Author: TSA Press

Ed
note: This
is
the
sixth
in
a
series.
Read
the previous
installment
here.

Just
as
a
skilled
chef
tastes
their
creation
throughout
the
cooking
process
and
adjusts
seasonings
for
the
perfect
balance,
effective
networking
involves
seeking
feedback
and
making
adjustments
to
your
approach.
Here’s
how
you
can
“taste”
your
networking
efforts
and
fine-tune
them:

Ask
for
Feedback:
After
a
follow-up
meeting
or
interaction,
consider
asking
for
feedback.
You
might
say:
“I
really
value
your
perspective
and
would
appreciate
any
feedback
you
have
on
our
discussion
today.
Is
there
anything
you
think
I
could
do
differently
or
any
areas
you
suggest
I
should
focus
on?”

Reflect
on
Responses:
Pay
attention
to
their
reactions
and
responses.
If
you
notice
a
pattern
in
how
people
respond
to
certain
topics
or
approaches,
use
this
as
an
indicator
of
what
works
well
and
what
might
need
tweaking.

Follow-Up
Questions:
If
you
sense
any
hesitation
or
lack
of
interest,
don’t
be
afraid
to
ask.
A
simple
“I
hope
my
emails
are
helpful
and
not
overwhelming.
Please
let
me
know
if
you
prefer
a
different
frequency
or
style
of
communication,”
shows
that
you’re
considerate
of
their
preferences.

Adjust
Communication
Style:
Everyone
has
different
communication
preferences.
Some
may
prefer
more
detailed
emails,
while
others
might
like
quick
check-ins.
Try
saying:
“I
want
to
ensure
our
communication
is
effective
and
convenient
for
you.
Do
you
prefer
brief
updates,
or
would
you
like
more
comprehensive
information?”

Seek
Clues
in
Conversation:
In
your
interactions,
look
for
clues
about
what
interests
them
or
areas
they
are
passionate
about.
Adjusting
your
follow-up
topics
based
on
these
insights
can
lead
to
more
engaging
and
relevant
conversations.

React
to
Non-Verbal
Cues:
In
face-to-face
meetings
or
video
calls,
pay
attention
to
non-verbal
cues.
If
they
seem
engaged
when
discussing
certain
topics,
delve
deeper
into
those
areas.
If
they
seem
disinterested,
it
might
be
time
to
change
the
subject.

Remember,
just
like
cooking,
networking
is
an
art
that
requires
continuous
adjustment.
By
“tasting”
your
efforts
and
being
open
to
changing
your
“recipe”
based
on
feedback,
you
can
create
a
more
enjoyable
and
fruitful
experience
for
both
you
and
your
contacts.

Tasting
as
You
Go:
Seeking
Feedback
and
Adjusting

✔️
Ask
for
feedback
on
your
conversations
and
interactions.
✔️
Reflect
on
their
responses
and
adjust
your
approach
as
needed.
✔️
Pay
attention
to
non-verbal
cues
and
communication
preferences.

---

Sejal
Patel
is
a
Rainmaking
Consultant
and
the Founder
of
Sage
Ivy,
a
New
York-based
consultancy
dedicated
to
helping
attorneys
turn
relationships
into
clients.
With
over
20
years
of
experience,
Sejal
strategically
analyzes
attorneys’
networks
to
uncover
revenue
and
relationship
opportunities,
crafting
individualized
approaches
that
align
with
their
unique
strengths
and
styles.
Learn
more
at www.sageivyconsulting.com.  

Attorney
General
Pam
Bondi
is

tryin’
it
with
Chief
Judge
James
Boasberg.

At
an
emergency
hearing
on
Saturday
regarding
Venezuelan
migrants
summarily
deported
to
a

slave
prison
in
El
Salvador
pursuant
to
the
Alien
Enemies
Act,
Judge
Boasberg
ordered
the
government
to
return
any
migrants
under
DHS
control,
including
those
already
on
airplanes.

“However
that’s
accomplished,
whether
turning
around
a
plane
or
not
embarking
anyone
on
the
plane
or
those
people
covered
by
this
on
the
plane,
I
leave
to
you,”
he
said
at
6:48
p.m.
“But
this
is
something
that
you
need
to
make
sure
is
complied
with
immediately.”

After
which
the
government
unloaded
at
least
two
planeloads
of
deportees,
and
Salvadoran
President
Nayib
Bukele
seemingly
joked
about
defying
the
court
in
a
tweet
that
was
reposted
by
multiple
Trump
administration
officials.

In
court,
the
DOJ
has
been
forced
to
pretend
that
it
is

not
in
open
contempt
of
a
federal
judge’s
order.
At
a
hearing
on
Monday,
Assistant
US
Attorney
Abhishek
Kambli

argued
variously
that
the
judge’s
oral
order

didn’t
count
until
it
was
memorialized
in
writing,
that
the
court
lost
jurisdiction
once
the
planes
departed
US
airspace,
and
that
he
could
neither
discuss
the
status
of
the
flights
nor
explain
on
what
legal
basis
he
was
refusing
to
do
so.

This
last
argument
seems
to
have
incensed
the
judge
most
of
all,
and
he
ordered
the
government
to
answer
several
questions
about
the
deportation
flights
by
Wednesday
at
noon,
or
explain
why
not.

That
did
not
happen
—
or
at
least
not
yet.
Instead,
the
government
threw
a

giant
hissy
fit
on
the
public
docket,
lobbing
ad
hominem
accusations
at
Judge
Boasberg
and
screeching
incoherently
about
the
separation
of
powers.

The
Court
has
now
spent
more
time
trying
to
ferret
out
information
about
the
Government’s
flight
schedules
and
relations
with
foreign
countries
than
it
did
in
investigating
the
facts
before
certifying
the
class
action
in
this
case.
That
observation
reflects
how
upside-down
this
case
has
become,
as
digressive
micromanagement
has
outweighed
consideration
of
the
case’s
legal
issues.
The
distraction
of
the
specific
facts
surrounding
the
movements
of
an
airplane
has
derailed
this
case
long
enough
and
should
end
until
the
Circuit
Court
has
had
a
chance
to
weigh
in.

It’s
a
bold
strategy,
Cotton.

It
is
similarly
bold
to
suggest
that

ex
parte
discussions
with
a
judge
who
was
the
head
of
the
FISA
court
jeopardize
national
security.
And
yet!

Worse,
the
risks
created
by
addressing
the
Court’s
pending
questions
would
undermine
the
Executive
Branch’s
ability
to
negotiate
with
foreign
sovereigns
in
the
future
by
subjecting
all
of
the
arrangements
resulting
from
any
such
negotiations—as
well
as
the
negotiations
themselves—to
a
serious
risk
of
micromanaged
and
unnecessary
judicial
fishing
expeditions
and
potential
public
disclosure.

The
DOJ
lawyers
demand
that
the
court
“stay
or
delay
its
order
to
provide
Defendants
an
opportunity
to
make
an
orderly
but
expedited
decision
as
to
whether
to
invoke
the
state
secrets
privilege
and,
if
so,
as
to
what
information.”

And
they
got
their
wish
…
sort
of.
Judge
Boasberg
did
indeed
give
them
extra
time
to
(pretend
to)
finish
their
homework.

“Although
their
grounds
for
such
request
at
first
blush
are
not
persuasive,
the
Court
will
extend
the
deadline
for
one
more
day,”
he

wrote,
exquisitely
channeling
a
rattlesnake
rearing
back
before
sinking
its
fangs
into
an
offending
flank.

“To
begin,
the
Court
seeks
this
information,
not
as
a
‘micromanaged
and
unnecessary
judicial
fishing
expedition[],’
id.
at
2,
but
to
determine
if
the
Government
deliberately
flouted
its
Orders
issued
on
March
15,
2025,
and,
if
so,
what
the
consequences
should
be,”
he
warned,
reminding
the
government
that,
irrespective
of
the
DC
Circuit
appeal,
“Whether
those
TROs
were
legally
defective
or
legally
sound
does
not
govern
the
compliance
inquiry.”

In
support,
the
court
cited

Walker
v.
City
of
Birmingham,
388
U.S.
307
(1967),
in
which
SCOTUS
upheld
the
trial
court’s
contempt
sanctions
on
a
noncompliant
party,
irrespective
of
the
whether
the
disobeyed
injunction
was
later
overturned.

Judge
Boasberg
went
on
to
remind
the
government
that
you
can’t
just
shout
“STATE
SECRETS
PRIVILEGE!”
and
run
away
laughing.
You
have
to
actually
make
a
credible
claim,
which
would
be
somewhat
undercut
here
by
the
fact
that
Secretary
of
State
Marco
Rubio
has
been
flapping
his
yap
about
this
operation
all
week
on
Twitter,
that
President
Bukele
shot
a

music
video
showcasing
the
prisoners
being
taken
off
the
plane,
and
that
multiple
members
of
the
US
government
reposted
it.

Also,
there’s
the
awkward
fact
that,
to
date,
the
DOJ
hasn’t
even
argued
that
the
flight
information
was
classified,
much
less
a
state
secret.
But
that’s
a
problem
for
another
day
—
Thursday!

Oh,
and
PS,
Judge
Boasberg
does
not
take
kindly
to
the
suggestion
that
he
can’t
be
trusted
with
non-public
information.

“The
Government
also
maintains
that
‘disclosure
of
the
information
sought
could
implicate
the
affairs
of
the
United
States
allies,’”
he
notes.
“But
it
never
explains
how
in
camera
disclosure
to
the
Court
could
possibly
lead
to
such
a
result.”

That
explanation
will
come
too
late
for
the
men
thrown
into
a
dangerous
slave
prison
based
on
nothing
more
than
the
president’s

dubious
assertion
that
they
are

members
of
a
terrorist
gang.
But
it
will
certainly
make
for
an
interesting
filing.

JGG
v.
Trump
[Docket
via
Court
Listener]

---

Liz
Dye lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
produces
the
Law
and
Chaos substack and podcast.

In
March
2024,
I
authored
an

article
about
the
so-called
rural
desert
in
the
legal
profession.
The
rural
desert
is
a
reference
to
rural
areas
where
few
or
no
lawyers
live,
which
effectively
deprives
the
populace
of
legal
services.
These
deserts
are
on
the
upswing.
My
article
attempted
to
offer
some
solutions
based
on
technolgy
and
remote
work.
But
after
hearing
a

SXSW
Panel
discussion,
I
think
my
solutions
may
have
been,
well,
wrong.

The
Background

According
to
surveys,
14%
of
the
population
lives
in
rural
areas,
but
only
2%
of
lawyers
do.
A 2020
ABA
study found
that
40%
of
all
counties
in
the
US
have
fewer
than
one
lawyer
for
every
1000
residents.
Fifty-two
counties
have
no
lawyers,
and
another
182
have
only
one
or
two.

There
are
multiple
reasons
for
this
dearth.
Many
young
lawyers
simply
want
to
live
in
urban
areas.
They
value
the
quality
of
life,
cultural
opportunities,
and
better
access
to
health
care
that
they
believe
urban
areas
offer.
Many
have
professional
spouses
who
also
want
and
need
to
work.
Deciding
to
be
a
rural
lawyer
requires
finding
two
jobs
in
areas
where
opportunities
may
not
be
as
great
as
in
urban
areas.

Lawyers
also
fear
they
will
be
unable
to
make
as
much
money
working
in
rural
areas:
most
young
lawyers
have
significant
student
loans
to
repay.
Young
lawyers
worry
about
a
lack
of
training
and
mentorships
in
rural
areas
since
many
older
rural
lawyers
are
reaching
retirement
age
leaving
few
available
mentors.
The
declining
numbers
are
bad
for
the
profession
and
society.
Without
lawyers,
people
living
in
rural
areas
will
be
deprived
of
access
to
justice
and
community
leaders.

My
2024
Solutions

In
2024,
I
noted
that
most
of
the
proposed
solutions
focused
on
incentivizing
younger
lawyers
to
move
to
and
practice
in
rural
areas.
Using
financial
incentives
to
draw
lawyers
to
move
rural
areas
was
trying
to
solve
a
new
problem
with
an
old
way
of
thinking.
I
concluded
that
as
a
profession,
we
needed
to
focus
on
delivering
services
and
outcomes
in
rural
areas
in
new
and
different
ways.
I
proposed
things
like
having
lawyers
use
technology
to
serve
clients
in
rural
areas
without
necessarily
living
there.
Or
remotely
linking
young
lawyers
in
urban
areas
with
older
lawyers
in
rural
areas
for
mentorship
and
learning
experiences.
Or
providing
financial
incentives
not
based
on
moving
but
on
serving.

But
here’s
the
problem
with
my
thesis:
I
may
have
misunderstood
the
values
and
mindset
of
people
living
in
rural
areas
who
need
representation.
My
perspective
shifted
after
hearing
a
presentation
at
SXSW.

The
Mother
Research:
Community

This
possibility
was
brought
home
to
me
in
a
presentation
at
SXSW
this
week
entitled

Demystifying
Rural
Life,
A
Crash
Course
in
Marketing
to
the
Heartland.
It
summarized
some
extensive
research
by
the
advertising
agency,

Mother.
The
results
of
the
research
were
presented
by
Mother
Strategist,

Camila
Caldas
and

Charlie
McKittirck,
Mother
Chief
Strategy
Officer.

The
research
focused
on
young
people
between
18-35
in
the
rural
heartland.
The
researchers
visited
32
states
over
24
weeks
and
conducted
interviews,
an
800-person
survey
and
attempted
to
immerse
themselves
in
rural
culture.

One
of
the
key
findings
is
not
surprising.
People
in
rural
areas
feel
disrespected,
underrepresented,
and
misunderstood
by
the
rest
of
America.
They
have
a
chip
on
their
shoulder
for
big
business
and
urban
arrogance.
They
feel
judged
all
the
time.
They
are
angry.

But
that
anger
becomes
understandable
when
you
consider
four
key
factors
that
the
Mother
researchers
consistently
discovered
among
rural
folks.

The
first
and
most
important
one
is
a
strong
sense
of
community.
According
to
Caldas,
people
rural
areas
don’t
just
perform
or
give
lip
service
to
the
notion
of
community,
they
actually
live
it.
They
take
their
community
membership
seriously.
As
a
result,
there
is
a
sense
pragmatism
and
the
willingness
to
help
others
in
the
community
when
they
need
it.
As
Caldas
put
it,
when
someone
says
they
are
moving,
an
urban
friend
might
say
I
will
recommend
a
mover.
A
rural
friend
says,
what
day?
I’ll
bring
my
truck.

Rural
folks
have
a
commitment
to
the
community
and
to
each
other.
Life
is
much
less
transit
in
the
rural
community
so
there
is
a
greater
sense
of
investment
in
it.
And
importantly
for
seeking
solutions
to
the
legal
desert
problem,
you
can’t
buy
your
way
into
the
community.
You
have
to
be
part
of
it.
You
have
to
show
up
for
people,
You
have
to
demonstrate
you
accept
and
are
part
of
the
community.
You
have
to
earn
it.

Values

The
second
important
factor
the
Mother
researchers
uncovered
was
the
strong
sense
of
values
of
those
in
rural
communities.
These
values
lead
to
an
implicit
code
of
conduct,
not
just
a
badge
or
belief.
Rural
people
treat
seriously
the
need
to
respect
and
serve
those
in
the
community.
They
value
less
the
concept
of
career
and
corporate
ladder
climbing.
They
care
more
about
things
like
respect,
humility
(not
putting
on
airs
or
acting
better
than
others),
self
sufficiency,
hard
work,
loyalty,
and
resourcefulness.
They
feel
like
urban
dwellers
make
fun
of
these
values
and
belittle
them
for
having
them.

Creativity

The
third
factor
discovered
by
the
researchers
was
a
significant
level
of
creativity
among
rural
people.
Because
they
don’t
have
access
to
many
things
those
in
cities
do
or
have
the
same
infrastructure,
they
have
to
be
resourceful
and
come
up
with
solutions
and
even
fun
on
their
own.
The
lack
of
an
infrastructure
drives
ingenuity
among
rural
dwellers.
Most
of
them
know
how
to
operate
and
fix
equipment.
They
know
how
to
work
with
their
hands.
And
they
are
proud
of
their
skills.

Aspirations

The
final
factor
noted
by
the
researchers
was
the
difference
in
aspiration
of
rural
people.
They
don’t
look
up
or
out
but
at
valuing
the
more
simple
life
they
lead.
They
laugh
at
the
urban
mindset
of
climbing
a
ladder
that
leads
only
to
overwork,
over
stress
and
unhappiness.

Hearing
this
research
made
me
realize
a
fundamental
flaw
in
my
initial
conclusions.

I
Was
Wrong

When
I
re-read
my
previous
article
in
light
of
this
research,
I
see
how
wrong
I
was.
Rural
people
aren’t
likely
to
accept
and
trust
a
lawyer
who
they
view
as
perceiving
themselves
too
good
to
be
part
of
the
rural
community.
If
a
lawyer
is
not
part
of
the
community,
the
Mother
research
suggests
not
only
will
they
not
be
accepted,
they
won’t
get
business.
Even
if
that
means
the
rural
people
wont
get
access
at
all.

Remember
that
the
research
suggests
that
rural
people
are
creative
and
find
practical
solutions
even
without
the
urban
infrastructure’s
future.
They
would
feel
the
same
way
about
the
lack
of
lawyers:
rightly
or
wrongly
they
think
they
can
figure
out
a
solution.

Moreover,
rural
people
will
perceive
the
fact
that
a
lawyer’s
choice
not
to
be
physically
part
of
the
community
itself
reflects
a
different
value
system.
This
disconnect
in
values
would
lead
inevitably
to
distrust
and
resentment.
Trust
is
the
building
part
of
lawyer-client
relationships.
Without
it,
it
just
wont
work.

Refusing
to
live
in
a
community
for
all
the
reasons
identified—need
to
make
more
money,
valuing
the
perceived
higher
quality
of
life,
more
cultural
opportunities,
better
access
to
health
care,
even
the
need
for
having
job
opportunities
for
professional
spouses—is
antithetical
to
the
value
system
of
many
rural
dwellers.
Add
to
this
lack
of
cultural
fit
is
the
anger
that
many
rural
people
already
feel
toward
what
they
consider
an
urban
mindset—a
mindset
they
think
is
disrespectful
and
arrogant
toward
them.
That
doesn’t
bode
well
for
urban
lawyers
attempting
to
temporarily
parachute
into
rural
areas.

Given
the
Mother
research,
I’m
not
sure
we
can
solve
the
rural
desert
problem
with
technology
alone.

It’s
Going
to
Take
Something
Else

It’s
going
to
take
something
else.
Perhaps
financial
incentives
are
a
partial
answer
although
that
approach
is
also
not
consistent
with
rural
values
of
self-sufficiency
and
resourcefulness.

The
Mother
research
hints
at
another
solution:
education.
Instead
of
dismissing
and
disparaging
rural
communities,
we
should
strive
to
help
everyone
to
better
understand
each
other.

If
we
can
show
younger
lawyers
what
rural
people
truly
value,
perhaps
they
can
see
the
advantages
of
being
part
of
a
strong
rural
community.
Perhaps
that
will
incentivize
them.

---

Stephen
Embry
is
a
lawyer,
speaker,
blogger
and
writer.
He
publishes TechLaw
Crossroads,
a
blog
devoted
to
the
examination
of
the
tension
between
technology,
the
law,
and
the
practice
of
law

“The
judiciary
is
uniquely
insulated
from
scrutiny,
and
uniquely
unaccountable
to
the
public,”
I
told
the
House
Judiciary
Committee’s
Subcommittee
on
Courts,
Intellectual
Property,
and
the
Internet
three
years
ago
this
week,
in

congressional
testimony
to
advocate
for
the

Judiciary
Accountability
Act
(JAA),
legislation
that
would
finally
extend
federal
anti-discrimination
protections
to
more
than
30,000
exempt
federal
judiciary
employees.
The
JAA
would
extend
the
same
basic
workplace
protections
that
apply
to
most
other
workers,
to
judiciary
employees
who
support
the
daily
functioning
of
our
courts;
and
it
would
ensure
that
judges
who
interpret
federal
anti-discrimination
laws,

are
themselves
subject
to
them. 

Holding
abusive
judges
accountable
for
misconduct,
and
extending
workplace
anti-discrimination
protections
to
their
clerks
and
other
employees,
are
particularly
urgent.
The
federal
judiciary
—
lacking
in
transparency,
accountability,
enforceable
ethical
restrictions
against
misconduct,
anti-discrimination
protections,
and
outside
oversight
—
is
the

most
dangerous
white-collar
workplace
in
America.
A
few
weeks
ago,

National
Public
Radio’s
year-long
investigatory
reporting
about

harassment
in
the
federal
judiciary
underscored
what
I’ve
been
sounding
the
alarm
bells
about
for

more
than
three
years,
and
others
before
me,
for
at
least
seven
years:
pervasive
bullying
and
other
abusive
conduct
in
the
federal
courts;
judicial
workplaces
where
complaints
about
harassment
fall
on
deaf
ears,
and
clerks
find
little
recourse
for
abuse;
and
the
federal
judiciary
repeatedly

signals
zero
interest
in
solving
these
problems.
NPR

spoke
with
42
judiciary
employees
over
the
past
year
who
worked
for,
and
were
mistreated
by,
two
dozen
judges
—
just
the
tip
of
the
iceberg
of
systemic
misconduct
I
hear
about. 

And
yet,
the
federal
judiciary
is
willfully
ignorant
of
the
scope
of
the
problem,
pointing
to

suspiciously
low
misconduct
complaint
numbers
as
evidence
that
judges
don’t
mistreat
their
clerks:

just
seven
Employee
Dispute
Resolution
(EDR)
complaints
filed
by
law
clerks
between
2021
and
2023
(1,100
to
1,400
federal
judges
and
several
thousand
law
clerks
are
employed
by
the
federal
courts
each
year),
and


just
two
Judicial
Conduct
and
Disability
(JC&D)
Act
complaints
filed
by
judicial
employees,
total
(law
clerks
or
permanent
court
staff)
in
2024.
Anyone
who
understands
human
resources,
employment
law,
or
sexual
harassment
knows
that
a
low
number
of
workplace
complaints
does
not
mean
a
workplace
is
safe.
In
fact,
it
often
suggests

reporting
mechanisms
are
broken
or
non-existent,
and
that
employees
do
not
feel
safe
reporting
misconduct.  

Therein
lies
the
problem
—
federal
judges,
tasked
with
adjudicating
Title
VII
and
other
anti-discrimination
claims,
as
well
as

investigating
their

colleagues’
judicial
misconduct
under
the
JC&D
Act
and
EDR
Plan
within
the
judiciary’s
culture
of
internal
“self-policing,”
are

not
well-versed
on
these
topics.
And
law
clerks

routinely
tell
me
they
have
not
and
would
not
report
misconduct
to
the
federal
courts,
because
they
do
not
believe
their
concerns
will
be
taken
seriously
and
robustly
investigated.
The
federal
judiciary’s
misconduct
numbers
are
a

gross
undercount.
Yet

just
three
years
ago,
it
was
considered
“taboo”
to
talk
about
sexual
harassment
in
the
federal
judiciary.
Times
are
changing,
albeit
too
slowly. 

Just
a
few
months
after
my
March
2022
congressional
testimony,
I
proposed
an
audacious
goal:
nationwide
clerkship
transparency.
In
June
2022,
I
launched

The
Legal
Accountability
Project
(LAP),
the
first
and
only
nonprofit
working
full-time
to
ensure
that
judicial
law
clerks
have
positive
clerkship
experiences,
while
extending
support
and
resources
to
those
who
do
not.
Our
first
bold
initiative?
A

nationwide
Clerkships
Database
(“Glassdoor
for
Judges,”)
where
judicial
law
clerks
nationwide
could
review
their
powerful,
unaccountable
bosses,
and
law
students
nationwide
could,
for
the
first
time,
read
thousands
of
reviews
to
identify
great
bosses
to
apply
to,
and
abusive
judges
and
poor
managers
to
avoid. 

In
the
three
years
since
I
first
shared
my
abusive
clerkship
experience
with
members
of
Congress,
I
have
sparked
a
nationwide
clerkship
transparency
movement
and
encouraged
many
in
the
legal
profession
—
law
students,
law
school
administrators,
law
clerks,
practicing
attorneys,
and
even
some
judges
—
to
recognize
systemic
problems
in
the
federal
judiciary.
These
challenges
stem
from
the
courts’

inability
to
self-regulate
and
unwillingness
to
self-discipline. 

Many
thought
LAP’s
Clerkships
Database
couldn’t
be
done.
A
few
thought
it
shouldn’t
be
done.
Law
school
clerkship
advisors
told
me
dismissively
that,
“Harassment
doesn’t
happen
in
clerkships;
it’s
just
women
adjusting
to
their
first
jobs;”
and
“We’re
blessed
to
work
with
only
good
judges
—
all
our
alumni
have
positive
clerkship
experiences;”
and
“I
don’t
need
your
Project;
I
know
about
all
the
judges.”
And,

from
my
alma
mater,
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law
—
that
knew
at
the
time
I
accepted
my
D.C.
Courts
clerkship,
that
the
judge
who
mistreated
me,
had
mistreated
others
before
me,
but
opted
not
to
share
that
information
with
me,
and
which
cancelled

four
LAP
events
in
less
than
three
years,
including
one
with
a
federal
judge
who’s
a
WashU
Law
alum:
it’s
WashU’s
“official
policy”
not
to
share
negative
information
with
students
about
abusive
judges
to
avoid;
and
they
do
not
“believe”
I
was
mistreated
and
retaliated
against
during
and
after
my
clerkship. 

Now,

tone-deaf,
ridiculous
comments
like
these
roll
off
my
back.
But
for
many
mistreated
clerks
who
contact
their
law
schools
for
advice
and
support,
they
perpetuate
the
broken
status
quo
—
a
culture
of
silence
and
fear
—
that
would
likely
dissuade
someone
who’d
just
been
fired
or
retaliated
against
by
a
powerful
judge
from
taking
further
accountability
steps.
It’s
one
reason
why

law
schools
are
part
of
the
problem.
Fortunately,
they
just
galvanized
me
to
work
harder,
dig
deeper
into
law
schools’

misleading
clerkship
advising
and
misaligned
incentives,
and
prove
them
wrong. 

Where
did
I
get
the
idea
for
LAP’s
Clerkships
Database?
Throughout
the
spring
of
2022,
before
I
launched
LAP,
I
spoke
with
dozens
of
clerkship
advisors
and
deans
about
resources
they
use
to
help
students
identify
positive
clerkship
experiences
and
avoid
abusive
judges
—
that’s
the
context
in
which
many
of
their
bizarre
comments
were
made
—
to
understand
information
gaps
and
how
I
could
fill
the
void.
I
learned
the
“gold
standard”
for
judicial
clerkship
advising

just
three
years
ago
were

internal
law
school
clerkships
databases,
where
law
clerk
alumni
submitted
often
less-than-fully-forthcoming
surveys
about
their
clerkship
interview
and
work
experiences,
which
were
accessible
to
applicants
at
those
schools
with
student
login
credentials. 

Siloing
off
information
school
by
school
creates
countless
problems.
(And,
of
course,
only
a
handful
of
top
schools
maintain
such
databases.)
Giving
law
schools
the
benefit
of
the
doubt
(which
some
deserve;

many
do
not),
under
the
best
circumstances,
law
schools
are
restricted
in
their
information-gathering
and
dissemination
by
who
their
alumni
have
clerked
for
in
the
past,
and
clerks’
willingness
to
submit
clerkship
surveys
about
their
experiences
to
their
schools.
Frankly,
we
do
not
live
under
the
best
of
circumstances.
Clerks
fear
retaliation
by
the
judges
who
mistreated
them
and
reputational
harm
in
the
legal
profession
for
“talking
bad”
about
federal
judges,
especially
when
they
must
attach
their
names
to
their
surveys
and
without
assurances
the
judges
they
clerked
for
will
not
read
their
reviews.

Compounding
this
fear,
mistreated
clerks
are
dissuaded
by
their
law
schools
and
legal
mentors
from
putting
their
negative
experiences
in
writing.

Law
schools
signal
that
all
their
alumni
have
positive
experience
and,
if
your
clerkship
experience
was
negative,
they’d
prefer
not
to
know
about
it.
Furthermore,
there
will
always
be
gaps
in
schools’
information.
New
judges
are
appointed
and
elected
each
year.
A
school
in
New
Haven
probably
doesn’t
know
much
about
state
court
clerkships
in
Nebraska.
A
state
school
in
Nebraska
likely
doesn’t
send
too
many
clerks
to
the
Second
Circuit.
But
if
each
school’s
alumni
could
seamlessly
share
information
with
the
other
school’s
students,
more
students,
clerkship
advisors,
and
judges
would
benefit,
since
transparency
and
more
information
generally
help
all
parties
to
identify
positive
working
relationships. 

A
nationwide

Centralized
Clerkships
Database,
where
any
clerk
can

submit
a
survey
and
any
clerkship
applicant
(but
no
judges)
can
read
the
surveys,
solves
all
these
problems.
And
to
ensure
candor
in
submissions,
clerks
can
be
anonymous
in
LAP’s
Database
if
they
choose. 

After
that
first
fall,
I
had
a
decision
to
make.
LAP
had
embarked
on
a
nationwide

“Fixing
Our
Clerkship
System”
tour
(LAP’s
“Law
School
Roadshow”),
visiting
dozens
of
schools,
whipping
up
student
support,
and
pissing
off
school
administrators
nationwide.
Perhaps
unsurprisingly,
law
schools
weren’t
buying
what
LAP
was
selling.
They
were
nervous,
skeptical,
and
sometimes
even
hostile
at
the
assertion
that
their
clerkship
advising
and
resources
were
insufficient,
let
alone
that
a
third-party
outsider,
just
a
few
years
removed
from
an
abusive
clerkship
herself,
could
do
it
better. 

An
advisor
told
me,
“If
you
build
it,
they
will
come.”
So,
we
did.
And
two
years
ago,
in
April
2023,
LAP
began
collecting
surveys

through
our
online
platform.
Clerks
understood
the
assignment.
LAP
received
hundreds
of
post-clerkship
survey
submissions
that
first
year,
and
the
feedback
was
incredible.
Clerks
—
both
those
who
enjoyed
their
clerkships,
and
those
who
did
not
—
told
me
what
a
“much-needed”
and
“long
overdue”
resource
LAP
was
building.
They’d
never
had
a
place
to
share
their
candid
clerkship
experiences
before. 

A
few
months
later,
in
the
winter
of
2023,
I
faced
another
decision.
Law
schools
still
weren’t
convinced
by
LAP’s
proposition
that
they
pay
$5
per
student
per
year
to
make
this
resource
available
to
all
their
students.
So,
LAP
decided,

screw
the
law
schools!
We
pivoted
and
prepared
to
launch
the
Clerkships
Database
as
an
individual
subscriber
model,
charging
a
small
fee
for
any
student
or
recent
graduate

to
access
the
platform. 

LAP
built
the
plane
while
flying
it,
because
we
were
heading
into
another
clerkship
application
cycle
where,
if
students
went
without
candid
clerkship
information,
they’d
be
vulnerable
to
both
gaslighting
by
their
law
schools
that
any
clerkship
is
better
than
no
clerkship
at
all,
and
to
mistreatment
by
judges.
So,
we
processed
hundreds
of
registrations
by
hand
while
we
rebuilt
the
platform.
Each
day,
we
downloaded
a
list
of
registrants
at
7
a.m.;
highlighted
users
in
spreadsheets
as
we
processed
them
with
a
different
color
each
day
(we
ran
out
of
colors);
reviewed
hundreds
of
user
agreements
manually;
and
emailed
hundreds
of
subscribers
individually.
It
was
a
Herculean,
but
worthwhile,
effort. 

Then,
in
early
April
2024,


clerkship
hiring
changed
forever.

LAP
launched
our
database
for
the
first
cohort
of
student
users
(around
500
to
start,
and
several
hundred
more
throughout
the
spring),
with
a
platform
containing
around
750
post-clerkship
surveys. 

Last
year,
LAP
served
nearly
a
thousand
users

from
nearly
ever
U.S.
law
school.
We
also
welcomed
our
first
law
review
subscribers,
the
Harvard
Law
Review
and
New
York
University
Law
Review,
who
subscribed
on
behalf
of
their
editorial
boards. 

This
school
year,
LAP

launched
the
Clerkships
Database
on
August
1,
2024,
to
a
second
cohort
of
users
—
bigger
and
better
than
last
year.
LAP’s
database
now
contains
more
than
1,500
reviews
about
more
than
1,000
federal
and
state
judges,
representing
every
state,
every
federal
circuit,
and
most
of
the
94
U.S.
district
courts.
We’ve
served
over
2,000
law
students
and
recent
graduates:
this
number
climbs
every
day. 

And,
we
welcomed
our
first
law
school
subscriber
—
Illinois
Law
—
whose
students
do
not
have
to
pay
individually
to
access
the
database.
We
hope
more
schools
will
subscribe
on
behalf
of
their
students
during
the
2025-26
school
year,
but
we’re
not
waiting
on
them
to
help
their
students. 

LAP
currently
serves
five
law
review
subscribers
—
Harvard
and
New
York
University,
as
well
as
Texas,
George
Washington,
and
Southern
California.
And,
while
attempting
to
onboard
our
first
student
organization
subscriber,

a
kerfuffle
with
Yale
Law
School
—
when
they
foolishly
barred
student
organizations
from
subscribing
to
LAP’s
database
using
student
funds
—
provided
an
incredible
opportunity

to
broaden
our
efforts
and
serve

hundreds
more
students
at
a
reduced
rate. 

When
the
legal
profession

learned
of
Yale
Law
School’s
misbehavior,
several
donors
kindly
offered
to

cover
the
database
cost
for
Yale
Law
students.
What
started
at
Yale
did
not
stop
there:
since
then,
generous
donors
covered
the
database
cost
for
some
—
and,
at
one
law
school,

all
—
students
at

Harvard,

Yale,

Columbia,
New
York
University,

UChicago,

Vanderbilt,
and
Houston
Law.
(If
you
attend
one
of
these
schools
and
haven’t
registered
for
free
database
access,
finish
reading,
then
visit

survey.legalaccountabilityproject.org
to
register!)

LAP
is
far
more
than
a
legal
technology
platform,
though
I
never
would
have
imagined,
when
I
graduated
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law
a
few
years
ago,
that
I’d
be

an
award-winning

legal
technology
founder.
LAP
has
taken
the
judiciary,
legal
academia,
and

legal
profession
by
storm,
bridging
unlikely
alliances
across
the
ideological
spectrum
and
building
consensus
around
historically
intractable
social
problems. 

The
second
clerkship
application
cycle
where
students
nationwide
benefit
from
LAP’s
database
is
underway.
Thousands
of
clerkship
applicants
will
avoid
abusive
judges
and
bad
bosses.
But
some
applicants
don’t
know
about
LAP’s
database
yet.
Others
will
read
negative
reviews
and
think,
“I
can
handle
it,”
or
“It
won’t
happen
to
me.”
Some
applicants
won’t
heed
my
warnings:

Don’t
clerk
for
someone
who
isn’t
reviewed
positively
in
LAP’s
database.
Clerks
are
intentional
about
submitting
negative
reviews.
And
mistreated
clerks
routinely
tell
me
if
they
knew
how
bad
the
clerkship
would
be,
they
would
not
have
accepted
it.
Sadly,
some
applicants
have
been
misled
by
their
law
schools
and
mentors
to
believe
that
any
clerkship
is
better
than
no
clerkship
at
all;
and
they’ll
attempt
to
endure
abuse. 

It
is
disingenuous
to
discuss
judicial
clerkships
without

underscoring
the
challenges
clerks
might
face
and
the

inadequate
options
available
if
they
are
mistreated.
Yet

law
schools,
often
the
gatekeepers
and
facilitators
of
judicial
clerkships,
have
not
taken
the

harassment
crisis
in
the
federal
courts
seriously.
Several
years
and
too
many

judiciary
scandals
later,
little
has
changed
on
campus.
Schools
still
won’t
subscribe
to
LAP’s
Clerkships
Database
on
behalf
of
their
students;
some
won’t
even
share
information
about
LAP
with
students.
Clerkship
advisors
refuse
to
warn
students
about
abusive
judges.
They
tout

their
misleading
and
uniformly
positive
internal
clerkships
databases.
They
lionize
abusive
judges
during
campus
visits
and
on
social
media.
And
they
funnel
students
into
abusive
clerkships
to
increase
their
clerkship
numbers
and
maintain
their
coveted
judiciary
relationships
—
particularly
with
judges
who
are
law
school
alumni
—
at
the
expense
of
student
and
alumni
well-being. 

Fortunately,
even
while
law
schools
continue
to
drag
their
heels,
everyone
—
law
students,
law
clerks,
and
law
school
alumni
—
can
help
advance
this
vision
of
clerkship
transparency.
Students
should,
of
course,

register
for
database
access.
But
don’t
stop
there:
urge
your
law
school
to
subscribe
on
your
behalf.
You
are
powerful:
circulate
a
sign-on
letter,
make
a
public
statement,
and
meet
with
your
administration
to
explain
why
this
resource
is
valuable.
Law
clerks:

share
your
clerkship
experience
in
LAP’s
database
with
thousands
of
aspiring
law
clerks
and
contribute
to
this
nationwide
transparency
movement.
And
if
you’re
a
lawyer
in
a
position
to

donate
on
behalf
of
students
at
your
alma
mater,
this
is
an
incredible
opportunity
to
directly
support
students
with
tangible
immediate
benefit.  

It’s
easy
to
feel
hopeless
and
enraged
during
these
dark
and
divisive
political
times.
Public
service
(and
public
servants),
civil
society,
and
nonprofits
are
under
attack.
But
considering
the
incredible
change
LAP
has
created
in
just
a
few
short
years,
the
time
is
now
for
third-party,
independent
solutions
to
flourish. 

When
LAP
launched
our
Clerkships
Database
last
year,
some
warned
about
a
parade
of
horribles.
Because
those
who
oppose
transparency
and
accountability
will
always
find
a
reason
to
justify
their
hollow
claims.
Instead,
LAP’s
database
has
become
ubiquitous
in
the
legal
profession
in
just
one
year.
Students
are
finally
applying
for
clerkships
with
the
confidence
they’ll
be
treated
fairly
and
respectfully.
Some
judges
are
getting
more,
better
applicants
(and
the
abusive
ones,
fewer).
Students
are
“doing
their
research”
thoroughly,
at
their
leisure,
throughout
the
year,
rather
than
frantically
in
June
during
peak
clerkship-hiring
season.
LAP
has
empowered
thousands
of
law
students
and
recent
graduates
nationwide
to
be
discerning
consumers
of
clerkship
information
and
opportunities,
in
an
area
of
the
legal
profession
that
was
historically
shrouded
in
mystery.
And
countless
mistreated
clerks
finally
know
they’re
not
alone,
and
that

they
have
agency,
too.
You’d
be
foolish
to
argue
against
transparency,
just
like
you’d
be
foolish
to
bet
against
LAP. 

---

Aliza
Shatzman
is
the
President
and
Founder
of The
Legal
Accountability
Project,
a
nonprofit
aimed
at
ensuring
that
law
clerks
have
positive
clerkship
experiences,
while
extending
support
and
resources
to
those
who
do
not.
She
regularly
writes
and
speaks
about
judicial
accountability
and
clerkships.
Reach
out
to
her
via
email
at [email protected] and
follow
her
on
Twitter
@AlizaShatzman.

Gotta
Respect
The
Frankness:
Bryan
Cave
chose
to
be
up-front
about
removing
diversity
language.
Universal
Music
Group
Disses
Drake
In
Motion
To
Dismiss:
Rough
times
for
the
Canadian
pop
star.
Where
You
Are
Weak,
Appear
Strong:
Trump
administration
justifies
sending
people
to
a
labor
camp
using
“the
absence
of
evidence

is
evidence!”
rhetoric.
The
Constitution
Is
Too
Woke
Now:
Trump
wants
to
impeach
judge
for
explaining
our
founding
document.
The
Names
Worth
Knowing:
These
are
the
top
10
law
schools
in
the
world!

Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!

Second
Couple/
Yale
Law
alums
JD
and
Usha
Vance
were
booed
at
March
13th
appearance
at
what
famous
D.C.
location?

Hint:
Donald
Trump
recently
fired
the
longtime
employees
and
orchestrated
a
MAGA
takeover
of
the
locale.

See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.

The
nine
who
include
prominent
pro-democracy
campaigners
namely Namatai
Kwekweza, Robson
Chere, Samuel
Gwenzi, Emmanuel
Sitima, Phillies
Pikitayi, Dephine
Gutsa, Simbarashe
Blackson, Last
Chinodya and Vusumuzi
Moyo,
are
on
trial
at
Harare
Magistrates
Court
answering
to
charges of disorderly
conduct
in
a
public
place
as
defined
in
section
41(b)
of
the
Criminal
Law
(Codification
and
Reform)
Act.

The
nine,
who
were
arrested
in
July
last
year,
are
accused
of
allegedly participating
in
an
unsanctioned
demonstration
reportedly
held
at
Harare
Magistrates
Court
in
June
2024,
where
they
reportedly
protested
against
the
detention
of
Citizens
Coalition
for
Change
political
party
leader Jameson
Timba and
some
of
the
opposition
party
members
and
demanding
their
release
from
prison.

On
Monday
17
March
2025,
the
trial
of
the
nine
persons
could
not
proceed
as
Moyo
was
reportedly
out
of
the
country
and
could
not
make
it
on
time
to
stand
trial
with
his
co-accused
persons
and
hence
proceedings
were
postponed
to
27
March
2025.

Jeremiah
Bamu, Tinashe
Chinopfukutwa and Kelvin
Kabaya of Zimbabwe
Lawyers
for
Human
Rights,
are
representing
the
accused
persons.

Post
published
in:

Featured

The
Judicial
Service
Commission
[JSC]
has
announced
that
there
are
eight
vacancies
to
be
filled
for
Judges
of
the
Labour
Court
of
Zimbabwe. 
The
announcement
was
made
in
accordance
with
section
180(4)
of
the
Constitution
of
Zimbabwe,
which
allows
members
of
the
public
to
nominate
suitably
qualified
individuals
for
these
positions.

Qualifications
for
Labour
Court
Judges

According
to
section
179
of
the
Constitution,
to
be
considered
for
appointment
as
a
judge
of
the
Labour
Court
a
candidate
must
be
at
least
forty
years
old
and
either:

·      be
a
judge
of
a
court
with
unlimited
jurisdiction
in
civil
or
criminal
matters
in
a
country
where
the
common
law
is
Roman-Dutch
or
English
and
English
is
an
officially
recognised
language,
or

·      be
qualified
to
practise
as
a
legal
practitioner:

·      in
Zimbabwe
or
in
a
country
where
the
common
law
is
Roman-Dutch
and
English
is
an
officially
recognised
language,
or

·      (if
he
or
she
is
a
Zimbabwean
citizen)
in
a
country
where
the
common
law
is
English
and
English
is
an
officially
recognised
language

and
the
candidate
must
have
been
so
qualified
for
at
least
seven
years,
whether
continuously
or
not.

In
addition,
a
candidate
must
be
a
fit
and
proper
person
to
hold
office
as
a
judge.

Aspiring
candidates
will
have
to
produce
medical
reports
attesting
to
their
physical
and
mental
fitness.

Failure
to
disclose
required
information
will
result
in
a
candidate
being
disqualified
from
being
interviewed.

Nomination
Forms
and
Submission

Members
of
the
public
can
obtain
nomination
forms
from:

·      The
office
of
the
Secretary,
Judicial
Service
Commission,
at
JSC
House,
No.
161
Josiah
Chinamano
Avenue,
Harare,
or

·      The
office
of
the
Provincial
Magistrate
at
the
magistrates
court
in
each
provincial
centre
at,
Harare
North,
Harare
South,
Bulawayo
Hwange,
Gwanda,
Chinhoyi,
Masvingo,
Marondera,
Bindura,
Gweru
or
Mutare.

Members
of
the
public
can
also
download
nomination
forms
from
the
JSC
website http://www.jsc.org.zw.

Completed
nomination
forms,
including
the
nominee’s
curriculum
vitae,
proof
of
professional
qualifications,
medical
report,
and
certificate
of
registration
as
a
legal
practitioner,
must
be
submitted
to
the
JSC
office
at
the
above
address,
or
to
the
office
of
any
Provincial
Magistrate
in
charge
of
a
province,
by
close
of
business
on
the
3rd
April
2025.

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

Post
published
in:

Featured

Constable
Nomore
Muradzikwa
(37),
stationed
at
Hillside
Police
Station,
was
brought
before
Bulawayo
Magistrate
Maxwell
Ncube
on
Tuesday
afternoon.

He
was
not
asked
to
plead
and
was
advised
to
apply
for
bail
at
the
High
Court.
Represented
by
Tinashe
Tashaya
of
Sengweni
Legal
Services,
Muradzikwa
was
remanded
in
custody
until
April
1.

The
prosecution,
led
by
Nkanyezi
Xaba,
detailed
the
events
of
March
6,
2025,
when
Muradzikwa
and
Detective
Constable
Cassandra
Hove
were
part
of
a
team
pursuing
armed
robbery
suspects
in
Pumula
South.

According
to
the
State,
Muradzikwa
was
armed
with
a
CZ
pistol
(serial
number
BSAP
44)
when
he
advanced
toward
Fikile
Ncube
(26),
a
robbery
suspect
under
investigation
by
CID
Homicide.

“He
cocked
his
firearm
and
fired
a
shot,
hitting
Ncube
on
the
left
elbow.
The
bullet
then
ricocheted
and
struck
Hove
in
the
chest,
killing
her,”
Xaba
told
the
court.

Initially,
police
believed
Hove
had
been
shot
by
armed
robbers
during
the
operation.
However,
in
a
shocking
turn
of
events,
Muradzikwa
later
admitted
to
firing
the
fatal
shot.

Hove
was
a
member
of
Bulawayo’s
elite
all-female
CID
unit,
Team
Lozikeyi.

She
was
laid
to
rest
on
March
10
at
her
rural
home
in
Mberengwa.

Post
published
in:

Featured