Author: TSA Press

If the past three years have taught us anything, it’s that if Wells Fargo was ever good at something, it was at screwing up. Once seen as the very embodiment of a safe and boring and well-run bank, that body has since been wracked by a series of metastasizing scandals, multiplying and growing out from one another before again fusing and creating a new scandal that eventually gets to the point where you hardly even notice it anymore.

Given that, it probably goes without saying that the bank’s human resources effort could have perhaps been a bit better. After all, someone hired those bankers who crafted the O.G. stagecoach pileup, that of the unauthorized accounts, and the managers who intensively trained them in forgery. And, of course, there’s a human resources element to firing whistleblowers and top executives using the term “big-girl panties.” But as at every other part of the bank, those individual whoopsies are not, as it turns out, merely isolated incidents, but small if vibrant parts of a rather baroque tapestry of mismanagement and incompetence truly worthy of the name Wells Fargo, which you can imagine has a lot of HR issues to fail at handling right now.

Physical security testers play a unique role in the cybersecurity world. Also called “red teams,” their mission is to see how easy (or difficult) it is to physically penetrate a facility to gain access to computers, data, or footholds for remote access of a network. The overarching purpose of these physical penetration tests (pen tests or red teaming exercises) is to help organizations understand the physical security limitations of their facilities before bad actors demonstrate those limitations to them the hard way.

Pen testing can take the form of a contractor trailing a badged employee into an office due to lax security controls or maneuvering through a visitor area into a closely protected section of an office. Part scavenger hunt, part escape room, part fire drill, an engagement of this nature stress tests an internal security team to better understanding its susceptibility to outside attacks and intrusions. Upon gaining access to physical facilities, operators will typically try to implant a leave-behind device to test the network and to qualify the security team’s ability to detect and deter the lateral movement of rogue devices attached to the client’s networking environment.

When performing pen tests, there is advance coordination between a testing company and internal stakeholders to determine the rules of engagement for such a test. The scope will often include the compromise of physical security assets such as badge-reading systems, CCTV, and even sensitive production environments. Upon completion of the entire exercise, the tester provides a thorough report detailing the access gained and vulnerabilities exploited, as well as recommendations for remediation of any deficiencies.

An Engagement Gone Wrong

Recently, two employees of Coalfire, a Colorado-based cybersecurity firm, were arrested while performing a routine pen test at a courthouse in Dallas County, Iowa, during an engagement with the State Court Administration (SCA).  Notably, Coalfire had also performed a pen test of this nature for SCA in 2015. On September 11, 2019, the Coalfire testers were in the process of breaching the courthouse in the course of the engagement when they found a door left propped open. They then purposefully closed the door and then attempted to open it again, tripping an alarm in the process. After waiting for local law enforcement to arrive, they were arrested on felony burglary charges and possession of burglary tools and spent the night in jail. The charges were later reduced to criminal trespass but have not yet been dropped. According to CNBC, “there appeared to be a miscommunication between the state, which contracted for the pen test, and the county, which had jurisdiction to monitor security at the courthouse.”

After reading numerous analyses of this event by news sources and talking to security and legal experts, the overwhelming sentiment in the security industry, perhaps best expressed by Coalfire, is that the legal system is taking aim at two security professionals who were just trying to do their jobs. The ramification of prosecuting the red teamers is creating a ripple effect of concern among operators and testing firms responsible for insulating them from criminal prosecution in the course of performing their roles. According to Coalfire CEO, Tom McAndrew, “This is setting a horrible precedent for the millions of information security professionals who are now wondering if they too may find themselves in jail as criminals simply for doing their job.” There are few in the industry who would contest that sentiment.

What Went Wrong?

The convergence of local law enforcement and state authority led to the arrests. But on the surface, there seemed to be nothing awry with how the project had been set up. After all, Coalfire had a valid contract with the SCA and a permission letter (also known as a “get out of jail free card”) to present to any questioning authorities, instructing them about the nature of the test and the points of contact who gave authorization. Yet the after-hours nature of the test could have contributed to the arrest, along with gaps in communications and contract language between the various parties.

Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, in a report conducted for the Iowa Supreme Court, came to the following conclusions:

• SCA’s lack of experience with and understanding of penetration testing contributed to a misunderstanding between the SCA and Coalfire about the after-hours nature of the testing.
• The contract language was ambiguous.
• SCA did not conduct a legal review of the agreement.
• Whether SCA had legal authority to grant Coalfire after-hours access to the courthouse was unclear.

Given the fact pattern presented in the Coalfire debacle and the understanding that governments and businesses still require pen testing of physical infrastructures, how can cybersecurity firms continue to perform these tests without putting their workers at undue risk? While lessons from the Coalfire case remain unsettled as the legal battle continues, testing companies can take steps to prevent a similar outcome.

• Double-down on counsel. If the testing firm does not have in-house legal counsel, find experienced outside counsel to mitigate risk by drafting solid contracts, obtaining clear permissions and ensuring 24/7 access to company points of contact.
• Transfer risk when possible. Counsel should consider using concepts or actual templates shared by information security consulting firm Trusted Sec to build a solid legal foundation for physical security engagements, including a master services agreement, statement of work, and permissions letter that impose penalties and ensure protections in case the engagement goes sideways. Transfer the risk associated with the test by including damages when engagements go south. That will incentivize clients to clear a path for a safe and smooth engagement. In addition, agreements should include clear information on the scope of the test, including what activities are allowed and which are not — such as lock picking, physical damage, social engineering — and how the test may be conducted. The agreement should describe the time period in which the testing will occur, including the hours of the day in which the tests can be conducted. Ensure that whomever signs the agreement has the proper authority to do so, as IT and security officers may not have that authority. Make sure that phone numbers are listed for internal stakeholders who can be contacted to verify the information within the letter.
• Issue thorough notifications. If the building owner is not the party ordering the penetration test, it’s imperative to notify the owner about the nature and reason for the test, the proposed dates, and what actions the testers will undertake to gain entry. Notifications should be in writing. “Paperwork needs to be very clear about what you are doing,” says Tyler Robinson, Managing Director of Network Operations of Nisos (disclosure: I work there). This is a tricky balance, since too much notification can diminish the validity of the test. Robinson suggests requesting that internal stakeholders refrain from notifying the security staff of the actual test date to be able to gain a deeper understanding of the actual response time and reactions of building personnel.
• Communicate clearly with local law enforcement and building security.  Prep local law enforcement and building security staff about security testing. This may prevent an adverse outcome such as an arrest and also assist in the case of tests that occur in potentially unsafe neighborhoods at night. Testers have shared stories in which they were informed that building security guards were unarmed, when the opposite was true.
• Collaborate and educate. Err on the side of overcommunicating. Ensure that everyone understands the reasons for the test, the different scenarios that can take place during a physical test, and the end benefits: better protection of the organization, its data, its stakeholders, and its reputation.

The Coalfire case, while gravely concerning and very unfortunate for the parties involved, serves as a valuable wake-up call for pen testers, the security firms that employ them, and the organizations hiring them. Best practices call for retooling the rules of engagement and improving communication among all parties, including law enforcement. With proper preparation, legal assistance, coordination with local law enforcement, and detailed contracts and notifications, pen testers should be able to safely execute their missions of improving companies’ security measures without fear of legal consequences.

---

Jennifer DeTrani is General Counsel and EVP of Nisos, a technology-enabled cybersecurity firm.  She co-founded a secure messaging platform, Wickr, where she served as General Counsel for five years.  You can connect with Jennifer on Wickr (dtrain), LinkedIn or by email at dtrain@nisos.com.

Generally, when opposing counsel tells you to “eat a bowl of dicks,” you know that your settlement talks are going nowhere fast. When opposing counsel later informs you that he’s going to “let the long dick of the law f*ck [your client],” then you know that something may be amiss. When opposing counsel then begins to refer to you as a “cumstain” and a “limp dick mother f*cker,” you may realize that your settlement talks have gone completely off the rails. When opposing counsel threatens to “water board each one of [your client’s] trolls who show up for depo without any mercy whatsoever,” and claims that he “know[s] where you live,” you know it’s time to file ex parte with a judge to get some much-needed relief.

This is what happened in a recent dispute between Christopher Hook, a plaintiffs’ lawyer in California, and a legal team at Sheppard Mullin led by partner Peter Klee. The matter itself is a simple insurance dispute over about $200,000, but Hook’s conduct has turned it into a complete circus sideshow. Sheppard Mullin represents Allstate and Hook represents a couple trying to fight the company for an ever-increasing amount of funds, into the millions.

In a declaration supporting Allstate’s ex parte application for relief, Klee says Hook “bombarded” him and his colleagues with “over 100 emails.” Here’s a taste of what went down between Hook and the lawyers at Sheppard Mullin:

 

That’s a special brand of legalese that you don’t get to see every day — and it’s not even the best part. In response to Sheppard Mullin’s ex parte application, Hook filed a response claiming that this was a “confidential negotiating tactic,” and he realizes that his language may have “crossed the line.” Check it out (emphasis added):

No further action has been taken by the judge in this case yet, but we can’t imagine that Hook — who has no prior disciplinary actions against him — will be able to come out of this incredibly messy episode with clean hands.

(Flip to the next page to see all of the emails that Hook sent to Sheppard Mullin.)

---

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 the aftermath of Donald Trump securing a majority of votes in the Electoral College — an institution which Wilfred Codrington III (which by the way is a first-ballot Hall of Fame name) of the Brennan Center recently reminded readers of The Atlantic was “designed to empower southern whites,” so mission accomplished in 2016 — many, if not all, left-leaning Americans found themselves caught up in the Kübler-Ross model, aka the five stages of grief. However, a funny thing happened when it came time for acceptance. Rather than decide there was nothing to be done about a Trump administration, many decided to take part in the #Resistance. Groups such as Indivisible and Run for Something went beyond mere protests and organized candidates for elections across the country. I would be lying if I claimed such opportunities were not at least a tangential interest of mine.

One of the primary benefits of moving from Washington, D.C., to Tennessee is that I am no longer one of the 600,000-plus taxpaying Americans who, shamefully, lack voting representation in Congress. But the downside for someone of a more progressive bent is that the politics of Tennessee are quite different than those of the nation’s capital. While Tennessee will have an open Senate race in 2020 due to the retirement of Lamar! Alexander, my Elizabeth Warren minivan bumper sticker would probably be met with a different form of #resistance in places like Sevierville or Kingsport. Closer to home, an AOC-esque challenge from the left to blue dog Congressman Jim Cooper is particularly intriguing considering: Hillary Clinton won Tennessee’s Fifth Congressional district by over 18 points, the district has only gotten more blue (i.e., Democratic) in the intervening three years, and Cooper voted “present” in the most recent House leadership elections after having voted for Colin Powell to be Speaker of the House not once, but twice. But aside from the fact that I’m not the most qualified to serve in Congress, Cooper already has a liberal primary challenger. So where can I funnel my combination of outrage and my desire to serve? As luck would have it, National Association of Law Placement (NALP) is in the midst of their own electoral process.

Each year, NALP solicits nominees, including self-nominations, for a slew of positions ranging from President-elect to Conference Planning Coordinator.  This year, I have decided to throw my hat into the ring for a position on the NALP Board of Directors. The foremost question any candidate for office has to answer is why. While seemingly straightforward, that line of inquiry can fluster even the most seasoned politicians who are seeking the nation’s highest office. While numerous factors contributed to this decision, one stands out among the rest: Were it not for the abandonment of the NALP Guidelines this time last year, I would probably be content to sit out the election. As I have discussed numerous times in this space, I think the decision to abandon the Guidelines was wrong when it was made and what were then merely theoretical concerns have manifested into actual problems during the first recruiting cycle post-Guidelines. But my critique is not just with the decision to abandon the Guidelines, but rather, with the way that decision was made and announced. If an organization is going to abandon what had been a pillar of its structure for several decades, it needs to do so in a manner more transparent than sending out a terse email in the middle of the winter holiday season.  If elected — though that term is a misnomer, the Nominating Committee goes through all of the applications for Directors and then selects a slate of candidates which is voted on, in toto, by the membership at the annual conference, a process seemingly as archaic as the Electoral College and similarly in need of reform — I promise to bring as much transparency to the inner workings of NALP as possible. While such calls of transparency can ring hollow, or be extremely limited in scope, I have the benefit of the national platform that is Above the Law. While likely the opposite of clickbait, I will use this space to talk about what is going on in the upper echelons of NALP and how I am approaching various issues that come before the Board.

Furthermore, if elected/slated, I promise to revisit the issue of Guidelines.  The transparency issues surrounding last year’s decision are not merely limited to the way in which the news was delivered but also the simple fact that it was never explicitly announced why the Guidelines were being abandoned. At best, references were made to antitrust concerns that could be pounced on by political appointees at the departments of Justice and Education, eager to slap around academic institutions and “elitist” white-collar professional organizations. Assuming that was the primary reason, aside from the aforementioned elections in Tennessee next year, there’s also a pretty big national 2020 election that has gotten its share of media coverage.  There could be new leadership throughout the federal government in just over a year’s time, or, given the string of revelations that come with every impeachment hearing, sometime next week. While I have no doubt that President Elizabeth Warren (wow, that feels good to type) will be focused on matters of antitrust, I think more likely targets are entities such as Facebook and Google, as opposed to NALP.

But this campaign is not just about the NALP Guidelines. I recently renewed my NALP membership, in large part because Vanderbilt generously covers the cost. However, if I had to pay out of my own pocket, I cannot say for sure that I would be a dues-paying NALP member. While others might not agree with my stance on the Guidelines, what I have heard time and time again from folks at law schools and law firms is a variation of “What good is being a NALP member?” My honest answer is, “I don’t know.” That has to change. As a member of the Board, I promise to make the organization more of a value add for its members. That does not mean a longer newsletter, but rather providing tangible materials so that those of us in Career Services and our counterparts in legal recruiting, as well as the rest of the NALP universe, can perform their job more effectively. While I have some ideas (e.g., making some of the valuable materials, such as the Associate Salary Survey, free to members rather than an additional $135), I would definitely want to hear from NALP members about how they want the institution to work better for them.

I also want to advocate on behalf of those who are deeply affected by NALP policies, but who do not have a seat at the table: law students. The NALP leadership structure is not a representative democracy, so while I would not have constituents per se, each decision I make would be viewed through the lens of how it impacts Vanderbilt Law students specifically, and the broader law student population more generally.

Diligent readers of this column might well be asking, wait, how are you going to have time for this, don’t you still have #4fourandunder? True, my family has not gone anywhere, and there are days when I struggle in the morning to find five minutes to shave and where I pass out on the couch at 9 p.m., the latter of which explains why this column’s regularity is far more sporadic than I would like. But as children tend to do, mine continue to get older, and with that comes, slowly, a bit more time for activities that do not involve diapers or acting as a de facto car service. Plus, of the three scheduled board meetings for 2020, one is going to be in Nashville, so I could make that while doing pick up and drop off at daycare.

In recent presidential election cycles, it has seemingly become standard to say that each election is the most important one in our lifetimes/modern times/the history of the nation. When the same claim is made every four years, it is easy to understand why the claim loses some of its resonance — though seriously, the 2020 election is the most important in American history so you better vote. I cannot say that the upcoming NALP elections are the most important in the history of the institution, but I am confident that some substantive issues need to be addressed and some reforms need to be undertaken to make the organization stronger for its members than those who rely on it in ways both known and unknown. I am excited about the prospect of leading this charge for change.

---

Nicholas Alexiou is the Director of LL.M. and Alumni Advising as well as the Associate Director of Career Services at Vanderbilt University Law School. He will, hopefully, respond to your emails at abovethelawcso@gmail.com.

Ed. note: This is the latest installment in a series of posts on motherhood in the legal profession, in partnership with our friends at MothersEsquire. Welcome Emma Smoler to our pages.

When I was younger and announced that I wanted to be a “lawyer and a mom,” conventional wisdom of the day offered this timeline: Go to college, get into law school, land a good job, save money, get married, have a kid.  In that order.  Obviously, nothing is guaranteed, least of all when it comes to having children.  But, practically speaking, it makes sense to get the J.D. before the K.I.D.  Or does it?

I had my daughter while I was in the thick of law school, which meant I was piling up a lot of debt, had no job to pay off that debt (save for a $10/hour research position), and my experience consisted of changing diapers and burping my new assistant.  Somewhere between legal writing assignments and studying for Civil Procedure, I found myself in the labor and delivery unit at Prentice Hospital in Chicago, Illinois.  I was the token pregnant law school student: I graduated on time, and I lived to tell about it.

“How irresponsible,” a person might say to a woman who makes this choice.  Actually, some did.  And yet, men routinely get praised for taking leaps of faith, investing in a future they can’t quite see yet, and having unshakeable confidence in their abilities.  I had male classmates who were married, living on loans, with pregnant wives at home, and no one questioned their choices.  I guess I did not see why I had to put off being a parent if I felt ready at that time.  And so, I didn’t.

Looking back on those somewhat chaotic years, I sometimes wonder how I managed to stay sane and optimistic about my future until I realize that it was precisely because I was young, broke, and inexperienced, that I was open-minded enough to eschew the traditional career model and take a chance on the unknown.  While this path may not be for everyone, I hope that, in sharing my experiences, I can contribute to a dialogue in which working parenthood is normalized, and we explore the many options that lead to a similar outcome.

Here is the good, the bad, and the ugly of what I call the “reverse course career plan.”

The Ugly

Setting aside the inherent ugliness of leaking through my shirt at the end of a three-hour exam, the ugliest part of having a baby in law school was the judgment I felt, whether it was actually happening, or a specter of my own insecurities.  I will never forget the time I waddled into a classroom, hugely pregnant, and the male professor looked at me with confusion and asked, “What on earth are you doing here?”  It may have been an innocent question, but it hurt, and in response, I showed him exactly what I was doing there.  I got an A in his class.  Also ugly were the nights at home when I fell asleep, face first into a law book, while the baby screamed, my husband stressed, and the diapers overflowed the waste bin.  I have since learned that the first few months of new parenthood can be ugly, regardless of the circumstances.  Thankfully, the adjustment period is temporary.

The Bad

The obvious reason for not having a child in law school is that unless you are independently wealthy, it is going to be financially difficult.  Notice, I did not say impossible. When my daughter was an infant, the baby magazines/blogs made me feel inadequate because my shoestring budget prevented me from getting anything but the essentials (which is all babies need, really).  I pined for those cute leather moccasins hawked by a Kardashian, a high-tech stroller, or a baby swing that wasn’t thrifted.  I didn’t sign up for the organized play groups, and a lot of my daughter’s play time was spent rolling on the floor while I studied.  But it wasn’t the worst thing in the world, because I got to spend time with my daughter while at home studying; she survived and thrived, and we are both better for it today.  My tight finances caused me to maintain a laser focus on the task(s) at hand, and the difficult times eventually gave way to easier routines.

The Good

I wish I could tie this up with a pretty bow and report that I effortlessly jumped back onto my desired career path.  But that did not happen right away.  Instead, I watched from the sidelines as my childfree peers advanced far past me, and deservedly so.  I took a number of lower-paying, flex-time jobs.  Looking back now, that flexibility allowed me to have precious time with my daughter, even though I wasn’t advancing on a traditional career ladder.  I didn’t get back into my groove until my mid-thirties, when, coincidentally, many of my lawyer peers were just starting their journey into motherhood.  I look at my friends’ baby photos and part of me wishes I were right there with them, but then again, I am enjoying my thirties with older kids, and that’s also fun.  At the end of the day, no mom can be everything simultaneously, no matter how many magazines or blogs try to convince us otherwise.  It is all a matter of perspective, and you gain a lot of that if you have a baby in law school.

So, here is my perspective today: I am the mother of a witty 11-year-old girl who helped me choose an outfit for my last job interview.  She was in the car with me when I got the call, offering me the job.  We screamed together.  She understood exactly how important this goal was for me, because she was there every step of the way.  As I watch her excel in school, advocate for her friends, stand up against bullies, and speak her mind in class, I would be honored to think that my example played a small part.  I asked my daughter if it was okay to mention her in this article, and her only comment was, “Be sure to disclose that you technically had two brains when you took exams when you were pregnant.”  For the record, it was a serious advantage.

Earlier: Mothers At Law: Achieving Meaningful Success In The Legal Profession

---

Emma Smoler is a trial attorney in Chicago, Illinois. She graduated from the John Marshall Law School in Chicago in 2009. Emma has served as lead counsel in dozens of jury trials, achieving millions of dollars in settlements and verdicts for her clients. During law school, while also mother of a young child, Emma interned at the Office of the Cook County Public Defender, in the felony trial division. Emma credits that experience with providing her the wherewithal to handle complex legal issues, patience in adversarial environments, and a deep compassion for her clients. When she is not in the courtroom, Emma enjoys long distance running, and bluegrass music.

Move fast and flood things! Clearly that’s the motto of the pack of wall-mounters trying to build the GoFundMe border barrier on the banks of the Rio Grande. We Build the Wall, a Florida group, led by veteran Brian Kolfage, a triple amputee from Arizona whose heroic reputation took a hit after his accounts got banned from Facebook for finding THIS ONE WEIRD TRICK to monetize fake news, hopes to raise a billion dollars to build Trump’s wall. They’ve got the backing of Steve Bannon, Kris Kobach, and a bunch of skeevy dudes who think they’re all that stands between America and Taco Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday. So, call now with your bank routing number!

Fresh off a rousing success in New Mexico jamming in a fence and dealing with the permits and massive community objection after the fact, the group set its sights on the fragile ecosystem of Texas’s Lower Rio Grande Valley. Because the only way to make America great again is by clearcutting a three-mile stretch of river bank and slapping up an 18-foot barrier in a floodplain, of course. And they would have gotten away with it, too, if it weren’t for a bunch of badass butterfly enthusiasts delivering a dose of Texas justice.

DON’T MESS WITH THE LEPIDOPTERISTS, MAN. It never goes well.

On Tuesday, Hidalgo County District Judge Keno Vasquez issued a temporary restraining order to halt construction on a privately owned sugarcane farm next to the National Butterfly Center nature preserve. Because — if you’re stupid enough to erect a giant dam 25 feet away from the Rio Grande in the floodplain — your neighbors get flooded, too.

As local activist and researcher Scott Nicol told the Texas Observer, “If their wall goes up beside the Rio Grande, it will dam water, it will likely collapse and be swept away and the resulting tangle of twisted bollards will put lives and property downriver at risk. … Their publicity stunt could kill people.”

Or maybe Big Butterfly is just in bed with the Sinaloa cartel!

When asked about the TRO by the Washington Post, Kolfage initially accused reporters of making the whole thing up, saying, “I would put a 50/50 chance this is fake news, and if it’s not it will be crushed legally pretty fast.”

On Tuesday, he tweeted a video by “Foreman Mike” promising that fencing would start going up in 48 hours.

Alas, Fisher Industries, Trump’s favorite construction company out of North Dakota, which was miraculously awarded a border wall contract by the U.S. government despite the Army Corps of Engineers saying the design didn’t meet government standards, had other ideas. The company says it won’t begin construction in Texas until the International Boundary and Water Commission signs off, and the judge lifts the TRO.

They must be IN ON IT, TOO!

The next hearing is in two weeks, which is probably not enough time for the trees to grow back after Foreman Mike ripped out all the vegetation holding the riverbank in place. As the Texas Observer notes, “In 2008, the Bush administration bought riparian land in Starr County for a wall, but the property vanished into the river during a 2010 flood.” Maybe these carpetbagging geniuses from Arizona, North Dakota, and Kansas could take a break from scream-tweeting pictures of desperate migrants and Google “Texas” + “rainy season” + “floodplain” before their next court appearance. But probably NOT.

---

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

* George Zimmerman is suing the family of Trayvon Martin and their lawyer for $100 Million over statements made in a new book. Good luck recovering that. [USA Today]

* A Massachusetts lawyer has been criminally charged and suspended from practice for defrauding clients and lenders of millions of dollars. [Mass Live]

* Melania Trump said that the law professor who invoked Barron Trump’s name at an impeachment hearing “should be ashamed” of her words. [Fox News]

* A Philadelphia lawyer has been disbarred for laundering money for an organized crime family. This attorney took being a consigliere way too far. [Philadelphia Inquirer]

* Sidley Austin and a number of other law firms are being sued for allegedly aiding a Ponzi schemer. [Courthouse News Service]

* Rep. Devin Nunes is suing CNN for $435 Million over allegedly defamatory statements. Wonder if the suit was filed in a state with an anti-SLAPP law… [USA Today]

---

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.

Today, the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) in partnership with United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and Empowerment of Women (UN Women) illuminated the Rotten Row Magistrates Court in orange – a colour which symbolizes hope and a brighter future, free of violence. It also serves as a means of demonstrating solidarity in eliminating all forms of violence and it is therefore used as the colour of the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women.

As part of the commemoration of 16 Days of Activism Against Gender-based Violence under the global theme Orange the World: Generation Equality Stands Against Rape for 2019, the Harare Magistrates Court joins a list of iconic buildings and monuments that have been lit in orange to call for a violence-free future.

The Rotten Row Magistrates Court represents the largest case load of rape a month that pass through the judicial system. By illuminating the court orange during the 16 Days of Activism, the Judicial Service Commission will send a message of its commitment to deliver timely and victim-friendly justice to cases of rape and other gender-based crimes.

Speaking at the event, UN Resident Coordinator, Ms. Maria Ribeiro said, “Without the courts following through with their legislated mandate of swift justice, by enforcing sentencing and ensuring access to the court systems especially for cases of rape and sexual violence, we shall continue to experience the unfortunate impact.”

This event will also mark the beginning of collaborative efforts between UN Women and the Harare Magistrates Court to display educative information on rape and gender-based crimes through the Court’s broadcasts on every 25th day of the month for the coming one year.

Spaces in which women feel safe are shrinking while gender- blind spots in policy implementation and legislation are threatening women’s security making them vulnerable to rape, assault and killing. The increase in cases of rape, assault and abuse of women has been reported in so many spaces and institutions that include churches, schools and workplaces. This therefore calls for accelerated cooperation among different stakeholders.

The commissioning of 16 Days at the Harare Magistrates Court is an intervention that falls under the joint EU-UN Spotlight Initiative programme in Zimbabwe, which is harnessing the financial commitment of the European Union to the tune of USD 34 million to eliminate all forms of violence against women and girls in 23 districts in the provinces of Mashonaland Central, Mashonaland West, Manicaland, Matabeleland South, and Harare.

Speaking at the event EU Deputy Ambassador, Mr Thomas von Handel said, “Ending Sexual and Gender Based Violence and harmful practices is a joint responsibility. The EU joins the call to action to act swiftly and decisively act against rape and all other forms of violence against women and girls! We must put an end to all kinds of abuse to reach equality and peace and protect the human rights of millions of women and girls.”

The Spotlight Initiative is being implemented by the UN in partnership with the Ministry of Women Affairs, Community, Small and Medium Enterprises Development and civil society organisations. It endeavours to ensure that all women and girls benefit from adequate legislation and policies, gender responsive institutions, violence prevention programmes, essential services, comparable and reliable data, and strong women’s movements and civil society organisations.

16 Days of Activism against Gender-Based Violence is an annual international campaign that kicks off on 25 November, the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, and runs until 10 December, Human Rights Day.

In support of this campaign, under the leadership of the UN Secretary-General, stakeholders across the world call for global action to increase awareness, galvanize advocacy efforts, and share knowledge and innovations.

Post published in: Featured

The American Mega Millions lottery offers the biggest jackpot prize in the world: $285 million USD. That huge amount, which is up for grabs on Friday night, has captured the attention of lottery fans all over the world and amazingly, the winner of this enormous prize could be someone from Zimbabwe.

You may remember that Mega Millions awarded a $1.537 billion USD jackpot to a single, lucky winner in October 2018. The current jackpot is not yet setting records, but winning a $285 million prize would certainly be a life-changer!

There is no need for you to travel to the United States to take a chance on winning the great Mega Millions jackpot. It is possible to play the game by purchasing official Mega Millions tickets online at theLotter.com.

Here’s how you could win a $285 million jackpot from Zimbabwe:

1. Sign up at theLotter.com, the world’s leading online lottery ticket purchasing service.
2. Select the Mega Millions lottery from over 50 lotteries available on the site.
3. Fill out your ticket with your favorite numbers, or use a computer-generated random selection.
4. Indicate how many lines you want to play, or choose to play with a lottery syndicate to increase your chances of winning.
5. Confirm your ticket purchase and you’re eligible to win prizes in the upcoming draw.

How theLotter works

TheLotter is a lottery ticket messenger service. TheLotter uses local agents in the United States to buy official lottery tickets on behalf of its customers from all over the world. A small surcharge is added to ticket prices in order to cover the cost of this service. A copy of the ticket is uploaded to a customer’s account before the draw and along with the site’s email confirmation, customers can rest assured that they have full ownership of their tickets.

At theLotter, customers can purchase tickets to the world’s biggest lotteries including Mega Millions, Powerball, EuroMillions, the Italian SuperEnalotto, EuroJackpot, and more. TheLotter provides a dedicated support team, available 24/7, to help customers with any concerns.

What happens when you win

When you win a lottery jackpot prize at theLotter, the entire amount is yours! No commissions are deducted from winning tickets. Winnings are transferred to your secure, private account and you can withdraw them at any time. If you win a lottery jackpot, however, you many need to travel to the lottery’s offices to collect the prize money yourself. In this case, a lawyer provided to you by theLotter free of charge will assist you in the win collection process.

Over the years, theLotter has paid out more than $97 million in prizes to over 5 million winners from across the globe. The biggest winners at the site have included a woman from Panama who won $30 million playing the Florida Lotto, and a man from Iraq who won a $6.4 million Oregon Megabucks jackpot.

The $285 million Mega Millions jackpot could be won at any time and the next draw is coming up soon. It is totally possible for the next big lottery prize winner to be a resident of Zimbabwe!

For more information how to play Mega Millions online from Zimbabwe, please visit theLotter.com.

Post published in: Featured