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

WHAT WE'RE WATCHING

WANT YOU BACK - Law firms have already started to discover that, while there's more than one right away to bring people back to the office post-pandemic, there are also plenty of potential wrong ones. As the hope of getting back to some semblance of normalcy after nearly a year and a half in lockdown grows, some firm leaders are getting antsy to start bringing attorneys and staff back together in the office, at least for part of the week. But, as we explore in this week's Law.com Trendspotter column, the method—and perhaps more importantly—the message firms choose can impact their ability to attract and retain talent. After all, in an industry as hypercompetitive as legal, there's bound to be paranoia about the potential consequences of failing to read between the lines of office return memos from upper management. For many lawyers and staff, a phrase like, for example, "strongly encouraged" is likely to be construed as code for "required," even if that was never the firm's intention—and that kind of miscommunication can have serious consequences. Before we dive in, I'm interested to hear what you think: Should firms be mandating that people return to the office at some point or should they be allowing for increased flexibility going forward? Either way, what should their messaging look like? Let me know at [email protected].

JUST OUT OF FRAME - Litigators, judges and court administrators may have learned to appreciate some aspects of remote proceedings during the pandemic, but the case of a New Jersey Zoom trial verdict that was just reversed on due process grounds highlights some of the problems that can arise when not everyone is in the same room. As Law.com's Charles Toutant reports, the case concerned a man, identified in court documents as D.M.R., who sought a restraining order against a woman, identified as M.K.G., after their dating relationship came to an end. On appeal, M.K.G. claimed her due-process rights were violated. She pointed out that D.M.R. admitted that his mother was in the room with him during his testimony, and before her own testimony. The appeals court ruled on April 28 that "the presence of plaintiff's mother throughout this trial was problematic" and that the witnesses should have been sequestered during trial. The ruling is a reminder that "when hearings are conducted by Zoom, it's easy for mischief to occur," said Robert Holzberg, a former Connecticut Superior Court judge. The case "reaffirms the need to be meticulous in the planning process," which means giving detailed instructions to the parties appearing remotely about what they can and cannot do, he said.

TOUGH COOKIE - Husch Blackwell and White & Case filed a product liability lawsuit on behalf of Nestle USA on Monday in Kansas District Court. The lawsuit, targeting Great Western Manufacturing Co., accuses Great Western of selling a faulty industrial flour sifter to Nestle after several consumers reported finding rubber pieces of the sifter in Nestle cookie dough in the fall of 2019. Attorneys have not yet appeared for the defendants. The case is 2:21-cv-02225, Nestle USA, Inc. v. Great Western Manufacturing Co., Inc. Stay up on the latest deals and litigation with the new Law.com Radar.

EDITOR'S PICKS

Full-Ride Law School Scholarships in Hand, These 10 Black Students Represent the Future of Civil Rights Law