Zimbabwe: Humanitarian Response Dashboard (January-March 2021) – The Zimbabwean

Heavy rainfall during the 2020/2021 season (October-March)—including due to Tropical Storm Chalane in December 2020—enabled farmers in Zimbabwe to plant crops and caused significant improvements in water, pasture and livestock conditions during the first quarter of 2021, according to FEWSNET. However, as improvements in food security will come only after the harvest, people in southern, western and extreme northern areas of Zimbabwe still faced severe food insecurity during the peak of the lean season (January-March).

While being positive for the food security outlook, the heavy rains also caused localized destruction and damage in multiple locations, with Manicaland Province (particularly Chimanimani and Chipinge Districts) hardest hit by Tropical Storm Chalane and Chitungwiza District—some 38 kilometers from the country’s capital, Harare—impacted by the aftermath of Tropical Cyclone Eloise.

The COVID-19 pandemic also continued across the country, with 23,015 cases recorded between January and March 2021. COVID-19 containment measures, including the lockdown measures imposed from 2 January to 30 March impacted people in urban areas in particular, including due to loss of livelihoods and a rise in gender-based violence.

The Humanitarian Response Plan (HRP) was severely underfunded, with less than 2 per cent of the requirements received by the end of March, according to the Financial Tracking Service (FTS). Out of 4.5 million people targeted by humanitarian partners in the HRP, 648,000 people were reached from January to March 2021, including 634,000 who were assisted to access health services, 335,000 who received food assistance, about 219,000 children who were supported to access education, more than 100,000 children and women who received micronutrient supplements and over 10,000 children who were reached with psychosocial support services. Humanitarian partners also worked intensively to Prevent Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (PSEA) in Zimbabwe, finalizing reporting procedures and carrying-out key trainings.

The Hottest Of All The Lateral Legal Markets

Ed. Note: Welcome to our daily feature Trivia Question of the Day!

According to data collected by the National Association for Law Placement, in 2020, which region in the U.S. had the highest level of lateral hiring per office?

Hint: In this region, there was a median of 6.5 and an average of 11.5 lateral hires last year, compared with medians of 3.0 to 4.5 in all other regions.

See the answer on the next page.

Good Negotiator


Olga V. Mack is the CEO of Parley Pro, a next-generation contract management company that has pioneered online negotiation technology. Olga embraces legal innovation and had dedicated her career to improving and shaping the future of law. She is convinced that the legal profession will emerge even stronger, more resilient, and more inclusive than before by embracing technology. Olga is also an award-winning general counsel, operations professional, startup advisor, public speaker, adjunct professor, and entrepreneur. She founded the Women Serve on Boards movement that advocates for women to participate on corporate boards of Fortune 500 companies. She authored Get on Board: Earning Your Ticket to a Corporate Board Seat and Fundamentals of Smart Contract Security. You can follow Olga on Twitter @olgavmack.

Stat Of The Week: The Price Of A Commute

While NYC lawyers resuming subway rides to work have a handy metric to track changes in these costs, drivers are now facing an unprecedented price tag for their cars.  

As noted by Slate, the cost of used vehicles has officially “rocketed into the stratosphere,” with Labor Department statistics released on Tuesday revealing a record-breaking 10.5% rise in June. This follows a 7.3% increase in May and 10% increase in April, making the sector the “single biggest component” fueling recent inflation in the U.S. 

The trend is mainly driven by a global shortage of semiconductor chips, which has hobbled auto builders, according to Slate. There are other “varied and complicated” factors in play as well, such as a drop-off in auto production during the Great Recession.  

This has all produced a rare phenomenon: “Some owners are finding that their older-model vehicles are now worth more than when they were purchased.”

The Car Market Is Insane. It Might Stay That Way for a While. [Slate]


Jeremy Barker is the director of content marketing for Breaking Media. Feel free to email him with questions or comments and to connect on LinkedIn

City Of Pasadena Prevails In Thorny Rose Bowl Trademark Dispute

The trademark lawsuit that was supposed to be the granddaddy of them all ended up lasting merely five months before a federal judge pulled the plug. On July 12, 2021, Judge Andre Birotte Jr. in the U.S. Central District of California granted the City of Pasadena’s motion to dismiss the Pasadena Tournament of Roses Association’s complaint with prejudice, indicating that leave to amend would be futile.

The Association, which has hosted the world-famous Rose Parade and Rose Bowl Game, is the exclusive owner of the Rose Bowl Game trademark. It was upset when the City of Pasadena allegedly disseminated false claims concerning the ownership of the Rose Bowl Game and its related intellectual property. The issue arose based on the use of the Rose Bowl trademark in an Instagram post published on the Rose Bowl Stadium’s official Instagram account.

The City of Pasadena did not dispute that the Association owned a valid mark and that the City of Pasadena used the mark in commerce. Instead, it focused on whether its use was likely to confuse and, in its motion to dismiss, it argued that its use of the trademark on social media should be considered nominative fair use and that it was an expressive work protected by the First Amendment.

Citing California federal precedent, the court noted that “where a defendant uses a trademark to describe plaintiff’s product rather than its own product, that defendant is entitled to the nominative fair use defense” and that such a defense is appropriate in the “class of cases where the use of the trademark does not attempt to capitalize on consumer confusion or to appropriate the cachet of one product for a different one.”

Such nominative use of a mark — where the only word reasonably available to describe a particular thing is pressed into service — lies outside the strictures of trademark law: Because it does not implicate the source identification function that is the purpose of trademark, it does not constitute unfair competition; such use is fair because it does not imply sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark holder.

The court tasked the City of Pasadena with satisfying three factors: (1) the product or service in question was not one readily identifiable without use of the trademark; (2) only so much of the Rose Bowl mark was used as reasonably necessary to identify the product or service; and (3) it did nothing that would, in conjunction with the Rose Bowl mark, suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the Association. It was the burden of the Association to establish that the City of Pasedena’s use of the mark was not a nominative fair use.

First, the court agreed that the Rose Bowl Game is not readily identifiable without using the term Rose Bowl. The court mentioned that the City of Pasadena could have called it the “game played on New Year’s Day in Pasadena” but had no need to vaguely describe the mark as opposed to using the trademark itself. That brought to mind the NFL’s vigilant enforcement of its Super Bowl trademark and the resultant use of the “Big Game” by many third parties. Perhaps this ruling could cause those third parties to reconsider, depending on how the Super Bowl trademark is to be used.

Second, the court found that the City of Pasedena only used so much of the mark as reasonably necessary to identify the game, using the term Rose Bowl twice, and the Association failed to provide any support to suggest that using the mark twice was per se unreasonable.

Third, the court could not find substantiation for how the City of Pasedena’s use does anything to suggest association or sponsorship by the Association. No express or implied language of sponsorship or endorsement was included on the Instagram post. Interestingly, the court even noted that the City of Pasedena failed to “tag” the Association’s accounts, indicating that such tagging could play a role in a consumer believing that the content implied endorsement.

This ruling may serve as an important decision in the context of sports-related trademark usage but has a much broader meaning as well. If a defendant can establish the elements of nominative fair use, then the burden-shifting to the plaintiff to prove otherwise seems to be quite daunting.


Darren Heitner is the founder of Heitner Legal. He is the author of How to Play the Game: What Every Sports Attorney Needs to Know, published by the American Bar Association, and is an adjunct professor at the University of Florida Levin College of Law. You can reach him by email at heitner@gmail.com and follow him on Twitter at @DarrenHeitner.

Talk To Your Ideal Clients

When was the last time you thought of your ideal clients’ true feelings about your services? Not stereotypes about their wants and needs but a question about what keeps them up at night when it comes to what you offer.

  • If you are a divorce attorney, you may assume that your ideal client wants to get out of a bad marriage.
  • If you are an estate planning attorney, you may think that your ideal client wants an estate plan to build generational wealth and a lasting legacy.
  • If you are a personal injury lawyer, you may think your ideal client wants the most considerable settlement money.

All of this is great, but have you considered doing more of a deep dive into your ideal clients’ thoughts and wishes on the matter? You know, asking?

I want to understand clients’ wishes in my practice better. I hired a sales coach to help me attract more well-aligned clients to my business. For some reason, I was not attracting clients who were ready to invest in estate planning. I loved talking about generational wealth and legacy building when it came to my advertising and copy. While prospective clients were fascinated by this message — even to the extent that they booked calls — I was having difficulty converting them into clients.

My sales coach suggested conducting market research calls with many ideal clients to hear their thoughts about estate planning. Market research is a tool for finding clients for your firm to understand opportunities and barriers for gaining prospects. I balked at the market research idea, reasoning that I understood what clients needed. Mostly, I was scared to find out what they thought about my services. Nevertheless, I gave it a try.

I wrote an attention-grabbing post on Facebook and LinkedIn about whether a woman would know what would happen to her child if she passed away and her spouse got remarried. I then offered an opportunity to answer a few market research calls, emphasizing that it wasn’t a bait and switch or a sleazy sales tactic. Don’t do that. The Facebook post resulted in 20 booked 15-minute market research calls while I heard crickets on LinkedIn. Don’t be discouraged if you don’t get the response you want. Ask again, and be creative in your ask.

With permission, I recorded the calls, and I asked the following questions:

  • What are your biggest frustrations with estate planning?
  • What is your biggest fear about estate planning?
  • What have you tried (what’s worked and what hasn’t) with getting help around learning about estate planning?
  • Have you read any books on estate planning?
  • Who are your favorite people to follow that talk about this topic?
  • What does life look like when you have your estate plan in place?
  • Is there anything you’re struggling with about estate planning that you haven’t mentioned?
  • What would you be willing to invest in estate planning?

The research calls illuminated the concerns that ideal clients had. They mentioned feeling shame for not having an estate plan, a lack of clarity in the process, and wanting more transparency in the pricing for services. Not one single person mentioned wanting to build a legacy or generational wealth. Now, I am using the transcribed call recordings to glean actual words that potential clients would use to describe their thoughts about estate planning. That way, in my future marketing copy, I can speak to potential clients’ desires in a targeted manner.

For the attorneys who are skeptical that this sort of research can work for their individual service area, try it. You don’t even have to try the way I did, via face-to-face surveys. You can also use surveys, focus groups, or past clients to gather data.

Do you agree or disagree? I’d love to hear your constructive comments or questions at iffywrites@ibekwelaw.com. I am always looking for topic suggestions! Did I mention that I signed with a literary agent for my upcoming estate planning book? You can read all about it here.


Iffy Ibekwe is the principal attorney and founder of Ibekwe Law, PLLC. She is an estate planning attorney evangelist for intergenerational wealth transfer with effective wills and trusts. Iffy is writing her first book on culturally competent estate planning, available in 2022 (prayers up!). She graduated from The University of Texas School of Law and has practiced law for over 14 years. Iffy can be reached by email at iffywrites@ibekwelaw.com, on her website, and on Instagram @thejustincaselawyer.

Discussing Experiences At Law Firms That No Longer Exist

Just like companies in other industries, it is common for law firms to go out of business or to change their names due to a merger or other circumstances. Legal professionals usually rely on their work experiences at name-brand law firms in order to seek jobs and other opportunities within the legal industry. As such, it can be difficult for attorneys to have work experience at law firms that no longer exist since lawyers may have trouble judging such experiences against work at law firms that are still operating. However, with some practice, discussing experiences at firms that no longer exist can feel more natural, and such experiences can still be valuable when securing future opportunities.

I used to think that only older attorneys needed to deal with discussing experiences working at firms that no longer exist. Indeed, the first time I remember someone reflecting on working at a long-gone law firm was when I interviewed for my first job after Biglaw, and the partner talked about working at an elite Wall Street firm decades earlier. I had never heard of the shop, but my research indicated that this firm was a premier shop in its day, and I was impressed that this partner had experiences there. Moreover, I remember another lawyer (now judge) discussing her experiences at a predecessor firm that merged into a large Biglaw shop which eventually went under. Both of these individuals had been practicing law for several decades, so it made sense that they had experiences at firms that no longer exist.

However, I have only been practicing law for around a decade, and I worked at a large firm that went bankrupt and no longer exists in any form. Additionally, I worked at another shop that merged with another firm and now goes by a different name. I also worked at another shop that changed its name due to partnership changes at the firm. Sometimes, it can be exhausting to recount my work experiences since many of the law firms at which I worked no longer exist in the same form as when they employed me. However, I usually employ a few methods to accurately discuss my work experience.

In conversations or in writing, I primarily use “now known as” or “n/k/a” whenever discussing the firms at which I worked. Usually, I will state the name of the firm as it existed when I worked there and then state the name of the shop as it exists today. Fortunately, the names of the firms at which I worked that changed their names still incorporate substantial elements of the names of the shops I worked at in the past, so it is not too difficult for people to make connections between the firms at which I worked and the shops that exists today. More information is usually key when discussing experiences at firms that no longer exist, and this provides a lot of information with a small amount of effort.

With the one firm that no longer exists in any form, I usually just relate that the firm declared bankruptcy and completely shut down. When people ask me what happened to the firm that it went out of business, I usually just refer them to one of the many articles on the subject (including some amazing pieces published on this website) so I can avoid making opinions about what caused the demise of that shop. I am also quick to relate that I left the firm almost a year before the lights were turned off, which helps explain why I do not know too much information about why the firm was shuttered or the last months of the firm’s existence.

I also usually provide objective information about these firms so that people can make their own judgments about the shops and my experiences there. Lawyers usually evaluate a number of objective factors in order to compare firms and the experience of the people who worked there. This includes the number of offices a firm maintains, how many attorneys work at a firm, the profits per partner, and other metrics. By providing these details, people are usually able to stack those prior firms against similar firms with consistent statistics and make accurate judgments.

Moreover, I also discuss the types of work that were handled by the shops so that individuals can make an assessment on how the firms operated. In addition, it is often helpful to discuss some major cases that were handled by prior firms, especially if these matters were high-profile and generally known throughout the legal industry. All of these details ensure that individuals within the legal profession can get a sense of these past shops even if they do not have firsthand familiarity with the firms.

All told, discussing experiences at a firm that no longer exists can be a confusing process, and both younger and older attorneys may face these challenges. However, by conveying objective metrics and other details about prior shops, attorneys can more seamlessly discuss their work experiences at long-gone firms.


Jordan Rothman is a partner of The Rothman Law Firm, a full-service New York and New Jersey law firm. He is also the founder of Student Debt Diaries, a website discussing how he paid off his student loans. You can reach Jordan through email at jordan@rothmanlawyer.com.

Politico Sexifies Dull US Attorney Profile With Dark Implications About Hunter Biden Probe

Hunter Biden (Photo by Moses Robinson/Getty Images for Usher’s New Look Foundation)

BREAKING! U.S. Attorney follows longstanding Justice Department policy not to take overt investigative steps which might interfere with a pending election. Film at 11.

This morning Politico ran an in-depth profile — by national political correspondent Ben Schreckinger — of David Weiss, the U.S. Attorney tasked by Bill Barr with reviewing allegations against President Biden’s son Hunter Biden.

Headline: Hunter Biden’s prosecutor rejected moves that would have revealed probe earlier. Sub-hed: Veteran U.S. attorney David Weiss, known for his willingness to take on powerful Delaware figures, kept his investigation into Biden’s son out of the 2020 campaign.

As a person who makes words for a living, let me say, I get it. Sometimes the editor slaps a clickbait head on your article, and there’s nothing you can do about it. (Not here at ATL, of course! But at other publications.)

But check out the first paragraph:

Last summer, federal officials in Delaware investigating Hunter Biden faced a dilemma. The probe had reached a point where prosecutors could have sought search warrants and issued a flurry of grand jury subpoenas. Some officials involved in the case wanted to do just that. Others urged caution. They advised Delaware’s U.S. Attorney, David Weiss, to avoid taking any actions that could alert the public to the existence of the case in the middle of a presidential election.

That’s not on the editor. That’s a transparent ploy to sexy up a relatively staid profile in an effort to boost clicks. And indeed the piece has received top billing on the site since this morning.

To his credit, Schreckinger lays out the political dilemma facing Weiss at a time when the president and his allies, most notably Rudy Giuliani, were shouting about Hunter Biden’s laptop and demanding prosecution based on fantastical allegations of billions of dollars in bribes paid to the then-presidential candidate through his son. And Weiss’s situation was particularly tricky in light of a parallel investigation being run out of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Pittsburgh, which was seen as more overtly political.

But nowhere does the piece mention the so called “60-90 day rule,” the longstanding prohibition on taking overt investigative acts which might impact an upcoming election. And couching Weiss’s decision in terms that make it seem like the prosecutor was acting in a void, or running some kind of PR campaign, is just wrong.

Weiss, however, decided to delay taking any actions that were likely to make the existence of the Hunter Biden probe public. Concerns about affecting the presidential election loomed large when Weiss entertained arguments about advancing the probe, according to the person involved in the discussions. No matter what he did, the decision was sure to come under scrutiny for signs of politicization.

The reality is that every attorney general going back to Michael Mukasey has sent out a memo during an election year cautioning DOJ staffers to confer with the Public Integrity Section “regarding the timing of charges or overt investigative steps near the time of a primary or general election.”

Primary voting was ongoing during this summer when Weiss made his decision to forbear issuing subpoenas which might cause the probe to become public, and the general election loomed just weeks away in November. So any reporting which leaves out the DOJ policy is woefully incomplete.

In August, NYU law professor and co-editor at Just Security Ryan Goodman wrote compelling article on the rule of forbearance, including a list of quotes from former U.S. Attorneys.

Liam Brennan, former head of the Public Corruption Task Force for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Connecticut, told Goodman:

It is the standard practice of the Department of Justice to be highly sensitive to the impact any of its actions might have on the democratic process. Traditionally, public corruption prosecutors and agents will avoid any overt actions close to the time of an election that may give the appearance of favoritism or possibly affect the election’s outcome. This may include postponing charges against candidates or their intimate associates. It can also involve delaying other activity – if possible – that may become public and impact an election, such as postponing charges against other individuals or issuing subpoenas and search warrants.

Chris Mattei, former Chief of the Financial Fraud & Public Corruption Unit for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Connecticut, agreed:

DOJ prosecutors are guided by a longstanding and vital principle that they should refrain from taking overt investigative or prosecutorial actions that could affect an upcoming election. This principle protects DOJ from political influence, insures that DOJ’s authority is not misused for political purposes, and strengthens public confidence that DOJ’s actions are not motivated by partisan political concerns. Because this policy aims to steer DOJ clear of elections generally, it does not apply only to DOJ actions toward candidates or their inner circle.

And even Bill Barr, in a former life before he lost his damn mind, expressed outrage when Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh indicted former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger in June of 1992. In his book “Shadow: Five Presidents and the Legacy of Watergate” Bob Woodward writes:

Barr said he thought it was a crude political act with a political motive. Career Justice Department prosecutors would never bring out such information in an indictment just before an election. Barr said he wanted to dismiss Walsh. He knew the law well. He could remove Walsh for “misconduct.”

Later Barr decided that indictments close to the candidate were kosher after all, mumbling in June that “You don’t indict candidates or perhaps someone that’s sufficiently close to a candidate, that it’s essentially the same, you know, within a certain number of days before an election.” Barr’s comments pertained to John Durham’s investigation in Connecticut, yet another investigation which conservatives had pinned their hopes on to fend off Joe Biden to finally bring Hillary Clinton to justice. But it does appear to acknowledge that it would be wildly inappropriate and a gross violation of Justice Department policy to draw attention to the candidate’s own son during the election.

So, no, Politico. This ain’t it. But it probably got a ton of clicks!

Hunter Biden’s prosecutor rejected moves that would have revealed probe earlier [Politico]
Bill Barr’s Hidden Truths About Justice Department’s Rule of Forbearance in an Election [Just Security]


Elizabeth Dye lives in Baltimore where she writes about law and politics.

Say Hello To The Newst Biglaw Perk: Remote Working Benefits

It’s not just altruism. It’s economics. To the extent that law firm leaders start to recognize that part of the competitive offering, from associates to partners, and associates to business professionals, is the remote working policy, they’re going to embed somewhere in their policy some sustainable flexibility.

— Tim Corcoran, a law firm consultant who specializes in compensation issues, commenting on the fact that top law firms will need to start offering more and more flexibility as a fringe benefit of sorts to keep up with the market.


Staci ZaretskyStaci 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.