Category: News Feeds

Post published in: Agriculture

Concern has been expressed in some news media at the recent increase in fines, published by the Minister of Justice in the Criminal Law Codification and Reform (Standard Scale of Fines) Notice, 2020 (S.I. 57 of 2020) [link].  The concern is that it will allow the police to levy exorbitant fines for petty infractions of the law, fuelling corruption as citizens try to bribe their way out of paying the new fines.  In this Bill Watch we shall examine the notice and its background to see whether the concern is justified.

Background to the Notice

Statutes which create criminal offences usually specify the penalties that courts may impose for the offences, and the penalties often consist of fines with or without terms of imprisonment.  Before 2004 fines were expressed as monetary amounts but inflation kept reducing the real value of these amounts so that statutes had to be amended constantly in order to keep the fines realistic.  Hence section 280 of the Criminal Law Code, enacted in 2004, provided that fines were to be expressed as levels on a Standard Scale of Fines set out in the First Schedule to the Code.  According to this Standard Scale, a level 1 fine was US $10 (this was after the Schedule was amended in February 2017), a level 2 fine was US $15, a level 3 fine was US $30, and so on all the way to level 14 which was US $5 000.  The monetary amounts in the Standard Scale can be amended by the Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs through a statutory instrument, which is a much quicker process than amending individual fines in each Act of Parliament.  So if, for example, the Minister publishes a statutory instrument stating that level 1 fines are to be increased to $200, the amendment will automatically increase the amounts in every statute that provides for a fine of level 1 to be imposed.

What the Notice Does

The new notice certainly increases the monetary amounts of fines dramatically, as these examples illustrate [the “old amounts” listed below are those fixed in RTGS or Zimbabwe dollars in September last year by SI 209 of 2019]:

      Level                               Old amount         New amount

                                                   ZW $                          ZW $

          1                                         40                               200

          2                                         60                               300

          3                                       100                               500

         14                                 30 000                        120 000

On the other hand, the real effect of the increases is not as great as it seems, for the following reasons:

1. Inflation

Inflation is running at shockingly high levels in Zimbabwe ‒ according to one estimate the inflation rate was 471 per cent per annum in January ‒ so in real terms the new fines are not all that much higher than the September ones.  Indeed, they are actually lower than the fines which were fixed in US dollars in February last year, when those US dollar fines are converted to Zimbabwe dollars at the current interbank rate:

      Level                      Old amount (Feb 2019)    Equivalent amount now

                                                   US $                          ZW $

          1                                         20                               364

          2                                         30                               546

          3                                         60                            1 092

         14                                 10 000                        182 000

Looked at in this light, the new fines are more a rationalisation than an increase.

2. The power of the Police to levy the new fines is limited

It must be remembered that the Police cannot levy fines higher than level 3, now fixed at ZW $500.  This is because section 141 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act gives them (and other officials such as vehicle inspectors and mine inspectors) the power to issue tickets to people who are alleged to have committed offences which are reasonably believed will not attract a fine of more than level 3.  A person who has been issued with such a ticket can avoid appearing in court by signing an admission of guilt and paying the specified fine at a police station.

Note that:

The Police cannot issue a ticket for the payment of a fine of more than level 3, so ‒ until the fines are next increased ‒ $500 is the most that anyone can be required to pay.

Five hundred dollars is the maximum amount that can be specified in a ticket, and it should not be specified for all offences because petty offences merit lower fines than more serious ones.  When fixing fines, police officers should follow schedules of deposit fines drawn up by magistrates and senior police officers.

The Police are not allowed to levy “spot fines”:  they cannot insist that motorists, for example, pay fines in cash at roadblocks.  They must issue tickets giving motorists the option of paying their fines at a police station or of contesting their cases in court.

3. The courts’ power to impose the new fines is also limited

Most statutes, when laying down the penalties for offences, specify the maximum penalties that may be imposed for the offences in question.  Those maximum penalties apply only to the most serious instances of the offence, and in most cases a court will not be expected to impose them.  In practice therefore the courts will seldom impose the full amount of the new fines.

Conclusion

The concerns that have been expressed regarding the new fines are exaggerated since they do not recognise that the increases in the fines are intended to take account of inflation.  On the other hand, most people’s incomes have not been adjusted for inflation so for many ordinary people the increases in the fines are very steep indeed.  Perhaps the real debate about the increases should not be whether it was justifiable to increase the fines, but rather whether it is justifiable for people’s incomes to be so eroded by inflation that they cannot afford to pay fines which have been adjusted to remain constant in value.

Veritas makes every effort to ensure reliable information, but cannot take legal responsibility for information supplied.

Post published in: Featured

The legal woes of California appeals court judge Jeffrey Johnson just keep on coming. And I, for one, am pleased to see it.

For those who need a refresher on which judge accused of sexual harassment Johnson actually is, I’ll hit the high(low?)lights. The disciplinary action details 20 years’ worth of alleged harassing behavior. He’s alleged to have groped a fellow judge, commented on the rear end of another, made sexual advances to multiple police officers assigned to work with him over the years, and “engaged in a pattern of poor demeanor towards colleagues and court employees.” All of which paint a picture of an entitled judge who was somehow allowed to harass the women in his professional orbit for decades and who believed his position insulated him from the consequences of his behavior.

A new lawsuit (available below) filed by Trisha Velez, judicial assistant at the Second District Court of Appeal in California, contains allegations Johnson subjected her to five years of harassment. The plaintiff was one of dozens of people — including attorneys, court employees, and security officers — who came forward to the Commission on Judicial Performance investigators with allegations against Johnson.

The alleged behavior by Johnson detailed in the complaint included questions about Velez’s sexual history and allegedly telling her, “If I was married to you, I would never leave your bed. I like you, Trish.” Gross.

As part of his plea to keep his job, last month Johnson took responsibility for some of his actions, but also said he didn’t know his behavior was unwelcomed, as reported by Law.com:

“Although the masters credit his willingness to reform and good faith actions, the absence of notice of any problem denied him the chance to respond if so informed,” his attorneys told the commissioners.

Johnson’s attorneys also accused prosecutors of “piling on” less serious allegations, including intoxication and poor demeanor, “to bolster a private non-judicial conduct matter.” Johnson has argued that his diabetes-related low blood sugar has caused symptoms that can mimic drunkenness. Accusations about his demeanor do not amount to “egregious” behavior, the lawyers wrote.

This is the second complaint filed against Johnson about his alleged behavior. A former security agent for Johnson, Tatiana Sauquillo, sued the judge and the court in 2019.

There are hearings scheduled for next week by the Commission on Judicial Performance on the allegations against Johnson. Potential penalties against the judge include removal from the bench.

---

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).

While COVID-19 is making its way across the US, law firms need to get creative in making sure their hiring process does not become interrupted while protecting the health of its employees. There is still legal work that needs to be done and at Kinney Recruiting we have seen an uptick in the need for attorneys in the areas of antitrust, restructuring, capital markets, data privacy, and technology transactions. So what is a law firm to do?

1. Postponement

We have candidates who are scheduled for in-person interviews in NYC this week, but with the 24-hour news cycle reporting the increase of infected persons every hour, some law firms have decided to postpone in-person interviews to a later date. While this may sound like common sense, these candidates are actively interviewing elsewhere and the law firms who postpone the interview process will end up losing out on the star candidate to a competitor who got creative. At some point, COVID-19 will go away (soon, hopefully) and everything will be back to business as usual.

2. Video Conference

With the increase in technological capabilities and reliability of video conferencing software like GoToMeeting, Zoom, BlueJeans, Google Hangouts Meet, etc., there are a lot of choices for law firms to ensure they get to have the in-person meeting without actually having the candidate step foot in the law firm’s physical location. Candidates need to make sure they have an excellent WiFi connection [link REK article to this one]. With remote work becoming more popular and having employees succeed in getting work done without ever showing up at the office, this may end up being the future of work.

3. Phone Calls

Law firms can do it the old fashion way and use the good ol’ phone. While phone calls may not be the best technology in getting a candidate over the finish line to getting hired, it is definitely an excellent first step in the hiring process. Even before COVID-19 hit the US, law firms were using phone calls as the initial step to hiring for candidates who lived outside of their market or to save time and money. Scheduling a phone call is a lot easier than clearing out your calendar for one hour or two (including travel) to make it to an initial face to face meeting. Phone calls can then be followed up with the video conference call because in the end, everyone wants to at least “meet” the person they will be working with.

In the end, the most important lesson is to not panic and to make sure your law firm has the technology it needs to conduct its lateral hiring successfully. There is still work to be done and attorneys to be hired.

For interview tips see our post Video Interviewing for Legal Jobs – It’s a Reality Now.

Here at Kinney Recruiting we want to provide associates tips on making the best impression via video. With COVID-19 interrupting our daily lives, we need to change our habits slightly. If you need to change jobs you still can, but you’re going to do your first interview via video.  So get ready, here are our tips.

At Kinney, we’ve had years of experience with hundreds of international moves, and those often involve initial interviews via video. So, we have seen a few things. Some of this is not the most obvious stuff, but it’s well tested.

First, use your phone, not a computer camera.  Most phones have much better cameras than laptops these days. The video interview software, or Skype, invariably comes with a phone app option. Use it.

Second, putting the phone arm’s-length away is best. 

Third, you must have a flawless internet connection. If your router is acting weird, go to a friend’s house who has things set up better. It’s never good when the quality sucks and there is a lag in communication or a break in the video stream; your performance could be flawless and you won’t get credit for it. See No. 6.

Fourth, focus on the lighting. It doesn’t need to be crazy, but don’t just allow overhead lamps to illuminate your face. If you do, you will have the shadow of your nose, long or short, crossing your lips. It’s ugly.  We have dealt with this in various ways, but just having a few candles around your phone to give nicer light can help. That said, don’t set a fire accidentally. This is not the time to learn how to use candles. Other options are to have your laptop open with a white screen up. Or, better yet, use two laptops, one to the left and one to the right of your phone.  Just make sure they don’t sleep in the middle of the interview. Having half your face go dark in the middle can be a nightmare.

Fifth, don’t put the phone on a table and sit with your face two feet above the table.  Your counterpart will be looking up your nose. Instead, find a shorter chair, or a taller perch for the phone. You want to look eye to eye with people you are meeting for a video interview.

Sixth, pay attention to the connection and roll with technical difficulties. If there is video lag, don’t try to jump in and make a clever comment. Wait until the other person stops talking.  Similarly, if you are the sort of person who tends to talk a lot – and a lot of lawyers are – then you need to remember that if you are doing most of the talking in an interview, you are not doing a good job. So, pay attention to the flow of the conversation and try to pass the ball back to your counterpart. Engage them on something they like and let them get rolling on it. Are they talking about the size and quality of their deals? Then, say how you are amazed with the quality of their practice; interject briefly that you saw the XYZ deal on their bio and you had a connection to that deal through whatever angle. It does not take a lot of words to demonstrate competence.. Is your counterpart quick to mention that their kids are playing football this year?  You (or your brother/sister) were serious sportsmen in high school and it led to you think it was a very important part of your development. Don’t belabor the point, just roll with it.

Seventh, if you are taking notes, tell the counterpart that’s what you are doing so you don’t look distracted. But don’t take notes in an interview. The interview is where they decide whether they want to hang around you all day. No need to play the gunner.

Eighth, dress the part, even for the video. Don’t wear sweatpants with your suit jacket either. Should you need to get up for some reason, you’ll make a fool of yourself. And you’ll always know you’re wearing sweatpants.

Ninth, if you have the most modern phone, you might not need this tip, but use airpods or some sort of tested solution so that the audio is the best it can be. Speakerphone echo is a lost opportunity to sound like you have control of things. Likewise, if there is background noise a lot, because fire trucks come by your window often, find another place to go.

Finally, ignore any of the above problems that appear to be happening on the other end. We can’t fix our clients’ issues as well as we can our candidates’.

If you are working with us, we will do our best to help you fix any issues. We have a lot of experience at this. Get in touch and we’ll let you know if we think you can pull it off!

I know this is a very difficult and uncertain time for all of you. The law school has been working around the clock to ensure the health and safety of our community, and we have been collaborating with the university and its public health experts as the situation unfolds. …

Please know that we are with you during this difficult period. … It is my top priority to ensure the health and safety of our community. Thank you for your patience and flexibility during this unprecedented and challenging time.

— Dean Heather Gerken of Yale Law School, explaining in an online message to students and staff that the school’s spring break would be extended by a week’s time, and then classes would be held online until April 5. Yale is one of many law schools to have moved to an online learning environment during the coronavirus outbreak.

---

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.