Want to get this daily news briefing by email? Here's the sign-up.

WHAT WE'RE WATCHING

RAISE ALARM - Law firms may be poised to end 2020 on an unexpected high note, but for many in-house attorneys it's been a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad year. As a result, to some clients, watching their outside counsel dole out double bonuses to associates is not exactly the best look, especially when those bonuses are tied to billable hour targets. It's like watching your mechanic pull up in a new Ferrari the day after he charged you five grand to replace your transmission. "What is catching the attention of in-house counsel seem to be providing additional incentives on top of current incentives. And some of this may be based on hourly billing," Jason Winmill, a managing partner at Argopoint who advises corporate legal departments, told Law.com's Andrew Maloney, adding, "In-house counsel looking at the [the bonus] situation may be a bit dismayed and disappointed to see that while they are often in a tough position, outside counsel seems to be spending resources on bonuses in a way that just doesn't seem to be consistent with the current position of many in-house legal departments."

THE MISSING LINK? -  Facebook may be the premier platform for reaching your cousin who shares QAnon posts, but LinkedIn seems to have emerged as the favorite for law firms that want to reach current and prospective clients. "There are a few key areas where law firms are finding value and leveraging the platform for marketing," Andrew Kaplan, a director of product marketing at LinkedIn, told Law.com's Patrick Smith. "The first is thought leadership. Law firms are targeting a specific audience or segment to promote their expertise and create brand awareness and interest within that group. The second major group is demand generation. They are looking for quality leads for potential clients." According to numbers provided by LinkedIn, the company's paid advertising and marketing from the legal sector is up 68% year-over-year, and 50% the last six months over the previous six.

DUKE IT OUT - An insurance lawsuit filed by Duke University disputing denied coverage for litigation costs in two underlying antitrust matters was removed to federal court on Monday. Counsel at Bailey & Dixon, representing Endurance Risk Solutions Assurance Company, removed the case to North Carolina Eastern District Court. The underlying lawsuits alleged that Duke and the University of North Carolina conspired to suppress the wages of medical and other faculty through "no-poach" agreements. Duke, however is apparently not messing around, having hired both Womble Bond Dickinson and Covington & Burling to represent it in the insurance lawsuit. The case is 5:20-cv-00672, Duke University v. Endurance Risk Solutions Assurance Company. Stay up on the latest litigation with the new Law.com Radar.

EDITOR'S PICKS

Houston's Susman Godfrey Scales Back Bonus but Still Beats Big Law