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

WHAT WE'RE WATCHING

WHO KNOWS? - We've all heard law firm leaders lamenting that remote work will prove detrimental to young lawyers' development. But are these concerns overblown? If not, are we heading toward an expertise crisis? Well, as is so often the case with lawyers, there are arguments to be made for both sides of the issue. In interviews with Law.com's Dan Roe, managing partners, office leaders, practice chairs and talent development professionals disagreed on whether the pandemic delayed the development of associates who launched their legal careers in a remote setting. The debate largely boiled down to the senior lawyers' preferred training methods and how they felt associates' mid-pandemic experiences stacked up against pre-pandemic, in-office training.

CONTENT WARNING - This week, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear two cases—Gonzalez v. Google and Twitter v. Taamneh —that could drastically alter Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act. The two cases, which challenge social media platforms' liability for terrorist activity, present a narrow question to the Supreme Court. But, as Law.com's Cassandre Coyer reports, legal experts warn that the high court could use the cases as an opportunity to reconsider the scope of Section 230's liability protections. While it's unknown whether or how that might happen, any changes to tech platforms' liability would in turn change their compliance strategies. Not only would the repercussions of such a ruling be felt across the entire tech industry, but it would also burden smaller businesses unevenly, legal professionals noted. "It will make it more expensive to make targeted recommendations, because you'll have to think about what claim could arise," said Ambika Kumar, co-chair of the Media Law Practice at Davis Wright Tremaine. "Large companies might have the resources to do that [but] smaller companies might not and so it does pose a risk to the Internet as we know it. How big is that risk? We don't know."

ON THE RADAR - Grant & Eisenhofer and Julie & Holleman filed a lawsuit Saturday in Delaware Court of Chancery in connection with the proposed $3.7 billion acquisition of Weber Inc. by affiliates of BDT Capital Partners. The complaint, brought on behalf of Micah Marshall II, seeks to inspect the books and records of the outdoor grill manufacturer to look over any potential conflicts of interest or wrongdoing in relation to the buyout. Counsel have not yet appeared for the defendant. The case is 2023-0213, Micah Marshall II v. Weber Inc. Stay up on the latest deals and litigation with the new Law.com Radar. 

EDITOR'S PICKS