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

WHAT WE'RE WATCHING

ADDITION BY SUBTRACTION? -   Paul Clement and Erin Murphy's high-profile exit from Kirkland & Ellis, leading to their bitter newspaper op-ed Thursday, was years in the making, a result of simmering conflict among some in the partnership who were wary of their ties to the gun industry, Law.com's Patrick Smith and Andrew Maloney report. Some legal industry observers said the highest-grossing firm in the U.S. should have been able to predict the messy fallout back in 2016, when the firm absorbed Clement's boutique. But many also didn't fault Kirkland for Clement and Murphy's exit, noting that firm management likely decided the firm had more to gain by cutting off ties now.  "Big Law usually sides with the source of revenue," Tom Sharbaugh, former managing partner of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius and current professor of practice at Penn State Law School, said in an email.  "Reputable firms obviously chose to represent big pharma companies in the opioid cases, big tobacco companies in the cigarette cases, and big banks in the widespread mortgage-foreclosure cases. Kirkland must have concluded that the loss of life associated with guns is worse and outweighs the adverse revenue impact," he added.

BINDING PRECEDENT -  While the future for many women seeking abortions in a post-Roe nation looks grim, it is the future of other constitutional rights sharing a foundation similar to the now-revoked abortion right that provoked sharp disagreements among the justices in Friday's abortion ruling, Law.com's Marcia Coyle reports. What about cases like Griswold v. Connecticut (right of married persons to obtain contraceptives), Lawrence v. Texas (right to engage in private, consensual sexual acts) and Obergefell v. Hodges (right to same-sex marriage)? Justice Samuel Alito Jr., writing for the 6-3 majority, wrote that abortion is unique and nothing in the opinion should cast doubt on precedents that don't concern abortion. "Scout's Honor," replied the incredulous dissent from Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. While the majority opinion contended there is no Fourteenth Amendment liberty interest in abortion because "and only because" the law offered no protection to the woman's choice in the 19th century, the dissenters argued that, by that logic, the rulings in Obergefell, Lawrence and Griswold also "were wrong, and all those matters properly belong to the states, too—whatever the particular state interests involved. And if that is true, it is impossible to understand (as a matter of logic and principle) how the majority can say that its opinion today does not threaten—does not even 'undermine'—any number of other constitutional rights."

WHO GOT THE WORK?℠ - As Law.com's Amanda Bronstad reports, the families of children killed or injured from the May 24 shooting at Robb Elementary in Uvalde, Texas, are reaching out to lawyers, with various legal strategies emerging. Thomas J. Henry Law is representing the families of four injured students in a lawsuit against the estate of the gunman, Salvador Ramos, who was among the 19 killed. A teacher at the elementary school, represented by Don Flanary (Flanary Law Firm),filed a petition on June 2. Also retained are Josh Koskoff (Koskoff Koskoff & Bieder), who got a $73 million settlement with Remington on behalf of nine victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. He is working with Charla Aldous (Aldous/Walker), and Mikal Watts (Watts Guerra). >> 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.