Author: TSA Press

Back in 2015, when the concept of Hillary merely winning the popular vote was a farcical notion, Ted Cruz and his circle started making noise about imposing term limits on the federal judiciary. He was also talking about judicial elections, which are stupid, but there was a nut of an idea here so let’s throw the guy a bone. Several liberal legal scholars chimed in to say Cruz was on to something.

While Cruz has different ideological hopes and dreams, the idea that an 86-year-old cancer survivor is the only bulwark against the collapse of several basic constitutional protections doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in the American experiment. The courts are supposed to be lagging reflections of the electorate and the vagaries of the human lifespan shouldn’t dictate why Trump gets to pick two justices and Carter got none. As Erwin Chemerinsky put it, “a system of government that allows a handful of men and women to hold great power for such an extended period of time is, by nature, more feudal than democratic.” Regardless of politics, the very credibility of the judicial branch is undermined when the country views it as a race to find ideological zygotes and shove them into robes. When liberals openly questioned Merrick Garland’s fitness for the Court because he was already in his 60s, things are broken.

The folks at Fix the Court pointed me to a recent National Review column where John Fund made the conservative case for doing something about life tenure:

“Returning our courts to their proper place in our constitutional framework is a tall order, and not one to be solved by abandoning life tenure for Supreme Court justices. But the idea is a sensible step, enjoys support from both conservative and liberal legal scholars, and just might give Congress the opportunity to prove to the American people that it’s still capable of bipartisan action.”

Fund also endorsed our plan for 18-year terms. “The Fix the Court plan would preserve the Constitution’s guarantee of tenure during ‘good Behavior’ by having departing Supreme Court justices serve on one of the nation’s eleven appeals courts.”

Fund isn’t exactly the Republican base at this point, but that this idea still has some currency on the right is huge. There might actually be an opening to do something about this constitutional anachronism with a little bipartisan effort.

And yet, I’m sure the Democrats will find a way to screw this up. They’re already unironically talking about “court packing” so the work of building the instruments of their own destruction continues unabated. Back when Cruz pitched his plan, I asked Nan Aron of Alliance For Justice if this might be a good time for liberals and progressives to reach out and create some makeshift alliances on the right to secure a more sensible judiciary going forward. Her response, which was in line with most of the Democratic-leaning world at that point, was to question why one would ever want to do that. Certainly Republicans were holding up nominations and creating judicial emergencies around the country, but a Democratic president was on the horizon so why handcuff the cause?

Trump won. Republicans run the Senate. The advise and consent norm set by the Founders got a swift kick in the nuts from McConnell, and then they put Brewsky McDayplanner on the Court.

The idea that turnabout is fair play may have a visceral appeal but it basically never works. It’s the elimination of the filibuster all over again — Democrats give themselves a short-term today only to be bludgeoned to death with it tomorrow. Gerrymandering worked the same way for years until Democrats started calling for independent commissions whenever they own power instead of just blessing antidemocratic redistricting by gerrymandering things back their way.

McConnell is the greatest “tit for tat and tat and tat” player in the world. Court packing? Putting a Democratic rubber stamp on that is basically his wet dream. The only way out of this cycle is to flip the script. When Lucy’s going to pull out the football anyway, the answer isn’t a helmet, it’s to go play baseball. Put some neutral, fair term limits on these jobs.

There are even Republicans willing to help! That’s like stumbling over a unicorn, don’t waste that.

Joe 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.

If you read legal blogs and publications regularly, you will occasionally find an editorial column mourning the lack of civility in the legal profession today. The author then follows up with a call for more-civil behavior among lawyers. In most cases, they make vague suggestions, such as extending professional courtesies, or just generally being “nice” to each other. Since these columns appear somewhat regularly, I assume that nothing is done, and the words fall upon deaf ears.

Recently, we were reminded what type of behavior is clearly uncivilized. A California lawyer sent opposing counsel numerous emails with profanities, slurs, and credible threats of violence. And his excuse? He claims to be using a “confidential negotiating tactic.” But his tactic may end up getting him into career-ending trouble and will serve as a warning to other attorneys who seek to use the “tactic” for themselves.

But why do calls for civility fall on deaf ears? Here are a few reasons.

First, it’s hard to define what it means to behave civilly. There’s no objective answer. Some say it is being able to disagree without being disagreeable. Others say acting professionally even when it is tempting to act otherwise. To put it another way, when does one cross the line into being obnoxious? Crude, offensive behavior is obviously uncivil, but is opposing counsel being uncivil when they disagree with your unquestionable belief that your client is clearly right? Or when opposing counsel annoys you by asking too many questions?

Second, some lawyers want to establish a reputation. Some newer lawyers have said that they are willing to take a close or even an unfavorable case to trial just to show opposing counsel that they are willing to go all the way. This is usually the case when a lawyer believes he or she will run into the same opposing counsel or law firm again in the future. Some just believe that it is better to be feared than to be loved. The problem is that while these lawyers want to make it clear they won’t take any crap, it can make them look like bullies.

Third, sometimes there is no win-win situation, and one side will clearly lose if it plays by the rules. Litigation between wealthy clients could present more opportunities for creative, peaceful resolutions since they have more assets that can be used to structure a settlement, but the middle class and the indigent don’t have that luxury. And sometimes, there is no misunderstanding between the parties. The landlord wants higher rent payments, and the tenant can’t afford it. The defendant is accused of embezzling company funds, and the company wants them back immediately. What’s a defense lawyer supposed to do when his client has no case, and opposing counsel is not willing to cut a deal? His client paid a lot of money with the hopes that his lawyer will use some fancy courtroom tricks to get him out of his mess.

Also, the lawyer does not want to lose face in front of a prominent client. For example, a lawyer might typically be willing to settle quickly if faced with a losing case, but what if the client was someone who has the clout and connections to make (or break) a lawyer’s future career? The lawyer might not want to look weak out of the fear that it may damage his reputation and cost potential clients or other opportunities.

Finally, being uncivil is sometimes part of the game. Why do most people want to go to law school? Some want a steady job. Others want to fight for their clients. Some of the most memorable cases (and movie screenplays) involved a lawyer standing up to unjust laws, unfair judges, or a team of high-priced lawyers defending evil corporations.

So is it possible for lawyers to act civilly? Yes, but realistically it’s not going to happen all the time. I’ve found that because every client, opposing counsel, judge, and issues are different, it is impossible to give a one-size-fits-all answer on how to act in a given situation.

The first thing I try to do is not take it personally. Keep in mind: lawyers are advocates for their clients going against other lawyers advocating for their clients. So some level of conflict should be inevitable.

Second, I always treat opposing counsel (or, in my case, tax auditors or collection officers) with respect regardless of whether my client and I are right or wrong. I make an effort to listen to their side of the story and try to explain this to my client. This does not mean that we have to agree with the other side or submit to their demands.

Third, is opposing counsel being uncivil for a reason? He might have had a bad day and could be taking it out on you (knowingly or not). In that case, it could be appropriate to be forgiving if they show proper remorse. Or opposing counsel might be using “confidential negotiation techniques” to try to intimidate you. If you suspect that, you will need to stand your ground and call the bluff.

Finally, I try to see if there is a way for my client to win while at the same time allow the opposing side to save face. If the opposing party thinks they will lose everything, including their reputation, they will likely used scorched-earth tactics that will unnecessarily prolong the dispute. The other party is likely to accept a settlement that will allow them to walk away with dignity.

While we pay lip service to achieving civility in the legal profession, the adversarial nature and the high stakes involved sometimes make it difficult. Opposing counsel chooses to take the low road for a number of reasons. But instead of complaining about it, you will have to learn how to deal with it.

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

The bus, which was travelling from Cape Town to Zimbabwe, burst into flames near the William Nicol off-ramp. It was carrying 44 passengers, News24 reported earlier.

Minnaar added that traffic on the highway remains interrupted because the bus is still on the road. The blaze has since been extinguished.

According to Johannesburg EMS spokesperson Nana Radebe, over 10 passengers have been taken to various hospitals to get treatment for smoke inhalation.

Transport department spokesperson Ayanda Allie-Paine, who attended the scene, said no injuries and fatalities were reported although the passengers lost all their goods. Most of them were travelling home for the festive season, after a year of saving up.

She said many of the passengers were women and children.

Paine had earlier appealed to the public for assistance with non-perishable goods and clothing for the victims.

“The passengers have been left destitute. They will be going home with nothing but the clothes on their backs,” Paine said.

Later she said the passengers had opted to go home immediately, as they were eager to see their loved ones.

She said no more supplies were required.

The bus owner, Ambassador Gabriel Setlhoke, told Allie-Paine that the vehicle had a fire extinguisher, but the blaze was just too big.

He explained that the bus was serviced and in a good condition with all the necessary permits to cross the border.

A passenger said the blaze started after the left tyre burst.  The police assisted in breaking the windows to allow passengers to exit.

(All imaged supplied)

Post published in: Featured

* Any views expressed in this opinion piece are those of the author and not of Thomson Reuters Foundation.

For Zimbabweans, the drought is compounded by an economic crisis of spiralling inflation, unemployment, chronic fuel shortages, and the collapse of essential servicesPatrick Watt is Director of Policy, Public Affairs and Campaigns at Christian Aid.

Zimbabwe, once the breadbasket of Africa, is back in the spotlight. Tragically, for the long-suffering people of this exceptionally beautiful country, it is for all the wrong reasons. Last week, the UN issued a hard-hitting report on an escalating food crisis, which has already left half of the population in desperate need of emergency aid. Setting aside the usual diplomatic niceties, the report describes a situation that’s normally found only in countries at war, and warns that – if left unchecked – the current food crisis could develop into full blown famine. The World Food Programme has now asked donor countries for an additional $200 million to enable 4 million people to receive food aid, from January to March, when the crisis is expected to spike.

Earlier this week, I travelled to Mutoko, close to the Mozambican border. It is not the worst hit part of the country, but people there are visibly struggling. Smallholder farmers eke out a marginal existence on sandy soils, typical of the land to which Africans were confined following the colonial land grab of the early twentieth century. The rainy season is over a month late. In many cases, farmers have yet to plant their crops. Cattle are emaciated, and the rivers are running dry.

The farmers of Mutoko live at the epicentre of a global climate emergency they had no role in creating. Southern Africa is experiencing temperature rises double the global average, and the seasonal rains on which the region depends are increasingly erratic, arriving late, finishing early, and often falling as a deluge. Older farmers recall a time when the rains reliably arrived in October, and children could play in the rivers year-round. Now, many of the traditional crops are failing, and people are having to forage in the woods to supplement their diet. Christian Aid and its partners are working with these farmers to adapt what they grow, and when they grow it, in the face of a rapidly changing climate.

But adapting to climate change can sometimes feel like a Sisyphean challenge. Communities in many parts of eastern Zimbabwe are only beginning to recover from the onslaught of Cyclone Idai in March, which left a trail of death and injury, flooding and damaged infrastructure. After two years of poor harvest and one of the worst recorded cyclones to hit Africa, the buffers that help people to withstand a bad year have already been depleted.

This drought is being felt across the region, in neighbouring Malawi and Zambia, which face many of the same threats from climate change. The difference for Zimbabweans is that the drought is compounded by an economic crisis of spiralling inflation, unemployment, chronic fuel shortages, and the collapse of essential services, from electricity and water supply to healthcare. School meals, once provided daily, are down to one a week. The urban population, usually relatively insulated from food shortages, are increasingly wondering where their next meal will come from.

Behind the economic crisis lies a crisis of trust. Donors are making the resumption of IMF and World Bank lending, and the lifting of sanctions conditional on political and economic changes. The government is not indicating any softening of its own position. Meanwhile ordinary people are caught in the middle. Aid workers in Harare describe Zimbabweans as some of the world’s most resilient people. That resilience may be tested to the limit in the coming months.

Food aid is urgently needed to minimise the human cost of the crisis. But it’s also critical that, in a polarised society, that aid is distributed fairly and transparently, free of political considerations and any threat of violence. The UN and donor countries have an obligation to ensure that international humanitarian law is followed, and to learn from past experience.

It’s said that one should never waste a crisis. The current situation in Zimbabwe must be just such a turning point, and lead to far-reaching changes in land policy, water management, crop diversification, early warning systems, social safety nets and the regulation of food markets. Many of the effects of climate change on Southern Africa are already irreversible. But with the right action, they’re not unmanageable.

Last night was the Above the Law holiday party, and if you didn’t make it, you definitely missed out! The event is always an amazing time, since it is great to meet individuals from all across the legal profession and kick back with an amazing group of people. Attending the Above the Law holiday event and other holiday happenings sponsored by law firms has allowed me to reflect on the fact that attorneys are some of the best people to have fun with! No matter what others may say about lawyers, members of the legal profession should take satisfaction from the fact that something about attorneys makes us pretty fun to be around. Let me just say at the onset that I in no way equate having fun with drinking, and substance abuse is a serious issue in the legal profession. Rather, my point is that some personality traits of many lawyers may make it easier for us to cut loose than other types of professionals.

I first realized that lawyers might be especially inclined to have a good time when I was in law school. Students from the law schools I attended knew how to kick back and have fun in ways that I didn’t even see in college (although I went to a pretty boring college!). Law students at the schools I attended had amazing house parties, bar reviews at local bars, and other events that made it more palatable to attend law school. Of course, most of the people I attended law school with also knew how to hit the books, but these folks definitely knew how to cut loose as well.

I first realized that law students might be apart from other graduate student in their capacity to have fun when my alma mater’s law school and medical school had a mixer called “Medical Malpractice.” The event had a separation much like boys and girls on opposite sides of the gym at a junior high school dance. The law students were having a good time while the wallflower medical students mostly kept to themselves. The law students and medical students really couldn’t click, and how everyone had fun was definitely one reason for this.

There are several explanations for why law students have an easier time kicking back than students entering other professions. For one, lawyers usually thrive if they are social and personable. It is very difficult to sign clients and develop in the legal profession if you keep to yourself, and this makes lawyers and law students more social and personable than other professionals. In addition, social people are more likely to enter the profession, since lawyering could be a good conduit for channeling people skills. Of course, some legal professionals are introverts, and some roles within the profession might be better suited to people who don’t like to interact with others. However, most lawyers are people-people, and that quality might make lawyers and law students fun to be around.

As a practicing attorney, I love attending events sponsored by bar associations, law firms, and other groups within the legal profession. I routinely have a great time hanging with attorneys of all ages, and practicing attorneys are an extremely fun and congenial group to be around. There are a number of reasons why attorneys are more fun and welcoming than other groups with whom I associate. For one, attorneys thrive on referrals. Unwinding with other professionals is a great way to make connections that could lead to business development. In addition, many lawyers adopt a “work hard, play hard” attitude, so attorneys might have an easier time kicking back and having fun than other professionals. Moreover, interacting with people who have shared backgrounds is always fun, and most attorneys, regardless of where they went to law school or where they work, have many common experiences. It is fun to reflect on these experiences and swap stories.

Regrettably, not all events sponsored by lawyers are fun, and I’ve gone to some pretty dreadful parties — holiday and otherwise — throughout my career. Some holiday parties sponsored by law firms can be extremely unpleasant to attend, since people at firms may try to curry favor with the bosses at parties, and interacting with managers outside of an office setting is sometimes uncomfortable. In addition, events aimed at recruits to law firms can also be difficult, since everyone is on best behavior and there is no real opportunity to have fun. However, most lawyer events (when there are no job responsibilities or other expectations) are usually extremely fun to attend, since lawyers are awesome people to have fun with.

In the end, I’m not arguing for “lawyer exceptionalism,” and some professionals may be better at having fun than attorneys (finance people definitely come to mind!). However, attorneys are typically good at interacting with other people, and the personable nature of many lawyers definitely makes us fun folks to kick back with. As a result, if you have the chance to attend a lawyer holiday party this year, definitely try to make an appearance. If not, I at least hope to see you at the Above the Law holiday party next year!

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.

At this point in the bonus cycle, Biglaw observers are well aware of what the elite firm are paying to the associates for their year end bonuses. The scale was set by Milbank over a month ago, and quickly confirmed by Cravath and now that’s what most big firms will be giving their associates. But it is always nice when, in addition to just making the match, firms give a little something extra to the hardest working associates.

That’s just what happened at Cahill Gordon & Reindel. As part of their bonus announcement they indicated that they pay “special bonuses” ranging from $5,000 to $40,000 for “outstanding individual effort.” Nice!

For those that need the reminder, the industry-wide bonus scale that Cahill is matching is as follows:

Class of 2019 – $15,000 (pro-rated)
Class of 2018 – $15,000
Class of 2017 – $25,000
Class of 2016 – $50,000
Class of 2015 – $65,000
Class of 2014 – $80,000
Class of 2013 – $90,000
Class of 2012 – $100,000
Class of 2011 – $100,000

Read the full memo on the next page.

Remember — we can’t do this without you, dear readers! We depend on your tips to stay on top of important bonus updates, so when your firm matches, please text us (646-820-8477) or email us (subject line: “[Firm Name] Matches”). Please include the memo if available. You can take a photo of the memo and send it via text or email if you don’t want to forward the original PDF or Word file.

And if you’d like to sign up for ATL’s Bonus Alerts (which is the alert list we also use for all salary announcements), please scroll down and enter your email address in the box below this post. If you previously signed up for the bonus alerts, you don’t need to do anything. You’ll receive an email notification within minutes of each bonus announcement that we publish. Thanks for your help!

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).

* Apple is accused of monitoring employee text messages. Those employees must’ve not read the terms and conditions… [CNBC]

* Harvey Weinstein is scheduled to undergo back surgery ahead of his sexual assault trial in the coming months. [Yahoo!]

* Rudy Giuliani and his former wife have finally settled their contentious divorce. [Page Six]

* A former bank robber was sworn in by the same judge who put this person away decades ago. [Washington Post]

* Chevron is trying to recover money against a lawyer who made claims against the company. [Bloomberg Law].

* Former FBI lawyer Lisa Page is suing the Justice Department for releasing her text messages. [CBS News]

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.