Category: News Feeds

Ever since the 2016 election and the legal turmoil that began shortly after President Donald Trump’s swearing in (and has continued to this day), thousands of college graduates — and women in particular — have been inspired to go to law school.

As our readers know, the latest Princeton Review law school rankings are out, and today, we’ll focus on yet another incredibly important ranking during the #MeToo #TimesUp era in America, an era where a woman who’s a law school graduate could become the Democratic nominee for president: The law schools with the greatest resources for women.

Which law schools do you think came out on top of this list?

First, we’ll begin with the methodology Princeton Review used to determine which law schools offer the greatest resources for women. This ranking was based on the percentage of the student body who identify as women as well as on student answers to a single survey question: whether all students are afforded equal treatment by students and faculty regardless of their gender.

According to Princeton Review, these are the law schools where women stand on equal footing with their male classmates:

1. Stanford University School of Law
2. Vermont Law School
3. University of the District of Columbia David A. Clarke School of Law
4. New England Law – Boston
5. University of Toledo College of Law
6. UC Davis School of Law
7. Washington University School of Law – St. Louis
8. Brooklyn Law School
9. Temple University Beasley School of Law

Law school may be the perfect place for women in America to resist, persist, and prove that the future is female. The law is a powerful tool, and we hope that women who want change will wield it wisely. We wish you the best of luck in law school!

Did your law school or alma mater make the cut? If it did, do you think it was ranked fairly? If it didn’t make the list for best career prospects, do you agree with that assessment? Please email us or text us (646-820-8477) with your thoughts. Thanks.

Greatest Resources for Women [Princeton Review]
Best Law Schools 2020 [Princeton Review]

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.

—ADVERTISEMENT—

Bonus season came early this year, when the market standard was set by Milbank. But moving on bonuses the first week of November has some downsides — well, for the rest of the market, as some firms were caught flat-footed and weren’t able to match that scale immediately. Even perennial bonus leader Cravath had to take a few days to announce their match of the scale. But once Cravath got on board, we had the early adopters rush to announce their bonuses.

But then, nothing much happened. Crickets. On the one hand, it’s completely understandable — we are still a week out from Thanksgiving. But your Above the Law editors were getting antsy waiting for the next announcement, and I’m sure a lot of associates out there can feel me on that one. Fortunately, Sidley came through with their year-end bonus scale:

Class of 2018 – $15,000
Class of 2017 – $25,000
Class of 2016 – $50,000
Class of 2015 – $65,000
Class of 2014 – $80,000
Class of 2013 – $90,000
Class of 2012  – $100,000
Class of 2011+ – $100,000

The bonuses come with a catch however: Associates must bill a minimum of 2,000 hours, 1,800 of which must be client chargeable and/or legal services to the firm.

(Full memo on the next page.)

Remember, we depend on your tips to stay on top of important bonus updates, so when your firm matches, please text us (646-820-8477) or email us (subject line: “[Firm Name] Matches”). Please include the memo if available. You can take a photo of the memo and send it via text or email if you don’t want to forward the original PDF or Word file.

And if you’d like to sign up for ATL’s Bonus Alerts (which is the alert list we also use for all salary announcements), please scroll down and enter your email address in the box below this post. If you previously signed up for the bonus alerts, you don’t need to do anything. You’ll receive an email notification within minutes of each bonus announcement that we publish. Thanks for your help!

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).

The introduction of new regulations creates obstacles for lawmakers worldwide and the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) was no exception.

New challenges include:

• The elimination of the cost barrier for a data subject to submit a Data Subject Access Request (DSAR) in most circumstances;
• The need for a request to be in writing has been removed, making oral requests, for example, now acceptable;
• A reduction in the timeline to respond from 40 days to one month, compressing response timelines unless an extension can be justified;
• And more!

How can an eDiscovery solution be leveraged to optimize workflows?

Click here to download this free white paper today to learn different ways to optimise workflows to address specific DSAR challenges.

The gruesome events of yesterday (20 November 2019) in the Zimbabwe capital of Harare, whereby scores of innocent people – mainly bystanders – were reportedly brutally beaten up by police officers, outside the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) headquarters – where its president Nelson Chamisa was expected to deliver his ‘Hope for the Nation’ address – cast another dark shadow over the country’s already repulsive and unenviable human rights record – further affirming its ‘pariah state’ status.

These horrendous events, that are a huge embarrassment for the nation and people of Zimbabwe, only serve to enhace the distorted notion – which most of us have been tirelessly trying to dispel – that we, as Africans, are a savage primitive people, who can never rule themselves.

Otherwise, what other impression is portrayed by such barbaric acts as witnessed in Harare yesterday?

To make matters worse, this was not the first time – neither would it certainly be the last, since this brutish nature seems innately engraved in the ZANU PF government’s DNA – as such scenes have, unfortunately, become the hallmark of this administration since the country attained independence from British rule in 1980.

It has always been a huge mystery as to where those in power in Zimbabwe inherited such a bestial and bloodthirsty trait – because we have always been widely known as a peaceful, loving and gentle people. In fact, some have even characterised us a docile and pathetically submissive lot – a huge attraction for any psychotic despot.

As much as some have disingenuously attempted to place the blame squarely on our repressive and heinous colonial past, this has been, nonetheless, very unconvincing – as our erstwhile White oppressors never cannibalised or mauled their own kith and kin – yet, our Black ‘liberators’ have never seen any problems in brutalizing their own.

Since 1980, the ZANU PF government has gone the extra mile in breaking all the records in wickedness and atrocities – starting with the Gukurahundi genocide in the 1980s that led to the massacre of over 20,000 innocent men, women and children in the Matebeleland and Midlands provinces by the North Korean-trained military’s 5th Brigade, then frequent dubious fatal car accidents of those suspected of plotting against the ruling elite, and the murdering in cold-blood of hundreds of suspected MDC supporters in the 2000s (especially, after the humiliating defeat of then iron-fisted tyrant Robert Gabriel Mugabe by the opposition’s Morgan Richard Tsvangirai in the 2008 elections).

However, when Mugabe was ousted in a military coup d’etat by his own brethren in the ruling party and military in November 2017, the country’s grave human rights situation further deteriorated – as, within a space of only two years, at least 20 unarmed people (mostly innocent bystanders) were sadistically gunned down by security forces during riots on 1 August 2018 (against perceived electoral fraud after the 30 July harmonised elections), and in January 2019 (against fuel price increases).

Needless to say, not even one of the perpetrators was ever brought to book, in spite of recommendations by the Kgalema Motlanthe Commission of Inquiry instituted to probe the 1 August post-election violence.

However, countless people were arrested and imprisoned for allegedly engaging in, or inciting, these riots – including opposition MDC Members of Parliament (MPs) and local government councilors, as well as various activists – some of whom were eventually acquitted.

It is further reported that this year alone, over 50 cases of abductions, and threats on the lives of labour and political activists, have been recorded by human rights organisations, in addition to numerous other allegations of sexual abuse and beatings up of innocent people in their residential areas, and the arrests of various members of civil society perceived to be engaged in subversive anti-government activities (who have since also been found not guilty by the courts).

Since August this year, when the MDC sought to organise nationwide anti government marches, there has reportedly been a blanket ban on all its activities, including the holding of rallies and meetings – purportedly due to fears of an outbreak of violence.

Such was what the world witnessed yesterday, when scores of people (mainly bystanders) were brutally beaten up, as law enforcement agents tried to forcefully disperse those gathered at the MDC headquarters to listen to their president’s address – having had their planned meeting in a city centre park, the precious day, similarly banned.

However, all these inhumane, ruthless, and clearly disproportionate actions against perceived anti-government elements in the country are undoubtedly flagrant violations of Zimbabwe’s constitution as it unequivocally protects and guarantees the right to life, right to personal liberty, right to human dignity, right to personal security, freedom to peacefully demonstrate, freedom of assembly and association, freedom of conscience, freedom of expression, and political rights.

All of which have been wantonly bastardized, with impunity – effectively rendering Zimbabwe a de facto one-party dictatorship and police state, in stark contrast to its avowed claims to be a ‘unitary, democratic and sovereign republic’, as well as being founded on values and principles of ‘supremacy of the constitution ‘, ‘the rule of law’, ‘fundamental human rights and freedoms’, and ‘a multi-party democratic political system’.

If  such values and principles were genuinely to be adhered to, then all the tenets of the constitution had to be religiously followed – including the opposition being permitted to freely partake in their activities.

In fact, the role of law enforcement agents would had not been to ban the opposition’s events, but to ensure that they were conducted in a peaceful manner that also respected the rights of other citizens of the country – including the freedom of movement, property rights, and right to personal security.

However, issuing a blanket prohibition – purely based on speculation, and alleged previous violent activities – is nothing short of undemocratic and repressive. Everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt.

If anything, most of the violence that the world has witnessed emanate from Zimbabwe, in the past year, has not been at the instigation of the MDC, but has purely been at the hands of those supposed to maintain peace and security.

Even a released rape convict can not be banned from ever being anywhere near a woman!

After analysing all this, a potent question which then arises is: “Why is the Zimbabwe government afraid of the opposition, or any anti-government activities?”

The answer can seemingly be found in the numerous accusations levelled against the MDC by the administration and their allies – that the opposition party was working in cahoots with the United States of America (USA) and Britain to effect a so-called ‘illegal regime change’ – through instigating an uprising or revolt (in the mould of the Arab Spring) – by taking advantage of the prevailing strangulating economic problems that are suffocating the disgruntled majority of Zimbabweans.

The ZANU PF administration has repeatedly blamed this economic meltdown on so-called sanctions imposed by the USA and European Union (EU) in 2001 and 2002, which they allege were designed to cripple the country – as a result of the West’s infuriation with the government’s chaotic and murderous land reform program – in order to cause dissatisfaction amongst the population.

However, the opposition and rest of the nation are fully aware that these targeted measures were imposed on only 142 top officials and entities accused of committing human rights abuses, electoral fraud, and corruption – something that absolutely has no effect on the country’s economy at all.

The vast of majority of citizens actually believe that the government’s own incompetence, mismanagement, corruption, electoral fraud, and human right abuses are directly responsible for the catastrophic economic challenges bedevilling the nation.

If the truth be told, the MDC has never been proven to be either behind the imposition of these targeted sanctions, nor actively plotting some ‘illegal regime change’. If indeed they were, then the government has pathetically failed to prove its case. In fact, had the administration had concrete evidence, beyond any reasonable doubt, in this regard, they would have since charged the opposition party’s top officials with high treason, and lawfully banned the party.

Even Rhodesia premier Ian Douglas Smith did not hesitate to arrest senior nationalist leaders, and ban their parties in the 1960s and 70s, as they were viewed as engaged in subversive and terrorist activities.

However, the fact that the MDC has been permitted to operate and even run in elections since the imposition of the targeted measures as far back as 2001, is ample proof that the administration’s accusations are purely hogwash, and must be dismissed with the contempt they deserve.

That is why all that the ZANU PF government can do is proffer unsubstantiated and baseless reasons for stifling the MDC’s activities – nothing that can ever hold up in a competent court of law – thereby, effectively ‘banning’ the party through the back door.

There is no doubt that the Zimbabwe government is merely using such allegations as a smokescreen for its intolerance, and nightmarish fear of a rousing democratic defeat by the opposition.

If there was any entity in Zimbabwe that actually engaged in any ‘illegal regime change’, it was ZANU PF itself – with the assistance of the partisan military – when they staged a coup d’etat against then president Mugabe in November 2017 – as a result of vicious and brutal internal factional fighting within the party.

Therefore, there is absolutely no justification for the hideous crackdown on the MDC, under the pretext of preventing some plot to instigate an ‘illegal regime change’ – as the only ones who have effectively removed a sitting president, through the barrel of the gun, have been ZANU PF itself.

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

Post published in: Featured

It was a moment of genuine bipartisanship at the House Ways and Means Committee in October, as Democratic and Republican sponsors alike praised a bill called the “Restoring Access to Medication Act of 2019.”

The bill, approved by the panel on a voice vote, would allow consumers to use their tax-free flexible spending accounts or health savings accounts to pay for over-the-counter medications and women’s menstrual products.

Assuming it ultimately finds its way into law, the measure would also represent the latest piece of the Affordable Care Act’s financing to be undone.

Over-the-counter medication had been eligible for preferred tax status before the ACA. But that treatment was eliminated as part of a long list of new taxes and other provisions to generate revenue. The measures were aimed primarily at higher-income earners to pay the 10-year, roughly $1 trillion cost of the health law.

“It is paid for. It is fiscally responsible,” said President Barack Obama as he signed the ACA into law in 2010.

But not so much anymore. Many of those “pay-fors,” particularly the taxes, “have been eliminated, delayed or are in jeopardy,” said Marc Goldwein of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan budget watchdog group. “All this stuff, it turns out, is very unpopular,” he said.

The first piece of financing to disappear happened before most of the law even took effect. Congress in 2011 repealed a requirement that small businesses report to the IRS any payment of more than $600 to a vendor. The idea was that if more payments were reported to taxing authorities, more taxes due would actually get paid. Small businesses complained — loudly — that the new paperwork requirement would be excessive and Congress (and Obama) eventually agreed. The change eliminated an estimated $17 billion in ACA financing over 10 years.

In 2015, Congress delayed (for the first time) the so-called Cadillac tax, a 40% tax on the most generous employer health plans that was intended to curb excessive use of medical services. Business, labor and patient advocacy groups banded together in a coalition called the Alliance to Fight the 40, and they got Congress to delay its implementation from 2018 to 2020. In 2018, Congress delayed it again, to 2022. This past summer, the House voted overwhelmingly to eliminate the tax, which had been estimated to raise nearly $200 billion over the next decade.

Also on ice, thanks to that 2018 bill, are levies that were supposed to be paid by medical device makers and health insurance companies, originally worth a combined $80 billion in financing during the law’s first decade.

Yet another — albeit fairly small — source of financing for the law went away in the GOP tax bill in 2017, which zeroed out the tax penalty for failing to have health insurance. The penalty raised $4 billion in 2018, the last year it was in effect.

Still, the two ACA taxes that generate the most revenue are on the books and collecting money. They are aimed at people with high incomes (more than $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples) and were estimated to bring in more than $200 billion from 2010 to 2019. The measures, which don’t deal directly with services or provisions of the ACA, raise Medicare taxes for people at those higher incomes and increase taxes on unearned income.

The durability of these two taxes does not surprise Goldwein. Some are “unpopular to repeal,” he said, like “a tax on the rich that funds Medicare.”

What Goldwein does find surprising, though, is how durable some of the ACA’s reductions in spending have been. The health law, somewhat controversially, reduced Medicare payments to hospitals, insurance companies and a broad array of other health providers.

“The Medicare cuts have been for the most part surprisingly sustainable politically,” he said. Even when the GOP took over the House in 2011, their budget maintained the reductions from the ACA. So did the 2017 GOP “repeal and replace” proposal.

On the other hand, the appointed board of experts that was to rein in future Medicare spending, the “Independent Payment Advisory Board,” never got off the ground. Congress formally repealed it in 2018.

So what does this all mean? The Congressional Budget Office is no longer estimating the individual budget effect of how the ACA was paid for. But the past decade has shown that it’s been relatively easy to make hard-won tax increases go away, suggesting that interest groups, particularly health-related interest groups, still wield a lot of power on Capitol Hill.

That means that going forward, candidates’ promises about new benefits financed by new taxes should be viewed with some skepticism, said Goldwein.

Even as presidential candidates on the campaign trail are issuing financing plans, on Capitol Hill “right now everyone wants to cancel a 3% tax on the health insurance industry,” Goldwein said. That’s a reference to a major advertising campaign underway by an industry coalition of small business and insurance groups called “Stop the HIT.” The tax is one of those delayed in 2018 that will resume if Congress does not delay it again or repeal it.

Given that, he said, how likely is it that Congress — even one controlled by Democrats — would really “cancel the whole industry” by passing a “Medicare for All” bill?

Photo: zimmytws, Getty Images

Recent emails from the State Bar to some California lawyers alleging they were noncompliant with their Minimum Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) audit requirements caused some recipients to panic.

A few discipline defense attorneys said the notifications sparked great concern because they heard from lawyers who believed they had previously submitted documentation in support of their MCLE hours and should not be subject to the potential loss of their licenses.

However, the bar said the notifications were sent to a little more than 100 attorneys who had been audited for MCLE compliance and whose files were deemed incomplete. They also were not the first reminders sent this cycle, the agency said.

The reminder emails sent just days before the Nov. 15 deadline warned lawyers that failure to come into compliance would result in their license status being changed to “inactive” effective Nov. 16. The emails said noncompliance would also result in an “assessment of an additional $200 reinstatement penalty and possible referral to the Office of Chief Trial Counsel for further investigation.”

The bar has carried out MCLE audits for several years, and bar spokeswoman Teresa Ruano said the number of replies and complaints in response to the audit emails “was no more than usual.”

But attorney Megan Zavieh, who represents lawyers before the State Bar of California, said she has never received the same level of feedback from lawyers who believed they were improperly accused of being noncompliant with MCLE audits.

Those who contacted her, including clients and non-clients, were “absolutely panicked” after hearing from the bar that they were in jeopardy of having their licenses suspended.

“If there is anything that scares lawyers, it is action by the bar,” Zavieh said. “I was getting calls from people I don’t represent saying, ‘I don’t know what to do. I did what I thought I was supposed to and now I got this email.’”

Zavieh said adding to the anxiety for the lawyers who contacted her was a lack of an immediate response from the bar to their emails highlighting they believed they were in compliance.

“Some reported they had written back and said, ‘I don’t understand. I replied to your audit,’” Zavieh said. “They were not getting any kind of quick response. And with the time being only a couple of days before they were going to be inactive, anything over a few hours to get responded to by email seems like an eternity to the lawyers.”

Other discipline defense attorneys also wrote to this reporter about the issue of lawyers who believed they were in compliance with the MCLE audit recently being told otherwise by the bar.
The bar’s spokeswoman said “about 30 files that were not yet complete when they received the email have since been completed/closed. In a few cases, the reminder may have crossed in the mail with audit submissions. Some had payments that were in the process of clearing or had submissions deemed incomplete. Staff is still reviewing the many last-minute submissions that were emailed or mailed on Friday.”

The bar also said it “received one complaint from an attorney whose records were mismarked; that error has been corrected and the attorney informed.”

Ruano said that within a few days “staff will determine the final noncompliance list and will place those attorneys on involuntary inactive status effective 11/16/19; in a typical cycle that amounts to 40 to 50 people. This year likely won’t be any different.”

“Staff don’t expect to make referrals to [the Office of Chief Trial Counsel] unless last-minute forged certificates are identified,” Ruano added.

Another attorney who represents lawyers before the bar said an additional reason for lawyers’ fear about the MCLE emails was that the bar now places a consumer alert on the online bar profile of a lawyer who is placed on involuntary inactive enrollment for failure to comply with MCLE obligations. This was one of several updates to the agency’s consumer alert policy made last year.

The bar confirmed that “consumer alerts will be placed on profiles of those placed on involuntary inactive status.”

California lawyers must complete 25 hours of continuing education every three years. The state’s licensed lawyers are also split into three reporting groups based on their last name, so one group reports their hours each year and a subset of those lawyers are audited.

Lyle Moran is a freelance writer in San Diego who handles both journalism and content writing projects. He previously reported for the Los Angeles Daily Journal, San Diego Daily Transcript, Associated Press, and Lowell Sun. He can be reached at lmoransun@gmail.com and found on Twitter @lylemoran.

Why was a loaded shotgun brought into a courtroom?

This is the question facing South African authorities after attorney Addelaid Ferreira-Watt was killed when a shotgun entered into evidence went off.

The gun, belonging to the victims of a 2014 robbery, had spent the last 5 years with the victims as opposed to an evidence locker because the victims claimed they needed it for home defense. Given that they’d been robbed they found a sympathetic audience, but South Africa must have some pretty screwy chain of custody standards to allow a key piece of evidence to stay with the accusers for years before trial.

News24 reported that the gun was being held by a police officer in Umzimkhulu Regional Court when it slipped from his hands and hit the floor. The shotgun released a shell into Ferreira-Watt’s left hip. She was rushed to the hospital but doctors could not save her life.

Speaking of the chain of custody, the victims say they don’t remember if the gun was loaded when they brought it back or not. That there’s even a risk that they may have carried a loaded gun to court should explode the myth of the responsible gun owner. While the idea that law enforcement then loaded the gun themselves while it rested in their custody may sound far-fetched, one might have thought it was inconceivable that cops would take a gun without bothering to check if it’s loaded, but here we are.

Unless South Africa is as irrationally devoted to protecting its law enforcement in the face of clear misconduct as the United States is, one or more officers connected with this should be fired and probably prosecuted for negligence. The owners may have left the gun loaded but that’s not an excuse to just sling it into a courtroom unchecked.

Addelaid Ferreira-Watt’s death was entirely preventable. Hopefully the powers-that-be recognize that.

LAWYER KILLED IN COURT WHEN SHOTGUN SUBMITTED TO EVIDENCE GOES OFF [Newsweek]

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.

This comes out after former Zanu PF Councillor for ward 16 Last Jazi and Samuel Masimba Zambuko a war vet have been reportedly hijacked the Presidential Agricultural Inputs Scheme, sidelining the sitting MDC Councillor Edmore Dhemba who was supposed to preside over the inputs distribution process.

Councillor Dhemba expressed that, he was block by the Zanu PF officials from collecting the maize seed at the Grain Marketing Board (GMB) Masvingo depot on the last minute after processing all the required papers and paying transport costs. “ when I go to the GMB for collection I was told that the GMB was ordered by the office of the Minister of State for Masvingo Province Mr Chadzamira not to give me the seed (800KGs) until the beneficiary list was verified by the party officials.”, said Councilor Dhemba.

It was further reported that Mr Jazi and Mr Zambuko convened the beneficiary selection meeting where the well-known opposition supported were turned away by the Zanu PF youth who proclaims that the maize seed was a donation to the party by President Cde Mnangagwa, therefore the scheme was strictly targeting Zanu PF supporters as beneficiaries. On Tuesday 12 November 2019, Mr Jazi called for a distribution meeting in which those known for backing other political parties were being turned away immediately on arrival.

However, the villagers who speak to COTRAD stated that the distribution process which took almost two days was marred by disruptions and disputes as villagers staged a protest against Mr Jazi demanding the sitting Councillor Mr Dhemba to preside over the process. The villagers called for a nonpartisan distribution process since the seed was purchased through the taxpayer’s money. The act by the Zanu PF officials was described by villagers as a threat to social unity and peace.

COTRAD peace committee members for Masvingo ward 16 criticized the politicization of government aid as a major cause of conflict in rural areas. “Partisan distribution of resources is cancerous to social unity, peace and development, therefore we expect community members to respect leadership hierarchy and protocols in community development” said one peace committee member. As COTRAD we urge public officials to be ambassadors of peace and facilitators of development in a non-partisan manner.

Post published in: Featured