Author: TSA Press

The Ninth Circuit’s ruling in hiQ v. LinkedIn, granting hiQ’s injunction against LinkedIn and its review of the tortious interference with contract alleged against LinkedIn, is a huge win for the data mining industry, and an overwhelming affirmation that the public has the right to access public data. This landmark ruling is also a massive win for legal tech companies aggregating public data to build legal analytics, as well as their clients who rely on those analytics for business development, competitive intelligence, and many other innovative uses.

On the facts, LinkedIn could not have been more egregious in the way it specifically blocked hiQ from mining publicly available data that it also expressly does not claim an ownership interest over. LinkedIn studied the business model of hiQ, sent senior representatives to presentations on hiQ’s products for large enterprise clients like eBay, and then turned off hiQ’s access to data right as they released a competing product offering. 

But the larger picture is not about what LinkedIn did in this particular instance – it’s about how similar attempts to circumvent and prevent data mining by large court technology providers, contracted by states to provide access to court records, are also having a chilling effect on innovation in legal analytics.

Without being able to aggregate millions upon millions of data points from court records, certain litigation analytics products would not be possible without paying exorbitant costs for bulk access to data (that most courts do not offer), and innovation will continue to languish where restrictive costs and practices preclude all but a handful of incumbents to obtain meaningful access to public data.

Putting hiQ in Perspective

hiQ vs. LinkedIn matters just as much as Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org matters for legal data aggregation. We know that if past is prologue, a handful of incumbents will continue to assert copyright in the law; they will divvy up shares of the legal analytics market, just as they did for decades with legal research to prevent others from entering the market. 

Public means public, and public data is no different. For better or for worse, the United States has one of the most free and open information societies across the globe. We respect the public’s Right to Know and we weigh the public’s interest in our law, just as the Ninth Circuit in hiQ, and the Eleventh Circuit in Public Resource, measured how allowing copyrighting of the law would be detrimental to the public interest.

If larger players can corner off the market by preventing data mining or by copyrighting the law, access to meaningful analytics will be at stake, and there will be legal technology deserts in certain states and locales.

It’s not hard to picture a situation where the large court technology providers develop repressive Terms of Service, throw around threats of civil and criminal penalties for aggregating and publishing public data, and seek to prohibit selling competing legal analytics derived from public data, because that already exists.

There are countless counties and states across the U.S. where providers and/or the state and local governments contracting with them claim ownership over public court data and maintain that you can’t scrape, resell, or use it for commercial purposes. In other words, no one is allowed to compete with them without paying a handsome amount for bulk access, without putting themselves at risk of prosecution and/or crippling litigation, or without waiving their basic constitutionally protected rights of freedom of expression. 

The changing structure of the legal profession, from what’s happening in Utah and Oregon, to the California State Bar’s ATILS Task Force and other pushes to open access to legal services, are important strides forward for promoting access to justice, but they would fall short of their potential if not paired with open access to data. Legal innovation in the legal profession hinges on access to data, and really bulk access to data to make use of it at scale.

What We Know

We already know from LinkedIn what the playbook is – turn off the hose and starve competitive innovation. And we already have prominent examples of how this is being executed in the legal profession with Georgia and LexisNexis locking arms to squash all comers. But there are other examples. Tyler Tech in Texas, Judici in Illinois, and others have erected technical barriers at the outset to prevent and/or put a price tag on competitive innovation.

They’ve thrown in the kitchen sink in their Terms of Service and threaten against using bots to grab data or reselling that data, even though it’s public data and only in their possession because of lucrative contracts secured with state and local governments. They know that without access to public data, smaller legal tech companies won’t be able to survive, let alone thrive, and take their market share. 

The good news is that Courts have repudiated these efforts, and the facts could not be clearer in favor of open access in hiQ and Public Resource, but the fight is not yet over. hiQ still has a case to litigate against LinkedIn (we’ve only had a ruling on the initial injunction), and SCOTUS needs to land the plane to once and for all assert that the law can’t be copyrighted. 

What comes next is states following suit to take the much needed position that private companies contracted to facilitate public access to public data don’t own the law, that they can’t prevent others from mining that data, and that they can’t prevent competitors from developing new and innovative products capable of advancing and improving the legal system.  

---

Josh Blandi is the CEO and Co-Founder of UniCourt, a SaaS offering using machine learning to disrupt the way court records are organized, accessed, and used. UniCourt connects attorneys, businesses, and consumers to the records they need and enables them to tap into the mountain of court data generated everyday for legal analytics, business intelligence and development, background checks, case research, and many other innovative uses.

As a legal recruiter, I help attorneys prepare for interviews all the time.  I also speak with employers after each interview, and hear firsthand why a candidate did (or in some cases, did not) make a good impression.  While I always cover the basics of interview preparation with attorneys (see 12 Lateral Interview Tips from a Legal Recruiter), I also cover the aspects of interview preparation which some may find obvious, but others often overlook.  Having been in the legal recruiting profession for several years, I’ve learned that even the most basic tenets of interview etiquette are often forgotten.  But employers are paying attention, and you only get one chance to make a good first impression. Below are helpful interview tips you must keep in mind if you want to land your dream legal job:

1)  Dress the Part. For a legal interview, you must wear a suit.  I have had employers complain to me after an interview when candidates do not dress professionally.  Even if the firm is casual and everyone else is in jeans and flip flops, you must wear a suit.  YOU MUST WEAR A SUIT.  Did I mention that you have to wear a suit?  While you’re at it, a good shoe shine can go a long way.  Like it or not, our physical appearance is the biggest factor that influences others’ first impressions of us, so every little detail counts.  In addition, studies also show that how you dress can change the way you see yourself.  The clothes you wear can affect your confidence, so if you look the part, then you’ll be more likely to feel the part and ultimately be perceived in a better light.  I often get asked by female attorneys if they should wear a pant or skirt suit, and my answer is to wear whatever makes you feel the most comfortable and confident.  You don’t want to feel self-conscious during an interview, so you have to feel good about whatever you wear.  Along those lines, women should keep hair and makeup simple, and accessories to a minimum so the interviewer can make an assessment of you based on your words and skills.  Men should wear a tie and either be clean-shaven or if you have facial hair, keep it trimmed and clean.  An unprofessional look can distract the interviewer from your qualifications, so be sure to take the time to pull your look together in advance.

2) Watch Your Language.  While you may have a great rapport with your interviewer and feel very comfortable, you have to keep a professional tone — no matter what.  This includes refraining from using profanity or other inappropriate language.  While dropping F-bombs may be a part of your regular vernacular, you need to rein it in during an interview.  Remember, this is an interview for a job in a client-services industry.  If a firm does not feel comfortable putting you in front of a client, they won’t hire you.  You must also keep in mind that a job interview is not a casual conversation between friends in a bar.  It’s a highly formal exchange where the interviewer is assessing your professionalism, among other things.  Even if your interviewer uses profanity, don’t get too comfortable and start following suit.  As a lawyer, there will be plenty of opportunities to swear after you land the job.

3) Less Is More.  Do not feel the need to overshare about your personal life or extracurricular activities.  While you may love partying and getting toasted with your friends on the weekends, it’s best at this stage to keep your personal life just that — personal.  An interview is not an appropriate place to discuss your partying ways or your recent divorce woes.  While it may be appropriate in some instances to talk about your hobbies or interests outside of work, you have to remember to keep it PG and keep it positive, as you don’t want it to overshadow the entire interview.  If you do share personal details, make sure they are relevant to the question.  The risk of making the conversation too personal is that you may lose focus and start sharing too many irrelevant details, which will oftentimes do more harm than good.  If you are asked to share personal information about yourself, It’s important to keep it light, make it interesting, and show an equal interest in the person interviewing you.

4) Lose the Gum.  While it’s great to have fresh breath before an interview, nothing will be more distracting than chomping away at a Juicy Fruit during an interview.  So ditch the gum altogether and pop a breath mint instead, finishing it before you even get to the reception desk.  If you find yourself at the interview and you’ve forgotten to lose the gum, be sure to visit the restroom before an interview and throw it out.  You need to be able to speak clearly during an interview when answering questions, and gum won’t do you any favors.

5) Unplug.  Turn your phone off or on silent — not on vibrate — during an interview.  Many of us are addicted to our smartphones, but the emails, voicemails, and texts will still be there after the interview.  Avoid the temptation to be distracted by the quiet buzz of a vibrating phone and allow yourself to be present in the moment and focus on the interview.  While it may not be an immediate dealbreaker if your phone goes off during the interview, it can raise a red flag to the interviewer.  It can also distract you and cause you to lose your train of thought, so don’t risk it.

6) Timing is Everything. Be sure to show up on time, and ideally 10 minutes before your interview. You’ll want to give yourself enough time to check-in, use the restroom, and have a few moments to compose yourself and collect your thoughts before diving into the interview.  But be careful not to show up too early.  There’s a fine line between being eager and looking desperate, and you don’t want to send the wrong message.  Arriving more than 15 minutes early can also be frustrating for a hiring manager, so try to stick to the scheduled time.   On the flip side, you don’t want to show up late, as that can signal poor attention to detail or poor time management skills, and worse, a disregard for other people’s time. If it’s raining or the area is prone to traffic or unpredictable travel times, then be sure to give yourself extra time to get to the interview.  Of course snafus can happen beyond our control, so if you are running late don’t panic.  Call your recruiter or interviewer and let them know your ETA, asking if that time will still work and if not, offering to reschedule.

7) Don’t Watch the Clock. Sure, we’re all super busy and taking time away from our current jobs to interview elsewhere is always difficult, but it’s part of the process that you’ve committed to in order to land a great job.  So forget about how long you’re away from the office and the work that’s waiting for you, and keep your gaze on the interviewer, not on a clock or your watch.  Looking at your watch during an interview gives negative signals about your ability to focus, your respect for the interviewer, and your desire to get the job.  If you can’t avoid the temptation to glance down at your wrist every two minutes, then leave your watch at home.

8) Mind Your Manners. Many job seekers forget the importance of being polite (or perhaps let their nerves get the better of them).  But to give yourself the edge during an interview, you’ve got to mind your Ps and Qs.  So shake the hand of everyone you meet, maintain good eye contact, listen well, don’t talk over someone, and say “please” and “thank you” when appropriate.  If a meal is part of the interview process, then good table manners are mandatory.  Interviewers are assessing the overall package, not just your skills and experience.  Make sure you’re on your best behavior, and if you need an etiquette refresher course, Emily Post is just a click away.

9) Send Thank You Notes. Job search etiquette is very clear on this point:  Every interview must be followed by a thank you note/email, ideally within 24 hours.  I’m always surprised by the number of job applicants who want to skip this simple yet important step.  Employers pay close attention to the thank you note, so take this opportunity to remind your interviewers what a great applicant you are, and show them how much you want the job.  Employers find it rude when applicants don’t send thank you notes, and may question your interest in the position.  If you want the job, then there shouldn’t be any question in the employer’s mind about that.  The thank you note is the perfect ending to an interview process where you’ll get the final word and stay on the forefront of the employer’s mind, so don’t miss out on that opportunity.

If you’d like to learn more detailed interview tips or discuss a possible lateral move, I’m here to help.  Please feel free to contact me at zatassi@laterallink.com.

Ed. note: This is the latest installment in a series of posts from Lateral Link’s team of expert contributors. Zain Atassi is a Principal based in Chicago where she oversees attorney placements and client services throughout the Midwest. She recruits and places high-level attorneys with leading AmLaw firms, high-end boutiques, regional firms, and Fortune 500 companies. Her market intelligence and deep understanding of the Midwest market, along with her considerable connections with both firms and companies throughout the region, has allowed her to help numerous attorneys achieve their ultimate career goals. Zain holds a J.D. from Washington University School of Law and a B.A. with Honors from Washington University in St. Louis. Prior to recruiting, she spent six years as a litigation attorney with Chicago-based law firms. Zain resides on the Northshore of Chicago with her husband and two children, and she is fluent in Arabic.

---

Lateral Link is one of the top-rated international legal recruiting firms. With over 14 offices world-wide, Lateral Link specializes in placing attorneys at the most prestigious law firms and companies in the world. Managed by former practicing attorneys from top law schools, Lateral Link has a tradition of hiring lawyers to execute the lateral leaps of practicing attorneys. Click ::here:: to find out more about us.

(This is the largest gift ever made to a law school, and Penn Carey Law is now the highest-ranked law school to be renamed for a donor. In case you were wondering, a Carey Law already exists at the University of Maryland, but the one at Penn is a little more prestigious.)

---

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.

As my colleague Andrew aptly noted last week, civility in litigation is a dying art. As I am introduced to world of litigation and interact with more fellow lawyers, I have been very surprised at how lawyers treat one another. There seems to be a pervasive attitude that to zealously represent your client means that you should treat opposing counsel with disrespect and to fight for the sake of fighting. Thus, I decided to write this piece on how I try to be more civil with opposing counsel, while still representing my client’s interests to the best of my abilities.

I believe in the common principle that you should treat opposing counsel as you would want to be treated. This applies not only to the legal profession but to life. Respect breeds more respect. When you first speak to opposing counsel, be friendly. There is way too much posturing when counsel meet or speak for the first time. A little respect in the beginning may lead to a much more pleasant experience through the course of the litigation.

To that end, always be mindful of your tone on phone calls and emails. This is more difficult in emails, but try to be respectful of your opponent. Don’t be a bully. Lawyers (and generally people) tend to react negatively to being bullied or treated with less respect. Contempt leads to more contempt and so forth. To counter this growing trend in emails, while proofreading my emails, I try to imagine how opposing counsel will perceive my communication. If I know I’m ratcheting up the intensity and tension, then I should expect a similar response. Try to take this into account when you are drafting anything. I know it’s difficult to predict how opposing counsel will react but be mindful of your tone.

In terms of respecting your opponent, I think it’s also common to have misperceptions about your opponent’s age. Whether you are the younger, newer lawyer or you are the older, more experienced lawyer, you should not treat the other lawyer with any disrespect based on that. Just because you may have vastly more experience in a particular legal subject area, does not mean that you should talk down to you opponent. And that goes for younger lawyers as well. Just because your opponent is older and may not be as tech savvy, that does not mean you should try to get anything past him or her.

I believe that following some basic form of these tips will do much to improve all lawyers’ lives. First, you should always return phone calls or respond to emails from opposing counsel in an appropriate fashion time-wise. Ignoring the emails of opposing counsel does nothing but create consternation between the parties. Second, always be courteous to opposing counsel. As a child, I was taught that kindness is contagious, and I feel that applies in the legal profession as well. As much as I want to get down to business on a call, when I start a phone call with opposing counsel, I always start with some pleasantries. That goes a long way to building a good working relationship with your opponent. Third, be respectful of the opposing counsel’s schedule. There is a tendency not to trust what the opposing counsel sometimes says regarding scheduling court appearances or deadlines. But if a lawyer says he or she has commitments and cannot do a certain date, then it’s very lawyerly of you to accept his or her word for it.

Overall, even though we are representing different parties and opposing interests, we are all lawyers. We are the only ones who can change the way we treat one another. We should not give in to the public’s stereotype of the angry, untrustworthy, or sleazy lawyer. With more a little more respect and courtesy in our profession, we can make a major change in many lawyer’s lives.

---

Peter S. Garnett is an attorney at Balestriere Fariello who represents clients in trials, arbitrations, and appeals. He focuses his practice on complex commercial litigation and contract disputes from pre-filing investigations to trial and appeals. You can reach Peter at peter.s.garnett@balestrierefariello.com.

It’s been a moment since we checked in on our old pal, former Uber CEO Travis Kalanick.

The last we’d heard was that Travis was pretty pissy about not being able to ring the bell at Uber’s IPO, which in retrospect appears to have been a case of saving him from himself. But by spending the last few years not being in the headlines for doing anything dumb, Kalanick [and -let’s face it- Adam Neumann] has made it easier to forget all the dumb stuff he did that got him booted from his own multi-billion dollar startup.

For those who do not follow sports, there is an important, titanic college football game happening this weekend. The Alabama Crimson Tide take on the LSU Tigers in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. LSU has a decent quarterback, Joe Burrow, this year. So, when ‘Bama inevitably boat races them and reduces Burrow to a twitchy, human recreation of Fiver from Watership Down, the defeat will be particularly bitter.

I’d like to talk more about the game, but unfortunately we live in a world where the President of the United States is a jejune narcissist who refuses to let us have nice things. Donald Trump is continuing his national tour of looking for a sports audience to cheer him. He got booed at the World Series. He got booed at UFC, which is only surprising to those who think Dana White is representative of actual UFC fans. And so now Trump intends to go to Tuscaloosa to watch the big game.

A sporting event in Alabama might seem like a “safe space” for Trump. But we must remember that going to college seems to be the key factor in making white people understand that Trump is terrible. People who have schooling do not like Trump. Alabama draws a lot of fans who never went to the university or any college at all, but one might expect the Alabama students section, at least, to be vocally against the bigoted president when he comes to campus.

It would appear that a member of the Alabama Student Government Association, Vice President Jason Rothfarb, anticipated some anti-Trump feelings among the student body. This week, ahead of the game, Rothfarb sent out this letter, that was later widely circulated on social media:

“Any organizations that engage in disruptive behavior during the game will be removed from block seating instantly for the remainder of the season,” he wrote.

The only thing that could have made this more chilling to free speech is if Rothfarb had gotten Peter Thiel to cosign the message.

A firestorm erupted, justifiably so, because the free speech rights on the campus of a public university, while attending a sporting event, are among the most ironclad you can get without the aid of Russian interference. Trust me, I’m a Mets fan — the right to boo is among our most scared.

The pushback caused Rothfarb to clarify his statement, blaming others for “misinterpretation” as we’re now all trained to do when caught being stupid in public:

“Some have misinterpreted my comment regarding “disruptive behavior.” As with other games this season, Organization’s Block Seating locations will be clearly marked, but at certain times, other students can and should have access to open seats. By disruptive behavior, we are asking students to be respectful to all students and staff and avoid altercations.

Normally, I’d dismiss this walk-back out of hand. But… BUT… I mean… this is ‘Bama/LSU. Earlier this year, LSU played Vanderbilt in Nashville and, apparently, DRANK A BAR OUT OF VODKA BY 9:00 A.M.! The specter of hooliganism is real when these two programs meet. Young people will be drunk, rowdy, and one faction or the other will be losing. Bad things can happen. After a Harvard/Yale game one year, we lost and the Yale fans rushed the field and mooned our side and I started throwing dog biscuits at their asses until I was escorted out by “friends” (who were maybe “security guards,” but I remember them as friends). And drunken Harvard/Yale is to drunken Bama/LSU as a scented candle is to a flamethrower.

Rothfarb’s retcon of his warning is believable, I suppose. Except, you know who doesn’t believe it? The President of the United States:

Trump retweeted that after the retraction or clarification or whatever was made.

Regardless of what Rothfarb and Alabama actually intended, Trump is using it as an opportunity to chill free speech on campus.

I imagine most Alabama and LSU students just want to go to the game and… stick to sports. And, that’s their right. It’s unfortunate that we live in a country where the president is so desperate for attention that he intrudes himself on every aspect of our lives and culture.

But I’d just remind game attendees that they don’t have to focus on the game and nothing else. Alabama is not run by Jim Spanfeller. If you want to voice your displeasure at the current president, that is your right to do so.

You don’t even have to go full Nika Riot. You can leave that work to the people present should Trump ever be foolish enough show up to a WNBA game.

---

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.

The timing is sort of surprising. Obviously, there’s a war on talent. Firms want to be seen as an early leader in setting market rates, and it shows they feel confident in the market next year.

— Nathan Peart, managing director of Major, Lindsey & Africa’s associate practice group, commenting on Milbank’s announcement of year-end bonuses yesterday. Not only did the firm beat Cravath to the punch, but this is the earliest that Biglaw bonuses have been announced since 2009 (a time when bonus compensation was down, and the real bonus was still having a job).

---

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.

Pewie Moyo works as a full-time carer for Yvonne Gage, who is quadriplegic

A woman who has worked as a carer for nine years has been told she must leave the UK without delay.

Pewie Moyo originally came to the UK from Zimbabwe under her partner’s visa, but they separated several years ago.

Ms Moyo works a full-time carer for a family in Trull, Taunton, where she lives with Karen Attwell, and cares for Karen’s wife, Yvonne Gade.

The Home Office has said it will not comment on individual cases.

Ms Moyo was told during a routine check-in three weeks ago, that her application to remain had failed and the decision was “in the system”.

A few days later, her solicitor received a Home Office letter confirming the decision.

It stated: “You have no basis to continue to stay in the United Kingdom and you are expected to make arrangements to leave the United Kingdom without delay.”

Ms Moyo said: “It’s really terrible, it feels like they don’t consider what I’ve been doing and contributing to this society. I feel like I’m not valued.”

Ms Moyo has been caring for Yvonne Gage for nine years

Ms Moyo has been caring for Ms Gage, who is quadriplegic and became paralysed after an aneurysm in her brain, for nine years.

Ms Gage’s wife Ms Attwell said: “We’ve got medical evidence we submitted to the Home Office to say they were very concerned about Yvie’s welfare should Pewie and Yvie be separated.

“We don’t have another carer that is as committed and that we love in the same way we love Pewie, it’s not that easy.”

Ms Moyo is now due to report back to a police station on Tuesday, 26 November and she fears she could be detained and sent back to Zimbabwe.

If she does return, she claims she could be tortured or killed, as she was a member of the opposition party.

Post published in: Featured

The term “World Class City” refers to a city that is considered safe and secure. It is a city that is inclusive and has access to basic services including water and electricity. It is a city that is ideal for its dwellers. Rubbish is collected on time and maintenance of buildings is always up to date. The City Council of a world class city is conscious about the health needs such as the fresh air and relaxation provided by paths and greenbelt and exercise – provided by walking and cycling tracks and playgrounds for children.

As such, Harare has committed itself to being a world class city by 2025 and other cities such as Gweru, Mutare and Bulawayo are expected to follow suit.

We Deserve Better Cities

World Cities Day and World Town Planning Day are days that commemorate world urbanisation and how cities have transformed thus far. The overall theme for the two days is “Better City, Better Life”, and the sub-theme for World Cities Day is ” Changing the World : Innovations and Better Life for Future Generations”. World Town Planning Day calls for Town Planners to be innovative, to rethink their strategies and to get excited about developing cities whilst World Cities Day calls for planners to be forward thinking.  With 50% of the world’s population living in cities, one can see why this day is of importance.

In Zimbabwe, 16% of the overall population is believed to live in Harare, whilst 5% in Bulawayo, 67% in rural areas and the remainder scattered around other towns and cities. In 2012, Zimbabwe indicated in its Report to UN Habitat that its cities are growing  at a rate of 4.3% annually. The Business Insider named Harare the second worst city to live in 2019. The Economist Intelligence Unit ranked Harare 135th out of 140 on the Global Liveability Index meaning only 5 capital cities in the world are considered worse than Harare in 2018. The reason for this was mostly owed to poor infrastructure, economic instability and poor healthcare.

As mentioned above Harare City Council has expressed its wishes for the city to become a world class city. This is to be done by 2025. For the goal to become a reality considerable change in how the city operates needs to take place. The Harare City Council as well as property owners need to commit to revamping and renovating buildings and spaces. Roads need to be maintained and pathways need to be fixed. Maintenance should not take place once something falls apart. Constant improvement and development needs to take place so as to not overwhelm the City Councils of tomorrow. All City Councils in the country need to take heed of this as well.

Cities For Future Generations

In his statement on the subject, the UN Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres said that “how our cities develop will have significant implication in realising the futures we want.”  This is a call by the SG that in the development of cities we must consider sustainability, the overall environment and to better the health, mental and social needs of the people in the city. To date there have been growing trends of people building on wetlands. Land formerly reserved for recreational purposes has been issued out as housing stands and more and more we are turning our city into a concrete block without any places for children to play and general social development. In desperately catering for the population growth in cities, we are sacrificing town planning and development that is sustainable, eco-friendly and healthy for the inhabitants of the city.

Echoing the Secretary General’s remarks, a generational perspective needs to be adopted in town and city development. We need forward-looking municipalities that seek to solve long term problems. We should not seek to just satisfy the needs of the community of today only. Future generations must be kept in mind.

The government, Members of Parliament, municipalities and urban dwellers are called to work together for sustainable development that is sensitive to climate action and the quality of life for the generations to come.  As we have seen rapid expansion with no sure plan comes with poverty and unemployment. We need discipline, transparency and efficient systems in our municipalities in order to improve the cities and earn our spot back on the world stage as having world class cities. The time has come to adapt and remodel the template of cities we were left with decades ago into one that is suitable to the populations and conditions of today.

Responsible City Development

As we commemorate this day we call upon municipalities to apply fresh perspectives when developing Master Plans and carrying out urbanism projects. We implore all players responsible for city development to remember that the change begins with them. If we are to realise our goal to become a world class city by 2025 there needs to be greater equality and access to services throughout the country. We need to map a practical and feasible way forward with our infrastructure and actually implement visible developments.

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

Post published in: Featured

Pickup lines generally walk the fine line between cheesily bad and actionably harassing. But the art of crafting pickup lines for a specific profession brings in a level of sad nerdism that makes it perfect fodder for lawyers and law students showing off their mastery of arcane (to the rest of the world) legal knowledge in a way that’s just funny enough to get them a pity lay.

The Law School Memes for Edgy T14s page asked members to provide their best lawyerly pickup lines and they didn’t disappoint. Here’s a collection of the best of the project:

• Are you looking to tender some performance? Cause I’m ready, willing, and sufficient to satisfy.
• Hey girl, are you a bar review class? Because I would pay $3500 for you to talk to me for a short amount of time.
• Are your shareholders liable for your corporate debts? Because I’d like to pierce your veil.
• Are you intro to property law? Because I bet you can make me cry and waste countless hours of my life.
• Girl, I can sustain an objection for almost four hours.
• Westlaw and chill?
• Are you the country residence from Jacob & Youngs v. Kent? Cuz I’m tryna put a pipe in you.
• You must be a long arm statute cause you could grab me anywhere.
• Are you equity, cause I’ll make you come with clean hands.
• Oh baby, I’ll give you so much due process, standing will be the only issue.
• Are you the Court of Appeals because I’m tryna get overturned.
• I’m not in Big Law, but I got a big… Ego and Major Depression, please tell me I’m pretty.
• Is your name Lexis? Because you have everything I’ve been searching for.
• Are you confidential files? Because I’d like to examine you in camera.
• Girl, are you a burden shifting test? Cause what’s that butt for?
• Hi, are you my legal fees? Because you’re way too high and clearly taking advantage of me.
• Damn boy, is your ass Informal Rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act? Because I just had to Notice and Comment.
• Are you petitioning for cert? Because you’re appealing to me.
• If you’re Tompkins, I’m the Erie railroad cause I’m crushing on you.
• Something something dictum. Sleep with me.
• Are you a porter for Long Island Railroad? Cause you make my head spin.
• In my advisory opinion, after you see my dicta, you won’t have standing.
• Baby, if you were a contract, you’d be the fine print.
• I have the ability to turn the lawyer thing off and act like a normal human when I leave the office.
• Let me show you section 69 of my penal code.
• They call me Learned Hand for a reason.
• Maybe my special master can override your taint team.
• I’ll give you an excited utterance.
• I’ll make sure we observe Title IX and each get substantially equal playing time.
• I’m a lawyer, of course I can get you off.
• Hey boy. Is it true you last longer than a Scalia dissent?
• On a scale of 1 to America, how free are you tonight?
• Imma RAP that ass for the next 21 years!
• Hey girl, whaddya say we remove this matter to a forum more conveniens?
• Are you the Sixth Amendment? Cause I’d like to try you speedily and in public.
• Are you a restrictive covenant? Because I’d like to touch and concern you.
• I ask less questions than Clarence Thomas.
• I wish my law school has curves like you.
• Is your name Rodriguez, because I have a reasonable suspicion that you’re packing something, and I’d like to extend this interaction.
• Are you the Third Amendment, cause I’m thinking about quartering my soldier in your home.
• Are you a 3L? Cause I’d like to take a look at your outlines.
• Are you Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill? Because DAM.
• Want to test the bounds of Fox v. FFC…I can make you swear…on camera.
• They call me breacher cuz I always fail to substantially perform.
• Hey, I’m poly, expressio unius non est exclusio altius.
• Baby you’re thiccer than my ConLaw casebook
• *When they introduce you to their friend* “I’d like to make a rule 14a motion to join a third party?”
• Are you the commerce clause? Cuz there are no limits to what I would do with you
• I’m a lawyer.

Aw. That last one was some powerfully wishful thinking. Try something like:

“I call it Blackacre because I’ll convey it all to you, baby… remainder to your friend over there.”

That should work. As long as you don’t add “reverter to my wife.”

---

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.