Category: News Feeds

Hospitals will soon have to share price information they have long kept obscured — including how big a discount they offer cash-paying patients and rates negotiated with insurers — under a rule finalized Friday by the Trump administration.

In a companion proposal, the administration announced it is also planning to require health insurers to spell out beforehand for all services just how much patients may owe in out-of-pocket costs. That measure is now open for public comment.

“What is more clear and sensible than Americans knowing what their care is going to cost before going to the doctor?” said Joe Grogan, director of the White House Domestic Policy Council.

The hospital rule is slated to go into effect in January 2021. It is part of an effort by the Trump administration to increase price transparency in hopes of lowering health care costs on everything from hospital services to prescription drugs. But it is controversial and likely to face court challenges.

When that rule was first proposed in July, hospitals and insurers objected. They argued it would require them to disclose propriety information, could hamper negotiations and could backfire if some medical providers see they are underpriced compared with peers and raise their charges.

Shortly after the final rule’s release, four major hospital organizations said they would challenge it in court.

“This rule will introduce widespread confusion, accelerate anticompetitive behavior among health insurers and stymie innovations,” according a joint statement from these groups, which made clear their intent to soon “file a legal challenge to the rule on the grounds including that it exceeds the administration’s authority.” The statement was signed by the American Hospital Association, the Association of American Medical Colleges, the Children’s Hospital Association and the Federation of American Hospitals.

Insurers also pushed back. “The rules the administration released today will not help consumers better understand what health services will cost them and may not advance the broader goal of lowering health care costs,” said Scott Serota, president and CEO of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, in a statement.

Requiring disclosure of negotiated rates, he said, could lead to price increases “as clinicians and medical facilities could see in the negotiated payments a roadmap to bidding up prices rather than lowering rates.” The rule, he added, could confuse consumers.

It’s also a potentially crushing amount of data for a consumer to consider. However, the administration said it hopes the data will also spur researchers, employers or entrepreneurs to find additional ways of making the data accessible and useful.

The amount of information the rule requires to be disclosed will be massive — including gross charges, negotiated rates and cash prices — for every one of the thousands of services offered by every hospital, which they will be required to update annually.

In a nod to how hard it might be for a consumer to add up items from such an a la carte list of prices, the rule also requires each hospital to include a list of 300 “shoppable” services, described in plain language, with all the ancillary costs included. So, in effect, a patient could look up the total cost of a knee replacement, hernia repair or other treatment.

Insurers, under the proposed rule, would have to disclose the rates they negotiate with providers like hospitals. They would also be required to create online tools to calculate for individual consumers the amount of their estimated out-of-pocket costs for all services, including any deductible they may owe, and make that information available before the consumer heads to the hospital or doctor.

It would go into effect one year after it is finalized, although it is not known when that will occur.

Although consumer advocates say price information can help patients shop for lower-cost services, they also note that few consumers do, even when provided such information.

Earlier this year, the administration ordered drugmakers to include their prices in advertisements, but the industry sued and won a court ruling blocking the measure. The administration has appealed that ruling.

Nonetheless, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar said the administration is confident.

“We may face litigation, but we feel we are on sound legal footing for what we are asking,” Azar said. “We hope hospitals respect patients’ right to know the prices of services and we’d hate to see them take a page out of Big Pharma’s playbook and oppose transparency.”

He and other officials on a call with reporters admitted they don’t have any estimates on how much the proposal would save in lowered costs because such a broad effort has never been tried in the U.S. before.

Still, “point me to one sector of the American economy where having pricing information actually leads to higher prices,” said Azar.

Azar cited some studies that show that when prices are disclosed, overall spending can go down because patients choose cheaper services. However, such efforts also generally require financial incentives for the patient, such as sharing in the cost savings.

The proposed rule for insurers urges them to create such incentives, said Seema Verma, who oversees the federal government’s Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

George Nation, a business professor at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania who studies hospital pricing, called the final rule and the insurer proposal “exactly a move in the right direction.”

Among other things, he said, the price information may prove useful to employers comparing whether their insurer or administrator is doing a good job in bargaining with local providers.

Today, “they just see a bill and a discount. But is it a good discount? This will now all be transparent,” said Nation.

Photo: MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images

Kaiser Health News (KHN) is a national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

This is a sentence that actually exists in this world:

“A Northern California prosecutor used his 13-year-old daughter to lure a man back to the spot where she said he had molested her, so the man’s incriminating actions could be recorded on video, according to a newspaper report Sunday.”

What. In The Actual. F**k.

In case that alone wasn’t bonkers enough for you, the prosecutor told law enforcement that he’d already deployed this strategy multiple times.

“He stated that they had already done this several times,” San Jose Detective Sgt. Sean Pierce wrote in the police report on the case. “He directed (the victim) to let (the suspect) touch her if she encountered him, but if it was the breast or between the legs to move away. He instructed (the victim) to let (the suspect) identify and make the contact and if she cannot handle things she should move away. He instructed (the victim) to walk back and forth on the designated route and don’t interact with anyone for very long.”

How does anyone think this is okay? The prosecutor, who is unnamed to protect his daughter’s identity, is reportedly being investigated for possible child endangerment charges because, you know, this police report is basically the definition of endangering a child.

The prosecutor’s daughter told authorities in October that she had been molested and during the ensuing police investigation, the prosecutor apparently decided to play To Catch A Predator with his own almost certainly traumatized daughter and potentially screw up the investigation in the process. The California AG’s office is taking over the investigation because obviously the local prosecutor’s office is wildly conflicted.

This is what prosecutors are supposed to be telling cops not to do.

Report: Prosecutor used daughter as bait to catch molester [Sacramento Bee]

That other election is still a year away, but here’s a chance to make your vote count now. Voting is now open to pick the 15 legal technology startups that will be selected for the fourth-annual Startup Alley at ABA TECHSHOW 2020. The companies with the most votes will get the opportunity to face off in a pitch competition on TECHSHOW’s opening night and to exhibit in a special portion of the conference’s exhibition hall.

In September, we issued a call for entries. From all the entries we received, a panel of judges whittled the applications down to 26. Now your votes will select the final 15. The 15 startups with the most votes will get the opportunity to be featured at TECHSHOW, which will be held Feb. 26-29, 2019, in Chicago.

Below are the contenders, listed in alphabetical order. Read their pitches, check out their websites, then vote. For those that have a demo video, I’ve included the link.

Deadline for voting is Dec. 6, 2019, at 11:45 p.m. Eastern time. Winners will be announced on Dec. 9, 2019.

BALLOT IS ON THIS PAGE. Trouble with the ballot? Go directly to Survey Monkey.

---

ADR Notable

Founded: 5/20/2015.

Headquarters: Columbus, Ohio.

Elevator pitch: ADR Notable is the first SaaS platform to provide mediators with a single, complete tech solution. Case management tools are combined with “in the room” features that include prep checklists; time tracking; notes captured by party and type that can be edited, combined, sorted, and searched; document access; saved forms/clauses to draft final terms; and digital signature, all with an intuitive UI that won’t distract the mediator. Variable note deletion and secure storage complete the process.

How we’re unique: ADR Notable is a technology platform for mediators, an underserved part of the legal market. Its core replaces the legal pad with a novel note-taking feature the mediator uses to capture the note content, party and note type, then manage them logically by topic and edit notes into final terms of agreement. This feature resides within a secure cloud-based case-management system for the mediator’s entire practice, with an intuitive UI for ease of use that avoids distraction during sessions.

Demo video (if any): https://vimeo.com/369975500.

Pricing: $39.99 per month per user for unlimited cases or $34.99 per case for infrequent users.

Outside funding: No outside funding.

---

AXDRAFT

Founded: 10/31/2017.

Headquarters: HQ: New York, N.Y.; Development office: Kyiv, Ukraine.

Elevator pitch: AXDRAFT helps enterprises draft and approve legal documents 10 times faster, avoid mistakes and safely delegate more to non-legal teams. Customers include Carlsberg, British American Tobacco, Louis Dreyfus Company, Glovo and five financial institutions, including bank of BNP Paribas group.

How we’re unique: AXDRAFT has four main competitive advantages:

1. Onboarding experience. We onboard any customer in less than two weeks at no cost for the customer and with minimal involvement of the customer.
2. Security. AXDRAFT stores only your template, while the final sensitive document is created only on user’s machine and never goes to the cloud.
3. AXDRAFT can automate documents in any language.
4. AXDRAFT integrates data from public registers and internal databases directly into the document.

Demo video (if any): https://youtu.be/7z3JwWtKtD0.

Pricing: AXDRAFT charges a subscription based on the number of documents created by users in the system. The cost is roughly $10 per document and goes down as the number of documents increases. There are no additional payments. Our subscription includes on-boarding (including automation of customer’s documents), tech and customer support and all document and software updates.

Outside funding: $1M-$5M in outside funding. AXDRAFT is Y Combinator W19 alumni.

---

Billseye

Founded: 1/12/2018.

Headquarters: HQ: Atlanta, Ga.; Operations Center: Columbia, S.C.; Development Team: Indore, India.

Elevator pitch: Say for instance you’re working out, running an errand, or picking up your daughter from daycare and you receive a call from an important client. Do you stop what you are doing to document the call? I bet you’re too busy to stop and you end up losing hours of billable time as a result. This dilemma can be solved with one touch. Download Billseye for automatic, real-time call tracking, documenting, and billing solutions that can integrate into your existing case management software.

How we’re unique: Our patent-pending client button allows the user to immediately identify incoming and outgoing billable calls. At the end of the call, our software prompts the user to document the call with a text or voice memo. With Billseye, you are one touch away from billing thousands more dollars on mobile calls.

Demo video (if any): http://onetouchbilling.com/media/BillseyePromo2.mp4.

Pricing: A tiered SaaS model.

Outside funding: No outside funding.

---

CaptureCast Legal

Founded: 4/7/2019.

Headquarters: San Antonio, Texas.

Elevator pitch: CaptureCast Legal is a rich media video documentation platform to automate and streamline litigation support efforts with transcribed HD video captures from local and remote testimonies and legal affairs. It enhances trial strategy for witness preparation and trial practice using video-based capture and replay.

How we’re unique: Laser focus on delivering smart video solutions to automate, enrich, and streamline legal video and transcription services. We offset and enhance litigation support needs by delivering a smart, meta enriched video capture and library backed by AI/ML to enhance case discovery.

Demo video (if any): None.

Pricing: One-time up-front cost, then annually based on transcription and video volume.

Outside funding: No outside funding.

---

Corvum

Founded: 6/1/2017.

Headquarters: Vancouver, B.C., Canada.

Elevator pitch: Corvum is the first cloud-based communications service designed specifically for lawyers. We understand the unique pressures that lawyers face with time management and work-life balance. Corvum provides the extremely responsive customer support needed for law firms to continue to operate smoothly. Corvum’s service stays online with our three geographically redundant data centers. Corvum’s integration with Clio automatically tracks lawyers’ billable time on calls.

How we’re unique: Telephone providers typically offer “everything to everyone” services, without being able to focus on the needs of any specific user. Corvum is different because of our focus on the needs of lawyers. Legal professionals require more timely and helpful support, they require rock-solid uptime, and they require the tools they need to run their legal practice to all work together.

Demo video (if any): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzatElTvT6U.

Pricing: Monthly fee per user (SaaS/UCaaS).

Outside funding: Debt financing with the Business Development Bank of Canada (https://www.bdc.ca).

---

Crosselerator

Founded: 1/1/2019.

Headquarters: Exeter, U.K.

Elevator pitch: Turn your everyday email into new income, every day. Crosselerator adds targeted messages to your outgoing emails intelligently and collects the data.

How we’re unique: We are run by a successful ex-partner with 40 years’ professional experience and a long track record of success, not by young techies, so our products are designed with precise needs of practitioners in mind.

Demo video (if any): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGgqR3r1rN4.

Pricing: Approx $25 per month minimum, then by seat at $3 per seat per month.

Outside funding: We have funded all development out of our own funds and profits but will be going into the market for development funding (via Bath University business school) soon.

---

Discovery Genie

Founded: 6/1/2017.

Headquarters: Denver, Colo.

Elevator pitch: Discovery Genie solves the document production problem facing 750,000+ lawyers and paralegals litigating cases involving 35,000 pages or less: reviewing, producing, organizing and indexing emails, attachments and efiles. The Genie’s lawyer-designed system automates conversion to PDF, Bates numbering, privilege-log generation, and more, saving 75-90% of the time, cost and tedium of using Acrobat — but without the overkill costs and complexity of an e-discovery system. No IT department needed.

How we’re unique: We make document production inexpensive, fast and simple for the 90% of lawyers and paralegals who litigate small- to mid-sized cases (35,000 pages of production or less). Manual document production is slow, soul-crushing, and wasteful of professional talent – but e-discovery platforms, designed for big law, are cost prohibitive and unworkable for the vast majority of lawsuits. Discovery Genie serves the huge overlooked legal market with powerful but simple and affordable document production tools.

Demo video (if any): https://vimeo.com/294695282.

Pricing: On-demand, per document pricing. Custom pricing is available for large jobs, such as one case that involved 380,000 pages of production. (We have partnered with the DC Bar and the Colorado Bar Association to provide discounted services as a member benefit.)

Outside funding: No outside funding.

---

DueCourse

Founded: 8/11/2019.

Headquarters: San Francisco, Calif.

Elevator pitch: DueCourse is a learning platform that empowers attorneys to take control of their career by helping them map and advance their professional development through personalized learning. We’re building an adaptive learning platform that designs personalized development paths, allows lawyers and professional development teams to track their progress, and pushes incremental, custom content that encourages consistent learning and professional growth.

How we’re unique: Our adaptive learning platform replaces the outdated, impersonal training and development models that rarely fit the busy schedules of distracted learners, and do not meet lawyers in the online mediums where they’re spending most of their time.

Our model also uses real-time data and various accountability methods to provide on-demand learning and help lawyers stay on track with their professional development, rather than leave it up to ad-hoc mentoring and goal setting.

Demo video (if any): None.

Pricing: We have a subscription-based pricing model.

Outside funding: Less than $1M in outside funding.

---

ECFX

Founded: 1/28/2019.

Headquarters: Los Angeles, Calif.

Elevator pitch: ECFX is a one-stop, enterprise-class solution for electronic court filing (ECF). ECF is a time-consuming and complex process that varies from court to court. ECFX solves this problem by providing a SaaS B2B platform that automates the processing of receipts of service and the filing of documents with the court with firmware administration and control. ECFX obtains huge efficiencies and cost savings for the firm, eliminates the risk of missed receipts, and reduces filing rejections.

How we’re unique: ECFX distinguishes itself over competing solutions by offering a firmwide, enterprise class solution for all of a law firm’s jurisdictions. Firms today must cobble together products from multiple vendors, and that patchwork of products may still be incomplete. ECFX focuses on automating work that falls into the gaps between the other products in the market and provides a consistent user experience across multiple jurisdictions.

Demo video (if any): https://docsend.com/view/ru3gbs6.

Pricing: We charge per transaction for each receipt or filing, with price per transaction depending usage volumes. To obtain discounts, firms can pre-pay for usage bundles on a monthly or annual basis.

Outside funding: Less than $1M in outside funding.

---

FamilyDocket

Founded: 12/15/2016.

Headquarters: Dallas, Texas.

Elevator pitch: FamilyDocket streamlines communication and evidence gathering for family law cases. Text messages between ex-spouses/co-parents are tracked automatically. Clients can communicate efficiently, and those messages are stored securely in real-time to be used in court, if needed. Important files such as tax documents, pictures, and final decrees can be shared. Lawyers can also assign tasks to be completed, and clients can upload expense items to be reimbursed by their ex-spouse/co-parent.

How we’re unique: We looked at what was missing in the family law market and what the pain points were for both the lawyers and the clients. We developed a simple, easy-to-use, mobile-friendly, web-based application that allows these lawyers, often in small practices, simple case management tools while also tying in co-parenting tools that clients need from the outset of the case. No other tool is tracking these text message communications and that is how most people are communicating in their personal lives.

Demo video (if any): https://www.linkedin.com/company/familydocket/?viewAsMember=true.

Pricing: Yearly subscription-based fee paid either by the law firm or passed on to the client.

Outside funding: Less than $1M in outside funding. We raised money from private investors as well as friends and family. Two of the investors are owners of well-known legal tech companies with different clientele. One, is a payment processor and the other targets in-house legal departments to assist them in analyzing their legal spend.

---

Faster Law

Founded: 9/1/2015.

Headquarters: Omaha, Neb.

Elevator pitch: We solve the three main problems lawyers face: document management, email management, and time tracking. Our Faster Suite includes email management, passive time tracking, document management, PACER Saver, mass document automation, print tracking, scan-to-Clio, split billing, conflict checker, meeting transcriber, request tracker, invoice reminders, Clio document backup, advanced data export and a whole lot more.

How we’re unique: We make crazy-simple solutions to complex problems. We are the number-one suite of apps for Clio and we have 3,500 paying customers.

Demo video (if any): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49HJetclR48.

Pricing: $300 per year per human for every single feature.

Outside funding: No outside funding.

---

FirmTRAK

Founded: 2/1/2019.

Headquarters: Bloomington, Ill.

Elevator pitch: FirmTRAK seamlessly integrates with your practice management system and other strategic vendors, automatically generating diagnostic and predictive KPI visualizations designed to accelerate performance, increase efficiencies and drive profits.

How we’re unique: We not only have the ability to provide strategic reporting to larger law firms, but we have also unlocked the necessary data for lawyers down market by providing a full set of ready-made reporting at the click of a button. Our motto is to become the one-stop shop for all law firm reporting needs by bringing together practice management system data with accounting, marketing, and other data sets to create dynamic metrics to really move the dial within the business.

Demo video (if any): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pz_5kpUZ2PY.

Pricing: Since we are running analytics on all employees tracking time in the practice management system, we base price on total number of employees: 1-3 =$49/month; 4-9 = $129/month; 10-19 = $299/month; 20+ needs to be reviewed as they will tend to have very specific customization requests.

Outside funding: No outside funding.

---

Hugo Analytics

Founded: 3/3/2017.

Headquarters: Denver, Colo.

Elevator pitch: Hugo enables litigators to test any variety of case theories and strategies using virtual jurors. Litigators can submit material over our JuryMeter website to conduct initial pilot studies and see how 25 mock jurors react to their case. Hugo also provides more customized services that allow litigators to conduct experiments to optimize their case strategies and estimate more precisely the likely outcome of a given case.

How we’re unique: Traditionally, litigators make live presentations to a small number of mock jurors (6-30). Using crowdsourcing, we can recruit more mock jurors at a fraction of the cost. We run pilot studies and obtain initial reactions to cases on our website, www.jurymeter.com. As the numbers of mock jurors increase (think hundreds), we also conduct experiments and use statistical analyses to gain a more scientifically valid estimate of likely outcomes, including both liability and damages.

Demo video (if any): None.

Pricing: For our www.jurymeter.com solution, $500 with volume discounts. For customized experiments, prices as quoted (approximately eight customized experiments for about $50,000).

Outside funding: No outside funding.

---

Intaker

Founded: 1/2/2019.

Headquarters: Los Angeles, Calif.

Elevator pitch: Intaker uses artificial intelligence to capture and qualify prospective clients for consumer law firms on autopilot and 24/7; saving attorneys time, money and frustration.

How we’re unique: In comparison to traditional live chat solutions, Intaker AI:

• Captures 2-3 times more leads.
• Qualifies every lead thoroughly using machine intelligence by looking at over 16 million data points.
• Is incredibly easy to set up, run and personalize — setup takes 15-20 minutes.
• Is much more affordable, while turning better results.

Demo video (if any): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwbhoX5-QfA.

Pricing: Monthly plans: (1) Ignite, (2) Lift-off, (3) Thrust, and (4) Zero Gravity.

All four plans come with unlimited qualified leads (flat-rate pricing) but tiered based on features like multiple languages, instant call, number of websites, number of Intakers, etc. There are some limits on the number of visitors.

Outside funding: No outside funding.

---

Josef

Founded: 7/1/2019.

Headquarters: Melbourne, Australia.

Elevator pitch: Josef is a legal automation platform that enables lawyers and legal teams to create and launch their own conversational bots. Lawyers have already built more than 5,000 automation tools on the platform to streamline processes, improve client experience and eliminate repetitive tasks. Bots built on Josef automate lawyer-client interactions, draft documents and provide legal guidance and advice.

How we’re unique: Using legal automation platforms usually requires a level of training and expertise that is beyond most lawyers. In law firms and in-house teams, these technologies end up being used exclusively by technical experts. Josef turns that model on its head by driving adoption of its visual logic builder and no-code-document-automation among practitioners across legal organizations. We see adoption and bot-building by everyone from paralegals to partners, assistants to legal operations.

Demo video (if any): None.

Pricing: Customers pay for a subscription to Josef. Subscription levels may vary based on the number of bots launched or distribution of access to the platform.

Outside funding: Less than $1M in outside funding.

---

Justice For Me

Founded: 1/1/2018.

Headquarters: San Antonio, Texas.

Elevator pitch: Justice for Me (JFM) exists to close the justice gap. JFM removes the financial obstacles that prevent clients and attorneys from connecting, by using technology and a network of lawyers and financial partners that work with clients who cannot afford traditional legal representation. We provide a line of credit that gives clients affordable monthly payments and we pay attorneys quickly and directly, simplifying billing and collections. We enable customers and attorneys to focus on outcomes.

How we’re unique: We are the only company offering payment plans for civil cases in the market today. Justice for Me is opening a new segment in the legal market, those that have not been served to date. Our main mission will continue to be to close the Justice Gap and provide legal assistance to those who cannot access it today.

Demo video (if any): https://www.justiceforme.com.

Pricing: Justice for Me makes money by earning a service fee from the overall engagement. The attorney receives their invoice amount less this service fee. The client pays the full amount plus interest.

Outside funding: Less than $1M in outside funding.

---

Knovi

Founded: 9/11/2018.

Headquarters: Philadelphia, Pa.

Elevator pitch: Knovi was created by attorneys for attorneys to ease their caseload and bring an influx of valuable leads. Using artificial intelligence, Knovi matches clients with the right legal representation. Knovi then streamlines client communications with messaging and video chat capabilities, all the way from inquiry to settlement. An intuitive, built-in CRM documents the case from start to finish, so attorneys can focus on what truly matters: their client’s case.

How we’re unique: Powered by machine learning, Knovi’s chatbot creates client engagement before the first phone call or meeting. Knovi seamlessly initiates the client-attorney relationship and even starts the process of building the new case — all while providing great customer service, too.

Demo video (if any): None.

Pricing: Knovi costs $150 per month for up to five users. Each additional user is $30 per month with a 10% discount for annual subscribers. These prices are for an unlimited number of chats, which distinguishes Knovi from the competition which charges per completed chat.

Outside funding: No outside funding confirmed at the moment of this application.

---

LawCo

Founded: 8/15/2017.

Headquarters: Chicago, Ill.

Elevator pitch: LawCo was developed to efficiently and ethically solve the access to justice problem by creating a way to connect live leads to lawyers instantly. LawCo’s platform matches people in need of legal help with lawyers on-demand, in real-time, and at no connecting cost to the consumer. With no monthly commitment fee to the attorney and no lengthy sales pitch, we built LawCo for small firms and solo lawyers, seeking to cost-effectively and rapidly build their books of business.

How we’re unique: LawCo is the only platform available that instantly connects lawyers to live leads. Unlike other lead generation products, LawCo takes out the wait time for connection. Lawyers will find our signup process quick and easy. Lawyers merely visit the website or download the free app, enter name, phone number, email, and ARDC information. They are verified via the ARDC and then approved to use the LawCo platform; instantly getting notified of live leads in real-time. Zero commitment; pay per lead.

Demo video (if any): https://bit.ly/2qczRp1.

Pricing: People in need of legal assistance use LawCo to notify all of our registered attorneys that someone is looking for help. The attorneys are notified via text and email that leads are available, in real-time. The first attorney that chooses to accept the lead pays a fee to LawCo to connect with the person in need. The leads are normally $65 per lead, but to gain traction, there are many promo codes available, making the leads $20.

Outside funding: No outside funding.

---

Lawgood

Founded: 1/15/2019.

Headquarters: Los Angeles, Calif.

Elevator pitch: Lawgood is a web app that makes it easy for lawyers to draft and review contracts by allowing them to adjust important clause language with the push of a button and tap into crowdsourced best practices and trends.

How we’re unique: We give lawyers access to market intelligence while making it easier for them to work faster so that they can better service their clients. Lawyers don’t have to upload precedent libraries, learn a complicated new system, or have access to expensive practice resources. They can easily change the favorability of clause language based on client and deal specifics without time-consuming research. And they can see what other lawyers do in similar situations to better understand market standards.

Demo video (if any): https://youtu.be/n_SybiVffQw.

Pricing: Saas monthly subscription of $89 sticker price with discounted pricing for partners such as bar associations, legal companies, and practice management software companies.

Outside funding: No outside funding.

---

Litify

Founded: 10/1/2016.

Headquarters: Brooklyn, N.Y., with offices in Orlando, Fla., and New Orleans, La.

Elevator pitch: Litify, is an intuitive, fully integrated SaaS platform for law firms that transforms how legal services are rendered through integrative technology. The singular platform streamlines and automates task management, document generation, intake management, and client communications while providing data-driven insights to help law firms scale and increase their bottom line. Built on Salesforce.com, Litify is a secure, extensible and rapidly evolving platform that helps lawyers stay one step ahead.

How we’re unique: Litify helps law firms function as modern day businesses by providing an end-to-end solution through an intelligent and user-friendly platform. Instead of functioning on different platforms for different tasks or documents, Litify streamlines everything under a single umbrella. The platform is built on Salesforce.com to provide a secure environment to store client data and leverage its infrastructure to implement new functionalities, accommodate changes and integrate extensively.

Demo video (if any): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5Vm_IG_AVI&feature=youtu.be.

Pricing: Priced per-user license.

Outside funding: More than $5M in outside funding.

---

Parley Pro

Founded: 4/15/2015.

Headquarters: Los Altos, Calif.

Elevator pitch: Parley Pro is the contract management platform that automates documents and workflows around them. It is the only solution that enables real-time, multi-party contract negotiation powered by our proprietary, modular product design and architecture. This approach provides unprecedented visibility into a contract at a clause level. In addition, Parley Pro maintains a detailed audit trail for all contract changes throughout negotiations and after, preserving the history of all negotiations.

How we’re unique: Parley Pro is the only contract solution that provides:

• Structured real-time collaboration.
• Multi-party negotiation working on a single document.
• Real-time dashboards and actionable analytics.
• Integrated end-to-end contract process automation.
• Unprecedented ease-of-use.

Demo video (if any): https://vimeo.com/337402797.

Pricing: We charge per user/seat.

Outside funding: $1M-$5M in outside funding.

---

Proxy

Founded: 4/25/2018.

Headquarters: Chicago, Ill.

Elevator pitch: NMBL Technologies was founded by a diverse group of AmLaw 100 lawyers and technologists. WE recently released our first product, Proxy. Proxy is a cloud-based legal workflow management tool that supports the more effective adoption of legal operations concepts. Proxy optimizes four key day-to-day legal functions: (1) organizing and managing legal tasks; (2) delegation and status tracking; (3) visual prioritization; and (4) effective reporting and search.

How we’re unique: Three factors make us unique:

1. Our products are targeted at in-house counsel, not law firms or consumers.
2. We have not deployed over-hyped buzzword technologies. Instead, Proxy provides an intuitive UX to meaningfully implement legal ops concepts. We do not purport to do a lawyer’s job for her. We enable her to do it better herself.
3. Proxy allows users to track and manage structured and unstructured tasks. Users can manage ad hoc legal tasks side-by-side with structured tasks that are part of a larger workflow.

Demo video (if any): None.

Pricing: We have a customizable pricing tool available at https://proxylegalapp.com/pricing/.

Outside funding: Less than $1M in outside funding.

---

SimplyConvert

Founded: 9/15/2019.

Headquarters: Edwardsville, Ill.

Elevator pitch: SimplyConvert is the first automated intake legal case qualification platform powered by an “all-knowing” AI chatbot. Casey, our chatbot, is currently versed in the legal criteria of 50 practice areas/litigations and her knowledge has no limit. Casey is also backed by a robust CRM that automates the entire legal intake process from initial conversation to signed contract, resulting in increased efficiency and conversion rates on signed cases.

How we’re unique: Casey, the smartest virtual legal assistant, makes our company unique. Unlike any other legal bot, live chat or online form, Casey gives instant legal guidance to web visitors. The SimplyConvert legal intake process is more efficient and streamlined – law firms follow up only with “qualified” potential clients, leaving more time to practice law.

Demo video (if any): https://simplyconvert.com/index.php.

Pricing: $30 per engagement plus $70 per signed contract.

Outside funding: No outside funding.

---

Text A Lawyer

Founded: 4/27/2017.

Headquarters: Beaverton, Ore.

Elevator pitch: We provide captive client leads for lawyers that have at least $21 of skin in the game. These leads convert at a high rate. Lawyers actually get paid to field these leads in real time. For the person who has a legal question, they are able to get legal advice from a local, verified attorney for $21 without having to wait. We’ve gone to great lengths to remain compliant with ethical rules, using our credit card processor to handle the funds, avoiding retainer issues and fee-sharing.

How we’re unique: We’re the world’s fastest way to hire a lawyer, period. We also go to great lengths to appeal to the ethically-conscious lawyer, like deleting encrypted client conversations off our server on a daily basis, providing a full transcript via email, and giving lawyers various options to reject a client mid-chat (scope, ethics, wrong state/category).

We launched Aug. 31, 2019 for landlord/tenant issues in Oregon. We will soon be opening in new cities and with new categories, including personal injury, family, business, and immigration.

Demo video (if any): www.textalawyernow.com.

Pricing: We have three:

1. The first question costs $21, with $10 to the lawyer as an earned fixed fee, $5 as a once-per connection attorney verification fee, $5 as a per-question software license fee, and about $1 for the credit card processor we use.
2. The lawyer and client chat until the lawyer gathers enough info to answer the question. They toggle to “”Final Answer”” mode. Upon receiving a final answer, the client has three minutes to read and decide whether to ask a follow-up question for $11. Follow-up questions for $11 can continue “a la carte” indefinitely. The lawyer earns $5 on each follow up, with the $5 per-question software license fee remaining the same.
3. We charge lawyers a $100 per month access fee on a renewable contract subscription. Lawyers earn $10 on the initial question and $5 on each follow-up. Answering a small handful of questions each month zeros out our fee, allowing lawyers to net a small nest egg answering questions and interviewing new clients.

Lawyers only give out their contact info in a final answer, and only if they want that client to re-hire them off platform. This is our real value – and it’s free for lawyers, an incredible deal!

Outside funding: Less than $1M in outside funding.

---

Virtual Pricing Director

Founded: 9/26/2017.

Headquarters: England, U.K.

Elevator pitch: VPD is the only holistic end-to-end legal pricing platform on the market spanning the entire pricing process from inception to house-styled proposal that enables partners to confidently eliminate guesswork and provide clients with unprecedented price transparency and budgetary certainty.

How we’re unique: Three ways:

1. Unlike all the other products built by technologists, VPD has been built by lawyers for lawyers with product development led by Richard Burcher, managing director of Validatum, widely regarded as the leading legal services pricing consultancy in the world.
2. VPD contains 40 years of Richard’s legal pricing IP.
3. VPD is the only pricing platform using machine learning to guide users through the entire pricing process from scoping to realistic client-facing detailed proposals.

Demo video (if any): https://vimeo.com/340043802 (Password: VPDPromo3.5).

Pricing: SaaS – annual subscription based on firm gross revenue bands.

Outside funding: No outside funding.

---

Woodpecker

Founded: 6/7/2017.

Headquarters: Boston, Mass., with an office in Chicago, Ill.

Elevator pitch: Woodpecker is an AI-enabled legal document automation platform that helps lawyers get back to doing what they love. Our platform enables firms to automatically turn frequently used legal documents into standardized “smart-templates,” all from the comfort of Microsoft Word with no implementation or training overhead.

How we’re unique: We’re solving the biggest problem in legal document automation: the onboarding process. Instead of taking 6-24 months to convert existing documents and onboard our software, this same process takes days. Our patent-pending AI-enabled auto-template engine automatically converts existing templates (HotDocs or Contract Express) into Woodpecker templates with the click of a button. Additionally, our 1,500-plus integrations enable firms to seamlessly connect with existing tools and services.

Demo video (if any): https://youtu.be/odKvKQnL78E.

Pricing: Software-as-a-service subscription model.

Outside funding: Less than $1M in outside funding

---

THE BALLOT IS HERE. Trouble using this ballot? Go directly to Survey Monkey to vote there.

---

Robert Ambrogi is a Massachusetts lawyer and journalist who has been covering legal technology and the web for more than 20 years, primarily through his blog LawSites.com. Former editor-in-chief of several legal newspapers, he is a fellow of the College of Law Practice Management and an inaugural Fastcase 50 honoree. He can be reached by email at ambrogi@gmail.com, and you can follow him on Twitter (@BobAmbrogi).

Following the unprecedented release of essay topics just days before the July 2019 administration of the California bar exam, the results are finally out. Last summer, test-takers produced historically horrible results, the worst in nearly 70 years. How do this year’s results compare, and did the essay leak screw-up have any impact on the state’s pass rate? Dare we say, the results are actually pretty good — for California, that is.

According to a press release from the State Bar of California — which notes that “[t]he July 2019 pass rate rebound in California mirrors a national upward trend in scores” — the overall pass rate for the exam was 50.1 percent, while the pass rate for first-time takers was about 64 percent. In July 2018, the overall pass rate was 40.7 percent, while the pass rate for first-time takers was 55 percent. This means that California’s overall pass rate went up by 9.4 percentage points, and its pass rate for first-time takers also went up by 9 percentage points. Not only that, but the state’s mean scaled MBE score was 1428 (up 24 points since July 2018) compared with the national average of 1411 (up 16 8 points since July 2018). This means the essay leak had to have had an impact on these results, right? Right…? Come on, now.

Wrong. The State Bar produced not one, but two CYA reports on the July 2019 exam results, each concluding that the essay topic release had next to nothing to do with the increase in pass rates. Here’s some additional information from the State Bar:

The State Bar also released two reports on the results: the first, an analysis by the State Bar’s psychometrician, the Research Solutions Group (RSG), concluded that “[t]he results of the … analyses indicated that the premature release of the content had no statistically significant impact on the results of the July 2019 examination.”

In light of the special circumstances for the administration of this bar exam, the State Bar engaged a second firm, ACS Ventures, national experts in assessment and psychometric analysis, to review the analysis performed by RSG. Their report confirmed that the methods and procedures for scoring, scaling, and equating the bar exam were consistent with industry expectations and historical practice and confirmed  the validity of the methods used in the initial psychometric analysis.  ACS Ventures’ report concluded that  “the empirical evidence suggests that the early release of topics did not have a material impact on performance on the July 2019 California Bar Exam.”

Alan Steinbrecher, Board Chair of the State Bar, had this to say about the results:

The State Bar is committed to ensuring integrity and fairness in the admissions process. The State Bar did not take lightly the decision to release the essay and performance test topics to all test takers, and thus we are relieved by the findings of the psychometricians that statistical analysis demonstrated that the integrity of the examination was not impacted, that performance was as predicted based on historical data, and the passing rate was not affected.

Okay, fine, we totally believe you. The essay topic leak had nothing to do with this.

For the sake of comparison, let’s take a look at the results for the last decade or so of summer administrations of the California bar exam. Check it out, below:

Year	Overall Pass Rate
July 2019	50.1 percent passed
July 2018	40.7 percent passed
July 2017 (move to two-day test)	49.6 percent passed
July 2016	43.07 percent passed
July 2015	46.6 percent passed
July 2014	48.6 percent passed
July 2013	55.8 percent passed
July 2012	55.3 percent passed
July 2011	54.8 percent passed
July 2010	54.8 percent passed
July 2009	56.4 percent passed
July 2008	61.7 percent passed

Here are some additional statistics that the State Bar of California released from this summer’s exam (pass rates rounded to whole numbers):

School Type	First-Timers	Repeaters
California ABA	71 percent	36 percent
Out-of-State ABA	73 percent	29 percent
California Accredited (but not ABA)	26 percent	14 percent
Unaccredited: Fixed-Facility	27 percent	9 percent
Unaccredited: Correspondence	20 percent	13 percent
Unaccredited Distance Learning	29 percent	12 percent
All Others	38 percent	22 percent
All Applicants	64 percent	26 percent

Even though pass rates went up across the board, graduates of ABA-accredited law schools still displayed an advantage over their peers who attended California-accredited or unaccredited law schools. Specifically, the pass rate for first-time takers from California’s ABA-accredited law schools increased by 7 percentage points, up from 64 percent last summer. Those who went to law schools accredited only by California and took the exam for the first time saw their pass rate increase by 10 percentage points, up from 16 percent last summer.

Whatever it was that caused the pass rate in California to climb this summer, we’ll remind readers that we’re still being forced to celebrate barely half of test-takers passing this exam. If the California Supreme Court had decided to lower the state bar’s cut score to bring it in line with that of the vast majority of other states (or hell, even if the state’s high court had decided to lower the cut score by just a point or two), imagine how many more people would have passed. For new lawyers, the legal profession in California is still in trouble, and this is something that needs to be fixed.

Congratulations if you managed to pass the bar exam in California this summer. If you didn’t pass, don’t despair. Many very successful people have failed the bar exam (see our list of famous bar exam failures). Focus on February and try to develop a plan for passing, and someday, you’ll conquer the beast that is the California bar exam.

State Bar of California Releases July 2019 Bar Exam Results [State Bar of California]

---

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 it may seem as though the Senate confirms unqualified judges at a breakneck pace, it wasn’t nearly fast enough for some conservative lawyers. That’s why C. Boyden Gray, a former White House counsel and current ASS Law School professor just gave Mitch a giant donation, prompting the Kentucky Senator to take the pace of judicial confirmations up a notch:

McConnell’s renewed focus on confirming conservative judges comes after his joint fundraising committee received a $256,600 contribution in mid-September from C. Boyden Gray, a George Mason University law professor, founder of Committee of Justice—the “leading conservative voice on judicial appointments,” according to its website, and a board member at the Federalist Society, an influential conservative legal organization that has groomed many of Trump’s judicial nominees.

It’s encouraging to know that McConnell is willing to pump the brakes on the drive to fill the judiciary with ghost hunters and pouty little weasels just to extract more money from rich FedSoc donors. Dolla, dolla bills y’all.

Now flush with cash, McConnell has turned the bigot spigot back on and pledged to confirm another 30 federal judges over the next month… qualifications be damned.

McConnell Speeds Up Confirming Judges After Hefty Donation From Conservative Legal Activist [American Prospect]

---

Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.

Typically, what do you do when somebody asks for a document?

You take out an old form and make the fewest possible changes for the new purpose.

Because that makes life (for the writer) easy.

Typically, what do you do when an editor suggests changes to a document?

You make the smallest number of changes possible that incorporate the editor’s suggestions.

Because that makes life (for the writer) easy.

Sometimes, that’s the right choice; sometimes, it’s not.

Occasionally, when an editor suggests a revision, you really only have to add a dependent clause:  “[old text] insert comma, five words containing new idea, another comma [old text].”  That’s all the editor suggested.  If you make the change, it will get the editor off your back.  Mission accomplished.

But sometimes an editor suggests a revision that really requires you to think things through from scratch.  Maybe the new argument is so important that you must re-write the introduction, add a new section one, modify sections two and three, and change the conclusion.

If you just inserted a dependent clause, you’re going to have an unhappy editor on your hands.

You often must think things through from scratch.

Thus:  The trial court brief is not the appellate brief.  Even if you change the name of the court and insert a sentence on “standard of review,” the trial court brief still is not the appellate brief.  Perhaps the appellate brief must eliminate issues, or emphasize questions of law, or present more (or less) procedural history.  I can’t tell you exactly why your trial court brief is not your appellate brief, but I can tell you that, 99 percent of the time, your trial court brief is not your appellate brief.

So think things through anew.

Also:  The email describing the case for the general counsel is not the same as the email describing the case for the chief executive officer.  Even if you change the name of the addressee.  The CEO has less time than the general counsel does.  The CEO likely cares less about legal issues than the general counsel does.  The CEO’s review is probably aimed at a different purpose than the general counsel’s review. 

So don’t just change the fewest things possible (to make life easy for the writer), and then send out the email.

I understand that makes less work for you — the writer.

But making your life easy isn’t always the name of the game.

Sometimes, you must think things through anew.

---

Mark Herrmann spent 17 years as a partner at a leading international law firm and is now deputy general counsel at a large international company. He is the author of The Curmudgeon’s Guide to Practicing Law and Inside Straight: Advice About Lawyering, In-House And Out, That Only The Internet Could Provide (affiliate links). You can reach him by email at inhouse@abovethelaw.com.

* Three Indiana judges are in hot water after they partied until 3 a.m., headed to a strip club, and got shot at during a brawl outside of a White Castle. Apparently another judge who went inside the White Castle was unharmed and avoided discipline, which just shows you the power of the crave. [New York Times]

* The Florida Bar is seeking to suspend a Florida lawyer whose pants caught on fire during an arson trial. Maybe he was a “liar, liar”… [Miami Herald]

* A Manhattan judge ruled in favor of Mark Kasowitz’s client, but never disclosed that he received campaign donations from Kasowitz and an associate. [New York Daily News]

* A Texas lawyer has been accused of conspiring with a funeral home to illicitly solicit clients. Guess instead of being an “ambulance chaser” this attorney is accused of being a “hearse chaser.” [Texas Lawyer]

* Planned Parenthood has won a civil lawsuit against parties responsible for recording undercover videos of Planned Parenthood’s activities. [Independent]

* Two Arkansas chemistry professors have been charged with cooking meth. Hopefully, they did not use Breaking Bad as their inspiration. [Washington Post]

---

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.

It is two years this week since President Robert Gabriel Mugabe stepped down as leader of Zimbabwe. Surely the only question was why it took so long for him the retreat from the ashes of a political career, once so full of promise that left him as arguably one of the most loathed leaders in Africa.

On November 21, the day of reckoning, tens of thousands were out on the streets calling for Mugabe to go; in Parliament, many politicians who had spent their careers on bended knee before the man himself, punched the air in celebration. Business too had high hopes; the new man President Emmerson Mnangagwa was more business minded and pragmatic people said – wasn’t he? Even though he had been in cabinet, overseeing the steady fall of Zimbabwe, for the best part of 40 years. Old wine in new bottles, said the cynics.

It didn’t start well. I recall reading Zimbabwe’s first post Mugabe investment prospectus that the new President Mnangagwa was going to present to us at the World Economic Forum in Davos in 2018. It was a thrown together document talking about how the government was going to compensate farmers who lost their land – the loss that triggered the country’s rapid decline – with scarce hard currency. It all seemed a little far -fetched at a crucial time for the economy when investors were looking for certainty and bold strokes to usher in revival.

Two years on, most of the Zimbabwe business people I speak to as the Head of Programming of CNBC Africa appear more pessimistic than they have been since the dark days of the early 2000s when hyperinflation signalled the end for the Zimbabwe dollar and any vestige of credibility for the economy. Inflation is about 300 % and on its way to Weimar Republic proportions, for the second time in two decades. Even the well-heeled business types I know in Harare have to struggle  through power cuts, shortages and a dearth of hard currency.

The finance minister economist Mthuli Ncube, bless him, has been one appointment that stood out, in the Mnangagwa years, like a beacon. He is a technocrat, with international experience, unsullied by the thuggish politics of the last desperate years of Mugabe. He was also not a party man and clearly is more at home looking over the books than standing with fist clenched at political rallies.

Yet, how much power he is going to be allowed remains to be seen. He is a man who needs to make painful cuts to help revive the economy, yet, when he did so in the last budget, in the form of reducing MP allowances, he was soon sent back to the drawing board.

Ncube has told CNBC Africa a number of times that he is prepared to reintroduce the Zimbabwe dollar as if it were as easy as flicking a switch. But the reintroduction of the small denomination notes in Harare this week, supposedly to ease the cash crisis, smacks of tinkering. It is unlikely that the flimsy notes will make much except for a few headlines. Many Zimbabweans have told me they won’t trust the new notes and a black market has already sprung up. One wonders whether it was an economic or a political decision.

All in all, a week may be a long time in politics, but the last two years have been another grinding time of torpor for the Zimbabwe economy. Investors appear to be fighting shy, the infrastructure is crumbling and more and more skilled Zimbabweans are leaving the country in despair.

No more politics, give us business, most in Harare say to me. That was what the end of the Mugabe era was supposed to mean.

Post published in: Featured

Two years ago, on November 18^th, 2017, hundreds of thousands of Zimbabweans took to the streets in the spirit of peace, unity and hope, calling for a new start. For a new Zimbabwe.

Coming into office a few days later, we committed to saying goodbye to the ways of the past, and to doing things differently.

I immediately moved to give the people their voices back, opening new channels of communication between the people and their representatives.

Criticism of the government and the presidency would no longer be taboo, but welcomed, even encouraged. I answered tough questions on my Facebook page, as I promised to be a listening president.

We immediately went into an election, in which opposition parties were free to campaign wherever, whenever and however they liked. Even when I narrowly survived the Bulawayo bombing attack weeks before the election, nothing changed. The campaign continued unimpeded.

On July 30^th 2018, eight months after coming to office, we held the freest and fairest elections in the country’s history. While no electoral process is perfect, all international monitors noted the new and free environment of the campaigns, and the vast improvement in the electoral process.

And we will continue to work closely with our partners in the international community to improve and refine our democracy. To build a resolute and open society, a free and fair country for all its citizens.

Part of this is reforming antiquated legislation and opening up the political space. We are repealing AIPPA, replacing it with three new laws, consistent with the ethos of the new Zimbabwe: The Freedom of Information bill, the Protection of Personal Information bill and the Zimbabwe Media Commission bill.

Developed in consultation with a diverse range of stakeholders, these laws meet international media freedom standards and ensure the right to freedom of expression and freedom of media.

Just last week we removed the much maligned POSA, a remnant of the old Zimbabwe that limited the right to protest, and replaced it with a new Maintenance of Peace and Order Bill, devised with input from civil society and our friends around the world.

These have been key demands of the international community, and should be interpreted as a sign of our commitment to reform. Yet the impetus for change and reform comes from within. We are not reforming to appease the nations of the world, but because reform is necessary to build the future our people desire. Of course, there is still much work to do, but we are heading in the right direction.

In November 2017, we also found ourselves mired in an economic mess. A dark and dangerous fiscal tunnel, with no apparent light at the end of it.

Today, we have a balanced budget for the first time in living memory, and we have restored our own currency, enabling us to take control of both our fiscal and monetary policy.

Of course, too many Zimbabweans still suffer, but austerity is a painful but necessary part of the recovery process. Led by our internationally recognised Minister of Finance, Professor Mthuli Ncube, we will continue to restructure, revamp and rebuild our economy. We cannot and will not hold up our hands.  We must reform or perish.

The people of Zimbabwe know perseverance. Just because the process is tough, we will never take our eyes off the prize. We must never give up until we have achieved our goals: A middle income economy by 2030.

We are investing in this process like never before.  A process of wholesale economic, political and social reforms.

I call on the nations of the world to help us speed up this process, to support the people of Zimbabwe as we undertake these painful but necessary reforms.

If the goal of sanctions is to stimulate the reform process, their effect is the opposite. They slow down our progress, inhibit our economic recovery and empower those who do not wish to see Zimbabwe change.

Their removal will, therefore, be an important step on the road to a better future for all the people of this country.

We as leaders have a duty to set a new course for our people.  A course where not only is our fate in our own hands, but where no one is left behind. A course with a balanced budget, an open political space, and a thriving economy providing the jobs and opportunities our people deserve.

I shall never stop working towards these goals and will never waver in my determination to realise the dreams of all those who took to the streets two years ago. I am confident that with patience, perseverance and our unbending commitment to reform, we will get there.

Post published in: Featured

The hospital, also known as China-Zimbabwe Friendship Hospital, was built under a Chinese aid project to provide quality health services in the countryside, where 70 percent of the population resides.

Mahusekwa Hospital Project Phase I was completed and handed over to the Zimbabwean government in 2012.

The Phase II project, with a total area of 5,220 square meters and a floor area of 650 square meters, features a larger courtyard and upgraded facilities in the mortuary, disinfection room and laundry room, among others.

Mnangagwa said the Chinese-built facility bears testimony to a win-win relationship between Zimbabwe and China.

Chinese ambassador to Zimbabwe Guo Shaochun said the modern hospital will provide better health and medical services for the local people.

“We truly hope people in Zimbabwe will live a healthier and happier life. Please allow me again to express my heartfelt thanks to all the constructors who participated in this project,” Guo said.

“It is our sincere hope that the cooperation between our two countries will benefit more people, and we will do our best to build a community with a shared future between China and Zimbabwe,” he added.

Post published in: Featured