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

WHAT WE'RE WATCHING

TRUST THE PROCESS? - In our Law.com Trendspotter column earlier this week, we noted that it's likely only a matter of time before some law firms go too far in their quest to cure staffing inefficiencies, either by underestimating the value of their human administrative staffs or overestimating their lawyers' willingness to embrace technology and take on more nonbillable tasks. Seems like that may happen sooner rather than later. As Rhys Dipshan writes in this week's Law.com Barometer newsletter, law firms and legal departments' pandemic-fueled zeal for automating more of their workflows and processes will likely only intensify in the coming months and years. In many ways, that's not only necessary but long overdue. As Dipshan notes, the pandemic afforded law firm and in-house leaders with a much-needed, albeit unexpected, opportunity to rethink the way they and their colleagues traditionally worked. But, Dipshan also writes, automation's effect on the job market "won't be negligible—and can't be ignored": "Some tasks are just too complex, and some technology is just not mature enough to handle certain workflows. But the trajectory is already set. And the change automation brings will likely come faster, with a more immediate impact, than many have expected." To receive the Law.com Barometer directly to your inbox each week, click here.

CLASS WAR - Class actions by students seeking tuition reimbursements from colleges and universities that went remote during the pandemic continue to hinge on whether the schools were contractually obligated to provide in-person instruction. But judges across the country have so far had very different answers to that question. "I would have told you 15 years ago these claims have no chance, but today I can't be that predictive—you may see some judges who think, well, promises were made and representations made, there's some contract," Peter Lake, a professor at Stetson University College of Law in Gulfport, Florida, told Law.com's Amanda Bronstad back in October. Lake was definitely on to something, as a number of judges have done just that. But a few recent rulings have come down from courts who were decidedly more skeptical of plaintiffs' contractual claims. And as we explore in this week's Law.com Litigation Trendspotter column, with more than 200 of these class actions still pending around the country, there remains no clear path to success for either plaintiffs or defendants.

TOXIC HIV DRUGS? - Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro and Hilliard Martinez Gonzales filed a product liability class action Thursday in California Northern District Court against Gilead Sciences over the company's HIV drugs Viread, Truvada, Atripla, Complera and Stribild. The court action, alleging that the drugs contain the toxic compound tenofovir, was brought on behalf of more than three dozen plaintiffs who contend that they were injured by the medications. Counsel have not yet appeared for the defendant. The case is 4:21-cv-02539, Hawkins et al v. Gilead Sciences, Inc. Stay up on the latest deals and litigation with the new Law.com Radar.

EDITOR'S PICKS

A 'Thunderdome' Competition? Admitted Students Got Shut Out at This Law School Amid Deposit Frenzy