You Don’t Deserve A Rate Cut

Jay Powell just cannot please you people, can he?

Morning Docket: 08.01.19

* An argument for ditching the billable hour for the sake of mental health. [Law.com]

* Eighth Circuit okays suppressing Native American votes in North Dakota. [Courthouse News Service]

* Masturbating on the D.C. Metro is legal? That actually doesn’t shock me. [Washington Examiner]

* Charlotte is probably America’s hottest legal market right now, which is a sentence no one expected ten years ago. [American Lawyer]

* Facebook beat back case claiming that the platform aided in Hamas attacks. Expect a lot of nonsensical blathering about Section 230 in Congress today. [Law360]

* California passes major legislation to protect sex workers. The bill’s sponsor is named Wiener which shouldn’t make me laugh as much as it is. [Rolling Stone]

* A no deal Brexit is a disaster for young lawyers. [Legal Cheek]

The Right to Bail – The Zimbabwean

Introduction

The Minister of Environment, Tourism and Hospitality Industry, Hon Prisca Mupfumira, has been arrested on serious charges involving corruption and abuse of office.  When she appeared in court after being arrested her lawyer applied for bail but the Prosecutor-General issued a certificate forbidding the grant of bail for 21 days, so the magistrate accordingly refused it and remanded her in custody for 21 days.

In this Court Watch we shall not comment on whether Hon Mupfumira is guilty of the crimes alleged against her ‒ that will be for a court to decide in due course.  Nor shall we go into the question whether she should be released on bail – that should be a consideration for a court.

What this bulletin will do is to question the constitutionality of a law which gives the Prosecutor-General power to forbid the grant of bail to accused persons.

First though we should explain briefly what it means to be released on bail pending trial.

What is bail pending trial?

Anyone who is arrested must be brought before a court within 48 hours, but their trial can seldom take place so soon, so they have to be remanded ‒ that is to say, ordered to come back to court at a later date.  The court has to decide whether in the interim the person must be kept in custody or whether they can be released on bail, i.e. set free subject to conditions.  These conditions usually require the payment of a sum of money which will be forfeited if the person fails to obey the order to come back to court.

The Constitutional Right to Bail

The granting of bail is a very important part of our criminal procedure because it allows people who have been arrested to remain at liberty while waiting for their trials to begin.  It must be remembered that these people are presumed to be innocent until they have been found guilty by a court, and until then they should not suffer the indignity and hardship of detention in prison unless there are compelling reasons justifying their detention.  So important is the right to liberty that section 50(1)(d) the Constitution enshrines the right of arrested persons to bail in those very words:

“Any person who is arrested—

       ………….

(d)  must be released unconditionally or on reasonable conditions, pending a charge or trial, unless there are compelling reasons justifying their continued detention”.

Section 32(3b) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act

In the light of section 50(1)(d) of the Constitution, how could Hon Mupfumira be denied bail just at the order of the Prosecutor-General?  The answer lies in section 32(3b) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [which we shall call the CP&E Act].

In summary section 32(3b) states that where a person is brought before a judge or magistrate for remand after being arrested on reasonable suspicion of having committed a serious economic crime listed in the Ninth Schedule to the CP&E Act [the crimes for which Hon Mupfumira was arrested are in the list] and the Prosecutor-General issues a certificate stating:

  • that the crime involves significant prejudice to the national interest,
  • that it is necessary to detain the person for up to 21 days in order to investigate the crime properly, and
  • that the police officer who arrested the person was of or above the rank of assistant inspector,

Then, if the judge or magistrate is satisfied there is a reasonable suspicion that the person committed the offence, the judge or magistrate must order the person’s detention for 21 days or for any shorter period specified by the Prosecutor-General.

Is Section 32(3b) Constitutional?

Section 50(1)(d) of the Constitution says that arrested people must be released unless there are compelling reasons justifying their continued detention.  The effect of section 32(3b) of the CP&E Act, in contrast, is that arrested people must be detained if the Prosecutor-General issues a certificate under the section.  Put like that the inconsistency between section 32(3b) and the Constitution is obvious.

If it is necessary to give further reasons why section 32(3b) is unconstitutional, here they are:

  • In several cases judges of the High Court have said that the Constitution places an obligation on the prosecution to establish compelling reasons why an accused person should be denied bail.  What are compelling reasons?  Over many years courts have held that legitimate grounds for refusing bail are:
  • if the accused person is likely to abscond, or
  • interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct police investigations, or
  • if they are likely to commit further crimes.

Any one of these grounds, if clearly established by the prosecution, could constitute a compelling reason for refusing bail.

  • Under section 32(3b) of the CP&E Act, on the other hand, the Prosecutor-General need simply state that the crime with which the accused person is charged is a serious one involving significant prejudice to the national interest.  He does not have to establish, or even allege, that the accused will abscond, or interfere with witnesses, or commit further crimes.  The mere fact that a person is charged with a serious crime does not necessarily establish any of those factors and does not necessarily constitute a “compelling reason” for denying them bail.
  • Section 50(1)(d) of the Constitution permits bail to be refused if “there are compelling reasons” for the refusal;  the existence of those reasons must be objectively established to the satisfaction of the court.  Under section 32(3b), in contrast, all the Prosecutor-General need do is allege that the accused person’s crimes involve significant national prejudice;  he does not have to prove or establish the prejudice.
  • When presented with a certificate under section 32(3b) containing the necessary allegations, a court must refuse to grant the accused person bail.  It has no discretion in the matter.  The Prosecutor-General, therefore, has deprived the court of its essential judicial function vested in courts by section 162 of the Constitution.

Conclusion

Clearly section 32(3b) of the CP&E Act is inconsistent with section 50(1)(d) of the Constitution and is therefore void.

Laws which are inconsistent with the Constitution are void (i.e. invalid) by virtue of section 2 of the Constitution, and they are void even if the Constitutional Court has not declared them to be such ‒ this point was made by the Court in Veritas’ child marriage case [Mudzuru & Another v Minister of Justice & Others CCZ 12/2015 ‒ Link]

This conclusion will not be of much comfort or use to Hon Mupfumira.  Although magistrates have power under sections 85 and 175 of the Constitution to declare laws to be unconstitutional, they would be most reluctant to use that power when it came to declaring an Act of Parliament to be void.

Instead, Hon Mupfumira’s lawyers will have to apply to the High Court or even the Constitutional Court for the necessary order, and it is most unlikely that the court will give judgment in their application before her 21-day detention comes to an end.

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

Johnstone pens poem to retiring great Watson
One year on, no justice for those killed by soldiers in post-election demonstrations

Post published in: Featured

One year on, no justice for those killed by soldiers in post-election demonstrations – The Zimbabwean

A soldier fires shots towards demonstrators in Zimbabwe on August 1 2018, as protests erupted over alleged fraud in the country’s election. PHOTO | ZINYANGE AUNTONY | AFP

The army, which was illegally deployed, used live ammunition to disperse protests in the capital Harare, after delays in the release of the presidential election results by the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission.

“The tragedy of the post-election shootings is compounded by the fact that no one in the army suspected to be responsible for the bloodshed has been held to account for these brutal killings. This is despite the fact that the alleged perpetrators have been identified through the media and social media videos and pictures,” said Muleya Mwananyanda, Amnesty International’s Deputy Director for Southern Africa.

“If the Zimbabwean government wants to demonstrate that it is committed to human rights, it needs to ensure that the wheels of justice start turning faster than they have done over the past year.”

After the shooting on 1 August 2018, the Zimbabwe Republic Police confirmed that three people were killed when soldiers fired at demonstrators as they ran away. The number was later confirmed to be six. Some of the injured and dead were shot from the back.

The army also ordered journalists covering the protests to switch off their video recording equipment and cameras.

If there is violence in the context of a protest and the use of force is unavoidable to mitigate against the threat posed by participants or bystanders, law enforcement officials must use only minimum force necessary to contain the situation and must comply with the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials.

“Authorities must institute thorough, effective and impartial investigations into the killings of protesters, some of whom were killed while fleeing, with those found to have acted unlawfully brought to justice through fair trials,” said Muleya Mwananyanda.

“Zimbabwean authorities should under no circumstances allow further impunity and cover-ups for the killings. If Zimbabwe is to become a human rights respecting society, no one, including the army, should be untouchable for violating human rights.”

The Right to Bail
What toilet paper, coffee and other goods now cost in Zimbabwe compared to South Africa

Post published in: Featured

Thanks To Our Generous Advertisers

Advertising

We truly appreciate your support.

We’d like to express gratitude to our fantastic sponsors here at Above the Law:

If you’re interested in advertising on Above the Law or any other site in the Breaking Media network, please download our media kits or email advertising.

—ADVERTISEMENT—

From the Above the Law Network

Hedge Funds Continue To Enjoy The Brexit World They Helped Create

Boris Johnson is worth his substantial weight in gold to these people.

Make Money Monday: Look Ahead Or Be Left Behind

Recently in one of my online lawyers groups, an attorney lamented that her state bar association had made self-help forms available for family law litigants at no cost and in addition, had started conducting free trainings to help users complete the forms. The attorney reported that many of her family law attorney colleagues are up in arms about this recent development because the forms and training are available just to indigent clients who can’t afford lawyers but also (horrors!) to clients who have the money to retain attorneys – meaning that the bar’s program will detract business from family law attorneys. Other lawyers seemed more hopeful, snarkily anticipating that additional work would result from cleaning up the mess that the DIY forms would inevitably cause.

These kinds of attitudes are troubling on many levels.  First, even if clients can  afford a lawyer, they may simply prefer to devote the money on other expenses -like college tuition for their kids, a home remodel or retirement. Here’s an analogy – when I vacation, I can afford to stay at fancy, all-inclusive hotels with meals and other extras included. But invariably, I choose cheaper to stay at accommodations with a kitchen where I can prepare some of my own meals – and then use the money saved for a second trip.  Indeed, I’m not alone; my proclivities explain the popularity of platforms like Air BNB. But just as pricey hotels have no right to expect consumers to continue paying those rates when they have more affordable options, lawyers likewise are not entitled to continue to receive high fees because that was customary in the past.

Moreover, why should clients pay pay $350/hour for work that technology now enables them to do on their own? Before technology, DIY forms weren’t realistic or convenient for many clients who either had to purchase forms from an office supply store or trek down to the courthouse during the work day to procure them, and then spend hours and bottles of whiteout to complete them. Today, online forms are much more accessible and user-friendly; clients can download them from the Internet and complete them after hours from the comfort of their home or on the go via their phones. 

What lawyers simply fail to realize is that times have changed. We can’t stop this train nor should we try to stand in the way of initiatives that expand access to law. But there’s another problem too. As lawyers fritter away precious time trying to turn back the clock, they lose the opportunity to gain a first mover advantage in the new world that’s emerging.

There are plenty of ways that lawyers can leverage these new tools to capture clients. These include:

1. Holding workshops for clients explaining the forms and potential drawbacks and then charging for attorney review of the forms;
2. Creating an assessment test (which can easily be done through a tool like Typeform) that can identify, based on the lawyers’ experience, those scenarios where forms are likely to work well and those where they do not and explaining the differences to clients so that they can make an informed decision;
3.  Developing a service like FormsPlus – where clients complete forms on their own and then receive personalized advice from attorneys if they have any questions; or

4. Creating a subscription service where clients receive ongoing review and support for a set monthly fee

By entering the market now, lawyers can get a leg up on competitors who may not realize that their business will decline until the phone stops ringing and it’s too late.

But this post isn’t only about the steps lawyers can take to future-proof a practice. More importantly, it’s about the mindset that lawyers must adopt to confront what the future has in store for our profession.  And here’s the thing: no matter how grim the future may appear, we need to keep in mind that no one has ever achieved fortune or success by looking backwards. When the Pilgrims sailed to the new world, they faced hardship beyond what they ever imagined – yet when the Mayflower sailed back to England, none of the Pilgrims returned.  Countless entrepreneurs launch businesses – many of which fail spectacularly – yet few rego back to the 9 to 5 jobs where they started out.  By contrast, in popular lore, those who cling to the past even for a brief glance are punished: think John Henry who defeated the steam engine with his bare hands only to die of a heart attack or Lot’s wife who turned into a pillar of salt when she turned to look back while fleeing Sodom.

Nothing good has ever come of looking backwards and longing for a past that was never all that great to begin. Today, we stand on the cusp of making law widely accessible in a manner that was never possible and opportunities abound. But we must keep our eyes fixed on the open horizon and never ever look back. 

Image courtesy of Shutterstock

Eating Disorders Took My Daughter And Changed My View Of Lawyer Wellness

I first met Steven Dunn through my eating disorder advocacy. I was actively bulimic for over two decades and have been in recovery for just over 12 years.

Steven had not long before lost his daughter Morgan to anorexia nervosa. We talked often about advocacy issues and supported each other in our work to raise awareness. However, I never spoke with him about how he dealt with tragic, heart-breaking loss as a father and lawyer. Here is his story.

The legal profession demands excellence. It requires intelligence, guile, compassion, integrity, and a sense of duty and honor. Trial work particularly tests all aspects of the human condition.

Those qualities, and the trials and tribulations we attorneys face, can steel us as we face the greatest challenge a parent can possibly encounter — the mortality of our beloved child. And the stress and mental strain of that battle far exceeds anything our law practice can possibly throw at us.

I had carved out a niche law practice, representing corporate debt collectors for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. I had been admitted pro hac vice in over 20 federal courts outside the State of Texas. Respected and passionate, or so I thought, I believed I had found a calling. And then, life got in the way.

I am the proud father of a vivacious, beautiful, intelligent daughter who was 17 years old at the time when eating disorders first made their way into our life.  She had the benefit of a private school education, a comfortable house, good friends.  Unfortunately for her father, she was far too much like me, was far too brash, embraced life fully and yet had obvious flaws. (A future litigation attorney if ever there was one!)

In February of 2011, while attending a movie with a friend, Morgan began to feel light-headed and dizzy.  She left the theater and while walking out, passed out. She fell forward fracturing her jaw. Paramedics rushed her to the emergency room where blood was taken.

Her diagnosis? A combination of her weight being 86 pounds, her losing consciousness, and her decreased level of potassium, were all indicative of  Anorexia Nervosa.  A probable eating disorder. I didn’t know enough at the time to be deathly afraid. I should have been.

Morgan’s mother and I scheduled appointments with specialists, with counselors, and nutritionists. Amongst the scheduled counseling sessions were mandatory family counseling sessions.

And yet, her counselor became more alarmed and strongly recommended that we contact a heart specialist. And then you hear those words that chill any parent to their very core.  “Mr. Dunn, your daughter’s condition has worsened to a point where she needs extensive, hospitalized treatment.  One of her heart valves is leaking.  She continues to lose weight.  She is malnourished.  Without this treatment, it’s not a matter of if, but a matter of when she is going to die.”

And just like that, your law practice, the professional life you had built for over 30 years, seemed not so important after all. Helping a multimillion-dollar corporation save $5,000 on a case? Engaging in discussions about objections to interrogatories? Convincing opposing counsel that their client has no actual damages and the case is simply about his own attorney’s fees? You start to realize that those “professional truths” which you held so dear throughout your career have very little meaning. And you wonder who you really are.

Especially when compared with the task before you. You find that for females between the ages of 15 and 24 who suffer from Anorexia Nervosa, the mortality rate is 12 times higher than the death rate of ALL other illnesses. You find that Anorexia Nervosa has the highest premature fatality rate of any mental illness.

And if you think we attorneys or law students are immune from it, you are mistaken. This past February, Brian Cuban wrote an article published here on Above the Law. He quoted some alarming statistics: “We can look to a recent study of mental health issues in law school published by the Journal of Legal Education, which found 27% of law students (18% of male respondents and 34% of female respondents) screened positive for eating disorders. Yet only 3% of respondents had actually been diagnosed.”

And so, the journey began. Morgan fought these eating disorders for seven long years. There were so many hospitals and treatment centers, doctors and nurses. There were so many prescription drugs. The seizures she began to experience frightened us. And my focus on the practice of law continued to wane. So many family counseling sessions. So few individual sessions for me. And the stress and mental strain mounted.

The last two years of her young life were spent exclusively with me. I took her to weekly doctors and counseling appointments, many of which I attended. And yet, Morgan and I still laughed. Countless hours were spent playing backgammon. And how this emaciated waif so ill, could manage to whip me two out of every three games will forever remain a mystery. We watched Game of Thrones together every week. We shared a love of Mambo Taxis. She laughingly referred to me as “her twin.” When she walked into a room, people knew she was there. Though her body was slight, her personality was huge. And during that time, my once comfortable law practice continued to deteriorate.

I consulted with doctors and fought seemingly daily battles against this disease and the insurance providers which routinely denied payment for life-saving treatment. With each denial of authorization, with each deterioration in her health, the stress level increased. I wrongly believed this was my form of therapy. I could use these battles as my own form of counseling. I am a warrior. My perceived strength and perseverance would sustain me. How foolish I was.

I had never been a proponent of pharma drugs unless absolutely necessary. No drugs for anxiety or depression for me! Instead, I read internet sites on coping with fear, anxiety, depression. By sheer force of will I would beat back those emotions. They were signs of weakness! They would not control me!

And yet, my focus on the practice of law continued to blur and erode. Motions to continue hearings, extensions to respond to discovery, rescheduled depositions. A greater loss of focus and clarity. And the mounting realization that I could no longer serve my clients as they needed. I started to refer clients to other law firms. I realized that “fear” was constantly present — and it was becoming my master instead of my servant.

Fear can be a trial attorney’s best friend. We harness it to research more deeply, to motivate us to look for every possible legal angle in a case, to explore how we, and our opponent, are going to argue a case. Fear is that driving force that finds you up at 2:00 a.m. the night before a trial begins going over your opening argument one last time. It hones our skills. As attorneys, we learn to embrace it because we can control it.

But when your child’s life hangs in the balance, fear escapes your control and gets you in its icy grip. No stirring closing argument is going to deter fear and bring your child back to health. No well-researched brief is going to persuade this disease to leave your loved one in peace.

And then … your child breathes her last breath. On that day, you feel your soul, the very best part of your heart, leaving as well. For me, that day was October 30, 2016. A fog descends upon you. The practice of law is out of the question. You merely … exist. A few visits to a grief counselor and you believe they are reading from a book studied in a Philosophy 101 Class.

A short time after Morgan’s death, a friend gave me a card which in essence said: When confronted with an unspeakable tragedy, one of three things happens: 1. It destroys you; 2. It defines your existence in a negative way, or 3. It fills you with incredible strength and unshakeable resolve.

Grief destroying a person is far too common. The local Dallas legal community felt the sting of grief taking a life far too soon. One month after Morgan was taken, well-known attorney Brian Loncar was found dead of an accidental drug overdose just two days after he buried his own beloved youngest daughter, Grace. Grace had taken her own life. Those who knew Brian believe that it was a broken heart that claimed him.

For me, I was left with a shattered law practice, a shattered life, and broken heart. The number of times I have thought, “if I got to do it all over again.”

And yet, in one of the many journals Morgan left behind, one of the many messages of hope she stated, “I can seem to help everyone else … I just can’t save myself.” And so, the mission for The Morgan Foundation came to fruition. And with that, perhaps a purpose for continuing Morgan’s legacy was born.

After all of these years, and so many false starts and missteps, I learned to get out of my way and let my soul find me. And when it did, its purpose was made clear. Advocacy dedicated to helping those suffering from eating disorders and at the hands of the dysfunctional mental health system. Using 35 years of courtroom experience to cajole, convince, and push companies and treatment centers to focus on the patients — and not just their profits. Giving two TEDx talks. Writing weekly articles on the mental health industry. Using the skills we attorneys learn as negotiators and researchers to help those who suffer.

The practice of law is slowly reemerging even as grief continues to hound me every day. But just as we attorneys learn to use fear to motivate us, so too I must use grief to motivate me, to inspire me, to live a life of substance and purpose. And perhaps at the end of my journey, the words on my tombstone can read, “Steven Dunn, He Was a Damned Good Daddy and In His Beloved Daughter’s Name, He Saved Lives.”

Steven Dunn is a Dallas-based attorney and founder of The Morgan Foundation. It is dedicated to developing and implementing community-based counseling and assistance programs involving community leaders, university professionals, counseling communities, and families. Our goal is to increase the accessibility of adolescent mental health care in schools, churches, and communities with free to low-cost services in accordance with the newly created Texas Health Care Consortium.

Brian Cuban (@bcuban) is The Addicted Lawyer. Brian is the author of the Amazon best-selling book, The Addicted Lawyer: Tales Of The Bar, Booze, Blow & Redemption (affiliate link). A graduate of the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, he somehow made it through as an alcoholic then added cocaine to his résumé as a practicing attorney. He went into recovery April 8, 2007. He left the practice of law and now writes and speaks on recovery topics, not only for the legal profession, but on recovery in general. He can be reached at brian@addictedlawyer.com.