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

WHAT WE'RE WATCHING

A FIRM WARNING -  Two professional liability insurers have thrown their weight behind global law firm Dentons, as it fights a high-profile malpractice verdict and loss on appeal, Law.com's Bruce Love reports. The Attorneys' Liability Assurance Society and the Ohio Bar Liability Insurance Co. have both submitted amicus briefs in support of Dentons' petition as it asks for the Ohio Supreme Court to review an intermediate appellate court's April decision against the firm in RevoLaze v. Dentons US LLP. Dentons, which after a jury verdict is on the hook for a $32 million award, characterizes its loss in front of a three-judge panel as having "far-reaching consequences for all law firms, large and small," if the decision is upheld. At the heart of the matter are claims from plaintiff RevoLaze that Dentons should not have taken on a representation in a patent infringement case because Dentons' Canadian firm represented RevoLaze's adversary—Gap Inc.—in other matters. In February 2020, a Cuyahoga County, Ohio, jury sided with RevoLaze and awarded $32.3 million in damages against the firm. "If a client's written consent is meaningless, then every lawyer and every law firm are threatened by this ruling," said Joe Andrew, global chairman of Dentons, in a statement.

EVERYTHING TO EVERYONE - During the pandemic, everybody wanted a piece of legal departments, dragging them into every corporate decision, large and small, law-related and not. That reality helped put in-house attorneys even more at risk of burnout and mental health strains than other employees during the past two years. That, as Law.com's Greg Andrews reports, was the assessment of in-house attorneys who spoke on a panel Tuesday at the General Counsel Conference Midwest in Chicago titled "The Great Reflection: Burnout & the Growing Demands on In-House Counsel." "You get asked to do everything," said Alex Breland, litigation and employment counsel for Hoffman Estates, Illinois-based CDK Global, which makes software for the auto industry. Added Trisha Cole, chief operating officer and general counsel for Chicago-based Medtelligent, which makes software for assisted living centers: "They can be pulled into anything—that's what people value about in-house counsel." But adding all that value can subtract from in-house lawyers' mental health and wellbeing. With that in mind, panelists agreed that it is on them as legal department leaders to set a tone that encourages their employees to strive for work-life balance. That can include everything from avoiding sending late-night or weekend emails to setting an example by stepping away during the day to take a run.

WHO GOT THE WORK?℠ - Anna Kurian Shaw, Patrick Michael and Lauren B. Cury of Hogan Lovells have entered appearances for Uber in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The complaint, filed May 12 in California Northern District Court by Core X Legal and Stanton IP Law Firm on behalf of UberRE Inc., asserts the 'Über' mark in connection with the company's real property marketing services. The complaint contends that the ride-hailing giant uses a 'confusingly similar' logo and trademark. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero, is 3:22-cv-02806, uberre Inc. v. Uber Technologies Inc. >> Read the filing 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.

ON THE RADAR - Unilever and certain of its top officers were slapped with a securities class action Wednesday in New York Southern District Court. The suit, brought by Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd and other counsel, centers on a 2020 resolution issued by Unilever subsidiary Ben & Jerry's to stop selling products in Palestinian territories that the ice cream seller's board considers to be illegally occupied by Israel. The defendants are accused of misleading investors regarding the resulting risks of reduced sales amid customer backlash. Counsel have not yet appeared for the defendants. The case is 1:22-cv-05011, City of St. Clair Shores Police and Fire Retirement System v. Unilever PLC et al. Stay up on the latest deals and litigation with the new Law.com Radar. 

EDITOR'S PICKS