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

WHAT WE'RE WATCHING

NOT REMOTELY POSSIBLE - We all did uncharacteristic things during the pandemic. Some of us let our hair grow out. Some of us tried out new hobbies like breadmaking or close-up magic. The legal industry dabbled with forward-thinking work arrangements before ultimately deciding, "Eh, not for us." Some law firms are still adding fully remote lawyers, but with the latest tightening of attendance policies, and with a few firms folding in previously remote workers to physical offices, that kind of recruiting is more the exception rather than the rule right now in Big Law, analysts told Law.com's Andrew Maloney. "Most AmLaw 100 firms are not allowing fully-remote options for attorneys as a general rule. While they have continued with some flexibility, such as four-days in the office or allowing remote work for parts of this summer, the drive to bring attorneys back to the office continues," said Laura Terrell, an executive coach/consultant and former Big Law partner, in an email this week.

ANTI-DEI WON'T DIE - The dismissal Friday of a conservative activist group's lawsuit attacking Starbucks' diversity, equity and inclusion efforts is unlikely to dissuade other critics of DEI and environmental, social and governance from filing similar lawsuits, legal observers told Law.com's Chris O'Malley. The National Center for Public Policy Research filed its suit against Starbucks in 2022, before the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling invalidating affirmative action. But if the case had moved forward, it might have accelerated anti-DEI legal attacks. Instead, Chief U.S. District Judge Stanley Bastian of the Eastern District of Washington slapped it down during a court hearing Friday. But attorneys representing companies say their clients need to remain on guard for similar cases. "The use of shareholder lawsuits in this space is a real stretch," said Jason Schwartz, a partner and co-chair of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher's labor and employment group. "But I expect they will keep coming," if only for the rhetorical and public relations value to activist groups.

ON THE RADAR - Bank of America was hit with a false advertising class action on Aug. 15 in California Superior Court for San Diego County over its bill pay autopay program. The court action, filed by Potter Handy LLP, accuses the defendant of failing to disclose that bill pay will be automatically cancelled after a certain amount of time that a credit card has been inactive. Counsel have not yet appeared for the defendant. The case is Chen v. Bank of America. Stay up on the latest state and federal litigation, as well as the latest corporate deals, with Law.com Radar.   

EDITOR'S PICKS

UnitedLex Faces Class Action Suit in Florida Over March Data Breach By Justin Henry

Ousted Wall Street Journal Reporter Drops Hacking Charges Against Dechert By Justin Henry

Prospective Students Defer Law School Start Date to Work in Public Interest at Weil By Christine Charnosky