 for the economic ills and says they are intended to remove his party from power.

“Every part and sector of our economy has been affected by these sanctions like a cancer,” Mnangagwa told a sparse crowd in Harare’s 60,000-seater national stadium. “Enough is enough, remove them. Remove these sanctions now!”

EU ambassador to Zimbabwe reacts to non-existent sanctions

The E.U. ambassador in the country Tim Olkkonen in an interview with Trevor Ncube explained why the bloc did not have sanctions against Zimbabwe but clarified that they maintained restrictive measures on Zimbabwe principally the defense industry and on three high-profile individuals including former army chief turned veep Constantino Chiwenga.

The E.U. Ambassador to the African Union, A.U., Ranieri Sabatucci, in a tweet dispelled the issue of E.U. sanctions and reiterated the fact that the bloc was rather engaging Zimbabwe in the area of development assistance via grants.

“As reported many times, there are simply no EU economic sanction on Zimbabwe. On the contrary the EU is providing significant development assistance (grant not loans), he said.

Indeed over the course of 2019, the E.U. held two political dialogue meetings with the government in Harare. A statement from the second meeting held in November 2019 covered the essence of the meeting and efforts aimed at ameliorating the hydra-headed challenges Zimbabwe faced.

The exchanges centered on collaborative efforts in the areas of trade and investment, economic development, democratization, rule of law and good governance et cetera.

“The EU noted the existing economic and political reforms and expressed its wish to Zimbabwe’s economic and political reform agenda, including the fight against corruption. The two sides agreed on the importance of reforms and their benefits to the Zimbabwean people,” the statement read in part.

The EU support for Zimbabwe beyond the interaction with government also includes humanitarian aid and development support. The EU embassy in Zimbabwe reports of the following interventions:

• $11m in humanitarian aid to combat food insecurity signed in August 2019.
• $60m in development aid in partnership with UN and NGOs in areas of health and agric, signed in October 2019.

EU external action service on trade with Zimbabwe

The European External Action Service (EEAS) website on relations with Zimbabwe clarifies the issue of routinely reportedly sanctions. It states that relations between the two started in 1982, and it was governed by the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement, better known as the Cotonou Agreement.

The Agreement has been ratified by 79 countries from the African-Caribbean-Pacific regions (ACP), including Zimbabwe, and the EU and its 28 Member States.

The specific area of trade relations reads: “Contrary to popular belief, the EU has never imposed what is often described as ‘trade sanctions’ on Zimbabwe. Even during the period of the appropriate measures, Zimbabwe continued to benefit from the preferential access to the EU market provided under the Cotonou Agreement.

“In 2009, Zimbabwe, together with Madagascar, Mauritius, and Seychelles, signed an Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA), which was ratified and entered into force in May 2012.

“The agreement provided the signatories, including Zimbabwe, immediately with entirely duty-free, quota-free access to the EU market (consisting presently of 28 Member States). It also foresees a gradual liberalisation of 80% of EU imports by 2022.

“After the period of hyper-inflation in 2008, trade between the EU and Zimbabwe has picked up again. This is in particular true for the export of high added value agriculture products, while the export value of mining products has declined in recent years.”

No E.U. sanctions but UK maintains sanctions

Note must be taken that during EU-Zimbabwe government talks, all E.U. envoys in the country joined the head of mission at the meetings except for the United Kingdom envoy. The U.K. maintains some sanctions on some interests under the Zimbabwe Sanctions Guide.

According to the UK government website in a March 2019 notice, subject to the UK’s leaving of the E.U. (Brexit), the sanctions that like in the case of the U.S. is pushing for good governance and respect for rule of law will kick in.

The main areas are financial, trade and immigration sanctions which will extend from the state to specific persons.

“The Regulations provide that the Secretary of State may designate persons for the purposes of financial or immigration sanctions if they are, or have been, involved in the commission or a serious human rights violation or abuse, the repression of civil society or actions, policies or activities which undermine democracy or the rule of law in Zimbabwe.

“The Regulations also impose certain trade restrictions in respect of military goods and technology and internal repression goods and technology.

“When these Regulations are in force a list of those persons designated under them and details of the sanctions in respect of which they have been designated, will be on GOV.UK.”

CFR on what economic sanctions are?

The Council for Foreign Relations, CFR, defines economic sanctions as the withdrawal of customary trade and financial relations for foreign- and security-policy purposes.

Sanctions may be comprehensive, prohibiting commercial activity with regard to an entire country, like the long-standing U.S. embargo of Cuba, or they may be targeted, blocking transactions by and with particular businesses, groups, or individuals.

Since 9/11, there has been a pronounced shift toward targeted or so-called smart sanctions, which aim to minimize the suffering of innocent civilians.

Sanctions take a variety of forms, including travel bans, asset freezes, arms embargoes, capital restraints, foreign aid reductions, and trade restrictions. (General export controls which are not punitive, are often excluded from sanctions discussions.)

Shaban Abdur Rahman Alfa
Digital journalist
@AlfaAfrican
[email protected]

“Give me my check, put some respect on my check / Or pay me in equity / Watch me reverse out of debt.” — Beyoncé

This week, I had the opportunity to catch up with Rukayatu Tijani, a former Quinn Emanuel associate and recent law firm founder. I first met Tijani a few years ago while serving on the Pipeline to Practice Foundation board.

Last November, Tijani decided to embark on the journey of entrepreneurship and founded Firm for the Culture. In accordance with my New Year’s resolution — of speaking with more attorneys on the trials, tribulations, and triumphs of their legal journeys — I was thrilled with the opportunity to cover Tijani’s journey from Brooklyn to the Valley, and from law school to entrepreneurship, for our audience.

Tijani’s passion and purpose are evident to anyone who has met or has been represented by her. And her advice to those who are thinking about Biglaw or hanging their own shingle is both inspiring and instructive. As she recently relayed to Pipeline to Practice:

In the projects of Brooklyn, New York, you quickly grow accustomed to choosing your battles. Some battles, frankly, can get you killed — speaking back to the wrong group of folks can set you up to become a target. So you learn to pick your words and actions wisely. This practical wisdom has helped me immensely as an attorney. In the high stakes world of litigation, every interaction with opposing counsel seems like a battle you want to fight to the death. But the most skilled lawyers know when to fight and when to simply fold; they concede some victories to win the ultimate war. I continue to see this strategy at play from the partners I work with; I hope to emulate this tried and true principal as well.

Without further ado, here is a (lightly edited and condensed) write-up of our conversation:

Renwei Chung (RC): Congratulations on the founding of your firm, Firm for the Culture, in November 2019. What prompted this move from Quinn Emanuel? 

Rukayatu Tijani (RT): I will forever be grateful for the amazing experience I had at Quinn Emanuel.  As the famous Quinn mantra says, there is truly “No Firm Like Ours.” But it’s funny how purpose chases you down. Since I was five years old, I knew I wanted to be an attorney.

And as I grew, my purpose grew with me. Purpose, which had been molded and shaped by my experiences at Quinn Emanuel and my Federal Judicial Clerkship, now required me to do something different. Something more. Something entirely out of alignment with the status quo. So I listened. And I built Firm for the Culture — an innovative virtual law firm designed to help social entrepreneurs trademark their brands as they scale their social impact.

And I’m excited to witness the immense impact the Firm will make.

RC: What inspired you to become an attorney and how did you choose Berkeley Law?

RT: The road to lawyerdom was pretty “interesting” for this Brooklyn girl, ha ha. I grew up in the projects of Brooklyn, N. Y., where there was often more “month” than “money.” Against this backdrop, it was audacious to want to be a lawyer. But the story of Thurgood Marshall and the NAACP encouraged me to live boldly and to make this goal for myself. In learning about the long arduous journey to what would eventually become Brown v. Board, my curious young mind latched onto the idea that I too could use the law to change the world.

Berkeley Law understood that. I chose Berkeley because of its amazing reputation for social impact, social justice, and intellectual rigor. It was not uncommon for my classmates and I to discuss intersectional feminism while studying torts. Berkeley Law encouraged me to always think of my place in the real world while I pursued greatness in the ivory tower.

I am a proud Golden Bear.

RC: As a first-generation law student and a second-generation American, any advice for others — who are new to the legal universe or whose families are new to this country — who are thinking about a career in law?

RT: I run an organization called the First Generation Purpose Project, which is an amazing initiative designed to help First Gen Professionals navigate corporate America, entrepreneurship, and life by utilizing the grit and tenacity that is already on the inside of them. In this capacity, I often tell my First Gen Rockstars this: you may be the first in your family to think a certain way, the first in your family to walk a certain way.

You may find yourself in the “in between,” in between the person you used to be and the person you’re meant to be. But keep going. Keep asking questions. Keep building community around you. Keep growing. Because there’s purpose attached to your journey.

RC: Can you share a bit about your law clerk experience with The Honorable Kimberly Mueller in the Eastern District of California from September 2015 to September 2017?

RT: A clerkship is an amazing opportunity to understand the inner workings of the court. And it’s hard work. My judge encouraged us to uphold a spirit of excellence with each case we received, including cases brought pro se. My judge also emphasized importance in making legal writing “accessible.” She’d say things like “because our case is for the public at large, it should be understood by the public at large.”

My clerkship also encouraged me to see myself as a powerful contributor to the law.  Subject to my judge’s decision, of course, my research and writing played an enormous role in a case outcome. Inner-chambers advocacy mattered. My thoughts mattered. My writings mattered. My clerkship really helped me understand all this and more.

RC: What advice do you have for others who are thinking about Biglaw or starting their own firm?

RT: Biglaw far too often gets a bad rap. Now, I’ll be the first to concede that Biglaw still has a way to go in terms of diversity and other equitable practices. But Biglaw has also been at the forefront of some of most monumental changes in our country.

It was in Biglaw that I helped draft an amicus curiae brief for Obergefell v. Hodges, the landmark Supreme Court case extending the right of marriage to same-sex couples. And it is because of Biglaw that I have a work ethic that can hardly be beat.

To anyone coming into Biglaw, I’d encourage you to get really clear on the impact you want to make while you’re there. It’s great if you want to become a partner. And it’s totally fine if you have something else in mind. But having a sense of self and building support around this will be the touchstone of success in an institution as powerful as Biglaw.

For people starting their own law firm? Ha ha. Come back to me in a year and I’ll be happy to share more wisdom with you.  The only advice I have right now is community, community, community. Have a powerful community of people and advocates. When I considered starting my firm, I found support in relationships with brilliant women like Ticora Davis, Kimberly Bennett, and Sonia Lakhany. When you’re around women like them, it’s hard to believe you can’t soar, ha ha.

RC: How would you compare New York and California?

RT: Unfair question! Comparing New York and California is like comparing apples and oranges. I am a different person in each place, if I am being honest. I go to bodegas to talk to papi and dine at Caribbean food joints in New York. I go hiking, eat way too many avocados, and drink lots of green juice in California. And I feel like myself in each experience. I truly feel like I’m exposed to the best of both worlds. Because of this, I decided to take the bar in both states, ha ha.

Brooklyn is home. Cali is my love. And I’m grateful for both.

RC: What are you looking most forward to in 2020?

RT: More impact with Firm for the Culture. We have an exciting year lined up and I cannot wait to start working. I look forward to trademarking the brands of some of the biggest and most innovative social impact organizations and entrepreneurs in the world. I look forward to making intellectual property protection accessible to diverse founders.

I look forward to sharing more trademark tips on my Instagram, speaking at more conferences, writing more articles about the benefits of trademark protection, and stewarding my relationships with friends and family.

RC: Why is Firm for the Culture specifically aimed at social entrepreneurs?

RT: Social entrepreneurs are in a unique position to shift culture, and I want to support them in any way I can. According to the Stanford Social Innovation Review, “[n]early two-thirds of Americans believe companies should take the lead in driving social and environmental change,” and the new businesses of today are building their companies to address this.

Additionally, as a millennial, I am witnessing first-hand how my colleagues want more from the workplace than a fancy title and a paycheck.  I felt heard when I read the Deloitte Global Millennial Survey of 2019, which stated, in part, that “millennials and Gen Zs [tend to] start and stop relationships with companies for [reasons . . . often] related to a company’s positive or negative impact on society.” And we also are more likely to leave positions of power if we feel we can make a more positive impact on society.

As a social impact entrepreneur and attorney, my goal is to make sure businesses that seek to change the world are well positioned for investments by having a robust intellectual property portfolio, and are less vulnerable to lawsuit because of trademark infringement.

RC: It was great chatting with you. Is there anything else you would like to share with our audience?

RT: If you’re an organization with social impact as one of your bottom lines, you’re our ideal client.

There are several ways to keep in touch:

• Text CULTURE to 33777 to get a free infographic about the trademark application process for social entrepreneurs.
• Join us on Instagram @firmfortheculture
• Join us on Linkedin @firmfortheculture
• Join us on Facebook @firmfortheculture
• If you need a trademark, book a call with us to see if we’re a good fit at https://www.firmfortheculture.com/book

And thank you, Renwei, for the amazing chat. Be blessed.

On behalf of everyone here at Above the Law, I would like to thank Rukayatu Tijani for taking the time to share her story with our audience. We look forward to following her successes and wish her continued achievements in her career.

---

Renwei Chung is the Diversity Columnist at Above the Law. You can contact Renwei by email at projectrenwei@gmail.com, follow him on Twitter (@renweichung), or connect with him on LinkedIn. 

---

Olga V. Mack is the CEO of Parley Pro, a next-generation contract management company that has pioneered online negotiation technology. Olga embraces legal innovation and had dedicated her career to improving and shaping the future of law. She is convinced that the legal profession will emerge even stronger, more resilient, and more inclusive than before by embracing technology. Olga is also an award-winning general counsel, operations professional, startup advisor, public speaker, adjunct professor, and entrepreneur. Olga founded the Women Serve on Boards movement that advocates for women to participate on corporate boards of Fortune 500 companies. Olga also co-founded SunLaw, an organization dedicated to preparing women in-house attorneys to become general counsels and legal leaders, and WISE to help female law firm partners become rainmakers. She authored Get on Board: Earning Your Ticket to a Corporate Board Seat and Fundamentals of Smart Contract Security. You can email Olga at olga@olgamack.com or follow her on Twitter @olgavmack.