Homes, land destroyed as desperate Zimbabweans turn to illegal gold mining – The Zimbabwean

Posted on by TSA Press

The 13 men, led by one carrying a metal detector, left open gullies all over the area in Filabusi, about 80km (50 miles) south of Bulawayo.

They told the Thomson Reuters Foundation they would dig wherever their metal detectors sensed gold, clearing bush and burning grass if they had to – even on someone else’s property. None of the men had a mining permit.

“Whenever you hear of a gold rush, you know serious money is involved. People literally pick up gold nuggets,” said Thomas Ncube, one of the miners whose name has been changed to protect his identity.

With Zimbabwe going through its worst economic crisis in a decade, desperate citizens are turning to illegal gold mining to make a living, officials say, sparking fervent gold rushes that can lead to violence and drive people from their land.

The problem has gotten worse over the past year, warned Robert Msipa, a district officer with the government’s Environmental Management Agency.

“In some recent cases police have (had) to set up bases, as such gold rushes are punctuated with machete violence,” he said in a phone interview from Bubi, the district he oversees in western Zimbabwe.

A spokesman for the national police force in Harare declined to comment.

There are no official figures on illegal gold-mining activities in Zimbabwe.

But Msipa noted that since September 2018, eight gold rushes involving both licensed and unlicensed miners have been recorded in Bubi district, one of the most gold-rich areas of the country.

Locals in other parts of Zimbabwe reported similar spikes in illegal mining in their areas.

In the country’s western Insiza district, farmers described how in October illegal miners burned most of their grazing lands to clear the way for digging, and then left behind vast open pits that injured cattle who fell into them.

Small-scale and illegal miners sometimes also add mercury to the soil to separate minute gold particles from other minerals, farmers said.

“They burn grass for their metal detectors to work and use mercury which is very dangerous to our livestock and humans,” lamented villager Soneni Ncube.

BURNING FIELDS

Zimbabwe’s gold-mining sector accounts for about 40% of the country’s mineral output, according to the Zimbabwe Miners Federation (ZMF), an umbrella body of gold miners’ associations.

That makes gold second only to tobacco in the amount of foreign currency it brings into Zimbabwe, said Dosman Mangisi, a ZMF spokesman.

The mineral-rich southern African nation sees the mining sector as the main driver for reviving an economy crippled by triple-digit inflation and high unemployment.

Prosper Chitambara, an economist and researcher at the Labor and Economic Development Research Institute of Zimbabwe, said that the country loses up to $3 billion each year in potential earnings to illegal gold mining.

“That affects the fiscal capacity of the government to be able to invest in the socio-economic rights of its citizens,” he said.

For communities living on gold-rich land, the impact of illegal mining is often more personal and destructive, noted Jane Lusinga, the ZMF regional representative for women in the province of Matabeleland North.

She pointed to the latest gold rush at Lonely Mine, the site of operations for several small-scale mining companies in Bubi district.

There are no official figures on how many families have been displaced by recent gold rushes, said Lusinga, but she estimated about 3,000 illegal miners had descended on to the district over just a few weeks starting in September.

One group burned down a farmer’s mud-and-grass house, she said. “(The) miners then proceeded to dig up the hut’s foundation and the (farmer’s) entire fields in search for gold.”

That was one of several cases of families being displaced by illegal gold miners that the ZMF is investigating, she added.

The organization is holding regular meetings with miners, residents, government officials and traditional leaders “to try and see how we can lobby for a permanent solution to this issue,” Lusinga said.

‘ABOVE THE LAW’

Nhlanhlayamangwe Felix Ndiweni, the chief of Ntabazinduna village in Matabeleland North, said that his village is regularly inundated with illegal miners looking to strike gold.

“These gangs are armed and organised. It’s as if they are operating above the law … They seem to come and go as they please,” he said.

The ZMF said it does not have the resources to stop the sudden surge of illegal gold mining, or the violence and destruction that comes with it.

“There is nothing that can be done to lessen gold rushes in Zimbabwe,” said Mangisi of the ZMF. “(All) we can do is to mobilize and register illegal miners so that they can mine legally.”

Earlier this month, the government reaffirmed its aim to more than triple the revenue generated by Zimbabwe’s mining sector to $12 billion by 2023.

Those plans include a commitment to registering more artisanal miners to try to tackle the illegal industry, noted Mukasiri Sibanda of the Zimbabwe Environmental Law Association, a non-governmental organization.

It is an important step toward helping Zimbabweans benefit from the valuable resources under their feet, he said.

“When you look at gold mining, and artisanal mining (specifically), it provides an opportunity for communities to directly own and control their natural resources,” Sibanda said.

“Through registering artisanal miners, communities can be empowered to develop themselves.”

DA condemns SA’s legitimisation of Zimbabwean ‘strong man politics’
Checkmate | The most instructive checkmating patterns in Chess

Post published in: Featured

Do Attorneys Need Even More Regulation? Some Think The Surrogacy Ones Do.

Posted on by TSA Press

(Image via Getty)

It’s about that time of the year. No, not the holidays. It’s the time when some of us start to panic trying to cram in our CLE credits before the calendar year is over. Also, why are ethics courses always the most boring CLE credits to earn? In any event, while you are thinking deep thoughts about ethics, or merely trying to stay awake for the sake of maintaining your law license, consider adding to your ethics reading list this thought-provoking article on Surrogacy Professionalism by assisted reproductive technology law attorney Christina Miller and ethics professor June Carbone. The article is a must-read for any attorney starting out in the surrogacy field, facing a rocky road paved with ethical dilemmas. Maybe your state will even give you some self-study CLE credit.

Taming The Wild West … Through Lawyers

Surrogacy Professionalism characterizes American surrogacy law — often described as “ART” law even though there are no paintings — as “confusing, inconsistent, evolving, and difficult to categorize.” As you know from reading this column loyally, that’s not wrong. The article takes a hard look at the different ways jurisdictions have attempted to regulate the practice of surrogacy within their borders — banning or even criminalizing the practice, accepting the practice and setting guidelines and standards, or doing nothing (a popular choice!).

Miller and Carbone argue that all of these methods have their flaws. Even the most well-thought-out state regulation suffers from the pervasive defect that people and entities can travel beyond the regulations’ reach by merely crossing into other jurisdictions with friendlier legal environments. “It cannot be overstated how much uncertainty there is in the practice of ART law. Even if a surrogacy arrangement takes place in a jurisdiction like California that has clear law on the subject, the intended parents cannot rule out the possibility that a gestational carrier will flee to another jurisdiction, such as Michigan, where she will be the legal parent.”

The authors argue that a more effective route than creating laws on surrogacy arrangements themselves is to regulate the attorneys who practice in the area.

If There Isn’t Law, Why Do We Need Attorneys?

Miller and Carbone argue that, given the contractual emphasis prior to an attempted pregnancy in a surrogacy arrangement, the attorneys drafting and advising the participants are key players to mitigating future conflicts. They also contend that a number of standard surrogacy contract provisions might be unenforceable. These include abstaining from eating sushi or deli meats, or avoidance of microwaves. Or, more seriously, the common provision that a surrogate agrees to terminate, or not to terminate, a pregnancy in accordance with the intended parents’ wishes.

In the infamous Melissa Cook case, written about here previously, the gestational surrogate claimed that she never read the 75-page contract that she signed, and did not know that she had agreed to aborting part of her pregnancy from triplets to twins, or even a singleton if asked of her by the intended parent. When it was requested, her refusal sparked a long and arduous legal battle, ending with all three babies being born, but with her application for parental rights being denied. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court before a denial of certiorari ended the matter.

In Surrogacy Professionalism, the authors argue that the importance of such a key provision for one party normally would have led skilled attorneys to question whether Melissa Cook really wanted to be a surrogate for the intended parent in this case. Even if they parties ultimately wanted to proceed, perhaps they might have chosen to only transfer one embryo at a time, instead of the three that resulted in triplets.

Certification Time?

Surrogacy Professionalism argues that there is “a clear need for a surrogacy practice group to develop a specialty certification program that could be accredited by the American Bar Association, and whose members agree to abide by the ABA’s ethical guidelines.” The authors point to California’s specialty certification in family law. This doesn’t mean that you can’t practice without certification, but the certification would arguably give an attorney extra credibility in the marketplace. Only after practicing in the area for five years, spending 25 percent of professional time focused on the area, and passing a written exam, can a California attorney be certified as a family law specialist. A similar state-specific or national program could at least give consumers confidence in choosing an attorney with substantial experience in the area, although objectors will point toward further “cartelization” of the legal practice.

Conflicts Everywhere

The authors also explore the daily conflicts faced by surrogacy attorneys. For one, the legal fees of the attorney representing the surrogate are inevitably always paid by the intended parents (aka, the opposing party). This, of course, could possibly make the attorney more inclined to give in or appease the opposing party (the source of their fees), instead of zealously advocating for their client. In another regularly occurring conflict, most surrogacy attorneys receive many of their referrals from matching organizations. While it might not be in the client’s interest to go forward with the match, a broken match could mean a reduced or dried up referral source for the attorney as a result.

The conflicts take on another dimension when the matching entity and the representing attorney have intertwined interests. But the authors come out as “agnostic” as to whether such a conflict is permissible and reasonably overcome with disclosure, exploring both the pros and cons of the interconnected professional roles.

These are merely a few of the conflicts discussed that a surrogacy attorney will inevitably encounter. While I may not be eager to see more attorney regulation (it’s hard enough to keep up with all the CLEs!), Miller and Carbone pose some fascinating questions in their focus on the ethical issues regularly faced by surrogacy attorneys, and suggest reasoned proposals for improving the field. Definitely worth a read, especially if you are new to the area or considering bravely venturing into the surrogacy field.

Ellen TrachmanEllen Trachman is the Managing Attorney of Trachman Law Center, LLC, a Denver-based law firm specializing in assisted reproductive technology law, and co-host of the podcast I Want To Put A Baby In You. You can reach her at babies@abovethelaw.com.

Letter from Africa: Zimbabwe, the land where cash barons thrive – The Zimbabwean

Posted on by TSA Press

REUTERS

In our series of letters from African writers, journalist-turned-barrister Brian Hungwe says the need for cash has not been eased by the release of new Zimbabwean dollar notes over the last week.

In Zimbabwe, cash is king.

You need notes in your hand to avoid paying a premium for goods.

This has come about because of a chronic shortage of physical cash – which has led to a three-tier pricing model.

For example, if you go into a supermarket to buy a 15 Zimbabwean dollar loaf of bread, you can pay:

  • Z$15 in cash
  • Z$18 in mobile money
  • Z$20 by debit card.

You also need cash to pay for bus fares – electronic transactions are not accepted on public transport – and road-side vendors or some small grocery shops only take cash.

A street vendor near Harare, Zimbabwe - November 2019REUTERSStreet vendors prefer notes or coins to electronic payments

A family of five with children of school-going age will need Z$250 a week for transport.

Extra weekly cash costs for bread, tomatoes and sugar could tot up to about another Z$150.

Yet banks have been rationing cash withdrawals to Z$300 a week – and ATMs have been empty.

Often people have been waiting fruitlessly in bank queues as there has not been enough money to give out.

Collusion

The cash crunch has led to a spike in inflation – it was running at 100% in June, when the local currency was officially reintroduced, and is now between 300% and 400%.

It has also led to a new term: “cash baron”.

People queuing outside a bank in Harare, Zimbabwe, to get newly released notes - November 2019REUTERSThere are long queues at banks for people waiting to get their weekly ration of cash

These are the people who never seem to have problems getting hold of cash – and are also in part to blame for rising inflation.

They make money from people needing local cash or foreign currency notes.

A family that needs cash to get their children on to buses to go to school will look for a cash baron – or their acolytes – to buy the cash, often paying 30% more for the notes.

These money speculators tend to hang out in the centre of the capital, Harare, or in busy markets.

It is alleged the cash barons are able to get hold of notes because of corrupt relationships with some banks officials.

Last week, the bank queues began moving forward thanks to a new supply of Z$2 and Z$5 notes, worth about Z$30m, that were released by the central bank, although some banks were rationing daily withdrawals – not allowing people to take out their Z$300 weekly allowance in one go.

However, the influx of cash did not seem to affect the cash barons.

In fact social media was awash with pictures of some alleged barons walking out with loads of newly minted green Z$2 notes.

Two banks have since been put under investigation for releasing huge tranches to some customers – who apparently used the money to source hard currency on the black market.

And President Emmerson Mnangagwa has issued a warning to the cash barons that they will soon face justice.

Brian Hungwe

Brian Hungwe

Zimbabweans have little faith in how the government has managed the economy over the last decade”

Presentational white space

But any penalties may not be enough to deter the appetite for US dollars on the black market as businesses need them to purchase desperately needed products.

People also need hard currency to buy medicines or to go abroad for treatment, given the failing health service, where doctors have been on strike for months.

And Zimbabweans have little faith in how the government has managed the economy over the last decade.

Back to the future

The Zimbabwe dollar was abandoned because of hyperinflation in 2009, when the country mainly adopted the US dollar and the South African rand.

Annual inflation reached 231 million per cent in July 2008. Officials gave up reporting monthly statistics when it peaked at just under 80 billion per cent in mid-November 2008.

Scolastica Nyamayaro has had to choose between buying her medicine or food.

In June the Zimbabwe dollar was reintroduced and foreign currencies were banned because the country had effectively run out of forex – as it was importing more than it was exporting.

Prices are now increasing on average about twice a month while salaries have remained stagnant.

Two Z$5 held over green vegetablesREUTERSPrices continue to rise but salaries remain stagnant

The central bank says over the next five months there will be a gradual injection of Z$1bn in cash.

And while Zimbabweans may be wary of high dollar bills – with memories of trillion dollar notes – there are now ironically calls for higher denominations such as a Z$50 bill.

For many it feels very much like it’s back to the future.

At the moment the highest denomination of Z$5 – which is worth about 30 US cents – cannot buy a soft drink or ice cream.

ZIM: Uphold constitution on women in decision-making

Post published in: Business

When You Have A Dog Of A Client And Work For A Complicit Party, You End Up Sounding Like Steve Castor

Posted on by TSA Press

(Photo by Shawn Thew-Pool/Getty Images)

Steve Castor is the Republican lawyer pressed into service to ask questions of witnesses during the impeachment inquiry. He’s a longtime House Oversight Committee staffer, a graduate of George Washington University Law School, and reportedly well respected internally both by Republicans and Democrats.

Castor is being dragged on social media. Mocked. His questioning, meant to be in defense of Donald Trump and the Republican theory of the case against him, has been weak and ineffectual. He continually gets witnesses to repeat the Democrats’ talking points. He commits the cardinal lawyer sin of asking questions he doesn’t know the answer to. At one point during his questioning of E.U. Ambassador Gordon Sondland, he managed to get Sondland to repeat that meetings and aid to Ukraine was being held up because Trump wanted them to start investigations into his political rivals, and after screwing that up he shuffled papers, made an audible “aaaahhhck” sound, and then yielded minutes of questioning time to nobody in particular.

To me, Castor’s entire lines of questioning throughout these hearings can be summed up in this gif:

Thing is, it’s not his fault. It’s not that Castor is doing a bad job, it’s that he has a bad job. It’s an impossible task to defend Donald Trump, because Trump has no defense. Donald Trump held up aid and meetings to the Ukraine until they agreed to publicly announce an investigation into his political rivals. Every person called to testify in the impeachment inquiry knows that. Every person called to testify has seen some portion of that illegal, corrupt scheme. Trump released a memorandum of a call where he explicitly solicited the bribe. His White House Chief of Staff, Mick Mulvaney, admitted to the scheme in the middle of a damn press conference. There is no defense.

Republicans, unfortunately, don’t care. And so here’s Steve Castor, trying to wildly cast aspersions on witness testimony with no clear defense strategy in mind.

Understand, defense attorneys represent bad clients all the time. People take “dog” cases because, well, everybody deserves a competent defense and also lawyers have bills.

When you get a dog, there are three main defense tactics: attack the credibility of the witness, reduce the prosecution’s case to one key fact, or blame somebody else. Castor is trying to run elements of all three. But the facts won’t help him. Let’s look at each of them:

* Witness Credibility

We have all seen Castor try to cast aspersions on the credibility of the witnesses. He went so far as lightly accusing Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman of having dual loyalty. It’s disgusting, but attacking the credibility of witnesses is just a thing lawyers do when witnesses are saying things that are unhelpful to their clients.

The problem Castor has with this strategy is that he’s attacking decorated military veterans and longstanding foreign service officials. This isn’t like questioning Pooky from the block who’s got warrants. Randomly attacking American foreign service professionals, many of whom are speaking based off of contemporaneous notes they took as they were witnesses to crime, simply doesn’t work.

And Castor has another problem: his client, Donald Trump, is the least credible of all possible witnesses. Usually the witness credibility game is played against the backdrop of a defendant who, except for the charges against them, can argue that they are an upstanding citizen. Here, Castor is asking us to not believe dedicated professionals because… the lying con-man in the White House says they’re “bad” people. It puts Castor in the weakest possible position, and that’s why so many of his questions seem meaningless instead of probative.

* It All Comes Down To This

Over the years, people, mainly white people, have had a lot of fun at the expense of the late Johnny Cochrane and his rhythmic defense of O.J. Simpson: “If the glove doesn’t fit, you must acquit.” It all seems like so much theater now, but make no mistake, Cochrane ran a common defense strategy in its most pure form. Crimes have “elements” and its on the prosecution to prove each element of the alleged crime. A good defense, facing seemingly insurmountable evidence, will focus on one key element, reduce that element to the crux of the entire prosecution, and then blow apart that element. Cochrane, after magically waving away the DNA evidence against Simpson back at a time when most people didn’t understand DNA evidence, reduced the prosecution’s entire case to the stupid glove. He made the glove seem like the only piece of physical evidence tying O.J. to the crime, and expertly suggested that the glove was planted there by racist cop, Mark Fuhrman. The prosecution, stupidly, played along. So at the point where the glove didn’t fit (note: the glove totally kinda fit), the prosecution’s case seemingly fell apart.

Castor, and the Republicans, are trying to do this with the “no quid pro quo” defense. Their theory is that if Trump doesn’t actually say: “I want a quid pro quo” or “I’d like a bribe, though” then Trump gets away with it.

Castor is, for what it’s worth, running that game as well as he can. Where he gets tripped up is that this isn’t a criminal trial, but a public hearing. If this was a trial, Castor would sit silently as witnesses testified to all of it, from Democrats. Then, he’d rise, and ask “Did Donald Trump ever tell you to withhold aid until Ukraine investigated the Bidens?” The witnesses would say “no” and Castor would sit down.

Unfortunately, that would take less than a minute. Castor has 45 minutes to fill. Then he has an additional 15 minutes of rebuttal. That’s an hour where Castor has to keep stammering and questioning and saying things that are irrelevant to his core defense.

And, because that defense is so thin, that’s an hour for witnesses to essentially testify that, while Trump didn’t explicitly say those precise words, he acted in every way like a quid pro quo was on the table, and ultimately withheld aid and a meeting with the Ukrainian President because of it.

The Republicans want Castor to surface all of their crazy conspiracy theories about the Bidens and the Ukraine meddling in the 2016 election. The Republicans want Castor to surface a wild theory of executive power that gives the President the right to solicit bribes. Castor is constantly being forced to do this work, which muddles what defense through line he has. That’s why he sounds less like Johnny Cochrane and more like Bob Loblaw.

* Somebody Else Did It

From a pure theater perspective, this is my favorite defense strategy to watch. This is where the defense attorney tries to pin the crime on somebody else, anybody else, who is not in the room. It’s fun to watch, as long as you are not the random person being thrown under the bus.

In the impeachment inquiry, the “man not in the room” is the President’s personal lawyer, Rudolph Giuliani. ANY competent defense attorney would be telling Trump to blame EVERYTHING on Giuliani, and save himself. Most of the witnesses, many of whom are Republicans, all of whom seemed to hate being forced to work with Giuliani, would surely gladly participate in playing “pin the crime on Rudy.”

The problem is that Giuliani seems quite prepared to bring all of them down with him. Remember, Paul Manafort is in jail because he was willing to take the fall for all of them. He never told Robert Mueller that he was acting “on behalf” of the President for all his shady dealings.

Giuliani is no Manafort. He consistently says he was working on Trump’s behalf, and at Trump’s direction. He’s been on TV, alluding to text messages and emails that he waves around like his “insurance policy” should anyone try to burn him. Castor can’t pin it all on Giuliani, because doing so leads directly to his ostensible client, Donald Trump.

And so, Castor is stuck. He can’t effectively attack the credibility of purple heart recipients and career foreign service officers, on behalf of President Bone Spurs. He can’t “Plan B” Rudy Giuliani, without exposing Trump. And he can’t make the whole thing about the magical recitation of the words “quid pro quo” because the testimony drags on into all the other ways Trump tried to execute a quid pro quo without actually saying it.

Or, to put it in Castor’s own words: “ehhaahhck.” There’s just not a lot he can do other than shuffle papers and ask questions he knows will boomerang into his own ass.

I don’t feel sorry for him, because being a Republican is a choice, not an immutable characteristic. But Castor only sounds as bad as he does because his client is even worse.

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.

Students Here Really Think Their Law School Is Giving Them A Leg Up On Their Careers

Posted on by TSA Press

According to the Princeton Review’s 2020 law school rankings, which law school gives students the best career prospects?

Hint: The ranking is based upon institutional outcome data and on law student ratings of their schools’ offerings for practical experience; opportunities for externships, internships, and clerkships; and how prepared students feel they will be to practice law after graduating.

See the answer on the next page.

Hottest Law Firms On Social Media

Posted on by TSA Press

The title may sound like an oxymoron, but some Biglaw heavy-hitters have plunged into the social media world and are actually pretty good at it. While DLA Piper may not be delivering Kim Kardashian worthy takes on Instagram, they have built a cottage following showing off firm culture with shots of attorneys receiving awards and performing volunteer work. It’s a forward-thinking marketing push that might not seem obvious for Biglaw.

Good2bSocial releases an annual scorecard for law firm social media efforts and this year DLA Piper secured the top spot, with White & Case, Norton Rose Fulbright, Baker McKenzie and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe close behind.

[Good2bSocial founder and CEO Guy] Alvarez also said that although adoption rates are high, law firms often lag behind other professional service industries, particularly the Big Four, when it comes to effective usage.

“A lot of firms are still using social media as sort of a one-way content marketing tool,” he said. “The ones that struggle are just putting up promotional content. Social media is meant to engage and be social.”

No kidding.

Still, law firms simply being on social media is a development worthy of praise.

That lag in “effective usage” is why the solid Instagram presence among firms is a little surprising. To the extent firms play in the social media world, one might assume they’d just now be dipping into Facebook since that’s appropriately played out for law firms to think it’s cool. But in reality, Facebook is already on the outs with the more savvy firms:

On the flip side, “I was surprised at how much and how quickly firm usage of Facebook has declined,” Alvarez said. “Cambridge Analytica and privacy issues helped move that along. We saw some decline last year, but this year was a huge drop. Some firms have given up on Facebook completely.”

A few Am Law ranked firms are even engaging with YouTube for recruiting, which is such a natural use of the platform that it’s surprising that only 13 percent of firms are using it.

Unsurprisingly, LinkedIn boasts a strong law firm presence as it’s appropriately boring for the law firm environment, but paid LinkedIn accounts are narrowly outnumbered by Instagram with 31 percent of firms owning an Instagram account. Marketing teams in these global firms must be pretty plugged in.

A perusal of firm pages have found a woeful shortage of dank memes, but whatever they’re doing must work for them.

DLA Piper Leads Big Law in Social Media as More Firms Shun Facebook: Report [American Lawyer]

Make Money Mondays: One Price Doesn’t Fit All

Posted on by TSA Press

Most lawyers would never admit that they pretty much charge the same price for everything.  For example, one lawyer might argue that his rates are only $250/hr – a real bargain as compared to so-and-so down the street who bills out at $500.  Yet I’d be willing to bet that even with the one lawyer charging half the rates of the other, there’s probably not much more than a 10-15 percent difference in the overall costs.  Because even though the rates differ, the methodology – ye olde billable hour – remains the same.

The same can be true of flat fees also. Most lawyers charge several thousand dollars even for largely automated documents like trusts, uncontested divorce or contracts because of lawyers’ review and oversight or necessary administration (such as filing with the courts).  And up until recently, it could be very difficult to find unbundled service.

But when it comes to pricing, lawyers aren’t alone in being one-dimensional.  Even creative industries like streaming television services can be limited in pricing options as described in a recent Harvard Business Review article, Why is Every Streaming Service Using the Same Pricing Model?. Turns out, that though price points vary, nearly every streaming service, from Hulu to Netflix to HBO charge an all-you-can-eat flat fee for content even though viewers may only want to see one or two programs.   The HBR article offers several different pricing solutions:

  • Metered.  A channel could meter usage by number of shows or viewing time. A handful of volume-based plans can be offered: low, medium, and high.  
  • Good Better Best Offer a line of packages with content segmented by content type (series shows vs. films), exclusivity (original content vs. available on other services), and release date (new vs. six months after release). Usage restrictions include “ability to binge watch” (yes/no), viewing time (all week vs. only weekend), and device (mobile vs. television).
  • Discounts to Incentivize Commitment.  Streaming services typically only offer month-to-month plans. This pricing strategy makes it easy to turn services on and off. (In theory, I could watch all of Succession by subscribing to HBO Max for just one month.) Volume discounts — committing to a period of time — can be employed to reduce customer churn.

Lawyers could take a lesson from these ideas to create services that match customer needs. For example, if you have clients who can meet only on weekends, why not charge a premium for weekend service? If a client is willing to wait several months before documents are prepared, charge a lower rates.  For clients willing to fill out complicated intake forms and use automation, a lawyer could charge a lower amount for services.  Instead of asking other lawyers how much they charge, lawyers must realize that price is not something set in stone, but something that can be molded and changed to fit the services offered and value provided.  Once the legal profession jettisons the billable hour and concept that lawyers need to charge what everyone else does, a world of pricing innovation can open up (so long as ethics rules don’t get in the way ) – and that can  make for increased competition and access to justice.