Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
James Dakin, co-founder of Newmanor Law, explores the origins of the chargeable hour and some alternatives that firms could adopt.
When we set up Newmanor Law, we had a plan to shake up the commercial real estate market by embracing a new business model that puts the client at the centre of everything we do. And the best step any law firm can take to align with its clients is to abandon the billable hour.
Research shows that clients have three main criticism of lawyers: we don’t explain ourselves clearly, we don’t show empathy, and we are too expensive. All three of these problems are caused by a law firm culture steeped in timesheets and billable hours, and that culture is the villain of this tale.
The chargeable hour began as a tool for measuring a firm’s costs and was never intended to dictate pricing. Today it underpins a cost-plus charging model that drives legal bills relentlessly higher.
Management consultancy was born in the Victorian era. One of its first exponents was Frederick Wilmslow Taylor, a mechanical engineer from Philadelphia who developed efficiency techniques in manufacturing by bringing scientific principles to the factory floor to improve productivity. By 1920, Boston attorney Reginald Heber Smith was applying Taylorism to legal practice, popularising the timesheet and dividing the lawyer’s day into six-minute units. By the 1970s, time-based billing was ubiquitous, and in 2021 the legal profession is still in thrall to this century-old system.
At this point you may well be thinking: so what? Lawyers often agree capped and fixed fees, so that surely solves the high-cost problem? Sadly not.
The chargeable hour began as a tool for measuring a firm’s costs and was never intended to dictate pricing.
The effects of the chargeable hour run deep because firms use it to evaluate individuals’ performance. As an associate, the more hours you record, the bigger your bonus, the quicker you get promoted, the happier your bosses are. As a partner, the more time you write off, the more severe the beating you get from management and the less likely you are to move up the equity. Contrary to popular belief, lawyers are real people, intelligent ones, and they respond to the hours culture they find themselves in.
From a client’s perspective, the biggest issue with the hours system is that it penalises lawyers for being efficient. Instead of investing in technology to improve service delivery, as we do, hours culture encourages lawyers to take their time over things. Time and time again, at the end of a transaction, the lawyers ask for more money, the justification being that they had to spend more time than anticipated. Occasionally you may run over your estimate, but if you always do, you’re just lowballing.
In our business, we have turned this on its head. We judge our people on client satisfaction, not hours, and that drives an alignment with clients' interests that is lacking in the traditional model.
We never come back to the client on the eve of completion asking for more money. Instead we are thinking of the next transaction, and the one after that, because high profitability comes from high utilisation, not from the profit on any particular transaction. If that sounds counter-intuitive, consider the benefits of efficiency. The classic project management triangle balances time, cost and scope, the idea being that you can only improve one to the detriment of the others.
But our competitors are encouraged to take their time, so there is plenty of room for Newmanor Law to work faster and save costs within the standard scope, whilst also providing a better service.
I have one final thought for you. The billable hour started with Taylorism, a way of making industry more efficient that was abandoned by industry in the 1930s. The biggest criticism of scientific management is that it ignores human nature and assumes we are all robots following orders to the letter.
[ymal]
Firms still following Taylorism today should ponder whether its inhumanity is also the cause of the other two issues clients have with their lawyers – poor communication and lack of empathy. A culture that treats its people like robots is likely to make them behave like robots.
Amazon has filed a lawsuit against EU antitrust regulators for allowing the Italian competition watchdog to pursue its own case against the company, arguing that it should be undertaken as part of a wider EU investigation.
The case was filed in the Luxembourg-based General Court – the second-highest court in Europe – and seeks to annul the EU’s decision to allow the Italian Competition Authority to undertake its own investigation, according to a court filing.
“When the European Commission decides to investigate a matter, European law says that national competition authorities cannot investigate the same topic,” Amazon said in a statement. “This did not occur in this instance, as the Commission’s opening decision attempts to exclude Italy.”
The move follows the launch of a probe in November by the European Commission into how Amazon determines the winners of its “buy box”, which allows customers to add items from a specific retailer directly into their shopping carts. The probe will also investigate whether the eCommerce giant prioritised its own retail offers and marketplace sellers that use its logistics and delivery services.
The Italian Competition Authority’s case was launched in 2019 and was concerned with the same issue, but with a focus on the Italian logistics market.
The European Commission has said that it will defend its case in court.
[ymal]
When filing antitrust charges in November, the EU accused Amazon of gathering data from independent sellers utilising its platform to benefit its own retail arm, which would compete with those same sellers. It also raised concerns of the company’s “possible preferential treatment” of sellers that made use of its logistics and delivery services.
Amazon has disagreed with the European Commission’s allegations of anti-competitive practice, arguing that it represents “less than 1% of the global retail market” and has to compete with larger retailers in every country where it operates.
"Death benefit" is a term that is associated with life insurance. In Australia, It is a part of every individual’s superannuation policy and comes into effect only when he or she dies before receiving the benefits of this policy. All superannuation funds in Australia are required by law to include this type of insurance. The death of a loved one in the family can be emotionally and also financially draining if he or she was the main breadwinner in the family. This article aims to make clear the concept of the death benefit and who can claim it.
If you are the spouse, a dependent child, or a parent of the deceased in your family, it will likely be a period of grief full of financial and emotional stress for you. If you were partially or fully dependent upon the deceased for financial support, you are eligible to make a death benefits claim. The fund has to pay death benefits along with the lump sum that was assured to the dependent of the deceased contributing to the super. If you are a family member who was dependent upon the deceased, you are eligible to claim the death benefits. No matter what superannuation policy the deceased was contributing to, you can rest assured that it must have death benefits for their dependents. You can take the help of death benefits lawyers to get this money from the operators of the fund. In most cases, these benefits run into thousands of dollars.
In many cases of the death of the main breadwinner of the family, the government of Australia comes forward to help the bereaved family without even requesting help. This help is provided through Services Australia, an executive agency responsible for looking after the health and welfare of the Australian people. Besides temporary exemptions in many schemes, Services Australia also gives away the death benefits to the bereaved family. The amount of money given is dependent upon the following factors:
[ymal]
Death benefits under federal laws can only be given to a deceased person’s dependents. In case of no dependent, they are given to a legal personal representative (LPR). A non-dependent can receive death benefits only through an LPR. In such a scenario, it becomes important to know who is considered a dependent in case of deciding who is going to be the recipient of the death benefits:
If you are a dependent of the deceased in your family, you must take timely action to receive death benefits. If you are not approached by services Australia, you need to contact a qualified death benefits lawyer to get some monetary help through the super of the deceased. Claiming an experienced lawyer is the best way of receiving death benefits.
Syed Rahman of financial crime specialists Rahman Ravelli assesses the approaches being taken by investigators in the cross-border tax fraud probe.
For a practice that now seems consigned to history, Cum-Ex appears to be creating plenty of work for the future.
The scale of Cum-Ex trading and the amounts of money involved have always been fairly eye-watering. But now the statistics in relation to how authorities are looking to recoup that cash are also starting to look sizeable; especially in Denmark’s case.
The Danish tax authority SKAT has brought more than 500 lawsuits against individuals and organisations in Denmark, the UK, US, Dubai, Germany, Malaysia and Canada since 2018. The authority has said that by 2027 it will have spent an estimated $380 million in bringing cases to UK courts. In the US, 61 pension funds reached agreement with SKAT in 2019, repaying $239 million. In addition to this, SKAT director Gry Ahlefeld-Engel has stated her agency has been sharing intelligence with Danish criminal authorities. SKAT has also received information from the UK’s HM Revenue and Customs and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). Given the scale of the investigations, this is probably not surprising. But it is fair to say that Denmark has been stung hard and has decided to go all out to both recover what it believes it is owed and penalise those it believes are holding it.
The multi-million euro question, therefore, is will the Danish approach prove effective? With the amounts that are said to have been lost, there is much at stake. There are likely to be losses as well as wins as Denmark undertakes its mission. But to what, if any, extent the wins outweigh the losses remains to be seen.
For a practice that now seems consigned to history, Cum-Ex appears to be creating plenty of work for the future.
The sheer volume of lawsuits being filed means that pressure is being brought to bear on many, both individuals and corporates. This may well trigger recriminations, as those who find themselves in the litigation firing line look to shift the focus on to others. But that may well play into the hands of the Danish authorities. Yet it is impossible to assess how much the Danish can realistically hope to recover for their severely-diminished state coffers. Win, and the costs will be more than justified. Lose, and the losses will be an unpleasant sting in the tail of what has already been a painful period for the Danish.
But Denmark’s aim may not simply be to gain money it is owed. It may also be keen to send a message that it will always pursue those it suspects of economic wrongdoing. This is a message that was emphasised just a matter of weeks ago, when Denmark announced it had charged two British nationals with unlawfully obtaining more than $1.5 billion via Cum-Ex trading.
It should be remembered, however, that Denmark is far from the only country looking to hold to account those it believes are to blame for Cum-Ex. In Germany, which has lost an estimated 30 billion euros to this trading, a different approach is being taken. The authorities there are focusing on the banks that facilitated the transactions – adding them as confiscation parties to criminal cases against individuals. The Germans may consider that the banks will be the best opportunity to recover as much as possible, given the amounts which are said to have been lost.
They certainly haven’t shied away from pursuing individuals, as indicated by the enthusiasm for commencing investigations. Last year saw Frankfurt District Court open proceedings against six former employees of the defunct Maple Bank and two former Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer tax lawyers over tax evasion charges linked to Cum-Ex. Significantly, 2020 also saw Germany’s Bonn Regional Court rule that Cum-Ex is a criminal offence of tax evasion rather than legitimate use of a tax loophole.
[ymal]
In the UK, the FCA has stated that it is investigating 14 companies and six individuals. But those statistics are obviously subject to change. At present, the FCA is keeping its cards close to its chest. The scale of its intentions regarding Cum-Ex are still far from clear.
What is clear, however, is that the growing storm generated by Cum-Ex is spreading across the globe, and the number of jurisdictions where the authorities do show their hand regarding investigations is almost certain to increase. What we may also see is huge amounts of new information becoming available, due to the sheer numbers of lawsuits being filed across many jurisdictions. This could be something that the authorities relish, as it may well give them more ammunition to fire against both those they already had in their sights and new figures that appear worthy of attention as a result of such lawsuits.
It is fair to say that, at this stage, we do not know precisely how many individuals and corporates are on the radar of the authorities in various countries. But an educated guess would say that whatever the current number, it is likely to grow. And those who find themselves part of those statistics need to be doing all they can to ensure their response is the right one.
India’s technology ministry has publicly called on the Facebook-owned messaging service WhatsApp to withdraw previously announced alterations to its privacy policy.
In an email to WhatsApp head Will Cathcart dated 18 January, the ministry said the revised terms of the app’s privacy agreement “raise grave concerns regarding the implications for the choice and autonomy of Indian citizens”.
“Therefore, you are called upon to withdraw the proposed changes.”
WhatsApp’s updated privacy policy, which gained widespread media attention earlier this month, clarified that its users’ data could be shared with parent company Facebook. Shared data could include phone numbers, IP addresses, device locations and several other pieces of identifying information.
However, UK and EU users – who are covered by GDPR – will not have their data transferred to Facebook, which is US-based.
This Europe-exclusive protection was also raised in the technology ministry’s letter. “This differential and discriminatory treatment of Indian and European users is attracting serious criticism and betrays a lack of respect for the rights and interest of Indian citizens who form a substantial portion of WhatsApp’s user base,” the ministry wrote.
India is WhatsApp’s biggest market, with 400 million users, and its vocal criticism of the platform’s new policy played a role in its decision to delay the policy launch to May from February.
[ymal]
In 2020, Facebook invested $5.7 billion in the digital unit of Indian conglomerate Reliance in a move largely aimed at drawing India’s traditional shop owners to use digital payments through WhatsApp. The platform has further plans to expand in the country’s digital payments space, including by selling health insurance via partners.
“We wish to reinforce that this update does not expand our ability to share data with Facebook,” a WhatsApp spokesperson said on Tuesday. “Our aim is to provide transparency and new options available to engage with businesses so they can serve their customers and grow.”
Medical malpractice takes many forms, from surgical errors and misdiagnosis to birth injuries. If you get injured by a medical doctor, a nurse, a physician, or a dentist, you deserve compensation for health care expenses, damages, and lost wages.
Filing a personal injury claim is a complicated process. These cases are governed by complex statutes and require strong evidence in expert testimonies, independent medical examinations, and doctors’ records. Here is what you should do when you discover that your rights were violated during a medical procedure.
Most medical-related injuries can be resolved without long-term effects, and your doctor might provide treatment for free. Additionally, you are required by law to mitigate any further injuries and damages related to the accident by seeking medical attention, and failure to do so means you might not stand a chance to win a personal injury claim.
An attorney with vast experience in the medical malpractice field will assess your case and determine if you have grounds for a claim. If there are enough grounds for a lawsuit, an attorney will guide you in estimating the value of damages caused and advise on appropriate steps to follow. With expert testimonies and a lawyer by your side, you will avoid mistakes that can significantly reduce your claim.
The success of any personal injury claim hinges on the evidence you provide. The process is long and can be emotionally draining if the malpractice led to severe injuries or a loved one’s death. You must prove through evidence that:
Even after gathering all this evidence, you need a lawyer who can ensure it cannot be countered by the defense.
[ymal]
It is essential to file for a personal injury claim as soon as you realise that you deserve one. It is easier to collect necessary evidence if you launch your claim as soon as possible. Additionally, you will be psychologically motivated to seek justice for damages caused to you or your loved one if you file a claim when the events are still fresh in the memory.
Lastly, many states in the United States have a statute of limitations for personal injury claims. In Oklahoma, for instance, you have up to two years from the time of the alleged incident to file for a personal injury claim.
Medical malpractice can have devastating effects on the victim. You should document all the challenges that you have faced since the incident happened. It is advisable to have a medical malpractice journal to write down symptoms, pain levels, and treatments acquired.
Medical malpractice can rob you of a loved member of your family or leave you permanently disabled. Filing a personal injury claim not only ensures that justice prevails but also cautions medical practitioners.
Lawyer Monthly hears from Brian Mauch (BCOM LLB), CEO of BMC Networks, on the cloud and its advantages and drawbacks for the legal sector.
I have been involved in legal technology since 1993. I was the first student at my law school to bring a laptop to class, and used a dial-up modem to search precedents on QuickLaw - which was anything but. Instead of practicing law, I started a consulting business that provides an outsourced IT department for law firms. Over the last 27 years, I have seen the adoption of internet-based legal tools grow from email, to web-based research, and now to cloud servers and applications.
Some law firms are rightly concerned about cybersecurity in a cloud-based world and resist exposing their clients’ confidential data to the internet, instead keeping it in on-premise servers and server-based applications. However, who is to say that on-premise servers are more secure than hosted servers? When large organisations with huge IT budgets are still getting hacked, no computer is 100% secure. Except maybe one that is disconnected from the internet, powered off, unplugged, and buried in a lead case. Even then I have my doubts.
Regardless, it is clear to me that legal technology is inevitably moving to the cloud. I admit that it’s taken me many years to come to this realisation. I initially thought that there would always be room for two streams of legal IT: on one hand, the younger, brand new, or more nimble firms that enthusiastically adopted cloud tools and balanced security with scalability, and on the other, the tried-and-true on-premise approach favored by established law firms. But now I’m not so sure.
In the book 'The Big Switch: Rewiring the World from Edison to Google', author Nicholas Carr draws a parallel between the development of electricity and that of computing. He describes how computing is turning into a utility just as electricity did, thanks to the cloud. While companies that were early adopters of electricity had to purchase and run their own generators (analogous to on-premise data centers), the alternating current network eventually made the location of the equipment unimportant to the end-user. Carr asserts that increased internet bandwidth has now done the same for computing power.
When large organisations with huge IT budgets are still getting hacked, no computer is 100% secure.
Hosted cloud servers have been around for at least a decade, but they have not taken the legal market by storm. While some law firms chose to replace their on-premise data center with hosted servers, many quickly realised that while this removes a significant capital cost, it replaces that cost with an even more significant ongoing operational cost. And since the legal applications were unchanged, they were simply replicating their existing systems in the cloud. Not exactly a great leap forward, but instead more of a tentative half-step.
The major paradigm shift towards what I think of as full cloud computing did not happen until the last few years. Law firms have three major “silos” of data which all need to find homes in the cloud: email, files, and applications. Only once these three major components are fully in the cloud can a law firm have a truly serverless environment, and realise the inherent scalability, accessibility and cost savings benefits that come from a serverless environment.
Email is a no-brainer. Since most law firms operate on-premise Microsoft Exchange servers, it’s a natural migration to Exchange Online. It’s the easiest domino to fall, since this migration can be accomplished with very little impact to existing integrations with other applications. I’m not saying it’s easy, though. Email has developed into the primary work product for many lawyers, and migrating decades of critical email is a time-consuming and delicate matter.
You might think that the next domino to fall would be file storage, because it is a fairly straightforward matter of uploading files and folders into a cloud-based storage system. But you would be wrong. Files need to be accessed by applications, and old server-based applications don’t play nice with cloud-based storage. So cloud-based file storage (and a completely serverless environment) will usually have to wait until all of a firms’ existing legal applications are replaced by cloud equivalents.
Fortunately, true cloud-based legal applications have become mainstream in the last few years. These applications are hosted on the vendors’ servers, and are accessed via web browser or mobile apps. These applications do not require law firms to provide server storage, memory or processing power. They can integrate access to cloud-based file storage systems, so the last two dominoes can fall together. Proceed carefully, as migrating to new legal applications is not only a technical challenge but also a behavioral challenge. Resistance to change is a formidable force in the legal industry, and overcoming that resistance is necessary for a successful migration.
[ymal]
To keep data secure, the front line of defense for any cloud system is encryption. Law firms need to look for SOC II accredited solutions, which have been tested against strict criteria for confidentiality, privacy, security, availability, and processing integrity. A quality service provider can identify and deploy the appropriate secure solutions to allow any organisation to benefit from the agility and low cost of the cloud, while maintaining the security of the environment.
Once a law firm has migrated to a full cloud (ie. serverless) environment, with email, files and applications all being cloud-based and hosted by vendors, they can truly benefit from economies of scale and realise all the advantages offered by the cloud. As more and more law firms take this leap, it will no longer make financial sense for software vendors to produce or support server-based applications for the dwindling number of firms still using them, and only cloud-based applications will remain.
If there are no server-based applications left, then law firms won’t need to provide their own servers at all, either on-premise or hosted. They will instead be able to leverage the cloud vendors’ servers. Using the analogy of Carr’s “The Big Switch”, computing will have become like a utility, driving the cost of IT down significantly for law firms. This is why I think that the transition of legal technology to the cloud is inevitable.
When accepting a job offer, there are quite a few things to consider to ensure the process goes smoothly. First, check to see how much time you have to respond and use that time to make an informed decision. Make sure that you have agreed on the job title and fully read and understand the responsibilities in the job description. It is also a good idea to talk to your future supervisor and coworkers to get an idea of the environment.
An important part of accepting a job is negotiating salary offers, including planning to present counter-offers. Being prepared for this and doing research ahead of time can prevent common mistakes in salary negotiations and the understanding of your conditions of employment.
Recently on-boarded employees can get caught up in the whirlwind of the job interview process and slip up on salary negotiations by settling, revealing how much they would accept, focusing on need rather than value, not being prepared or well-researched, making a pitch too early, accepting or declining a job offer too early, taking negotiations personally, and not asking for the final answer in writing.
Mistakes are not only common in salary negotiations, but in the signing of an employment contract as a whole. Rushing the process without taking time to understand the fine print, which is written by an attorney to shift risk away from the employer, can put employees at legal risk and even impair their ability to move between employers.
Aside from understanding legal risk, it is critical to understand your employer’s expectations and your job duties. It is necessary to review an employment contract with a fine-toothed comb to avoid mistakes and completely understand the detailed ins and outs before signing or negotiating a contract. For this reason, it is wise to loop-in a legal professional for the employment contract review process, as a skilled professional can explain the details of the contract and their implications.
[ymal]
An employment contract contains essential items about the conditions of your employment that should be completely understood and considered with the help of a legal professional before signing. A contract should include a detailed job description, which an employee should request if the description is too vague.
Having clearly outlined duties gives employers less leeway when claiming an employee isn’t doing their job correctly. Highly specific or unreasonable grounds for termination are another concern. The terms and conditions of compensation and benefits are some of the most important aspects of an employment contract. It is essential that this part of the contract is clearly outlined so that it is understood how compensation operates, including benefits, bonuses, profit-sharing plans, commission structures, and equity awards.
Utilising the assistance of a legal professional to understand the legal jargon present in contract clauses is a key step in fully grasping what that jargon implies. Non-compete clauses restrict an employee’s ability to work within the same industry in the same geographical location for a period of time following termination. More specific non-compete clauses are easier to enforce but are not as limiting when it comes to working for a different company.
Non-solicit agreements, which prevent “poaching” former co-workers or clients from the previous job, may also be present in a contract and should be considered carefully. No-hire agreements are similar, preventing you from hiring old co-workers at a new company considered a competitor.
However, there will be instances that the victim can be heavily injured and can’t fight the battle on their own. There are plenty of questions, such as “What will happen next?”, “Will he/she get justice after all?” and more importantly, “Can someone else file a personal injury claim on behalf of them?” To answer and help you with the last question, it can certainly be done.
Take a look at this guide so you can understand the various steps that need to be taken.
If the injured person cannot make any decisions such as medical and legal judgment on their own, the court will assign a guardian to stand in for them. If you don't establish your guardianship, you can't file a personal injury claim for the victim. You have to provide background information and other details to the court before they approve your guardianship and, furthermore - give you the right to sue. If the guardianship is already established and you are already named as the legal guardian, you can easily proceed to the next step.
The documentation of the events and proofs of what occurred will be the strongest key when filing a claim. You have to gather all the evidence so you can prove that your loved one has the right to compensation. Start with property damage documentation, CCTV of what happened (if applicable), and dashboard cam if there's vehicle damage. CCTV's and dashboard cameras are very common not only in the United States but in every part of the world, and that will make it easier for you to obtain these.
Next are photos or videos of the victim's accident and injuries, followed by medical bills and records. Also attached expense receipts, insurance documents, proof of lost wages, and prognosis of recovery. How much compensation you can demand and get will depend on how well and how extensive the evidence is.
[ymal]
This step is crucial, and you should seek legal counsel to help you communicate with the other party. Road accidents such as car, truck, and motorcycle accidents are the most common reason for injuries caused to other people. Massachusetts, Maine, Maryland, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and South Carolina are in the top states this 2020 with most road accidents. The Greensboro legal experts mention that if you can prove that the four core components to a negligence claim are present, you can try and resolve it by a settlement. The talk should be between the plaintiff (the person who filed the claim) and the insurance company or any legal counsel of the defendant (the person against whom the claim is filed).
As mentioned, it is crucial that you have a legal representative to handle all the communication for you. This is to ensure that all of the information is correct and to protect you from doing or saying anything that can affect your claim.
Not all claims can make it into a trial, but if the settlement didn't work. You should start preparing everything to hold the responsible party accountable. As previously discussed, look for a law firm that will help you stand up for your rights and help you pursue the justice and compensation you deserve.
If another person's wrongdoing has seriously injured your loved one, it is fair to fight for them. The accident alone is traumatising for them, and a legal battle should not add to a burden. Research or ask for legal help to make everything easier for you. This way, you can ensure that someone is fighting for you and will do everything for you and your loved one.
The National Rifle Association (NRA) on Friday filed for Chapter 11 protection in federal bankruptcy court in Dallas, a move which could potentially allow the organisation to reincorporate in Texas and escape a lawsuit by New York’s attorney general seeking its dissolution.
In a message to the group’s members and backers on Friday, NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre stressed that its decision to file for bankruptcy was not due to financial problems.
"Don't believe what you read from our enemies. The NRA is not 'bankrupt' or 'going out of business’,” the statement read. "We are leaving the state of an attorney general who, just a few months ago, vowed to put us out of business through an abuse of legal and regulatory power.”
“Subject to court approval, the NRA is pursuing plans to reincorporate in the State of Texas,” the statement continued. “Texas values the contributions of the NRA, celebrates our law-abiding members, and joins us as a partner in upholding constitutional freedom.”
In August 2020, the NRA was sued by New York Attorney General Letitia James, who accused LaPierre and three other senior officials of violating corporate laws by diverting funds for their own personal benefit. James alleged that the NRA leadership’s use of the organisation as a “personal piggy bank” to fund their lavish lifestyles had cost the organisation $64 million over three years.
[ymal]
In her lawsuit, James also said that the NRA’s incorporation as a nonprofit in New York gave her authority to seek its dissolution.
“The NRA’s claimed financial status has finally met its moral status: bankrupt,” James said in a statement released on Friday. “We will not allow the NRA to use this or any other tactic to evade accountability and my office’s oversight.”
