Zimbabwe crisis deepens under President Emmerson Mnangagwa – The Zimbabwean

Inflation in Zimbabwe has spiked at 175%, with fears of a return to the conditions of 2008, when the country recorded the world’s highest rate for the year — with the percentages for some months in the hundreds of millions. The costs of living have once again become unbearable for most ordinary people. Food is more expensive, and aid organizations are expecting acute shortages as a result of crop failure after Cyclone Idai in March.

“Politicians have failed us. Our economy is down. There are no jobs,” Hayden Sibanda, a bus attendant in central Harare, told DW. “Those available are not paying enough.”

Zimbabweans can hardly afford basic food, Sibanda said. “Most people are surviving on one meal a day,” he added. “Breakfast is now a luxury. You eat once in the afternoon or evenings. One can probably sleep hungry.”

An eventful year

Analysts describe President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s first year in office as a period of indecisive and experimental policies.

It all started in January, when the government decided to increase the price of fuel by 130%. Then, Zimbabweans protested the price hike — along with increasing levels of poverty, the poor state of the economy, and declining standards of living.

On June 24, authorities banned local trading in foreign currencies, including the US dollar

As the year progressed, several policy changes were effected without proper consultation. Chief among those decisions was the ban on the official use of the US dollar and other international currencies.

The government imposed the ban and announced the return of the Zimbabwe dollar, which had been abandoned following a dramatic loss in value in 2009. “The government has been experimenting with several policy measures,” the Harare-based economist Prosper Chitambara told DW.

“They are behaving like a drowning person who is clutching at straws,” Chitambara said, referring to the authorities. “Most of the policies that have been implemented are ad hoc, latching from one policy measure to another without addressing the structural policy impediments.”

Power shortages

Zimbabwe is experiencing its worst energy crisis in decades, with rolling blackouts running for 18 hours per day. This has severely affected the small production in industries. Some companies are now resorting to a five-hour night shift, the only time when electricity is available.

The crisis is blamed on drought, which has affected the country’s major hydro-power plant, as well as aging equipment at most of the coal-fired plants. Zimbabwe requires about 1,600 MW at peak periods but was only generating 1,400 MW before the crisis, with the deficit covered by imports from neighboring South Africa and Mozambique. To add insult to injury, the countries suspended exporting power to Zimbabwe, which owed the countries over $80 million (€72 million) total.

“Lack of constant power supply has dealt a big blow to the cost of doing business in Zimbabwe,” Chitambara said, adding that it will have a negative perception on the country as a preferred investment destination.

The World Bank has already predicted -3% economic growth for Zimbabwe in the coming year — the lowest in southern Africa.

Lack of cohesion

Emmerson Mnangagwa and Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe (Getty Images/AFP/J. Njikizana)Two years after Mugabe’s fall, Zimbabwe looks much the same, analysts say

Analysts cite lack of social cohesion as one of the most significant setbacks in reviving the country’s economy. Though Mnangagwa has tried to woe international investors through his “Zimbabwe is open for business” rhetoric, this has yielded few results.

The political analyst Alexander Rusero told DW that much of the slow progress boils down to a lack of confidence, both on the domestic front and internationally. “The issue of dialogue in my view becomes very important because Zimbabwe is a highly divided society,” Rusero said. He added that no reasonable investor or government would believe in Mnangagwa — nor do almost half of Zimbabweans.

Mnangagwa’s administration has asked for patience, maintaining that institutional changes will bring results soon.

The Crystal Ball Of Blockchain: What Does The Future Hold?

“What is the future of blockchain?” It’s a question that comes up often when I speak to professionals. There’s obviously no way to know, especially with a technology that is innovating so rapidly and constantly evolving.

One way to predict the future of technology is by looking to patent filing trends. It’s like an ultrasound during pregnancy: you can get a glimpse of what’s developing.

Here are six trends in patent filings that Marc Kaufman, a Partner at Rimon Law, thinks might illuminate the path ahead for blockchain.

  • Blockchain patent filings are increasingly popular and common.

There are many players in the blockchain community who believe that, for various reasons, they will be generally immune to patent risks with the technology.  Kaufman cautions that that assumption is wrong and that working with blockchain technology might be like walking across a minefield of patents. According to him, “A lot of parties are filing a lot of patent applications to cover a lot of aspects of blockchain technology.”

  • There has been an exponential growth of blockchain-related patents.

“Some parties, especially early on, purposely did not seek patents,” Kaufman explains. “For example, Satoshi, whoever this person is, never patented Bitcoin. Beginning around 2013 or 2014, when the technology really started to explode, this started to change. At first, we started to see a small number of filings. But since then, the increase in numbers of patent publications worldwide has really taken off. In 2018, we saw roughly 2,700 new patent publications worldwide. A conservative prediction is that we will see 4,000 new patent publications in 2019. We have observed almost exponential growth in blockchain patents filings since 2013. I don’t see a reason why it would slow down any time soon.”

  • The United States and China are leading the blockchain patent filing trend.

“We’re seeing blockchain patent applications in all the major markets of the world, but especially in the U.S. and China. We’re also seeing more and more patents filed in Australia, some European countries, India, Brazil, and a few others,” Kaufman explains. “Companies are most interested in filing where they think there will be a large market and/or they will find a friendly, or at least predictable, regulatory framework because they think their competitors will set up shop there soon.”

According to Kaufman, “You see patent filings, and corresponding registrations in Switzerland, Malta, Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore, and the Cayman Islands. We have already seen compelling commercial applications. It just makes sense to protect the revenue. It’s the same cycle we’ve seen with many other technologies before, like web technology, mobile networking, and semiconductors. It’ll likely be a five to 15-year hockey stick kind of rise in patent filings. We’re only seeing the beginning of this trend.”

  • Blockchain seems to attract unlikely competitors from across different industries.

“We see filings for blockchain patents from IBM, Accenture, Bank of America, Walmart, Alibaba, Microsoft, Mastercard, and a number of FinTech companies,” Kaufman observes. These companies are not traditionally competing in the same industry. Where else would you see all these companies listed next to each other? Kaufman predicts that this trend of new competitors may continue.

  • Three years ago, the top 20 patent filers were dominated by research and academic institutions. Now the top 20 are mostly commercial institutions.

Kaufman says, “The top filings today are mostly commercial, whereas in the past they tended to come from research and academic institutions. We’ll likely see more patents coming from companies for the purpose of commercializing them.” This is a clear indicator that blockchain technology is becoming widely perceived as commercially valuable. He explains, “For most technologies, you see universities and other research institutions doing most of the development in early stages. This was certainly true for the internet. But as technologies are developed, companies increasingly file patent applications as part of their commercialization efforts. It seems that that is where blockchain technology is now and will be for the foreseeable future.”

  • The top areas of focus for current patent filings are authentication, payments, security, consensus, and smart contracts. The top filers tend to file across most, if not all, of these categories.

“We see a lot of patent filings in authentication, payments, security, consensus mechanisms, and smart contracts. We’ve seen a lot of filings related to authentication, payments, and security in the past five years. The others — around consensus and smart contracts — are more recent,” Kaufman observes. Companies tend to patent across a broad spectrum of technologies. It’s typical of early-stage technology when innovations occur across a broad spectrum of aspects of and uses for that technology.


Olga V. Mack is an award-winning general counsel, operations professional, startup advisor, public speaker, adjunct professor at Berkeley Law, and entrepreneur. Olga founded the Women Serve on Boards movement that advocates for women to serve on corporate boards of Fortune 500 companies. Olga also co-founded SunLaw to prepare women in-house attorneys become general counsel and legal leaders and WISE to help women law firm partners become rainmakers. She embraces the current disruption to the legal profession. Olga loves this change and is dedicated to improving and shaping the future of law. She is convinced that the legal profession will emerge even stronger, more resilient, and inclusive than before. You can email Olga at olga@olgamack.com or follow her on Twitter @olgavmack.

Murder In Rome By U.S. Students: What Happened?

(Photo by VINCENZO PINTO/AFP/Getty Images)

Over the weekend, two 19-year-old Americans travelling in Italy were arrested for the murder of a police officer in Rome.  The story caught my eye because I used to live in Rome, covered the courts as a reporter, and know how tough it can be getting a fair trial when you’re accused of one of the most vilified acts in Italy (and almost anywhere) — killing a police officer.  Add that to the fact that neither reportedly speaks Italian well, if at all, and the difficulties their parents will face navigating the Italian criminal justice system, so different from our own.

The two men, Finnegan Lee Elder, 19, and Gabriel Natale Hjorth, 18, from the Mill Valley area of San Francisco, were on vacation in Rome and reportedly looking to buy drugs in the equivalent of New York’s Lower East Side — Trastevere, a warren of cobble stone streets where tourists congregate in certain piazzas and cafes and drug dealers in others.

The two reportedly bought cocaine after being directed (on surveillance camera) to a drug dealer but, later discovering the putative cocaine was just ground-up aspirin, decided to teach the dealer a lesson — never a good idea in a foreign country, when you’re already doing something wrong.

They went back to the square to find the dealer, but he wasn’t there.  However, the guy who pointed him out was.  They grabbed that person’s backpack and phone and later, when he called them, demanded 100 euros and a gram of cocaine in return for his property.

Reports say he was a police informant, so instead of showing up at the rendezvous near the Vatican-area hotel where the two were staying, two plainclothes police officers came instead.   It’s unclear why they were in plainclothes, whether they identified themselves, and why they didn’t just arrest the pair immediately.

An altercation ensued, ending with the stabbing death of Mario Cerciello Rega, a 35-year-old national police officer, or carabinieri. His partner was allegedly also attacked but not seriously injured.

Like New York, there are surveillance cameras everywhere in Rome.  After Rega’s death, Elder and Hjorth were easily identified, located, and apprehended.  Bloody clothes and a large knife were said to have been found in their hotel room.  The knife was hidden “behind a panel in the room’s ceiling,” reports said, although I find this hard to believe since ceilings in Rome are generally not paneled.  They also had their bags packed and tickets home for the following day, but it’s unclear whether this may just have been a coincidence.

The media jumped on the story, at first stating that the killers were North African immigrants, prompting anti-immigrant Interior Minister Matteo Salvini to write on Twitter, “A manhunt is underway in Rome to catch the bastard who tonight stabbed to death a Carabinieri,” adding that the perpetrator should do “hard labor in prison for the rest of his days.” (We’ll see if he adopts the same hardline position now that he knows the suspects are two U.S. teens.)

Police killings are rare in Italy and this has galvanized national attention.  Hundreds waited in the Roman summer heat outside the police command where Rega worked to offer letters, poems, and flowers.  The Carabinieri Facebook page included dozens of official postings, “liked” by hundreds of thousands, providing information about the murder, follow-up, and upcoming memorial service and funeral.  Rega will be eulogized in the same church where he married less than two months ago.

Meanwhile, the two American suspects are said to have confessed to the crime.  Yesterday’s Italian daily, Corriere Della Sera, pictured one of the men blindfolded while reportedly being questioned by police.  I’m certain his defense attorneys will make a lot of that photo in developing a theory that his confession was coerced.

But the Italian criminal justice system differs greatly from our own.  It is “inquisitorial” rather than “adversarial,” meaning the prosecutor does a full investigation which he then shares with the judge before even defense counsel. That judge (or judges) generally have a pretty strong opinion about the case before the trial even starts. While six citizens also sit in judgment in the most serious cases, they sit at the judge’s bench next to two judges.  They all discuss the case together, and although are meant to have equal weight, the judges’ opinions are generally the most influential.  There is no requirement of unanimity.  A mere majority can convict.

The good news is that the appeal process is more probing. It’s not based only on legal errors committed in the trial court (like in the U.S), but on a full reconsideration of the evidence. Remember Amanda Knox, the last American who became well-known in Italy as a murder suspect in 2007? After spending four years in jail, she was convicted at trial but later acquitted following appeal.  She goes back to Italy now to talk about her case and improvements that can be made in the Italian justice system.

Meanwhile, the parents of accused murderers Elder and Hjorth, back in San Francisco, have reportedly not been able to speak to the teens yet.  I don’t envy the difficulty they’ll be facing over the upcoming months and most likely years, navigating the Italian criminal justice system (even getting someone to answer the phone can be tough, and expecting them to speak English, impossible), dealing with the unwanted publicity, and potentially losing their sons for a very long time.


Toni Messina has tried over 100 cases and has been practicing criminal law and immigration since 1990. You can follow her on Twitter: @tonitamess.

Joe Biden’s Criminal Justice Reform Package Seems Designed To Help Joe Biden More Than Black People

Joe Biden (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

Assessing Joe Biden’s criminal justice reform proposals is a matter of perspective. If you think of Joe Biden as the author of the 1994 crime bill, and a white Democrat who needed to tout “tough on crime” bona fides as a response to, like, Ronald Reagan, then last week’s reform package is an evolutionary step forward for the man and the country. His plan is a repudiation of many of the now-discredited theories of criminal justice that animated the 1994 bill, and reflects a nuanced take on federal criminal justice and its relationship with state power. It’s an approach that would have been revolutionary in 1994, and an approach that largely animated the Obama-Biden focus in 2008. My inclination is to give Biden credit for learning from his previous mistakes, as we all should, and to assess his plan based on its current merits.

Unfortunately, looking at the plan as a current proposal, and not a mere make-good for the past, is where everything goes wrong. 1994 Joe Biden < 2019 Joe Biden < A Modern Democrat Running For President.

Most of the media attention around Biden’s plan has focused on his weaksauce approach to marijuana legalization. Biden wants to decriminalize marijuana use at the federal level, and leave it to the states to decide whether to legalize it. Other Democratic candidates have pushed for the legalization of marijuana, and the release of people imprisoned for its use. Biden’s approach here is not bold, but it’s not all that different from the plan Senator Kamala Harris has introduced, along with Representative Jerry Nadler, in Congress.

I juxtaposed those two on purpose, not just because Harris has also shifted her position on marijuana laws and not because Harris is Biden-kryptonite. It’s because there’s really no centrist, good-government, restrained plan that Biden has that Harris doesn’t also have, only Harris has it in more detail. If you like Biden, you should LOVE Kamala Harris, and that fact that you don’t is, you know, something you should probably work on.

To me, the biggest problem with our marijuana laws are that they are used by the police as an excuse to stop, harass, murder, or incarcerate black people. A white woman in the suburbs is not getting strip searched for “suspected” marijuana use, no matter what laws are on the books. But cops use marijuana laws as the gateway drug for a whole series of horrors they inflict on black and brown communities.

It is in dealing with racist, murderous cops where Biden’s plan exposes itself as completely useless. Biden proposes a $20 billion grant program to states that reduce incarceration and crime rates. But the only thing in his plan that can be reasonably read to address police brutality is a paltry $300 million he offers to fully fund the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program. Biden says COPS was never fully funded, and he’s right. But COPS is literally a program created in the (wait for it) 1994 crime bill that is wholly inadequate to deal with the problems of racially biased police brutality.

You can have all of the decriminalization of marijuana you like, but I still live in a country where driving while black can be a capital offense. Biden’s plan has nothing for me in my quest to survive my encounters with the police, or at least receive justice after they murder me.

Other candidates do. Julian Castro and Cory Booker, especially, have unveiled extensive plans to address police brutality. Elizabeth Warren has a proposal to de-militarize the local police. Even Bernie Sanders, who wasn’t exactly the quickest on the uptake with the “Black Lives Matter” thing, has a plan specifically aimed at combating police brutality. These candidates speak in the language of force protocols, de-escalation requirements, and piercing the veil of qualified immunity which so often lets the police civilly get away with what juries will not convict them of criminally.

The difference between Biden’s plan and the ones of the more progressive candidates is that when Biden talks about criminal justice reform, he’s thinking of “criminals.” He’s thinking of who should be called “criminals,” who shouldn’t be, and who deserves a “second chance” to become a “law-abiding citizen.” When progressives talk of criminal justice reform, they’re talking about “justice.” Who has been denied “justice” in this country, and what can we do to make it so all citizens have equal rights to justice and due process, regardless of the color of their skin?

Biden sees a criminal justice system that isn’t fair to all suspected criminals; I see a criminal justice system that isn’t fair to all Americans. That’s why the first heading on Biden’s page about his plan is called “PREVENTING CRIME,” not PREVENTING BRUTALITY.


Elie Mystal is the Executive Editor of Above the Law and a contributor at The Nation. He can be reached @ElieNYC on Twitter, or at elie@abovethelaw.com. He will resist.

Trend Alert: Another Biglaw Firm Expands Gender-Neutral Parental Leave

The Biglaw trend of generously expanding parental leave, and ensuring it is gender neutral, is continuing. Munger, Tolles & Olson recently announced an expanded leave program, effective August 1, for all attorneys.

The new benefit provides parents with 18 weeks of paid parental leave. That leave make be taken consecutively or they can split it up into two chunks of time, allowing them to take some time at the arrival of the child and then later, perhaps when their partner’s parental leave ends. Birthing mothers may also take six to eight weeks of paid disability leave, meaning, at the high end, a new parent can have up to 26 weeks of paid leave.

The expanded leave program is Munger Tolles’s latest effort to create a truly family-friendly firm. They offer on-site, subsidized childcare — and have since 2010. Additionally, the firm provides subsidized back-up childcare, up to 20 days per year for each child.

While the expanded benefits for new parents are certainly nice, there’s been a lot of talk recently about whether it’s smart for your career to use the benefits. The good news is that associates don’t have to wonder if taking leave will permanently damage their career prospects, because Munger Tolles has plenty of positive examples in their partnership. Indeed, this year’s partnership class includes three attorneys — Rose Leda Ehler, Laura K. Lin, and Kuruvilla J. Olasa — who took leave in the year leading up to making partner.


headshotKathryn 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).

Supreme Court’s WALL Decision Means ‘Rule Of Law’ Now Just For Show

(Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

Under the figurative cloak of darkness, at 6:30 p.m. (EDT) summer Friday, the Supreme Court decided that the rule of law no longer applies to Republican presidents.

That’s not how the Supreme Court’s ruling in Trump v. Sierra Club is being reported. And that is by design. As with every Court decision, the legalese of the opinion flummoxes most mainstream, non-legal media. Meanwhile, the legal press is so committed to pretending that Supreme Court justices are something more than naked partisan hacks that we drown in the minutia while trying to make ourselves sound smart because we understand “standing.”

As with Trump v. Hawaii (the Muslim Ban), the guiding legal principle here is “Trump must win.” Trump v. Sierra Club is dressed up to look like a “legal” opinion, but it is an entirely political one. A dog is a dog even if it is wearing a dress.

For those interested in getting the legal wedge in the trivial pursuit of “Arguments To Justify Tyranny,” the Court ruled that an injunction against the Trump administration stealing $2.5 billion of Pentagon funds to begin construction on the border wall should be lifted, because the plaintiffs (which included environmental groups like the Sierra Club), likely did not have standing to challenge the thievery of the funds. This is a bad argument for two reasons:

  • If environmental groups don’t have standing to challenge the environmental harm caused by the misappropriation of military funds to ruin the environment, who the hell does?
  • Saying that Trump can steal the funds while we wait to figure out who has the right to challenge his theft is like saying you can steal a car from a parking lot until the police can figure out who the rightful owner was. The Supreme Court just authorized Trump to take a joy ride with public tax dollars.

I don’t want to spend too much time dissecting the Court’s bad faith logic here, because it is illogical and offered in bad faith. The Supreme Court has decided that Trump can build his wall. How they legally got to “yes” on that question is irrelevant. Some who are willing to play the Court’s game and parse its language see “hope” for a future democratically elected president should he or she want to misappropriate Pentagon funding to combat climate change, over the expressed will of Congress. I think these people are missing the core concept of what is going on here. The five conservatives on the Supreme Court do not care about “precedent,” and they don’t care about intellectual consistency. Chief Justice John Roberts will grant standing to freaking Nemo if he doesn’t like how a Democrat violates the separation of powers.

Laws are of no more use here. Our government no longer operates under the “rule of law” in any meaningful way; it’s only about raw political power now. The Republicans will do whatever they can get away with. At least four Supreme Court justices will go along with those efforts, no matter what. The fifth, John Roberts, thinks his job is to bend the law to the Republican will as much as he can without “breaking it,” with the understanding that he believes himself to be the final arbiter on when things are broken.

Does Trump have the raw political power to build his wall? If the “resistance” keeps waiting for the courts to save us, he sure does.

If not, well, massive construction projects don’t go very well when a fierce majority of people are willing to oppose it. Every wall in history has, ultimately, been breached. The question is merely one of dedication.

The pen is mightier than the sword. But I promise you a sledgehammer is more powerful than the Supreme Court’s rubber stamp.

Here’s Some Bullshit [SupremeCourt.gov]


Elie Mystal is the Executive Editor of Above the Law and a contributor at The Nation. He can be reached @ElieNYC on Twitter, or at elie@abovethelaw.com. He will resist.

Leon Black Wants Apollo Staff To Follow His Lead And Just Look The Other Way On Jeffrey Epstein

That’s some memo, Leon.

MAGA Kid Loses Defamation Claim Because His Defamation Claim Never Made A Lick Of Sense

Covington Catholic student Nick Sandmann went viral as the MAGA hat-wearing kid who smirked in the face of a Native-American activist. Sandmann claims he and his friends were the ones being harassed — allegedly by a group of Black Israelites. People have argued that this is why it was “more complex” that some students were heard hurling invective at a Native-American guy while Sandmann stood there, which doesn’t exactly follow but here we are.

Sandmann filed a massive defamation lawsuit against the Washington Post over its reporting on the incident. Conservative social media gleefully proclaimed that the $250 million lawsuit would destroy the Washington Post, the only major national newspaper with lingering credibility in a world where Maggie Haberman continues to masquerade as a journalist for the New York Times. As it turned out, the Sandmann case just got booted to the curb exactly as every actual lawyer expected.

Whether Sandmann took part in the uglier aspects of the fracas or not — or whether or not merely wearing a hat largely accepted as communicating animosity toward minorities was enough to make Sandmann more than a passive bystander in the affair — weren’t issues the court even needed to touch. In the end, Judge Bertelsman actually read the Washington Post articles and decided that hurting a snowflake’s feelings didn’t amount to defamation in Kentucky… or anywhere actually:

The Court accepts Sandmann’s statement that, when he was standing motionless in the confrontation with Phillips, his intent was to calm the situation and not to impede or block anyone.

However, Phillips did not see it that way. He concluded that he was being “blocked” and not allowed to “retreat.” He passed these conclusions on to The Post. They may have been erroneous, but, as discussed above, they are opinion protected by the First Amendment. And The Post is not liable for publishing these opinions, for the reasons discussed in this Opinion.

And that is the only specific claim that Sandmann identified as defamatory. The rest of the complaint relied heavily on the phrase “false and defamatory gist,” and for those of you taking the bar exam, causes of actions are rarely pleaded with particularity when the complaint repeatedly uses the word “gist.”

This is a huge blow to the psyche of right-wing social media which at this point is just Wall memes, Sandmann’s cause, and QAnon theories all cobbled together with scotch tape and dementia. But lawyers should know better. Even the right-wing commentators at Legal Insurrection called the suit out as silly from jump. But over at The Federalist, they’re still spinning nonsense about the strength of the complaint and holding out hope that the Sixth Circuit will swoop in and smash the Washington Post. Hey, any court that has judges like John Bush who can boast “anti-gay blogger” as his primary qualification for the job always has a decent chance of taking a radical departure from the law, but barring a panel of judges looking to waste judicial resources for the sake of rallying the base, this shambles of a case should be finally put out of its misery.

(Opinion available on the next page.)

Infamous Covington High School Student Lawyers Up, Gets Ready To Pursue Defamation Claims


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.

In Toronto, A Legal Robot Reveals Its Innards

For AI-powered legal research startup ROSS Intelligence, it was both a blessing and a curse.

Five years ago, when it launched as a prototype developed at the University of Toronto, AI in law was still a somewhat novel concept, generating clickbait headlines about robots doing the work of lawyers.

News stories about ROSS struck a common chord, describing it as a robotic junior associate, a robotic legal researcher, and a legal research robo-lawyer.

Such headlines helped bring media attention and investor interest. In short order, ROSS’s founders had left Toronto for Silicon Valley, where they participated in the prestigious Y-Combinator startup incubator, drew an investment from Dentons’s NextLaw Labs, and secured first $4.3 million in seed funding and then another $8.7 million in Series A funding. In 2017, Forbes named ROSS’s three founders to its “30 Under 30.”

But all that attention also brought pressures and challenges. The three founders ranged in age from 21 to 25. They were inexperienced in business and in building a company. AI in legal research was a nascent field with no models for them to start from.

It was a stressful time, cofounder and CEO Andrew Arruda told me. Although they had a vision of using AI to make legal research more affordable, they had no experience in being entrepreneurs or scaling a product.

“It was a huge challenge for us to build it from scratch,” Arruda said. “We were experimenting and innovating under the spotlights, because we had a lot of media attention.”

One consequence of that was that ROSS became secretive about showing its product. For years, the company rebuffed my requests to review it. Others told me similar stories, including law librarians and knowledge managers. Someone must have been seeing it, because the company was reporting sales, but they were strangers to me.

The reason for this secrecy, Arruda now tells me, was that they truly thought they were building something unique, and they feared that a competitor would steal it out from under them. They kept the product close to the vest, until they reached the point where they were confident that it was ready.

That point has arrived.

In June, quietly and without fanfare, ROSS changed its website to offer free trials of its product to anyone who wants one. The product that had once seemed a state secret was now open to everyone for a two-week free trial, not even a credit card required.

Then last week, at Arruda’s invitation, I spent two days at ROSS’s research and development offices in Toronto. I had unfettered access to its entire engineering and design teams. I sat in on engineering and UX team meetings. I was encouraged to ask any question I wanted of anyone I wanted.

(Earlier today, I published an in-depth report on my visit to ROSS and what I learned about the company. You can find that at my LawSites blog: At AI Research Company ROSS, A New Stage of Transparency and Engagement.)

This new transparency is the culmination of a year of refocusing and refinement for ROSS. It has been a year of major developments for the company, including not just refinement of its product, but also a refocusing of its marketing towards smaller firms, a reconfiguration of its pricing to a monthly no-obligation subscription, and the hiring of a veteran head of engineering, Stergios Anastasiadis, formerly of Shopify and Google, to lead future development.

In the five years since it started, the glare of the media spotlight has somewhat dimmed for ROSS. The clickbait headlines have largely subsided. Meanwhile, its founders have matured, the company has matured and, it appears, its product has matured.

But the legal research market is even more competitive today than it was when ROSS started. Both long-established players and up-and-coming startups are using AI and claiming, as does ROSS, that they deliver better, more-precise results.

The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. ROSS is making a smart move in opening its product for anyone to try. By lifting the secrecy around its product, ROSS is declaring its confidence in it. Now it is for the market to judge.


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