Category: News Feeds

Being an Olympic-quality athlete is an incredibly time-consuming, grueling, and difficult endeavor. But you know, the economy being what it is, not everyone with Olympic dreams has the luxury of being a full-time paid athlete. So that means when the marathon Olympic trials happen this weekend in Atlanta, the hopefuls will include Biglaw associates. It seems like time-consuming, grueling, and difficult is their thing.

Sarah David, an associate at Perkins Coie, tells Law.com that running is a release from the Biglaw grind:

“Running is a great release from lawyer stuff, so I’m already looking forward to getting back to training after this weekend’s race,” says David, an M&A associate in Perkins Coie’s Chicago office. After running her first marathon in 2017, she qualified for the trials at the Indianapolis Monumental Marathon in November in a blazing 2 hours, 44 minutes and 11 seconds.

Unsurprisingly, David finds it easier to train in the morning, saying, “It’s easier for me to get into work at 11 a.m. then it is to leave work at 5 p.m.”

Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone’s Ashley Higginson seconds that sentiment, “Lawyers are notoriously not awake during the mornings. In the afternoons, something always comes up.”

Higginson, who was a professional runner before her Biglaw days, says the other key to being at an elite level in such disparate fields as marathons and Biglaw is to abandon guilt:

Higginson is no stranger to elite-level running. Before her law career, she was a professional runner and raced the 3,000-meter steeplechase in the 2013 World Championships. But when it came to running marathons as a law firm associate, she says she had to take on a different mindset and adjust her expectations. She worked with her brother-in-law, a runner and an in-house attorney, to create a training regimen that’s flexible enough to accommodate a busy legal career.

“I don’t feel consistently guilty for what I can and can’t do,” she says. “It’s critical for someone who wants to be working and has a fitness goal to be balancing the realities of physical demands of work with training.”

Other lawyers who qualified for the Olympic trials include Caroline Veltri, an associate at Frascona, Joiner, Goodman and Greenstein; Jessa Victor, who works at Hawks Quindel; and in-house counsel Veronica Jackson Graziano of Partners Healthcare.

Good luck to all the legally minded marathoners at the Olympic trials this weekend.

Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, and host of The Jabot podcast. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter (@Kathryn1).

This was achieved by a constitutional scheme that strengthened the powers of the executive against the other two arms of the state and by giving constitutional status to strong views held by the executive. The latter point is evidenced by a series of amendments meant to reverse decisions of the Supreme Court merely to impose the strong views of the executive. In the executive presidency, the framers found an effective devise to undermine traditional checks and balances utilised by most democratic governmental systems.

It is striking that these amendments were not subjected to public debate. The mere say-so of the executive was sufficient to justify fundamental political changes. As a consequence, political
intolerance became a driving force in constitutional reform. This is a recipe for disaster: a constitution must be able to outlive the political emotions of the day.

The surest way of achieving this is to subject constitution-making to an open and broad people-centred process transcending partisan political interests.
This is the lesson to be learnt from the haphazard and partisan constitution-making process of the period examined in this article.

Amendment I (1981): Black Advancement or Affirmative Action

This amendment was effected by Act No.
27 of 1981. It may appropriately be described as a “black advancement or affirmative action” amendment. The original Lancaster House provisions required appointees to the Senate Legal Committee and the Judicial Service Commission to be lawyers of not less than seven years experience.’3 The new government immediately realised that few blacks had the requisite number of years of experience to qualify for appointment and yet it was imperative in the new political dispensation for blacks to be appointed to key institutions.

Amendment 2 (1981): Establishment of Supreme Court and High Court

This amendment was effected by Act No. 25 of 1981. Before this amendment, the highest court in Zimbabwe was the High Court, which had two divisions: the Appellate Division of the High Court and the General Division of the High Court.15 The amendment merely created two courts from one, with the Appellate Division beir g transformed into a Supreme Court while the General Division became the High Court. There was no change of substance and the motivation for the amendment must have been to create a new look court consistent with the practice of other countries.

Amendment 3 (1983): Abolishing Dual Citizenship

This amendment was effected by Act No. 1 of 1983. Although it dealt with other issues, its most far reaching provision was on dual citizenship.

Amendment 4 (1984): Strengthening the hand of the Prime Minister vis-avis the non-executive President

The Lancaster House Constitution provided for a parliamentary executive system of government headed by a Prime Minister and with a non-executive President as head of state. The framers devised a system whereby the nonexecutive President, while largely acting on the advice of the Prime Minister, retained some discretionary powers in relation to certain specific issues.

Amendment 5 (1985): Provincial Governors

This amendment dealt with a new political institution in the form of provincial governors. Provincial governors were not provided for in the Lancaster House Constitution. The amendment inserted a new section 111 A in the Constitution which stated that “an Act of Parliament may provide for the appointment by the President of governors for any areas within Zimbabwe”. It did not specifically refer to “provincial governors” and was worded in such a way as to permit the appointment of district and/or regional governors.

Amendment 6 (1987): Abolishing the Reserved Seats for Whites

Among the most notorious provisions of the Lancaster House Constitution were those clauses that preserved the privileged status of the white population. The constitution provided for two voters rolls: a “white roll” on whom were registered white voters and a “common roll” on whom were registered all other voters.43 White voters participated in a separate election in which they elected their own members of the House of Assembly. Twenty seats out of one hundred seats in the House of Assembly were reserved for whites44 while in the Senate, out of forty members, ten had to be white.45 The latter were elected by an electoral college consisting, exclusively of the twenty white members of the House of Assembly.

Amendment 7 (1987): Executive Presidency

This amendment introduced the most substantial change to the governmental system in Zimbabwe. In one swap, the parliamentary executive system of the Lancaster House Constitution was metamorphosed into some obscure system most of whose features exhibited a presidential character.

Amendment 8 (1989): AttorneyGeneral

The most substantive portion of Amendment 8 dealt with the office of the Attorney-General. In the Lancaster House Constitution, the Attorney-General’s office was purely professional. Making the Attorney-General part of the Public Service was intended to create a nonpartisan official. Amendment 8 made substantial changes to this notion of the Attorney-General by turning the office, by and large, into a political institution.
This was achieved by making the Attorney-General “the principal legal adviser to the Government and taking the office out of the Public Service”.

Amendment 9 (1989): Abolishing the Senate and introducing a unicameral legislature

The Lancaster House Constitution provided for a bicameral legislature in which Parliament consisted of two chambers, a Senate and a House of Assembly. Amendment 9 abolished the Senate and established a unicameral legislature. The former “House of Assembly” became “Parliament” but with its composition increased from one hundred to one-hundred and fifty members.
Thus, the size of the new one-chamber Parliament was made bigger than its two-chamber predecessor. This raises questions about the intentions of the authors of this aspect of constitutional reform.

Amendment 10: Two Vice-Presidents

This amendment was introduced by Act No. 15 of 1990. Its sole purpose was to make provision for the appointment of a second vice-president. It did not make it mandatory for the country to have two vice-presidents but merely permitted the President to appoint “not more than two Vice-Presidents”.7″ Thus, it left it to the President to decide whether to have one or two vice-presidents.

Amendment 11: First Amendment of the Bill of Rights and Land Reform 1

The Lancaster House Constitution entrenched the Bill of Rights for the first ten years of independence. The entrenchment was in the following form: any proposal to amend the Bill of Rights less than ten years after 18 April 1980 required the approval of all members of the House of Assembly. Amendment 11 was the first attack on the Lancaster House Bill of Rights. It is significant that this first attack was largely directed at section 16 which protects private property. Section 16 had, in the first ten years of independence, been the main obstacle to the new government’s acquisition of land for resettlement for agricultural purposes.

Amendment 12: Service Commissions and Land Reform 2

This amendment was effected by Act number 4 of 1993. Its main focus was on rearranging the Service Commissions. The Lancaster House constitution had purported to settle most questions relating to the organisation and administration of the Public Service, the Police Force, the Prison Service and the Defence Forces. Providing for such issues in the constitution meant that every proposed change to the operational framework of any of these security arms of the state had to lead to a constitutional amendment. The government wanted flexibility in dealing with the security arms and this was achieved by amending the constitution and transferring matters of detail to an Act of Parliament.

Amendment 13: Reversing Supreme Court ruling on death row phenomenon and Land Reform 3

This amendment was effected by Act No. 9 of 1993. The main focus of this amendment was reversing the Supreme Court decision in Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace in Zimbabwe v AG and Others.’03 In that case, the CCJP made an application to the Supreme Court in terms of Section 24 of the Constitution to prevent the execution of four convicted murderers and to have the sentences of death set aside.

Amendment 14: Reversing the Supreme Court ruling in Rattigan and Land Reform 4

This amendment was effected by Act No. 14 of 1996. It had several aspects. The first was a reversal of the Supreme Court ruling in Rattigan and Others v Chief Immigration Officer and Others.’”*

In that case, the three applicants were all Zimbabwean citizens. The department of Immigration had refused their alien husbands permanent residence in Zimbabwe. They sought a declaration that their rights under sections 11 and 22 of the Bill of Rights had been infringed by the refusal of the respondents to permit their alien husbands to reside with them in Zimbabwe. It also held, obiter and in line with its earlier observations in In Re Munhumesol0′ that section 11 of the Constitution was not a mere preamble but embodied substantive rights which included the right to life, liberty, security of the person and the protection of the law.

Amendment 15: Change of Financial Year

This amendment was effected by Act, No. 10 of 1998. It was exclusively a technical amendment which changed the government’s financial year from (1 July to 30 June), to 1 January to 31 December, of each year.

Amendment No. 16 further limited such ‘unjusticiable’ compensation to improvements on land.

Ultimately, Amendment No. 17 was promulgated to oust entirely the jurisdiction of the courts over cases of acquisition of land by the state, thus rendering impotent national and international protections of the fundamental right to protection of the law, a fair hearing, and the independence of the judiciary.

•Amendment No. 17 was also a means for the state to restrict the freedom of persons to move out of Zimbabwe on the vague grounds of alleged public interest, national interests or economic interests of the state.
This was done to circumvent yet another Constitutional Court ruling in Chirwa v Registrar General3, which ruled that such restrictions to freedom of movement were in violation of the Constitution and therefore null and void.

Post published in: Featured

* Representatives of Barack Obama have sent a cease and desist letter to a Republican Super PAC for using snippets from Obama’s audio books. But soundboarding is so much fun! [CNN]

* A Texas judge is blaming low blood sugar on a tirade that he leveled against a criminal defense lawyer. [Texas Lawyer]

* A law firm accountant is facing grand theft and attempted murder charges for a rampage she committed against coworkers earlier this year. [Gainesville Sun]

* South Carolina is facing litigation over a law that bans teachers from discussing LGBTQ issues in the classroom. [Guardian]

* An attorney who gave up the practice of law five decades ago has decided to reinstate his law license at the age of 82. It’s never to late to resume the practice of law. [ABA Journal]

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.

They argue that the proposed Constitutional Amendment No. 2 is largely about enhancing the power of the executive, consolidating dictatorship, weakening parliament oversight and negatively impacting on the independence of the judiciary and the principle of separation of powers-a view that is shared by several stakeholders across the country.

Speaking at a recent public dialogue meeting organised by the Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition, Election Resource Centre and the Heal Zimbabwe Trust, the experts accused Mnangagwa of hurriedly proposing amendments to the Constitution before its full implementation.

The development has also left Mnangagwa isolated as key members of his Political Actors Dialogue forum (POLAD), which has been accused of singing praise to Mnangagwa, dismissed in totality his
proposed amendments. So grave is the matter that some of the POLAD members have threatened to pull out of the dialogue forum if Mnangagwa proceeds with his proposed amendments.

Professor Lovemore Madhuku, a law expert and President of the National Constitutional Assembly and also POLAD member accused Mnangagwa and his ZANU PF party for proposing amendments “for
nothing less than to show that they are in power and control of the government.” He added: “A Constitution is not a simple document that can just be amended at will. “It must be somewhat sacred. “Now it does not mean that it must not be changed but simply that it must be a fairly respectable document which you ordinarily ought not to interfere with.

“And when you visit it, you ought to realise that this document has nothing to do with the government of the day, that these set of rules go beyond the government of the day. “It will be extremely rare for those that you elect for a five-year term to think about amending the Constitution.”
Madhuku also reminded citizens that what Mnangagwa is doing is not new as his ZANU PF party has been securing its interests through amending the Constitution. “We have a problem with the government that has been running our country since 1980.

“They don’t respect the view that a constitution is higher than other laws. “They take the view that a constitution is like any other law and if elected (their) my first target is the constitution just to show that they are in power and in control of the government.”
The professor also clarified that the reason why the constitutional amendments should be rejected is that they are being driven by the government of the day of which has no business in amending the Constitution as the amendment process should be people-driven.

“We are saying no to an amendment that is dominated by the government of the day but yes to an
amendment that is dominated by the people”, said Madhuku in closing.
Jealousy Mawarire, a political analyst and Spokesperson of National Patriotric Front indicated that there is no basis for Mnangagwa’s proposed amendments hence they should be rejected.
“In refusing the amendments being promulgated by Amendment no.2 Bill, you look at some of the
issues around the appointment of judges.

“The president wants powers to appoint and even appoint beyond the prescribed age of 70 years.
“It is very clear why they are doing that, they have compromised the judiciary even after the coup. “They do not want the burden of starting to compromise new people, so they would rather carry on
with those that are already compromised.
“So the easiest way is to amend the Constitution so that they remain with Malaba and all the other
judges that are compromised.
“We have judges that presided over an application that the coup was constitutional. “I have never seen a constitutional coup because what I know in any coup that I have read about is that the first thing that you subvert is a constitution.

“We have heard honourable (Job) Sikhala being arrested for suggesting that we should remove ED (President Mnangagwa) and some of the people that are saying you can not remove a constitutionally elected President were the ones that were at the forefront in November 2017 removing a constitutionally elected president and you wonder, do we read the same constitution? “…let us take the opportunity,
seize the opportunity that has been opened up about these purported amendments to discuss the discourse on amending the constitution that we have but let us not allow ZANU PF to run with the agenda of amending the constitution. Let us resist that.
“We do not want a situation where if someone is afraid of Chiwenga (VP), he says no I do not want a running mate because if we win Chiwenga would kill me and take over
me.

“So in order for me to circumvent that let me change the Constitution from the current running mate clause and give myself powers to appoint. “That is not a principle that I think we should entertain as citizens and political players,” said Mawarire.

MDC Alliance Legislator Hon Khucaca Phulu argued that there is no basis for Mnangagwa’s proposed amendments except that of weakening all other institutions and strengthening the president.
“If you look at the amendments, they tend to strengthen the president and weaken the judiciary.
“They weaken everyone else. “So this amendment is a symptom of an illegitimate president who is attacking the constitution.

“A legitimate president will not attack the constitution. “So we are seeing the evidence of the illegitimacy in the manner how he treats the constitution. “We are consolidating the coup, there was also the stolen election and now we are consolidating the power of the stolen election.
“We, therefore, reject Constitutional Amendment No2 hook line and sinker.

“If there are any journeying amendments that we feel ought to come back then those amendments must come respectfully. “Our message is to let us implement, learn lessons and come back to talk about these amendments.” He added: “This (Constitutional Amendment Bill No.2) document I characterise it as a dangerous document, a document formulated by someone who is illegitimate and who is trying to deflect from the crises of governance that we have as a country.

Representing MDC-T, Ms Priscilla Misihairambwi said:“We can not go for this amendment without changing the electoral system. “These are the conversations that we need to begin making. “If this amendment is going to come back, let it be the answer to the electoral system.”

Post published in: Featured

July Moyo, Zimbabwean Minister of Local Government, Public Works and National Housing, made the remarks on the sidelines of the Sixth African Regional Forum on Sustainable Development (ARFSD) currently held in Victoria Falls.

“But the critical areas in our cooperation with them is in electricity and power generation. This is key to our development,” he said, adding that there are still many areas calling for bilateral cooperation.

Over recent years, Chinese investments have funded infrastructure projects in the landlocked country in southern Africa in sectors including transportation, energy, telecommunications and manufacturing.

Among the projects, Moyo cited the ongoing construction of the parliament building as an example.

“Right now we are building the parliament building, which I’m supervising on behalf of the government, and it’s progressing very well,” he told Xinhua.

China’s Shanghai Construction Group is working on the parliament complex in Mount Hampden, 18 km off the capital Harare.

Moyo said that China’s success in poverty alleviation offers valuable examples for Zimbabwe.

“They were able to lift themselves out of poverty by using their own resources, by mobilizing their people, by using organizational methods that make sure that there is cohesiveness, that there is a sense of direction and strict adherence implementation guidelines,” he said.

The Zimbabwean minister also said that initiatives such as the China-proposed Belt and Road have helped elevate the relations between China and Africa.

Post published in: Featured

Small business owners in Zimbabwe have begun quantifying their losses. It shows the shutdown of factories in China is having serious knock-on effects on their profits.

Zimbabwe is under serious economic meltdown and humanitarian crisis spanning decades, following the failed policies of former ruler Robert Mugabe.

On Wednesday, the International Monetary Funds (IMF) reported that the new government’s economic reform agenda was pushing the country deeper into recession.

“The government that came to office following the 2018 elections adopted an agenda focused on macro stabilization and reforms… but is now off-track as policy implementation has been mixed,” the IMF statement reads.

The outbreak of coronavirus in December 2019 in Wuhan, China is exacerbating Zimbabwe’s economic outlook, according to IMF experts. Zimbabwe’s already crippled economy depends heavily on cheap Chinese exports.

Since 2015, Beijing accounted for the largest share of foreign direct investment into Zimbabwe and the number of small Zimbabwean businesses importing especially Chinese electronics have soared.

The world is currently at grip with the coronavirus outbreak that the World Health Organization now describes as a pandemic. The virus named Covid-19 has so far killed nearly 3,000 people with more than 82,000 confirmed infections globally, the WHO reports.

Outstanding orders

In an interview with DW, Clifford Tsache a photography and multimedia equipment dealer in central Harare said clients demanding their outstanding orders have overwhelmed him.

“I had ordered some goods prior to this outbreak. There has not been any movement of goods from China to Zimbabwe. Our clients are fuming,” Tsache said.

Some of the clients had paid in advance.

Tsache had placed orders for goods in January, but shipments are not moving because of the widespread shutdown of factories in China.

“We are not even sure when this thing is going to end. We are in a dilemma on how we are going to compensate the clients that had paid the stuff that is yet to come,” he added.

Limited options

Since the Zimbabwe began its “Look East Policy” in 2004 following a fallout with the West, many Zimbabweans travel to China to buy cheap goods such as mobile phones and accessories, clothing and other essential goods for resale in Zimbabwe.

But travel restrictions imposed by Chinese authorities after the virus outbreak are blocking small entrepreneurs from Zimbabwe to import goods.

Read more: Zimbabwe: Police beat protesters as economy tanks

Businessman Clifford Tsache says China had become the default and best option.

For him, it is easier to send shipments to Zimbabwe from China than from any other developed country.

“China offers us the best prices compared to other nations. The biggest challenge is that the other alternatives are a bit tough and tense because some of the sellers in other countries do not ship to Zimbabwe. It makes the situation much more complicated,” said Tsache.

Searching for alternatives

Like Clifford Tsache, other small business owners say they are considering other sources to import goods.

Gladys Mhembere, a trader in central Harare, travels to China at the beginning of each year to buy restocking products. After this festive season, she unable to fly to China due to the coronavirus outbreak.

Businesswoman Gladys Mhembere says she is planning to go to Tanzania instead of China to buy goods

She and her business friends are considering flying to Tanzania to explore alternative source of goods. Nevertheless, she is unenthusiastic about going to Tanzania.

“I do not know if the situation will be resolved soon. Now we are opting for second options. I will be traveling to Tanzania for the first time to buy goods. I was used to going to China. China offers variety and the prices are affordable,” Mhembere told DW.

No confirmed cases in Zimbabwe

Though Zimbabwe has not recorded any confirmed cases of the coronavirus, the country’s authorities say they are well prepared to deal with any case.

Monica Mutsvangwa, Zimbabwe’s information minister said: “Government wants to assure the nation that it is ready to tackle the coronavirus scourge head on. There is no need for Zimbabweans to panic as the situation is very much under control.”

Travellers into Zimbabwe coming from regions with confirmed cases are being placed under 21 days quarantine to confirm their health status.

So far, health authorities are monitoring more than 1,000 people.

Global and Africa impact

The coronavirus outbreak and subsequent shutdown of huge parts of China is expected to impact more than 5 million businesses worldwide.

The International Monetary Fund says at least 21 African countries who depend on selling resources to China will be hit hard and Zimbabwe is no exception.

In what Casetext cofounder and CEO Jake Heller calls a breakthrough that will have a profound impact on the practice of law, the legal research company is today launching Compose, a first-of-its-kind product that helps you create the first draft of a litigation brief in a fraction of the time it would normally take.

In a preview demonstration given under embargo during the recent Legalweek conference in New York, Heller showed how he could use Compose to create a first draft of a brief in five minutes.

The product, the company says, “is poised to disrupt the $437 billion legal services industry and fundamentally change our understanding of what types of professional work are uniquely human.”

Heller and cofounder Pablo Arredondo, who is Casetext’s chief product officer, say this is the first brief automation product in the legal market and only the second litigation automation product, after LegalMation, which automates the creation of responsible pleadings in litigation.

Casetext is a company that is known for developing innovative legal research products. Its brief analysis product, CARA, launched in 2016, was recognized by the American Association of Law Libraries as product of the year and has spawned a spate of similar products.

Compose is not for writing appellate briefs. It is designed for writing litigation briefs in support of standard procedural motions, such as a motion to exclude expert testimony or a motion to compel discovery. It can be used only for the specific types of motions the product covers, which Casetext will be building out over time.

Arguments and Legal Standards

To use Compose, a lawyer begins by entering basic information about the  brief, such as the nature of the brief, the jurisdiction, and the lawyer’s position for or against the motion.

A lawyer starts by selecting the type of brief to compose.

Compose then presents the lawyer with a treatise-like outline of what Casetext says are all the available arguments for that motion, as well as the legal standards or rules applicable to each argument.

The lawyer selects the jurisdiction and position to be taken in the brief.

The lawyer simply peruses the available arguments and standards and then clicks on a standard to add a fully composed paragraph to the brief that states the rule, including citations. The text is fully editable, either within Compose or later when the draft is exported to Word.

Compose presents a treatise-like list of arguments from which the lawyer selects.

“Picking arguments to add to your brief is like choosing pastries at a French patisserie,” Heller said during the Legalweek demonstration.

Select the legal standards to add to your brief.

The legal standards that Compose suggests are tailored to the jurisdiction and state identified by the lawyer, Heller said. Arguments can be nested hierarchically.

Parallel Search

If offering that selection of pastries was all Compose did, it would be notable of itself. But a second feature of Compose takes it further, not only suggesting pastries, but feeding you the full menu.

Called Parallel Search, it uses advanced natural language processing to follow you as you draft your arguments in the brief and automatically provide you conceptually relevant precedent. Notably, Casetext says this works to find analogous caselaw, even when the cases do not use the same language.

“This fills in a blind spot in current search,” Heller told me. “It allows you to return cases that have a violently different articulation of the current concept.”

Parallel Search finds relevant cases as you compose your arguments.

At the Legalweek demonstration, Heller gave an example by typing the argument, “Plaintiff’s testimony was deceitful.” Parallel Search returned a case in which the judge concluded that testimony was “frankly incredible.” The algorithm understood that deceitful and incredible were parallel concepts.

As another example, Heller typed the argument, “Target is liable for not cleaning up the banana peel that Ms. Jones slipped on, injuring her hip.” Parallel Search returned a reference to a case that said, “Davis alleges that Kroger’s employees were responsible for negligently leaving a soapy substance on the ground that caused her to fall.”

Types of Motions Covered

Compose’s motion automations will be offered as collections. The first three collections to be marketed will be Federal Discovery, Federal Motion to Dismiss, and Federal Core Civil Procedure. As of today’s launch, there are six motion automations available:

• Motion to Compel Discovery.
• Motion to Quash or Modify a Subpoena.
• Motion for Protective Order.
• Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony.
• Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim
• Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Over time, Casetext will release new motion automations and collections.

What It Costs

Casetext will sell Compose as a separate product from its legal research service. Six larger law firms have already signed on as customers: Ogletree Deakins, Sheppard Mullin, Bowman and Brooke, and three others that Casetext declined to name.

For solo and small-firm attorneys, they will be able to purchase Compose on an a-la-carte, per-brief basis. The first use will cost $99. After that, each brief will cost $1,499.

For larger firms, they will purchase Compose on a subscription basis. Subscriptions will be offered based on bundles or themes, such as federal discovery or federal civil procedure.

Heller envisions that firms will purchase some subscriptions on a firm-wide basis and others on a practice-specific basis.

Casetext will also sell Compose to clients, such as insurance companies and inhouse legal departments, on both a single-use basis and in packages allowing a certain number of briefs.

The Bottom Line

Heller said that compose will allow lawyers to write better drafts of briefs in as much as one-tenth the time it would typically take. Given that litigators spend more than half their time working on motions, that could be a significant savings.

But lest anyone label this a robot lawyer, let us be clear: You still need to craft the brief. Compose gives you a shortcut to assembling the skeletal framework of legal principles that support you, but it remains your job to add substance to that framework and weave it all together into a compelling argument.

But even there, Compose’s Parallel Search feature will help, delivering up cases that are conceptually similar to the facts of yours and providing the fodder you need to support your positions (or highlighting the cases that work against you).

“Compose commoditizes the parts that lawyers never liked working on and clients never liked paying for,” Heller said. “At the end of the day, what’s left is the lawyer’s imagination, creativity, intelligence and persuasiveness in the brief-drafting process. That’s what we’re excited about.”

I have not used Compose directly. I have seen it demonstrated twice. Based on what I have seen, I have to agree with Heller that this appears to be a breakthrough technology for legal professionals. Just as Casetext’s competitors scrambled to emulate CARA, I suspect they will now scramble to come up with a Compose product of their own.