MorningMinute_767x633

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

WHAT WE'RE WATCHING

VARYING VARIANT VIEWS - This was supposed to be the year law firms dragged everyone back into the office kicking and screaming so that they could resume being one big happy family again. But, so far at least, those dreams remain out of reach. Omicron, the highly contagious COVID-19 variant now raging across the U.S., is reportedly less lethal. But that doesn't mean the debate over the future of office work has gotten any less intense. Quite the contrary, in fact, Law.com's Patrick Smith reports. Law firms, as well as the attorneys and business professionals who comprise them, are now, as consultant Kent Zimmermann put it, "all over the place" in terms of their views on how to proceed (or not) with office returns. "There is a diversity of views in this country about how to move through this surge, and most law firms are a microcosm of those diversity of views," Zimmermann said. "Within the same firm you have some people questioning the need for hand sanitizers and masks while others are hard set against even coming into the office."

FEE FIGHTERS - It's a crazy, mixed-up world we're living in, but there's one thing you can always count on: plaintiffs lawyers fighting with each other over settlement fees in mass litigation. The latest example of the plaintiffs bar's favorite pastime came in the multidistrict litigation over Johnson & Johnson's talcum powder. As Law.com's Amanda Bronstad reports, a Miami plaintiffs firm that settled two dozen lawsuits over J&J's baby powder has accused lead counsel in the MDL of a "money grab" by collecting potential fees for work it never did on the cases. The Ferraro Law Firm, which settled 24 talc cases, all but two of which were pending in the MDL, claims that J&J held back 12% of the settlement proceeds for common benefit fees to be paid to lead counsel. That's despite The Ferraro Law Firm handling its cases on its own, and after co-lead counsel allegedly refused to provide the firm with two expert witnesses earlier in the year, according to a motion for relief from the common benefit fee assessments. As Bronstad notes, the dispute comes as plaintiffs lawyers increasingly are sparring over common benefit fees. In the recent Roundup MDL, for instance, Beasley Allen was one of several law firms that objected to a potential $800 million in common benefit fees—an amount that U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria called "an example of MDLs gone wild."

SNAP JUDGMENT? - Snap Inc., the creator of the messaging app Snapchat, sued the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on Wednesday in California Central District Court in connection with the company's "Spectacles" product, a wearable digital video camera and augmented reality device. The suit, brought by Debevoise & Plimpton, challenges a Nov. 2021 decision from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board refusing to register the "Spectacles" mark. The case is 2:22-cv-00085, Snap Inc. v. Hirshfeld, in his capacity as Acting Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, et al. Stay up on the latest deals and litigation with the new Law.com Radar.  

WHILE YOU WERE SLEEPING

ACTIVE IN ASIA - Lawyers in Asia are gearing up for a lively 2022, due in large part to surging private equity, venture capital and capital markets, Law.com International's Jessica Seah reports. Practices with strong capabilities to advise on fund formation and PE and VC investments will thrive as global investors continue to seek out business opportunities in Asia, particularly in the technology and biotech sectors, lawyers say. High levels of intra-Asia activity will also continue to drive work for regional, domestic and long-standing international firms on the ground. "PE and VC funds still have large amounts of capital to deploy and Limited Partnership investors remain bullish on the prospects for regional development," said Lorna Chen, Asia regional managing partner and head of the Greater China practice at Shearman & Sterling.

WHAT YOU SAID

"Those involved must be held accountable and there is no higher priority for us at the Department of Justice."