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

WHAT WE'RE WATCHING

TIMED TRAVEL - Some law firm leaders are ready to fly the friendly skies once again after nearly a year-and-a-half in lockdown, but there's still some trepidation about whether the reception will be as friendly once they land. "Everyone is not in the same boat," Bob Bodian of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Pompeo told Law.com's Patrick Smith when asked about his timetable for resuming travel. "Even if I were comfortable doing something, I don't want to push it on them. In order to meet, you need people to do it with. I don't feel like imposing my schedule on anybody until the fall, when things open up. It isn't just about me." Likewise, Kim Koopersmith, chairperson of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, said she longs to resume face-to-face interaction with members of her firm, but remains cognizant of factors outside of her own agenda. "I think we all have the same thoughts. It is great to reconnect, but it is also true that people are in different circumstances, and we need to be respectful of how people feel, because you are sending your own message by traveling," she said. "For me, though, I see in-person contact as vital, maybe more so than it was before the pandemic."

HECK NO, WE WON'T GO -  One group of attorneys that does not appear to be in a rush to physically go, well, anywhere is in-house counsel. As Law.com's Dan Clark reports, recruiters say candidates for in-house jobs have been less willing to relocate or go back to the office full-time, leading to more negotiations for hybrid or fully remote legal department roles. The reluctance to relocate comes as competition for top talent in the legal industry has increased. Corporate legal departments are competing with Am Law 200 associate salary raises, while law firms announce office return plans that often incorporate remote working. As a result, the more flexible a company can be, the more competitive it makes them for top talent, said Sonya Olds Som, a partner and in-house recruiter at Hedrick & Struggles in Chicago. Still, recruiters said, there is typically an expectation that GCs will be in the office and that expectation often extends to more junior lawyers. Not surprisingly, however, just how accommodating a potential employer is willing to be bears a directly relationship to how desirable a potential hire is. "Love finds a way," Som said jokingly. "When a potential employer finds someone they really want to hire, they will try to find a way to make it work."

FRUGAL GOURMET? - Attorneys at Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart on Monday removed a wage and hour class action against Gate Gourmet Inc. to California Central District Court. The suit was filed by Lavi & Ebrahimian on behalf of hourly, non-exempt workers employed by the defendant in California. Among other allegations, the suit accuses Gate Gourmet of subjecting hourly workers to unpaid medical screenings amid the COVID-19 pandemic. The case is 2:21-cv-05834, Moore v. Gate Gourmet, Inc. Stay up on the latest deals and litigation with the new Law.com Radar.  

EDITOR'S PICKS

• Lawyers Say More Sunscreen Recalls—and Lawsuits—Are on the Horizon By Amanda Bronstad

• Trump-Tied Lawyers Avoided Discipline Before. The Election Lawsuits Have Some Facing Consequences. By Jacqueline Thomsen

• Capitol Rioter's 8-month Sentence Will Be Lenient Compared to Other Offenders, Judge Says By Andrew Goudsward

• Ex-Jones Day Associates Can't Keep Firm's Leaders in the Dark in Dad Bias Suit, Judge Rules By Dan Packel

• How I Made Chief Legal Officer: 'Successful In-House Counsel Knows Which Questions to Ask,' Says Jeffrey Blockinger of CrossTower Inc. By Tasha Norman

WHILE YOU WERE SLEEPING

STUBBORN ENGINE -  In June, Google settled charges levied by the French Competition Authority that the search engine giant unfairly steered business to its own subsidiaries in online advertising in the French market, accepting a €220 million fine and vowing to adjust its business practices. The settlement marked the first time that Google had agreed to make changes as a result of an antitrust investigation, the competition authority said. But a month later, in a case that Google has been fighting for two years, the authority slapped the company with a €500 million fine for refusing to comply with an order to negotiate in good faith with French publishers groups over "neighboring rights" to use their content online. The authority ordered Google to start collective negotiations within two months to arrive at a fair payment for use of news content or face a daily fine of €900,000 after that deadline. Lawyers told Law.com International's Anne Bagamery that the company's unwillingness to compromise on the neighboring-rights issue speaks volumes about how it views that case's potential implications. "The neighboring-rights case doesn't just concern Google's practices. It is also a questioning by the authorities of a basic principle at Google: 'We never pay for the content we display,'" Julien Guinot-Deléry, an IP and media partner at Gide Loyrette Nouel in Paris, said during a recent interview. Google's "fear," Guinot-Deléry said, is that the French case—like a similar one in Australia—would open the door to actions around the world that could "threaten the very foundation of the way Google does business."

WHAT YOU SAID

"The maxim 'if you can see it, you can be it' is absolutely true, and that is what makes this so compelling."