2023’s Booming Hiring Market Had A Clear Demographic Skew – Above the Law

The
2023
hiring
market
boasted
some
very
high
salaries
and
employment
rates,
but
who
were
the
main
benefactors?
The
data
are
in
and
they
show
some
interesting
outcomes
across
racial
demographics.

Reuters

has
coverage:

The
disparities
are
widest
when
looking
at
legal
jobs
that
require
bar
admission,
which
are
considered
by
many
as
the
gold
standard
for
J.D.
employment.
Among
white
law
grads,
84%
had
secured
those
positions
within
10
months
of
graduation.
But
of
Black
law
grads
and
Native
American
or
Alaska
Natives,
73%
were
in
those
jobs.

Just
80%
of
Latino
law
grads
secured
those
jobs,
four
percentage
points
lower
than
their
white
classmates.
Asian
law
grads
had
81%
bar
passage-required
employment
rate,
while
Native
Hawaiian
or
other
Pacific
Islanders
posted
the
lowest
such
employment
rate
at
67%.

It
is
hard
to
know
the
exact
reasons
for
the
employment
disparities,
but
it’s
worth
recognizing
as
we
contemplate
the
fall
out
of
the
Supreme
Court’s
6-3
decision
that
the
14th
Amendment
is
race-neutral

despite
the
clear
historical
context
that
gave
rise
to
it
.
With
that
said,
the
overall
high
rate
of
gainful
legal
employment
is
good
to
see.


Racial,
Ethnicity
Gaps
In
New
Lawyer
Jobs
Persisted
In
2023,
Amid
Robust
Job
Market

[ABA
Journal]



Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s
.
 He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boatbuilder
who
cannot
swim, a
published
author
on
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor
,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected] and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.

Nebraska Supreme Court Justice Compares Vote Stealing Executives To Patty & Selma – Above the Law

Most
civil
servants
are
dedicated
professionals.
Some
are
lazy
jerks
dragging
down
the
reputation
of
the
whole
field.
Marge
Simpson’s
sisters
Patty
and
Selma 
have
served
as
avatars
for
the
worst
tinpot
dictatorial
bureaucrats
for
the
last
three
decades.
Now
they’ve
found
their
way
into
a
Nebraska
Supreme
Court
opinion
as
Justice
Lindsey
Miller-Lerman
invoked
the
pair
in
her
concurrence
after
the
court
forcefully
benchslapped
the
state’s
attorney
general
and
secretary
of
state
for
attempting
to
steal
back
voting
rights.

The
case,


State
Ex
Rel.
Spung
v.
Evnen
,
arose
from
an
effort
by
state
executive
officials
to
circumvent
a
2024
statutory
amendment
that
restored
voting
rights
to
convicted
felons
after
they
have
fully
paid
their
debt
to
society
immediately.
Prior
to
this
amendment,
state
law
still
returned
the
right
to
vote,
but
required
an
additional
two
years
after
the
completion
of
the
sentence.

Secretary
of
State
Evnen
didn’t
want
to
follow
the
law,
so
he
asked
for
and
secured
an
advisory
opinion
from
Attorney
General
Mike
Hilgers
declaring
the
law
unconstitutional
based
on
a
flimsy
claim
that
it
infringed
upon
the
state’s
executive
branch
pardon
process

even
though
voting
rights
are
not,
in
fact,
pardons.

The
state
Supreme
Court
wasn’t
amused.

And
Justice
Miller-Lerman
took
it
further.
As

flagged

by
Tim
Royers,
president
of
the
Nebraska
State
Education
Association:

For
a
statute
to
be
declared
unconstitutional,
the
Nebraska
Constitution
requires
the
vote
of
five
justices
of
the
Nebraska
Supreme
Court.
Neb.
Const.
art.
V,
§
2.
Only
the
Nebraska
Supreme
Court
declares
statutes
unconstitutional.
The
supermajority
requirement
is
also
well
known.
Patty
and
Selma
at
the
Department
of
Motor
Vehicles
may
not
be
constitutional
scholars,
but
they
know
that
they
are
expected
to
follow
the
law.

In
fairness,
there
are
some
judges
that

aren’t
living
up
to
that
“constitutional
scholar”
bar
right
now
either
.
As
an
aside,
it
seems
the
governor
filed
an
amicus
in
this
case
written
by
the
daughter-in-law
of

notably
ABA
not
qualified
Eighth
Circuit
judge
Steven
Grasz
.
Small
world!
But
the
point
remains
that
if
the
power
to
make
constitutional
proclamations
exists
anywhere,
it’s
not
at
the
DMV.
Just
like
it
wasn’t

the
county
marriage
license
clerk
.

And
it’s
not
the
AG
either.

Do
we
want
to
live
in
a
world
where
every
state
employee
who
has
a
hunch
a
statute
is
flawed
gets
to
ignore
it?
State
officers
who
take
the
oath
to
follow
the
constitution
are
expected
to
follow
that
oath
and
not
disregard
their
sworn
duty
to
abide
by
the
Nebraska
Constitution,
including
its
dictate
in
article
V,
§
2,
that
it
is
the
Nebraska
Supreme
Court,
not
the
Attorney
General,
who
declares
laws
unconstitutional.


Marbury
v.
Madison 
called.

But
the
partisan
chicanery
runs
deeper,
because
if
the
constitutional
problem
is
“returning
the
right
to
vote”
and

not

“eliminating
the
two
year
waiting
period,”
then
it’s
an
argument
coming
a
couple
decades
too
late.

Way
back
in
time,
on
March
18,
1996,
the
Attorney
General’s
office
issued
an
opinion
to
“Lisa
M.
Perry,
Administrative
Assistant
Nebraska
Board
of
Pardons,”
in
connection
with
Neb.
Rev.
Stat.
§§
29-2264
(Cum.
Supp.
1994)
and
83-1,118
(Reissue
1994),
in
which
it
opined
that
the
restoration
of
various
civil
rights,
including
the
right
to
serve
as
a
juror,
serve
as
an
elector,
possess
firearms,
possess
brass
or
iron
knuckles,
and
hold
certain
licenses,
could
only
be
done
by
the
Board
of
Pardons.
See
Att’y
Gen.
Op.
No.
96023
(Mar.
18,
1996).
So
every
day
since
1996,
and
while
§
84-215
was
simultaneously
in
effect,
the
Attorney
General’s
office
had
the
opportunity
to
test
the
constitutionality
of
restoring
certain
rights
by
statute.
L.B.
53
became
effective
in
2005,
but
I
am
not
aware
of
an
opinion
of
this
court
or
lawsuit
challenging
it.
In
sum,
despite
the
existence
of
the
procedure
to
do
so
via
§
84-215,
and
other
remedies,
the
Attorney
General
waited
nearly
two
decades
to
challenge
L.B.
53
during
the
election
season
of
2024.

Almost
as
though
no
one
really
had
strong
feelings
about
this
until
someone
did
some
polling
on
the
chances
that
Kamala
Harris
(or
Joe
Biden
at
the
time)
snags
an
electoral
vote
from
Nebraska’s
district-based
electoral
allocation
regime
and
decided
to
suppress
votes
in
Omaha
at
all
costs.

Not
that
a
Republican
public
official
would
attempt
to
abuse
their
office
like
that
or
anything!

On
that
note,
despite
the
fact
that
the
court
ruled

per
curiam

in
favor
of
the
statute’s
constitutionality,
Justice
Miller-Lerman
also
noted
that
the
court
could’ve
issued
that
opinion
long
ago
but
instead
dragged
it
out
until
days
before
registration
closed,
functionally
dissuading
legally
eligible
voters
from
attempting
to
register
while
the
case
lingered
on
the
docket.
Per

Bolts

(h/t

Election
Law
Blog
)

The
timing
of
the
court’s
decision
gives
advocates
little
opportunity
to
help
people
who
might
be
confused
about
their
voting
rights
because
of
Evnen
and
Hilgers:
It
came
just
two
days
before
the
Oct.
18
deadline
to
register
to
vote
online.
The
cutoff
for
people
to
register
in
person
is
next
week,
Oct.
25.

Surely
another
coincidence.


(Opinion
on
the
next
page…)

An Analysis Of The California Supreme Court’s Decision To Reject A Proposal That Would Let Law Students Avoid Taking The Bar Examination – Above the Law

Last
week,
the

California
Supreme
Court
declined

to
adopt
a
proposal
known
as
the
Portfolio
Bar
Examination
(PBE)
that
would
be
a
substitute
for
taking
the
California
Bar
Examination.
Instead,
law
school
graduates
would
engage
in
a
period
of
supervised
practice
and
generate
a
portfolio
of
work
product
while
advising
and
representing
actual
clients.
They
would
also
only
take
a
portion
of
the
California
Bar
Examination

specifically
the
performance
test
which
requires
applicants
to
perform
legal
analysis
based
on
specific
information
provided.

The
court
noted
that
the
PBE
is
illegal
because
California
law
requires
admission
to
the
bar
which
requires
an
applicant
to
pass
the
“general
bar
examination.”
The
court
does
not
consider
the
PBE
to
be
equivalent
to
the
general
bar
examination.

The
court
was
concerned
about
the
fairness
of
the
PBE.
It
assumed
that
the
supervising
attorney
would
play
a
role
in
the
creation
of
the
work
product.
But
this
would
make
the
portfolio
dependent
on
the
supervising
attorney.
A
more
skilled
attorney
would
create
a
better
portfolio
than
a
less
skilled
one.
The
court
also
noted
that
there
were
no
safeguards
to
ensure
that
the
applicant
created
their
work
product
as
opposed
to
using
premade
templates
or
other
peoples’
work.

Next,
the
court
stated
that
the
PBE
is
unlikely
to
be
an
adequate
measure
of
an
applicant’s
competence
in
issue-spotting.
In
a
preconstructed
question,
it
would
contain
both
relevant
and
irrelevant
facts
or
law,
and
so
the
grader
would
know
which
issues
a
competent
attorney
should
spot.
On
the
other
hand,
the
issues
involved
in
a
real-world
scenario
are
unknown
to
the
grader.
If
an
applicant
fails
to
identify
a
crucial
fact
or
legal
issue
in
the
portfolio,
the
grader
is
unlikely
to
spot
the
issue
as
well.

The
court
also
found
that
the
PBE
grader
would
be
unable
to
directly
view
an
applicant’s
ability
to
conduct
client
interviews
and
negotiations.
Instead,
the
grader
would
score
these
skills
indirectly
through
redacted
assessments
of
the
applicant’s
performance,
authored
by
the
applicant
and
his
or
her
supervisor.
These
self-reported
assessments
may
not
be
objective.
Also,
the
court
noted
the
ethical
dilemma
of
compelling
inexperienced
attorneys
to
conduct
high-stakes
negotiations
and
interviews.

Lastly,
the
court
noted
that
if
the
graders
were
to
detect
a
subpar
work
product,
the
grader
may
have
the
obligation
to
inform
the
supervisor’s
client
of
the
deficient
work.
The
supervisor
may
even
be
reported
to
the
state
bar
for
failing
to
adequately
supervise
the
applicant’s
work,
which
could
result
in
discipline.

Taking
all
of
the
above
into
account,
the
court
does
not
believe
that
the
PBE
scores
would
be
reliable
due
to
the
disincentives
for
giving
objective
assessments
and
the
lack
of
safeguards
to
ensure
that
the
applicant
completed
his
or
her
own
work
product.

There
are
a
few
observations
from
the
court’s
decision.
First,
the
court
seems
skeptical
about
solely
using
the
supervisor’s
word
to
determine
competency.
It
notes
the
potentially
awkward
position
of
a
supervisor
having
to
give
an
unfavorable
evaluation
of
someone
they
have
trained
and
may
continue
to
work
at
their
firm.
It
should
be
noted
that
other
professions
that
have
experience
requirements
in
order
to
be
certified
or
licensed
(such
as
CPAs
and
medical
residents)
similarly
rely
on
evaluations
from
supervisors
(of
varying
quality)
and
that
hasn’t
resolved
large-scale,
systemic
problems.
But
these
professions
require
applicants
to
take
and
pass
a
general
licensure
examination
to
be
admitted.

Also,
the
court
seems
to
understand
that
some
things
cannot
be
easily
and
reliably
tested,
particularly
when
it
comes
to
soft
skills
such
as
dealing
with
clients
and
people
in
general.
It
would
be
an
arduous
effort
to
evaluate
an
applicant’s
ability
to
engage
with
people
coming
from
various
walks
of
life
with
different
personalities.
Will
the
graders
want
to
know
how
the
applicant
handled
people
from
different
cultures
or
language
barriers?
How
about
people
with
adversarial
interests?
It
will
be
near
impossible
to
cover
every
single
potential
client
encounter.

Also,
how
would
a
candidate’s
honesty
be
tested?
For
example,
if
someone
gets
a
perfect
score
on
the
MPRE,
does
that
mean
he
or
she
is
an
absolutely
ethical
attorney?
Or
would
he
or
she
know
the
rules
well
enough
to
find
and
exploit
loopholes?

The
court
did
not
consider
the
issue
of
specialization.
Considering
that
most
lawyers
today
specialize
in
one
or
a
few
practice
areas,
would
it
be
appropriate
to
issue
a
general
license
to
practice
to
an
applicant
who
studied
under
a
specialist?
Should
someone
who
trained
under
a
family
law
attorney
be
allowed
to
do
worker
compensation
cases?

In
the
final
analysis,
standardized
testing
such
as
the
bar
exam
is
likely
to
stay,
for
better
or
for
worse.
Many
elite
colleges
temporarily
stopped
accepting
standardized
test
scores
but
have
now

reinstated

them.

The
primary
argument
against
the
bar
exam
and
standardized
testing
in
general
is
that
it
benefits
people
who
have
the
means
to
purchase
expensive
bar
exam
prep
courses
or
simply
“test
well.”
While
that
is
a
legitimate
concern,
law
schools
can
address
this
problem
by
offering
their
own
bar
exam
preparation
program.
For
law
schools
with
lower
than
average
first-time
passage
rates,
this
program
should
be
mandatory.

As
for
programs
such
as
the
PBE,
rather
than
being
a
substitute
for
the
bar
exam,
it
should
be
an
optional
replacement
for
the
third
year
of
law
school.
This
could
save
students
one
year
of
tuition
and
even
allow
them
to
earn
enough
money
to
pay
off
the
first
two
years
of
law
school.




Steven
Chung
is
a
tax
attorney
in
Los
Angeles,
California.
He
helps
people
with
basic
tax
planning
and
resolve
tax
disputes.
He
is
also
sympathetic
to
people
with
large
student
loans.
He
can
be
reached
via
email
at





[email protected]
.
Or
you
can
connect
with
him
on
Twitter
(
@stevenchung)
and
connect
with
him
on 
LinkedIn.

Usha Vance Left Biglaw For This? – Above the Law

Sen.
J.D.
Vance
and
his
wife
Usha
Chilukuri
Vance
(Photo
by
Anna
Moneymaker/Getty
Images)


Yeah
my
wife
hates
it
too.





Donald
Trump’s
quip
to

former
Biglaw
attorney

and
current
political
spouse
Usha
Vance
about
her
distaste
for
politics.
According
to
JD
Vance’s

telling
of
the
story
,
Usha
was
asked
by
the
former
president
what
she
thought
of
his
political
aspirations,
“If
anybody
knows
my
wife,
it’s
like
the
perfect
Usha
answer—it’s
a
very
diplomatic
answer.
It’s
like:
‘Well
sir,
my
husband
really
loves
public
service,
we
love
the
state
of
Ohio
and
I’m
just
really
thrilled
to
be
able
to
help
him
out
where
I
can.’”
But
Trump
apparently
saw
through
the
lawyerly
obfuscation.

Learning How To Be A Professional – Above the Law

We’ve
got
some
young
lawyers
out
there
who

don’t
understand
the
basics
of
professionalism

and
it
runs
a
lot
deeper
than
just
lacking
experience.
That
said,
there
are
some
experienced
attorneys

falling
down
on
fulfilling
a
different
set
of
professional
obligations
.
Meanwhile,
Chief
Justice
Roberts
is
apparently

very,
very
sad

that
the
public
didn’t
appreciate
his
latest
Constitutional
rewrite.

Italy, US space cooperation plan includes launch, domain awareness – Breaking Defense

Italy
and
the
US
held
a
first
bilateral
space
dialogue
Oct.
11-12,
2024
in
Rome,
signing
a
wide-ranging
cooperation
agreement.
(Photo
credit:
US
Embassy
in
Italy)

WASHINGTON

Following
a
first-ever
bilateral
space
dialogue
in
Rome,
the
US
and
Italy

on
Oct.
15

inked
a
wide-ranging
cooperation
agreement

including
strengthening
national
security
space
ties
on
issues
such
as

space
domain
awareness

and
commercial
integration.

“The
U.S.-Italy
Space
Dialogue’s
purpose
is
to
strengthen
cooperation
and
advance
bilateral
collaboration
in
space
matters,”
according
to
the
joint
statement,
following
the
Oct.
11
and
12
meeting
between
US
and
Italian
interagency
delegations.

“Both
sides
reiterated
their
strong
determination
to
expand
already
robust
bilateral
cooperation
in
a
variety
of
areas,
including
addressing
the
climate
crisis
and
sustainable
and
safe
use
of
outer
space;
preserving
outer
space
heritage;
advancing
national
security
space
cooperation
and
information
sharing;
and
strengthening
bilateral
commercial
space
cooperation,”
it
added.

Italy
in
2020
stood
up
a
new
Space
Operations
Command
and

in
2023

signed
an
agreement
to
second
a
liaison
officer
to
US
Space
Command.
It
also
is
one
of
the
few
European
countries
operating
its
own
fleet
of
military
satellites,
including
for
communications
and
remote
sensing.
For
example,
the
Italian
Ministry
of
Defense
currently
is
developing
an
updated
version
of
its
Sicral
telecomms
birds.
The
Italian
space
agency

which
in
January
signed
a
space
cooperation
agreement
with
the
nation’s
armed
forces

also
is
working
to
field

a
new
generation

of
dual-use
(civil/military)

synthetic
aperture
radar
(SAR)

satellites
to
replace
its
aging
COSMO-Skymed
constellation,
called
CSG.

The
new
statement
stressed
the
need
for
tighter
ties
among
the
two
NATO
allies
due
to
the
“growing
scope
of
counter-space
and
related
threats
and
potential
adversaries
increasing
use
of
space
to
track
and
potentially
target”
allied
forces.
The
two
sides
pledged
“to
strengthen
the
coordination
of
national
security
space
activities
with
other
allies
and
partners
around
the
globe,
including
by
leveraging
innovative
commercial
space
capabilities,
to
ensure
access
to
critical
space-based
services
and
improve
space
domain
awareness”
as
well
as
satellite
cybersecurity.

The
statement
explained
that
Rome
and
Washington
now
are
negotiating
a
Technology
Safeguards
Agreement
that
would
create
the
legal
and
technical
framework
needed
to
allow
US
commercial
space
launch
from
Italy
and
ease
commercial
partnering
on
satellite
and
space
systems.
This
would
allow
the
Pentagon
and
US
Space
Force
to
tap
into
an
expanded
industrial
base
as
part
of
their
ambitious
plans
to
created
a

“hybrid”
space
architecture

that
links
satellites
operated
by
the
US
and
allied
governments,
as
well
as
private
companies.

The
two
sides
further
pledged
to
jointly
support
international
acceptance
of
voluntary
norms
of
behavior
for
on-orbit
activities,
including
the
US-initiated
call
for
a
UN-wide

moratorium
on
testing

of
debris-creating
anti-satellite
missiles.
And
in
an
obvious
dig
at
Russia

which
the
US

has
accused

of
developing
a
space-based
nuclear
weapon

the
joint
statement
also
reaffirmed
Italian
and
US
support
for
the

1967
Outer
Space
Treaty’s

ban
on
placing
nuclear
and
other
weapons
of
mass
destruction
in
orbit.

Morning Docket: 10.17.24 – Above the Law

*
Biglaw’s
big
billables
slowing
urge
to
reimagine
pricing.
[Bloomberg
Law
News
]

*
DA
launching
a
secret
investigation
into
a
judge
based
on
conspiracy
theories
she
found
online
just
one
of
the
reasons
she’s
losing
her
law
license.
[9News]

*
New
records
reveal
that
Judge
O’Connor
still
holding
a
ton
of
Tesla
stock
as
he
presides
over

Elon
Musk’s
case
against
Media
Matters
.
Respect
the
grift!
[NPR]

*
Legal
market
still
terrible
at
representation.
[Reuters]

*
Biglaw
discrimination
suit
ends
as
former
associate
abandons
appeal.
[American
Lawyer
]

*
Defense
contractors
caught
in
massive
bribery
scheme
will
pay
$1
billion
in
exchange
for
DPA.
[Law360]

*
Government
AI
caught
$1
billion
in
fraud
last
year.
And,
no,
that’s
not
just
the
aforementioned
defense
contractors.
[CNN]

Timba CCC suffers setback in bid to stop political parties payment to rival factions

HARARE

The
Citizens
Coalition
for
Change
party
led
by
Jameson
Timba
on
Wednesday
suffered
a
setback
in
its
bid
to
claim
ZiG
22.1
million
under
the
Political
Parties
(Finance)
Act
after
a
judge
ruled
that
its
application
seeking
to
bar
the
government
from
disbursing
the
money
to
rival
factions
was
not
urgent.

The
CCC
party
is
split
three-way
with
Timba’s
faction
pitted
against
two
others
led
by
Welshman
Ncube
and
Sengezo
Tshabangu.

All
three
factions
have
written
letters
to
justice
minister
Ziyambi
Ziyambi
demanding
to
be
given
the
funds
due
to
the
CCC
after
the
party
emerged
as
the
main
opposition
in
elections
held
in
August
last
year.

A
share
of
political
party
funds
is
calculated
based
on
a
party’s
electoral
performance
at
the
last
general
election.
Zanu
PF
is
getting
the
lion’s
share
of
ZWG
47.9
million.


Timba’s
CCC,
in
its
High
Court
application
launched
on
September
29,
cited
the
justice
minister,
finance
minister
and
Tshabangu
as
first,
second
and
third
respondents.
The
CCC
led
by
Ncube,
and
Ncube
himself,
later
applied
for
a
joinder
which
was
granted
without
opposition.

The
Timba
faction,
made
up
of
loyalists
of
former
leader
Nelson
Chamisa,
asked
the
High 
Court
to
issue
an
order
interdicting
Ziyambi
and
finance
minister
Mthuli
Ncube
“from
disbursing
the
sum
of
ZiG
22,116,500
or
any
portion
therefore
or
any
other
sums
of
money
due
to
the
Citizens
Coalition
for
Change
(CCC)
to
3rd
Respondent
(Tshabangu)
or
to
any
one
acting
on
his
behalf
or
to
anyone
else.”

Justice
Faith
Mushure,
in
an
October
16
judgment,
said
Timba’s
CCC
had
failed
to
establish
that
the
application
was
urgent.

The
judge
said
Timba
had
written
a
string
of
letters
to
Ziyambi
starting
on
October
16
last
year
requesting
that
the
CCC
allocation
be
deposited
in
a
particular
bank
account
number
of
the
party.

The
party
said
it
acted
out
of
concern
following
media
reports
that
the
government
intended
to
pay
out
the
money
to
Tshabangu,
who
emerged
after
last
year’s
elections
claiming
to
be
the
CCC’s
secretary
general.

Ziyambi,
contrary
to
legal
requirements,
ignored
Timba’s
letters.

Said
Justice
Mushure:
“The
provisions
of
section
4(2)
of
the
Act
are
couched
in
peremptory
terms.
The
first
respondent
(Ziyambi)
was
obliged
to
respond
to
the
application.
He
did
not.
Contrary
to
the
applicants’
averments
that
they
could
not
act
before
the
gazettement
of
the
funds
to
be
allocated
in
terms
of
the
Act,
the
first
applicant’s
right
to
response
was
triggered
by
the
lodgement
of
an
application
for
funds
in
terms
of
the
Act
and
not
the
gazettement
of
the
intended
allocation.
See
section
4(1)
of
the
Act.

“Despite
this,
the
first
applicant
(Timba
CCC)
did
not
do
anything
to
assert
its
right
to
that
response
from
the
first
respondent
from
October
16,
2023,
until
September
27,
2024,
when
they
filed
the
current
application.

“In
light
of
the
above,
the
applicants
cannot
now
argue
that
the
cause
of
action
arose
on
September
19,
2024,
when
the
first
respondent
(Ziyambi)
did
not
respond
to
their
letter.
This
was
not
the
first
time
that
the
first
respondent
had
not
responded
to
their
letter.
For
close
to
a
year,
the
first
respondent
had
not
responded
to
their
letters.

“The
applicants
could
afford
to
wait
for
the
first
respondent’s
response
for
three
or
four
months,
then
follow
up
with
another
letter.
At
the
very
last
minute,
they
then
decided
to
give
the
first
respondent
an
ultimatum
to
respond
within
48
hours,
failing
which
they
would
approach
the
court…

“On
the
facts
placed
before
me,
there
was
an
undue
delay
and
laxity
on
the
part
of
the
applicants
in
bringing
this
application
to
court.
The
factual
circumstances
giving
rise
to
this
urgent
application
were
known
to
the
applicant
and
have
been
ongoing
since
at
least
October
16,
2023.
The
applicant
took
no
steps
for
a
considerable
period
to
prevent
the
irreparable
harm
it
now
perceives.
An
applicant
is
expected
to
have
acted
with
the
same
urgency
it
wishes
that
the
matter
be
accorded.
The
expectation
is
that,
faced
with
the
alleged
failure
to
respond
from
the
first
respondent
and
the
conflicting
media
reports,
the
applicant
would
have
reacted
immediately
to
remedy
the
irreparable
harm,
rather
than
standing
back
and
doing
nothing
until
it
was
too
late.”

The
judge
also
rejected
the
Timba
CCC’s
claims
that
it
would
suffer
irreparable
harm
if
the
funds
were
released
to
rival
factions.

“The
applicants
allege
that
if
the
application
is
not
determined
now,
they
will
suffer
irreparable
harm.
They
argue
that
if
the
funds
are
disbursed
to
anyone
other
than
the
first
applicant,
there
is
no
way
of
recovering
them.
They
further
argue
that
the
amount
is
substantial
and
that
the
third
respondent
cannot
pay
it
back.
The
applicants
do
not
give
cogent
reasons
for
holding
these
views.
They
simply
make
bare
allegations,”
Justice
Mushure
noted.

“In
my
view,
if
the
application
is
not
determined
now,
the
first
applicant
does
not
irretrievably
lose
its
right
to
recover
the
money.
Neither
will
the
first
applicant
lose
its
right
to
the
money.
The
first
applicant’s
right
to
the
money
remains
open,
even
if
the
matter
is
not
dealt
with
urgently.

“…
I
consider
that
the
application
must
also
fail
on
the
aspect
of
consequence.
The
perceived
irreparable
harm
that
the
first
applicant
will
suffer
is
not
properly
substantiated.

“I,
therefore,
find
that
the
applicants
have
not
made
a
case
for
urgency.
If
anything,
the
urgency
of
the
applicants’
claim
is
self-created…
Accordingly,
I
make
the
following
order:
‘The
urgent
chamber
application
for
an
interdict
be
and
is
hereby
struck
off
the
roll
of
urgent
matters
for
lack
of
urgency
with
costs’.”

Ncube
deposed
an
affidavit
stating
that
his
party
was
the
legitimate
CCC
which
should
get
the
funding.
He
opposed
the
application
by
Timba’s
faction
arguing
that
it
was
not
urgent.

Said
the
judge.,
“I,
therefore,
find
that
the
applicants
have
not
made
a
case
for
urgency.
If
anything,
the
urgency
of
the
applicants’
claim
is
self-created…
Accordingly,
I
make
the
following
order:
‘The
urgent
chamber
application
for
an
interdict
be
and
is
hereby
struck
off
the
roll
of
urgent
matters
for
lack
of
urgency
with
costs’.”

The
ruling
leaves
the
door
open
to
ministers
to
release
the
funds
to
any
of
the
three
factions
at
their
whim.

Judge
rules
Chamisa
allies
had
failed
to
establish
that
the
application
was
urgent

Cheers To Brick And Mortar! — See Also

A New, Physical Law School Is On The Way!: Good news for Alaska!

Close Reading Must Not Be His Forte: If Joe Deters doesn’t understand “Boneless,” you think he gets statutes?

Tax Crimes Come To Roost: Ex-Biglaw partner sentenced to prison time.

The Part Of Partnering No One Likes: It isn’t all just easy money.

Cheers To Second Chances: New Jersey Supreme Court extends olive branch to some former attorneys.

The post Cheers To Brick And Mortar! — See Also appeared first on Above the Law.