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

WHAT WE'RE WATCHING

DON'T CALL IT A COMEBACK - As we noted in yesterday's Morning Minute, firms are having a heck of a time trying to figure whether, when and how to bring their fried lawyers and staff back into the office. As Law.com's Lizzy McLellan writes in this week's Law.com Barometer newsletter, arriving at those decisions is not so much about making calculations as it is about fortune-telling. While some firms are eyeing fall for a return to physical space, others have no set timeline in mind yet. "Now that so many lawyers and business professionals have been fully remote for so long, it's easy to talk about getting back on public transit and flooding into the office, but it might require a bit of an ease-in period," McLellan writes, adding that going all-in on the wrong decision could have real consequences: "Setting strict requirements for office attendance runs the risk of turning some people off, which could make them consider a move to a more flexible-minded law firm. With the talent market being as competitive as it is right now, that's a risk few firms are likely to take." To receive the Law.com Barometer directly to your inbox each week, click here.

NUCLEAR VERDICTS NEUTRALIZED? - The pandemic appears to be tempering public disdain toward two of the plaintiffs bar's most frequent targets: the health care and pharmaceutical industries. Now it's anyone's guess whether that might impact jury verdicts going forward, but there's no shortage of theories. Between widespread praise of frontline health care workers during the ongoing global health crisis and Big Pharma's recent rollout of COVID-19 vaccines that finally offer a glimmer of hope after a year-plus in lockdown, there is evidence to suggest that the previously unflattering narrative around those industries is beginning to soften. But how might that shifting societal attitude impact jurors in med mal and products liability cases? Will the pre-pandemic trend of nuclear verdicts start to reverse course? As we explore in this week's Law.com Litigation Trendspotter column, some members of the plaintiffs bar appear to be banking on jurors putting aside their personal feelings to focus solely on the facts at hand, but others are much more wary. Before we dive in, I'm interested to hear what you think: Will softening attitudes toward the health care and pharmaceutical industries during the pandemic impact jury verdicts in cases against defendants in those industries? Let me know at [email protected].

DRUG CHARGES - Three trade groups representing pharmacies filed a lawsuit Thursday in Washington Western District Court that challenges a decision made by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on the day before President Joe Biden's inauguration. The suit centers on a decision approving Washington state's Medicaid reimbursement rate for pharmacy services. Quarles & Brady and Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt brought the case on behalf of the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, the National Community Pharmacists Association and the Washington State Pharmacy Association. The matter is 2:21-cv-00576, National Association of Chain Drug Stores et al v. Becerra et al. Stay up on the latest deals and litigation with the new Law.com Radar.

EDITOR'S PICKS