Government Abandons Covid-19 public medical facilities – The Zimbabwean

Posted on by TSA Press

27.3.2020 7:09

by MDC Information Department

Government has taken a shocking move by abandoning the capital infectious diseases hospital, Wilkins even in the wake of this raging pandemic.

Besides this pandemic being declared a national disaster, as of 1400hrs Wednesday 25 March 2020, the central government was yet to deposit the promised RTGS 100 000 into Harare City treasury account, that translates to 2500 USD using the market rate of 40. This has derailed all the efforts to upgrade and to acquire needed materials including PPE’s and sanitizers.

Gloves are being supplied by Harare City Council from its coffers. The central government has not extended its hand at Wilkins Public Hospital.

What is more shocking is that the central government has abandoned the 100-bed  Wilkins public hospital opting for an elite 36-bed Rock Medical Foundation, a private hospital situated in Mt Pleasant at number 92 Norfolk road Harare that is catering for the elite and the well-heeled.

The only support the City got was from the Chinese embassy in the form of direct refurbishment and upgrading of Wilkins Hospital. The refurbishment and upgrading will raise the beds to a total of 200 beds. The City Health Department has put a contingency plan to have outside tents that can accommodate up to 500 Covid-19 patients.


MDC Local Government Committee

Post published in: Featured

Biglaw Partner Knows This Isn’t Normal — See Also

Posted on by TSA Press
Wachtell Partner Lashes Out Against “Nonessential” Litigation: Because the ‘rona is making things crazy right now.

Mayer Brown Reinstates Work From Home Policies: Because duh.

Trump Admin Obsesses Over Death Penalty: And ISIS benefits.

Would You Like Some Authoritarianism With Your Pandemic? It seems yes, yes, you would.

It’s A Tough Time To Be A Working Parent: Especially in the legal industry.

Partner Defections Don’t Stop Revenue Gains At This Biglaw Firm

Posted on by TSA Press

According to 2019 financial data collected by ALM, which Biglaw firm’s gross revenue increased to $669.7 million in 2019, up 5.5 percent despite losing a group of environmental attorneys and a group of financial services attorneys and closing the firm’s Austin and Bay Area offices in 2019?

Hint: Firm leadership said, “The overriding and primary reason for that improvement has been executing a better plan to attract more deals and more good clients.” He continued, “We had a number of new private equity funds as well as a number of new family offices and sponsors last year. That grows the revenue, which improves [profits per equity partner and nonequity compensation].”

See the answer on the next page.

Lawline Offers Free CLE on Creating Coronavirus Response Plans

Posted on by TSA Press

As concerns about Covid-19 (“Coronavirus”) ramp up, companies all over the world are facing questions about how they can limit risk and continue operations in the face of an outbreak.

In response to this public health crisis, Lawline is now offering a new CLE free of charge to help attorneys and employers address these issues. Creating a Coronavirus Response Plan: A How-to Guide for Employers is taught by Susan Gross Sholinsky and Nancy Gunzenhauser Popper from Epstein Becker Green’s Employment, Labor & Workforce Management practice, and provides critical information for today’s situation. 

Related Content: 

  1. Quarantine Law: Constitutional & Practical Considerations
  2. Lawline’s 2020 Live Webcasts and Election Year Specials are Here
  3. It’s Not If But When: What You Need to Know to Prepare For & Respond To a Data Breach

COVID-19 Brings ALL Of America Together To Trash The Constitution

Posted on by TSA Press

(Photo by Chris Hondros/Getty Images)

This isn’t particularly fashionable to say right now, but the love affair reasonable America is having with New York Governor Andrew Cuomo — to the point where people have to actually consider whether or not he’s going to turn up and unseat Biden at the convention — is deeply unsettling. Look, it’s not that he’s wrong to worry about the public health crisis unfolding in his state. After all, that’s actually his job! It’s what’s fueling his meteoric rise in the public’s esteem. Because it feels like folks are way more enamored of the idea of him than any steps he’s actually taking.

The common thread in all the Cuomo love is an appreciation for “big” and “bold” steps. This appreciation is usually couched in contradistinction to either Donald Trump’s bumbling efforts or Mayor Bill de Blasio’s cautious attempts to contain the disease without, you know, collapsing his city. The uneasiness of the political moment is not with any specific policy coming out of Albany, but the uncritical sense of relief people seem to feel the “bigger” and “bolder” the step. It’s a feeling Cuomo tacitly embraces with every television hit: “Look at me, they said close schools, so I closed your bodega! They said 6 feet, so I made it work from home! Screw you Chris, mom likes me better!” At what point are people responding to policies as opposed to the idea of policies that sate their desire to see something done to address a natural disaster? Because there are good ideas and bad ideas and right now I’m not convinced a random sample of Brooklyn craft-beer sippers feel much compunction to sort out the difference so long as Cuomo said it and de Blasio didn’t.

That may not seem like a big deal, but how America resolves this tension is pretty important. We’ve already got isolation orders around the country that are probably not constitutional and there are a lot of other, much more troubling policies out there that are easily pitchable as possible solutions to this disease. What’s off-putting is that an action-addicted America might be ready to embrace anyone pitching them without a second thought.

The extent of this mood is the subject of a piece in The Atlantic yesterday from a number of professors titled, “Red and Blue America Agree That Now Is the Time to Violate the Constitution.” The work reflects a poll the data-centric academics took of a representative sample of 3,000 Americans to opine on eight different but almost certainly unconstitutional policy options: “including forced quarantine in a government facility, criminal penalties for spreading misinformation, bans against certain people entering the country, and conscription of health-care workers.” What they found was that Americans of all political stripes are pretty comfortable with the idea of an executive authority just imposing its will right now:

A majority of respondents supported all eight of these policies, most by considerable margins. The proposals with the lowest support were seizing businesses and banning all citizens and noncitizens outside the country from entering, but these policies still had 58 and 63 percent support, respectively. The proposals with the highest levels of support were banning noncitizens from entering the country (85 percent) and conscripting health-care professionals to work despite risks to their own health (78 percent). Both policies burden a defined minority of the population, so it’s not surprising that large majorities support them. But criminalizing speech based on its content, an idea antithetical to modern American constitutionalism, was also very popular: About 70 percent of respondents supported restricting people’s ability to say things that may qualify as misinformation. Likewise, 77 percent of respondents support suspending all religious services and gatherings, thereby restricting religious freedom. And even when we explicitly told half of our sample that the policies may violate the Constitution, the majority supported all eight of them—even the speech restrictions.

And despite the dismissive propagandizing from Fox News downplaying the crisis and asking grandparents to sacrifice themselves at Carousel to appease the economy, the study found that Republicans actually do recognize the extent of the crisis. They just want Trump to get off his ass and be the one willing to take “big,” “bold” steps to violate the Constitution himself. Truly, we have united the country!

Everything about the political landscape right now eerily mirrors the immediate aftermath of 9/11 when no invasion of liberty seemed too small. The primary distinction is the federal chief executive this time is too stupid to glean exactly how much of a blank check he could be cashing. Sure, this stimulus bill is an astounding Republican power grab, but pales in comparison to the Patriot Act and launching a war in a country that had nothing to do with the attacks. At some point, this guy is going to figure out that he can be “The Decider” and start figuring out how the disease spreads faster among people from Mexico or something and we’re all screwed.

As the professors conclude:

Often, efforts to roll back civil liberties face political opposition, but now bipartisan support for rights-restricting COVID-19 responses could smooth the path for constitutional erosion. James Madison predicted as much when he described constitutional rights as “parchment barriers,” easily transgressed when the majority is so inclined. And indeed, history presents numerous examples of liberty violations made in the face of security threats: the Alien and Sedition Acts signed into law by President John Adams, Japanese American internment camps during WWII, and the use of torture after 9/11. After the threat has subsided, Americans must recognize any constitutional violations for what they were, lest they become the new normal.

Look, this is serious, and sometimes dogged adherence to the Constitution offers an ill fit when confronted with advances in technology, or the many vectors of modern calamity, or the pretending the government isn’t an anachronistic reflection of a legalized slave economy. But there are broad strokes in that document that are at the very least symbolically useful and if we’re really going down the road of pushing these freedoms to the limit, it would be nice if we were willing to have a deliberative chat about it beforehand.

The very least we can do is be really queasy about the idea of lionizing someone for it.

Red and Blue America Agree That Now Is the Time to Violate the Constitution [The Atlantic]

Earlier: Texas Lt. Governor Will Death Panel Your Nana To Save The Economy

HeadshotJoe 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.

Wachtell Partner Is Having None Of Your Bullsh*t During A Freaking Pandemic

Posted on by TSA Press

Wachtell partner William Savitt has had just about enough of your BS. After all, there’s a global health crisis going on that means we’re pretty far afield from business as usual.

The co-chair of the litigation department sent a memo to clients earlier this week lashing out against normal litigation practices in “nonessential” cases. Savitt said in the memo he was “dismay[ed]” at the “flood” of trivial cases and motion practice while the rest of the world was trying to deal with the fallout from the spread of coronavirus.

Savitt went on to tell Law360 that life under COVID-19 “requires triage for everyone, including and in some ways especially for lawyers. Lawyers, like everyone else, need to avoid insisting on priority for matters that aren’t urgent, and should avoid filing or pressing fringe cases in this environment.”

Savitt’s incredibly practical advice is that shit is just going to take longer now that everyone is simultaneously also dealing with a pandemic. Instead of clinging to the pre-coronavirus rules, lawyers have to be flexible and understand nothing is going to be “normal” for a while:

“Insisting on rules and schedules that apply in normal times in nonexpedited cases isn’t sensible, because times aren’t normal,” Savitt told Law360. “Everything will take longer in this environment, both because of the massive disruption in the way we are working and the press of newly urgent human and legal business.”

Everyone is doing the best that they can, and it is super important to remember that. As Savitt said, “We all have to take care of each other and that includes in the way we litigate.” And how nice to hear that message from someone at the top of a profession as notoriously cutthroat as Biglaw.

headshotKathryn 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).

Even If The Government Steps In, These Harvard Law Grads Will Still Need Help Paying Their Loans

Posted on by TSA Press

(Photo via iStock)

We basically don’t want the intention of assistance from the federal government to be offset by a corresponding and equal reduction in assistance from Harvard, because then it’s not assistance at all, right?

— Alexandra M. Jordan, a Harvard Law School graduate, commenting on a letter that was signed by about 50 current and anticipated future participants of the school’s Low Income Protection Plan (LIPP), which asked that current levels of financial aid be maintained despite the fact that the federal government plans to suspend federal student loan payments and waive interest on those loans due to the coronavirus pandemic. Harvard Law’s LIPP program was created to help graduates working in lower-paying public service or private sector positions.

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.

Bonus Watch ’20: Your Year-End Windfall Is Looking Sickly

Posted on by TSA Press

How to Work with Freelance Lawyers to Increase Profits, Decrease Stress and Get Your Life Back

Posted on by TSA Press

I am thrilled to share a post from a long time friend, Lisa Solomon who has been a pioneer in the freelance lawyer space since the mid 1990s. Lisa helped encourage adoption of freelance services  by showing lawyers how they could save time and make more money through outsourcing. But most of all, Lisa gave lawyers the reassurance to turn work over by example – her work product has always been stellar and file-ready and she contributes ideas and plays on active role on every assignment. And with that, please enjoy Lisa’s wisdom on tips for working with contract attorneys. 

What is a freelance lawyer?

A freelance lawyer is a lawyer who performs work, on an independent contractor basis, for other lawyers. A freelance lawyer doesn’t enter into an attorney-client relationship with your client.

What’s the difference between a freelance lawyer and a contract lawyer?

In many segments of the legal industry, the term “contract lawyer” refers to a lawyer or non-admitted law graduate who works as an employee of a legal employment agency or legal process outsourcing (LPO) provider. The agency or LPO provider, in turn, contracts with law firms for the use of its employees to perform work on a temporary basis. The agency or LPO provider bills the firm for the contract lawyer’s time; it pays the contract lawyer a percentage of the hourly fee collected from the firm. By contrast, freelance lawyers are business owners who maintain their own offices, pay their own taxes, arrange for their own insurance and benefits, set their own schedules and fees, establish their own working conditions and pursue their own professional development.

Although the term “freelance lawyer” is gaining traction, not everyone is familiar with it. Therefore, some freelance lawyers continue to refer to themselves as contract lawyers.

Why Outsource Work to a Freelance Lawyer?

Small firms and solo practitioners outsource work to freelance lawyers for a variety of reasons. One primary reason is time: unfortunately, lawyers aren’t always in control of their own schedules. Deadlines—whether set by statute, court rule or judicial fiat—are ever-present. Frequently, it seems that everything must be done at once.

While a large firm might simply pull an associate from one matter to work on another, more pressing, case, small firms and solo practitioners usually don’t have that luxury. This makes small firms and solos particularly vulnerable to periodic “workload overload.” Outsourcing enables you to weather particularly busy periods without having to hire an employee or face time pressures that lead to stress and burnout.

Another benefit of outsourcing work to freelance lawyers on an as-needed basis is cost. Hiring an associate requires a significant investment in both time and money. When you work with a freelance lawyer, you pay only for the time it takes to complete the project, but when you hire an employee, you immediately add to your fixed expenses. Searching for and training a new associate (particularly a junior-level associate) is time-consuming. Your practice may be busy enough to benefit from project-based outsourcing, but not busy enough to not support another employee. Outsourcing is a wise use of your firm’s resources that can increase profitability.

Hiring an associate has other downsides that can be avoided by working with a freelance lawyer. An employee adds to your administrative burdens, especially if you’re a sole practitioner. Your malpractice rates will rise, and you’ll be subject to all the financial and legal responsibilities that accompany employer status. Working with an independent contractor is much less complicated, both initially and on an ongoing basis.

In fact, working with a freelance lawyer can help your firm’s bottom line. With one exception, all of the bar associations that have addressed the issue (including, most notably, the ABA[1]) have determined that a lawyer may add a surcharge to a freelance lawyer’s fees—in other words, make a profit on work performed by a freelance lawyer—as long as the total charges to the client are reasonable.[2]

Even if you’re handling a case on a contingency basis and will be absorbing the freelance lawyer’s fees yourself, it may still make sense to work with a freelance lawyer. Hiring a freelance lawyer to work on a low-value case frees you up to devote more time to higher-value cases; conversely, an experienced freelance lawyer can offer critical assistance in a high-value case. A freelance lawyer can even help you decide whether or not to accept a contingency case by examining issues you’ve identified at the outset (such as whether a statute of limitations was tolled based on the facts of the case) or by performing a jury verdict search.

Moreover, many freelance lawyers focus on a particular aspect of practice, most commonly legal research and writing. A freelance lawyer who concentrates in legal research and writing can often complete those tasks in less time than a busy practitioner who may not be as familiar with the available resources or as experienced in searching large databases for sometimes elusive answers. You may already outsource other tasks to independent professionals (such as private investigators) in order to benefit from their expertise. Working with a freelance lawyer enables you to use your valuable time in a way that’s most efficient for you and your clients.

Finally, working with freelance lawyers can boost your professional satisfaction. You may enjoy trying cases and taking and defending depositions, but dislike brief-writing. Or you might prefer client counseling and negotiating settlements to drafting discovery demands. Outsourcing can free you to focus on those tasks that you find most personally and professionally rewarding.

What Types of Tasks Can Freelance Lawyers Perform?

A freelance lawyer can do anything that a lawyer employed by a firm can do. This includes, for example, legal research and writing (including drafting pleadings, motions, jury instructions, appeals and discovery requests); document review; taking and defending depositions; making court appearances; assisting with trial preparation; and drafting all kinds of transactional documents. A freelance lawyer can also help with your marketing efforts by drafting or editing articles, books and CLE materials.

Legal research and writing projects are particularly amenable to outsourcing to a freelance lawyer, for two reasons. First, you can outsource as much (or as little) of a project as you want. You may have already researched the issues and drafted a brief, but need someone to edit your work. Or you may need help with research, but want to write a brief or opinion letter yourself. Or you may prefer to delegate primary responsibility for an entire large project—including the preparation of a record on appeal, legal research and brief writing—to a freelance lawyer (working under your ultimate supervision, of course). Look for a freelance lawyer who will accommodate your preferred work style.

Second, small firms and sole practitioners in particular can benefit from the fresh perspective and critical eye that a freelance lawyer can bring to a case. For example, sometimes it’s difficult to dispassionately evaluate legal issues in a case to which you’ve already committed significant resources. Although chatting informally with a colleague about your case may help point you in the right direction, a freelance lawyer who’s familiar with all of the relevant facts and has read the applicable cases and statutes will be able to analyze the issues more closely.

How to Find a Freelance Lawyer

The process of finding the right freelance lawyer is no different from finding the right carpenter to build a backyard deck or IT professional to oversee your office’s computer network: the best place to start is with personal recommendations. Since outsourcing legal work to freelance lawyers has become more common over the past few years, it’s likely that a colleague can recommend someone.

If the referral avenue leads to a dead end, you have a number of options. You may find ads in your local or state bar newsletter, or on its website, from freelance lawyers, or may post an ad there. And, because most freelance lawyers (like most lawyers in more traditional practice areas) have websites, searching the web should be fruitful.

When you’re looking for a freelance lawyer, keep in mind that because a freelance lawyer: (1) isn’t counsel of record; and (2) is considered to be working under your supervision (more on that below), for most projects, the freelance lawyer need not be admitted in the jurisdiction where the matter is venued. Thus, a freelance lawyer who isn’t admitted in your jurisdiction can work on “inside” projects such as legal research and writing; drafting and responding to discovery; and drafting transactional documents. A freelance lawyer who’s not admitted in your jurisdiction can also meet with clients and witnesses, as long as the freelance lawyer’s non-admitted status is disclosed. A freelance lawyer must be admitted in your jurisdiction in order to take depositions or appear alone in court, but need not be admitted in your jurisdiction to second chair a trial because, under those circumstances, you’ll be present to supervise the freelance lawyer.

General Tips for Working with Freelance Lawyers

As with any other type of business relationship, it’s wise to have a written contract with your freelance lawyer. You may enter into a broad agreement designed to set the ground rules for work on an unlimited number of current and future matters, or one that applies only to a single matter. If you enter into a broad agreement, make sure that you specify the scope of each particular project in writing at the project’s outset.

If you’re working with a freelance lawyer who is billing on an hourly basis, you may want to receive regular progress reports (for example, you may ask that the freelance lawyer discuss the project’s status with you at the 10-hour mark). You can also cap the time allotted to the project. Although such an approach will make the freelance lawyer’s total fees more predictable, the project may not be completed within the allotted time. To ameliorate this risk, you may wish to negotiate a flat fee for the entire project.

A freelance lawyer who concentrates on legal research and writing should have a legal research subscription plan that includes all of the materials that you’d want access to if you were doing the research yourself. Except in extraordinary circumstances or as otherwise agreed in advance, a freelance lawyer shouldn’t bill you for the cost of accessing any databases or materials that are relevant to the legal issues involved. Before hiring a freelance lawyer who relies exclusively on one of the growing number of free legal research services, make sure that you understand the service’s limitations (for example, free legal research services generally don’t include annotated statutes), since those limitations can impact both the quality of the work product and the freelance lawyer’s efficiency.

While you certainly can ask a freelance lawyer to perform work at your office, most firms that hire freelance lawyers leverage technology—from e-mail to stand-alone file sharing tools to practice management platforms—to enable the freelance lawyers to work remotely.

Finally, most malpractice policies automatically cover freelance lawyers for the work they do on the insured firm’s behalf. While a freelance lawyer you work with may carry his or her own malpractice policy, if the freelance lawyer qualifies as an insured under your policy, the insured v. insured exclusion contained in most malpractice policies will bar you from seeking indemnity or contribution from the freelance lawyer.[3] The freelance lawyer’s policy serves more to protect the freelance lawyer in case of an excess judgment not covered by your policy, or if you don’t carry your own malpractice coverage.

Tips for outsourcing legal research and writing projects

Clearly defining the research issues is a critical part of establishing the scope of any outsourced legal research and writing project. It’s also important, however, to be open the freelance lawyer’s input, since initial research may sometimes enable the freelance lawyer to identify other issues that impact your case. A freelance lawyer should bring these issues to your attention and obtain express authorization to go beyond the initial project scope before proceeding.

The give-and-take extends to the writing process. It’s wise to discuss major substantive changes to a document the freelance lawyer has drafted, since drafting decisions are premised on the freelance lawyer’s analysis of the issues. Any divergence between your analysis and/or conclusions and the freelance lawyer’s may indicate a weakness in the case that merits further exploration.

Ethics Issues in the Outsourcing Relationship

The defining characteristic of the relationship between a hiring firm and a freelance attorney is the hiring firm’s continued responsibility for rendering competent legal services to the client. Thus, the hiring firm must ensure that it delegates work to freelance lawyers who are competent to perform the work and oversee the performance of the work adequately and appropriately. As with an attorney employed by your firm, the degree of supervision required depends on the freelance lawyer’s skills and experience. If you prefer not to maintain supervisory responsibility, you may want to consider a referral or co-counsel relationship instead of an outsourcing relationship.

Another question is whether you must disclose, and obtain client consent to, hiring a freelance lawyer to work on a client’s case. Comment [6] to ABA Model Rule 1.1 (Competence) instructs that a hiring attorney should ordinarily obtain the client’s informed consent before hiring a freelance lawyer. Many state and local bar associations have issued ethics opinions requiring disclosure under some circumstances, and others mandate disclosure under all circumstances. Thus, the safest route (particularly if you practice in a state that hasn’t yet issued a governing ethics opinion) is to disclose, and obtain the client’s consent to, your use of a freelance lawyer. If you’ll be billing an experienced freelance lawyer’s services to your client at a rate lower than your own, this process can actually be an opportunity to demonstrate your commitment to achieving the best possible result for the client at the lowest cost.

As mentioned above, all ethics opinions but one that have addressed the issue agree that a lawyer may make a profit on work performed by a freelance lawyer. Note that, to comply with ethics requirements, you must bill the freelance lawyer’s services as a fee (i.e., in the same manner as you would bill for your own time), rather than as a disbursement (i.e., in the section of the bill detailing expenses incurred for such items as court reporters). As long as payment of the freelance lawyer’s fee isn’t contingent on the outcome of the litigation, you’re not required to disclose how much you’re paying the freelance lawyer; in other words, you don’t have to reveal the amount of your profit. This position makes sense: after all, if an associate (i.e. your employee) were working on a client’s matter, you wouldn’t be obliged to reveal the associate’s salary to your client.

Freelance lawyers are bound by the same ethics rules that govern all lawyers, including the duty of confidentiality. Nevertheless, including a provision in your agreement with the freelance lawyer that explicitly obligates the freelance lawyer to maintain the confidentiality of all client information the freelance lawyer learns during the engagement will give you a contractual remedy in the highly unlikely event of a breach of that ethical duty.

Although it’s theoretically possible to work with a freelance lawyer on certain kinds of projects without revealing the parties’ identities, it’s much more efficient for solos and small firm lawyers to be able to freely share all information when working on an outsourced project than to have to redact documents. Assuming that you’ll be sharing all relevant information about each case with the freelance lawyer, you and the freelance lawyer should treat conflicts issues as if the freelance lawyer were an employee of your firm.

Finally, you may want to add the following paragraph to your retainer agreement:

You are hiring the firm for representation and not any particular individual. The firm may assemble the team of professionals best suited to serve your needs at each stage of your matter. The Firm may share with these professionals information about your case as necessary for them to carry out their responsibilities. All non-firm personnel are subject to the Firm’s ongoing supervision and applicable ethics regulations. You expressly consent to the firm’s use of these professionals and to disclosure of information as necessary for them to serve your needs.

Conclusion

Working with a freelance lawyer allows you to gain many of the financial and work/life balance benefits of adding an associate to your practice, without the overhead and administrative burdens of bringing on an employee. If you follow the tips in this post, the relationship among you, your clients and a freelance lawyer can be a win-win situation for all involved.

Lisa Solomon was one of the first lawyers to recognize and take advantage of the technological advances that make outsourcing substantive legal work practical and profitable for law firms of all sizes. She has practiced exclusively as a freelance lawyer, providing legal research and writing services to solos and small firms nationwide, since 1996. Her innovative law practice has been featured in periodicals such as the National Law Journal and the ABA Journal, and in a number of books about legal careers. She’s also a nationally-known author and speaker about freelance lawyering and persuasive legal writing. Her website is at http://QuestionOfLaw.net, or you can reach her directly at 914-595-6575.

[1]See ABA Formal Op. 08-451 (Lawyer’s Obligations When Outsourcing Legal and Nonlegal Suppport Services); ABA Formal Op. 00-420 (Surcharge to Client for Use of a Contract Lawyer); ABA Formal Op. 88-356 (Temporary Lawyers).

[2] The exception is the Professional Ethics Committee for the State Bar of Texas. However, the reasoning of the Professional Ethics Committee for the State Bar of Texas in Opinion 577 (March 2007) is questionable. See Corey L. Marrs, Being a Contract Lawyer and How the Bar Does not Want You to Hire Me, News for the Bar (Litigation Section of the State Bar of Texas, Fall 2007).

[3] Because insurance coverage is a matter of contract, you should read your policy and consult with your broker.

Trump PAC Threatens Libelslander Suits Against TV Stations That Show Trump Talking

Posted on by TSA Press

(Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

Remember when Donald Trump promised to “open up” America’s libel laws?

“Isn’t it a shame that someone can write an article or book, totally make up stories and form a picture of a person that is literally the exact opposite of the fact, and get away with it without retribution or cost,” he tweeted in 2018. “Don’t know why Washington politicians don’t change libel laws?”

It’s fun to tweet nonsense about the First Amendment during Hannity’s commercial breaks! But it’s even more fun to draft nonsense cease and desist letters. Which is why Trump’s re-election campaign sent this very serious letter to station managers in Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin demanding that they pull an anti-Trump ad, OR ELSE.

On behalf of Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., President Trump’s principal campaign committee, this letter notifies you that your station is airing a patently false, misleading, and deceptive advertisement, entitled “Exponential Threat,” which was paid for by the Priorities USA Action Fund (“PUSA”), a Super PAC formed by Barack Obama loyalists. PUSA stitched together fragments from multiple speeches by President Trump to fraudulently and maliciously imply that President Trump called the coronavirus outbreak a “hoax.” As fully set forth in the enclosed facts sheet, and President Trump’s full quote below, the facts show beyond reasonable doubt that he was talking about the Democrat’s politicization of the outbreak when he used the word “hoax.”

Oh, supercuts are bad now? But last month when Trump himself tweeted a doctored video that made it look like Nancy Pelosi ripped up Trump’s State of the Union speech just as he was honoring a Tuskeegee Airman, and Facebook refused to take it down, it was totally cool?

Last May, Trump shared a clip of Nancy Pelosi, deceptively edited to make it look like she was drunk, which Facebook also left in place. But now “your station has an obligation to cease and desist from airing it immediately to comply with FCC licensing requirements, to serve the public interest, and to avoid costly and time-consuming litigation.”

To rebut the ads which “fraudulently and maliciously imply that President Trump called the coronavirus outbreak a ‘hoax,’” the campaign includes a longer quote showing the full context.

Now the Democrats are politicizing the coronavirus. You know that, right? Coronavirus. They’re politicizing it. We did one of the great jobs. […] One of my people came up to me and said, “Mr. President, they tried to beat you on Russia, Russia, Russia.” That didn’t work out too well. They couldn’t do it. They tried the impeachment hoax. That was on a perfect conversation. They tried anything, they tried it over and over, they’ve been doing it since he got in. It’s all turning, they lost. It’s all turning, think of it, think of it. And this is their new hoax. But you know we did something that’s been pretty amazing. We have 15 people in this massive country and because of the fact that we went early, we went early, we could have had a lot more than that.

This is supposed to be helpful? Because Donald Trump bragging at a campaign rally on February 28 that only 15 people in the entire country were sick thanks to his brilliant pandemic response is … not exactly a great look.

There’s certainly a strong case to be made that the ad is misleading — although the guy who lies so aggressively that he turned fact-checking reporter Daniel Dale into a media star is perhaps not the guy to make it. And indeed, he isn’t the one making it.

The Trump campaign can threaten to “pursue all legal remedies available to it in law and in equity,” but, as any 1L CivPro student could tell you, those legal remedies amount to exactly nothing because the campaign doesn’t have standing to sue on Trump’s behalf. And neither do Trump’s “healthcare positions,” whatever those might be.

Which is why those station managers just dropped this BS letter in the circular file after reading, “We will not stand idly by and allow you to broadcast false, deceptive, and misleading information concerning President’s Trump’s healthcare positions without consequence.” (Presumably while rolling their eyes and making the jerk-off motion.)

Here’s the ad, which tens of thousands more people have now seen thanks to the Trump campaign’s little stunt.

And here’s another one the campaign re-tweeted this morning.

Because they are just very, very good at this whole media thing!

Pro-Trump group demands TV stations stop airing liberal super PAC ad [The Hill]
Read the letter Trump’s campaign sent to TV stations threatening the FCC could pull their licenses over anti-Trump ad [RawStory]

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