Category: News Feeds

The
legal
industry
is
no
stranger
to
evolution.
Over
the
last
few
decades,
corporate
legal
departments
have
transitioned
from
reactive,
siloed
teams
to
proactive,
integrated
business
partners.
Yet,
one
of
the
most
impactful
shifts
is
still
gaining
momentum:
the
rise
of
Alternative
Legal
Service
Providers
(ALSPs).

Despite
their
name,
ALSPs
are
far
from
“alternative.”
Today,
they
are
essential
for
modern
legal
operations,
offering
scalable,
cost-effective,
and
tech-enabled
solutions
that
reshape
how
legal
departments
operate.
In
fact,
the
“A”
in
ALSP
may
no
longer
reflect
the
central
role
they
now
play.

What
Defines
an
ALSP
Today?

When
ALSPs
first
emerged,
they
represented
a
novel
departure
from
the
traditional
law
firm
model.
The
industry
was
skeptical,
viewing
these
providers
as
niche
players
fit
only
for
routine
tasks.
However,
the
last
two
decades
have
proven
that
ALSPs
are
far
more
versatile.
Modern
ALSPs
offer
a
comprehensive
suite
of
services,
from
handling
complex
compliance
issues
to
managing
tech-heavy
contract
lifecycle
management
(CLM)
systems.
Their
core
attributes
—
flexibility,
scalability,
cost-effectiveness,
and
tech
enablement
—
make
them
indispensable
for
legal
teams
juggling
constrained
budgets
and
rising
workloads.

Consider
a
recent
example:
A
corporate
legal
team
grappling
with
a
six-month
contract
backlog
turned
to
an
ALSP
for
support.
Within
weeks,
the
ALSP’s
flexible
talent
cleared
the
backlog,
rebuilt
the
team’s
templates,
and
implemented
a
playbook
to
prevent
future
delays.
The
result?
Happier
business
stakeholders
and
a
newfound
respect
for
the
legal
department’s
adaptability.

Busting
Myths
About
ALSPs

Despite
their
growing
adoption,
misconceptions
about
ALSPs
persist.
One
of
the
most
common
is
that
flexible
talent
means
lower-quality
talent.
In
reality,
ALSP
professionals
often
come
from
elite
law
firms
and
have
extensive
in-house
experience.
They’re
not
“temp
workers,”
they
are
experts
who
choose
flexible
engagements
for
reasons
ranging
from
career
pivots
to
better
work-life
balance.

Take
it
from
Monica
Zent,
CEO
and
Founder
of
ZentLaw,
a
pioneer
in
the
ALSP
space.
“Many
of
our
professionals
are
Biglaw
veterans
or
seasoned
in-house
counsel.
They’re
not
just
filling
gaps
—
they’re
elevating
the
quality
of
the
work
being
done,”
she
explains.

Key
Benefits

Why
are
ALSPs
becoming
the
go-to
solution
for
so
many
legal
teams?

• 
  Efficiency
  and
  Cost-Savings
  
  
  ALSPs
  streamline
  onboarding,
  reduce
  costs
  compared
  to
  traditional
  models,
  and
  offer
  expertise
  tailored
  to
  a
  department’s
  specific
  needs.
  They’re
  particularly
  adept
  at
  scaling
  teams
  up
  or
  down
  as
  workloads
  fluctuate,
  ensuring
  departments
  aren’t
  overstaffed
  during
  quieter
  periods.
• 
  Access
  to
  Specialized
  Talent
  
  
  ALSPs
  can
  plug
  gaps
  in
  areas
  such
  as
  compliance,
  legal
  operations,
  or
  niche
  subject
  matters.
  They
  also
  bring
  diversity
  in
  background
  and
  perspective,
  enriching
  the
  decision-making
  process.
• 
  Alignment
  with
  Legal
  Tech
  
  
  As
  legal
  tech
  adoption
  grows,
  ALSPs
  provide
  a
  bridge
  between
  the
  technology
  and
  its
  optimal
  use.
  For
  example,
  they
  can
  help
  legal
  teams
  implement
  or
  optimize
  tools
  like
  CLMs,
  ensuring
  smoother
  workflows
  and
  better
  ROI.

The
‘Try-and-Buy’
Model

One
of
the
most
innovative
aspects
of
ALSPs
is
their
“try-and-buy”
model.
This
approach
allows
companies
to
test
talent
flexibly
before
hiring
them
full-time,
minimizing
hiring
risks
for
companies
and
offering
professionals
the
opportunity
to
assess
whether
the
organization
aligns
with
their
values
and
career
goals.

Zent
emphasizes
the
transformative
power
of
this
approach.
“In
my
experience,
this
model
has
transformed
legal
teams.
One
client,
initially
hesitant
about
ALSPs,
used
this
approach
to
rebuild
their
compliance
team.
After
a
successful
trial,
they
converted
two
ALSP
professionals
into
full-time
roles,
cementing
the
partnership’s
value.”

This
adaptability
showcases
how
ALSPs
can
integrate
seamlessly
into
legal
teams,
solving
immediate
challenges
and
contributing
to
long-term
operational
success.

How
Legal
Ops
Professionals
Can
Maximize
ALSPs

Legal
operations
professionals
are
uniquely
positioned
to
integrate
ALSPs
into
workflows
effectively.







Here
are
some
tips:

1. 
   Start
   Small:
   Pilot
   a
   project
   with
   an
   ALSP
   to
   build
   internal
   confidence
   and
   showcase
   quick
   wins.
2. 
   Address
   Resistance
   Early:
   Educate
   stakeholders
   on
   the
   quality
   and
   capabilities
   of
   ALSP
   talent
   to
   dispel
   misconceptions.
3. 
   Treat
   ALSP
   Professionals
   as
   Team
   Members:
   Onboard
   them
   with
   the
   same
   care
   as
   full-time
   staff
   to
   ensure
   seamless
   integration.
4. 
   Measure
   Impact:
   Use
   metrics
   like
   turnaround
   times
   and
   cost
   savings
   to
   highlight
   the
   ALSP’s
   contributions.

A
compelling
example
comes
from
a
client
who
used
ALSPs
to
tackle
a
contract
backlog.
The
partnership
resolved
the
issue
and
earned
the
department
an
Association
of
Corporate
Counsel
(ACC)
Value
Champion
Award,
showcasing
the
strategic
impact
of
ALSPs.

The
Future
of
ALSPs
in
Legal
Operations

Looking
ahead,
ALSPs
will
continue
to
shape
the
future
of
legal
operations.
As
artificial
intelligence
becomes
more
prevalent,
ALSPs
are
uniquely
positioned
to
integrate
AI
tools,
optimize
workflows,
and
manage
transitions.
The
collaboration
between
ALSPs
and
legal
ops
will
be
instrumental
in
navigating
these
changes.
Together,
they
can
push
the
boundaries
of
efficiency
and
redefine
what
it
means
to
deliver
value
in
the
legal
industry.

Monica
Zent
predicts,
“The
next
five
to
10
years
will
see
ALSPs
driving
innovation
in
AI
and
tech-enabled
solutions.
They’ll
be
on
the
frontlines,
helping
legal
teams
adopt
new
tools
while
maintaining
high-quality
work.”

ALSPs
are
no
longer
just
an
alternative
—
they
are
strategic
partners.
They
bring
flexibility,
expertise,
and
innovation
to
the
table,
helping
legal
departments
meet
today’s
challenges
while
preparing
for
tomorrow’s
opportunities.
For
legal
teams
still
viewing
ALSPs
as
an
“extra”
rather
than
an
essential,
it’s
time
to
rethink.
The
future
of
legal
operations
demands
agility,
and
ALSPs
offer
just
that.

Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day.

I
have
often
said
that
equality
among
people
in
the
United
States
will
not
occur
until
there
is
equality
in
the
education
of
all
of
our
children.
I
am
deeply
grateful
to
the
many
people
—
and
the
state
is
filled
with
them,
as
is
the
audience
—
who
have
sponsored
and
promoted
this
project
and
brought
it
to
life.

I
know
enough
Spanish
to
speak
it
with
family
and
friends,
to
write
simple
messages
and
to
read
and
enjoy
its
beauty,
but
I
wish
I
had
been
formally
educated.
The
children
who
will
attend
this
school
will
be
privileged
to
learn
and
be
proficient
in
two
languages
and
two
cultural
experiences.
That
is
an
incredibly
valuable
gift.

—
Justice

Sonia
Sotomayor,
in

prepared
remarks
given
at
the

Justice
Sonia
Sotomayor
Community
School,
a
public
school
in
Yonkers,
New
York,
that
will
support
students
in
grades
Pre-K
to
8.
Students
attending
the
Sotomayor
School
will
learn
in
both
English
and
Spanish
on
alternating
days.

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 Bluesky, X/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn.

This
morning,
a
US
District
judge
ordered
the
attorney
general
of
the
United
States
to
violate
federal
law.
That
judge
was

of
course
Aileen
Cannon,
who
has
done
literally
everything
she
could
to
shield
the
man
who
put
on
her
on
the
bench
four
years
ago
after
he’d
lost
the
presidency.

Yesterday,
Trump’s
henchmen
Walt
Nauta
and
Carlos
de
Oliveira,
who
remain
as
defendants
in
the
stolen
documents
case
until
their
boss
can
pardon
them
in
two
weeks,
asked
Judge
Cannon
to
do
them
one
more
solid.
Building
on
her
amazing

discovery
that
special
counsels
are

unlegal,
they’re
asking
her
to
enjoin
non-entity
Jack
Smith
and
his
non-boss
Attorney
General
Merrick
Garland
from
releasing
the
final
non-report
of
the
investigation
to
Congress.

They
argue:

Despite
this
Court’s
concluding
that
Smith
is
unconstitutionally
appointed
and
funded,
and
despite
ongoing
proceedings
against
Defendants
Waltine
Nauta
and
Carlos
De
Olivera,
Special
Counsel
Smith,
in
defiance
of
this
Court’s
rulings,
is
determined
to
have
the
final
word
by
pushing
forward
with
issuing
and
transmitting
a
final
report
under
28
C.F.R.
§
608(c)
(the
“Final
Report”)
which
Attorney
General
Garland
is
certain
to
make
immediately
public.
These
Defendants
will
irreparably
suffer
harm
as
civilian
casualties
of
the
Government’s
impermissible
and
contumacious
utilization
of
political
lawfare
to
include
release
of
the
unauthorized
Report.
The
Final
Report
relies
on
materials
to
which
Smith,
as
disqualified
special
counsel,
is
no
longer
entitled
access—
making
his
attempt
to
share
such
materials
with
the
public
highly
improper.

The
motion
attached
a
letter
from
Trump’s
attorney
Todd
Blanche,
in
his
usual
incendiary
style,
screeching
that
“Smith
lacks
authority
under
our
Constitution
to
issue
a
report
because
he
was
not
validly
appointed,
and
the
plain
terms
of
the
permanent
indefinite
appropriation
that
he
has
pillaged
for
more
than
$20
million
clearly
do
not
apply
to
his
politically-motivated
work.”

“The
release
of
any
confidential
report
prepared
by
this
out-of-control
private
citizen
unconstitutionally
posing
as
a
prosecutor
would
be
nothing
more
than
a
lawless
political
stunt,
designed
to
politically
harm
President
Trump
and
justify
the
huge
sums
of
taxpayer
money
Smith
unconstitutionally
spent
on
his
failed
and
dismissed
cases,”
he
went
on.
“Under
such
circumstances,
releasing
Smith’s
report
is
obviously
not
in
the
public
interest—particularly
in
light
of
President
Trump’s
commanding
victory
in
the
election
and
the
sensitive
nature
of
the
ongoing
transition
process.”

Shortly
after,
Trump
himself

moved
to
intervene
before
Judge
Cannon,
either
as
an
interested
party
or
a
friend
of
the
court,
he
cares
not
which.
He’d
like
everything
the
henchmen
asked
for,
plus
a
command
that
“following
full
briefing,
order
Smith
not
to
transmit
the
Report
to
the
Attorney
General,
and
order
the
Attorney
General
not
to
issue
any
aspect
of
Smith’s
missive
to
the
public.”

Meanwhile
at
the
Eleventh
Circuit,
which
would
appear
to
have
jurisdiction
over
this
matter
since
Judge
Cannon’s
dismissal
has
been
appealed,
the
henchmen
brought
a

motion
suggesting
that
the
appeals
court
might
like
to
step
back
and
let
Aileen
deliver
the
kill
shot.

If
the
district
court
does
not
take
action
on
Defendants’
emergency
request
within
24
hours,
Defendants
will
notify
the
Court.
Relatedly,
under
United
States
v.
Ellsworth,
814
F.2d
613,
614
(11th
Cir.
1987),
this
Court
may
now
relinquish
jurisdiction
to
the
district
court
so
that
further
proceedings
may
take
place
in
the
interest
of
judicial
economy
and
to
avoid
the
duplication
of
judicial
effort.
Hence,
Defendants
further
move
to
remand
to
the
district
court
for
consideration
of
whether
the
disqualified
Special
Counsel
may
lawfully
transmit
the
Final
Report—and,
if
so,
what
material
in
the
Final
Report
must
be
protected,
at
the
very
least
while
the
criminal
case
is
pending.

After
which
Judge
Cannon
summarily
granted
the
injunction,
without
even
bothering
to
pretend
to
go
through
the
four-factor
test
for
irreparable
harm,
likelihood
of
success,
etc.
She
simply
gestured
in
the
direction
of
“irreparable
harm
arising
from
the
circumstances
as
described
in
the
current
record
in
this
emergency
posture”
and
enjoined
the
DOJ
and
Attorney
General
Garland
from
releasing
the
report
to
anyone
outside
the
executive
branch.
Her
order
purports
to
restrain
release
of
the
entire
report,
even
the
parts
pertaining
to
crimes
committed
in
the
DC
Circuit,
where
special
counsels
are
decidedly

not
unlegal.
She
even
reserved
the
right
to
take
another
crack
at
it
after
the
appeals
court
weighs
in,
adding
that
“This
Order
remains
in
effect
until
three
days
after
resolution
by
the
Eleventh
Circuit
of
the
Emergency
Motion,
unless
the
Eleventh
Circuit
orders
otherwise.”

That
would
appear
to
contradict
settled
law,
since
the

special
counsel
regs
mandate
that,
at
the
conclusion
of
his
investigation,
the
SC
“shall
provide
the
Attorney
General
with
a
confidential
report
explaining
the
prosecution
or
declination
decisions
reached,”
and
“The
Attorney
General
will
notify
the
Chairman
and
Ranking
Minority
Member
of
the
Judiciary
Committees
of
each
House
of
Congress,
with
an
explanation
for
each
action.”

But
Judge
Cannon,
who
invented
a
whole
new
theory
of
jurisdiction
so
that
Trump
could
challenge
the
warrant
to
search
Mar-a-Lago,
has
never
been
one
to
concern
herself
with
such
niceties.

It
appears
that
we’ll
soon
find
out
whether
the
Eleventh
Circuit
cares
about
such
niceties,
since
it’s
ordered
the
DOJ
to
respond
by
10
a.m.
tomorrow.
They
kicked
Cannon
to
the
curb
last
time.
Let’s
see
if
they’ll
rouse
themselves
to
do
it
again.

US
v.
Trump [SDFL
Docket
via
Court
Listener]

US
v.
Trump
[11th
Circuit
Docket
via
Court
Listener]

Listen…
mandatory
arbitration
agreements
are
garbage.
They
invariably
favor
established 
parties
with
entrenched
power.
That’s
why
—
even
before
Disney’s
shady

attempt
to
use
one
in
a
wrongful
death
case
made
headlines
—
the
fight
against
them
has

been
a
focus
of
progressive
politics.

The
practice
of
mandatory
arbitration
agreements
in
Biglaw
has
also
had
its
moment
in
the
spotlight.
Back
in
2018,
Munger
Tolles
was

called
out
on
social
media
for
the
practice.
That
firm
changed
their
policy
as
a
result,
and
other
firms

voluntarily
did
away with
the practice.
The

People’s
Parity
Project
—
an
activist
group
for
law
students
and
new
attorneys
—
has
kept
the
pressure
on
the
industry.
And
their
tactics
have

proven
successful.
Of
course,
there
have
been
some
firms
that
have

held
fast,
despite
complaints.

But
mandatory
arbitration
employment
agreements
are
still
controversial
in
the
legal
industry.
Above
the
Law
received
information
that
a
high-profile
boutique
recently
made
the
decision
to
implement
mandatory
arbitration.
The
Elias
Law
Group,
the
firm
founded
in
2021
by
Democrat
election
lawyer
Marc
Elias
to
advance
Democratic
and
liberal
causes,
told
employees
on
December
19th
about
the
change
in
policy
(which
includes
a
class
action
waiver
and
non-disclosure
agreement),
and
only
gave
folks
through
December
30th
—
over
the
holidays
when
most
employees
are
taking
a
well-deserved
break
—
to
sign
the
agreement.

How…
awkward.
The
firm
that

bills
itself
as
the
one
to
“help
progressives
make
change,”
doing
something
so
distinctly
regressive.
Not
to
mention
that
firm
clients
have
introduced
legislation
to
ban
mandatory
arbitration.
Maybe
the
Elias
Law
Group
has
more
in
common
with
Republicans
than
they
think.

And
the
attorneys
at
the
firm
agree.
The
associates
and
counsel
at
the
firm
sent
a
letter
to
firm
leadership
in
response
to
the
policy
change,
noting
their
objection
to
the
policy
and
particularly
to
the
timing.

According
to
an
insider
at
the
firm,
the
request
for
a
meeting
with
leadership
about
the
agreements
was
“coldly
refused.”
The
firm
went
another
route,
per
a
tipster:
“Adopting
a
common
union-busting
tactic,
management
rebuffed
the
request
for
a
group-wide
conversation
and
began
calling
individual
attorneys
to
ask
who
was
organizing
the
resistance
and
to
pin
down
who
would
refuse
to
sign
the
agreement.”

The
initial
deadline
to
sign
the
arbitration
agreement
has
passed,
and
management
extended
the
deadline
to
January
10th.
But
insiders
say
the
firm
is
playing
hardball
to
get
associates
and
counsel
on
board.

Our
annual
seniority-based
salary
step-up
is
conditioned
on
signing
the
arbitration
agreement.
Attorneys
are
paid
once
a
month
at
the
end
of
the
month,
so
we
can
still
get
our
January
raise
if
we
sign
by
Jan
10.
Staff
are
paid
twice
a
month
however,
so
anyone
who
did
not
sign
by
the
beginning
of
January
forfeit
their
raise
for
the
first
January
paycheck.

Insiders
at
the
firm
report
sinking
morale
and
a
deep
suspicion
the
move
will
motivate
attorneys
who
want
to
use
their
law
degree
to
advance
progressive
ideals
to
leave
the
firm.
Just
goes
to
show,
just
because
the
firm
gets
paid
to
fight
the
good
fight
it
doesn’t
mean
those
are
the
values
they
manage
with.

Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of

The
Jabot
podcast,
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
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 or
Mastodon

@[email protected].

It’s
hard
to
tell
if
Rudy
Giuliani
is
playing
dumb,
or
if
he’s
lost
his
everloving
mind.
How
else
to
explain
the
guy
who
used
to
run
the
Southern
District
of
New
York
telling
a
federal
judge
that
he
didn’t
turn
over
his
emails
in
discovery
because
he
didn’t
consider
them
“communications”?

Giuliani
hoped
to
fend
off
sanctions
and
a
contempt
finding
in
the
$148
million

collection
action
filed
by
Ruby
Freeman
and
Shaye
Moss,
the
Atlanta
poll
workers
he
defamed.
He
failed
at
both.

Last
week
his
lawyer
Joe
Cammarata,
Staten
Island
divorce
lawyer
to
the
stars,

tried
to
convince
Judge
Lewis
Liman
to
let
Rudy
appear
remotely
due
to
“medical
issues
with
his
left
knee
and
breathing
problems
due
to
lung
issues
discovered
last
year
attributable
to
Defendant
Rudolph
W.
Giuliani
being
at
the
World
Trade
Center
site
on
September
11,
2001.”
This
request
went
over
about
as
well
as
his
November

petition
to
postpone
the
January
16
trial
so
Rudy
could
spend
that
week
in
DC
attending
inauguration
parties.
Which
is
to
say
that
the
judge
ordered
him
to
get
his
ass
into
court
last
Friday
and
explain
himself,
although
he
was
allowed
to
attend
Monday’s
hearing
remotely.

Giuliani’s
task
was
to
persuade
the
court
that
he

really
did
comply
with
his
discovery
obligations,
as
well
as
the
turnover
order
obliging
him
to
disgorge
his
worldly
possessions
to
Freeman
and
Moss.
The
problem
is
that
…

he
didn’t.

With
respect
to
discovery,
he
turned
over
a
handful
of
emails,
while
conceding
that
he
refused
to
let
his
prior
counsel
look
at
his
phone.
He
failed
to
object
to
interrogatories
and
instead
simply
refused
to
answer.
And
he
said
he
had
no
record
of
his
calendar
—
despite
the
issue
for
trial
being
his
claim
that
he
lives
in
Florida
and
is
entitled
to
claim
the
homestead
exception
for
his
Palm
Beach
condo.

As
for
the
turnover
order,
Giuliani
admitted
that
he’d
failed
to
clear
the
title
for
the
New
York
co-op
or
his
Mercedes,
purporting
to
be
flummoxed
by
the
Florida
DMV.
His
come-and-take-it
stance
on
his
bank
accounts
went
over
like
a
lead
balloon.
And
he
waved
one
of
the
watches
he’d
been
ordered
to
hand
over
at
the
camera,
claiming
that
he
didn’t
know
how
to
get
it
to
the
plaintiffs
because
he
didn’t
want
to
put
it
in
the
mail.

From
the
bench,
Judge
Liman
granted
the
plaintiffs’
motion
for
contempt
of
the
turnover
order,
but
said
he
needed
time
to
craft
an
appropriate
sanction.
As
for
discovery,
he
ruled
that
Rudy
was
totally
out
of
compliance
and
granted
the
request
for
an
adverse
inference
as
to
two

unanswered
interrogatories.

Interrogatory
No.
4:
Identify
any
financial,
medical,
or
legal
professional
or
firm
whom
you
have
consulted
during
the
period
of
January
1,
2020,
through
the
present.

Interrogatory
No.
8:
Identify
all
email
accounts,
messaging
accounts,
and
phone
numbers
that
You
have
used
during
the
period
January
1,
2023,
through
the
present.

Giuliani
will
now
be
barred
from
pointing
to
any
communications
or
financial,
medical,
or
legal
appointments
to
bolster
his
claim
that
he
actually
lives
in
Florida.
And
while
that’s

not
a
default
judgment
on
the
homestead
issue,
it
will
be
very
hard
for
Giuliani
to
point
to
anything
other
than
his
[cough]
indifferently
credible
testimony,
since
he’s
offered
up
zero
documents
and
his

dimwit
henchmen,
whom
he
planned
to
call
as
witnesses,
also
failed
to
comply
with
discovery.

It’s
not
clear
what
will
happen
if
Rudy
loses
the
case
next
week
and
has
to
turn
over
the
Florida
condo.
His
prior
counsel,
who
withdrew
in
November
because
their
client
refused
to
hand
over
his
phone
so
they
could
search
it
for
responsive
emails,
tried
to
build
in
a
backdoor.
They
argued
in
the
alternative
that,
if
the
Florida
claim
was
rejected,
Rudy
should
be
able
to
shield
his
condo
in
Manhattan
—or
whatever
portion
of
it
New
York
law
permits.
But
having
testified
that
he
affirmatively does
not
live
there,
and
having
handed
the
place
over
to
Freeman
and
Moss,
that
ship
seems
to
have
already
sailed.

Well
…

that’s
a
shame.

Freeman
v.
Giuliani [Docket
via
Court
Listener]

Liz
Dye lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
produces
the
Law
and
Chaos substack and podcast.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/zimbabwevigil/54250684770/sizes/m/

They
were
continuing
our
protest
against
Zanu
PF,
Zimbabwe’s
ruling
regime
responsible
for
the
human
rights
abuses
and
lack
of
democracy
in
Zimbabwe.
Thanks
to
the
valiant
few
who
came
today:
Shepherd
Gandanga,
Blessing
Harry,
Thabani
Themba
Khoza,
Patricia
Masamba,
Dumisani
Nyathi
and
Ephraim
Tapa.
Photos: https://www.flickr.com/photos/zimbabwevigil/albums/72177720323017503.

Thabani
Themba
Khoza
from
Eswatini
(formerly
Swaziland)
came
to
stand
in
solidarity
with
the
Zimbabwe
cause.
Thabani
travelled
all
the
way
from
Birmingham,
defying
warnings
of
snow
and
ice
on
the
UK
weather
front,
to
be
with
us.
He
is
also
reviving
the
Swazi
Vigil.

Speaking
to
Thabani,
it
is
clear
that
the
people
of
Zimbabwe
and
Eswatini
share
the
twin
problems
of
dictatorship
and
lack
of
democracy. While
Zimbabwe
is
grappling
with
a
military
dictatorship
that
took
over
following
the
demise
of
Mugabe’s
police
state,
Eswatini
suffers
the
dictatorship
of
the
absolute King
Mswati’s
monarchy. The
kingdom
does
not
allow
multi-party
democracy
and
anyone
found
to
be
pursuing
such
risks
arbitrary
arrest,
or
state
sponsored
abduction
and/or
murder.

In
Zimbabwe,
voting
is
a
futile
exercise,
as
results
are
pre-determined
in
favour
of
ZANU
PF,
by
the
Zimbabwe
Electoral
Commission,
an
appendage
of
the
ruling
party. For
these
reasons,
Vigil
activists
agreed
on
the
need
for
African
countries
to
join
hands
against
call
dictatorships,
until
the
people
are
free
and
justice
is
done. Vigil
activists
further
vowed
to
continue
standing
in
the
gap,
no
matter
how
bitter
or
treacherous
the
weather
was.

Yes,
indeed,
the
awful
weather
made
this
week’s
Vigil
a
difficult
proposition,
but
the
bravest
and
most
resolute
of
our
activists
survived
it. Thanks
to
Shepherd
Gandanga
who
travelled
all
the
way
from
Wales,
Dumisani
Nyathi
from
Southend-on-Sea,
Thabani
Khoza
from
Birmingham
and Blessing
Harry
from
Slough.
Special
thanks
to
Patricia
Masamba
who
brought
in
the
Vigil
stuff
in
time
for
the
set-up.

For
Vigil
pictures
check: http://www.flickr.com/photos/zimbabwevigil/.
Please
note:
Vigil
photos
can
only
be
downloaded
from
our
Flickr
website.

Events
and
Notices:  

• 
  Next
  Vigil
  meeting
  outside
  the
  Zimbabwe
  Embassy. Saturday
  18^th January
  from
  2
  –
  5
  pm.
  We
  meet
  on
  the
  first
  and
  third
  Saturdays
  of
  every
  month.
  On
  other
  Saturdays
  the
  virtual
  Vigil
  will
  run.
• 
  The
  Restoration
  of
  Human
  Rights
  in
  Zimbabwe
  (ROHR) is
  the
  Vigil’s
  partner
  organisation
  based
  in
  Zimbabwe.
  ROHR
  grew
  out
  of
  the
  need
  for
  the
  Vigil
  to
  have
  an
  organisation
  on
  the
  ground
  in
  Zimbabwe
  which
  reflected
  the
  Vigil’s
  mission
  statement
  in
  a
  practical
  way.
  ROHR
  in
  the
  UK
  actively
  fundraises
  through
  membership
  subscriptions,
  events,
  sales
  etc
  to
  support
  the
  activities
  of
  ROHR
  in
  Zimbabwe.
• 
  The
  Vigil’s
  book
  ‘Zimbabwe
  Emergency’ is
  based
  on
  our
  weekly
  diaries.
  It
  records
  how
  events
  in
  Zimbabwe
  have
  unfolded
  as
  seen
  by
  the
  diaspora
  in
  the
  UK.
  It
  chronicles
  the
  economic
  disintegration,
  violence,
  growing
  oppression
  and
  political
  manoeuvring
  –
  and
  the
  tragic
  human
  cost
  involved. It
  is
  available
  at
  the
  Vigil.
  All
  proceeds
  go
  to
  the
  Vigil
  and
  our
  sister
  organisation
  the
  Restoration
  of
  Human
  Rights
  in
  Zimbabwe’s
  work
  in
  Zimbabwe.
  The
  book
  is
  also
  available
  from
  Amazon.
• 
  
  Facebook
  pages:   

        Vigil : https ://www.facebook.com/zimbabwevigil 

        ROHR: https://www.facebook.com/Restoration-of-Human-Rights-ROHR-Zimbabwe-International-370825706588551/

ZAF: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Zimbabwe-Action-Forum-ZAF/490257051027515

The
Vigil,
outside
the
Zimbabwe
Embassy,
429
Strand,
London
meets
regularly
on
Saturdays
from
14.00
to
17.00
to
protest
against
gross
violations
of
human
rights
in
Zimbabwe.
The
Vigil
which started
in
October
2002
will
continue
until
internationally-monitored,
free
and
fair
elections
are
held
in
Zimbabwe.

Tibor
Nagy
isn’t
a
stranger
to
the
boutique
law
firm
life.
A
veteran
of
Susman
Godfrey,
Nagy
was
the
first
attorney
to
join
Stephen
Susman
in
setting
up
a
New
York
office
back
in
the
day.
As
2025
dawns,
Nagy
has
launched
his
own
firm

Nagy
Wolfe
Appleton
LLP
—
along
with
partners
Gregory
Wolfe
and
Tracy
Appleton
—
guided
by
the
“vision
of
an
early
Susman
Godfrey,”
building
a
tight-knit
collegial
team
working
on
high-stakes,
complex
commercial
litigation.

Not
even
a
week
into
the
year,
the
firm
is
already
busy
with
three
trials
lined
up
over
the
coming
months.

Boutique
firms
aren’t
new,
obviously,
but
the
launch
of
a
new,
small
firm
aimed
at
top-dollar
legal
work
is
a
reminder
of
the
growing
demand
for
this
business
model.

As
the
top
of
the
industry

consolidates
through
more
and
more
Biglaw
mergers,
boutique
firms
increasingly
fill
industry
gaps.
Bigger
firms
mean
bigger
lists
of
conflicts.
And
as
Nagy
points
out,
it’s
not
just
existing
clients,
but
“conflicts
that
they

hope
to
have,”
citing
instances
from
his
own
career
where
he
took
on
cases
because
big
firms
steered
clear
of
going
against
big
fish
clients
that
some
partner
dreamed
of
bagging
down
the
road.

Boutiques,
on
the
other
hand,
offer
freedom.
For
Nagy,
that
freedom
extends
to
both
sides
of
the
“v,”
with
a
mix
of
clients
on
both
the
plaintiff
and
defense
side.
“I
love
that
representing
a
plaintiff
can
change
someone’s
life.
And
I
have
great
experiences
on
defense
side,
but
wouldn’t
want
to
do
only
that.”
He
noted
that
staying
flexible
in
this
way
“gives
you
the
freedom
to
learn
about
both
sides
[of
areas
of
law]
that
you
wouldn’t
otherwise.”

But
it’s
one
thing
to
watch
Biglaw
firms
close
themselves
off
to
work
and
another
to
build
a
firm
that
can
seize
that
business.
Complex
commercial
litigation
is,
for
lack
of
a
better
term,
complex.
These
are
the
sorts
of
cases
that
bury
a
firm
in
documents
and,
by
extension,
overhead
as
the
firm
builds
out
enough
capacity
to
deal
with
it.
Yet
that
obstacle
doesn’t
seem
to
deter
boutiques
as
much
as
it
did
20
or
even
10
years
ago.

In
part,
this
a
story
about
legal
technology.
“I
think
it’s
fantastic
to
launch
right
now,”
Nagy
said.
“The
technology
makes
it
easier
to
do
everyday
things.”
Need
phones?
Zoom
will
get
you
a
number
cheap.
Need
401(k)s?
There’s
a
swift
solution
for
that.
“I
had
a
case
with
a
massive
volume
of
documents,
we
had
a
team
of
five
people
[within
the
firm]…
and
three
did
most
of
the
work.”
Citing
improved
discovery
tech
and
skilled
vendors
and
contract
attorneys,
he
explained
that
small
firms
are
getting
bigger
matters
done
with
confidence.

Though
one
of
the
best
ways
to
save
money
is
to
shrink
the
office
footprint.
“You
don’t
need
massive
office
space
if
you
allow
people
to
work
remotely
and
a
lot
want
to,”
he
said.
It’s
easy
to
stay
connected
and
the
pandemic
taught
even
the
most
tech-skeptical
lawyer
how
to
work
seamlessly
from
home,
so
there’s
no
reason
to
waste
resources
on
massive
offices.
As
long
as
the
firm
hires
people
who
don’t
need
someone
looking
over
their
shoulder,
the
only
facetime
you
need
is
on
the
smartphone.

Clients
appreciate
it.
“They
hire
the
lawyer,
not
the
firm,”
Nagy
observed
of
big
clients
showing
more
confidence
to
make
personal
hires
than
chase
brand
name
law
firms.
But
the
partner
at
the
top
of
the
matter
still
needs
to
deliver
a
team
that
clients
trust.
“What
we’re
selling
are
our
people,
their
talent,
their
drive,”
he
explained.
“We
try
to
find
really
smart
and
driven
people.”

And
if
it
can
save
the
client
some
money
to
get
top-notch
work,
all
the
better.

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 or

Bluesky
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.

Most
of
the
nation’s
lawyers
work
in
small
law
practices,
where
compensation
is
neither
as

standardized
nor
as
transparent
as
in
the
more
rarified
Biglaw
universe. 

Now,
in
partnership
with
our
friends
at
iManage,
we
are
pleased
to
present
the
results
of
our
2024
Solo
&
Small
Firm
Compensation
Survey. 

We
heard
from
more
than
750
lawyers,
whose
responses
have
been
aggregated
and

segmented
by
demographic,
including
position,
firm
size,
practice
area,
geographic
region,

year
of
law
school
graduation,
and
gender.

Download
it
for
their
insights
on
topics
including: 

• 
  Total
  annual
  compensation
• 
  Target
  bonus
  (as
  a
  percentage
  of
  base
  pay)
• 
  Actual
  bonus
  received
• 
  Average
  raise
• 
  Percentage
  of
  total
  compensation
  based
  on
  collections
• 
  Percentage
  of
  total
  compensation
  based
  on
  origination
  fees
• 
  Percentage
  of
  firm
  revenue
  derived
  from
  their
  book
  of
  business

Whether
you
are
looking
to
benchmark
your
current
pay,
considering
joining
a
small
firm,
or

launching
your
own
practice,
this
report
should
prove
a
useful
resource.

Download
Now