Author: TSA Press

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg isn’t just considered an expert when it comes to doling out legal rulings from the highest court in the land. As it turns out, thanks to her lengthy marriage of 50+ years to the late Martin Ginsburg, she’s apparently also considered an expert when it comes to doling out relationship advice from the court of love.

Earlier this summer, global pop star Jennifer Lopez felt the need to consult with Ginsburg in her search for marriage advice prior to making it official with her fiancé, baseball star Alex Rodriguez. Over the weekend at an event sponsored by the Library of Congress, the Notorious RBG revealed that she took a meeting with J. Lo in her Supreme Court chambers, where they “had a very nice visit” and that Lopez “mostly wanted to ask if [Ginsburg] had any secret about a happy marriage.” CNN has the details:

“So what was your secret to a happy marriage? Did you pass on your mother-in-law’s secret?” Ginsburg was asked on Saturday by NPR’s Nina Totenberg.

The justice laughed and then shared the advice she received on her own wedding day.

“On the day I was married, my mother in law — I was married in her home — she took me aside and said she wanted to tell me what was the secret of a happy marriage,” Ginsburg said Saturday.

The “good advice” Ginsburg shared with the audience has helped her not just in her marriage, but in “every workplace, including the good job [she has] now.”

In case you’re wondering, Ginsburg told Lopez that “[i]t helps sometimes to be a little deaf,” and truer words have never been spoken when it comes to marriage advice.

RBG was married for more than 50 years. J.Lo asked her for marriage advice [CNN]

---

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.

Twenty-plus years of working at law firms and with lawyers and you learn a few things about the practice of law, client service, and legal operations in general. I frequently read and hear about leaders in corporate legal departments who want a law firm partner working on their legal problems.

Is this necessary when you can get the same or better legal counsel for half the cost?

Don’t misunderstand, GCs don’t want a 23-year-old first-year fresh out of law school as their lead attorney either. But there are plenty of legal minds to go around, many of which have matured within lawyers who are not partners.

There’s been some talk about the demise of the old-school law firm partner model. Sara Randazzo’s recent article in the Wall Street Journal made a splash when she wrote that the emergence of two-tier partnership structures at law firms sounds the death knell for life-time partnership at law firms. ATL’s Joe Patrice and David Lat recently wrote critically of non-equity partner structures, too.

I say, it probably doesn’t matter anyway.

I had a boss who argued to me that titles just don’t mean much. The thought was “who cares what we call the position; titles are free.” That may or may not be true, since clearly advantages are afforded to those who hold loftier titles. But when it comes to actually delivering legal services, does the lawyer’s title matter? My experience is that it does not.

A partnership is merely a way of setting up a business. In the end, law firms provide professional services and it shouldn’t matter whether the lawyer performing the work is a “real” partner, special counsel, or an associate. Frankly, most corporate legal leaders I talk to look at law firms as just another vendor.

The better question I think is why law firm partnerships thrive at all? Few firms actually function as partnerships, least of all the behemoth-sized firms. Practice areas, even in smaller firms, are siloed and function as separate little fiefdoms. Some firms are so large, it has been observed, that the so-called “partners” do not even know each other. If it weren’t for shared administrative services such as accounting, marketing, and the like, I’m not sure many firms would qualify as a going concern.

Anyone who has ever worked at a law firm figures out fairly quickly that most lawyers are terrible businesspeople. Smart firms leave the administration and operations to people with that experience.

So, where does this leave us? What does it mean to be a partner in a law firm today?

Honestly, the only discernable difference between partners and other lawyers at a firm is tenure and compensation. Some partners are good at generating business, but all lawyers are encouraged to develop new business. And sure, tenure generally means experience, and with experience comes a certain level of knowledge and skill, but given that it now takes like 10 years to become a partner, does anyone think the knowledge gap between the seventh-year associate or counsel and the partner is that far apart?

And the fact is that the attributes of being a partner have no correlation to how good one is at understanding complex litigation or transactional issues. Compensation means you’re successful financially, not necessarily that you’re any good. Prestige doesn’t mean a thing if you cannot execute.

No, what makes a lawyer valuable as outside counsel is their understanding of the client’s business, the client’s legal needs, and exposure to risk. Navigating and mitigating those needs, particularly in the face of contentious or complicated litigation or complex transactional issues, are what’s valued. Collaboration, creative problem solving, and great client service — these are the value points that corporate legal leaders seek. And you don’t need to be a partner to meet these needs.

In fact, arguably, some partners today are not as well-suited to manage modern litigation, eDiscovery, information governance, and cybersecurity issues. As the practice of law becomes more complex and the legal industry — hopefully — continues to evolve, it seems to me that young, technology-oriented lawyers are going to be positioned best to solve client business problems.

The hundreds of lawyers I’ve worked with over the course of my law firm career, many of whom I trained as first-years, are more than capable of working on and resolving complex legal issues. So, next time outside counsel’s invoice arrives, look at the partner’s hourly rate. The next call should be to a senior associate who probably bills at half that rate.

---

Mike Quartararo

Mike Quartararo is the managing director of eDPM Advisory Services, a consulting firm providing e-discovery, project management and legal technology advisory and training services to the legal industry. He is also the author of the 2016 book Project Management in Electronic Discovery. Mike has many years of experience delivering e-discovery, project management, and legal technology solutions to law firms and Fortune 500 corporations across the globe and is widely considered an expert on project management, e-discovery and legal matter management. You can reach him via email at mquartararo@edpmadvisory.com. Follow him on Twitter @edpmadvisory.

The Federalist Society is a political organization and the only people who won’t say that are willfully ignorant or actively lying. It is beyond obvious that the group does not merely exist to “debate” conservative and libertarian legal theories; it exists to advocate for specific political and legal outcomes in line with their policy agenda. The only reason FedSoc even maintains a facade of being a non-partisan organization is so the judges —  and lawyers who want to be judges — can support the FedSoc, show up at their events, and maintain an intellectually dishonest stance that they’re just there for the lobster rolls.

An old letter from FedSoc President Eugene Meyer, unearthed in the papers of Robert Bork and reported on in Politico, show plainly that the FedSoc is, and always has been, a political organization with a specific policy agenda:

Federalist Society documents that one of us recently unearthed, however, make this position untenable going forward. The documents, made public here for the first time, show that the society not only has held explicit ideological goals since its infancy in the early 1980s, but sought to apply those ideological goals to legal policy and political issues through the group’s roundtables, symposia and conferences…

But the newly unearthed documents—a 1984 grant proposal and cover letter, written by Meyer on the Federalist Society’s behalf and now housed in the late Judge Robert Bork’s papers at the Library of Congress—provide evidence that the Federalist Society, in contravention of what the new Code states, in fact “advocates for specific outcomes on legal or political issues.” This suggests that federal judges, by attending Federalist Society events, are transgressing the Code’s new guidelines. Given the importance of active federal judges to the Federalist Society’s long-term goal of reshaping the law, barring them from the society’s events could hamper its continued ability to exert the political influence it has impressively built over decades…

The Federalist Society promised the prospective donor that the Lawyers Division would have a “dual purpose.” First, to “an even greater extent than the activities of the student and faculty divisions,” the new division would “educat[e] lawyers on legal developments with ideological connotations and how to deal with them.” The second purpose was “the formation of groups of conservative lawyers in the major centers for the practice of law, who feel comfortable believing in, and advocating, conservative positions.” The division, Meyer wrote, would mimic the style of workshops and seminars hosted by bar associations: “Unlike those events, however, the panels will also have ideological overtones, picking topics where the developments are especially good and should be encouraged, or especially bad and should be stopped.” The proposal offered examples of these workshops. Seattle might focus on the problems posed by “Environmental Regulation”; in New York, “Banking Regulation”; and in Houston, “Employment Discrimination (including the question of whether reverse discrimination is even constitutional).” The proposal also mentioned the Lawyers Division potentially “making its own recommendation for judicial appointments.”

Simply put, when the Federalist Society was describing its mission in private to a politically sympathetic donor, it let drop the group’s public-facing fiction that it is merely a debating society for the organic development of ideas.

Acting like the Federalist Society tries to hide the ball here is actually giving them too much credit. The FedSoc’s secret isn’t that it is subtle, it’s that most people don’t understand what it does. They’re basically like leopards, an apex predator that most people will never see. Right now they’re up in a tree, eating the remains of our judicial system, while people on the ground react to Donald Trump like he’s the Chupacabra.

You didn’t need a 1984 grant application to tell you that.

Which is also why it won’t matter. Conservatives have long since stopped pretending that they are restrained by ethics in pursuit of their supremacist ideology. They want to deny equal rights to blacks, gays, and women. They know that in order to accomplish that, they have to reinterpret the Constitution along its original lines which protected the rights of wealthy whites and no one else. They are close to total victory. That victory is being achieved by getting an army of conservatives jurists to be picked directly by the Federalist Society based on their level of indoctrination and willingness to abandon settled precedent in favor of the FedSoc’s agenda. They don’t give a damn about judicial ethics. If they did, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh wouldn’t have jobs from which they can never be fired.

The FedSoc will shrug off this memo like Cersei Lannister shrugged off Robert Baratheon’s last will and testament.

The only guiding ideology of the Federalist Society is winning — which is why they win.

Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judge William Pryor is speaking at a FedSoc event this Thursday. He was on the shortlist to replace both Merrick Garland and Anthony Kennedy, and while he is a fire-breathing conservative asshole, some have worried if he’s fully committed to the FedSoc’s agenda. You think he’d risk pissing these people off by not speaking at their events? Please. If he wants to be on the Supreme Court one day, these are the people he has to impress. And he knows it. And I know it. And FedSoc knows it. And anybody who is paying attention yet claims to not know it is full of crap.

The Federalist Society Says It’s Not an Advocacy Organization. These Documents Show Otherwise. [Politico]

---

Elie Mystal is the Executive Editor of Above the Law and a contributor at The Nation. He can be reached @ElieNYC on Twitter, or at elie@abovethelaw.com. He will resist.

Year two of Mansfield certification has rolled around and it’s time to check in and see which firms have made a commitment to diversity. For those of you who might not be tracking the initiative, a brief history lesson.

In 2017, the idea was formed at a Diversity Lab event to really hold Biglaw firms accountable for their lofty diversity goals. Modeled after the NFL’s Rooney Rule, which requires teams to interview a minority candidate for head coach or general manager vacancies, the idea — first proposed by Mark Helm, a partner at Munger, Tolles & Olson — was to create a system to encourage Biglaw firms to consider women or minority candidates for leadership roles at the firm. The rule — named for Arabella Mansfield, the first woman admitted to practice law in the U.S. — asks firms to consider two or more candidates who are women, LGBTQ+, or attorneys of color when hiring for leadership and governance roles, promotions to equity partner, and hiring lateral attorneys. To be considered “Mansfield Certified” by Diversity Lab, a firm needs to show that 30 percent of the candidate pool for these positions are diverse.

For this second year of the certification process, Diversity Lab has added LGBTQ+ to its diverse designations, and in next year’s list, they plan to include disability into their definition of diversity. And they’re reportedly pushing to become increasingly more diverse as the Mansfield Rule ages:

“Our plan is to raise the bar each year,” said Lisa Kirby, Diversity Lab chief intelligence and knowledge sharing officer, in a statement. “It’s especially meaningful to lead this initiative this year because it marks the 150th anniversary of Arabella Mansfield’s becoming the first woman admitted to a U.S. bar association.”

Last year, the inaugural list of Mansfield Certified firms had 41 entries, though an additional 50 claimed to be in the process of obtaining certification. This year’s list sees 64 firms claim their certification:

Akerman
Arnold & Porter*
Baker Botts*
Baker McKenzie*
Beveridge & Diamond*
Blank Rome*
Brinks Gilson & Lione*
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck
Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner*
Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney*
Clifford Chance
Cooley*
Covington*
Crowell & Moring
Day Pitney*
Dechert*
Dentons*
DLA Piper*
Dorsey & Whitney*
Drinker Biddle & Reath*
Eversheds Sutherland*
Faegre Baker Daniels*
Fasken
Fenwick & West Neal*
Finnegan*
Fish & Richardson*
Foley & Mansfield
Gerber & Eisenberg
Goodwin*
Goulston & Storrs*
Hogan Lovell*
Holland & Hart*
Holland & Knight*
Husch Blackwell*
Jenner & Block*
Katten
Kaufman Dolowich & Voluck
Latham & Watkins*
Littler Mendelson*
McDermott Will & Emery*
Merchant & Goul
Miller Canfield*
Morgan Lewis*
Morris, Manning & Martin*
Morrison & Foerster*
Munger, Tolles & Olson*
Nixon Peabody*
Norton Rose Fulbright*
O’Melveny & Myers*
Orrick*
Pepper Hamilton
Reed Smith*
Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr*
Schiff Hardin*
Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis*
Seyfarth Shaw
Sheppard Mullin*
Steptoe*
Stoel Rives*
White & Case*
WilmerHale*
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati*
Winston & Strawn*
Womble Bond Dickinson

The firms with the * designation have achieved Certified Plus status, which means they have at least 30 percent diverse lawyer representation in a notable number of their current leadership roles and committees.

Already 99 firms have signed up to be considered for next year’s certification process. And five firms — Eversheds Sutherland, Hogan Lovells, Holland & Hart, Miller Canfield, and Stoel Rives —  are piloting a new program to track individual demographic groups.

Congratulations to the firms that are working to make the legal profession a little more diverse.

---

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).

An international law firm is seeking a tax associate with 2-4 years of M&A and partnership tax experience for its NYC office.

The winning candidate will have comparable law firm experience and top law school credentials.

To be considered, please apply through this posting or submit your resume to jobs@kinneyrecruiting.com.

As you may well know, reality TV star Kim Kardashian is is studying to become a lawyer without going to law school. She’s currently finishing up her first year of a four-year apprenticeship with a law firm in San Francisco, and her goal is to take the bar exam in 2022.

Just how dedicated is she to her law school studies? Kardashian constantly updates her social media channels to let the world know where she is in her coursework. Back in May, she showed us a criminal law issue spotter that featured some of her famous friends, later lamenting the fact that law student life sucks, and due to her studies, she “won’t have time for events, for favors, for friends, for literally anything, for four years.” Following up on that, she admitted that she neglected her Keeping Up With the Kardashians livetweeting duties to keep up with torts homework. Now, the hopeful lawyer in training is even ignoring holiday festivities as she kontinues to keep up with kontracts (ed. note: please believe me when I say that was just as painful for me to write as it was for you to read).

“While everyone is probably at a barbecue, I am studying contracts today,” she said off-camera in a video posted to her Instagram Stories. Check it out, below:

Pay attention, 1Ls, because in case you missed it, Kim K. has the cutest little mnemonic device to help her remember the basics of contracts: “Love For Dogs Treats Every Rover Terrifically,” which stands for Law, Formation, Defenses, Terms, Excuses, Remedy, and Third Party.

Kardashian originally announced that she hoped to take the California baby bar (aka the First-Year Law Students’ Examination) “sometime this summer.” That exam was administered on June 25, but there was no indication that she sat for it — which was probably a good thing, since the overall pass rate was only 24 percent (the best result since the October 2014 test). Her next opportunity to do so will be on October 22.

She seems to be doing well with her studies, so we wish her the very best of luck!

Kim Kardashian West Spends Her Labor Day ‘Studying Contracts’ While Prepping for the Bar Exam [People]

---

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.

Both Houses of Parliament Are Sitting Again This Week

Bills in Parliament Last Week

Maintenance of Peace and Order Bill [completed]

On Tuesday 27th August the Senate received the Parliamentary Legal Committee [PLC]’s non-adverse report on the amendment to clause 7(5) of the Bill made at its special sitting on 14th August.  The Senate then passed the amended Bill and sent it back to the National Assembly, which approved it on Thursday 29th August.  The Bill will now be sent to the President for his assent and gazetting as an Act.

The final text of the Bill, including all the amendments, is available on the Veritas website [link].

Education Amendment Bill

The PLC’s adverse report on one of the House’s Committee Stage amendments was withdrawn on 27th August by the PLC chairperson.  This followed an undertaking by the Minister of Primary and Secondary Education to move further amendments to satisfy the PLC’s concerns over the definition of “public school” that had been added by the amendment.  The House then re-opened the Committee Stage and approved the deletion of the offending definition of “public school” in clause 2; consequential amendments to clauses 9 and 12, where “public school” appeared; and the insertion of a new clause to amend section 21 of the Education Act, which regulates fees and levies payable at non-Government schools.  The effect of the new clause was to make the National Competitiveness Commission responsibility for approval of increases in fees and levies in non-Government schools.

These amendments were formally approved by the PLC in a non-adverse report, followed by the final passing of the Bill and its transmission to the Senate.

Note on the PLC’s Adverse Report: The PLC’s view was that the definition of “public school” was so broad that it would subject private schools to controls inconsistent with section 75(2) of the Constitution, which gives every person the right to establish and maintain “independent educational institutions of reasonable standards, provided they do not discriminate on any ground prohibited by this Constitution”.

Three Bills given First Reading and referred to PLC

On Thursday 29th August the following three Bills were presented in the National Assembly, given their First Readings and referred to the PLC for reports on their constitutionality: Marriages Bill, Freedom of Information Bill and Zimbabwe Media Commission Bill.

Other Bills

There was no progress last week on any of the other Bills listed on the National Assembly’s Order Paper: Zimbabwe Investment and Development Agency Bill, Money Laundering and Proceeds of Crime Amendment Bill and Coroner’s Office Bill.  They may, however, move forward this week.

Coming Up in Parliament This Week

In the Senate

Education Bill

This Bill is the only Bill on the Senate’s Order Paper for Tuesday 3rd September, having been transmitted from the National Assembly on 27th August. Its passage through Parliament could be completed this week.

In the National Assembly

Three Bills head the Order Paper for 3rd September, in the following order:

Zimbabwe Investment and Development Agency Bill [link]

The Committee Stage has to be completed, with several pages of amendments proposed by the Portfolio Committee on Industry and Commerce [link]  still to be considered.

Money Laundering and Proceeds of Crime Amendment Bill [link]

Minister’s Second Reading speech and Second Reading debate.

Coroner’s Office Bill [link]

For continuation of Second Reading debate.

Three Bills under consideration by PLC

As these Bills were referred to the PLC only five days ago, the necessary reports on their consistency with the Constitution are unlikely to be delivered to the National Assembly this week.  The National Assembly is not expected to continue dealing with them this week.

Marriages Bill [link]

Freedom of Information Bill [link]

Zimbabwe Media Commission Bill [link]

Public consultations have already been conducted on the Marriages Bill and the Freedom of Information Bill.

Other Business in Parliament Last Week

International Agreement Approved by both Houses

The 2012 Beijing Treaty on Audio Visual Performances was approved for ratification by the National Assembly on 27th August and the Senate on 29th August.  This means that Zimbabwe can now become party to the Treaty by depositing an instrument of ratification.

Committee Reports presented

Reports were presented on the:

Petition on Access to Primary Documents presented to Parliament by the Gwanda Community Youth Development Trust [report by the Portfolio Committee on Defence, Home Affairs and Security Services, presented to the National Assembly on 27th August]

Implementation of Empowerment Programmes in the Mining Sector [report by the Thematic Committee on Indigenisation and Empowerment, presented to the Senate on 28th August]

Familiarisation Visits to Featherstone, Ngundu, Beitbridge, Gwanda and Plumtree Police Stations and Border Posts [report by the Thematic Committee on Human Rights, presented to the Senate on 28th August].

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

Post published in: Featured

Like me, maybe you’ve been dreading going back to work. Dreading it with a bone-deep weariness that plumbs the depths of your soul. And the day has finally arrived and it’s like back to school for the business set. Without the adorable chalkboard signs or cute first day outfits. Because today, the shenanigans start back up again in earnest.

A few years ago, I took up yoga to counterbalance the stress of practicing law in an in-house counsel environment and postponing this inevitable conversation: “Yes, I’m happy to explain myself, HR. I decked him because he kept using the word legalese. To my face.”

At first, I didn’t get much out of yoga other than learning that a resting heartbeat that outpaced a hummingbird was apparently undesirable. Oh, and that I was tragically unflexible after years of glaring at a computer screen and clenching my jaw. Instead, I spent my time on the mat coming up with politer ways to insinuate that something was a piss poor idea without actually using the words piss poor. Because that gives away the punchline.

But at some point, I found myself listening to my instructor, and holy hell, was the stuff she said smart in that “simple but earthshattering way.” You know, like when you actually figured out what the heck tortious interference was in law school. As a 3L. And you thought, seriously, I spent a semester on that?

Anyway, one of my instructor’s perennial favorites is this meditation mantra she likes to sprinkle in at the end of the class. It goes something like this: “May I be happy. May I be healthy. May I be safe.” And after every statement, we’d echo it back to her like we meant it. Well, that was some pretty powerful stuff. Simple. Well-drafted. And to the point. In fact, I liked this mantra so much, I stole it for my law practice. And it goes a little something like this:

MAY IT BE LEGAL

MAY IT BE SAFE*

MAY IT MAKE SENSE

And I thought to myself, what better time to share this little ditty than the first day back in the office after the last gasp of summer when your business partners realize there is one quarter left in the calendar year.

REPEAT AFTER ME: MAY IT BE LEGAL.

I don’t know what sort of Hail Mary energy grips the business in the final quarter, but it is real and fierce and results in “could only have happened after midnight” bad decisions. I like to chalk it up to the “I’m three Coronaritas deep and the crazy is starting to make sense” or “I didn’t wear my company-branded hat on the boat and it fried my brain” scenario. At some point on an extended vacation, your business partner had this kernel of a thought, a brilliant thought. But something hazy, like that dreaded cloud cover over an otherwise perfect beach, descended and your business partner distantly remembered that Legal had nixed the idea before. Hmm, maybe it wasn’t strictly legal? Your business partner shrugs that annoying thought away like a mosquito, squares his shoulders, and heads for your office. Because maybe if he forgot why we couldn’t do something three months ago, then so did you.

First wish for you, lawyer friends, may the crap that’s coming down the pipe today be something that’s strictly street legal and doesn’t require outside counsel analysis to confirm that fact.

REPEAT AFTER ME: MAY IT BE SAFE*

Caught that asterisk, did ya? When I say safe, I mean for you, you long-suffering guardian of risk. I really don’t care if it blows up in your business partner’s face like a science experiment gone wrong because someone forgot to carry the one and now the numbers don’t work.

I’m chalking this one up to having worn flip-flops all summer. Yeah, that’s right. Your business partner thinks, hey, I wore open-toed footwear all summer and despite the rocky, tick-covered terrain of that hike, the chum-slick surface of the dock, or the general ick factor of that toddler’s inflatable bouncy house party, guess what? I STILL HAVE ALL MY TOES! I AM INVINCIBLE. NOTHING CAN TOUCH ME!

And then they walk into your office with a mix of misplaced confidence and the devil-may-care adrenaline of youth, and they pitch you their riskiest idea of the year.

Second wish for you, lawyer friends, may the crap that awaits you today be safe — safe-ish — within the acceptable parameters of a risk profile you can live with it.

AND FINALLY, REPEAT AFTER ME: MAY IT MAKE SENSE

Alright, this last one I’m blaming on the prevalence of fruity drinks and readily available mind-altering substances. Because let’s face it, are you going to slam back a watermelon sangria with a CBD blondie in March? Likely not. These are strictly summer whimsies.

Sorry to ruin your day, but at some point, someone will put time on your calendar this afternoon (or you know, just walk in, because apparently your office is like a low-rent salon where walk-ins are welcome and always accommodated). And then you’ll sit there in slack-jawed stupor listening to a business partner ramble on, wondering if you’re the idiot or they are. Spoiler alert: it’s most certainly not you, friend. Post-Labor Day ideas always seem to have this fantastical, “I haven’t worked out all the details yet, but I’m sure it will all work out” quality to them. Again, I’m blaming this on everything else that’s half-baked about summer.

Final wish for you, lawyer friends? May the crap coming out of your business partner’s mouth today make some semblance of sense.

Put it all together now and you’ve got your own little legal mantra:

MAY IT BE LEGAL. MAY IT BE SAFE*. MAY IT MAKE SENSE.

And if it can’t be more than 2/3^rds of these things, screw it. Write it up an email and put it in your CYA file. If it can’t be legal, safe, or make sense? Then it can at least be well-documented.

---

Kay Thrace (not her real name) is a harried in-house counsel at a well-known company that everyone loves to hate. When not scuffing dirt on the sacrosanct line between business and the law, Kay enjoys pub trivia domination and eradicating incorrect usage of the Oxford comma. You can contact her by email at KayThraceATL@gmail.com or follow her on Twitter @KayThrace.

* The new list of Mansfield certified firms is coming. [American Lawyer]

* Corporate lawyer quits to start Equestrian Sports Data company proving there’s always a stupider way to make money. [Noelle Floyd]

* “Allen & O’Melvery” is dead. The firms have nixed merger plans. [Financial Times]

* The Offspring are locked in a legal battle and I’ll admit I’d totally forgotten they existed. [Forbes]

* Politicians want to destroy the Internet and no one seems to be stopping them. [NBC News]

* Locke Lord crypto scam trial coming in November. [Law360]

“I call on States to do more to prevent enforced disappearances and bring to justice those responsible.  To this end, I call on countries to cooperate fully with UN mechanisms.  I also urge all States that have not yet done so to sign, ratify or accede to the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance.”

The International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance[link] was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 20 December 2006.  The convention states that enforced disappearance occurs when:

“persons are arrested, detained or abducted against their will or otherwise deprived of their liberty by officials of different branches or levels of Government, or by organized groups or private individuals acting on behalf of, or with the support, direct or indirect, consent or acquiescence of the Government, followed by a refusal to disclose the fate or whereabouts of the persons concerned or a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of their liberty, which places such persons outside the protection of the law.

On 21 December 2010 the UN General Assembly expressed its deep concern about the increase in enforced disappearances in various regions of the world and set a day to mark the International Day of the Victims of Enforced Disappearances.  The UN continues to express concern that whereas in the past enforced disappearances were mostly a tool of military dictatorships, nowadays enforced disappearances are perpetrated in situations of internal conflict, especially as a means of political repression of opponents.  Of particular concern is:

• the ongoing harassment of human rights defenders, relatives of victims, witnesses and legal counsel dealing with cases of enforced disappearance;
• the use by States of counter-terrorist activities as an excuse for breaching their obligations; and
• the still widespread impunity for enforced disappearance.

Victims of enforced disappearances are frequently tortured and in constant fear for their lives.  Having been removed from the protection of the law and “disappeared” from society, victims of enforced disappearance are in fact deprived of all their rights and are at the mercy of their captors.  Some of the human rights that enforced disappearances regularly violate are:

• The right to recognition as a person before the law;
• The right to liberty and security of the person;
• The right not to be subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;
• The right to life, when the disappeared person is killed;
• The right to an identity;
• The right to a fair trial and to judicial guarantees;
• The right to an effective remedy, including reparation and compensation;
• The right to know the truth regarding the circumstances of a disappearance.

The families and friends of the victims suffer anguish, not knowing whether the victim is still alive and, if so, where he or she is being held, under what conditions, and in what state of health.  The family’s distress is frequently compounded by the material consequences of the disappearance.  The disappeared person is often the family’s main breadwinner.  In some cases, national legislation may make it impossible to draw a pension or receive other means of support in the absence of a death certificate.  Economic and social marginalization is frequently the result.

Enforced disappearance has frequently been used as a strategy to spread terror within a society.  The feeling of insecurity generated by this practice is not limited to the close relatives of the disappeared, but also affects their communities and society as a whole.

When committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed at any civilian population, a “forced disappearance” qualifies as a crime against humanity and, thus, is not subject to a statute of limitations.  This means the victims if they survive and the victims’ families will always have the right to seek reparations, and to demand the truth about the disappearance of their loved ones.

On this day in Zimbabwe we are reminded to stand with people whose families are looking for answers and are seeking to know the whereabouts of their loved ones.  We are reminded to stand with those whose rights as set out in the Constitution of Zimbabwe [such as the right to life, section 48 , the right to liberty section 49), the rights of those arrested and detained section 50, the right to human dignity section 51 and personal security section 52] have been violated.

Zimbabwe is still not a State Party to the Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance.

We call upon the Government of Zimbabwe to accede to the Convention.

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

Post published in: Featured