Category: News Feeds

For each FEWS NET country and region, the Price Bulletin provides a set of charts showing monthly prices in the current marketing year in selected urban centers and allowing users to compare current trends with both five-year average prices, indicative of seasonal trends, and prices in the previous year.

Maize grain and maize flour are the main foods consumed by all households in Zimbabwe. These food items are both produced locally and imported from neighboring countries particularly in the south western provinces of the country. The markets monitored are the main markets that offer both wholesale and retail supply in the respective regions of the country. Mbare in Harare is the largest market for the country which also supplies other markets, and representative of Mashonaland Central, West and East which are surplus producing areas; Kombayi in Gweru represents markets in central Zimbabwe covering Midlands province, Sakubva in Mutare is the main link market in the eastern part of the country mainly along the border with Mozambique. Mucheke in Masvingo, Renkini in Bulawayo, and Gwanda markets are the main supply markets in the south western provinces of Masvingo, Matebeleland North and South provinces.

From 2009 until early 2019, the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe implemented a multicurrency system. All price data were reported in USD. FEWS NET assumes a 1:1 exchange rate between the ZWL and USD during that time. During the first half of 2019, the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe transitioned away from a multicurrency system and all prices are now collected and reported in ZWL.

Zimbabwe_2020_05_PB

Post published in: Business

Flatten the Research Curve

Flatten the Research Curve

Wolters Kluwer

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

According to data collected by ALM for their 2020 Am Law 200 ranking, which firm entered the rankings for the first time this year at an impressive 163rd?

Hint: This full service law firm has 13 offices across Florida.

See the answer on the next page.

It’s amazing how much can change in three short months. Over the course of your lifetime, can you pick out a three-month period in which your life changed as much as it has between March 1 and June 1? Speaking for myself, I can’t.

So many things are dramatically different as a result of the coronavirus pandemic — many things for the worse, but at least a few for the better. Law firm job hunting and recruiting are no exceptions.

Here are five ways in which job searching and recruiting have changed in the past three months:

1. There are far fewer jobs out there.

Let’s start with the obvious. In the economy writ large, we went from almost full employment in March to a projected 20 percent unemployment for May (when the labor statistics come out for this month). The legal sector has not been immune, losing an estimated 64,000 jobs in April alone.

Large law firms have also retrenched, going from eagerly seeking laterals to furloughing or laying off lawyers and staff. If you’re receiving many fewer emails or calls from recruiters, don’t be offended or surprised; it’s not you, it’s the firms. A fair number of firms have implemented hiring freezes or are focusing on only high-priority searches.

2. Video interviewing: it is now, officially, “a thing.”

In the past, video interviewing over Zoom, Skype, or similar tools was the exception rather than the rule. For lawyers working abroad who wanted to return to the U.S., for example, video interviews were not uncommon, especially in the early or screening stages.

Now, of course, video interviewing is pretty much the only way interviewing takes place, thanks to the restrictions imposed to halt or slow the spread of coronavirus. And you know what? It has been fine. Speaking for myself, I have a fair number of candidates going through remote interviews right now, and nobody has had a snafu yet (knock wood).

Law firms and candidates are getting increasingly comfortable with remote interviewing. In fact, I’ve already had one candidate who was interviewed, hired, and onboarded remotely. He has been working for his new firm since late March, but he has yet to set foot in the firm’s physical offices.

The current crisis represents an excellent opportunity for firms that are willing to buck tradition and recruit remotely. These firms can scoop up top talent, while more conservative competitors sit on their hands.

3. It’s all (or mostly) about the partners.

Yes, there’s some activity in the associate market, but make no mistake: the market isn’t what it was like back in March. The associate space is much, much quieter, especially in previously booming transactional practices like M&A.

But partner recruiting remains robust, much as it did during the Great Recession. When the pie is shrinking, the way for firms to survive (or thrive) is by grabbing a larger slice of that shrinking pie. So firms are seeking out partners with big books of business, to help them grow revenue during these challenging times.

And partners are also quite willing to look around. In working on a few recent searches, I’ve found that partners at firms that have cut their compensation or that seem financially unstable are especially receptive to outreach these days.

4. Standards are higher.

This isn’t surprising. Video interviews, even if more common, aren’t the firms’ preferred way of recruiting — so if they are willing to go to the trouble of interviewing someone, that someone tends to be very impressive (or the need tends to be very dire). In a hot market, so-so candidates can get traction for various reasons, such as being in a coveted practice area. That’s not true today (yes, even for bankruptcy).

5. Firms want exactly what they want.

For the relatively few searches that are open, the firms want exactly what’s specified. In better markets, there’s usually some flexibility as to things like class year or practice area. But in this market, a buyer’s market in terms of legal talent, the firms are in firmly in control. And they’re taking the Burger King approach: they’ll have it their way, thank you very much.

These are just very general observations about the Biglaw job market today. For more detailed discussion, please join me on Tuesday, June 2, at 2:30 p.m. EDT/11:30 a.m. PDT, for a free webinar, Law Firm Recruiting During COVID-19. I’ll moderate a panel featuring three of my Lateral Link colleagues: Gloria Sandrino, who heads our partner practice; Zach Sandberg, who will discuss associate recruiting; and Craig Brown, a longtime leader in the world of temporary placements. We hope to “see” you then!

Ed. note: This is the latest installment in a series of posts from Lateral Link’s team of expert contributors. David Lat is a managing director in the New York office, where he focuses on placing top associates, partners, and partner groups into preeminent law firms around the country.

Lateral Link is one of the top-rated international legal recruiting firms. With over 14 offices world-wide, Lateral Link specializes in placing attorneys at the most prestigious law firms and companies in the world. Managed by former practicing attorneys from top law schools, Lateral Link has a tradition of hiring lawyers to execute the lateral leaps of practicing attorneys. Click here to find out more about us.

Law school admissions policies have undergone some pretty radical changes over the last three years. Once upon a time, if you wanted to be a lawyer, you had to be ready to take the LSAT. But slowly over time, that requirement has been chipped away as more and more law schools allow students to submit their GRE score in lieu of the traditional admissions test, the LSAT.

Above the Law readers are always quick to point out when a law school starts accepting the GRE — particularly when it’s a prestigious one. So it was no surprise when ATL got tips about the latest update to the Duke Law admissions page, which pretty clearly indicates the law school has joined the GRE party:

However, when I reached out to the law school for a comment, I found someone in the web design department at Duke had jumped the gun. A spokesperson at the law school said their final decision on the GRE was still being made. But, don’t throw out that GRE application just yet. According to William Hoye, associate dean of admissions and student affairs at Duke Law, the language on the website will be changed to:

Application information will be revised in late August for the 2021 entering class. We will accept the LSAT and the LSAT-Flex; we expect to be able to accept the GRE as well.

So there is a pretty good chance prospective Dukies can avoid the LSAT after all. And assuming Duke does make the change for the next admissions cycle, the only T14 law schools still holding onto the LSAT as the exclusive method for admission are Stanford and Michigan. We’ll see how long that lasts…

The list of law schools that currently accept the GRE for admissions:

And remember that survey by Kaplan Test Prep from 2017 that said a full 25 percent of law schools have plans to accept the GRE? Yeah, we’ve hit that threshold. And it’s a popular move. Another Kaplan study determined 49 percent of students surveyed support the move to the GRE.

Even though more and more law schools are on board with the GRE, the body responsible for law school accreditation, the American Bar Association, hasn’t officially weighed in on using anything other than the LSAT in admissions. What they’re waiting for, I just don’t know. But ABA accreditation Standard 503 currently mandates that law schools require admissions testing and that the test used be “valid and reliable.” Whether the GRE meets that standard, the ABA hasn’t officially said. But now that so many law schools have moved on the GRE, it might be impossible to put the toothpaste back in the tube.

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).

Welcome listeners to this COVID-19 Special Report podcast presented by our friends at Wolters Kluwer and hosted by Evolve the Law Contributing Editor, Ian Connett (@QuantumJurist).

This report features David Bartolone, Vice President & General Manager of the International Group at Wolters Kluwer, who has more than 25 years’ experience with information and software solutions at a number of Fortune 500 companies. Welcome to the podcast, David!

Join us as David and Ian explore how the international law community is coping with the massive impact of COVID-19, how the crisis has sparked liberal acceptance of technology, and more on this week’s COVID-19 Special Coverage Podcast.

Bipartisanship is hard to come by during an election year, but there’s one thing we can all agree on. It’s time for the Supreme Court to GET WITH THE TIMES, GRANDPA! and start broadcasting arguments live.

Senate Judiciary Chairs Chuck Grassley and Patrick Leahy, whose aggregate age is 166, sent Chief Justice John Roberts a letter this morning apprising him of some exciting new developments in the field of digital technology.

We write to urge the Supreme Court to make permanent its recent efforts to increase transparency during the COVID-19 pandemic by providing live audio streams of all oral arguments commencing with its October 2020 term. Moreover, we urge the Court to build upon these measures by providing live video access to arguments as well—a commonsense reform that has enjoyed longstanding bipartisan support in Congress. Such access to the courtroom will empower Americans to become more informed participants in our system of government.

Whoa there, you wild-eyed radicals! Slow your roll. Not just audio, but you want video, too? That’s just crazytalk.

The senators note that the democracy did not fall apart when the court live-streamed audio of oral arguments during the recent coronavirus pandemic. And having managed to simultaneously coordinate arguments from the nine justices’ homes, plus those of the petitioners, the Court is no position to argue that the technical difficulties are somehow insurmountable.

By providing live audio access, the Court clearly demonstrated its technical capability to provide prompt disclosure and transparency to the public. And from all indications, the business before the Court was conducted in as dignified and professional a manner as is witnessed inside the courtroom under more normal circumstances.

Well, almost. Anyway, Justice Sotomayor won’t have to worry about unmuting herself if we ever get back to in-person arguments.

“We urge you, Mr. Chief Justice, to consider our request and bear in mind all those who would benefit most – including our democracy itself – from these simple yet meaningful measures of transparency,” the senators concluded.

Look for Chief Justice Roberts to agree to having cameras in his courtroom … NEVER. Does never work for you?

Judiciary Letter to Chief Justice Roberts, May 29, 2020

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

It seemed it was relatively quiet on the Biglaw COVID-19 austerity measures front for the last week or so. But it turns out at least one firm was busy making announcements about their cuts.

The latest firm to enact cost-cutting measures in the wake of COVID-19 is Stroock, Stroock, and Lavan. The firm, which made $258,000,000 gross revenue in 2019 making it 122nd on the Am Law 200, announced last week that they were slashing salaries.

So, what’s exactly going on at Stroock? Effective June 1, monthly draws for equity partners will be reduced by 20 percent and monthly draws for contract partners will be reduced by 15 percent. All non-partner lawyers will see a salary cut of 15 percent, and staff making $75,000+ will also see a 15 percent cut.

But there is good news for busy associates — they’ll have the opportunity to make back that cut with their billable hours:

However, those attorneys annualizing at 1,800 or more client billable hours on any of June 30, September 30 or December 31 will have any prior compensation reductions repaid within thirty days after the applicable quarter-end date.

One note a tipster had about the firm’s austerity plans (which also applies to partners at other firms deferring or cutting partner draws):

Will be interesting to see what PPP is like at all of these firms come year end.  Cutting partner draws is not the same thing as cutting partner pay.  If PPP doesn’t drop at least 15%-20% when all is said and done, then it will become clear that these salary cuts are just a cash grab to cushion the blow for highly paid partners at the expense of associates and staff.

We reached out to the firm for comment, but have yet to hear back.

The full version of the internal email is available on the next page.

If your firm or organization is slashing salaries, closing its doors, or reducing the ranks of its lawyers or staff, whether through open layoffs, stealth layoffs, or voluntary buyouts, please don’t hesitate to let us know. Our vast network of tipsters is part of what makes Above the Law thrive. You can email us or text us (646-820-8477).

If you’d like to sign up for ATL’s Layoff Alerts, please scroll down and enter your email address in the box below this post. If you previously signed up for the layoff alerts, you don’t need to do anything. You’ll receive an email notification within minutes of each layoff, salary cut, or furlough announcement that we publish.

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).