Category: News Feeds

In my last column, I humbly welcomed our robot lawyer overlords. After it was published, a number of people called me out on social media and chastised me for joining sides with the robots so willingly. It would seem that they were decidedly unfamiliar with the well-known meme to which I referred.

Well, rest assured dear readers, I have every intention to resist any and all invading robot overlords unless and until I feel that resistance will be futile, at which point I plan to blindly welcome them. I’m all about hedging my bets.

And, judging by the results of two recent technology surveys, my fellow lawyers are in my corner when it comes to resisting the robot lawyers who’ve come to steal their jobs. For now most are not on board, although they’ve seemingly succumbed to the allure of artificial intelligence’s lesser cousins, data analytics software.

Since lawyers have already acquiesced to the use of the latter software, let’s consider those statistics first. The results of the 2019 ABA Legal Technology Survey show that nearly half of all lawyers (49 percent) have used legal analytics software in the past year. I’ve written about some of the various legal analytics tools available here.

Lawyers from large law firms with over 100 attorneys were most likely to report using legal analytics in the past year at 75 percent, followed by 62 percent from firms of 10-49, 46 percent from firms of 2-9, and 35 percent of solo respondents.

According to the ABA Survey, lawyers have used legal analytics software for a number of different functions including: 1) legal research at 35 percent, 2) developing case or matter strategy at 22 percent, 3) understanding judges at 16 percent, 4) business development at 15 percent, 5) predicting likely outcomes of strategy or arguments at 14 percent, 6) understanding opposing counsel at 13 percent, 7) demonstrating expertise or competitive advantage to clients at 11 percent, 8) understanding jurisdictions at 10 percent, 9) assessing expert witnesses at 10 percent, 10) supporting communication with clients at 9 percent, and 11) estimating matter costs or resources at 8 percent.

Lawyers were also asked about their plans to adopt artificial intelligence software into the law firms. A mere 8 percent reported that their firms currently use artificial intelligence-based technology tools. Large firms with 100 or more lawyers led the way at 26 percent, followed by 5 percent of lawyers from firms of 2-9 attorneys, 4 percent of solo respondents, and 0 percent from firms of 10-49 attorneys. Finally, 9 percent of respondents indicated their firms were seriously considering purchasing artificial intelligence-based technology tools, with large firm lawyers with 100 or more attorneys being the most likely to at 16 percent.

Compare those results to the statistics from the ILTA 2019 Technology Survey, which indicated a stronger overall interest in AI software by responding attorneys. According to the results of that survey, 20 percent of responding firms were using or testing AI technologies and another 25 percent were researching the prospect. Notably, the ILTA Survey included a higher percentage of respondents from larger law firms than the ABA Survey, which might explain the disparate results.

Respondents are asked what they see as the most important benefit offered by artificial intelligence-based technology tools. The largest percentage of respondents indicated that artificial intelligence-based technology tools save time and increase efficiency (41 percent). Lawyers from firms of 100 or more attorneys led the way at 55 percent, followed by 48 percent of firms with 10-49 attorneys, 38 percent of firms with 2-9 attorneys, and 32 percent of solo lawyers.

According to the ABA Survey, 41 percent of lawyers indicated that artificial intelligence-based technology tools would be most useful for increasing efficiency, followed by 24 percent of lawyers who felt it would help with document management and document review. Next was reducing costs at 21 percent, followed by predicting outcomes and reducing risk at 15 percent.

As for when artificial intelligence tools would become mainstream in the legal profession, 16 percent of respondents reported that would occur within the next three years, 19 percent chose the next four-to-five years, and 20 percent chose the next six-to-10 years. .

And last but not least, lawyers were asked to share their major concerns regarding artificial intelligence tools. Fifty-one percent were most concerned about the accuracy of the technology, 48 percent worried about the reliability of technology, 46 percent were concerned about the cost to implement it, 37 percent chose the amount of time required to learn how to use it, and 31 percent were focused on the difficulties encountered when changing processes.

The bottom line: Cutting-edge technologies like data analytics software and artificial intelligence are here to stay. Most lawyers are already aware of these tools, and many are actively considering whether to use them, if they aren’t already doing so.

So, what are you waiting for? Join their ranks and stop resisting the inevitable. Like it or not, the robot lawyers are coming. I don’t know about you, but I plan to embrace the future, accept their inevitable reign, and loudly declare that I, for one, welcome our new robot lawyer overlords. #RobotLawyerInvasion

---

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

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

I work with my husband.  I love it.  Sometimes it is easier to work with my husband than to be married to him.  I know this sounds odd, but things are often simpler at work.  The kids are at daycare and school.  The chaos of home remains at home.  At work, we are just there hustling, talking, and collaborating.  We respect each other’s strengths and visions, and we occasionally get to sneak in a lunch date.  We have a temporary distraction from dishes, laundry, and chauffeuring to evening activities.  However, getting to work is not so easy.  The dance of teeth brushing, breakfast making, bus stops, and Disney music commutes is exhausting.  I sometimes long for an early morning in the office where my first cup of coffee will actually remain hot until its last drop.  But this is the life we built, the life we love, and we would not change it.

I am a mother of two children, ages two and six.  I am a partner in a small law firm with 11 lawyers.  I manage a busy, high-volume personal injury litigation practice.  At the time in which I started this practice, I was pregnant with my first child.  My husband was at a large law firm.  Life was hard. When I found out I was pregnant with my second child, my husband and I began to prepare for his Biglaw exit to join me in the entrepreneurial life.  My husband now runs a high-volume labor and employment practice.  While we have more flexibility, the entrepreneurial rollercoaster is chaotic and unpredictable. Thankfully, we are not the only husband-wife team at our firm.  Our founding partners are also married.  Their mentorship and insight have been crucial in keeping us sane.  Here are my favorite tips.

Buy Your Time.  This was the first piece of advice my then-boss gave to me when I began building my practice.  It is the best advice.  Time is a limited and precious resource.  If you are too busy, hire staff.  Clarify your vision; have others help you implement it.  Pick the kids up early.  Go on the school field trip.  Leave work before six.  Give someone else a job and spend the extra hours enjoying your children.  Staff is even more crucial in the event of an unexpected emergency or illness.  Quit trying to do everything.  Hire help.

Sunday Power Hour.  While our schedules are subject to change, my husband and I sit down for a planning session on Sunday nights.  We determine our workout times, the drop-off/pickup schedules, the nightly chauffeuring, and quick dinner options.  This also forces us to look at our work schedules in advance of Monday so we can manage our workflows better.

Utilize Technology.  Technology is a gift.  Use it. Both my husband and I are completely mobile.  Our offices consist of only a tablet.  (He is working from home as I write this.)  On our busiest day of the week, I work from home so that I can tend to childcare needs.  I use that day as my drafting day.  My phone is connected to my tablet.  Clients call me, and I answer from my Bluetooth headset.  This allows me to be home when my son gets off the bus, and it lets me catch up on little tasks while still being connected to the office.  It also allows me to log on at night to complete any work I did not get to during the regular working hours.

Geographic Location is Key.  Our daycare is located less than a half mile from the office.  We can leave the parking lot and be at the daycare in two minutes.  Our pediatrician is on the next street.  Location is so important.  When there is a last-minute change or an after-hours emergency, we can walk out of my office at 5:55 p.m. and be inside the daycare by 6:00 p.m.  Because we are so close, we can go back to the office with the kids, if needed.  If one of the kids has a check-up, one of us can leave for the appointment, drop-off, and be back in less than an hour.  By eliminating additional commutes, we are more efficient during our days.

Lunch is a Luxury.  While we may occasionally sneak out of for lunch, we usually eat at our desks while we work.  I would rather have the additional hour in the morning for hugs and the commute.  Our office phones are shut off during the lunch hour.  An hour of uninterrupted work is worth three hours with constant breaks and calls.  Because we are more efficient, we can leave earlier.

Working Late.  My husband works better in the office when he is writing.  I actually prefer to be at home.  In order to help balance the responsibilities, we both get to choose a night when the other is “on-duty.”  This is chosen during Sunday Power Hour.  The on-duty parent is responsible for pick-up, dinner, and the bedtime routine.  If working late one night means we can be on time during the other days of the week, it is a fair trade-off.

Lighten Up.  We all mess up.  I am hard on myself when I do.  But I should lighten up too.  This past year, my son attended kindergarten in our district and went to his daycare for private kindergarten on the off days.  We messed up the bus schedule a few times.  It happens.  Both my husband and I have forgotten whose day it was to pick up from daycare and had to regroup.  We all get caught in traffic coming back from meetings.  We beg family for help during trials.  We get aggravated.  Some days, all we can manage is to make sure our kids have on clean clothes, feel loved, and eat something from a drive-thru.  I’ve been to court with spit-up on my suit.  I have taken depositions on two hours of sleep, knowing one of my kids is getting sick.  I have given my kid ibuprofen on the way out the door, hoping to make it until lunch before I get the sick call.  And it is okay.

The toddler tango is hard. Finding the right dance partner is imperative. Smart scheduling helps.  A sense of humor and some wine helps too.

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

---

Ashley Starling is a partner at the firm Willis Spangler Starling in Columbus, Ohio.  She is trial attorney focusing on car and trucking accidents, wrongful death, catastrophic injuries, and animal attacks.  Ashley is an active member of the Ohio Association for Justice and a board member of the Trucking Safety Section.  More about her can be found on her website and LinkedIn.  She can be reached by email at astarling@willisattorneys.com.

When Brazil gave the legal community a cuteness overload with Dr. Leon Advogato, Harvard Law School predictably decided it couldn’t allow anyone else to have nice things that it doesn’t so it dialed up its own “wild animal seeking refuge before the law” narrative with a bird loose in the Harvard Law Library.

So far the bird, which they should absolutely name Harvey Birdman, hasn’t gotten an Instagram account yet, but give it time.

A message from the Executive Director of the Harvard Law School Library alerted the community to the issue and asked students to stop feeding the bird. If that sounds harsh, remember that bird law in this country is not governed by reason:

Colleagues,

If you study in the Library Reading Room, you may have noticed a small bird flying around. We are working with humane animal capture people to retrieve the bird and return it to the great outdoors. Capturing a bird is harder than you’d think. We are waiting for the bird to tire itself out so that it can be captured. Many of our kind hearted students have been leaving food and water for the bird, which totally feels like the humane thing to do – but it keeps the bird’s energy up, which means it continues to evade capture.

I could never have imagined writing this request, but here we go: please don’t feed the bird in the library. We’ve been assured that a day or two without food or water will not harm the bird. Once the bird tires itself out, we will be able to safely help the bird move outside.

Cutting off food and water sounds exactly like how you kill a mockingbird.

Listen Harvard, you’re not getting that bird off the pallid bust of Pallas above that library door.

Not unless you put Dr. Leon on the job.

Earlier: Cat Lawyer Is Real And He Is Everything Right Now

---

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.

Amid a growing economic disaster, Zimbabweans face steep hikes in cellphone rates and fuel prices this week.

The Zimbabwe Energy Regulatory Authority (ZERA) on Tuesday announced a 12% increase in the price of petrol from Z$14.97 to Z$16.75 (R15.57 using Tuesday’s exchange rate of Z$1: R0.932), while that of diesel increased from Z$15.64 to Z$17.47 (R16.24).

According to the statement issued by ZERA, the fuel price increase was driven by the weakening of the Zimbabwean dollar against the US dollar, which is used to pay for fuel imports.

The exchange rate used stood at Z$15.57 per US$1, weakening from an exchange rate of Z$13 per US$1.

Meanwhile, the telecoms regulator, the Postal and Telecommunications Regulatory Authority of Zimbabwe (Potraz), approved a 95% increase in mobile tariffs across the board.

The increase comes after the regulator approved a further increase of 182% as recently as August 2019.

Justifying the increase, Potraz said the current tariff threshold set in August 2019 has been rendered “unsustainable as the operating environment has further deteriorated due to inflationary pressures”.

“Accordingly, the Authority has found it necessary to review tariff thresholds for telecommunication services by up to 95.39% based on the Telecommunication Price Index (TPI) that was computed in consultation with all operators.

“In view of the foregoing, and guided by the Act, all public switched and mobile operators may adjust their tariffs in line with the above thresholds for approval by the Authority,” reads Protraz’s statement.

The latest adjustment will see on-net calls per minute cost 96 cents (Zimbabwean dollars) or 89.28 South African cents, up from 48 cents (Z$) or 44.64 cents (SA).

The new price and tariff increases come at a time when the country’s statistics agency (Zimstat) said the total consumption poverty line for an average of five persons per household stood at $2 192.00 (R2 038) in September 2019.

The poverty datum line represents the cost of a given standard of living that must be attained if a person is deemed not to be poor.

The lowest paid government worker in Zimbabwe earns $1030 (about R958).

Post published in: Business

Listen, it takes a lot to be the most self-important of all the lawyers. After all, we are a group that thinks pretty highly of ourselves. But sometimes an attorney makes a move that launches them into the stratosphere of lawyers with noteworthy egos. Like this email signature.

I know what you’re thinking. An email signature hardly seems like the venue for such a move, but trust— you haven’t seen an email signature like this before. Lane Jefferies of the Anastopoulo Law Firm in Charleston, South Carolina is getting dragged on Fits News for his pretentious email signature. The post script has extensive instructions — in two parts — detailing the “proper” way to get a hold of the lawyer who is apparently too damn busy to just read his emails like the rest of us proles. And he’s gaining quite the reputation over it, though it may not be the one he was hoping for:

Specifically, Jefferies is becoming something of a legend for having “the most unprofessional, insufferable, self-important, insolent, asshole electronic signature I have seen in my twenty years as a member of the bar,” one attorney told us.

So, what exactly does he say? Well hold on, it’s a doozy:

(1) Call my cell any day between 4:00 p.m. and 4:30 p.m. If I am not already on the phone with another opposing counsel, I will answer and spend up to five minutes on the phone with you. At the end of our five-minute talk, I may instruct my staff to schedule a longer meeting with you if you satisfy the criteria set forth in #2 below. Please note that I spend just five minutes on each call, so if I don’t answer when you call, wait a few minutes and try again. My cell is XXX-XXXX. Call only between 4:00 p.m. and 4:30 p.m. as I spend the rest of my day focused solely on achieving my clients’ goals.

But wait! There’s more! You have to check out condition #2 that his email signature sets out:

“Begin by providing my office with a specific agenda of items you would like to discuss,” he wrote. “Be sure to identify the tangible outcomes to be achieved as to each item, and persuasively describe how these outcomes, if achieved, would promote the greatest recovery for my client in the least amount of time and for the least expense.”
….

“If your email persuades my staff that using my time to meet with you is legally required or is likely to be a worthy investment from the perspective of my client, then they will schedule a meeting (probably a meeting by phone initially),” the message continued.

….

“On the other hand, if you do not persuade my staff that scheduling a meeting is consistent with my promise to my clients not to try to do 1000 things at once that won’t contribute much, if anything, to the results we are trying to achieve, then no meeting will be scheduled (though you remain free to call any afternoon as described in #1 above),” the message continued. “Fair warning: generalized requests to ‘discuss the case’ or ‘talk about the status’ or the like will be considered conclusive evidence of a request to waste time, and no meeting will be scheduled.”

Jefferies concluded his missive by noting that his staff has “instituted the above procedure in order to accommodate your desire to speak with me by phone in a manner that does not interfere with my ethical obligation to to (sic) devote my time and attention to the pursuit of justice for my clients as quickly and economically as possible.”

Let’s be real here — this isn’t about his “pursuit of justice” it’s about feeling self-important and forcing your adversaries to jump through hoops to get your attention. (Also, side, note… 5 minutes?? Not even a full .1? This guy couldn’t make it more obvious he’s a plaintiffs’ lawyer if he tried.) It’s a naked power move, and it’s horse hockey. I’ve got news for Jefferies, you aren’t more important than other lawyers. Stop acting like you are.

---

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

One of my favorite quotes from the late, great, Christopher Hitchens comes from his proactive, and edifying book, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything: “Nothing optional—from homosexuality to adultery—is ever made punishable unless those who do the prohibiting (and exact the fierce punishment) have a repressed desire to participate.” Of course, Hitchens was directing this comment at hypercritical evangelicals who rant against homosexuality or adultery, but, as it so often later turns out were privately engaging in homosexual acts, or were adulterer’s themselves the whole time. However, Hitchens’s notion is also applicable to MAGA world’s claimed aversion to socialism.

Take, for example, former President George W. Bush’s $700 billion financial bailout of the big banks. To be sure, the United States government has long been, from the very beginning in fact, in the partial ownership of banks game. However, such policies of government ownership of private business (even if private executives within the corporation are still calling the shots) are supposed to be everything modern Republicans hated, until they weren’t. When Barack Obama became president, a claimed hatred of socialist policies within the National Republican Party “suddenly” came back. Indeed, during the Obama years, denouncing socialism quickly turned into something more akin to fanaticism.

The current president latched onto that fanaticism with glee during his campaign. In fact, this president has made his claimed opposition to socialism a key distinguishing feature between him and the liberals (otherwise known as American citizens) he and his supporters hate so much. Yet, when you examine this president’s record, what you find is that he is arguably the most socialist president of the modern era. And by “socialist,” I simply mean a politician who values raising taxes, increasing government spending (including billions upon billions of socialist “handouts” to favored industries), all while possessing an aversion to private property rights based on some vague appeal to the greater good.

Let us begin by examining this president’s record on taxes. I have engaged with many MAGA folks in the last few years (some of whom are in my immediate family), and they constantly tout the president’s tax bill as his greatest achievement. First, I would submit the president played no part in the tax bill other than signing it; the bill itself reflects Paul Ryan’s efforts more than anyone else’s. Furthermore, even if I conceded the contested notion that most Americans received a tax break from the bill (I personally had to pay more), it is simply undeniable that when taken together, the president’s tariffs are negating the tax breaks. In fact, the tariffs are amounting to the largest tax increase of the post-World War II era. In other words, like other Democratic Socialists, this president views massive tax increases as good policy.

In response to the economic destruction reaped by said tax increases, the president’s solution comes right out of the socialist handbook: Government handouts to favored industry to the tune of $28 billion. Such handouts by this president more than double the 2009 auto bailout tea partiers hated so much, but suddenly do not care about now. Say whatever you want about Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, or AOC and their proposed plans for free college, free healthcare, etc. — they remain principally no different from this president’s $28 billion socialist handout.

Finally, let us examine the most notable principle of a socialist, in my opinion at least: A disregard for private property rights. Because when it comes this issue, this president stands alone. In fact, if this president had his way, the government would immediately seize an absurd amount of private land. The justification for such a land seize is again, directly out of the socialist playbook, in the form of vague appeals to public safety and the general public good. Appeals that — it is worth emphasizing — can be conclusively proven to be false. Moreover, this administration has reinstituted the grotesque asset forfeiture policy of adoption, in order to circumvent state laws and seize private property without ever having to prove a crime has been committed. I suspect it will surprise few to learn that asset forfeiture disproportionality targets minorities for abuse. Which brings me to the reason of why MAGA supports all of this stuff.

The reason MAGA supports the socialist policies of this president was identified by Radley Balko almost a year ago in his piece discussing why Jefferson Beauregard Sessions put up with so much insult and abuse, yet never wavered in his support for this president. For all his many faults, this president remains committed to the agenda of his supporters like Sessions who want nothing more than to increase “discrimination, constitutional neglect, and nationalism.” In other words, no matter how far down the path of socialism this president goes, as long as he demonstrates a continual hatred and fear of immigrants, supports policies that disproportionately negatively impact minorities and the LGBTQ community, and supports theocracy, you won’t ever see MAGA world complaining.

---

Tyler Broker’s work has been published in the Gonzaga Law Review, the Albany Law Review, and is forthcoming in the University of Memphis Law Review. Feel free to email him or follow him on Twitter to discuss his column.

“We were at the balcony of the ZCTU offices when the police started manhandling the [ZCTU] President [Peter Mutasa]. I thought it would be a good idea for us all to either sit down or follow the president to the police vehicle.

“That was when one of the police officers dragged me outside and began hitting me with a baton all over my body. He then bundled me into the police vehicle, together with President Mutasa and others,” he says, narrating his ordeal to Equal Times. “They beat us all the way to the police station, where we spent the night before appearing in court the following day,” he adds.

Chirowamari and six others arrested on that day were charged with bigotry (words or deeds that can result in a crime against public order) although the charges were later withdrawn.

And just last month, the acting president of the Zimbabwe Hospital Doctors Association, Dr Peter Magombeyi, made international headlines after he was abducted from his home in Harare by suspected state security agents for organising a strike by government doctors to demand better salaries.

Magombeyi was discovered four days later after being dumped in the bush 40 kilometres west of Harare. Allegedly tortured and poisoned by his captors, he underwent medical treatment in South Africa.

Worsening climate of fear

The stories of Chirowamari and Magombeyi are shared by hundreds of other trade unionists, opposition politicians and human rights activists whose right to freely assemble and associate is being trampled on by the Zanu-PF government, currently headed by President Emmerson Mnangagwa.

While Zimbabwe has ratified a number of international laws, including the International Labour Organization’s Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention (No. 98) and the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention (No. 87), the country lags dangerously behind in terms of implementation.

The repression of trade unionists has been a permanent scar on Zimbabwe’s political landscape since the early 1990s, but ever since President Mnangagwa took over from the late President Robert Mugabe in 2017, many say the climate of fear has worsened.

According to the Zimbabwe Association of Doctors for Human Rights, at least 18 people have been killed in demonstrations since Mnangagwa took power. Meanwhile hundreds of trade unionists and campaigners continue to be harassed, arrested, raped and abducted for peacefully gathering to express their frustration at living in a country with the second highest inflation rate in the world after Venezuela (161.8 per cent according to the IMF, although some economists have talked about an inflation rate of 570 per cent). Zimbabwe is also a country where unemployment levels and the cost of living continue to soar beyond all reasonable proportions, even by the minute, and where those who have jobs are rarely paid enough to survive – if they are paid at all.

ZCTU leaders President Peter Mutasa and Secretary General Japhet Moyo are currently on trial for “attempting to overthrow a constitutionally elected government or alternatively inciting violence” as a result of organising a six-day work ‘stay away’ in January 2019 against inflation, rising fuel costs and shortages of daily food essentials. Mutasa, Moyo, other members of the ZCTU leadership and their families have faced harassment and death threats in recent weeks. The court case has been postponed until 20 November and Moyo and Mutasa are facing a 20-year jail term if convicted. Twenty other trade unionists in the eastern border town of Mutare are also on trial (for bigotry) for engaging in a demonstration.

In February this year, Kwasi Adu Amankwah, secretary general of the International Trade Union Confederation’s (ITUC) regional body ITUC-Africa was detained for several hours while visiting Zimbabwe on a solidarity mission with the ZCTU.

“A toxic environment”

In September, thanks in part to lobbying from the international trade union movement, the Zimbabwe government invited the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and of Association, Clément Nyaletsossi Voule, to assess the situation in the country – the first such visit to Zimbabwe by an expert appointed by the United Nations Human Rights Council.

During his 10-day mission, Voule met with the ZCTU leadership, opposition political party leaders, community and civil society leaders, chiefs, the judiciary, the UN’s country team and a number of government ministers (though, notably, not the Minister of Labour, Sekai Nzenza).

Although a final report from the Togolese human rights expert will be presented at the Human Rights Council meeting in June 2020, he told members of the press at the end of mission: “Due to the current economic situation the country is facing, mass striking appears to be taking place regularly in the country. However, reactions by the authorities do not appear to be in line with their constitution and international commitments.”

Voule said he had heard “extremely disturbing reports of excessive, disproportionate and lethal use of force against protesters, through the use of tear gas, batons and live ammunition” and how trade union leaders had spoken of the “toxic environment of constant retaliation and fear” currently facing labour activists.

Although the draconian Public Order and Security Act of 2002 – which gives police the power to restrict marches, demonstrations and protests actions – will soon be replaced by the Maintenance of Peace and Order Bill, Voule said the latter still falls short of protecting the rights of citizens to peacefully assemble as it continues to “give law enforcement agencies broad regulatory discretion and powers”.

During his visit, Voule went to Hwange in north-west Zimbabwe to meet with the female relatives of workers at the Hwange Colliery who have not been paid in full since 2013. Until last year, the women had been peacefully camping on the mine premises in protest over US$4.6 million in unpaid salaries on behalf of their husbands, fathers and brothers, who were unable to strike for fear of dismissal. The company took the women to court on civil and criminal charges for trespassing, and some of the protesters received death threats. Voule described the Hwange case as demonstrating the “the role that non-state actors also play in creating an environment of fear” in Zimbabwe.

Government “desperate for re-engagement”

Voule also expressed concern at the slow pace in which much-needed labour law reforms are taking place. Zimbabwe’s unions urgently want public sector workers to enjoy the same rights to collectively bargain and strike as workers in the private sector. Amongst other measures, unions are also calling for an end to the casualisation of labour, an end to the late and non-payment of wages, the introduction of minimum redundancy packages and end to the victimisation of workers’ representatives.

The special rapporteur called on the government to create an enabling environment for civil society, protect the rights of citizens to organise and assemble, and withdraw all criminal charges against trade unionists. But Moyo tells Equal Times that he sceptical that Zanu-PF are prepared to make the radical changes necessary to improve the situation for Zimbabwe’s people.

“We still do not believe that the government is honest in its dealings with the United Nations. They are just desperate for [international economic] re-engagement with Zimbabwe but they have not displayed any real willingness to reform,” says Moyo. “The government does not need the special rapporteur to motivate reforms; it needs the political will to do things differently.”

Mnangagwa has been trying to restore ties with the United States and the European Union since he came to power in November 2017, and although his ‘open for business’ mantra was meant to attract foreign capital to the country, investors have largely stayed away. Meanwhile, the government is unable to borrow from international lenders due to an outstanding external debt of US$9 billion.

On Voule’s recommendation for the government to the drop charges against trade union leaders, Moyo says that the International Labour Conference had made a similar demand in June but that in response, unions have faced nothing but escalating violence and threats against their families. ‘The government has failed to protect its citizens and has become an accomplice to rogue elements that are freely tormenting those perceived to oppose the government policies,” says Moyo.

Post published in: Featured

Less than two months ago, Paul Singer let AT&T know all of the ways he thought it sucked: It sucked in the boardroom, where it really should have the CEO and chairman roles separated, and also a few Eliott Management representatives. It sucked in terms of strategy, and should both stop buying giant things, and un-buy several of the giant things it had already bought, like DirecTV, for instance. And, thanks in part to those things and other smaller areas of suckage, it sucked in the market, where it was trading for roughly half what it should be.

Zimbabwe’s government is banking on a platinum-mining boom to help revive its collapsing economy. The world’s biggest platinum companies say it isn’t going to happen.

Since Emmerson Mnangagwa took over as leader of the country following a coup in late 2017, platinum projects valued at more than $8 billion have been announced by Cypriot and Russian investors. Still, two decades of political and economic instability and a government with a track record of seizing privately owned assets makes many in the industry skeptical about the new ventures.

“The sort of things being thrown around are all smoke and mirrors,” said Neal Froneman, chief executive officer of Sibanye Gold Ltd., the world’s largest platinum producer, which part owns a mine in Zimbabwe. “It’s not easy to raise capital for all those projects and you have a huge amount of regulatory uncertainty.”

In addition to a history of changing ownership rules, miners are likely to be deterred by Zimbabwe’s failing currency regime that’s caused hyperinflation, chronic shortages of fuel and power and U.S. sanctions on government officials and companies. The southern African nation is facing the first contraction in gross domestic product since 2008.

While record prices for sister metal palladium are buoying the market, the longer-term outlook for platinum remains uncertain, making it difficult to justify expensive capital investments, said Nico Muller, CEO of Impala Platinum Holdings Ltd. The new investors face “insurmountable hurdles,” he said.

Implats, which produces most of its platinum in South Africa, owns the biggest mine in Zimbabwe and has previously had concessions seized and given to other investors.

Still, Zimbabwe has the world’s third-biggest deposits of platinum-group metals after South Africa and Russia and the shallow depth of its deposits makes mining cheaper and easier than in neighboring South Africa, the site of the biggest deposits. The government has ambitious mining plans.

The country’s mines ministry earlier this month forecast platinum-group metals output at 2.79 million ounces in 2024, almost triple the 979,000 ounces currently produced by Implats, Sibanye and Anglo American Platinum Ltd.

Almost half that target production will come from a $4.2 billion mine being built by Cyprus’s Karo Mining Holdings Ltd. Karo is 26.8% owned by Tharisa Plc, a publicly traded South African platinum and chrome miner run by the Pouroulis family. Tharisa has the right to acquire the rest of the Zimbabwe project.

A second $4 billion project is being developed by Great Dyke Investments, a venture between Russia’s Vi Holding and Zimbabwean investors. Great Dyke has appointed African Export-Import Bank to raise $500 million to fund the first phase of a mine that will produce 290,000 ounces of platinum-group metals by 2023.

For more on Zimbabwe’s platinum plans click here

The project, which was until recently part owned by companies linked to the Zimbabwean military, expects to start construction on a processing plant in April, said Great Dyke CEO Alex Ivanov. The venture is also in negotiations with potential equity partners, he said.

The new investors haven’t raised concerns about Zimbabwe’s risk, said Mazai Moyo, secretary for the ministry of mines.

Still, to ensure a mining renaissance, the government will need to convince big producers to start spending, said Charles Laurie, head of country risk at Bath, England-based Verisk Maplecroft. That will require substantial revisions to the nation’s mining code, he said.

“If the Zimbabwe government is serious about attracting credible, well capitalized, A-list mining investors, it needs to do much more than give mining regulations a facelift,” Laurie said. “Investors want speed to capitalize on the very substantial opportunities, but they also need stability and clarity.”

For the moment, Implats and Sibanye remain to be convinced about Zimbabwe, with both diversifying their investments through acquisitions in North America. Sibanye bought Stillwater Mining Co. for $2.2 billion three years ago, while Implats earlier this month agreed to pay $758 million for North American Palladium Ltd., in its first move out of southern Africa.

“Maybe when the sanctions are lifted, and there is a real commitment from government in terms of rules of investing there, it might be a great place to do business,” Froneman said.

There’s no torture, there’s nothing like that, but under hypnosis if you make someone believe there’s something really scary going on, that’s just in their own mind and not reality. If you’re good enough and you’re able to get inside somebody’s noggin like the way that I can, I can make folks believe whatever I want them to believe.

I’m like the most strait-laced guy you could think of, but here I run this crazy haunted house. And people twist it around in their little minds. It really is a magic act, what I do. It’s a lot of smoke and mirrors.

— Russ McKamey, owner and operator of the McKamey Manor in Summertown, Tennessee, commenting on an online petition calling for the extreme haunted house to be shut down because “[i]t’s literally just a kidnapping and torture house” and “[s]ome people have had to seek professional psychiatric help and medical care for extensive injuries.” McKamey says people begin their tour of the house, which can last up to 10 hours, with the chance to earn $20,000 and lose $500 every time they fail an activity. In the 30 years McKamey has been running the haunted manor, no one has completed a tour. McKamey says he films each tour, and has been sued numerous times over what people thought happened to them, but didn’t actually occur.

In order to be selected as a participant, you must first go through an extreme screening process, which includes a physical exam, a background check, a phone screen, a drug test, the creation of a safe word, the viewing of a two-hour video, and the signing of a 40-page waiver. An older version of McKamey Manor’s insane, legally questionable waiver (which consistently uses the word “libel” for “liable”) has been leaked online. Flip to the next page to see it.

---

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.