Category: News Feeds

A leading Zimbabwean lawyer, Adv Thabani Mpofu, has been arrested by the Police, apparently on two charges of defeating or obstructing the course of justice arising out of an affidavit he is said to have prepared and filed in court.  He was arrested on Monday and has been detained in police cells since then.  He is expected to be brought to court this morning.

The Law Society of Zimbabwe has issued a statement expressing profound concern at Adv Mpofu’s arrest and detention, pointing out that the State has an obligation to allow lawyers to perform all their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference.  The statement can be viewed on the Veritas website [link].

Veritas associates itself with the Law Society statement and wishes to add some further points.

International Obligations

It is recognised internationally that lawyers play a vital role in upholding the rule of law and fundamental human rights, in particular the right to a fair trial.  If lawyers are to perform that role they must be independent of State control and free from harassment.  Article 16 of the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers (1990) states:

“Governments shall ensure that lawyers … are able to perform all of their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference.”

This does not mean that lawyers are above the law or immune from arrest and prosecution.  What it means is that law enforcement authorities should not arrest a lawyer except where it is absolutely necessary to enforce a law.

Arrest Not to be Resorted to Lightly

Arrest is a drastic infringement of a person’s dignity and freedom of movement, and should not be resorted to unless it is the only practical way of bringing a person to justice.  Bringing suspected criminals to justice is the main purpose of an arrest, and law enforcement authorities must not use their powers of arrest in order to intimidate or humiliate suspects, or even to interrogate them because suspects have a right to silence guaranteed by section 50(4)(a) of the Constitution, which reads as follows:

“Every person who is arrested or detained for an alleged offence has the right … to remain silent”.

Generally, suspected criminals should be arrested only if they are likely to abscond or flee the country, or commit further crimes or interfere with the evidence ‒ none of which seems to apply in Adv Mpofu’s case.

Bringing the Arrested Person to Court

Advocate Mpofu was arrested the day before yesterday and had not been brought before a court by yesterday evening.  According to section 50(2) of the Constitution, anyone who has been arrested:

“must be brought before a court as soon as possible and in any event not later than forty-eight hours after the arrest took place”

Those words “as soon as possible” are important.  The police cannot wait until the last minute, until the 48 hours are up, before bringing a suspect to court:  they must do so as soon as possible, not when it is convenient for them.

In this case was it really impossible, throughout the whole of yesterday, for the police to bring Adv Mpofu from Rhodesville Police Station to Harare Magistrates Court?

Conclusion

Veritas cannot comment on the merits of the State case against Adv Mpofu.  But even if the case is completely watertight ‒ and from what the Law Society has said there are doubts on that score ‒ his arrest was unwarranted and his detention excessive.  The conduct of the Police gives rise to a suspicion that the State’s real objective was to silence a human-rights defender and intimidate other like-minded lawyers.

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

Post published in: Featured

Flatten the Research Curve

Flatten the Research Curve

Wolters Kluwer

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

According to data collected by the ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar, how much has the number of law school graduates declined from the Class of 2014 to the Class of 2019?

Hint: There were some pretty big shake-ups to legal academia during that time.

See the answer on the next page.

 A man wearing a face mask holds the newly introduced 10 bond note in Harare, Zimbabwe, 20 May 2020. The government has introduced new 10 and 20 bond notes to help ease the cash crisis. Zimbabwe’s annual inflation is at 676.4 percent as of March 2020 from 540.2 percent in February. The country is facing food shortages also worsened by the current drought. EPA-EFE/AARON UFUMELI

For the longest time, the Zimbabwean Government has been fighting to have sanctions removed. They blame all our problems on sanctions they say were imposed on us by white imperialist states who are bitter that our government took land and gave it back to “the people”. This narrative is fed the people of Zimbabwe at political rallies and on state media.

In the past, national disasters such as the cholera outbreaks of 2008 and 2018 and Cyclone Idai in 2019 have given the Zimbabwean government foreign currency from benevolent nations. When the US donated $2.5-million to help mitigate cyclone Idai Emmerson Mnangagwa was beside himself with happiness announcing that Trump had donated real money and not these useless Zimbabwean bond notes. He went on to explain that due to the donations, the national disaster was in fact turning out to be a blessing in disguise.

Appeal to the IMF

Now that Covid-19 has presented another opportunity for the government to rake in foreign currency, the government has decided to milk the opportunity for what it is worth. A letter to the IMF, allegedly by Zimbabwe’s Finance Minister Mthuli Ncube, was leaked in April.

In the letter, Ncube explains that Zimbabwe has insufficient resources to mitigate the impact of Covid-19. He laments that unless there is a dialogue on how to clear Zimbabwe’s arrears and a plan to re-engage Zimbabwe, the country will suffer a health and economic catastrophe. He begs for:

“Immediate financial support for health spending and the normalization of relationships between Zimbabwe’s creditors, bilateral and multilateral.”

Contrary to his earlier claims that government had signed contracts and maize deliveries were underway (made in Davos in 2020); that the Zimbabwean economy is on the mend; that we have a budget surplus; that inflation is under control and we are ready to deal with Covid-19, Ncube now admits that Zimbabwe is already in a difficult economic situation.

He goes on to lay bare that Zimbabwe is short of resources to implement a Covid-19 response strategy.

Ncube projects that Zimbabwe’s already shrunken economy could contract by a further 15-20%. He confesses that already 8.5-million Zimbabweans (half the population) are food insecure, health services are inadequate and poverty levels are increasing. He says Zimbabwe needs $1-billion in 2020 to finance spending for health, education, food security and social protection.

He says these indicators are expected to worsen.

To make a case for Immediate Financial Support, Ncube cries that Zimbabwe desperately needs urgent international support, threatening that “a domestic collapse also would have potentially adverse regional effects, where spillovers are significant”.

He acknowledges that Zimbabwe is not eligible to benefit from any debt relief initiatives because of its official external debt arrears and proposes an urgent high-level dialogue to advance financial support and an arrears clearance plan.

Ncube structures his letter around Covid-19 being the basis for which he is begging for financial support. But surprisingly, of the $1billion he says is needed urgently, only $200million will go directly towards Covid-19. This gives the sense that the Zimbabwean government is trying to use Covid-19 to evade the burden of fixing problems unrelated to Covid-19 which they caused themselves through looting and corruption.

Zimbabwean President Emmerson Mnangagwa speaks during a live broadcast address to the nation regarding an extension to the current coronavirus lockdown from the State House in Harare, Zimbabwe, 16 May 2020. Mnangagwa said the lockdown measures would be extended in a bid to slow down the spread of the pandemic COVID-19 disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, which has so far resulted in four deaths in the African country. He added that authorities would review the situation in two-week intervals to assess whether to continue extending the emergency policy, depending on the progress made.(Photo: EPA-EFE/AARON UFUMELI)

Divulging that they know it is not sanctions but their own behaviours that caused the crisis, Ncube says “the Zimbabwean authority duly acknowledge their responsibility for the recent policy missteps during late 2019”.

Further exposing that the government is conscious of their political and economic crimes and are highly conscious of the need for reform, Ncube goes on to bargain for assistance by proposing changes that the government is willing to make and “of its resolve to implement a comprehensive and credible policy reform agenda.”

Ncube promises several economic reforms. He promises to adopt an exchange rate regime that is consistent with macroeconomic fundamentals and is market-determined as well as to adopt a foreign exchange buy and sell regime that is transparent, market-driven, and verifiable. He also vows to eliminate discretion in the allocation of foreign exchange. To reform the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe (RBZ) he promises to eliminate all Quasi Fiscal Operations of the RBZ as well as the RBZ’s direct lending schemes.

Ncube pledges to include all subsidies in the budget to ensure transparency and to contain money supply growth to levels commensurate with the stabilization of the exchange rate and reduction of inflation. He says they will table a mild-term 2020 Budget to Parliament, which will reallocate expenditures to the social sectors, including spending requirements for the global pandemic. Ncube promises to limit the fiscal costs of the financing of agriculture, ensure transparency, and resolve all the related governance issues.

Reform delayed is reform denied

These promises make one wonder exactly why the Zimbabwean government has not implemented any of these reforms since the coup in 2017. It is clear that they know which policies are causing inflation and which of their behaviours repel investment. Would it not be more honourable, then for the government to first implement these reforms instead of saying to potential creditors lend us money and then we will change our behaviour.

There is something skewed and absolutely wrong with suggesting that economic reforms will be implemented only to please would-be donors as opposed to implementing them to fulfill a mandate to the people of Zimbabwe.

This shameless bargaining mentality of saying if you give us the support we will behave better is further betrayed by Ncube’s final offer of governance reforms.

He offers to embark on what he calls “an ambitious” Governance and Anti-Corruption Strategy that will see Zimbabwe’s government compensating former farm owners affected by the land reform program.

Ncube dangles an alignment of Zimbabwean laws to the constitution, but the constitution was approved by parliament on 9 May 2013 and seven years later, it is yet to be fully implemented.

Who exactly is the Government of Zimbabwe serving? 

In a massive display of mixed-up priorities, Ncube also goes on to offer external lenders national dialogue efforts and electoral reforms. This goes to show that the Zimbabwean government has an upside-down view of which side their bread is buttered. Their behaviour shows they have completely forgotten that they are in power to serve the people of Zimbabwe who have the power to end their reign.

To further prove that the Zimbabwean government has neither respect nor regard for the electorate, their behaviour on the ground is the complete opposite.

They continue to tell Zimbabweans that sanctions are the cause of our economic crisis. They continue to arrest, abduct and torture Zimbabweans. They even went on to impose lockdown laws more repressive than the Public Order Security Act (POSA) and the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy act (AIPPA) which Ncube brags they repealed.

The demons that rule the economy

Last week, John Mangudya, the Reserve Bank governor, expressing exasperation over how he has no idea why the economy is failing and that what is happening in the Zimbabwean economy defies all logic, said in Parliament:

“There are non-monetary factors in this economy and they need to be exorcised. There is a demon-like a virus, a demon-like coronavirus, you can’t touch it but you feel it. We need to trace (contact tracing) where it is coming from. We will need your assistance because you are the honourable members of parliament and you need to tell us in your constituencies what is happening to the economy.”

This refusal to take responsibility and admit failure and resign; and instead try to make a man-made problem seem like some spiritual affliction is utterly deplorable. It is shameful that Zimbabwe is in the hands of people with no integrity.

This spiritual analysis is in tune with declarations by pastor and member of the Presidential Advisory Council (PAC), Shingi Munyeza, who for the past few weeks has been preaching to the nation that Zimbabwe is in the hands of a wicked occult and people must rise up. Despite his refusal to name these occultists, several Zimbabweans have been taken by this message as the message to rise up resonates with many.

Zimbabwe’s problems are without a doubt caused not by demons and occultism but unabated criminality and impunity. What we are battling in Zimbabwe is clear cases of state capture and state failure which allows Zanu-PF a reign of terrorism and impunity and rendering them answerable to noone.

Because of this state capture, it would be a grave mistake for any entity to lend money to the Zimbabwean government right now as it would go straight to the pockets of the ruling elite as well as to funding repression and terrorist acts against the people of Zimbabwe.

That said, it is inescapable that Zimbabwe faces a huge Covid-19 related disaster due to the current state of our health systems and the incapacity of government. Unfortunately, this means that Mthuli is probably right: without assistance from external benefactors, Zimbabweans will die.

On the other hand, Zimbabweans must also take responsibility and bear the burden of freeing our state from capture. This is something that cannot be outsourced.

We need a revolution. A peaceful, non-violent revolution. DM/MC 

Thandekile Moyo is a writer and human rights defender from Zimbabwe. For the past four years, she has been using print, digital and social media (Twitter: @mamoxn) to expose human rights abuses, bad governance and corruption. Moyo holds an Honours degree in Geography and Environmental Studies from the Midlands State University in Zimbabwe.

Estate matters are not usually litigated in the federal courts. Probate and intestacy issues are relegated to the states, and specialized courts known as probate or surrogate’s courts, hear these kinds of matters. There are exceptions, however, especially when an estate or trust is involved in litigation involving large sums of monies, multiple states, or even sometimes when the estate can sue on a federal cause of action.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit has just vacated the dismissal of an estate lawsuit and remanded the case to district court. That matter involves the 2013 death of Indianan Cary Owsley, whose death the county coroner ruled a suicide. The decedent’s son, Logan Owsley, claimed that Cary’s wife, Lisa Owsley, and her children were somehow responsible for the death. That was never proven.

Lisa, as surviving spouse, was appointed representative of the estate. In the Indiana state court, Logan tried, but failed, to have her removed. Logan also filed a civil rights law suit in federal court arguing that eight Bartholomew County public officers destroyed or lost evidence relating to the decedent’s death, raising a federal civil obstruction of justice claim against the sheriff, coroner, and several deputies. Several of the  sheriffs  were disciplined because they made judgment errors during the investigation. They allegedly allowed Lisa’s ex-husband to enter the death scene, where he removed the decedent’s body from the home, handled the handgun, and cleaned up the blood at the scene.

In April 2019, the federal  circuit court dismissed the lawsuit against the defendant officials who successfully argued that Logan did not have legal standing to assert a claim. They also claimed immunity and that the matter failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted.

While the federal matter was pending, Indiana state court considered Logan’s standing in the estate to pursue causes of action like the one in federal court.  Although the estate was closed in 2016, Logan was assigned “any interest” the estate had in the federal lawsuit. The assignment was not enough for the federal district court, which dismissed the case in 2019.

Seven years since the death, Logan’s case persists as the 7th Circuit’s decision notes that the district court wrongfully did not rule on the merit of the assignment, instead focusing on the fact that Logan did not suffer any personal injury. The 7th Circuit wrote, “Federal law permits assignees to sue on assignors’ claims” citing Logan’s estate assignment and Sprint Communications Co. v. APCC Services, Inc., 554 U.S. 269 (2008), focusing the case on the assignment itself.

Interestingly, the 7th Circuit noted that Logan did not argue that the defendants blocked the estate from filing a wrongful death suit. Logan argued that the defendants, by hiding or destroying evidence, prevented the estate from pursuing a claim against Lisa or her children, and he argued that the evidence also could have been used to remove Lisa as administrator. This, Logan argued, violated the Constitution, and is the reason he is before the federal court.

---

Cori A. Robinson is a solo practitioner having founded Cori A. Robinson PLLC, a New York and New Jersey law firm, in 2017. For more than a decade Cori has focused her law practice on trusts and estates and elder law including estate and Medicaid planning, probate and administration, estate litigation, and guardianships. She can be reached at cori@robinsonestatelaw.com.

The Securities and Exchange Commission has had a strange reaction to quarantine-induced boredom, and that has been to actually do its job. But the bureaucrats and regulators aren’t the only ones keeping busy, or helping keep them busy: The previously-reviled whistleblowers have found 4,000 ways to pass the time.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission received about 4,000 tips, complaints and referrals of possible corporate wrongdoings from mid-March to mid-May, said Steven Peikin, co-director of the SEC’s enforcement division. That number is 35% higher than it was in the same period last year. The tips have led to hundreds of new investigations—“many Covid-19 related, but many in other traditional areas,” Mr. Peikin said in a recent speech.

We all know that there are lawyers and judges who engage in stupid behavior. Why they risk their licenses, their judicial offices, their professional dreams, mystifies me and always will.

So, here’s a little roundup of some of more recent situations of lawyers acting stupid and paying the price. I’ll get to the bench in a little while.

In Vermont, an attorney was arrested for brandishing a gun in a retail store. She (yes, a she) apparently didn’t like the store’s sign that called for social distancing. I don’t know about you, but I’d comply with the social distancing rather than risk a criminal charge and possible disciplinary action. What’s the big deal about six feet?

This one is a variation on the “use a gun, go to prison” slogan so popular for many years. Two attorneys in Texas are accused of a murder for hire. They were willing to pay the huge sum (cue the sarcasm) of $300 for an undercover agent (whoops) to buy a gun to kill the former husband, also a lawyer, of one of the attorneys. Any relation to the gang that couldn’t shoot straight?  Murder for hire is apparently cheap in Texas, at least in this case.

Of course, lawyers are disputatious, that’s how we make our living. A disbarred Florida lawyer has filed a pro se lawsuit, claiming that the Florida governor lacked the authority to order the state’s lockdown. The former attorney filed a quo warranto lawsuit, so it goes directly to Florida’s Supreme Court. Of course, no one knows how many more Floridians would have died without the lockdown. At last count, the death toll there was more than 2,250, but who is counting, beside me?

Then there’s the disbarred Rhode Island lawyer, guilty of theft and two counts of mail fraud, sentenced to the clink for a year and a day for stealing his dead client’s pension. The theft totaled almost $250,000. The sentence is less than the two years the government sought, but the attorney’s age and susceptibility to COVID-19 cut him some sentencing slack from the court. So, can you now use COVID-19 for a reduced sentence or to even get out of prison early? (See Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen.)

Two New York City attorneys, including one former Biglaw associate, have been charged with throwing a Molotov cocktail into an empty NYPD police cruiser. The Biglaw attorney was furloughed from his job in April. More collateral damage from COVID-19? Will the fallout from the virus ever end? And what purpose does it serve if they lose their licenses to practice? What’s the point? Surely, there are other ways that lawyers can work for social and racial justice.

Of course, this roundup would not be complete without at least one story about inappropriate touching. The Indiana attorney general has had his license lifted for 30 days. Indiana’s Supreme Court determined that he had groped several women at a party celebrating the end of the legislative session. I think it was way back in kindergarten that we were taught to keep our hands to ourselves. Remember? Some elementary lessons are better learned than others.

A Biglaw partner represented Chevron in an employment mediation. Opposing counsel claimed that the Biglaw partner had shaken his butt at counsel at mediation. The court denied plaintiff’s counsel’s motion for sanctions, ruling that the $10,000 request for attorney’s fees was excessive. The court said that the hit to the partner’s reputation and his lost ability to generate business (the incident went viral) were sanctions enough. True. The partner is no longer at the Biglaw firm.  Just as you should keep your hands to yourself, don’t shake your butt at opposing counsel. No ifs, ands, or buts about that. (Sorry, I couldn’t resist.)

Hooray for the New Jersey Supreme Court that removed a judge who had asked a sexual assault victim if she had tried to close her legs to prevent the assault. I know. You can read that sentence several times if you like. What term would you use to describe this judge? I can think of several unprintables that don’t belong even on this legal website, but do you think “moron” might work? Apparently, this was not the judge’s first misconduct rodeo.

I wonder if the judge has ever had any women working with him or for him, whether he’s married to a woman, and whether he has any daughters. Unless he was hatched, he surely has or had a mother. This case is a primer of what not to ask, and how not to act, for those interested in ever being appointed to the bench. How hard is it to stifle yourself, even if you are a judge?

And then here in California, vastly different facts but the same result. The Commission on Judicial Performance has issued an order removing appellate justice Jeffrey Johnson for 18 acts of prejudicial misconduct comprising more than 40 proven allegations. The Commission found that the justice’s lack of candor aggravated the misconduct. Here’s the Commission’s opinion.

After all that has happened in the past eight days, starting with the murder of George Floyd, read the words of the poet Langston Hughes. His poem “Harlem” starts with a simple question: “What happens to a dream deferred?” The poem is very brief. My answer? Deferred dreams cannot be deferred forever.

---

Jill Switzer has been an active member of the State Bar of California for over 40 years. She remembers practicing law in a kinder, gentler time. She’s had a diverse legal career, including stints as a deputy district attorney, a solo practice, and several senior in-house gigs. She now mediates full-time, which gives her the opportunity to see dinosaurs, millennials, and those in-between interact — it’s not always civil. You can reach her by email at oldladylawyer@gmail.com.

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced many law firms to close their offices in order to promote social distancing and slow the spread of the virus. In order to maintain operations remotely, numerous lawyers and administrators at many law firms have adapted to conduct legal tasks from home. As most states begin to reopen their economies and relax restrictions related to COVID-19, law firms may wish to reopen their offices as soon as they are legally allowed to do so. However, even if firms are permitted to open their offices, it might be wiser for lawyers and staff to continue working remotely. In fact, many tech companies have already announced that work-from-home plans will continue at least until the end of the year for health reasons. Based on my own past experiences at several law firms, however, it seems likely that some shops will move to reopen their offices too soon, even though this may pose health risks and practical concerns.

Law firms may wish to reopen their offices as soon as possible for many reasons. Numerous law firms have seen a precipitous decrease in billing as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, which may be partially due to stress and inefficiencies associated with working from home. Law firm managers might think that bringing attorneys and staff back to the office may increase efficiency, which might accordingly lead to an increase in revenue produced by a shop. In addition, some old school managers may think that bringing people back to the office is important for the morale and the culture of a firm. Also, it must be maddening for many law firm managers to pay substantial sums of money on rent even though only a small amount of essential employees have been in the office lately. Moreover, some law firm managers may think they are even doing employees a favor by reopening their offices and making it easier for many to do their jobs.

Employees at numerous law firms can likely use past experiences to guess whether their bosses will force them to come back to work while the pandemic is ongoing or whether workers will be permitted to work from home for the foreseeable future. For instance, in the New York and New Jersey area, how a firm acted during Superstorm Sandy may be a good predictor of whether bosses will force people to return to the office during the COVID-19 pandemic. During Superstorm Sandy, I fortunately worked at a firm that had excellent remote work systems and compassionate leaders who did not want to risk anyone’s health or safety by forcing people to return to the office too soon. It was a struggle for us to conduct work from home during this time, but the firm let everyone work from home for weeks after Superstorm Sandy. By the time the office was reopened, mass transit had been restored, and life had largely returned to normal.

However, I know some attorneys who worked at firms that were not compassionate during Superstorm Sandy. Some attorneys needed to find creative ways to trek to work during this time because they were forced to show up at the office, and public transit options were knocked out for weeks after Superstorm Sandy. I even heard of a few firms that forced employees to return to work after Superstorm Sandy even though their offices did not have heat! Associates and staff were told to just bring extra layers of clothing and space heaters if they were cold, and had to muscle through the discomfort. I am willing to bet that the same firms that forced people to return to work despite transportation difficulties and heating issues after Superstorm Sandy will also force workers to return to work while the pandemic is ongoing.

Moreover, I am sure that all of us have worked at firms that have had different policies abut office closures when there is inclement weather. For instance, I once worked at a firm that had a “one-snowflake rule,” meaning that the firm would close its offices whenever there was even the slightest amount of snow. The boss really cared about his employees, and he had to drive a decent distance to get home, so the office was always closed when there was snowy weather or even the threat of inclement weather.

However, I have also worked at firms that almost never closed their offices during inclement weather. Presumably, these managers knew how revenue could drop if offices were closed, and they forced everyone to brave dangerous conditions to make it home. I remember one time, a few staffers had to stay at the office well into the night before heading out because they were not allowed to travel home when the inclement weather began. I am willing to bet the same firms that refuse to close their offices because of stormy weather will also resist efforts to keep offices closed because of COVID-19.

In any case, law firms should seriously consider closing their offices well past when safer-at-home orders are eased, or at least give employees the legitimate option to stay at home if they wish. If firms have not implemented systems that allow employees to be just as efficient at home as they are in the office, that is usually a problem with how the firm is managed, and this can be fixed in many situations. In addition, it is possible that firms which reopen their offices soon after natural disasters or refuse to close during inclement weather are going to be the same shops that reopen their offices too soon during the COVID-19 pandemic.

---

Jordan Rothman is a partner of The Rothman Law Firm, a full-service New York and New Jersey law firm. He is also the founder of Student Debt Diaries, a website discussing how he paid off his student loans. You can reach Jordan through email at jordan@rothmanlawyer.com.

Donald Trump is mighty peeved that North Carolina isn’t going to let him run the GOP Convention in the state unless he scales it back and complies with a litany of COVID-inspired safety protocols. The state doesn’t want some kind of deadly outbreak just because they pack a couple thousand elderly Republicans into a convention hall. Because that really would be a shame.

This concern about large, in-person gatherings over the summer appears limited to the RNC however, with the state forging ahead with its July bar exam and joining Mississippi in asking applicants to kick off the most stressful exam they’ll ever take by waiving their right to recovery if North Carolina’s stubborn insistence on holding this exam lands them in the hospital or the morgue.

Unlike Mississippi, North Carolina isn’t asking applicants to affirmatively waive their rights, so much as posting a notice that anyone taking the test has already done so. There’s good reason to believe that this is just the first issue-spotter of the exam, and applicants will be tested on their ability to point out that this is complete legal gibberish:

Some contracts and civil law professors, however, are scratching their heads. “I don’t think it’s enforceable or material,” says David Hoffman, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School. “This is not an agreement; it’s a posted sign.

Putting aside the attempted waiver, North Carolina is also taking the macabre step of preparing for some gunner to show up for the test as a walking “COVID Casey” and put together a coronavirus romper room for anyone exhibiting symptoms during the test:

Potential life lesson: if you feel the need to spell out your plans for a severe pathogen outbreak during your exam… maybe don’t hold the exam. Perfect safety is never guaranteed, but no one feels the need to share the plan in case of a fire at the test site. The fact that this is spelled out in the materials is indicative that the examiners know that they need to provide assurances for applicants to feel safe which is a pretty damn good reason not to go forward with the test when we have so many other options from delays to online exams to variations of diploma privilege.

But let’s just screw it and put some “NO COVID ALLOWED” signs up and call it a day.

Earlier: Bar Exam Applicants Forced To Sign COVID Waiver In Case In-Person Exam Ends Up Killing Them

---

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.