Here's What #MeToo Has (and Hasn't) Changed in Legal: The Morning Minute
The news and analysis you need to start your day.
November 02, 2022 at 06:00 AM
6 minute read
Want to get this daily news briefing by email? Here's the sign-up.
|
WHAT WE'RE WATCHING
FIVE YEARS OF #METOO - A half-decade into the #MeToo movement, the far-reaching effects in society continue to reverberate. But what about in law firms? Since the movement began, a younger generation of legal talent has pushed the legal industry to continue to improve protocols and ensure equality. But, as Law.com's Patrick Smith, Jessie Yount and Jacob Polacheck report, the work is far from over. Some attorneys still point to the difficulty of bringing allegations against rainmaking partners or other top leaders within firms, while remote-working conditions that arose during the pandemic may have created other conditions for harassment. Teresa Rider Bult, Nashville-based administrative partner and general counsel at Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, said there is still a stigma for attorneys to bring claims against individuals in law firms, especially those in high-level positions. Bult has helped handle internal issues arising at her firm, while also advising law firm clients on these matters. "It's very, very difficult with that power dynamic for that individual to feel comfortable coming to the firm management to say something about them because they know how much this person [brings to the firm], their book of business or their position in the firm and that sort of thing," she said. "You have that at corporations too, but I think at law firms there can be very differing positions that exist and you want to make sure that you're breaking down the barriers for all of those people to understand," she added.
PRINTING MONEY - Apparently, elite law firms have elite printers. How else might one explain why, as Law.com's Dan Roe reports, Kirkland & Ellis—the world's highest-grossing firm—charges its clients 20% more for in-house duplication services than they'd pay at Office Depot. Kirkland also charges more than its legal industry competitors—16 cents per page. Black-and-white copies cost between 10 cents and 15 cents per page at other top Am Law firms and 12 cents at Office Depot, according to a review of bankruptcy court fee applications. The industry average for all firm sizes is 14 cents per page, according to a 2021 survey by legal operations consultancy Mattern Associates, which polled 37 firms, including at least 25 firms with 250 lawyers or less. Why does this matter? Because it all adds up—and it doesn't necessarily have to be this way. Large firms can generally lower their printing costs compared with smaller peers, said legal ops consultant Rob Mattern, so higher fees aren't a reflection of actual costs as much as how firms measure costs and how much they think clients will pay. Firms also use high per-page rates to offset clients who pay less (or nothing) for printing. "Big-enough clients may say they're not going to pay for printing at all, or any miscellaneous disbursements that aren't hard costs," Mattern said. "They make the clients who do pay pay for the clients who don't pay—some firms factor that into their rate."
WHO GOT THE WORK?℠ - Reed Smith partner James L. Rockney and attorneys from Cooley have entered appearances for Thorley Industries in a pending product liability class action. The suit, filed Aug. 29 in Pennsylvania Western District Court by Robert Peirce & Associates and Poulin Willey Anastopoulo, accuses the defendant of manufacturing and selling defective MamaRoo Baby Swings that pose a strangulation hazard to infants. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan, is 2:22-cv-01245, Demarzio et al v. Thorley Industries, LLC. >> 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 - Robbins LLP filed a securities class action Tuesday in California Central District Court against FIGS Inc., a seller of healthcare apparel, and certain company officers. The complaint accuses the defendants of failing to disclose that FIGS had increased its reliance on air freight rather than overseas shipping due to supply chain issues, not due to the COVID-19 pandemic as claimed in the company's registration statement. Counsel have not yet appeared for the defendants. The case is 2:22-cv-07939, Ryan v. FIGS, Inc. et al. Stay up on the latest deals and litigation with the new Law.com Radar.
|
EDITOR'S PICKS
Dead in Mid-40s: Law Professor Mourned as 'Brilliant Scholar,' 'Nicest Guy in the World' By Scott Graham |
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllWill Trump Be a Boost to Quinn Emanuel's Fortunes in China?
Pa. Judicial Nominee Advances While Trump Demands GOP Unity Against Biden Picks
4 minute readTrump's SEC Overhaul: What It Means for Big Law Capital Markets, Crypto Work
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250