Category: News Feeds

This week, the unprecedented happened: life as we knew it ground to a halt as COVID-19 descended upon our country. In many states, nonessential businesses were forced to close, people were strongly encouraged to practice “social distancing” by avoiding public places and gatherings, and all but the most essential court proceedings were adjourned indefinitely.

As the virus quickly took hold, businesses closed their doors and, to the extent that it was was possible, sent their employees home to work remotely. For many law firms, this sudden departure from business as usual was an unexpected — and unwelcome — wake-up call, since only a small minority were set up for widespread remote work.

As a result, the focus in online lawyer discussion groups changed overnight, with lawyers sharing their concerns about whether their firms would survive the mandated closures. Others sought advice on the remote working tools that would be necessary to set up a remote law firm, such as video conferencing platforms, VOIP phone systems, and law practice management software. Not surprisingly, the same phenomenon was occurring offline as well.

Additionally, as courts closed their doors to all but the most essential legal proceedings, administrative judges grappled with pressing access to justice issues. Like most law firms, few courts are set up to handle video arraignments and remote court appearances. As a result, courts across the country are scrambling to identify technology solutions that can be used to ensure that our most fundamental constitutional rights are protected, even in the midst of a pandemic.

For a change, previously Luddite members of the legal profession are looking to technology to solve their problems. I guess it really is true: desperate times call for desperate measures.

It reminds me a lot of the rush to develop and use ediscovery software in the wake of the amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in 2006. It was only because of court mandate that lawyers shifted gears and began to rapidly adopt ediscovery tools. So much so that in 2020, the ediscovery software is now a multibillion-dollar industry.

Notably, there’s a big difference between then and now: today the technology needed for remote work has already been built. It’s readily available to the legal industry and has been for years. Law firms and courts simply need to take advantage of it. Remote work is an achievable and realistic goal: the bionic law firm (or court proceeding, as the case may be) is within your reach. You just need to reach out and grab it.

Here’s how to make it happen. First, take stock of your current technology assets, including hardware and software. Determine your law firm’s needs and identify the technology that will be needed in order for all law firm staff to work remotely.

For most firms, this means you’ll need to invest in cloud-based law practice management software. With this type of software, all of you law firm’s information will be located in one location. Typically, as I explain in this ABA Journal article, this includes, among other things: 1) contacts and calendars, 2) invoicing and time-tracking, 3) documents and other matter-related data, 4) internal and external communications, and 5) financial data. Some legal practice management systems even include built-in esignature capabilities, lead management tools, integrated email, two-way text messaging, and secure communication and collaboration tools like a client portal.

In most cases, you’ll also need to invest in some of the tools and software that I’ve written about in my ABA Journal column over the years, including: 1) video conferencing software, 2) a VOIP phone system, 3) an online fax service, 4)  document scanning tools, 5) collaborative word processing software, and 6) speech-to-text dictation software.

Once you’ve chosen the tools you need to set up a remote workforce, the next step is to prioritize the training of your employees. Make sure that they understand the features of the software you’ve chosen and how to integrate it into their workflows. Additionally, set expectations by providing them with guidelines designed to help them implement the software into their daily routine. Finally, ensure that everyone working remotely understands client confidentiality issues and uses the chosen software for all client matters.

My fellow lawyers: you’ve got this. We have the technology. Remote work is easily accomplished in 2020. With the right tools, you can rebuild your bricks-and-mortar law firm and turn it into a virtual one. Your clients are relying on you, and the technology you need is readily available, affordable, intuitive, and, most importantly, it will get the job done. So what are you waiting for? Get back to work!

---

Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York attorney and Director of Business and Community Relations at MyCase, web-based law practice management software. She’s been blogging since 2005, has written a weekly column for the Daily Record since 2007, is the author of Cloud Computing for Lawyers, co-authors Social Media for Lawyers: the Next Frontier, and co-authors Criminal Law in New York. She’s easily distracted by the potential of bright and shiny tech gadgets, along with good food and wine. You can follow her on Twitter at @nikiblack and she can be reached at niki.black@mycase.com.

Thanks to a global pandemic, law firms have made remote work plans for their employees to flatten the curve and stop the rapid spread of COVID-19. Contract attorneys, however, are facing a much different reality in this time of disease.

Above the Law has received many tips from these attorneys, lamenting the sorry state of affairs they’ve been working under in cities across the country. Here are some of their stories.

Despite the ability to securely and efficiently perform document review online, many legal staffing agencies are refusing to allow employees to work remotely. So, the only option we have, if we want to continue earning money, is to go into the review centers.

Unfortunately, most of the review centers are hot beds for the spread of this virus. Most review centers are either open-space work environments that are densely packed with desks and people, or are small rooms densely packed with desks and people. And, by densely packed I mean, attorneys are placed next to one another with less than one foot of space. Both of these types of spaces are a recipe for disaster in this current environment.

I am in NYC and not currently working out of fear of exposure to the Covid19 and management has refused to address worker or potential worker concerns. Companies like [REDACTED] have tightly packed sardine facilities and expect workers to come in with a copy and paste Covid19 email blast which does not address the underlying issues.

As a document review attorney, you have to apply for at least 10 agencies in order to have constant work. But the majority of time you stay home a few days or weeks between projects. During this time, you don’t get paid so you have to apply for unemployment benefits which is not enough to survive.

Most of the time you get paid for your work between $28 and $33 an hour without benefits such as healthcare etc. As an attorney with student loans and a family and mortgage, it is very difficult to survive with this money. Especially when you are the only person earning in the family.

Coronavirus made it even more difficult for us to get on a project now. I have applied for unemployment, but the $370ish a week I get is not sufficient to pay my bills and mortgage.

[REDACTED’s] downtown office has a lot of reviewers. Our client has considered the possibility of remote work but ultimately rejected the option. I am not sure if they rejected that option for their own associates too.

I am young and probably will not be affected, but if I unknowingly carry the virus and infect my much older colleagues, that’s an unconscionable position. And there’s a lot of older attorneys in my project, who are at much greater risk.

I hope you will help us start a public discussion of this second class citizen treatment in the legal field.

People have been campaigning [REDACTED] to offer remote work since they are notorious for having people work in close proximity. Instead of granting that option, they sent out a ridiculous email saying they will determine if social distancing is appropriate, asking people to self-identify their travel status (as if that matters because the damn virus is here in NYC which has the largest number of confirmed cases in the country) and then attempting to downplay the seriousness of this illness (and it is serious and highly infectious) by mentioning how many more people die from the flu.

We are currently still required to report to work despite there being more than 25 people present in very close working conditions. This is work that could be conducted remotely and is being conducted remotely by other document review companies. It is irresponsible and many attorneys present have elderly parents or children at home who have been sent home due to school closings.

I’ve worked as a contract attorney in NYC for some time and there is a growing problem across the country with agencies denying contract attorneys the right to work from home. There are contract attorneys quitting projects because they are expected to work in a shared workspace where everyone is sitting in close proximity, agencies are asking for contract attorneys to provide travel history which is irrelevant since the virus is already here. In many cases they are outright refusing the opportunity to work remotely.

It’s time we stood up for contract attorneys. To be quite frank, it’s unforgivable that people are expected to work in environments where their close contact could mean the possibility of contracting a critical illness. We can’t risk anyone’s health for the sake of litigation. This second-class treatment is not appropriate — especially now.

Please do what you can to help contract attorneys. Call a staffing agency today and let them know they need to do the right thing and offer remote work opportunities.

---

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.

There are two types of prisoners — the ones who’ve been convicted of crimes and the ones who haven’t and are merely in jail because they can’t afford bail to get out while they await trial.

Both sets of prisoners are affected by quarantines caused by the coronavirus.  But for those who haven’t yet been found guilty and want their cases to move along as quickly as possible, tensions are running high.

Their court cases have now been postponed a minimum of two months. Jury trials in New York and at least 20 other states have been suspended. Cases are being rescheduled without the defendant or his lawyer in court. Inmates awaiting trial are feeling angry, frustrated, and uncertain. Who’s watching out for them?

Lawyers are no longer allowed to visit their clients in any federal prison and many state jails. Families and friends cannot visit. Inside, rumors abound.

Many fear the prison workforce, at least in New York State, will be cut by 50 percent pursuant to the governor’s mandate that half of state workers stay home.

Calls I get from jail are panicked. If there’s a staff shortage, inmates fear their phone calls –- the one lifeline they have with the outside world –- will be suspended or significantly curtailed. They’re worried about how their families are doing. Whether anyone’s sick or lost a job.

They’re worried for their own health. Some fear the guards they come in contact with are not properly screened and may be virus carriers. Because many inmates sleep in “dorms” -– giant rooms with rows of 20 beds just a foot and half apart, they cannot socially distance themselves. If the guy in the next bed coughs, he won’t be wearing a face mask.

One client at Rikers told me, “Things are so bad in here, I think a riot is going to break out.”

I reassured him that of all populations, prisoners might be the best protected. Most are healthy young men who work out every day, remain isolated from the general population and follow a routine in a controlled environment. It didn’t do a lot to soothe him.

He wanted to know when his case would go to trial. I told him that I didn’t know.

Of the thousands of inmates convicted and now serving time in state or federal prisons, many are older guys finishing off long sentences and thus most susceptible to the worst consequences of the virus. If sick, they fear the treatment they’ll receive will be inadequate.

As for New York City, which normally processes thousands of criminal cases a day, no defendants will be brought to court from jail unless absolutely necessary. Cases involving people out of jail are being adjourned to mid-June or later. Only a few court parts are functioning, and no one but “essential” personal is being granted court entry.

Thankfully, I’m not “essential.” I stay home, take walks, answer my clients’ questions as best I can and try to focus on ongoing work like motions, discovery, and legal research. But I worry about my clients.

I urge them all to stay calm and focused. Instead of becoming an agitator, maybe one of them could become a leader who keeps things copacetic in jail.  This would help him down the road in plea negotiations.

The time they spend now in jail (although it must feel like limbo) will be credited to them if, ultimately, they’re convicted. But if they’re hoping for their case to be tried speedily or for the prosecutor’s office to be held to its burden of going to trial within a set statutory period post-arrest, that’s all been waived by government decree.

For those hoping to eventually be acquitted –- hang in there. You’ll see a jury someday. It’s just going to take a little longer.

---

Toni Messina has tried over 100 cases and has been practicing criminal law and immigration since 1990. You can follow her on Twitter: @tonitamess.

Italy’s little coronavirus problem may be a bit more pressing at the moment, but in terms of longevity it’s got nothing on the country’s banks. Indeed, it’s fair to say that Italian banks have been in some kind of crisis or other since the fall of the Medici, and one that’s been particularly acute since the global financial crisis. Recently, however, there has been some evidence that at least the critical phase had passed. Still, these are Italian banks, and as such remain vulnerable to relapse in case of political instability, economic difficulties or a particularly virulent cold shutting down the entire country.

* Three Utah County prosecutors have resigned after a defense attorney paid for their tickets to see the Utah Jazz. If you’re going to forfeit your job over some graft, it should be way more valuable than some measly basketball tickets… [Salt Lake Tribune]

* The attorney at the heart of the New Rochelle COVID-19 cluster is awake and recovering well. [New York Post]

* Netflix is facing a lawsuit filed by the prosecutor involved in the infamous Central Park jogger case because the Netflix series dramatizing the matter allegedly depicted the prosecutor in a bad light. [Guardian]

* Katy Perry has defeated a lawsuit alleging that she plagiarized one of her songs from a Christian artist. There’s a South Park reference in here somewhere… [Christian Post]

* A company that bought Theranos patents is using them to sue a company that is working on COVID-19 tests. Seems like a worthy legacy for Theranos. [Business Insider]

* The Baltimore State’s Attorney will stop prosecuting drug possession, prostitution, and other crimes because of the COVID-19 pandemic. This would have made a great plot line in The Wire. [Baltimore Sun]

---

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.

A small, largely ignored, item in the news cycle of recent days came out of Harare: the Zimbabwean government is establishing mechanisms for farmers who were dispossessed during the country’s “land reform” campaign to either reacquire their properties or seek monetary compensation.

This is in line with the drive by the government under President Emmerson Mnangagwa to re-position Zimbabwe as an attractive business partner and investment destination, so as to revitalise its crippled formal economy.

“Zimbabwe,” he declared, “is open for business.” As clumsy and contradictory as their conduct has been, the country’s authorities seem at least to recognise that for Zimbabwe to have a chance at a viable future, it will need to deal with the damage — and arguably, above all, the reputational damage — which the chaotic and sometimes violent land seizures inflicted.

Zimbabwe’s future prospects will hinge on attracting investment in value-adding, employment-creating activities. As veteran Zimbabwean academic Professor Brian Raftopoulos said in an interview in 2019:

“You have now no strong formal sector structures, you have low levels of productivity, and you have livelihoods that are very precarious — people cannot plan their lives for very long.”

Offering a return to, or payment for, confiscated property should, in theory, both encourage entrepreneurs to re-engage with the country and send a message that the government has learnt a painful lesson about the dangers of economic mismanagement.

What this will mean in practice is open to question. A few farmers had returned over the past few years, and some compensation has been offered. The new offer reportedly extends to “indigenous” farmers whose land was seized, as well as to properties owned by people whose governments had investment protection regimes in place.

Claims for the return of property or compensation may also be rejected “on the basis that granting it would be contrary to the interests of defence, public safety, public order, public morality, public health, regional or town planning or the general public interest”.

Still, it’s a small step, and South Africa’s diplomatic representatives in Zimbabwe were upbeat about this.

“We welcome the development, as we believe there is enough land waiting to be used,” a spokesperson for the South African Embassy told the media. This would be wonderful for commercial agriculture since opportunities would become available to people with skills and capital.

Indeed, South African farmers were interested in what Zimbabwe had to offer.

“While we don’t have the numbers in terms of those likely to benefit,” the spokesperson commented, “we have spoken to a number of South African farmers who already have their own funding to start agriculture activity in Zimbabwe, so this decision is welcome.”

It is welcome that South Africa’s diplomats have come to this conclusion, as it would appear to represent a turnaround of sorts in the country’s position.

Zimbabwe’s economic collapse had much to do with its catastrophic land grabs, but the seeds of this were sown long before: systemic corruption, lack of accountability, political intolerance, and decayed and compromised institutions.

The Zanu-PF government’s “land reform” programme represented not only the confiscation of productive assets — referencing real historical grievances — but also a political assault on the country’s opposition formations and well-nigh anything else that could present a challenge. Hence it is difficult to distinguish the “land” issue from the political and governance crisis that saw elections manipulated, activists arrested and attacked (on occasion killed), the media harassed and the courts ignored.

When the country’s courts attempted to enforce the law on land invasions, then-President Robert Mugabe declared:

“The courts can do what they want. They are not courts for our people and we shall not even be defending ourselves in these courts.”

South Africa’s own role in this tragedy is well known and reflects little credit on the country. Its approach to the “land” question was stand-offish, not directly endorsing the trajectory of events, but standing fulsomely by the Zanu-PF narrative that land lay at the centre of the issue. Zanu-PF’s hold on power in Zimbabwe, it seems, was the South African government’s prime non-negotiable.

As Dr Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma once memorably said, there would never be a word of condemnation as long as the African National Congress (ANC) was in power. Then-president Thabo Mbeki told an ANC caucus meeting that the Movement for Democratic Change was a creature of the American CIA.

For more measured consumption, South Africa’s position could be presented as a push for stabilisation, economic recovery and development. Mbeki told Parliament in 2001:

“Regarding Zimbabwe, our immediate common objective is to see what contribution we can make to address the economic challenges facing Zimbabwe. We have a common objective to resolve the land question in Zimbabwe so as to stabilise the situation politically and thereby create an environment conducive to economic recovery and development. This we do not only for the people of Zimbabwe, but for the rest of the southern African region.”

This is all deeply ironic. As the crisis unfolded, South Africa was willing to lose a great deal for its Zimbabwe policy. Not only was it unwilling to speak critically or apply pressure, but it was willing to discard the interests of its own citizens (as the case of agricultural entrepreneur Crawford von Abo illustrated), dismantle regional governance institutions (as it went along with the defanging of the SADC Tribunal after it ruled against Zimbabwe) and even sacrifice the ambitious New Partnership for Africa’s Development (Nepad), which had as its key proposition maintaining good governance in Africa as a condition for development support and investment.

That South Africa is now in favour of creating a conducive climate for investment in its northern neighbour — and of safeguarding the interests of South African investors — is to be welcomed. But the scars on Zimbabwe’s economy are deep and stark. South Africa has made no small contribution to them. Much more will be required — a case of rehabilitation rather than reform.

Meanwhile, at home, South Africa’s government makes reckless commitments about the wonders that will come from expropriation without compensation, a process from which it seeks to exclude the courts. Having shown some sense on Zimbabwe, will it do likewise for South Africa? DM

Post published in: Agriculture