Little Has Changed in Post-Mugabe Zimbabwe – The Zimbabwean

Zimbabwe’s President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s supporters arrive for the ruling ZANU PF party’s annual conference on the outskirts of Harare, Zimbabwe December 13, 2019. REUTERS/Philimon Bulawayo

In a RAND study published this week—based on interviews I conducted in Harare, Zimbabwe, with politicians across the political spectrum—I systematically assess Zimbabwe’s political and economic reform efforts that Mnangagwa has been touting over the past two years. I found very little genuine progress, along with an uptick in repression and a rapidly declining economy that is near collapse.

On the political front, reform promises are severely lagging. The report assesses five main reform areas, including elections, legislation, the security sector, judiciary, and repression. The research revealed very few tangible steps toward reconfiguring Zimbabwe’s autocratic system. Repression has increased and the military is ascendant.

Despite some progress in certain areas, Mnangagwa’s economic reform efforts are either incomplete or falling short across a variety of sectors. A new currency regime has been hit by runaway inflation, corruption continues unabated, land reform is incomplete, the mining sector is increasingly militarized, and the privatization of state assets has been fraught with false starts. Rampant political interference and intraparty splits underlie the country’s stunted progress. As an adviser to Mnangagwa put it: “Politics dictates and distorts economics” in Zimbabwe.

Although Mnangagwa has repeatedly deployed flowery reform rhetoric, his administration’s piecemeal actions belie any movement toward genuine political or economic reform. There is a wide gap between the government’s reform rhetoric and the reality on the ground. The government’s well-rehearsed slogans appear to be largely political theater targeted at the international diplomatic community and potential investors. Even where limited progress has been made, such steps appear to be largely cosmetic. A serving member of parliament characterized Mnangagwa’s political reform efforts as putting “mascara on a frog.”

With the old guard and the military still firmly in power—and both benefiting from their perches atop the highly cartelized-and patronage-based economy—genuine reform is unlikely in the next one to three years under present conditions in Zimbabwe. The country is likely to continue down a path of political polarization, protests, political violence at the hands of the state, and economic deterioration.

Zimbabwe has tremendous potential, with rich natural resources and one of the most educated populations in Africa. How can the United States and international actors help arrest this downward spiral and support Zimbabwe’s recovery? Although Zimbabwe does not have much strategic value to the United States, America is the largest bilateral donor to Zimbabwe and holds some leverage.

Politics and economics are inextricably linked in Zimbabwe and the country will be unable to recover unless the two sectors are addressed in tandem. To help the country recover from years of mismanagement, corruption, and state violence, international actors—including the United States—would be wise to push the government in a coordinated fashion to implement genuine political, economic, and security reforms.

Genuine reforms would go a long way toward putting Zimbabwe on a democratic path, lessening high levels of political polarization, and repairing the collapsing economy. A good starting point would be pushing the government to respect its own constitution, allow for peaceful protest, fully repeal repressive laws, and hold security forces accountable for human rights abuses and the killing of unarmed civilians. International democracy and governance assistance should be increased, with a particular focus on professionalizing political parties. A cooling-off period of one to five years before military officials can join politics would also help to disincentivize more coups and security sector involvement in political processes.

The international community should also proceed with extreme caution on economic support for the government, withholding support for debt relief or any new lending until clear and unambiguous progress has been made on reforms and respect for human rights.

Mnangagwa is attempting to have his cake and eat it too, paying lip service to reforms in the hope of securing international support but staunchly refusing to implement any measures that might harm his and his closest supporters’ political and economic interests.

Post published in: Featured

That’s One Way To Run A Law School — See Also

Cracking Open The Black Box Of Partnership Compensation

A law firm’s compensation model for partners is oftentimes as mysterious as the whereabouts of Jimmy Hoffa. When partners look for new firms, they generally have a shortlist of expectations, such as good culture, strong practices and platforms, stable finances without too much debt, stellar reputations, and last but certainly not least, healthy compensation.

There is a common misconception that the compensation scales linearly with book of business from firm to firm. The reality is, very few firms abide by lockstep models, and PPP does not scale linearly with partner compensation either. As we see, average compensation as a percentage of your book of business decreases as originations increase.

For firms with a formulaic compensation model, there is not much wiggle room to influence your numbers, but you will have a good idea from the start about your take-home cash compensation. For firms with closed compensation systems, like the “black box,” a partner uses peer firms with formulaic models to benchmark what he assumes is market. Some firms are somewhere in the middle, open but subjective or semi-open and semi-formulaic. Most are closed, however.  There is not much consistency, so there is no real market to peg your value unless a you create one for oneself. One of the best ways to do this is to work with a veteran legal recruiter who can negotiate the best deal for you by creating a bidding war for your services. While it sounds easy in practice, the firms that can actually absorb your bill rates, meet your personal preferences, and clear conflicts checks are few and far between.

Although there is much uncertainty about partner compensation, here is a general rule of thumb I have seen firsthand and across the board in most regions. Partner compensation does not scale linearly with book of business. I have worked with groups of over 30 million dollars in business and with junior partners with just over a million in business and the compensation models can be much kinder to those on the lower end of the spectrum. As books of business grow larger, they require more and more support staff and overhead to maintain. The marginal compensation for a partner for each extra million dollars in business decreases almost instantaneously. There is a general efficiency ratio represented by:

A partner can only bill so many hours per year, so they need others to work on the excess work they originate. Even if a partner bills out at $1,000 an hour and bills 2,000 hours, that partner can only service two million dollars. If the partner is responsible for bringing in five million dollars, he will need several associates and support partners to help out.

When the book of business crosses the two million mark (i.e., 2,000 hours at $1,000 an hour), the actual take-home return diverges from the expected return as the single book of business starts to cost the firm more resources. This association is approximate and varies from firm to firm, nonetheless the general trend holds true in all of Biglaw. This does not mean that large books are bad, quite the opposite in fact, but it illustrates that it is important to find a firm that will not depreciate your book too drastically.

The law of diminishing returns is especially important for rainmakers when shopping for a new firm. Some firms reward books of businesses differently at the higher levels, and often times compensation is contingent on the firm’s cost structure and profit margins. Some of the most prestigious firms have low profit margins (i.e., someone in the 25 percent range), and if you have a large book of business, you may be better off going to a firm lower on the Am Law 200 list with a higher profit margin that would compensate you on a larger percentage of your book.

Cash rules when it comes to lateral partner moves, but many partners mistakenly believe that they will be more or less equally compensated at any firm. The most difficult part of partner placements is finding a firm with the right culture, with no conflicts, with a comparable hourly billing, and finally one that will fairly compensate a partner for their book of business.

We meet with every Am Law firm to learn not only about their lateral needs, but compensation structures and their platforms. We have a better sense of the factors, other than the book of business, that the firm will “weigh” for purposes of compensation. In addition, we know when the firm is willing to be opportunistic. The bottom line is that it is our job to maximize your options, and my colleagues and I are happy to help.

Ed. note: This is the latest installment in a series of posts from Lateral Link’s team of expert contributors. Michael Allen is the CEO of Lateral Link. He is based in the Los Angeles office and focuses exclusively on Partner and General Counsel placements for top firms and companies. Prior to founding Lateral Link in 2006, he worked as an attorney at both Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP and Irell & Manella LLP. Michael graduated summa cum laude from the University of California, San Diego before earning his JD, cum laude, from Harvard Law School.


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.

Treasury Department Embraces Congressional Oversight, But Only Of Hunter Biden

Hunter Biden (Photo by Moses Robinson/Getty Images for Usher’s New Look Foundation)

The Trump administration spent the last year since Democrats took control of the House of Representatives insisting that congressional oversight is illegal. They refused to explain how Jared and Ivanka got security clearances when they couldn’t pass a background check. Bill Barr ordered Commerce Department officials to defy congressional subpoenas to testify about how the citizenship question wound up on the census. And the Justice Department is litigating half a dozen cases arguing that Congress has no right to demand Trump’s tax and business records, despite a non-discretionary statute saying that the Ways and Means Committee is entitled to see them upon request. And that was all before the House even launched its impeachment investigation and the president bragged they were “fighting all the subpoenas.”

But when it comes to investigating Joe Biden’s son, the executive branch is falling all over itself to cooperate with Congress. Or at least with the branch of it controlled by the president’s allies.

Yahoo News reports that the Treasury Department has begun producing a trove of information about “Hunter Biden, his associates, their businesses, and clients” in response to a request from Republican chairs of the Senate Finance, Homeland Security, and Judiciary Committees.

Despite massive arm-twisting, the Ukrainian president wouldn’t investigate Hunter Biden. And Bill Barr’s Justice Department looked at the insane nonsense Rudy Giuliani kept depositing on his doorstep and refused to touch it, either. But Lindsey Graham is burdened by no such scruples. He’ll make Joe Biden’s f*ck-up son into a mastermind of corruption if it’s the last thing he does!

Graham and his compadres Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson are most interested in any Biden-related Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs), the alerts generated by banks when they spot a transaction that fits the pattern for money laundering or other serious financial crimes. These highly confidential documents are not subject to FOIA, and indeed there is an IRS agent in jail right now for leaking former Trump attorney Michael Cohen’s SARs to Michael Avenatti. Nonetheless, the Treasury is anxious to comply with the senators’ demand for information about a private citizen who has been credibly accused of breaking exactly zero laws.

(No, Rudy Giuliani’s lunatic rants do not count as “credible” allegations, a fact confirmed by Fox News’s internal analysts, even as their on-air personalities continued to flog them.)

While regular congressional requests for information on SARs can take months and months, the Treasury is treating the Biden query as a rush order.

“Applying a blatant double standard, Trump administration agencies like the Treasury Department are rapidly complying with Senate Republican requests — no subpoenas necessary — and producing ‘evidence’ of questionable origin,” said Ashley Schapitl, spokeswoman for Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden. “The administration told House Democrats to go pound sand when their oversight authority was mandatory while voluntarily cooperating with the Senate Republicans’ sideshow at lightning speed.”

Whether the “‘evidence’ of questionable origin” produced by Treasury is the gobbledygook dossier Giuliani has been shopping around the State and Justice Departments for seven months is unclear. Nor is it clear exactly what the senators hope to find out about Hunter Biden, other than something, anything to dirty him up and make it seem rational for Trump to have frozen military aid to Ukraine until it announced an investigation of both Joe and Hunter Biden.

The main thrust of Giuliani’s ramblings is that Joe Biden forced out a Ukrainian prosecutor to protect Hunter Biden’s business interests, a fact belied by the fact that the IMF, EU, entire national security establishment, and Ron Johnson himself was pushing for the prosecutor’s ouster. Giuliani has also made bizarre allegations about Biden laundering $7 billion of looted Ukrainian assets through Franklin Templeton sovereign wealth bonds, but even Lindsey Graham has his limits.

So what exactly are Grassley, Graham, and Johnson looking for in this fishing expedition?

In their letter to the Secret Service yesterday, Grassley and Johnson demanded information about “potential conflicts of interest posed by the business activities of Hunter Biden and his associates during the Obama administration.” They fail to specify how a private citizen can have “conflicts of interest” with the federal government where he is … not employed.

But everyone knows they don’t give a damn about Hunter Biden. They want something to beat Joe Biden over the head with if he’s the Democratic presidential nominee. The “conflict of interest” with Joe Biden’s work as Vice President is implied. And if they can’t find any, they’ll imply one as loud as they can throughout the entirety of this presidential campaign. Lucky thing they’ll have the entire apparatus of the federal government to help them do it!

Treasury Department sent information on Hunter Biden to expanding GOP Senate inquiry [Yahoo]


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

Pay-To-Play Admissions Scandal Rocks Law School

There’s a pay-to-play admissions scandal that’s claiming the heads of high-ranking officials at Texas Southern’s Thurgood Marshall School of Law. In November, the university announced they were opening an investigation surrounding irregularities in admissions. Pretty soon, local media was reporting the investigation was about the law school. According to a statement by the university’s board of regents, at least two students were improperly admitted to the law school.

The former assistant dean for admissions and financial aid at the law school reportedly resigned after their role in the scandal was revealed. According to the board of regents, in one case the former assistant dean accepted $14,000 in cash from a law school applicant in exchange for admission and scholarship money. For another student, the the former assistant dean “facilitated a fraudulent” transfer application.

Now the scandal has led to the firing of Dr. Austin Lane, the now-former president of Texas Southern University. Lane, who had been at Texas Southern since 2016, was placed on leave January 10th due the the probe into the admissions scandal. On Wednesday, the board of regents voted 6-1 to propose terminating Lane, due in large part to his lack of oversight of admissions:

The Texas Southern University Board of Regents voted today to propose the termination of Dr. Austin A. Lane. This action is based on an audit committee’s finding that Dr. Lane violated his contract, including the termination for cause provision. His actions relate in part to failure to report to the board information relating to improper payments for admissions to the Thurgood Marshall School of Law and for the improper awarding of scholarships to students, which led in part to the initiation of a comprehensive investigation.

The termination letter also said that Lane and his assistant attempted to direct another former law school official to misrepresent LSAT data to the ABA. Additionally, the board said they found attempts by Lane to conceal excessive entertainment expenses to prevent scrutiny of them. The circumstances around these incidents remain under investigation. The board also indicated they hired three separate law firms to assist them in the investigation.

Lane has 30 days to dispute the board’s findings, and by all reports he’ll do just that. During the board meeting, Lane reportedly called out, “That is a lie!” while they were discussing the allegations against him. He also said he rejected a settlement offer from the board:

Lane said he and attorney Darryl Carter refused an hours-long attempt by the board to negotiate a buyout through an attorney.

“Why? Because we didn’t do anything,” Lane said. “So we’ll be back in 30 days.”

And he’s publicly said the fight over his termination will continue:

Regardless of the ultimate disposition of Lane’s case, the aftershocks of this admission scandal will linger.


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).

Modern General Counsel


Olga V. Mack is the CEO of Parley Pro, a next-generation contract management company that has pioneered online negotiation technology. Olga embraces legal innovation and had dedicated her career to improving and shaping the future of law. She is convinced that the legal profession will emerge even stronger, more resilient, and more inclusive than before by embracing technology. Olga is also an award-winning general counsel, operations professional, startup advisor, public speaker, adjunct professor, and entrepreneur. Olga founded the Women Serve on Boards movement that advocates for women to participate on corporate boards of Fortune 500 companies. Olga also co-founded SunLaw, an organization dedicated to preparing women in-house attorneys to become general counsels and legal leaders, and WISE to help female law firm partners become rainmakers. She authored Get on Board: Earning Your Ticket to a Corporate Board Seat and Fundamentals of Smart Contract Security. You can email Olga at olga@olgamack.com or follow her on Twitter @olgavmack. 

Did The Impeachment Trial Of Donald Trump Really Accomplish Anything?

The impeachment drumbeat kicked off as fodder for hot-take artists trying to sound edgy. There was a giddy exhilaration in going out there to argue that this is a rare moment in history that calls for drastic constitutional action. It spread to politicians looking to raise money from a base increasingly riled up by the constant impeachment talk. Nancy Pelosi seemed to be the only one out there pumping the brakes and no one was going on TV to defend her. Eventually the Ukraine allegations came to light, providing the House an abuse of power that dwarfed the lackluster Mueller allegations and the horse was fully out of the barn. Now, the impeachment trial everyone clamored for has come and gone. And what have we accomplished as a nation?

This seems like a good time to revisit my article from May of last year arguing that the fixation on impeachment was a terrible idea all along to see just how things turned out. Why go back to my old predictions? Well, as Jim Brockmire put it, “You think I’m the kind of guy that likes to say, ‘I told you so,’ but that’s not true. I love to say it, and I will be doing so in the days and months ahead at random moments when you least expect it.”

To recap the piece, my reticence to join the impeachment train was pretty clinical: if the goal of the political process was to ensure Donald Trump ceases to be president in either the short- or long-term, does impeachment accomplish either of those goals? I concluded it did not and could well do the opposite. So what happened?

Prediction 1 — Donald Trump Will Be Acquitted
Verdict: Confirmed

The most obvious prediction because only the most partisan fever dreams contemplated the Senate getting to 67 votes to convict. Some, like my intrepid podcast cohost, tried to chart a path to conviction but it was always a stretch. In any event, the impeachment failed to remove Trump from office in the short-term.

Prediction 2 — Vulnerable Republicans Won’t Defect In Numbers
Verdict: Confirmed

I never bought the “retiring and purple state Senators will have to convict” line. Just because a Republican is retiring doesn’t mean they don’t still have to go home and not get egged by the MAGA hat electorate that put them there. Lamar Alexander still has to hob-knob with these people. Vulnerable Republicans aren’t as naive about triangulation as Democrats. While the liberals delude themselves into thinking everyone loves a moderate, the Republicans by and large understand that they win purple states by turning out the base. Whether they do it boldly or through winks and nods, they know they aren’t winning most of these states in landslides — they win those seats in tight, turnout-based elections where the right is engaged. Any feints to the middle are superficial at best and trying to remove the right’s favorite president would wildly alienate that base.

Prediction 3 — Any Republicans That Do Defect Would Actually Be Bad For Democratic Senatorial Aspirations
Verdict: Mixed

Where I whiffed was in predicting that purple state defections would actually be a disaster for Democrats, giving those Republicans a chance to have their cake and eat it too. I thought someone like Susan Collins might comfortably shift her vote to keep Trump in power while walking into reelection claiming that she “tried” to get him out. As it turned out, Collins decided she didn’t need to take the risk. Probably for the reasons detailed above.

But I’m giving myself partial credit on Mitt Romney. Not a purple state senator by any means, but he followed the logic of the argument: he voted to convict knowing that it wouldn’t matter and parlayed that into fawning coverage as a paragon of bipartisanship. Someone absolutely will spout off about making Romney the Democratic running mate on a harebrained “unity ticket.” For a senator whose goal is national relevance, it was the right play. He’s now going to pretend to be the arbiter of “the middle” and the press will largely let him get away with it.

Prediction 4 — Trump Declared Acquittal Provides “Finality”… And People Will Believe Him
Verdict: Still Early, But Appears Likely

When the Mueller report concluded that the Trump campaign was too stupid to realize that they were advancing Russian interests, Trump had his Attorney General lie about the report so the White House could claim he was “exonerated.” It strikes at what people don’t get about Trump: he doesn’t need to be cleared, he just needs these things to be over. He can make up whatever story he wants once the spectacle is in the can and through repetition he can get traction. As I put it in May:

A Senate trial may be rigged affair, but it would hand him the rhetorical flourish he desperately wants — “it’s over… they tried me and found nothing.” Trump would get to repeat this mantra twenty times a day for a year and a half. He gets to point and say “scoreboard” whenever anyone challenges him. For a candidate whose electoral success is entirely tied to exuding the appearance — deserved or not — of “winning” this is a tremendous risk for his opponents to invite.

Will the public believe him? Checking in on Trump’s approval rating post-acquittal we find that he’s… more popular than he’s ever been. A 49 percent Gallup result may still fall below 50 percent, but for the comparable week in 2012, Obama was only at 47 percent.

So the Democrats placed a speedbump on the path to Trump’s long-term removal. In my earlier piece and on podcasts touching on this topic, I’ve always held that marathon investigations would be far more successful than impeachment. Even with witnesses ducking subpoenas, the spectacle of hearing after hearing would rob Trump of the finality he craved to begin spinning his cover. Consider the years of substance-free Benghazi hearings trying to tie the embassy attack to Hillary Clinton somehow. There wasn’t even a whiff of smoke there on the evidence and it still played into a narrative that she was vaguely corrupt. Instead, Democrats took their shot and watched it sail into the stands.

Prediction 5 — Democrats Will Suffer From Setting Themselves Up To Fail
Verdict: Unknown

Sure the whole thing got donors to open up their wallets to give to Democrats, but it also whipped people into a delusion that this was all going to amount to something. Frustrated Dems might realize this was doomed from the start and redouble their efforts to win in November. But there’s something demoralizing about failing to meet the expectations you set. Does this leave the party with the narrative mark of “failure”? This one is too early to call.

But if this does end up weighing down the Democrats in November, it should be a sobering moment for all those who uncritically pushed this process for over a year. Unfortunately, sober self-reflection is hard to come by in the media these days.

Earlier: Impeachophilia: The Democrats’ Futile And Self-Destructive Attraction To Impeachment


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.

Tidjane Thiam Not Swiss Enough To Fix Credit Suisse

Intellectual Athletes

(Photo by Jamie Squire/Getty Images)

With the Tokyo games fast approaching, my mind wonders to the parallels between the practice of law and the Olympics, of which there are many. Both involve the culmination of copious amounts of preparation and a formidable work ethic coming to a head in a competitive setting. If you succeed in your endeavor you will likely become a hero (in the eyes of your client or country, respectively). And if you fail, you will likely fade into obscurity (unless you crash and burn, in which case you will live on in infamy). It’s no wonder that many former Olympians segue into the practice of law.

A large part of what makes legal proceedings, and the Olympics, so exciting is the build-up of labor that precedes the event itself. Then, after months and sometimes years of tedious preparation, all the chips fall in a flash. In complex cases, we dedicate countless hours to wrestling with every contingency and offshoot that could reveal itself. For the Olympics, athletes spend years and small fortunes to compete against the world’s best. A good showing in the games can change an athlete’s image much like a career case can cement the reputation of an attorney.

Nowadays, most cases settle, which makes me even more appreciative that I work at a firm that prides itself on not being eager to settle and that does not shy away from actually litigating cases it takes on. In private practice, experienced litigators are becoming increasingly rarified, which makes an environment where you get to litigate sophisticated matters all-the-more covetable.

Like with the Olympics, success in the practice of law requires preparation and a formidable work ethic. While preparation may be the ticket of entry to the soirée of litigation, technique is equally important. Last summer, I attended the U.S. Open Championship at Pebble Beach (golf was reintroduced at the 2016 Summer Olympics) and I was amazed at the technical abilities of all the golfers on full display during their warmups. Likewise, I was amazed when I realized the level of preparation  and the mechanics our firm takes in handling arguments. I was no stranger to preparing outlines and running through arguments with colleagues — but the commitment to the art of argument is second to none here — going so far as to hire members of the public to act as juries.

The process is the practice. So, with winter coming to a close and the summer games on the horizon, let’s all take a moment to pause and appreciate the intellectual Olympians our work forces us to be. Now, back to work for me. I hope I stick the landing.


Timothy M. Lupinek is an attorney at Balestriere Fariello who represents companies and individuals in state, appellate, and administrative courts of Maryland. He focuses his practice on complex commercial litigation with thousands of hours of civil, criminal, and regulatory trial experience. You can reach Timothy at timothy.m.lupinek @balestrierefariello.com.