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

WHAT WE'RE WATCHING

NO LOCKSTEP FOR STEPTOE - With the possible exception of the Brooklyn Nets, most businesses prefer to pay people who do their jobs on a consistent basis. However, the legal industry hasn't always been great about compensating attorneys based on the value they provide either, with firms sometimes overpaying underperformers because it's easier than dealing with the issue head-on. So, while the recent move by Steptoe & Johnson to claw back some associate salaries while paying more to others may seem harsh at first blush, there's an argument to be made that the revamped compensation system is actually more fair than the alternative. In all, 10 of Steptoe's 170 associates saw their pay reduced to 80% of their original salary, firm chair Gwen Renigar told Law.com's Bruce Love. On the other side of the coin, she said, with six months left in the fiscal year, there are already some overachieving associates on track to make 120% of the standard pay scale. "This policy is about fairness and flexibility," said Renigar. "It's intended to provide equitable treatment to associates—essentially meeting them where they are. If they are going to work very hard and be full-time, that's recognized. If they are at a point in their life where, for whatever reason, they don't want to work full time, we can accommodate that." Mary K. Young, a consultant at the Zeughauser Group, said Steptoe's approach and reasoning for the associate pay system is unusual among Am Law 200 firms, but added, "frankly, it does seem fair to me."

INTERRUPTED CURRENT - "Just when business interruption policyholders thought they were out, the Louisiana Court of Appeals pulls them back in" – The Godfather: Part III. As more and more state and federal appeals courts weigh in on pandemic-related business interruption claims, the trend in favor of insurers increases in momentum. In recent weeks, insurance companies have racked up even more wins. But earlier this month, a state appellate court broke rank, providing a potential avenue to victory for some policyholders even as so many others have proven to be dead ends. Most appellate courts around the country, each one looking to its predecessors for guidance, have determined that neither pandemic-induced government shutdowns nor the presence of COVID-19 particles on the premises constitute "direct physical loss of or damage to" to insured property. But, as we explore in the latest Law.com Litigation Trendspotter column, the Louisiana Court of Appeals went against the grain in a June 15 ruling, finding ambiguities in an insurer's policy that had to be construed in favor of the the policyholder. I'm interested to hear from you: Do you think the Louisiana ruling could help counter the momentum that's recently been building in favor of the insurance industry in these cases? Let me know at [email protected].

WHO GOT THE WORK?℠ - Robert H. Resis of Banner & Witcoff has entered an appearance for TieMart Inc. d/b/a Alexander Logan Neckwear in a pending copyright infringement lawsuit. The action, filed May 4 in Illinois Northern District Court by Doniger / Burroughs and Saper Law Offices on behalf of men's formalwear products manufacturer Brand Q Inc., accuses defendant of manufacturing and selling unauthorized neck ties with plaintiffs signature design. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman, is 1:22-cv-02337, Brand Q, Inc. v. TieMart, Inc., dba Alexander Logan Neckwear et al.  >> 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 - Redbox, a movie rental and streaming company, and members of its board of directors were slapped with a shareholder lawsuit Thursday in New York Southern District Court over the company's planned acquisition by Chicken Soup for the Soul Entertainment. The court action, brought by Grabar Law Office on behalf of Matthew Whitfield, contends that the company's registration statement in favor of the transaction omits material information. Counsel have not yet appeared for the defendants. The case is 1:22-cv-05613, Whitfield v. Redbox Entertainment, Inc. et al. Stay up on the latest deals and litigation with the new Law.com Radar. 

EDITOR'S PICKS