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

WHAT WE'RE WATCHING

GOOD LOOKING OUT -  "Vision"—it's in the Meaningless Corporate Jargon Dictionary (Third Edition) after "culture" and "synergy." Except that, like culture, vision actually does mean something at a law firm—or at least it should (sorry synergy, you're still useless). As Kent Zimmermann and Peter Zeughauser recently noted in their "outperformers" series on what separates the most successful law firms from the rest, the vision informs the strategic plan, which informs tactical execution, which leads to success. But, as several attorneys and consultants told Law.com's Patrick Smith, having a firmwide vision—and, more importantly, maintaining that vision—can be incredibly challenging, especially because it can mean having to say no to a lot of people, a lot of the time. The payoff, however, can be actual revenue growth. "Every so often it is good to ask: Do we have a common purpose?" consultant Tim Corcoran told Smith, adding, "For law firms, reassuring that purpose can make sure they don't leave money on the table."

YOU CAN PRINT THAT - Increased litigation over 3D printing is on the horizon, lawyers told Law.com's Michael A. Mora. Why? Because the technology is getting cheaper thanks to rising demand, which means more people who have no business 3D printing are going to go into the business of 3D printing. Joshua R. Brown, a Greenberg Traurig partner who's part of the legal team bringing a trademark and trade dress infringement case in Florida federal court involving a stylish car product replicated using 3D printer technology, said the reduced cost of design and manufacturing "has also reduced barriers to entry." "While 3D printing has many legitimate uses, some will use the technology to copy the designs, trademarks, and trade dress of others without first contacting them," he said.

MISLABELED? - Samsung Electronics and Samsung Electronics America were slapped with a lawsuit Friday in California Central District Court. The suit was filed by Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo on behalf of record label S10 Entertainment and Media. The complaint alleges that Samsung's S10 smartphone series infringed on S10′s trademark. Counsel have not yet appeared for the defendants. The case is 2:21-cv-02443, S10 Entertainment and Media LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. Stay up on the latest deals and litigation with the new Law.com Radar.

EDITOR'S PICKS

Bust Out Those Caps and Gowns. In-Person Commencement Is Back at Some Law Schools