Category: News Feeds

Three Western states’ efforts to rethink how they regulate the legal profession have drawn plenty of attention, and rightly so.

But Arizona, California, and Utah are not alone in examining hot-button topics such as whether to allow fee splitting with nonlawyers.

In Illinois, a panel created by the Chicago Bar Association and Chicago Bar Foundation is examining potential changes to the state’s legal marketplace.

The Task Force on the Sustainable Practice of Law & Innovation held its first meeting early last month.

A press release announcing the panel’s creation highlighted that the task force will strive to propose regulatory changes bolstering access to justice for consumers. But the chairs of the task force also made clear in their prepared statements that the panel will examine how to improve the legal market for lawyers.

“We intend to evaluate technologies, rule modifications and other changes, including the possible expansion of legal referral platforms to promote a more viable and sustainable law practice for Illinois attorneys,” said Task Force Co-Chair E. Lynn Grayson of Nijman Franzetti LLP.

Task Force Member Jayne Reardon said in an interview that she is glad the panel will be dually focused on “the fact we have so many lawyers who cannot have a sustainable and rewarding practice at the same time we as a profession are failing to meet the civil legal needs” of consumers.

While the justice gap has been well-documented for some time, Reardon said she thinks the myriad challenges facing lawyers in the current environment have been a key driver of the active focus on legal regulatory reform in multiple states.

“What I think is different now is that it has become clear over the last several years that the construct and structures of the legal profession are not working for lawyers either,” said Reardon, executive director of the Illinois Supreme Court Commission on Professionalism.

The Illinois task force also plans to closely follow developments in the Western states that are further along in their reform efforts, and it has established a National Advisory Council to help it do so.

Utah’s Work Group on Regulatory Reform released its recommendations in August. They were adopted by the Utah Supreme Court soon after, and the state’s implementation work is underway.

Arizona’s Task Force on the Delivery of Legal Services released its report and recommendations last month. The Arizona Judicial Council will determine next steps.

California’s Task Force on Access Through Innovation of Legal Services released tentative recommendations in the summer and is working to complete a final report in the coming months. Several members of that panel are on Illinois’ National Advisory Council.

Reardon said she thinks Utah has proposed the most novel approach to date. One of their recommendations called for the creation of a “regulatory sandbox” that will allow nontraditional legal services providers to “test innovative legal service models and delivery systems.”

These providers, such as legal tech companies, will be permitted to do their testing without being accused of engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. They will do so under the supervision of a new regulator implementing a “risk-based, empirically-grounded regulatory process for legal service entities.”

“Utah is in fact reimagining legal services in a way that breaks out of the constraints that have been basically the norm for the last 100 years,” Reardon said. “There is a lot of promise there. How they work out the regulatory piece and the regulatory sandbox will be interesting to watch.”

As for Illinois, the task force there hopes to identify and recommend ethics rules changes to the Illinois Supreme Court by September 2020.

---

Lyle Moran is a freelance writer in San Diego who handles both journalism and content writing projects. He previously reported for the Los Angeles Daily Journal, San Diego Daily Transcript, Associated Press, and Lowell Sun. He can be reached at lmoransun@gmail.com and found on Twitter @lylemoran.

What do millennials look for when shopping for a lawyer? They want to know if you’ll meet with them in Starbucks. They want to know if you accept payment via Venmo or Bitcoin. They want to know a fun or quirky fact about you.

That, at least, is the premise of Modern Attorney, a new attorney directory that aims to match millennial clients with lawyers who fit their lifestyles. The site encourages attorneys to create profiles that show their personalities and in which they are transparent about their services and fees.

The directory was launched by the people behind bankruptcy site NextChapter, which was acquired in September by Fastcase. Janine Sickmeyer, NextChapter’s founder, told me that she originally created the directory to help funnel leads to the bankruptcy attorneys who use NextChapter, but that it proved so popular, she decided to open it to all practice areas.

“Six months ago, we at NextChapter started talking about how we would look for an attorney,” Sickmeyer said. “All of us agreed we aren’t going to go find an attorney in the ways people might have done so in the past. We want to find lawyers who work the way we live, who will meet us in a coffee shop or talk with us over video chat.”

Profiles show how the lawyer communicates, options for consultations, and ways in which the lawyer is tech savvy.

Lawyers’ profiles on Modern Attorney have sections that tell potential clients the different ways they will communicate — such as by email, text or remotely. They tell whether the lawyer meets by video conference, in coffee shops, or by traveling to the client.

Profiles indicate the ways in which a lawyer is tech savvy, showing when a lawyer has a secure client portal, uses “modern technology,” and communicates by texting. Profiles show average fees per hour or per matter, and the payment methods the lawyer accepts.

Profiles offer ‘fun facts’ about the lawyer.

Lawyers are encouraged to offer “fun facts” about themselves. One says he plays bass in a wedding band. Another says she bakes over 200-dozen Christmas cookies every year. Profiles have sliders for lawyers to indicate whether they are cat or dog people, prefer mountains or cities, and lean more towards books or sports.

Profiles do not have peer or user reviews.

“The benefit of this profile is to show your personality,” Sickmeyer said. “Millennial clients want to meet with an attorney who works the way they live.”

Clients Contact Attorneys Directly

Potential clients who come to the site search for lawyers by choosing a practice area and then a city or zip code. They then get a list of matching attorneys, which they can further refine by filters such as whether they accept Bitcoin or offer free consultations.

If a client finds a lawyer who interests them, they click a “Get Quote” or “Message” button on the lawyer’s profile page. Either button leads to a brief series of modal screens that ask for more information about the client and the matter, after which the information is sent to the attorney.

Although this lawyer matches a search for divorce, the contact form assumes the contact is for a bankruptcy.

Right now, there seems to be a problem with these screens, in that they assume the potential client is filing bankruptcy. If I search for and find a divorce lawyer or personal injury lawyer and click the contact button, I get the same screen asking me if I am interested in filing bankruptcy for myself or my business.

For attorneys who are also customers of the NextChapter bankruptcy platform — soon to also offer an immigration platform — any leads that come through this directory can be ported over to NextChapter.

The nascent directory is still light on lawyer listings, so searches often come up nil. But that is to be expected with any new directory, until it has time to gain traction.

In order to beef up its listings, Modern Attorney is offering lawyers the ability to sign up for free through the end of the year. For those who take advantage of this offer, their listings will remain free forever, Sickmeyer said. Starting Jan. 1, the cost of a listing will be $25 a month plus a $150 initiation fee.

Sickmeyer said that her next step for the directory will be to build awareness of it among consumers. That will be the hard part, she says, given the competition among lawyer directories for prominence on Google.

Bottom Line

So do millennials need their own lawyer directory? In my opinion, any potential client of any age will benefit from a directory that offers greater transparency into lawyers’ practices, fees and technology. Modern Attorney is nicely designed, provides useful information at a glance, and makes it easy for a potential client to reach out to an attorney.

As for whether an attorney is a cat or dog person or bakes cookies, I doubt it really matters to potential clients. But there is nothing wrong with letting a little personality show through.

Given that you can currently sign up for this directory for free and then lock that in forever, seems like a lawyer looking for more clients would have nothing to lose.

Biglaw bonuses are out today, with Milbank leading the way.

The bonuses are the same as last year. Based on my inbox, associates are not exactly thrilled about the extra $15,000 to $100,000 this scale provides. Of particular issue is the fact that in 2018, associates got summer bonuses. In 2019, they did not. So, in overall bonus compensation, a same-scale bonus actually results in less compensation for associates.

I kind of get why firms would be cautious. This could well be the last, or at best penultimate, bonus season before another “market correction.” It makes sense for firms to hold back in preparation for the coming recession.

On the other hand, I think the angered associates have the right of the argument. Why should the firms be hoarding profits in preparation for the recession, instead of sharing more of those profits with the employees, some of whom will be laid off next recession anyway? I doubt very much that in 2021, Milbank will say, “Well Bob, we don’t have to fire you because we cheaped out on bonuses in 2019.”

One associate worked the numbers and determined that Milbank should be paying more to associates if for no other reason than the fact that Milbank is billing clients more for associate labor.

Thanks for your coverage of our early bonuses here at “Thrillbank”. But I thought your article was too generous to Milbank. I know you called out the decrease in total comp, but the article was way too positive. I get it–it’s exciting that they announced early. But they’re trying to cheap out on us by tens of thousands of dollars for the same amount of work.

They increased rates by 4% this year, so comp should go up, not down.

The next firms down the line should know they are going to get ravaged by the legal rags if they just match when the partners get millions while the workhorses don’t even get a cost of living increase

I mean, don’t get me wrong, I’m all about the populist revolution taking it to the fat cats and demanding a more even distribution of wealth. But… you know… a four percent rate increase is not necessarily the hill I would die on. Especially since Biglaw associates are not the people most associated with the righteousness of the proletariat.

The key issue is that if bonuses are a “reward” for “good times,” then Milbank should be giving more because we are still in the good times.

Milbank bonuses static – nobody seems surprised although word on the street is firm had a very good year.

I support the thought here among the mildly disgruntled associates.

However, I’m reminded of an F. Scott Fitzgerald quote:

Maybe there was a way out by flying, maybe our restless blood could find frontiers in the illimitable air. But by that time we were all pretty well committed; and the Jazz Age continued; we would all have one more.

When the lights flash for last call, some people say, “Man, it’s getting late,” and get ready to go home. Other people rush to the bar and buy two more drinks. Which one of those people you are will probably say a lot about how you view this bonus season.

---

Elie Mystal is the Executive Editor of Above the Law and a contributor at The Nation. He can be reached @ElieNYC on Twitter, or at elie@abovethelaw.com. He will resist.

Ed. note: This is the latest installment in a series of posts on motherhood in the legal profession, in partnership with our friends at MothersEsquire. Welcome Ryan Daugherty Sharp to our pages.

Six years ago, I transitioned from my law practice to become an owner/officer in the automatic door company that my father started when I was two, and ran until his retirement. I am clearly not the only attorney to move from the legal field to the construction world, which is riddled with daily negotiations and relies heavily on collaboration, organization, and timely flexibility. The only distinguishing factor for me is that I also happen to be a mother to three adorable, magical, messy, crazy, creative, and VERY energetic children. There are still, unfortunately, just not that many mothers in leadership positions in the construction industry. Further, because I entered both the ownership track and the “mommy track” at nearly the same time, I never had the practice and example of working for someone else while navigating parenthood. I basically started with a blank slate.  I was — and am — simultaneously “allowed” to take whatever time I want off, make my own schedule, and set up my own rules about being a working mother, but I am also completely and utterly responsible for any impact any absence places upon our business, finances, and employees.

At first this was overwhelming for me, but over the last several years, I have grown to appreciate this experience.  I have the unique vantage point of being able to simultaneously experience and address the following questions from the perspective of both a new mother and an employer.

1. What challenges do my employees and customers — both male and female — experience in fulfilling their roles while also parenting?
2. As a small business that may not always be able to provide big-ticket items (extended paid leave, duplicated employee roles for coverage, etc.), how can I provide employees with accommodations that truly make a difference, but also fit our business needs?

Here is what I have determined can really make a difference.

One Size Doesn’t Always Fit All – Each parent (and each parenting couple) has their own dynamic, and provided that your employee is dedicated and good at their job, that information is quite useful. Each person has a different level of detail that they want to share with their employer, but years ago, we started asking employees what their personal goals were, not just their professional goals.  Employees have wanted to save for a house, plan for retirement, compartmentalize work and home better, get home earlier, get healthier, etc. Meeting these goals can actually improve performance and focus, though they can initially seem unrelated or counteractive to workplace goals.  Thus, our team has made it a point to try help find ways to help with these goals whenever possible.  In fact, we have helped employees become more efficient, take on more responsibility, or even rearrange their schedule in a way that benefits both our company and their balance. Sometimes it just takes an honest conversation and some creativity.

Culture  – Most parenting benefits focus on paid maternity leave. For a small business (40 employees), it is somewhat difficult to offer extended leave because most job duties are unique to the individual employee. However, there is a very long span of time between when someone returns to work after a new baby and when they become an empty-nester, and a company’s culture can make so much difference in how an employee is able to navigate work and parenthood. For us, this goes way beyond congratulating a new mother or father or commenting on their kid’s cuteness (though we love doing that too).  We have found that encouraging our employees to build comradery through quarterly team-building activities and our own general willingness to communicate has led to an environment in which employees are more willing to cover a new parent’s on-call rotation, or swap or share shifts in order to accommodate a family activity.  This has, in turn, benefited our business, employees, and recruiting capability immensely. We have also encouraged office-based employees to bring their kids with them to the office or vary their schedule instead of miss a day of work (and pay) when childcare falls through. We have also worked with employees to create a work-from-home schedule to reduce summer child care costs. My kids join me regularly at the office, and we have acquired quite an extensive box of shared toys and art supplies to entertain. Since my brothers and I grew up hanging out at this building with our father, it seems particularly natural for us to have this same dynamic continue.

Flexibility – This is tricky, as we are a service profession. However, I have found that allowing varying levels of schedule flexibility is highly beneficial to employee retention and general work production. For us, it has been more about creating a culture in which — when the timing doesn’t matter — there isn’t any undesirable implication to sending an email outside of regular working hours, or in saying, “Hey, can we meet 30 min earlier because I have to pick up my kid.”  We extend the same culture to our customers as well, and they appreciate it. When it does not matter, we try to work with our employees and customers.  On the other hand, when it does matter, then we fully expect everyone to understand.  Our experience is that they do.

Let’s be real, I don’t always navigate this perfectly: I lose my cool, I need a nap, I rely heavily on others.  Still, I sometimes fall short of being the parent and employer I want to be.  My hope is, however, that a continued focus on the above items and on communication about being a working parent can help be serve my business, my family, my employees, and my customers better.  I hope that some of my observations can serve you as you navigate the balance of being a working parent for yourself, spouse, employees, co-counsel, and clients.

Earlier: Mothers At Law: Achieving Meaningful Success In The Legal Profession

---

Ryan Daugherty Sharp pursued her education at the University of Georgia where she was a member of the UGA Swimming and Diving team, graduating with a BLA (Landscape Architecture) from the College of Environment and Design. Thereafter, she worked as a Federal Planner in Pittsburgh and throughout the world, for the engineering firm now known as Atkins North America. After attending law school at the University of Kentucky, she went on to practice construction, employment, and real estate litigation matters at McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie & Kirkland, PLLC for the next five years. In 2013, she brought these diverse skills and client services to Door Equipment Company (DEC), and now serves as its CFO and a partner in the business. She particularly enjoys being able to find new and efficient solutions for Door Equipment’s customers, working alongside skilled employees, and always striving to make DEC the best door company in the business.

We here at Dealbreaker really can’t get enough of Ponzi schemes. It’s hard to say what makes them so appealing. Perhaps it’s that they come in every shape and size, from Bernie Madoff (or Social Security or the credit crisis, depending on the elasticity of your definition) to the relatively small. Perhaps it’s what people do with the money they steal. Perhaps it’s the little things you don’t even think about. Perhaps it’s the bewildering variety of ways people sell one of the oldest scams in the books.

Bonus season has officially arrived — and it’s here SUPER early!

It’s actually a bit shocking that Biglaw bonus season is here so soon. This is actually the earliest that Biglaw bonuses have been announced since 2009. But what comes as an even bigger shocker is the fact that Cravath was not the firm to make the first move on year-end bonuses. That’s right, Biglaw associates can once again thank the firm that brought about the $190K salary scale for their early bonuses. Thank you, Milbank!

So, let’s get into the details. What do the bonuses look like this year?

Class of 2019 – $15,000
Class of 2018 – $15,000
Class of 2017 – $25,000
Class of 2016 – $50,000
Class of 2015 – $65,000
Class of 2014 – $80,000
Class of 2013 – $90,000
Class of 2012 – $100,000
Class of 2011 – $100,000

If you recall, these are the exact same bonuses that were handed out last year (and 72 percent of our survey respondents thought this would be exactly what happened). But you may also recall that earlier this week, we reminded everyone that if 2019’s year-end bonuses were the same as last year’s, overall bonus compensation would be substantially lower than in 2018, since associates at many high-end firms also received special summer bonuses. Perhaps Cravath will come swooping in with some higher bonus bucks for associates? We suppose we’ll find out as bonus season unfolds.

Bonuses at the Milbank will be paid on or before December 31st, meaning associates may miss out on holiday gift spending, but will surely have a very happy new year.

Read the full bonus memo on the next page.

Remember everyone, we depend on your tips to stay on top of important bonus updates, so when your firm matches, please text us (646-820-8477) or email us (subject line: “[Firm Name] Matches”). Please include the memo if available. You can take a photo of the memo and send it via text or email if you don’t want to forward the original PDF or Word file.

And if you’d like to sign up for ATL’s Bonus Alerts (which is the alert list we also use for salary announcements), please scroll down and enter your email address in the box below this post. If you previously signed up for the bonus alerts, you don’t need to do anything. You’ll receive an email notification within minutes of each bonus announcement that we publish. Thanks for all of your help!

---

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.

While superficially the economy continues to slowly inch forward, cracks in the foundation are becoming increasingly glaring to anyone willing to look. With the last recession still fresh in their minds, law firms are committed to not entering this next downturn with their pants around their ankles like last time.

When the last recession hit, a bunch of once-stable law firms got curb-stomped by reality when the check came due on their heavily leveraged lifestyle. Firms were borrowing big from banks and living high on generous lines of credit. It allowed firms to fool themselves into thinking they’d survive the economic catastrophe working its way through their clients and that rosy revenue projections would keep the cash flowing. Dewey know how that turned out?

American Lawyer has a new piece highlighting how firms have spent the intervening years turning away from the banks and toward keeping more capital in-house:

“The debt load carried by firms today is quite a bit different from the debt load that was carried by firms in 2008 and 2009,” [Citi Private Bank Law Firm Group Managing Director Michael] McKenney said, looking at a sample of 60 law firms in the Am Law 100, which does not include any firms that completed significant mergers or acquisitions in the past 10 years.

Among that sample, he said, bank debt per equity partner was $94,000 at the end of 2008. At the end of 2018, bank debt per equity partner was $57,000 at the same 60 firms.

But on the flip side, McKenney said, capital contributions per equity partner have jumped, from $330,000 in 2008 to $549,000 in 2018. The increase is due in part to law firms’ success in recent years, he noted, as capital contributions are often taken as a percentage of a partner’s earnings.

Upping the ante and lowering the debt is all well and good, but the comparison missing from this analysis is the slashing of the equity partner ranks over the last decade. If bumping up capital contributions per partner by 66 percent is impressive, but if that move corresponded with reducing equity partner headcount by 30-40 percent, it’s not as big a leap as it would seem.

Whether it’s these increased contributions or a general belt tightening elsewhere, it’s definitely enough to reduce firm debt loads which is all that’s important. Still, the consolidation of the firm’s capital in the hands of fewer and fewer equity partners does make the firm more reliant on those partners for its financial wherewithal. At a certain point, a firm puts itself in the unenviable position of a five-partner poaching representing a significant dent in the firm’s rainy day funds. There are advantages to spreading out the risk.

But this is all academic if the recession guts demand so badly that firms can’t keep revenue coming in the door. As we watch the barbarians gather at the gates, law firms are furiously repairing their ramparts. We’ll learn whether or not they’re successful soon enough.

Law Firm Debt Levels Shrink as Partners Put More Skin in the Game [American Lawyer]

Hosanna! Rudy Giuliani, the world’s worst client, has finally gotten himself competent counsel. Which he celebrated by going online to declare once again that his entire Ukraine project was for the personal benefit of his beloved client, Donald J. Trump, not in service of America’s interest in rooting out corruption in Ukraine. He’s always helping!

What “false charges” against his non-paying, all-powerful client is he talking about? What does smearing Joe Biden have to do with defending Donald Trump? Is he … is he connecting his recent shenanigans in Ukraine to the Mueller investigation?

How very odd that at least four competent attorneys already turned Rudy down, including his former partner Paul L. Shechtman at Bracewell which “rejected the idea, according to two people with knowledge of the matter,” according to the New York Times.

Good thing his new lawyer Robert Costello of Davidoff Hutcher & Citron was right in the middle of the Mueller investigation, so he’ll have no trouble getting up to speed.

There are a whole lot of white-collar attorneys in New York, and yet Rudy picked the guy whom the Mueller Report describes approaching Michael Cohen to be a “back channel” to Donald Trump’s legal team after Cohen had decided to flip? REALLY?

On or about April 17, 2018, Cohen began speaking with an attorney, Robert Costello, who had a close relationship with Rudolph Giuliani, one of the President’s personal lawyers. Costello told Cohen that he had a “back channel of communication” to Giuliani, and that Giuliani had said the “channel” was “crucial” and “must be maintained.”

Here’s Costello appearing to dangle a pardon in an email using a mangled Garth Brooks lyric.

“I have absolutely no concern about any of this because it was simply a reference to the president of the United States being the ‘friend in high places’ — nothing more,” Costello told Courthouse News Service back in April.

On second thought, it makes perfect sense that Costello would be simpatico with his old buddy Rudy. And after Michael Cohen said he’d get his own lawyers thankyouverymuch, he refused to pay Costello the $43,857 he claimed he was owed for all that backchanneling to Rudy Giuliani. So, really, it’s a match made in heaven.

Why Eric M. Creizman and Melissa Madrigal from Pierce Bainbridge would agree to represent a loose cannon who is under investigation by SDNY, tweets all day long, and still picks up the phone for every reporter in the I-95 corridor is a mystery. But a big mazel tov to Jon Sales, the lawyer Rudy just fired. Got out in the nick of time!

Facing Investigation, Giuliani Needed a Lawyer, but Firms Stayed Away [New York Times]
I Meant Trump: Lawyer Who Emailed Cohen Opens Up [Courthouse News]
Giuliani Turns to Pierce Bainbridge and Michael Cohen’s Ex-Lawyer in Ukraine Scandal [Law.com]

---

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

Update on Parliamentary Sittings 22nd to 24th October

Both Houses of Parliament Will Reassemble on Tuesday 12th November

Both Houses will reconvene next week, having adjourned until Tuesday 12th November after their last sittings on 24th October.  In the meantime, MPs and Ministers have been attending the pre-Budget Seminar at Victoria Falls from 30th October to 4th November.

Previous bulletins since the opening of the Second Session of this Parliament on 1st October have already covered the Government’s legislative agenda for the session of Parliament [Bill Watch 54/2019 [link] of 22nd October] and the legislative output of the First Session [Bill Watch 55/2019 [link] of 24th October].  This bulletin outlines developments in Parliament during its first working sittings on 22nd, 23rd and 24th October.

In Parliament 22nd to 24th October

Anti-sanctions motions in both Houses

The President declared Friday 25th October a public holiday “for the national expression of opposition to the illegal sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe by certain countries” [link].  On Thursday in both Houses ZANU-PF members moved identical motions calling for the unconditional and immediate lifting of sanctions and applauding SADC states for their support in making 25th October a regional day for solidarity with Zimbabwe in this call.  Members were invited to participate in the anti-sanctions march to the anti-sanctions event at the National Sports Stadium.

Senate

The Senate had a quiet week. On Tuesday 22nd and Wednesday 23rd there was brief debate on the customary vote of thanks to the President for his speech at the opening of the current session on 1st October.  On Thursday 24th debate was both livelier and longer when Senators spoke on the anti-sanctions motion until 5.17 pm – and MDC-A Senators disputed ZANU-PF Senators’ claims that sanctions were to blame for the state of the economy.  It was an unusually late sitting for the Senate, which had risen at 3.35 pm on Tuesday and 3.05 pm on Wednesday.

National Assembly

In sharp contrast to the Senate, the National Assembly had a turbulent week.

Repercussions of MDC-A MPs walk-out on the President at 1st October Joint Sitting

During the week there were repercussions of the penalty the Speaker imposed on MDC-A MPs on 1st October: that those MDC-A MPs who had remained seated when the President entered the National Assembly chamber to deliver the State of the Nation Address, and then walked out, had been guilty of disrespecting the Head of State and would forfeit their sitting allowances for that day and five earlier sittings; the full ruling is available on the Veritas website [link].

Tuesday 22nd October:  At the start of business Hon Gonese [MDC-A] asked the Speaker to explain the principle underlying this penalty  The Speaker cut him short, saying he had already received an official letter on the subject from the MDC-A party, to which he would be replying.

Wednesday 23rd:  At the start of Question Time, when an MDC-A MP put a question to the Minister of Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare, the Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs suggested to the Speaker that if MDC-A MPs  do not recognise the President – the official MDC-A party explanation for the walkout at the official opening – “they cannot therefore extend a question and expect an answer from a Minister who has been appointed by the President”.  The Speaker agreed.  From then on the situation deteriorated, with MDC-A MPs insisting on their right to ask questions and resisting ejection from the chamber by the Sergeant-at-Arms and police officers.  At 4.32 pm the House adjourned after what Hon Mliswa described as “an absolutely useless day”, before he walked out in disgust over the absence of Ministers to answer questions.

Thursday 24th:  Hon Mliswa [Independent MP for Norton] pleaded with the Speaker to reconsider his Wednesday ruling banning questions from MDC-A MPs.  In response to Hon Mliswa the Speaker said he would reconsider his decision but would need time to think about it very deeply.

Anti-sanctions motion

This motion was moved on Thursday afternoon by Hon Nyathi of ZANU-PF.  It was quiet enough until ZANU-PF MPs started alleging that MDC-A MPs had begged the USA and the EU to impose sanctions and should be regarded as terrorists pursuing a regime change agenda.  MPs on both sides then started singing and interjecting, until the Temporary Speaker terminated proceedings at 5 pm and adjourned the House until 12th November, in terms of Standing  Order 113 which allows a presiding officer to act in this way “in the case of great disorder arising”.

Statutory Instruments [SIs] and General Notices [GNs]

23rd and 25th October and 1st November

23rd October [Gazette Extraordinary]

Traffic Safety Council Fees

SI 221A/2019 – regulations by the Minister of Transport and Infrastructural Development fixing ZWL$ fees for the services offered by the Council, including defensive driving courses.

25th October 2019 declared a public holiday

SI 221B/2019 [link] – the President’s declaration in terms of the Public Holidays and Prohibition of Business Act that Friday 25th October would be a public holiday “for the national expression of opposition to the illegal sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe by certain countries”.

25th October

Legal practitioners – GZU law degree recognised

SI 222/2019 [link] –   Legal Practitioners (Designated Legal Qualifications) (Amendment) Notice – this SI by the Council for Legal Education adds the Bachelor of Laws (Honours) degree of Great Zimbabwe University to the list of “designated legal qualifications” for admission to the legal profession.  Law degrees from the University of Zimbabwe and Midlands State University are already listed.

Collective bargaining agreements

SI 223/2019 [link] – Insurance Industry – a cushioning allowance [100% of existing package of wage and allowances] for July, August and September 2019.  This increases the minimum package for the lowest grade to RTGS$ 907 [approximately US$ 135].

SI 224/2019 [link] – Commercial Sectors – increased minimum wages for May 2019 to April 2020 by 50%. The minimum wage for the lowest grade goes up from RTGS$ 261 to RTGS$ 392 [approximately US$ 45].

Public Service Vehicles – New licence and other fees

SI 225/2019 [link] – this SI enacts a new Fourth Schedule [“Fees”] for the Road Motor Transportation (Public Service Vehicles) Regulations of 1998 [fees for foreign public service vehicle operators are in US$, and for Zimbabwean operators are in ZWL$].

Customs duty suspensions

SI 226/2019 [link] – amendments, backdated to 1st January 2019, affecting the existing suspensions of duty for (1) specified fertilisers for the 2018-19 summer cropping season (2) buses imported by approved tour operators for use in the tourism industry.  Note

SI 229/2019 [link] – an addition to the already long list of mining locations qualifying for 3-year suspensions, under section 9K of the principal regulations.  The section provides for suspension of  duty on goods imported for mine development operations on mines specified in statutory instruments such as this.

Income tax exemption & VAT refunds for Huawei Technologies Co.

SI 227/2019 [link] and SI 228/2019 [link], both made by the Minister of Finance and Economic Development and both backdated to 25th August 2014, give effect to the Framework Agreement between the Government of Zimbabwe and the Export-Import Bank of China [“the Bank”].  They confer taxation privileges for the purposes of NetOne Cellular (Private) Limited and TelOne (Private) Limited infrastructure modernisation projects conducted using funds provided by the Bank.  SI 227 exempts Huawei’s receipts and accruals under the projects from income tax, non-resident tax on fees and capital gains tax.  SI 228 provides for VAT refunds for the benefit of Huawei, NetOne and TelOne in respect of goods and services purchased for the projects using funds provided by the Bank.

1st November [Regular Friday Gazette]

Customs duty suspension

SI 230/2019 this lists provides for  a two-year suspension of duty from 1st June 2019 on “power equipment, critical spares and transformer components” imported by ZESA group companies ZENT, ZETDC and ZPC.  The list of goods covered fills several pages of small print.

Gazetting of Veterans of the Liberation Struggle Bill [link]

GN 2016/2019 announced the publication of this Bill with the Gazette.

1st November [Late Afternoon Gazette Extraordinary]

New ZWL$5 and $2 banknotes

SI 231/2019 [link] – Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe (Issue of Two Dollar and Five Dollar Banknotes ) Notice, 2019 was issued by the Minister of Finance and Economic Development and specifies the denominations, designs, form or material of new banknotes as determined by the President in terms of section 40(2) of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe Act.

This SI permits the Reserve Bank to issue new banknotes as foreshadowed in the Press Statement 4th November on Deliberations of the Monetary Policy Committee [MPC] [link].  The MPC recommended a gradual increase in cash supply over the next six months in response to the need for more cash for transactional purposes, saying that the current proportion of cash at 4% of broad money supply was well below regional and international levels and had led to the present undesirable cash premiums.

Note on issue of coins:  Reserve Bank Governor Mangudya said in a Reserve Bank Public Notice dated 4th November [link] that in addition to the new banknotes, $2 bond coins will be issued.  These new bond coins and the existing bond coins and bond notes will circulate alongside, and be interchangeable with, the two and five dollar banknotes issued in terms of SI 231.

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

Post published in: Featured