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

|

WHAT WE'RE WATCHING

PERSUASIVE AUTHORITY - Last month, Sullivan & Cromwell told lawyers and staff it was "strongly encouraging"—but not mandating!—a return to the office. That approach garnered some criticism from industry observers for potentially sending mixed messages. Still, a number of other firms appear to be taking a similar tack. As Law.com's Bruce Love reports, Arent Fox and Baker McKenzie, for example, both say they expect to allow for some level of flexibility when it comes to post-pandemic remote work but, like a number of other firms, appear reluctant to define exactly what that means, instead emphasizing individual responsibility in their recently announced office return policies. Colin Murray, CEO of the North America region at Baker, said coming back to the office is "voluntary," but "we're hoping people follow the guidance of coming in at least three days a week." Meanwhile, when Arent Fox's offices reopen fully Sept. 6, the firm is expecting staff and lawyers to maintain a "routine physical presence" there, but isn't planning to specify how many days they must show up each week. Instead, firmwide managing partner Cristina Carvalho said, the firm is asking its people to exercise "good judgment."

POLITICAL REPRESENTATION - Barnes & Thornburg announced June 4 that it has parted ways with labor and employment partner Alec Beck after the attorney put his name on a new federal lawsuit on behalf of prominent Donald Trump supporter/conspiracy theorist/comfy pillow tycoon Mike Lindell without prior authorization. The incident attracted a firestorm of attention and criticism toward Barnes & Thornburg on social media, but, as Law.com's Dan Packel reports, the episode is indicative of a larger trend in which more and more law firms are seeking to vet their lawyers' engagements for potential political fallout in addition to client conflicts. "Firms don't want to restrict the freedom of their people to believe whatever they want to believe," said former Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe chairman and CEO Ralph Baxter. "But now, there are business consequences of taking positions on issues that are themselves political, so it's going to be harder for firms to navigate that."

PERSONA NON GRATA - Nestle, the global food and beverage company, was hit with a trademark infringement lawsuit Monday in California Central District Court. The court action, filed by Pryor Cashman on behalf of Persona Cosmetics Inc., brings claims in connection with the defendants' marketing of Persona Nutrition, a subscription vitamin delivery service acquired by Nestle in 2019. Counsel have not yet appeared for the defendants. The case is 2:21-cv-04644, Persona Cosmetics, Inc. v. Societe Des Produits Nestle S.A. et al. Stay up on the latest deals and litigation with the new Law.com Radar. 

|

EDITOR'S PICKS

Stanford Law Seeks to Distance Itself From Stanford University in Federalist Society Free-Speech Debacle