Category: News Feeds

Sunday 6 June 2020 marked day 70 of the national lockdown declared by President Emmerson Mnangagwa and has been in place since 30 March 2020.  The Ministry of Health and Child Care reported an increase in the number of confirmed cases increased to two hundred and eighty-two (282). The number of cumulative tests done stood at fifty-two thousand eight hundred and eighty-five (52 985). Of these, fifty-two thousand seven hundred and three (52 703) were negative. The number of recoveries increased to thirty-four (34) and the death toll remains at four (4).

2.0       Methodology
Information contained in this report is derived from the following Forum Members:

• Zimbabwe Peace Project (ZPP)
• Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA)
• Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights (ZLHR)
• Counselling Services Unit (CSU)
• Zimbabwe Association of Doctors for Human Rights (ZADHR)
• Zimbabwe Human Rights Association (ZimRights)

6.0  Conclusion
The Forum is concerned with the growing number of citizens defying the lockdown at a time when confirmed COVID-19 cases are on the increase. The Forum, therefore, urges community members to abide by lockdown regulations relating to social distance and the wearing of masks. With the reopening of tertiary institutions, the Forum urges the government and school authorities to take appropriate measures to allow the safeguarding of learners. Finally, the conditions in quarantine centres as reported by ZADHR need to be improved to meet WHO standards to avoid the spread of COVID-19 in isolation centres.

Post published in: Featured

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

According to data collected by Professor Derek Muller at Pepperdine as part of his article, Visualizing Legal Employment Outcomes in California in 2019, which California law school placed the greatest percentage of its Class of 2019 in full-time jobs where bar passage is required?

Hint: If you include JD advantage and law school-funded positions, 97 percent of this school’s Class of 2019 are in full-time positions.

See the answer on the next page.

We’ve focused a lot on Biglaw’s response to the George Floyd killing. As an institution that skews “little-c” conservative, reflecting the corporate community it serves while tempered by the risk-averse instincts of attorneys, the Biglaw response paints a picture of how this may really be an inflection point in the country.

Law schools are issuing statements as well, though by and large we expect academia to be more inclined to express support for social reform. But that slack we cut them isn’t entirely earned. Which is why the Michigan Law response from Dean Mark D. West struck a chord. Not so much for what it said, but for how it strained to, functionally, apologize for having to say anything about racial injustice at all.

Judging from the four corners of the statement, Dean West says a lot of the right things. He discusses the “disparity in policing and criminal justice,” the “responsibility of all in our community to confront these disparities,” and outlining a reconstituted Educational Environment Committee and some recent hires. Could there be more? Certainly. Law firm statements have outlined more specific forward-looking diversity initiatives, sponsored pro bono efforts, and offered mental health resources for folks dealing with present traumatic stress. In fact, the Michigan BLSA, burdened with doing the work that no one else at Michigan has done for years, proposed a number of concrete reforms.

Merely joining Mitt Friggin’ Romney in being able to say “Black Lives Matter,” something the statement failed to do, would be a big step. Just being better than nothing doesn’t make it enough.

But let’s focus on one paragraph from the statement that generated a lot of ire that the dean may not have foreseen:

The Law School has a long-standing policy against making statements regarding events that happen outside the Quad. That’s especially true when students aren’t on campus in the summer, and even more so when the President of the University has issued a statement. Broad statements can seem superficial and irrelevant to your concerns, and if frequent, the efficacy of the messages decreases over time. So in this case, in accordance with our policy, I had no plan to issue a statement. And that’s what I did for a week.

This got a lot of students and faculty wondering… why? Why does a law school institutionally eschew commenting on the broader society it supposedly serves? Why does the law school think police brutality and racism are exclusively “outside the Quad” issues? Why would “Black Lives Matter” qualify as a superficial statement? The #MLawLoud hashtag on Twitter gathers a lot of the concern over this statement but also offers a place for students to “share their experiences, amplify each other’s voices, and organize” generally.

West probably wanted to convey how seriously he took the issue that it would prompt breaching this long-standing policy, but on the page it comes across as if the school is apologizing for the fact that it has to interrupt everyone’s day to dare to say that racism is bad. And that mindset is indicative of a more deeply rooted problem that inflicts more institutions than just Michigan Law.

A student posted an exchange she had with Dean West about this concern, and his response highlights this blindspot:

The slippery slope rides again!

No, you don’t have to issue statements over every injustice, you just have to not apologize for saying something about an injustice that’s sparked the most widespread societal response in years. This isn’t three-dimensional chess here. And, yeah, saying something about white supremacy shouldn’t have required a mass uprising, but now that it’s here the least one can do is admit that it’s genuinely worthy of comment.

Also, maybe don’t even allude to the possibility that it could be in the same ballpark as someone asking about “black-on-white murders.”

I mean… seriously?

Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.

Stephanie Rapkin, a lawyer from Shorewood, Wisconsin, was arrested over the weekend. Twice.

According to authorities, Rapkin spit in the face of a teenaged protester on Saturday, slapped and pushed a protester on Sunday, and kneed a police officer in the groin (also on Sunday).

As reported by Patch, Rapkin was arrested on suspicion of battery and disorderly conduct for the spitting incident on Saturday. Due to the county’s COVID-19 policies, she was not taken to jail. This all occurred after Rapkin used her car to block peaceful protesters. According to reports, she then got out of her car to confront the crowd. As shown in video footage of the incident, the crowd is imploring Rapkin to get back into her car to let the demonstration continue when she spits in the face of high-school student Eric Lucas.

Lucas spoke out about the incident on Monday, saying he felt “physically and mentally shaken” by the incident.

Speaking before reporters in a Monday morning news conference also hosted by school officials, Lucas said “I feel disappointed in feeling unloved by individuals who I have done no harm to,” he said. “Our family does not hate, but does request that justice be prompt and appropriate.”

Besides being a universal symbol of disrespect, spitting into someone’s face takes on a more violent undertone in the time of COVID.

After the shocking behavior on Saturday — directed at a teenager, no less — peaceful protesters gathered in front of Rapkin’s home (photos of that arrest available here). Police say Rapkin began to argue with a protester and slapped and shoved him. When police showed up to arrest Rapkin for the second time that weekend, they say she kneed an officer in the groin. Police are recommending charges of battery, disorderly conduct, resisting an officer, and battery to a law enforcement officer.

Just when you think that, during this time of unrest, we’ve already seen worst of what attorneys think is acceptable, 2020’s there with the “not so fast.”

Rapkin’s behavior has been condemned by local officials:

“The Village Board wants to let the community know we denounce this behavior. We are proud of all the Shorewood youth that stood up to speak about their experiences at the march on Saturday,” the board wrote. “The Village Board recognizes the diversity of our community is our strength and is joining those around the nation to bring an end to violence and injustice towards people of color.”

And an official complaint has been filed with the Wisconsin State Office of Lawyer Regulation. Attorney Michael S. Maistelman alleges Rapkin’s behavior violated the professional code of conduct as well as the Wisconsin Attorney’s Oath which says attorneys must “abstain from all offensive personality and advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness unless required by the justice of the cause with which [they are] charged.”

Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, and host of The Jabot podcast. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter (@Kathryn1).

This s–t won’t ever stop unless we f–kin’ take it all down. And that’s why the anger is being expressed tonight in this way.

This has got to stop. And the only way they hear, the only way they hear us is through violence, through the means that they use.

— Urooj Rahman, one of the lawyers accused in a Molotov cocktail attack in New York, in a videotaped interview with Loudlabs given less than an hour before the alleged firebombing took place. Rahman was supposed to be released on $250,000 bond, but was sent back to jail following a decision by the Second Circuit.

Staci Zaretsky is a senior editor at Above the Law, where she’s worked since 2011. She’d love to hear from you, so please feel free to email her with any tips, questions, comments, or critiques. You can follow her on Twitter or connect with her on LinkedIn.

WASHINGTON: Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy will have a conference call with House Armed Services Committee members this afternoon to answer questions about the now-dwindling deployment of 5,200 National Guard members to Washington last week, and why Guard helicopters buzzed protesters.

McCarthy’s call comes as House lawmakers are fuming over the refusal of Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mark Milley to appear before them this week.

HASC chairman Rep. Adam Smith and 30 Democratic HASC members issued a statement calling Esper and Milley’s absence “unacceptable,” adding, “we insist that they appear before our committee. Our military leaders are sworn to be accountable to the people of this country, and Congress is constitutionally responsible for oversight. They must appear and testify on these crucial matters in order to meet that responsibility.”

Pentagon spokesman Jonathan Hoffman said in an email that Esper and Milley “have not ‘refused’ to testify before the HASC as some are reporting. The DOD legislative affairs team remains in discussion with the HASC on this request.”

However, McCarthy, Army Chief of Staff Gen. McConville, and DC National Guard Commanding General Maj. Gen. Walker are talking to the committee today.

Esper and Milley have come under fire for their handling of the situation in Washington, including stationing 1,600 active duty troops just outside of the capital, and accompanying President Trump on his June 1 march to St. John’s Church one block from the White House after Lafayette Square was violently cleared of protesters on orders of administration officials.

“We came right up to the edge of bringing active troops here, and we didn’t,” McCarthy told reporters yesterday, a call in which he took responsibility for the deployments of Guard members in the city. 

McCarthy said he and Walker “drove all over the city, talking to soldiers and telling them to keep your cool, keep your cool and continue to keep the temperature down. People are angry and frustrated, as they should be, and we are working really hard with that.”

A major point of concern are the actions of the U.S. Park Police and supporting forces to clear the park before the president’s now-infamous walk. 

The melee, which captured headlines around the world for the swift and violent action by police to push protesters back remains shrouded in mystery. A week later, it remains unclear who gave the actual order to move, and when. Attorney General William Barr has spent several days denying responsibility, despite early reports that he told the police to clear the area. Pentagon and Army leaders have said they had no idea the push was coming.

Walker told reporters Sunday that frozen water bottles and eggs has been thrown at police by protesters on the day before the clearing operation. Five soldiers were hit in the head and one suffered a concussion. But Guard members did not “use force of any kind on protesters. As far as National Guardsmen pushing back, that did not happen. They were never aggressive, never offensive. They took a strictly defensive posture.”

Despite that restraint, Walker and McCarthy appeared to be unaware of any order for the police to charge the protestors, in which video has emerged of officers beating journalists and shooting tear gas into the crowd. McCarthy said he “did not know what triggered the Park Police to make the clearing” and that an ongoing investigation should clear up some of the confusion. The Australian ambassador to Washington, Australia’s ambassador to the United States publicly complained about the attack on Channel 7 TV reporters at the park. The network’s news director Craig McPherson called the police’s action “nothing short of wanton thuggery.”

“I do not know why they advanced,” Walker said of the Park Police. “We were directed to maintain the line.”

That confusion will surely be a prime avenue for lawmakers to explore, as well as the Lakota and Black Hawk helicopters caught on video hovering low over protesters, generating such powerful downdrafts that branches snapped off trees. 

McCarthy took responsibility for the use of helicopters and said an investigation has been opened into the tactic, which has been derided as dangerous in such a dense urban environment filled with mostly peaceful protesters. Walker added that he did not issue any orders to employ helicopters to disperse crowds, but would not offer any specifics on what happened, only adding that an investigation should be wrapped up and released later this week. The head of the DC National Guard has opened an investigation into the matter.

The Guard deployment, which peaked last week at 5,200 troops, is quickly winding down. Troops from Maryland, New Jersey and Mississippi have already left Washington, while Guardsmen from Florida, Utah, and Indiana, are heading home today. The remaining troops from Missouri, South Carolina, Ohio, Idaho, and Tennessee will likely be gone by Tuesday.

While the active duty forces are gone, and the guard is on its way out, the police presence in downtown Washington remains substantial. The White House resembles a fortified bunker behind rings of eight-foot high reinforced fencing and security from the bottom of the Ellipse to the north side of Lafayette Park. In a remarkable bit of doublespeak, the Secret Service release announcing the enormous expanse of fencing says: “These closures are in an effort to maintain the necessary security measures surrounding the White House complex, while also allowing for peaceful demonstration.”

Lawmakers get the chance to talk to Army and Guard leadership today, but with Milley and Esper holding out, and markups on the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act getting underway this week, it could be a long summer on Capitol Hill for the Pentagon. 

Still, McCarthy said he’s probably best-suited to explain to the Congress what happened in Washington, and why. “I’ve been intimately involved in the process and can explain a lot of the decisions,” he said. “General Walker, as the commander, was pretty well-suited to explain our actions” that took place between May 29 and today.

“What do you call a lawyer that you like and can’t live without?” the president asked the board. After a prolonged pause, he said, “You call that person the general counsel.”

And that is how I got my first in-house role, my first general counsel role, at a 100-year-old organization that had never had an in-house lawyer, let alone a general counsel.

Firsts are filled with dreams and hopes. They are difficult and complicated for everyone involved. But they are also full of opportunities.

‎Elizabeth Benegas, General Counsel of NetDocuments, and I dive into the complexities and richness of being the first in-house lawyer.

This led to a great discussion! What challenges might the first in-house or general counsel face? When is the right time to hire your first in-house or general counsel? How do you think about it? And much, much more.

It turns out that being the first GC is unique and rewarding.

“Being the first in-house attorney/GC allows for a unique opportunity to take a deep dive into learning the business and establishing strong partnerships with the other leaders.” said Jill Passalacqua, the vice president, general counsel, and corporate secretary of Avi Networks. She explained, “Setting the tone for the legal function and being seen as someone who drives business, not just managing risk. Agreed, it’s never too early to bring in your legal partner!”

Justin Cousino, the general counsel of Grammer AG, said, “This has been my life for my last three GC roles! It is great to go into a company that has never had in-house counsel and help improve their operations and bring a ton of ROI!” He explained, “Easiest is clearly outside counsel spend. Second is vendor/customer management spend (i.e., negotiating proper contracts, settling issues prior to litigation or emphasizing proper stance). Third, and most importantly, labor relations. With proper training and refreshers, in-house legal can amplify employee retention resulting in decreased turnover (cost savings) and avoid or potentially minimize EEO claims, even those frivolous ones from aggrieved terminations.”

Lisa Gilley, the general counsel at Higher Logic, further explained, “I’ve been a “company’s first GC” three times in my career. The GC role always requires a unique combination of legal, business, and interpersonal skills — but a “first” GC also needs to demonstrate value, understand business needs, drive deal-making, and eliminate barriers to growth. When this proactive legal approach aligns with business goals, the GC becomes a full partner in the growth and future of the company. Rewarding work!”

So, the challenges … there are many!

Lisa Lang, the general counsel of Kentucky State University, said, “Understanding the role of general counsel and how that general counsel is different from outside counsel.” Talar Herculian Coursey, the general counsel at Vista Ford, agreed.

So… when to hire? The consensus: it is never too soon.

According to Lang, “In a perfect world, all companies would have one in this litigious world. If you decide to move forward without one you should reconsider when you find yourself calling outside counsel for more than just your litigation needs or, heaven forbid, or the threat of litigation increases.”

Likewise, Caroline McCaffery, former serial general counsel turned CEO and founder of ClearOPS, Inc., said, “I joined as GC twice to startups that were sub-20 employees. I think it’s never too early!”

Being the first general counsel of a legacy organization was one of the most rewarding experiences of my life. I learned more than I ever thought I could from one role, and I was challenged to think outside the box that my legal training built. But even more important than my growth was that of the organization I worked for. Just having a general counsel, or an in-house legal staff of any kind, forced them to think of themselves, their business, and their challenges in a new light. No one exists outside the law. It affects every decision we make.

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.

Missouri is monitoring the ongoing COVID-19 outbreak and is very concerned about the risk of exposure. Not the exposure of test-takers, but the more important exposure of the bar examiners to liability after they pack applicants into a crowded hall for a July exam.

That’s why Missouri is joining Mississippi and North Carolina in seeking some sort of weasely cover for themselves in the form adding a liability waiver to the forms applicants have to sign to go forward with the exam.

As we’ve pointed out before, waivers are for bloodsports and human subject trials. If a state seeks this kind of waiver, it’s implicitly recognizing that the July in-person bar examination is the sort of inherently dangerous activity that really doesn’t need to happen at all. There are certainly ways to screw up an online exam process — trust us, DC found a way — but by and large moving to remote testing at a time when new cases in Missouri are seeing triple-digit increases is the more prudent course of action.

But as long as the bar examiners aren’t getting sued, they’re fine turning the exam into the Lake of the Ozarks.

Earlier: North Carolina Also Demands Waiver In Case It Kills Anyone With Bar Exam
Bar Exam Applicants Forced To Sign COVID Waiver In Case In-Person Exam Ends Up Killing Them

Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.

Guess which White House employee just got caught casting a mail-in ballot using a false address. No, not the president. That was last week.

Here’s a hint: After Trump ranted about widespread vote fraud and kids who “raid the mailboxes and they hand them to people that are signing the ballots down at the end of the street,” this Harvard Law grad and ATL alum defended her boss, telling Newsweek, “Absentee voting has the word absent in it for a reason. It means you’re absent from the jurisdiction or unable to vote in person. President Trump is against the Democrat plan to politicize the coronavirus and expand mass mail-in voting without a reason, which has a high propensity for voter fraud. This is a simple distinction that the media fails to grasp.”

Oh, you dummies in the media! Or perhaps not, since Newsweek managed to suss out that Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany voted by mail 11 times since 2010, and now Huffington Post’s S.V. Date and Ryan Reilly have discovered that McEnany used her parents address in Tampa to cast her votes in the 2018 midterms, despite living in DC, possessing a New Jersey drivers license, and owning a separate home in Tampa with her husband. Whoopsie!

In 2017, McEnany was appointed spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee (RNC), which is headquartered in Arlington, Virginia. In 2019, she joined the Trump campaign as national press secretary, during which time she voted by mail in Florida’s March 2019 presidential primary, before taking a job at the White House this past April. There are a lot of places in the DMV where McEnany could have resided in the past three years while shilling for the Trump team full time, but Florida isn’t one of them.

Indeed, it’s not clear when McEnany last resided in the Sunshine State, although she and her husband Sean Gilmartin, a pitcher for the Tampa Bay Rays, do own a home in Tampa. According to HuffPo, McEnany held a driver’s license from Edgewater, New Jersey, when she purchased the Tampa residence in 2017. Because, sure, why not.

HuffPo reports that McEnany was interviewed by a Tampa radio station in 2019 and claimed that she worked in DC but flew to Florida “pretty much every weekend.” And later that year, she did manage to switch her official residence to her own house in Tampa, yet in both the primary and general elections of 2018, McEnany mailed in her vote using her parents’ address to substantiate Florida residency. And in the March 2020 presidential primary, she cast a mail-in ballot in Florida, although she was then employed full time for the Trump campaign, living in DC.

All of which is rather awkward for a person whose party is incessantly flogging conspiracies about electoral fraud and the need to “True the Vote” by purging voters. Wisconsin’s GOP is suing to toss 129,000 voters off the rolls for potential ineligibility due to address changes, Crystal Mason, a black mother of three in Texas, is facing a five-year sentence for mistakenly casting a ballot when she was ineligible, and the president is peddling nonsense about illegal voters who “go to their car, put on a different hat, put on a different shirt, come in and vote again.”

Meanwhile the president is trying to register to vote using his business address and his 32-year-old spokesperson voted multiple times using her parents’ address where she does not appear to have resided since she graduated from high school. Will McEnany face prosecution by the state of Florida for illegal voting?

Don’t hold your breath. Although … if she did happen to, say, file her state return in Florida, which has no income tax, while spending upwards of 180 nights a year in DC and working there full time, those “dummies” in the media are probably going to figure it out. Because DC residents have to pay DC taxes, no matter where they claim to “reside.” And that’s a “simple distinction” even a Harvard Law grad should be able to grasp.

As They Scream Voter Fraud, Trump And His Press Secretary May Have Voted Illegally [HuffPo]

Elizabeth Dye (@5DollarFeminist) lives in Baltimore where she writes about law and politics.