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

WHAT WE'RE WATCHING

RULES OF ENGAGEMENT - Earlier this week, we told you about how law firm partners are becoming increasingly frustrated with the work product and engagement of their so-called "Zoom associates." The good news is there's a solution. The bad news? It's going to require some effort and—don't freak out—new approaches. Attorney leadership coach Lauren Krasnow told Law.com's Patrick Smith, Andrew Maloney and Hank Grezlak that there are two key things firms can do to make their associates better, faster: focus on improving their writing skills and schedule frequent 1:1 meetings with partners. As for whether office attendance will make a difference, more than a few law firm leaders and consultants are skeptical. Some have even predicted it will backfire. "The [generational] differences will occur whether they are in the office or not," said Michael Ferachi, managing member of Louisiana-based McGlinchey Stafford. Plus, said Jeff Lowe, founder and managing partner of advisory firm Jeffrey Lowe Partners, younger lawyers aren't the only ones pushing back against strict office mandates. "I just don't believe you're going to get some partners and senior partners sitting in an office again. Ever," he said.

IS UNION BUSTING BUSTED? - In what some attorneys are calling the most significant change in federal labor law in a half-century, the National Labor Relations Board has issued new rules that put employers in the onerous position of being forced to recognize and bargain with a union—unless they take swift action to request an employee election and prevail in that election. That means attorneys who represent employers have some educating to do. Ryan Funk, a Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath partner representing management, told Law.com's Chris O'Malley that he anticipates "many employers will not realize that they must initiate this process on short notice and will become unionized without ever having an NLRB election."

ON THE RADAR - CR Express was hit with a biometric privacy class action on Aug. 24 in Illinois Circuit Court for McHenry County. The suit, filed by Hammervold Law, is part of a wave of cases accusing employers of collecting and storing workers' fingerprints for timekeeping purposes in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. Counsel have not yet appeared for the defendant. The case is 2023LA000227, Radak v. CR Express Inc. Stay up on the latest state and federal litigation, as well as the latest corporate deals, with Law.com Radar.   

EDITOR'S PICKS