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

WHAT WE'RE WATCHING

THE 'DOBBS' EFFECT - Court watchers and candidates agree that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs to punt abortion issues to the states has brought more eyeballs to normally under-the-radar judicial elections, even though candidates in partisan judicial elections are barred from stating how they would rule on a certain issue. A majority of the justice held that the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling had no footing in the U.S. Constitution. Thirty states are holding state supreme court elections this year—and candidates are noticing a theme when they talk to voters. Illinois Appellate Court Judge Mary Kay O'Brien told Law.com's Avalon Zoppo that the issue of abortion seems to be motivating individuals. While candidates in partisan judicial elections are prohibited from stating how they would rule on a certain issue, voters are reacting to the Dobbs decision. "I've marched in parades where people have stood up and said 'I'm voting for you because of Dobbs,' or at the door [of voters], where people are saying that they are wanting to support more women candidates," O'Brien said. "It has been a tremendous response to a single issue. I've been on the ballot several times, and I've never seen one issue dominating in this way."

ROAD TO MAR-A-LAGO - You've heard of the "Trump Bump," but allow us to introduce you to the "Trump Jump"—as in, jumping at the chance to represent the former president even if it requires jumping ship at your current job. At first glance, the members of former President Donald Trump's legal team in the Mar-a-Lago classified documents investigation don't have much in common. As of early September, they include lawyers with vast experience in federal investigations and others with none. However, as Law.com's Dan Roe reports, they're linked by the all-encompassing nature of their representation, which may help explain why more top-flight Big Law criminal defense litigators haven't accepted the potentially career-defining opportunity. Former Foley & Lardner partner Christopher Kise underscored that point last week when he resigned his position at the Am Law 100 firm to join Trump's legal team in the classified documents investigation. When CNN anchor Don Lemon recently asked Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough white-collar and government investigations co-chair Jon Sale, who turned down a spot on the legal team, why top firms won't represent Trump, Sale gave a simple explanation. "Frankly, I turned it down because I would have had to give up all my other clients. There's so much to be done and I don't have the time to do it," said Sale. "But I think [for] other lawyers, this is an opportunity to represent the former president. How often does that come about?"

WHO GOT THE WORK?℠ - Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler partners Joshua Kipnees and Steven A. Zalesin have stepped in to defend J&J subsidiary Zarbee's Inc. in a pending consumer class action. The suit, filed Aug. 2 in California Northern District Court by Dovel & Luner, alleges that Zarbee's over-the-counter melatonin supplements contain twice the amount of melatonin labeled on the packaging, leading to unwanted side effects such as headaches, nausea and drowsiness. Zarbee's is also backed by Gary T. Lafayette of Lafayette & Kumagai. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer, is 3:22-cv-04465, Lopez v. Zarbee's, 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.