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


|

WHAT WE'RE WATCHING

NO VACANCY - As law firms look for ways to decrease their physical footprints amid the rise of remote work, they're increasingly exploring hoteling options, in which lawyers and staff don't have permanently assigned workspaces. But while reducing the overall square footage of a firm's space can be a welcome profit-booster, it remains to be seen whether partners will ultimately be willing to part with their own personal offices altogether. In this week's Law.com Trendspotter column, we examine the variety of reasons that hoteling may be a difficult sell for many senior partners—from ego to confidentiality to the fact that it's maybe kind of gross. I'm interested to get your thoughts: is hoteling and office sharing the wave of the future or will partners ultimately push back on the prospect of losing their personalized spaces? Let me know at [email protected].

EARLY BIRD BONUS - It appears "bonus season" is now a yearlong event. As Law.com's Christine Simmons reports, Davis Polk & Wardwell is again raising a scale for associate bonuses, announcing spring and fall bonuses that together exceed bonus installments that were set last week by Willkie Farr & Gallagher. Davis Polk told associates and counsel on Monday that it will pay them a bonus in April as well another round of fall bonuses this September. Further, the firm said in an internal memo that it expects to pay year-end bonuses that will be at least the same amounts as last year's. Last Friday, Willkie said it will dole out special bonuses to its associates ranging from $7,500 to $40,000. The firm said it will pay out the bonuses in two installments, in split payments on June 30 and Sept. 30. Davis Polk's spring and fall bonuses together for each associate and counsel will be 60% higher compared with Willkie's combined payments.

LEMON LAWSUIT? - Vroom Inc., an e-commerce platform for used car sales, CEO Paul J. Henessy and CFO David K. Jones were hit with a securities class action Monday in New York Southern District Court. The suit, filed by Glancy Prongay & Murray, alleges that Vroom failed to disclose certain weaknesses in its operations and sales practices. Counsel have not yet appeared for the defendants. The case is 1:21-cv-02477, Zawatsky et al v. VroomInc. et al. Stay up on the latest deals and litigation with the new Law.com Radar.


|

EDITOR'S PICKS

'Slaveholder' Comment Prompts CUNY Law Dean's Departure