Author: TSA Press

We’ve talked before about the over-reliance on tech to do certain jobs that cannot be simplified to the sum of mathematical parts. The criminal justice system is starting to turn over sentencing to algorithms — something that seems like the smart thing to do but removes judicial and prosecutorial discretion from the mix, leaving defendants with the unpalatable option of challenging software they’re never allowed to examine.

Police departments are also moving towards predictive policing. Relying on historical data, cops are hoping to head off future crimes by allocating resources to areas where crime appears to be more likely to be committed. Sounds good on paper, but in reality, all it does is reinforce biases and push law enforcement to treat everyone in targeted areas as criminals. If the data being fed in reflects biased policing, crunching the numbers even harder isn’t going to erase that. It’s only going to reinforce it. And, again, suspected criminals aren’t able to access the data or software that puts them in law enforcement’s crosshairs.

A certain amount of automation is expected as government agencies seek to streamline public services. The problem isn’t necessarily the tech. It’s the removal of human interaction. As has been stated here frequently, moderation at scale is impossible. So is automated governing. Automated processes are as prone to failure as the people overseeing them. But when you decide software is going to do almost all of the work, those who need the assistance of other humans most are cut out of the loop.

Citizens looking for government assistance have grown accustomed to jumping through red tape hoops. Now, the hoops are inaccessible, but still must be jumped through. The most marginalized members of society are given URLs instead of contact names and numbers when many of them have no reliable access to the internet or a computer. A new series by The Guardian shows the human cost of going paperless. It’s happening all over the world, and it’s literally killing people.

The most disturbing story comes from Dumka in India. Here, we learn of the horrifying human impact that has befallen families as a result of Aadhaar, a 12-digit unique identification number that the Indian government has issued to all residents in the world’s largest biometric experiment.

Motka Manjhi paid the ultimate price when the computer glitched and his thumbprint – his key into Aadhaar – went unrecognised. His subsistence rations were stopped, he was forced to skip meals and he grew thin. On 22 May, he collapsed outside his home and died. His family is convinced it was starvation.

That’s the worst case scenario. But there is plenty of ugliness in between. Governments aren’t looking to defense budgets or law enforcement agencies to make cuts. Instead, they’re adding to their bottom lines by pursuing citizens they think have screwed the government. Another process being automated is governments’ attempts to collect alleged overpayments of social services funds. There’s a statute of limitations on most debt, but software is being used to resurrect ancient debt governments feel they’re owed. This is resulting in the destruction of people’s lives and finances as they find themselves unable to challenge these automated determinations.

In Illinois, the Guardian has found that state and federal governments have joined forces to demand that welfare recipients repay “overpayments” stretching back in some cases 30 years. This system of “zombie debt”, weaponized through technology, is invoking fear and hardship among society’s most vulnerable.

As one recipient described it: “You owe what you have eaten.”

It’s not just “zombie debt.” It’s also “robodebt.” The determinations of owed debt are made by automated processes. The collection process is also automated, separating those suddenly facing possibly undeserved clawbacks from the human assistance they need to determine whether or not the claim is valid. Bureaucracies have always been faceless. With the addition of cold calculations, they’ve weaponized this facelessness to deter citizens from pushing back against a decision-making process composed of 1s and 0s. This, too, is linked to a rising human cost.

Compare and contrast the public statements with reality. Here’s how the UK government is pitching its transition to automated governance:

“We are striking the right balance between having a compassionate safety net on which we spend £95bn, and creating a digital service that suits the way most people use technology,” said a DWP [Department for Work and Pensions] spokesperson. “Automation means we are improving accuracy, speeding up our service and freeing up colleagues’ time so they can support the people who need it most.”

If this sounds like a positive development, it’s only because you haven’t seen it in action.

[C]laimants have warned the existing automation in UC’s “digital by default” system has already driven some to hunger, breakdown and even attempted suicide. One described the online process as a “Kafka-like carousel”, another as “hostile” and yet another as a “form of torture”. Several said civil servants already appeared to be ruled by computer algorithms, unable to contradict their verdicts.

The same thing is going on in Australia. The government’s embrace of “austerity,” combined with its fondness for automating social services and debt collection processes has resulted in a world of hurt for the many Australians unable to challenge automated determinations or connect with actual humans willing to help them through the process. Asher Wolf’s Twitter feed is an invaluable resource for these issues, detailing the fallout of automated social assistance programs all around the world.

It’s not that all automation is bad. It’s that automation without strict oversight or human control isn’t making anything better for the most vulnerable members of society. When governments pay millions to let machines make decisions affecting humans, humans almost always seem to come out on the losing end. Legislators may proudly display charts showing incremental gains in efficiency, but few are willing to discuss the constituents they’ve sacrificed on the altar of automation. No system is perfect, but one that relies more on math than human discretion isn’t an improvement.

Skynet, But For Welfare: Automating Social Services Is Killing People

More Law-Related Stories From Techdirt:

TV Network Declares IPTV Tool Copyright Infringing, Even Though It’s Just A Tool
Federal Lawsuit Targets Vicious Gang Composed Of… Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Deputies
Steak With A Side Of Surveillance: Outback Restaurants Adding Employee-Tracking Analytics To Its Cameras

“We want our leaders to save the day / But we don’t get a say in what they trade away /  We dream of a brand new start / But we dream in the dark for the most part / Dark as a tomb where it happens / I’ve got to be… in the room where it happens!”– Lin-Manuel Miranda (Hamilton)

On Wednesday, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights released its report, Trauma at the Border: The Human Cost of Inhumane Immigration Policies. As highlighted in its press release:

Testimony received from asylum seekers, legal experts, and other witnesses to the impacts of changes in immigration policy at the southern border. The report focuses on the separation of thousands of migrant children from their parents, and the housing and medical care provided to asylum seekers and other immigrants while detained. The report concludes that the impact of separating immigrant families and indefinite detention is widespread, long-term, and may inflict irreversible physical, mental and emotional trauma.

Despite an Executive Order purporting to stop family separation, there remain credible allegations that family separations continue. The Commission also heard directly from immigrant detainees who confirmed traumatic experiences as a result of enduring inhumane conditions at detention facilities and cruel treatment by Department of Homeland Security (DHS) personnel….

Further, these policies disparately impact people of color, particularly Latinos, and agencies continue inequitable treatment of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals, individuals with disabilities, and non-English speakers.

As I’ve previously stated, although seeking asylum is legal, we have now begun to treat this process as criminal. We have not only violated international treaties (Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees) for those fleeing persecution and seeking safe harbor — but we have ripped away people’s kids from them with suspect plans for reunification. Not even in the Japanese internment camps did we separate innocent actors from their children.

The Trump administration has been executing its immigration restriction plans at a record pace. From its intent on reducing asylum application and increasing “public charge” requirements to establishing a “zero tolerance” policy and third version of a travel ban, one needs a guide to keep up with the consequential and collateral damage resulting from this administration’s attack on current immigration laws and conventions. If you have some time today, I highly recommend you review the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights report.

This week, we spent some time with Pitt Law alum and Sidley Austin partner Marketa Lindt, who shared her current thoughts on immigration law and how her background shaped her career, as well as advice for others who are passionate about diversity and inclusion.

Lindt currently serves as the national President of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA). She regularly speaks at national and regional conferences regarding business immigration law and I-9 compliance. She is a primary author of the immigration law and practice treatise Business Immigration Law. She has also authored articles for a number of leading immigration texts, including AILA’s Guide to Worksite Enforcement and Compliance, the Guide to PERM Labor Certification, and numerous annual editions of the Immigration & Nationality Law Handbook.

In addition to her business practice at Sidley, Lindt is committed to providing access to counsel for underserved immigrants. She serves in an advisory capacity to several Chicago-area cultural institutions and organizations that provide assistance to underserved immigrant communities. For a number of years, she has served as a member of the Leadership Board of the National Immigrant Justice Center in Chicago.

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

Renwei Chung (RC): Your family immigrated from the Netherlands to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. What was that like?

Marketa Lindt (ML): I was nine when I left the Netherlands to move to my new life in the U.S. with my parents and my two younger sisters. Leaving my grandmother, my friends, my school, and life as I knew it was both exciting and scary. I had started to learn a little English — Dutch kids begin English classes in the 4th grade — but I didn’t speak the language when I arrived. And everything seemed very different.

Moving to the U.S. was a good career opportunity for my father, who had finally achieved his goal of working as an engineering professor at a university. And kids are very adaptable and resilient. I actually watched Sesame Street as a 4th grader to learn English and understand American culture better. So I learned English, began to make friends, and soon learned all kinds of interesting things about my new home.

RC: After you graduated University of Pittsburgh School of Law, you moved to Chicago. Can you tell us more about this and how you decided to embark on your career path?

ML: I had obtained my JD and a master’s degree in international affairs with the goal of working in human rights law. I had initially planned to work for an international organization in refugee law, but after working with Haitian refugees during law school decided to stay in the U.S. and work in the immigration field.

During law school, I worked with an immigration law firm in Pittsburgh and had intended to continue working there after graduation, when suddenly a job presented itself with a nonprofit organization working in the Chicago immigrant communities. I was young and unattached and couldn’t refuse an opportunity to live in one of America’s great cities.

I fell in love with Chicago the moment I arrived — the grit, the energy, the diverse urban communities — and have been thrilled to live and work in this amazing city ever since.

RC: In June, you became the AILA president. What has AILA been focusing on this year?

ML: I am serving as national president of AILA during a very challenging time in immigration law, where the agency is focused on limiting immigration to the U.S. in asylum, family reunification, and even business immigration. In my role as AILA president, my primary priority is to push back on these harmful policies and to work toward lawful, fair, and humane implementation of the immigration law for families and U.S. businesses.

We just hired an impact litigator and are working to educate and train the immigration bar to better challenge the implementation of these restrictive, and sometimes unlawful, policies in federal court.

We are focusing on the humanitarian crisis on the southern border and advocating for the transition of the politicized administrative immigration courts to an Article I court. And we are increasing our wellness and practice management programs to help immigration lawyers survive this very difficult time in our practice.

RC: As with many of my discussions, we somehow hit upon our mutual adoration of the musical Hamilton. Any particular scenes or themes you enjoy about this musical?

ML: One of my favorite parts of seeing Hamilton in Chicago was that I had a very special evening with my daughter, who was extremely excited to be there. But I personally was amazed at the number of interesting themes packed into a historical rap musical.

Of course, as an immigration lawyer, I loved the famous Hamilton quote, “Immigrants — we get the job done,” as it reminded me of all of the hardworking and talented clients that I have the privilege to represent.

But I also appreciated the themes of seizing your opportunities when they arise; of forgiveness and reconciliation; and most of all, of working hard and making sacrifices for a cause that you believe during the time you have.

RC: How do you think we can effectively advance diversity and inclusion efforts in today’s political climate?

ML: Diversity and inclusion is a critical value and goal, both within the legal profession and within the immigration bar. First, I think we need to continue to push forward the ongoing efforts to diversify the legal profession — the research, analysis, program development and implementation, education, and dialogue about diversity and inclusion that has helped us make progress to date.

Second, allies of diversity and inclusion are more important than ever and we should be working to mobilize them in support of our goals.

And, third, we need to keep working to engage across the spectrum on this critical issue, both with those who agree that diversity and inclusion are important values and goals as well as those who question those values or have not thought about them.

RC: What advice do you have for attorneys who want to begin a career in public service?

ML: My main advice is to know what drives you and to follow your passion. I have worked both in non-profit and in private practice, and I enjoyed both at different times in my career.

For some people, civic engagement means working at a law firm or in-house and then supplementing it with performing pro bono work, serving on a board or becoming engaged politically. Many lawyers in private practice find these activities to be a very meaningful and rewarding aspect of their professional lives. But for some the mission drives them to dedicate their full professional life to public service.

One of my former law partners, John Gallo, left a very successful career as a litigator at Sidley to become executive director of the Legal Aid Chicago, because he felt strongly that this was the way that he could best give back to the community.

RC: I have quite a few friends at your firm in Chicago. Do you recall what drew you to Sidley back in 1999?

ML: I originally met my current partner in the Sidley immigration group, Tim Payne, at a Saturday morning pro bono immigration workshop in Chicago. When an opportunity presented itself to work at Sidley in its business immigration practice some time later, I was impressed not only with its national-level immigration practice but the collegiality among the lawyers and the firm’s commitment to pro bono work.

The Sidley immigration group’s founding partner and statesman, Doug Donenfeld, was a very inspiring and exciting figure, and I was honored to have the chance to practice with and learn from him. All these years later, even though Doug has retired, I still draw inspiration from his leadership, generosity, and friendship. And I continue to work closely with Tim and the other attorneys and staff in our immigration group.

RC: You mentioned that it’s a very challenging time for those practicing and dealing with immigration law in our country. What areas do you think can be addressed in the near future and improved over time to strengthen the rule of law on this front?

ML: In my view, it is critical that the business community begins to actively challenge denials of business immigration petitions in federal court. We have seen a substantial increase in agency denial rates for visa petitions, particularly for H-1B professionals, without any change in standards in the law or regulations.

Companies are losing long-term employees due to denials of extensions for workers who have held H-1B visas for the same job for years. Many of these agency denials are overreaching and do not have a basis in the law or regulations.

Many U.S. businesses that have challenged these types of denials have obtained reversals. I believe that challenging agency denials through federal court litigation will be both helpful for companies to obtain the immigration benefit to which they are entitled in the individual case, but will also hold the government accountable and result in better adjudications in this important area.

RC: What is one thing that only your friends and family know about you?

ML: I have recently started taking fiddle lessons with my daughter in the hopes of someday forming a family bluegrass band. It has been a fun experience, but my progress so far suggests that I should probably keep my day job.

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

---

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

It’s time again to check in on some of the best content being produced by the brave men and women of Law School Memes For Edgy T14s. These law students risk an embarrassing cold call every day to produce high-quality memes for the world. As always, we’ll not name the creators so they won’t have their digital footprint attached to Above the Law —- you never know what an interviewer might think when a Google search points to this website — unless they reach out and ask to be acknowledged.

First of all, allow us to present the law school journey in four images.

Every 1L orientation promises to solve the access to justice gap with an abundance of eager volunteers. Every 3L graduation is beset by hungover cynics preparing to join Jones Day in the fall. In between were highs and lows, debts and mock trials — a journey of self-discovery that ended, inevitably, in realizing you’re not nearly as good a person as you’d hoped.

On the other hand… that’s a pretty sweet bonus.

Next up, I was told there would be no math:

Rudy’s having a rough go of it lately, but this is just cruel. The caption was “when you’re cold called about the dissent.”

Continuing with that theme: “When you get cold called and have no idea what the case is about so you frantically scroll through Quimbee in a feeble attempt to look like you’ve got your shit together”

Now this is going to keep me up at nights.

This is less funny “ha ha” than funny “boo hoo.”

Remember, if you need help and support, there are plenty of resources out there for you.

This next one… wow.

So Amber Guyger had hoped she’d avoid punishment for gunning down her neighbor by arguing that the Castle Doctrine applied because she thought she was in her home.

And, since it’s Halloween, we’ll close on this cute tribute.

Happy Halloween.

---

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.

Is your law firm considering a move towards Legal Project Management (LPM)? If not, it should be. There are good reasons why this business strategy is trending among progressive practices. LPM has a proven track record of improving efficiency, increasing profits, and strengthening relationships between your firm and its clients.

Project planning offers significant opportunity for profit maximization and substantial revenue growth. With profitability analysis, your firm can increase profitability by:

• Shifting marketing to promoting higher profit matters
• Becoming experts in higher profit matters
• Making well­-informed decisions based on profitability about which matters are most appropriately handled by partners and which matters associate level attorneys should handle
• Substituting resources for optimal balance between meeting the client’s objectives and the firm’s profitability

Click here or sign up below to receive a complimentary eBook on how TimeSolv can help you explore the profitable benefits of Legal Project Management.

Every generation has its “defining moment.” For my parents it was the Beatles’ appearance on the Ed Sullivan Show or the assisination of John F. Kennedy. For Generation X, it was Madonna’s Like a Virgin or the fall of the Berlin Wall. For millenials, 9/11 or the election of Barack Obama. For my generation, I guess it was . . .  Oregon Trail(?). 

I’ve been watching the legal technology and innovation for seven or eight years – my defining moment being following ReInvent Law Silicon Valley via my relatively newly-created Twitter account in 2013.

At least, it was until September 4, 2019. That’s the day that law practice management leader Clio announced a whopping $250 million dollar Series D funding from TCV and JMI Equity.

The implications of this fundraising event are pretty staggering. Is Clio the legal technology sector’s first unicorn? What are we to make of Mark Britton, former Avvo CEO, joining the Clio board? Should we soon expect the launch of Clio Legal Services? How much better can the Clio Conference get with $250 million cool ones?

My point is this: $250 million is a lot of money. While we’ve seen other legal technology companies raise large sums before (see here or here), this deal represents the largest growth investment in Canadian history and probably in legal as well. With this investment, Clio is poised to dramatically reshape the legal ecosystem. 

And that reshaping will almost certainly mean that the transformation we have seen and continue to see in legal employment will only increase. In a post-Clio world, the evolution of the professional in the 21st century legal ecosystem will probably only accelerate. And with that acceleration comes a need to unpack, discuss and prepare for the future.

That’s where we come in. On November 15, 2019 Above The Law, my event co-chairs, Bill Henderson and Bernadette Bulacan, and I will host the second ever Law Jobs for Humans event in New York City. This half-day event – part symposium, part job fair – is designed to create a space where those interested in exploring a 21st century legal technology career or those who increasingly feel the need to explore how to future-proof their legal careers can meet, learn, and prepare.  

With legal renegades taken from a variety of different roles and areas in the law, Law Jobs for Humans is an attempt to capture the zeitgeist of a rapidly changing legal professional landscape.

It’s true that the defining moments for this decade of legal technology may have already past – with ReInvent Law and the Clio Series D in the rearview, they feel like they certainly may have for me – but the question about what to do remains very much in front of us. 

So, join us at Law Jobs for Humans on November 15, 2019 in New York City. We’ve put together an amazing slate of speakers surrounded by an audience that, if ticket sales are any measure, already exceeds the audience for the first version of Law Jobs for Humans in Chicago  in the spring. And speaking of ticket sales, early bird prices end this Sunday (October 27th), so make sure you grab those before the offer expires!

We won’t guarantee that Law Jobs for Humans will represent a huge cultural shift for the legal sector, but for us, the event will not be measured from the outside but by those who attend. If we can create that defining moment for just one or two people, if only one or two decide to stand up and explore the new frontier of legal employment, we’ll call it a success.

It starts out so innocuously — Pepper Hamilton sent around an invitation for an event in their Philadelphia office. It should be super easy — if you’re interested in the event and are free on that day, mark it in your calendar. If you aren’t? Just ignore it. That’s it, that’s all you have to do to avoid a Reply-All scandal. But this being Above the Law, of course that isn’t what actually happened.

You see, the event that Pepper Hamilton was advertising is a judicial diversity panel. And, the event is sponsored by a few groups at the firm: the African-American/Black Affinity Group, Asian Pacific American Affinity Network, Pepper Latina/o Caucus, Pepper Pride, South Asian Affinity Group, Veterans Group, and Women’s Initiative. Which are pretty much exactly who you’d expect to sponsor an event like this. But one partner, David Stratton, just couldn’t leave well enough alone.

Stratton forwarded the message to two other partners with a derisive comment about the affinity groups, “I never knew we had so many groups who want to be treated specially.” Which is just a shitty thing to say. Affinity groups are a wonderful opportunity for folks to network and find mentorship (which is one of the best ways to keep diverse attorneys at a firm) and ask for pretty little in exchange. But because it isn’t something Stratton is personally involved with or cares about, he writes them off with a nasty little comment he intended to send to friends (I presume) at the firm.

Then, he replied-all with an apology, but, as one of the many, many tipsters who wrote in about Stratton’s comments reveal, not everyone was even aware of his original, wildly inappropriate comments until the apology was sent.

The worst part is, no one knew he felt that way until he REPLIED ALL with an insincere APOLOGY that INCLUDED his original message. Just wow….
Two thumbs way up for diversity and inclusion at Pepper Hamilton.

You can take a look at the email chain below.

As you might imagine, the firm administration was not pleased at all about this turn of events. They quickly sent their own email from managing partner Thomas Cole, distancing themselves from Stratton’s off-color comments, and assuring everyone the matter is being properly handled behind the scenes.

We are disappointed by the inappropriate email sent earlier today by one of our attorneys regarding the Pepper Judicial Diversity Panel. The comments in the email are not reflective of Pepper Hamilton’s culture, which prioritizes diversity and inclusion as core values. We are proud of our Diversity Committee and the firm’s affinity groups to advance diverse perspectives at Pepper. We want to assure all of you that we are handling this incident appropriately, in a private manner, consistent with our values. We also want to encourage all of you to attend the Pepper Judicial Diversity Panel, which is a great event that contributes to the firm’s continuing efforts to overcome biases and ensure an inclusive environment for all attorneys and staff. If you wish to discuss this matter, I encourage you to reach out….

The firm is really trying, I get that. And as Cole’s email signature even says, the firm is Mansfield Rule Certified, meaning they’re committed to take concrete steps to meaningfully diversify the firm. But, as much as the powers-that-be may wish that this email is “not reflective of Pepper Hamilton’s culture,” they have to face the hard truth that, at least in pockets of the firm, it might be. A firm’s management can’t dictate firm culture from on high, and Biglaw is often filled with fiefdoms that are insular from the larger environment (this is why it’s common to see entire groups lateral to a new firm together, as a piece that can be plugged into a new superstructure). The work lives of associates in a group are impacted way more by the attitudes and opinions of the partners they work for than the management committee.

It would be nice, and certainly easier, to think of Stratton’s email as a singular bad act. But for a firm that seems as committed to diversity as Pepper Hamilton, it would behoove them to treat this incident not as a one-off, but as something potentially indicative of the attitudes of more than just Stratton. This should be an opportunity for the firm to have more of the difficult conversations and bias trainings that ensure the inclusive atmosphere they want is what is really happening on the ground.

---

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).

Of all the intriguing statistics to come out of this week’s Clio Cloud Conference, one that may say the most about the show and the company behind it is 30 percent. That’s the percentage of attendees at this ever-growing show who aren’t even current Clio users or vendor partners. For a show based around a specific product, the idea that any more than 5 percent of the attendees would be non-users is bonkers.

In part, it’s a testament to Clio’s allure. The majority of those attendees are shopping around and took the trip to the Clio Cloud Conference to see what the product is all about. Holding this year’s show in San Diego — a short trip from a number of major legal hubs — couldn’t have hurt when it came to enticing the curious. But it wasn’t just the potential customers. Why are some of these Biglaw-centric observers-to-be hanging around a small law product show? The answer is that Clio’s influence has grown beyond just its product. The corporate speak would be “thought leadership,” but that terminology might be too sanitized for a show like this. It might be more fair to say that the show is about the philosophy of all legal technology and how its product fits into that instead of the other way around.

Not that there isn’t a lot of information available for loyal customers. From product panels to an exhibit hall packed with integration partners, the show provides no shortage of opportunities to learn more about how the Clio ecosystem can better a lawyer’s practice. The whole back area of the exhibit hall was devoted to Clio Labs, where users could interface with Clio tech folks about the ins and outs of the product. The Clio Smart Bar (not a Genius Bar because “Canadians are a bit more humble,” CEO Jack Newton quipped) allowed users to directly work with Clio support people. Newton mentioned that dedicated users are building personal relationships with the support staff by taking advantage of the opportunity to meet face-to-face with the support engineers they call. It’s not just a personal touch to support, but a way for Clio to generate valuable insight into what customers want and where their pain points are. Consider this the “Wisdom of Office Space” moment: “Well, then I gotta ask, then why can’t the customers just take the specifications directly to the software people, huh?” Empowering customers to go straight to the people building the product is huge.

But the whole structure of the Clio ecosystem lends itself to a broader view of the tech landscape and that’s why so much of the festivities speak beyond the four corners of the product. It’s a phenomenon that Mark Britton, the former Avvo chief who now sits as a Clio board member, told me gives him “conference envy” — finding a balance between catering to the hard-core, loyal user and remaining accessible and engaging to a broader audience isn’t an easy feat.

As an ecosystem, it’s not a stretch to say that Clio’s value proposition is in thought leadership. As Newton put it, lawyers aren’t so much technology laggards, but busy people. What Clio offers is the promise that it’s gone out and done the hard work of surveying the legal tech landscape and identifying quality partners and innovators. So it makes a lot of sense that the show functions with an eye toward the philosophy of legal technology writ large. It’s how you end up with a product show with keynote speakers like Glenn Greenwald and Shaka Senghor — folks who seem like outside-the-box choices until they finish their presentations and you realize they really do fit into the discussion about the intersection of law and technology. Chief Operating Officer George Psiharis explained that the speaker selection process is not formulaic, but influenced by a combination of the pressing topics of the era and an interest in bringing diversity and diversity of perspectives to the show: “We try to have fresh perspectives. Not necessarily be safe choices. It’s part of energizing the conference to see the speakers thematically tie in their work to the high-level messaging.”

Clio will return to San Diego next year, October 15-16. If you’re interested in an early bird special on passes, check it out here.

---

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.

Speaking at a planning workshop for climate resilient investment in reconstruction and development in the cyclone affected regions of Malawi, Mozambique and Zimbabwe, representatives from the three countries said they had not been able to attract enough financial support to rebuild lives and fast track early recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction after Cyclones Idai and Kenneth.

Of the $4bn, Mozambique, which suffered the most from the two cyclones, needs $3.2 billion for its reconstruction efforts while Malawi requires $370 million and Zimbabwe between $600 and $700 million. Mozambique was affected by the two cyclones while Zimbabwe and Malawi suffered the brunt of Idai.

“We thought we were going to raise more money when we launched our appeal,” said Nadia Adriao, representing Mozambique at the workshop. “But we did not. Nevertheless, progress is being made with what is available so far though much remains to be done.”

Malawi’s Fyaupi Mwafongo said the country has developed a 5-year plan to address effects of the 2019 floods.

“Recurrent and severe disasters in Malawi underscore the need for new thinking and approaches to recovery and resilience-building,” he said, adding the new way of working adopted during the response phase in the country emphasized increased coherence and synergy between humanitarian and development actors.

Ms. Meliqiniso Sibanda from Zimbabwe’s local government ministry said some internally displaced people in the regions affected by Cyclone Idai were still living in camps with her ministry still to review housing proposals meant for the area.

“The designs are there now but yet to reach us at head office. So we have not reviewed them to see if they are resilient enough,” she said, adding China had pledged to build roads in the area but engineers from the ministry were yet still to also review their designs before they can proceed.

Cyclone Idai and Kenneth hit Mozambique between March and April 2019, killing hundreds of people and leaving over 1.8 million homeless and without basic necessities and infrastructure. Cyclone Idai also caused significant flooding, damage and destruction of homes, resulting in numerous deaths in southern Malawi as well as in eastern Zimbabwe.

The Economic Commission for Africa (ECA) and its partners the Department for International Development (DFID) and the United Kingdom’s Met Office, are convening the workshop for SADC to formulate actionable strategies for climate resilient reconstruction of infrastructure in the three countries post the devastating tropical Cyclone Idai and Kenneth.

The planning workshop for climate resilient investment in reconstruction and development in SADC Member States is informed by the three countries’ experiences following the two cyclones.

At the workshop, which is being held under the “building back better” approach, the countries shared first hand experiences of the impacts, lessons learnt and why they think they happened.

Participants were introduced to the types of climate information available to them as well as tools and methods for analyzing this information and its application in decision-making.

James Murombedzi, Chief of the African Climate Policy Center (ACPC) at the ECA, said the overall objective of the workshop was to initiate a series of initiatives to support the integration of climate information services and climate change considerations into resilience building in climate sensitive sectors of the economies of SADC.

A record 140 people attended the workshop Wednesday, including representatives from the three countries, other SADC countries, the SADC Climate Services Centre, Regional Economic Communities, regional and international partners, including the UN family.

A regional actionable programme document that enhances capacity and resilience in SADC member States against the impact of weather and climate risks and disasters is expected to be the main outcome of the workshop.

Distributed by APO Group on behalf of United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (ECA).

Post published in: Featured

EPA

Friday is a public holiday in Zimbabwe to mark a day of protest against sanctions which the government blames for the country’s economic problems.

Southern African countries have joined calls from the Zimbabwe government for the sanctions to be lifted, saying they’re damaging the region’s economy.

So why are sanctions in place and what impact are they having?

The United States and the European Union (EU) have both maintained sanctions, citing a lack of progress in democratic and human rights reforms as well as restrictions on press freedoms.

They target both specific individuals and companies.

United States financial and travel restrictions currently apply to 85 individuals, including President Emmerson Mnangagwa.

There are also 56 companies or organisations facing restrictions.

“We have sanctions against certain individuals and certain corporations… not against the country of Zimbabwe. There is nothing to stop US businesses from investing in Zimbabwe, from going to Zimbabwe,” says US Assistant Secretary of State on African Affairs Tibor Nagy.

Washington says the economic impact is mostly on farms and companies owned by these designated individuals.

EU sanctions also target specific individuals both within the Zimbabwean government and associated with it.

Travel restrictions and a freeze on assets have been imposed, along with the sale of military hardware and equipment which might be used for internal repression.

Originally imposed during the era of former President Robert Mugabe, these sanctions were reviewed earlier this year and have been extended until February 2020.

The EU says these restrictions have no impact on the economy of the country.

REUTERSZimbabweans are facing fuel shortages

Worsening economic crisis

Zimbabwe’s economy has faced deep economic crises over the past few years with periods of hyperinflation rendering the local currency worthless.

Once again this year Zimbabwe has been reeling from high levels of inflation as well as severe shortages of fuel, power and water.

Recent economic data suggests Zimbabwe’s economy has recently been shrinking as measured by gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, the average economic output per person.

Are sanctions to blame?

The government of Zimbabwe has regularly blamed the dire economic performance on sanctions, and its neighbours in the southern African region are concerned about the impact Zimbabwe’s worsening economic crisis is having on the region.

But there’s little evidence to suggest that US and EU sanctions are responsible for Zimbabwe’s troubles.

The US blame the crisis on what an official described as “catastrophic mismanagement” of the economy.

The EU also points to economic policies, a poorly carried out land reforms programme, drought and the HIV/AIDS pandemic.

Data from 1980 to 2015 shows no evidence sanctions had a negative effect on formal employment and poverty, says Carren Pindiriri, a lecturer at the Department of Economics, University of Zimbabwe.

For its part, the Zimbabwean government argues that sanctions have cost billions of dollars.

“You can’t say sanctions are targeted when you specify 56 of the biggest companies in Zimbabwe. What is left?” Zimbabwe’s secretary for information Nick Mangwana says.

When Mr Mugabe was forced from office in 2017, two UN human rights experts supported calls for the lifting of sanctions.

They said the measures could not be said to be “limited” or “targeted”, as the people and companies affected represented the vast majority of the economy.

“Zimbabwe’s economy is heavily concentrated in particular sectors, and sanctions on only a few people or companies can have a devastating impact.”

Post published in: Featured