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

WHAT WE'RE WATCHING

WILL THIS COVER IT? - Rate hikes, don't fail us now! High expenses, high associate pay and lower profits per partner may force law firms to make "increasingly difficult decisions" this year and beyond, according to a new report. The 2023 Report on the State of the Legal Market, published Tuesday, concluded that after a 0.1% drop in demand last year, Big Law will likely rely on significant rate increases to maintain profits this year and next year. But if that doesn't work, they'll have to condition partners to smaller payouts—or perhaps make more personnel cuts, the report's authors said. "If you're running a firm, your choices are either getting your partners used to the idea of profitability dropping—and by the way, profitability could drop and still be very respectable—or you have to somehow reduce expenses. And at law firms, we know that that means heads more than anything else," Jim Jones, director of the Georgetown center, told Law.com's Andrew Maloney.

THE CASE THAT WOULDN'T DIE - The Federal Trade Commission's antitrust case against Qualcomm Inc. has been dead for years, slain by a 2020 Ninth Circuit opinion. But a consumer class action on behalf of millions of smartphone users is still breathing. As Law.com's Scott Graham reports, consumers represented by Susman Godfrey, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy and others refashioned their complaint from a nationwide class pursuing federal claims to a California-only class seeking damages under California antitrust and unfair competition law. The amended complaint alleges Qualcomm illegally paid Apple Inc. to use Qualcomm chips exclusively for several years, stifling competition from companies such as Intel Corp. In a 37-page order issued Jan. 6, Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the Northern District of California allowed the exclusive dealing theory to proceed, saying consumers might succeed where the FTC failed.

ON THE RADAR - Varnum filed a lawsuit against the Detroit Institute of Arts on Tuesday in Michigan Eastern District Court. The suit, brought on behalf of Brokerarte Capital, seeks to recover 'Liseuse De Romans,' a painting by Vincent Van Gogh, that is currently in the defendant's possession on loan from a private collection. The complaint contends that the plaintiff purchased the painting and transferred possession, but not the title, to a third party, who allegedly absconded with the painting in 2017. Counsel have not yet appeared for the defendant. The case is 2:23-cv-10066, Brokerarte Capital Partners, LLC v. Detroit Institute of Arts. Stay up on the latest deals and litigation with the new Law.com Radar. 

EDITOR'S PICKS