TOO MUCH INFORMATION? - Last week, in this space, we told you that using data analytics in talent acquisition and retention is becoming more common among law firms. But, as’s Patrick Smith reports, the so-called “Moneyball” approach still hasn’t gone mainstream. A number of industry-watchers said the existing partner-first culture of most firms is hindering progress in adopting analytics, as is a general lack of expertise in statistical analysis at law firms. It certainly wouldn’t be the first time the legal industry politely declined to follow sound business advice—but is that really all that’s going on here? Not necessarily. Keith Wetmore, former managing partner at Morrison & Foerster and current managing director for the San Francisco office of legal recruiting firm Major, Lindsey & Africa, said he hasn’t seen enough proof of ROI to endorse the use of data analytics as real weapon in the talent war. “You have to come back to measurability,” he said. For instance, “If you demonstrate you have a 20% higher success rate on your law school recruits by posing four questions in every interview and assessing those answers, you would probably get buy-in.” But, he added, “success and failure are not binary.”

TEST CASES - The insurance industry is built on calculated risk. Needless to say, most insurers’ calculations did not factor in a global pandemic coming out of the clear blue sky and sticking around to cause mayhem for nearly two years and counting. As a result, litigation over COVID-related coverage denials remains red hot—and it’s not just business interruption battles. As’s Aleeza Furman reports, out-of-network providers of COVID-19 testing are increasingly suing insurance companies for declining to provide reimbursement. The suits allege, among other counts, violations of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act and Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act. Last Wednesday, Southern District of Texas Judge Nelva Ramos denied in part a motion to dismiss filed by a group of insurance providers. Ramos found that, contrary to the defendant’s arguments, the plaintiffs had ”an implied private right of action to enforce the provisions of the FFCRA and CARES Act reimbursement requirement.” The decision is “huge for every provider in the country,” said Ebadullah Khan, chief legal officer for the plaintiff, which operates as 24 Hour Covid.

MASKED MARGINS? - Retail mortgage lender LoanDepot and its top executives were slapped with a derivative shareholder complaint Friday in California Central District Court. The suit, filed by Bragar Eagel & Squire and Hynes & Hernandez on behalf of Haydon Modglin, accuses the defendants of failing to disclose to investors that sales margins had declined substantially when LoanDepot went public in February of 2021. Counsel have not yet appeared for the defendants. The case is 2:22-cv-00462, Modglin v. Hsieh et al. Stay up on the latest deals and litigation with the new Radar.  



This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]