Category: News Feeds

If a law firm is seeking out a practice management platform with a longstanding reputation for quality, it would be hard-pressed to find a better option than Clio. Clio is a global enterprise with a foothold in North America, where it has the most users and the most integration partners of any similar technology option.
And, having just raised the largest capital investment in legal tech and Canadian history, Clio is here to stay.

However, buying the right software is only half the battle; it’s still true that most lawyers don’t get the true benefit of the softwares they use.  There are a number of reasons for this, including the fact that law firms do training about as well as they water ski, but it’s mostly about priorities. Since most law firms are so heavily focused on revenue, the modus operandi is always to get into the base program features as quickly as possible, and then to dive back into the “real” work of running a law firm — i.e., making more money.  This means that attorneys tend to gloss over really useful system features that would, ironically, save them time and make them even more money on the back-end. So how do we reverse that trend? By sharing the inside scoop on the simple ways you can get more out of Clio and ensure the financial health of your law firm.

Register below to download the free report: Super 7: Clio Accounting Hacks You Need to Know.

When a man caught his junior barrister wife in an affair with a senior Queen’s Counsel, she graciously explained to him that they shouldn’t cite “adultery” as the motivation for their impending divorce, claiming that it would be easier to just cite “unreasonable behaviour.” The unnamed man who, for probably the first time in his life, figured out that maybe he shouldn’t blindly trust everything she’s telling him, opted to seek out legal counsel to protect his interests.

Well, not quite. He decided to ask Reddit what he should do. In the words of our friends at Legal Cheek, “As you do.”

My wife is less than 1 year qualified and the QC has gotten her a new, much more senior, position at another firm and will be using her as his junior counsel on trials. Not sure how ethically sound this is or if it constitutes an abuse of power.

The classic British understatement remains as robust as ever as he’s “not sure” if this is ethically sound.

In any event, Reddit came to the rescue and gave this man the advice that all of you are currently yelling at your computer screens:

1. don’t listen to what she says. Get your own lawyer and follow that advice.

2. she may or may not work in your interest so it’s imperative that everything you do must be through another lawyer to protect you and your interests.

It’s possible that the woman is offering fair advice. One commenter noted that adultery requires more proof than “unreasonable behaviour,” but there’s also no reason to believe he doesn’t already have that proof. May as well check with a lawyer on that one.

Another wrote, “Lawyer up,” and another wrote, “The only advice I can give is to not listen to the person you are divorcing or their lawyer for legal advice, moreso when they are the same person.” Some 64 comments in, the man started to notice a pattern:

Thanks for your response.

Seeing a trend in the comments here and I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. I’ll look into getting a solicitor.

Reddit law school wins! Who says the internet is just for hate groups and porn?

Husband asks internet for legal advice after catching junior barrister wife having affair with QC colleague [Legal Cheek]
I [28M] am divorcing a divorce lawyer [28F] and looking for advice [Reddit]

---

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.

But first of all our sincere condolences to the Makamba family, and indeed to all Zimbabweans, on the untimely loss of our second confirmed COVID-19 case, Zororo. Our hearts go out to the family in solidarity, and we take very seriously all the observations they made about our unpreparedness for this disaster, and the hardships and mental torment they had to endure.

This is a wake up call for Zimbabwe and we must respond promptly and appropriately to this challenge.  I must point out that this brings our case fatality rate to 50%! This is not acceptable. Let’s watch this number as we go along. We must achieve case fatality rates of a fraction of 1%. Then we know our health delivery system is working as it should. The big lesson we learn from this first fatality is that preparedness is not something we can only wish, but we’ve got to work hard at it and deploy resources big time towards preparedness.

Mere reassurance from those in authority will not work. Waiting for donations is not a viable option. We must take the lead in prioritizing healthcare in our expenditures.  At the end of 60 days or so we should look back with satisfaction and say “that money was well worth spending”. To that end we ask government to suspend all non life saving program expenditures and channel resources to health care for the next 2-3 months.

We have another disaster looming. Healthcare workers cannot continue to work in this toxic environment without the necessary personal protective equipment (PPE).  We have noted how health care workers died in countries and economies much tougher than ours. We also note with much trepidation that 4800 health care workers have been infected by COVID-19 in Italy, and that this represents 9% of total cases. We should not sacrifice any doctor or nurse on the altar of self imposed poverty in a country that is so well endowed with resources.

It is imperative that government provides forthwith the necessary PPE for health workers so that they can come to work with the confidence that they will return home safely. At this point in time we wish to emphasise that we are firmly behind the health workers for demanding proper working conditions in the face of a highly infectious virus.  Provision of water at all our hospitals is also non-negotiable. We urge the government to go the extra mile and give a risk allowance as requested by some health workers. This has been done in the past and it went a long way towards incentivizing the health workers to continue to serve the nation in very dangerous environs. Any non-availability of health workers from the hospitals and any ensuing disastrous consequences will squarely be on the government’s shoulders.

We further urge the government to institute a total lockdown of our cities, and to close all borders except for the most essential travel.

Communication with the public is key at all times.

The message on constant hand washing, use of hand sanitisers, social distancing, banning of public gatherings, self isolation, and working from home whenever possible must be reinforced daily. Telephonic consultations are encouraged at this time to minimize human to human contact.

We wish to appreciate the international community for your valued assistance at this difficult time, our local authorities for the hard work and taking the challenge on head on under very difficult circumstances, all our health workers in general, and all Zimbabweans for your great fortitude.

We will subdue the virus if we climb with care and confidence, looking after each other’s needs, watching each other’s backs, and prioritizing health care.

H. Madzorera
Secretary for Health & Child Welfare
Movement for Democratic Change

Fueled by interest in its new brief-automation product, the legal research company Casetext said today that it has raised $8.2 million in new funding in a round led by “one of the top revenue-generating law firms in the country.” It did not disclose the name of the firm.

Casetext cofounder and CEO Jake Heller said the additional funding would be used to invest more heavily in Compose, the product the company unveiled last month that automates the creation of the first draft of a litigation brief.

This brings the total investment in Casetext to over $40 million. Several existing investors also participated in the round, including Union Square Ventures, Canvas Ventures, and Y Combinator Continuity.

“We’re honored to have one of the top law firms in the country as Casetext investors,” Heller said in a statement on the funding. “I view this investment as validation that the legal industry shares our vision for the future of law — and believes we’re the right company to build it.”

As I wrote when Compose launched, the product is designed to help lawyers create first drafts of litigation briefs in a fraction of the time it would normally take. Users select from an index of arguments and standards tied to the type of motion and jurisdiction, and the product inserts fully composed paragraphs, including citations.

Notable New Casetext Product Drafts Your Litigation Briefs For You

Thanks to the incredibly contagious coronavirus outbreak, Biglaw firms across the globe have had to close their physical offices and encourage attorneys and legal professionals to work remotely. Some areas of the world have been more successful at flattening the curve and are now attempting to reopen their businesses — but employees are still incredibly worried about their health.

Earlier this week, a Chicago-based Biglaw firm tried to bring its Hong Kong workforce back to the office and employees were less than pleased considering that COVID-19 had recently started making a comeback thanks to lifted social-distancing restrictions. Lawyers and staff members were so shocked and outraged over the proposal that an anonymous letter was sent to firm management.

Which firm received pushback over its questionable decision?

Mayer Brown received a sharply worded letter from employees after they found out the firm planned to reopen the office. “You are putting us, our families and our communities at risk for no good reason,” the letter’s authors wrote. Law.com International has additional details on the letter’s contents:

The letter blasted Mayer Brown for telling lawyers and staff that they should return to work in the office. It also said the firm had failed to provide any support to those employees who had children at home. Hong Kong’s schools have been closed during the crisis and are not expected to reopen until late April.

“We want to express our dismay at the position the firm continues to maintain in the face of a global pandemic. You insist that we still come to work despite a grand majority of other Hong Kong firms, companies and government offices providing the option for employees to work from home,” the letter said.

The firm has since reinstated its voluntary work-from-home policy for all employees, which is a good thing, because one of its employees recently tested positive for COVID-19 and has been hospitalized. Mayer Brown noted in a statement that “[t]he health and safety of our people—each and every one of us— takes priority over everything else and is the only factor in play as our local leaders react in real time to a rapidly unfolding global human tragedy.”

Is your firm planning to make adjustments to its work-from-home policy anytime soon? Please email us or text us (646-820-8477) and we’ll update our policy tracker.

Mayer Brown’s Efforts to Reopen in Hong Kong Backtracked After Employees Raise Concerns [Law.com International]

---

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.

Everyone knows that the legal profession has to deal with the issue of mental health — the field is high stress and time intensive which just causes a whole host of problems. Then if you add being a working parent into the mix, you’re talking about a stress multiplier. Oh, and did we mention there’s also a global pandemic going on? It’s enough to make to pull out your hair.

In this week’s episode of The Jabot podcast, I speak with Summer Eberhard, managing director in the Associate Practice Group at Major, Lindsey & Africa. Summer is a working mother who advises young lawyers on negotiating their parental leave. We discuss some of the issues facing working parents in the legal industry and what can be done about them. We also chat about the mental health strain living in quarantine — Summer lives in Seattle where they’re quite familiar with social distancing — puts on working parents.

The Jabot podcast is an offshoot of the Above the Law brand focused on the challenges women, people of color, LGBTQIA, and other diverse populations face in the legal industry. Our name comes from none other than the Notorious Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the jabot (decorative collar) she wears when delivering dissents from the bench. It’s a reminder that even when we aren’t winning, we’re still a powerful force to be reckoned with.

Happy listening!

---

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).

A shibboleth of right-wing American politics is a steadfast commitment to the death penalty as a moral good unto itself. Innocent or guilty, all that matters is the machine of Judge Dredd-level violence roll on. Government officials aren’t even above making illegal transactions with shady overseas drug dealers to keep it going. And now, courtesy of a decision from the UK Supreme Court, Jeff Sessions and Mike Pompeo and the rest of the Trump crew appear to have botched the prosecution of a pair of notorious terrorists rather than just give up on the death penalty.

Way to go, guys.

El Shafee Elsheikh and Alexanda Kotey are allegedly a pair of ISIS executioners that the U.S. has successfully captured. They were UK citizens until the Brits stripped them of their citizenship, but the UK doesn’t want to attempt prosecuting them out of concern that they might fail to secure a conviction. However, the United States has a lower bar to clear on that score, making it convenient to just let the Americans go ahead with the case since they already have them in custody anyway.

But, of course, the UK has banned the death penalty and requires its government to receive assurances that other countries won’t seek the death penalty before handing over investigative material that could be used in a trial.

After talking to Trump’s team, the Tory government realized they weren’t going to get that and decided to go ahead and illegally hand over the material anyway. The UK Supreme Court is… not pleased with this.

According to documents, Jeff Sessions complained to the former UK Home Secretary that “the U.S. should not be left to assume responsibility for ‘other nations’ terrorist fighters,’” an uncharacteristic departure from American Exceptionalism — these people murdered Americans, Americans have them in custody, America should be ready to prosecute them. Whether or not that’s the proper international norm, that’s absolutely the norm the Republican base wants to see.

And the cognitive dissonance probably stems from this all being a bluff to force the UK to turn over the extensive evidence it had gathered on the pair. At the very hint that this transfer might be conditioned upon a death penalty waiver, the former UK ambassador to Washington wrote:

“Their reaction is likely to be something close to outrage,” Darroch warned, adding that it might “wind up” President Donald Trump.

“They already feel that we are dumping on them a problem for which we should take responsibility. They have been signaling to us for weeks now that we are in no position to attach any conditions to this,” he wrote.

Thus, in spite of its legal obligations, the UK government wrote Sessions explaining that they had no problem with the death penalty and handed over the material. Unsurprisingly, this seems to have ended the administration’s outrage over prosecuting two former British nationals.

The UK Supreme Court, delivering a video opinion because of coronavirus, was appropriately flabbergasted:

In his judgment, Lord Robert Carnwath concluded that the information in question was transferred “without any safeguards at all.”

He said the decision was based on “political expediency, rather than consideration of strict necessity under the statutory criteria.”

The court criticized the British government for abandoning a “principled approach” to the death penalty because it was “coming under, and might become susceptible to, political pressure from the U.S.”

The justices said there were suggestions that “pragmatic considerations, at the expense of a principled approach, might begin to influence the UK’s reaction to the demand that it should cease its lobbying in relation to the death penalty assurances.”

Make no mistake here, Jeff Sessions and the rest of the Trump team have undermined — perhaps, but not necessarily, fatally — the prosecution of American-killing terrorists because they couldn’t let go of the death penalty. Is this really a higher principle than getting justice? The risk that their collective manhood would be wounded by holding these folks in prison for life was so dire that they risked the possibility of convicting them at all. Get your priorities straight, people!

Now, robbed of this evidence, the U.S. will have to be content renditioning these people to some black site and hold them forever without oversight. The good news for the administration is that unlike the Brits, the U.S. Supreme Court has little to no stomach for telling its political branches “no.”

U.K. broke law by sending evidence on ISIS ‘Beatles’ to U.S., court rules [NBC News]

---

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.

Remember when, two weeks and about a million years ago, the Department of Justice told the immigration courts to take down CDC handwashing posters, in direct violation of good public health practices? At the time, ATL editor Kathryn Rubino wrote “Whether it was nefarious or just a petty office politics squabble, it is not a good look.” Well, while you were busy dealing with the collapse of our society, the evidence has been increasingly pointing to “nefarious.”

Let’s start with the immigration courts, which somehow are not entirely closed. In fact, none of them were closed until March 18, three days after all the professionals who work in the courts (including ICE prosecutors) called for it, and one day after an immigration judge in Denver came down with suspected COVID-19. (More positive tests came from the Boston court March 19 and New York City’s Varick Street March 23.) As of March 25, the courts are still hearing cases of detained immigrants, but lawyers and judges are calling for a complete shutdown.

Why the sluggish response? It might be relevant that immigrants who don’t show up to their court hearings are automatically put into deportation, even if they’re medically required to stay home. In addition, the Miami Herald has discovered that the DOJ “and ultimately the White House” are deciding whether and when to close individual courts, a fact that carries a distinct odor of politics. We will assume without evidence that “the White House” means Trump advisor and noted fan of white supremacist literature Stephen Miller, who also came up with the family separation policy.

Meanwhile, tons of immigrant prisoners — excuse me, I mean “civil detainees who have not necessarily been convicted of any crime” — remain in ICE jails, waiting for COVID-19 to rip through their close quarters and substandard health facilities. Detention center employees in Elizabeth, New Jersey, and Conroe, Texas, have already tested positive for the virus, as has an ICE detainee at the Bergen County jail in New Jersey. At least four lawsuits have been filed demanding the release of high-risk immigrants in New Jersey, Washington, California, Pennsylvania, and Texas.

In response, DHS has not only failed to release anyone, but has required immigration attorneys who enter the facilities to bring their own protective surgical masks and gloves. Yes, even though medical professionals are already so desperate for masks that they’re asking volunteers to sew them some! Despite the widespread use of videoconferencing in the immigration courts, videoconferencing between detainees and their attorneys is not currently on the table. As a long list of advocacy groups pointed out in a March 23 letter to the immigration courts, this effectively denies immigrants their statutory right to meet with their attorneys.

That all of this puts native-born Americans — particularly the xenophobic older people who make up Trump’s voter base — at risk does not appear to have occurred to our leaders. Let’s hope it doesn’t take nursing homes full of dead grandparents to change their minds.

---

Lorelei Laird is a freelance writer specializing in the law, and the only person you know who still has an “I Believe Anita Hill” bumper sticker. Find her at wordofthelaird.com.

Credit Suisse and Swedbank recently had to oust CEOs over unfortunate incidents—in the former case, spying on employees, and in the latter, possible Russian money laundering. But both have bent over backwards to make as clear as possible that those CEOs had done nothing really wrong, that the worst that could be said of them is that they didn’t do enough to make themselves aware of the potentially reputation-injuring matters going on beneath their noses. And by that we mean both hired law firms to exonerate both the banks themselves and those that led them. In Credit Suisse’s case, it did so before firing Tidjane Thiam, which exhaustively reviewed a whole month of correspondence between Thiam and his lieutenant/spy chief/scapegoat Pierre-Olivier Bouée before pronouncing Thiam wholly innocent of the whole affair. Swedbank was forced to part ways with Birgitte Bonnesen before having a law firm conduct a face-saving probe, but was nice enough to go easy on her all the same.

As South Africa goes into a 21-day lockdown Thursday midnight, as part of a raft of measures to contain the deadly Coronavirus (COVID-19), it goes without saying that Zimbabwe, which imports a variety of products from Africa’s most industrialised economy, will feel the pinch.

South African President, Cyril Ramaphosa, on Monday said the country would go into a 21-day lockdown from midnight of 26 March to midnight of 16 April 2020 as part of the measures to deal with COVID-19.

The number of confirmed cases in South Africa leapt to 709 on Wednesday.