Always Be A Work In Progress

You’re not supposed to stop getting better, so make sure you are always getting better (though be careful what that means). And if you actually think you’re done, it’s time to get a new job.

I don’t think we ever used the term to described ourselves when I was growing up, but after I was somehow let in to what my third son would call a “fancy” college, I realized that where I came from would be considered a ghetto. Yes, it had its fair share of crime (I grew up in New York City in the ’70s and ’80s), but, more, it was a restricted and, in many ways, small place — restricted by ethnicity, by experience, and by worldview. As an example, when I left it to go to that “fancy” college I met, for the first time, a white Protestant (where I came from just about everybody was Catholic or Jewish). And that’s when I was exposed to the notion of being born again.

In my naive (and, I suppose, ghetto) way, I interpreted being born again to just being done with your religion: accept this, and you’re over the finish line, and all set. I know it’s not that simple. But, more than that, I rebelled at my limited understanding of the notion even then. How can you be all done?

Well, we can’t be, or, at least, I think we shouldn’t be, and that applies not just to faith but to profession. If you’re blessed enough like me and my colleagues to be a lawyer in America and believe it’s the right thing for you, you can never be done. This isn’t a sprint where we try to get over that finish line as I imagined it in college. The marathon metaphor comes to mind, but a career in the law is the New York City marathon: through different neighborhoods, up and down, over different terrain, crossing bridges along the way, and at times more than a bit odd.

What exactly does that mean for how we work and live and grow as lawyers? Certainly it means not embracing this extreme niche notion of being a professional, being the person who can handle some arcane legal problem and, perhaps, only that arcane problem (which, as a practical matter, worked out, for example, extremely poorly for those hundreds of well-paid lawyers a decade ago who handled only mortgage-backed securities work).

We need to keep expanding and pushing: handle new work. Work with new people. Try to get new kinds of clients. Read new articles. If you’re a trial lawyer like me: try cases in new courts or arbitral bodies. Keep getting better, but the real way of getting better — not just, or not even, more money, or more “prestigious” work, or more awards (I still think the term “Super Lawyer” sounds like it’s from a comic book). Keep developing as a work in progress as a lawyer.

But if that stresses you out — that you’re never going to quite know everything; you’re never going to be, or, at least, never should be comfortable; you’re always going to find yourself in a situation where, at first, you don’t have a solution — this simply may not be the job for you. I’m not being negative, but I am being serious. Gaggles of people go to law school for all kinds of bad reasons and then manage to become admitted lawyers. It doesn’t mean they all should be lawyers. And if the idea of constant growth stresses you out, then get out of this profession as soon as you can.

However, for those of us that don’t have much choice but to be lawyers, we have to be a bit impatient with ourselves. We should never be satisfied. We have to always push ourselves. We have to keep getting better at what we do and keeping helping our clients to win in the process.


john-balestriereJohn Balestriere is an entrepreneurial trial lawyer who founded his firm after working as a prosecutor and litigator at a small firm. He is a partner at trial and investigations law firm Balestriere Fariello in New York, where he and his colleagues represent domestic and international clients in litigation, arbitration, appeals, and investigations. You can reach him by email at john.g.balestriere@balestrierefariello.com.

Black Man Wins Racial Discrimination Settlement, Immediately Has Cops Called On Him Trying To Cash It

Sauntore Thomas sued his employer for racial discrimination and secured a confidential settlement. When he tried to cash his settlement at TCF bank, they called the cops on him.

Despite having an account at the bank for almost two years, the bank thought Thomas’s settlement funds were fraudulent, citing a “VOID” watermark on the checks that suspiciously wasn’t an issue when he walked over to a Chase bank and opened a new account and cashed the check on the spot. But even if the check aroused suspicion for some understandable reason — which there’s not a great reason to concede — immediately calling the cops evinces a hair-trigger unwillingness to believe and willingness to raise the stakes up to 11 for a black patron.

“Obviously, assumptions were made the minute he walked in based on his race. It’s unbelievable that this guy got done with a race discrimination case and he’s not allowed to deposit the checks based on his case? It’s absolutely outrageous,” said [his attorney Deborah] Gordon, stressing all of this could have been avoided.

“They could have just called the bank that issued the checks, and they apparently didn’t do anything because it would have all been verified immediately.”

For its part, TCF points out that the teller who alerted the police is also black, which isn’t really a defense because acting on racial prejudices doesn’t actually require being white. Still, TCF says Thomas trying to cash checks struck them as a “highly, highly unusual request.”

People shouldn’t have to avoid checks just to steer clear of racial discrimination, but why wasn’t this just wired to his account? If the settlement came directly from the defendant as in this case where he received three checks from his employer it’s a simple enough transaction. Even if the money had first been sent to Thomas’s attorney, it could have then been wired to him from the trust account. If there’s any commingling concern either put in the retainer agreement that the client will be responsible for the $25 transaction fee or just reimburse him on the back end.

Some social media observers cite the warm feeling of getting a check with a lot of zeroes, but it’s the 21st century. This is the age of direct deposit. Wiring money isn’t a perk of the rich and famous anymore.

Gordon filed a lawsuit on Thomas’s behalf against TCF on Wednesday. Assuming this settles, maybe go for the wire this time.

Detroit man settles race discrimination lawsuit, then bank won’t cash his check [Detroit Free Press]

Lawyers: Meet The CEO Trying To Make You Obsolete

Factor CEO Arun Mehta

On Monday, Varun Mehta took over as CEO of Factor, an Axiom spinoff previously known as Axiom Managed Solutions. Mehta and Factor aim to take a bite out of the segment of the legal market that has previously been off-limits to anyone except Biglaw attorneys: challenging, sophisticated contract negotiations and compliance.

If Axiom’s history is any indicator, Factor is going to be a force in the industry. Axiom manages over $1 billion in active contracts and has over 2,000 legal professionals working under its banner.

The days of Biglaw lawyers ignoring alternative legal service providers are coming to an end. To find out what it means, Mehta spent part of one of his first days on the job talking with me about the legal industry and what’s ahead.

Why You Never Sell Legal Tech To Lawyers

Like so many of the movers and shakers in the legal tech space, Mehta is not a lawyer. He went to school for biomedical engineering but found himself on the founding team of Clutch Group, a legal analytics and compliance company. After spending time there as EVP and CRO, he ran Clutch for a year following its merger into Morae Global in 2017.

After exiting Morae in 2018, Mehta said he took some time off to evaluate the legal landscape and consult with tech incubators interested in the legal space. His advice was highly sought after. “Everyone knows legal is hot, but there’s not enough information out there about it,” he explained.

The conclusion Mehta eventually reached was counterintuitive: if you want to break into legal tech, you need to stop selling to lawyers. Unlike the corporate world, which has defined procurement procedures and obvious entry points for salespeople, Mehta found law firms have no internal drive to onboard new tech and no clear place for developers to sell. As a result, law firms remain permanently behind the tech curve, and even the best technologies marketed to law firms can wither and die. “It’s not the best tech that wins, it’s the technology that finds users and empowers them, helping them become owners and experts.”

Enter Factor, which tapped Mehta to lead its ambitious expansion efforts. Mehta said the opportunity was a perfect match for his views on the industry and his goals as a leader. Factor wasn’t building a product to sell to lawyers; it was building a platform to sell to clients, to eat the lawyers’ lunch in a way no other company was daring to try. Factor was “one of the few companies working from this premise of complex legal work and scale.”

JDs Need Not Apply

Factor’s secret sauce is leveraging a few attorneys with expansive nonattorney support. Factor’s in-house lawyers oversee large teams of nonattorneys specially trained in contract management and compliance issues. The goal seems to be to ethically entrust as much work to those nonattorneys as possible, bringing the cost of even highly complex transactions down to a minimum.

A short time ago this sort of thinking would have been anathema to in-house lawyers, but the pendulum is swinging steadily away from the traditional monopoly of the JDs and toward alternative legal service providers like Factor and other cost-saving approaches. Call it a drive for increased access to the legal system, call it a grab for cash, the legal and business worlds are getting more comfortable with nonlawyers handling issues traditionally reserved for attorneys, and businesses like Factor are taking advantage of the change in the public’s temperature.

Mehta doesn’t see the role of attorneys going away. In addition to the lawyers overseeing Factor’s work, Mehta believes there will always be a place in the legal market for “the artisans, the Michelin Star Chefs” who do truly unique work at the highest level. There will always be lawyers needed to figure out how a company interfaces with the world at large, or a new regulatory regime, or how it navigates a highly complex strategic decision.

That’s a small part of a company’s overall legal spend, however. In Mehta’s vision, it’s when those bespoke decisions need to be rolled out at scale that companies like Factor can shine. A lawyer can decide what language to include in a company’s new vendor agreement; Factor can manage the thousands of agreements that ultimately get signed. Mehta wants to build Factor to the size of an Am Law 50 firm, but with drastically higher capacity and less overhead. At 500 legal professionals currently, most of whom are not JDs, they’re off to an impressive start.

Will Firms Strike Back?

Factor is biting off a lot, but those of us in Biglaw would be foolish if we didn’t take note. If Factor can competently figure out how to offer our traditional complex services without the overhead of paying salaries on full-blown JDs, they’re going to have a price advantage we can’t beat. Today, Factor curates other company’s products for its customers. If Mehta and its leaders can also bring in a cutting-edge business tech sheen, one starts to wonder what lawyers can offer besides pointing to the diploma on the wall.

Make no mistake: a new front has opened up in the war between alternative legal service providers and traditional law firms. Even if Factor stopped growing today, which is unlikely, it’s identified a market opening that others will want to attack. The upper tiers of the transactional legal world are officially up for grabs. As litigation gets more expensive and private arbitration more efficient, it’s not hard to imagine the complex litigation world might also start to feel the heat of nonattorney competition as well. The ALSPs have money, business savvy, and momentum. No one’s book remains safe.

All is of course not lost. Firms could choose to strike back by expanding their own nonattorney staffs and trying to offer similar cost and efficiency savings. Firms could also choose to slim down, consolidate, or otherwise brace themselves for a long pricing battle with the ALSPs, one that will only get longer if trends toward nonattorney ownership and fee-splitting continue to pick up speed.

Whatever firms do, simply sitting pretty is no longer an option. Varun Mehta and Factor are making sure of that.


James Goodnow

James Goodnow is an attorneycommentator, and Above the Law columnist. He is a graduate of Harvard Law School and is the managing partner of NLJ 250 firm Fennemore Craig. He is the co-author of Motivating Millennials, which hit number one on Amazon in the business management new release category. As a practitioner, he and his colleagues created a tech-based plaintiffs’ practice and business model. You can connect with James on Twitter (@JamesGoodnow) or by emailing him at James@JamesGoodnow.com.

John Stumpf, Who Was Never Going To Work At A Bank Ever Again, Officially Barred From Working At A Bank Ever Again

Judge Easterbrook Goes Ballistic On Immigration Judges Ignoring Express Order

Earlier this week, a federal judge in Massachusetts essentially shrugged his shoulders when Customs and Border Patrol defied a court order and deported a student it had detained. At the time, we noted that this did a disservice to the federal judiciary and constitutional order, essentially signaling to the government that there will be no repercussions for wantonly disregarding Article III judges.

Judge Frank Easterbrook is not willing to let the government continue to run train on the federal courts.

In the case of Jorge Baez-Sanchez v. Barr, an undocumented migrant with a past battery conviction hoped to put a stop to his removal by applying for a U visa, which allows an admissible immigrant remain in the country if they themselves have been victims of crime in the United States. Given his prior conviction he was ineligible to apply for the U visa, but the applicable statute allows the Attorney General to grant a “waiver of inadmissibility” which would allow him to apply. An immigration judge granted this waiver because immigration judges exercise the powers of the Attorney General per existing regulations. The Board of Immigration Appeals disagreed. The Seventh Circuit took the immigration judge’s side and asked the BIA to address a few other ancillary concerns.

The BIA responded that based on a letter William Barr wrote, they had decided that the Seventh Circuit was wrong. This is where Judge Stearns might say, “welp, they never listen to me.” Judge Easterbrook opts for a different path:

What happened next beggars belief. The Board of Immigration Appeals wrote, on the basis of a footnote in a letter the Attorney General issued after our opinion, that our decision is incorrect…. The Board did not rely on any statute, regulation, or reorganization plan transferring the waiver power under §1182(d)(3)(A)(ii) from the Attorney General to the Secretary.

It’s fair to say that the guy who is arguably federal judiciary’s most textualist jurist was less than pleased that the Board of Immigration Appeals made a decision based on a footnote in a letter instead of, you know, a statute. But that disappointment doesn’t approach his outrage to learn that the Seventh Circuit’s express order was ignored:

The Board seemed to think that we had issued an advisory opinion, and that faced with a conflict between our views and those of the Attorney General it should follow the latter. Yet it should not be necessary to remind the Board, all of whose members are lawyers, that the “judicial Power” under Article III of the Constitution is one to make conclusive decisions, not subject to disapproval or revision by another branch of government.

Hopefully this will be covered in their next CLE.

We have never before encountered defiance of a remand order, and we hope never to see it again. Members of the Board must count themselves lucky that Baez-Sanchez has not asked us to hold them in contempt, with all the consequences that possibility entails.

Yes! This behavior is contemptuous! While few would fault Judge Easterbrook leveling some sanctions sua sponte, his anger jumps off the page. And even if he’s not asking marshals to start throwing lawyers in jail, he’s fully cognizant that without some kind of sanction, the government can let this roll off its back. So when the government asks for the case to be remanded again for a ruling that doesn’t spit on the Seventh Circuit:

Yet we have already remanded, only to be met by obduracy…. Another remand would do little beside give the Board a free pass for its effrontery, while delaying the alien’s entitlement to a final decision. That’s not the goal of the remand rule. Baez-Sanchez has waited long enough…. The petition for review is granted, and the Board’s deci- sion is vacated. This leaves the immigration judge’s decision in force. The Executive Branch must honor that decision, which grants Baez-Sanchez a waiver of inadmissibility so that he may seek a U visa from the Department of Homeland Security.

That, by the way, is how a federal judge should respond when the government tries to take advantage of a coequal branch.

(Full opinion on the next page…)

Earlier: Administration Takes A Dump On Federal Court Order, Judge Responds With ‘Aw, You Got Us!’


HeadshotJoe 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.

Attorney General Barr’s Anti-Encryption Efforts Aren’t Supported By Many FBI Officials

(Photo by Jahi Chikwendiu/The Washington Post via Getty Images)

When Attorney General William Barr speaks, he represents the DOJ and all the agencies it oversees. The problem is that Bill Barr’s recent anti-encryption agitating doesn’t reflect the views of the people he oversees. While Barr is trying to turn the public against Apple by suggesting it protects terrorists and murderers, FBI employees are worried his words and actions will harm them more than help them.

The Wall Street Journal spoke to people in the FBI and DOJ who aren’t convinced Barr’s doing the right thing by taking a hardline stance on encryption. [Non-paywalled version here.]

Some senior FBI officials say privately they are worried that Mr. Barr’s sharp tone could undermine relationships with technology companies they have worked hard to develop, people familiar with the matter said.

The bureau relies on close partnerships with tech firms in a range of investigations, with companies complying with legal requests for data and troubleshooting technical obstacles that agents may struggle with, current and former officials said.

Pushing Apple is unproductive. It damages relationships while gaining absolutely nothing for the DOJ and FBI. Apple has already given the FBI all the information it can pull from the Pensacola shooters’ accounts. Breaking encryption simply isn’t an option — not when it leads directly to reduced security for the rest of Apple’s customers.

Many in the FBI realize this. Barr just doesn’t seem to care. If Barr continues to push his anti-encryption agenda, he not only risks reducing cooperation from tech companies but also the trust of the people who work for him. Barr says Apple’s not doing enough to help investigations. Internally, the FBI disagrees.

Some FBI officials were stunned by Mr. Barr’s rebuke of Apple, the people familiar with the matter said, and believe the Pensacola case is the wrong one to press in the encryption fight, in part because they believed Apple had already provided ample assistance to the probe.

Barr’s ultimate goal may be another courtroom showdown. Others in the FBI would prefer precedent to outside help from phone-cracking companies. Barr has aligned himself with those officials. But the ones pushing for precedent seem unaware of how much collateral damage the FBI itself might suffer if things don’t work out the way Barr wants them to.

[Former DHS Secretary Michael] Chertoff said a court ruling against the Justice Department could limit access to widely available forensic tools that allow investigators to get into phones in some situations, for instance. “It’s not clear to me why this fight is advantageous to anybody,” he said.

Barr and those like them so firmly believe they’re in the right, they’re seemingly incapable of considering the negative consequences of their actions. Precedent that safeguards people’s phones against encryption-breaking efforts works against the government, restricting its access to outside assistance. But even if the FBI gets the precedent it wants, the nation as a whole will be less secure because encryption will be compromised severely and permanently. Barr and his anti-encryption buddies are willing to sacrifice everyone else’s security for their own ends. That’s not just selfish. It’s also dangerous.

Attorney General Barr’s Anti-Encryption Efforts Aren’t Supported By Many FBI Officials

More Law-Related Stories From Techdirt:

Law Enforcement’s New Facial Recognition Toy Scrapes Photos From Websites, Serves Up ‘Matches’ In Seconds
Houston Officer Behind Deadly Botched Raid Hit With Two Felony Murder Indictments
Germany Wants To Limit Memes And Mashups Derived From Press Publishers’ Material To 128-by-128 Pixels In Resolution, And Three Seconds In Length

Njube High School students’ actions are true reincarnation & revival of 16 June 1976 Soweto revolutionary spirit! – The Zimbabwean

The actions of that day, by these gallant students in Soweto – who were protesting against the imposition of the teaching of all subjects in Afrikaans in their schools (largely regarded by the black majority of that country as the language of oppression), as well as against all other repressive apartheid laws – further galvanized other students throughout that country to fearlessly stand up.

Such valiant actions by what many would have regarded as mere children – who would have been expected to be more concerned with simplistic issues as courtship, dating, and the latest fashion trends, music and movies – and the subsequent, brutal and horrendous response by security forces, signalled the internationalization of the fight against apartheid – thereby, moving the liberation struggle to a whole new advanced level.

In fact, what these students did, is widely believed to have been the real catalyst that led to the eventual global imposition of tighter restrictions, and increased pressure, on the apartheid regime – resulting in the freedom of the majority of South Africans in 1994.

Even today, 44 years after such brave acts by those students – who dared confront the guns and bullets of the heinous apartheid regime, yet knowing and comprehending fully well the death and destruction they would face – that day (16 June) is commemorated globally as World Youth Day.

However, what we have so tragically witnessed over the decades is the apparent dilution and emasculation of this day – as today’s young people are no longer being taught and inculcated the real spirit of the revolutionary students of South Africa in 1976, who dared stand up against their own repressive, savage, and sadistic regime, which had wantonly brutalized not only themselves but also their parents, through heinous ruthlessness and laws.

These students had witnessed how the majority of their compatriots had been subjected do a degrading and inhuman livelihood, whilst a very few at the top enjoyed lavish lifestyles. They had seen how the majority were forced to struggle and toil each and every day for a paltry wage, just to put food on the table, whilst their oppressors could afford world-class buffets – seemingly without breaking a sweat.

They had been unwilling witnesses to their parents’ sobbing heart-rending tears, as they could not afford to provide them with decent education – yet, children of those in power would be attending some of the most expensive, and best-equipped schools in the land, which opened up unending opportunities for their futures. Whilst, on the other hand, the suffering majority’s children were trapped in a vicious cycle of poverty.

These students had had enough of living in ramshackle houses, whose roofs even leaked during the rainy season – as their parents could not afford decent dwellings, due to the economic disenfranchisement of the majority – yet, those of the political elite, and their cronies, lived in palaces and mansions, that were only comparable to those they watched on television as belonging to the world’s rich and famous.

“Enough is enough!”, I am sure they told themselves – and decided that only they, as the youth, had the power to change the situation in their country… once and for all. They refused to blindly and sheepishly accept that this was their fate, and would be the life of the majority of their country’s people for generations and generations to come.

They had to take a firm stand, not only for their parents – whom they loved so much, and fully appreciated the tribulations they were facing each day, at the hands of their cold-hearted and callous regime – but, also as a guarantee for their own brighter future…full of prospects and opportunities irregardless of what one wanted to become – as opposed to those apartheid days when the only way out of the dungeons of poverty was probably becoming a musician.

Therefore, when they finally decided to face off against their repressive regime – fully cognisant of the heavy-handed and fierce response they would encounter – nothing was going to stop them, except death itself.

The choice for these students was straightforward – it was either they suffered a slow, but equally agonizing death, as slaves and second-class citizens in their own motherland, or they faced the devil himself, and either die quickly, or vanquish him…once and for all – finally freeing themselves, and their parents, from the shackles of subjugation.

It certainly was not a simple decision to make, but – I am sure – it was one they absolutely were sure was the right one to make.

However, today, this true spirit of revolution is kept hidden from our youth – simply because our current leaders, especially here in Zimbabwe, are made from the same mould as the colonial and apartheid oppressors of yesteryear – and as such, would never want to raise another generation similar to the “Class of 1976”. They are terrified of such a prospect.

That is why, even though we in Zimbabwe commemorate 16 June as “World Youth Day”, this has, however, been confined to such issues is child marriages, child abuse (especially on the domestic front), access of sanitary wear for the girl child, and other such issues.

As much as all these issues are obviously of paramount importance, and should never be trivialized or placed in the backseat, the issues of socio-political dynamics prevailing in this country need to also take centre-stage. If this country is to have any hope for a brighter tomorrow, our youth should be even more politically savvy and revolutionary than those of 1976 – as the “people’s enemy” of yesteryear was more conspicuous by his or her skin colour than the “people’s enemy” of today, who looks just like you and me.

In fact, the “people’s enemy” that the majority are faced with today, is our former liberator, and so can easily continue to pretend as “having our best interests at heart” – yet, he or she already morphed, in true “Animal Farm” style, into the likeness and image of our erstwhile colonial and apartheid oppressor. The only difference between the oppressor of yesteryear, and that of today, is the skin colour.

As such, Zimbabwe desperately needs a breed of “16 June 1976 youth”, who are not brainwashed into believing that – just because they have a so-called “Children’s Parliament” and “Junior City Councils”, or the enactment of cosmetic laws against child abuse, then all is well.

No, it is not!

We now need a thinking youth – who can fully understand, and adequately explain, why his or her parents are unable to pay their school fees, or send them to the best schools, or buy them sufficient essential school material, or even provide them with decent meals.

We need a youth who thinks beyond his or her own narrow domain of dating, chatting on social media, and listening to music – but, a real “leader of tomorrow”, who comprehends what is truly happening in the country, and where this is all going – unless they courageously immediately put a stop to it.

They should know that if their parents are suffering today – yet, the situation only started seriously deteriorating one or two decades ago – then they have an even grimmer future ahead…which will make the tough times we are facing today, appear as if they were actually a “paradise on earth”. Our youth have no future at all!

The only hope that they have is to take their heads out of the cloud of deception they currently exist in and realize the gravity of the situation this country is under. That is why it was so refreshing to learn about the resoluteness and heroism of Njube High School students when they demonstrated against the suffering in this country.

Just as I had lost all hope in this generation of youth – believing them to be nothing but empty vessels, with no vision, wisdom, or purpose – these Njube students reignited that hope, that indeed, the revolutionary spirit still exists.

Nonetheless, real change can never come through one act of bravery, but now is the time to spread this spirit to all our youth. Just as in the apartheid days, those Soweto students were not inculcated this spirit by their government – as that would have been downright insane, for the oppressor to teach the oppressed to wake up and rise up.

As most of us may have watched in such movies as “Sarafina”, teachers and parents play a very pivotal role in educating and enlightening our children. This should not be limited to narrow and shallow concepts of mathematics, science, and so forth – but, broader issues that will raise their awareness on their socio-political history, and current affairs, as well as the way forward in breaking these shackles of poverty and oppression.

That is why I do not have enough words to commend the Njube High School teacher who showed beyond a shadow of a doubt, that he was truly visionary, by instilling in his students the sense of responsibility for this country’s wellbeing, the welfare of their parents, and protecting their own futures.

Such remarkable work now needs to urgently be carried out by all parents and teachers to our children. They are with us most of the time – in our homes, and in our classrooms – and as such, we have no excuse whatsoever in failing.

We neither should teach violence, nor savagery – but, peaceful resistance, the likes of which we so proudly witnessed with the Njube High School, and Soweto students. History has always shown that the oppressor is the only one who believes in violence – as he or she has everything to fear.

However, as the valiant sons and daughters of apartheid South Africa showed us on 16 June 1976, when confronted with repression and hopelessness, the only thing we need to fear is fear itself – as we have so much more to gain by fervently and fearlessly standing up against any regime or junta, no matter how ruthless it is.

That’s why this went down in history and is today commemorated throughout the world – as only a coward is soon forgotten, but the daring will always be remembered.

The struggle for positive peaceful and democratic change in Zimbabwe should not be – and can never be – relegated to political and civic society leaders alone – as that has never yielded results, anywhere in the world – but, a deliberate concerted effort by every peace-loving, prosperity-aspiring, forward-thinking, and development-oriented member of this country.

There is no one who does not have a pivotal role to play. Each one of us – young or old, teacher or student, worker or unemployed, employer or employee, man or woman, educated or uneducated, leader of an organization or ordinary citizen – is a crucial part of the whole body of peaceful resistance and change.

As a failure to do so would be a failure on us all as the people of Zimbabwe.

° Tendai Ruben Mbofana is a social justice activist, writer, author, and speaker. Please feel free to WhatsApp/call: +263733399640, or +263715667700, or calls only: +263782283975 or +263788897936, or email: [email protected]

Post published in: Featured

Morning Docket: 01.24.20

* The Ohio Bar has denied an applicant for bar admission in part because of her student loan debt. [Forbes]

* A man who recovered money in a racial discrimination case was allegedly discriminated against when trying to deposit his settlement check. Sounds like he may have another lawsuit. [Buzzfeed News]

* Some commentators are noting how Lev Parnas’ strategy is similar to the one employed by Trump’s ex-lawyer Michael Cohen. [NPR]

* An ex-CIA lawyer has stated that the Soleimani hit was a homicide under US law. [Daily Beast]

* The man charged in murdering prominent lawyer Randy Gori has pleaded not guilty. [St. Louis Post-Dispatch]

* A Wisconsin man who was wrongfully convicted has been sworn in as an attorney of the Wisconsin Bar. [Wisconsin Public Radio]


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.

Parliament Invites Public Comment on Constitution Amendment Bill – The Zimbabwean

Parliament Invites Public Comment on Constitution Amendment Bill

Parliament yesterday published the following self-explanatory notice:

This communication serves to inform you that on Friday, 17 January 2020, the Speaker of the National Assembly gazetted the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 2) Bill, H.B. 23, 2019.

Section 328 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe provides that:

“(3) A Constitutional Bill may not be presented in the Senate or National Assembly in terms of section 131 unless the Speaker has given at least ninety days’ notice in the Gazette of the precise terms of the Bill.

(4) Immediately after the Speaker  has given notice of a Constitutional Bill in terms of subsection (3), Parliament must invite members of the public to express their views on the proposed Bill in public meetings and through written submissions, and must convene meetings and provide facilities to enable the public to do so.”

In compliance with this constitutional provision, and as part of public consultations meant to enhance participatory democracy, the Parliament of Zimbabwe is inviting comments on the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 2) Bill, H.B. 23, 2019 for consideration by the relevant Committee(s).

All comments must be submitted to the following e-mail addresses: [email protected] or [email protected].

Alternatively, written submissions can be sent to: Parliament of Zimbabwe, Corner Third Street and Kwame Nkrumah, P.O Box CY 298, Causeway, Harare.

All submissions must be received on or before Friday, 17 April 2020.

Targeted public and stakeholder consultations on this very important Bill will be conducted in due course on dates to be advised.

For any clarification, you may get in touch with Mrs Luciah Nyawo, Assistant Clerk of Parliament, on email [email protected]

Relevant Documents Downloadable on Veritas’ Website

The  Bill[link] including the official explanatory memorandum..

Constitution Watch 1/2020 – Amending the Constitution – Part 1 [link] – which contains our observations on some preliminary points and then starts on our analysis of the Bill, to be continued in subsequent bulletins.

Constitution of Zimbabwe Consolidated [link] – which is the text of the consolidated Constitution incorporating the amendments made by the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 1) Act, 2017 (Act No. 10 of 2017) [the original 2013 text is also downloadable on the same webpage].

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

Post published in: Featured