Author: TSA Press

In celebration of American Lawyer’s 40th anniversary, ALM has collected a treasure trove of Biglaw data. In 1985, the year this data goes back to, which Biglaw firm had the highest profitability index?

Hint: The firm is still around and in the Am Law 100, but other firms have bypassed it in terms of the profitability index.

See the answer on the next page.

The studied correlation between access to birth control and poverty rates has produced verifiable data supporting the conclusion that empowering women with the ability to plan whether or when to have children will invariably increase economic prosperity within both large and small communities. In other words, if women are empowered with the choice of determining their own procreation decisions, their community will possess one of the most effective tools for preventing general economic deprivation.

Unfortunately, the current executive branch has created regulations making it harder for women to obtain and use birth control. For years, in fact, social conservatives have stood in the way of a broader policy of birth control by blocking legislation that would establish over-the-counter access. Recently, however, over-the-counter access failed to pass Congress because neither party seems willing to compromise on the issue.

The reason we have policy deadlock is a testament to the fact that merely discussing the relationship between birth control and poverty generates hysterical claims of “eugenics colonialist shit” from pundits. Indeed, for many on the right, it seems as though no discussion of the ethical costs of denying individuals the ability to control their procreation decision-making is ever acceptable. Instead, the right bases the discussion on inflexible principles such as that life begins at the moment of conception or divine calls to “increase in number.”

For their part, the American left has somehow taken the principle of women’s bodily autonomy to the extreme. A bill passed in Virginia, for example, would permit abortions in the third trimester for virtually any claim of impairment. The result of a political fight between such extremes is that the immensely important issue of birth control access remains frustratingly stagnant. Some might argue that given the seriousness of the issues involved — those involving life and bodily autonomy — these kinds of uncompromising situations that take a lot of time to work through are inevitable, even ideal in a republic such as ours. However, as author Coleman Hughes illustrates, our society regularly adopts arbitrary lines involving such high-stakes issues all the time:

For example, we could lower the speed limit on every road in America to 10 miles per hour and save the 40,000 or so lives we lose each year to car accidents. But we don’t, because doing so would impose costs that probably outweigh 40,000 lost human lives. Suppose that somebody who favored lowering the speed limit made the following argument: a driver’s safety (or a driver’s “right to life/bodily autonomy”) is sacred and therefore cannot be traded off against any competing ethical concern. Not only will such a person fail to be persuaded by a list of ethical costs associated with slowing all traffic to a crawl, but they will also refuse to engage with opponents’ arguments. After all, their ethical imperative is so compelling that it’s impervious to consequentialist objections. That is how both sides of the abortion debate are behaving at the moment.

Accordingly, in order to obtain progress in this debate, we must engage in a more straightforwardly simple ethical cost benefit analysis the same way we do in other important policy decisions.

For example, the standalone benefits to universal birth control access can be found in a variety of studies and programs. The data extracted from the methodology used in the study I cite in the first paragraph of this piece reveals that women who gained access to birth control reported 40 percent higher earnings and lower child-to-mother ratios in the long term. Likewise, many others programs and studies found here, or here, or here, demonstrate that access to birth control has a tremendously positive effect on reducing poverty and increasing individual wealth. The reason for this also appears relatively straightforward: Access to birth control allows families to provide a better quality of life by ensuring available resources are not stretched too thin.

The only “costs” that can be associated with increased or universal access to birth control are what Hughes calls “the prevention of flourishing that would have otherwise have occurred.” Defining this as a negative cost, however, can be highly misleading. For instance, most women who choose to be on birth control are not choosing between having a child and not having a child, “but between having a child now and having a child later when they anticipate being in a better position to provide.” In other words, allowing human beings to control when they will procreate with birth control does not prevent human flourishing; in virtually all cases, it could only delay birth in order to be more certain the desired human flourishing will result.

To be clear, an effective policy of over-the-counter or universal access to birth control does not have to involve grotesque policies of the past such as involuntary sterilization among the poor. Rather, a simple reliance on human self-interest and self-planning when it comes to procreation decision-making is all that is needed. Of course, there exists logical or ethical limits to certain forms of birth control, such as abortion. When it comes to abortion, like Hughes I submit a “fair” line to draw is at 12 weeks. This, as Hughes notes, “seems sensible because it gives women seeking abortions a reasonable amount of time to obtain them without encroaching on the period during which a fetus begins to develop consciousness (around week 20.)” In order to achieve these kinds of sensible policies drawn out of compromise, however, we have to shift from a discussion about principles, to one identifying substantiated solutions.

Tyler Broker’s work has been published in the Gonzaga Law Review, the Albany Law Review, and is forthcoming in the University of Memphis Law Review. Feel free to email him or follow him on Twitter to discuss his column.

An enormous volume of incoming calls is just part of the deal when you’re running a busy practice. Client and potential client calls can take up a big chunk of time, but they’re productive and an important part of being in business. 

Robocalls, on the other hand, do nothing but waste your time and could potentially even put you at risk. Many, after all, are fraudulent and scam-based, trying to collect credit card or personal information that they can then use or sell to the highest bidder. 

Tired of robocalls putting a damper on your day? Here’s what you can do to protect your time and your sensitive information today. 

1. Know What They Look Like 

More organizations than ever before are using automated call services to reach out to customers. Discover, for example, used an automated system to reach out and ask card holders about flagged transactions. This can make identifying legitimate robocalls a little harder, because the good guys are using recorded messages, too.

Fortunately, there are two big ways you can typically identify a potentially fraudulent robocaller right off the bat:

• They don’t identify themselves right away. Most reputable organizations start automated and non-automated calls by saying who they’re with and what they want. If a call doesn’t do that, there’s a chance it could be fraudulent. 
• They ask for identifying information. They ask for your credit card number or personal address or social security number. Some pretend to be organizations like banks or the IRS in attempt to startle people, but none of these organizations ever ask for secure information over the phone. Never provide it unless you’ve called them over a secure and verified line.

Most robocallers try to engage in phishing, pretending to call as part of a reputation business or organization in attempt to trick the person into sharing confidential or identifying information. This can be used for identify fraud or in attempt to steal bank, credit card, or other sensitive information. Keep in mind that all reputable organizations will not ask for your social security number, credit card number, or any other sensitive info over the phone, particularly if they’ve called you.

Even if the phone number looks like it might be okay, don’t trust it on that alone. Many robocallers using a scam called “spoofing” to try to mimic the numbers organizations may call from to trick the person on the other end of the line. It’s common, for example, for scammers to do this using 202 area codes when pretending to be the IRS. 

2. Sign Up for the “Do Not Call” List 

Ultimately, most robocallers don’t exactly play by the rules, especially if they’re up to no good. That being said, you can still cut down on some of the calls by signing up for the FTC’s “Do Not Call” list. It prohibits telemarketers from calling your business, so go ahead and add all of your business lines to the list to cover your basis. It won’t eliminate all calls, but it will help reduce some of them. 

Signing up for the Do Not Call list is free, and it can be done at any point here. 

3. Never Interact With A Robocall Except to Hang Up 

Sometimes, robocallers will call you and ask you to say your name, choose from an automated message, or to call them back so that some next step can be taken. Whether this is to grant you a free supposed loan or to give you more information on some overdue account, it doesn’t matter; never interact with the calls and never call the numbers back. If you do, you’ll end up with more people calling you.

The only interaction that you should ever take with a robocall is to hang up, and ideally, the sooner the better. 

4. Consider Using Call-Blocking Services & Apps 

Robocallers are nothing new, and just like there are tools to block ads and pop-ups online, there are now services that can prevent some of the robocallers from coming through and causing your phone to ring.

Some cell phone providers offer call-blocking services from suspected telemarketers and scammers, including Verizon, T-mobile, and AT&T. Some are free, and some may require payment, though it’s typically a low cost. 

There are also third-party services that you can use for this purpose. Apps like TrueCaller, Call Blocker, and Calls Blacklist are all good options, with the former two offering caller lookup features and the latter featuring a blocking schedule. If you’re getting repeat calls from common numbers, these apps will help. 

5. Never Give Up Secure Information 

Robocallers aren’t like hackers; they need you to give them the information they want, they can’t just take it. The easiest way to protect your business from them, therefore, is to just never hand over that information. No reputable organization will call you and ask for secure information over the phone.

If you have doubts, you can always hang up, look up the business you are familiar with online, and call them directly from the verified number that you find listed publicly. This reduces the likelihood of scams. If it’s a bank or credit card you need to reach, call the number on the back of your card or on your bank statements; they can transfer your call as necessary. 

Robocallers are easy to dismiss as a threat, but the reality is that many are getting smarter and more cunning. Make sure that you stay up to date on any new scams that may be floating around, and play it close to the chest with secure information; only give it out on your terms, and not when someone calls to ask.

Another easy way to weed out robocalls made to your practice is to hire an answering service. At PATLive, our agents are actually trained to quickly recognize robocallers and shut them down so they don’t pose a risk to you. In addition to scheduling appointments, taking messages, and client intake, an answering service can help keep your practice safe from scammers while you run your practice. Scripting is completely custom and PATLive covers your phones 24/7/365, try it for free today. 

Jamie Lowary is the Communications Specialist for PATLive, a live answering service for law firms and other businesses. Answering calls since 1990, PATLive’s professional and friendly agents are all U.S-based and offer truly 24/7/365 service.

Welcome to the latest installment of The Struggle, a series where we examine the mental health and social issues that students and recent graduates encounter during the oftentimes grueling law school and associate experience. We are posting these stories because sometimes what law students and recent graduates need is to know that they’re not alone in their pain. Sometimes what law students and recent graduates need is to know that they’ve got a friend who is willing to share not just in their triumphs, but also in their struggles. These are real messages from real readers.

If these issues resonate with you, please reach out to us. Your stories need to be heard. You can email us, text us at (646) 820-8477, or tweet us @atlblog. We will share your stories anonymously. You may be able to help a law student or recent law school graduate who needs to know that someone else has been there before and survived.

When I realized that I was going to law school, I was ecstatic, as I was realizing a dream that I honestly thought was well out of my reach, as personal problems and circumstances made me doubt that it could be done. Once orientation was done, and I found myself surrounded by a group of energized, young, and motivated attorneys to be, I was even happier with my choice.

Then school began, and we realized that young, energized, and motivating aura we had exerted was only the result of our naivete. Law school in many ways is a test of emotional endurance that quickly shows you that this will be a transformative experience, it will be a before and after. You see, a lot of new law students are used to being the top dogs of their respective high schools and undergrads, the “smart kids.”

These people had placed a value on their ability to excel at academics, often by their own admission with as little work as possible, and had grown accustomed to relying on their natural ability and knowledge to help them along. Law school quickly and brutally breaks that frail reality, and often it happens when your professor applies the Socratic Method, and you are forced not simply regurgitate information you had read, but to explain the why, and the how, while being ruthlessly torn apart as your professor begins to attack your answers.

But many people as they went through this only think, it’s natural to be nervous when talking to a professor in front of your peers. And then your first written assignment is due, and the grade shows up, and the second monster of law school appears: legal writing and IRAC. This method punishes individual freeflow thinking and forces a person who had often bragged that he “could argue like a lawyer” simply because they can connect logical points, to instead use established law and arguments and apply them. At this point, once you get humiliated in front of the class, and you get that C on your paper that took hours to do as you had to make sure you had the correct rules and analysis, that the love affair with the law becomes a jaded affair.

You see, law school is about failure. Each student sees the ghost of failure as the norm — as people begin to leave, as your professors constantly remind you that the bar exam is impossible without months of preparation, as you see that even one mistake on one of your finals could ruin your GPA, etc.

Law students only measure their defeats, rather than the countless victories they can achieve — a good grade, a successful defense of your explanation of a case that you were called upon to present, the fire-forged friendships you made as you struggled together studying endlessly — and focus on the arbitrary measurements we place importance on, like the grades of others, their ranks, and the person with the fancy internship. This comes to define their psyche as they simply want to survive each final, and move on, and they come to forget why they wanted to practice law in the first place. We come in with the intention of helping people, or to serve our country as a public servant, but those motivations die out as the ideas of a naive idealist, rather than the cold efficient machine we think we have to become to succeed.

But in the end, you as a person in life must find how to motivate yourself, and to push through as a law student who embraces each failure, not as a defeat, but simply a thing to improve upon, who embraces that you can work hard, and have some fun at the same time with the people you work with, and who remembers that young 1L who viewed the law as method of helping people, a person who will be able to come out on top, regardless of their rank, or perceived superiority of others.

Most law schools have counseling and psychological services resources that students and graduates can turn to if they are in crisis or would like counseling, even after hours. If these services are not available at your school, and if you or someone you know is depressed and in need of help, please call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline (1-800-273-8255) or a lawyer assistance program in your state (don’t be fooled by the name; these programs also provide services to law students). Remember that you are loved, so please reach out if you need assistance, before it’s too late.

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.

The Infrastructure Development Bank of Zimbabwe has issued a request for proposal to seek potential partners for the construction of seven solar parks and two mini-hydro power plants.

The PV plants include 50 MW facilities the GDE Bulilima Solar Energy Project, 20km from Plumtree in Matabeleland South province; the Sable Solar Farm Project at Kwekwe, Midlands province; the Gwayi Solar Project, in the Kusile district of Matabeleland North; and the Rufaro Solar Farm Project at Marondera, 70km east of Harare in Mashonaland East.

A 10 MW scheme is planned to generate electricity for the national grid at an unspecified location, a 20 MW plant will be developed in Gutu, Masvingo and a 5 MW asset will be deployed at the National University of Science and Technology.

Interested investors have until September 30 to submit proposals.

Zimbabwe’s government has recently returned to solar after a hiatus. In mid-July, the minister of energy and power development, Fortune Chasi, announced plans to review all licenses for power generation projects and to move forward with a 100 MW tendered PV project whose realization has been delayed for years.

The nation is in a desperate need of new power generation capacity and solar offers a cheap, scalable solution. Zimbabwe had only 11 MW of installed solar capacity at the end of December, according to the latest statistics released by the International Renewable Energy Agency.

Recently, on September 9, 2019, council issued, a ‘proposal’ to increase water charges from RTGs0.80 to RTGs7.00 on the justification that this will allow for adequate funding of the water sector.

To us, this is not a proposal but a decision that has been arrived at without proper consultation of residents.

The following statement from council is clear testimony to the above statement, ‘The city is appealing to consumers to understand the situation and embrace the impending price adjustment that will ensure viability of the water sector’.

The unilateral move to increase water charges follows the implementation of the supplementary budget without consultation of residents as per the requirements of the law.

The supplementary budget has also increased the cost of living for the residents of Harare.

We are very much awake to the current economic environment and the need for council to be in a position to offer effective service delivery but we vehemently oppose anything that is implemented without consulting the residents.

Nothing for us without us!

In this regard, public litigation remains our only viable option and we further implore council officials to follow proper procedures before implementing decisions that affect residents.

We stand guided by the Urban Councils Act which clearly states that before any tariffs, charges, or deposits come into operation, a statement setting out the proposed tariffs, charges or deposits and any existing tariffs, charges or deposits for the same matter shall-

• be advertised in two issues of a newspaper; and
• be posted at the office of the council for a period of not less than thirty days from the date of the first advertisement in the newspaper

The Act goes further to state that after the advertisement; if objections are raised by “thirty or more persons who are voters or who are users of the service to which the tariff, charge or deposits relate’ such tariffs shall be reconsidered by council and must not come into effect unless the resolution is again passed by a majority of the total membership of council.

As CHRA, we are also concerned that the increase in water charges will come with heavy costs for a large section of Harare residents, especially in areas such as Mabvuku, Tafara, who have gone for years without water yet continue to be charged for water consumption.

It is also unacceptable for the council to increase water charges at a time they have failed to put their billing system in order and continue to charge residents based on estimates.

Moreover, the rate collection efficiency by the City of Harare has been around 55-60 percent among top debtors that include government departments and to us; this is a serious tax justice issue that must be addressed.

There are also serious shortcomings on the part of the City Of Harare such as the issue of 60 percent of non-revenue water from water bursts and illegal connections and residents continue to be at the receiving end of mismanagement at council.

This year (2019) the City of Harare embarked on a massive recruitment drive which in our view was ‘unnecessary’ given councils huge pay roll and residents cannot continue to bear the brunt of ill-informed decisions by council.

CHRA will join like-minded organizations in mobilizing residents to resist unilateral measures from council.

Post published in: Featured

Richard Luthmann stormed into our hearts back in 2015 when the Staten Island lawyer told the world that he wanted to settle claims against him through trial by combat. Apparently, trial by combat truly is a viable alternative dispute resolution that can be ordered by a state judge because New York can’t be bothered to clean up its code, and Luthmann felt those accusing him of advising a client to fraudulently transfer assets needed to man up or designate themselves a champion.

On a serious note, if you find it hard to believe that trial by combat could really happen in the United States in 2019, it’s worth noting that it does functionally exist in some states, it’s just called “Stand Your Ground.” Who provoked the attack and who acted in self-defense? Whoever walks out alive gives you all the answers you need! It’s all the barbarism of medieval justice but now with guns.

In Luthmann’s quest for a Game of Thrones moment, he even went so far as to show off his skills with his weapon of choice — a plastic Mjolnir.

Maybe we should’ve let this guy have his combat?

But he failed to secure a trial by combat in that case and that should have been the last the mainstream media saw of him until he managed to reenter the news when he was indicted by the feds for kidnapping.

The feds did not offer a trial by combat.

Now Luthmann’s been sentenced to four years for his role in a plot to sell scrap metal to Chinese companies in a scheme that involved installing the beggar outside his office as president of a shell corporation and threatening people with pistols. As an aside, that’s a hell of a step up from a plastic hammer.

With time served, he expects to be out in 20 months.

SI attorney gets 4 years for running scrap metal fraud scheme [NY Post]

Earlier: Judge Admits Trial By Combat Is Available In New York… Then Declines To Order It
Is Trial By Combat Coming To NYC?
Trial By Combat Lawyer Indicted In Federal Kidnapping Scheme
Trial By Combat: It Was Real And Spectacular

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.

I have wanted to compete on Survivor since I first watched Elisabeth Filarski jump off that cliff in the Australian Outback. Now that it’s happening (!!!), I keep reminding myself that the show is for money and not just an adventure. I want a behind-the-scenes look at the show I love, and I want to test my mind, body, and social prowess. The opportunity to graduate law school with zero debt is a bonus.

— Molly Byman, a second-year student at Duke Law, explaining her motivations for becoming a castmember on Survivor: Island of the Idols. Some of Byman’s pet peeves include “[b]eing unwantedly touched,” “slow talkers,” and “rule-breakers.” Best of luck on the show!

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.

When Judge Richard Posner left the Seventh Circuit he managed to get in a few shots on the way out the door about the shabby way the judiciary treats pro se litigants. Make no mistake, Judge Posner recognized the presence of vexatious cranks among the pro se ranks, but he spoke out against a legal system that’s managed to make access to legal counsel less and less affordable while simultaneously mounting more and more road blocks in front of people who just want a lifeline from the court system.

To help bridge the gap, Judge Posner set up the Posner Center For Justice for Pro Se’s to offer counseling for pro se litigants to give them at least a decent chance in court. The effort highlighted the access to justice crisis in this country in a way that only a football coach clerking for a local court while struggling to beat Army might challenge. Sadly, the Posner Center is no more, and in its demise is another opportunity to recognize the magnitude of the problem.

When Judge Posner took on his latest new job, working for Legalist, one wondered what would happen to the Posner Center. When I perused the website yesterday, my suspicion was confirmed.

The Board of Directors of the Posner Center of Justice for Pro Se’s Nonprofit Corporation dissolved the Posner Center on July 23, 2019.

The stated reason for the Posner Center’s dissolution is that the Center was receiving many more requests for assistance from pro se litigants than it could handle. The mismatch was something on the order of 100 requests for assistance for every Center staff member.

Since the lawyers and non-lawyers of the Posner Center were assisting the pro se litigants free of charge, perhaps it was inevitable that the demand would greatly exceed the supply. Thus, this experiment in assisting pro se litigants with their ongoing court cases has sadly come to an end.

As much as Posner’s effort to bring justice to pro se litigants shed a light, the fact that his foray into this world yielded “100 requests for assistance for every Center staff member” actually goes even further to highlight the problem. And those are just the litigants with enough legal or research savvy to know to reach out to Judge Posner, which one has to assume is a mere fragment of the people out there looking for help.

Litigation Daily’s Jenna Greene reached out to Brian Vukadinovich, who served as the center’s executive director, who branded this statement “self-serving” and “nonsense.”

“Unfortunately there were lawyers involved in the Posner Center who were really not very interested in helping pro se’s but were more interested in having their names connected to the Posner Center for selfish reasons,” he said in an email. “[T]he problem was that most of the lawyers who signed up to be part of the Posner Center weren’t willing to actually help the pro se’s. As executive director I reached out to lawyers on a daily basis and asked them to help pro se’s with their requests for help and almost every one of them would come up with a ridiculous excuse to not provide help.”

Whether the demand was too overwhelming or attorneys weren’t committed enough, while it’s sad to see this organization go, attorneys should take this opportunity to redouble their commitment to funding for the Legal Services Corporation, expanding Pro Bono outreach to litigants who may not know what’s available to them, and supporting “Low Bono” efforts for the ever increasing population of folks who find themselves too well off to be indigent but far too poor to hire legal counsel.

Still, all the improved representation in the world won’t help while the judiciary itself continues to throw obstacles in the way of people trying to represent themselves. Court offices enforcing confusing, contradictory rules and judges refusing to invest the time and effort to understand pro se matters before kicking them out of hand — often on technicalities only trained attorneys would notice.

At the end of the day, the judiciary holds all the cards that really matter. That’s a frightening thought.

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.