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

WHAT WE'RE WATCHING

FLEXIBLE MEANING  - As more law firms cement their office policies, they are defining "flexibility" in a variety of ways, including "not actually flexible at all." For example, while many firms are mandating office attendance on any two or three days of the week and some aren't requiring any days in the office, a third set is dictating which days attorneys and staff must show up. But as Law.com's Patrick Smith reports, all three of these approaches have one thing in common: they're rubbing some people the wrong way (though that third option is particularly unpopular). In general, most firms are falling into a "hybrid light" policy, or a more flexible arrangement for remote/in-office work that doesn't mandate specific days and offers some structure around when people should and shouldn't be in, said Alisa Levin, legal recruiter and founder at Greene-Levin-Snyder Legal Search Group. "At this point, the inflexible option is the hybrid with rules," she said. "And yes, people are griping about it. I suspect we will see a lot of resumes soon citing their firm's lack of flexibility as a reason for leaving." In an informal survey, Law.com writers polled attorneys on their firms' hybrid work policies and how they felt about them. Most of the more than 350 respondents indicated that they would not work at law firms that mandated more than three days of in-office attendance and roughly half said three required days of attendance would negatively impact their decision to stay at a firm.

KNOW YOUR WORTH - Wall Street attorney-turned-corporate-counsel Conway Ekpo created the Black In-House Counsel Group for lawyers who, as he puts it, are "often feeling isolated and on an island in their own respective legal departments." A few years ago, Ekpo began asking the group's members to respond anonymously to a survey about their pay. The group uses the data to compile informal, annual compensation reports as a resource for in-house counsel who don't know what their peers are earning. "You're just kind of guessing and betting against yourself if you don't really have the data points," Ekpo, director and associate GC at fintech startup Brex Inc., told Law.com's Phillip Bantz. This year's pay survey took place in early April and was based on responses from 94 Black in-house lawyers throughout the U.S. in a wide range of industries, according to Ekpo. And the results showed some pay disparities that were, apparently, quite eye-opening. "We've had multiple people come back to us through private messages and say, 'Hey, listen, I really appreciate this. This really let me know I was under-selling myself and that I needed to make a change,'" Ekpo said. "We've had several people who have taken steps to interview for new jobs. Some people have already quit their jobs. That's what we're aiming for—to be able to arm people with that knowledge and let you take it from there."

WHO GOT THE WORK?℠ - Dycom Industries, a provider of contracting and engineering services, sued the Pension, Hospitalization & Benefit Plan of the Electrical Industry on April 22 in New York Southern District Court to vacate an arbitration award. The lawsuit, filed by Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, contends that the arbitrator incorrectly found that work performed by a Dycom subsidiary did not qualify for a building and construction industry exemption from withdrawal liability under ERISA. The fund is represented by Virginia & Ambinder. The case is 1:22-cv-03303,  Dycom Industries, Inc., v. Pension, Hospitalization & Benefit Plan of the Electrical Industry . >>Read the complaint on Law.com Radar and check out the most recent edition of Law.com's Who Got the Work?℠ column to find out which law firms and lawyers are being brought in to handle key cases and close major deals for their clients.

OVERPRICED COFFEE? - Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher sued BRC Inc. on Thursday in New York Southern District Court in connection with the coffee company's Feb. 2022 de-SPAC merger with SilverBox Engaged Merger Co. The lawsuit brings claims on behalf of Tang Capital Partners LP, which accuses BRC of breaching a warrant agreement that entitled holders to buy shares of the publicly traded company 30 days after the merger at a share price of $11.50. Tang Capital claims that BRC improperly blocked its attempts to exercise its warrants and sell shares at a higher price as the stock rose to a high of $34 earlier in April. Counsel have not yet appeared for the defendant. The case is 1:22-cv-03476, Tang Capital Partners, LP v. Brc Inc. Stay up on the latest deals and litigation with the new Law.com.   

EDITOR'S PICKS