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

WHAT WE'RE WATCHING

WOMEN WANTED? - Plaintiffs fare better at trial when women jurors are in the majority, according to an ALM study on the impact of gender on jury deliberations. According to the study, data from 30 years' worth of personal injury and other civil verdicts reported to Law.com affiliate VerdictSearch from 12 of the most litigious states shows a plaintiff is more likely to win with a jury where women are in the majority. But, as some attorneys and jury consultants told Law.com's Charles Toutant, choosing jurors based on gender is a flawed strategy for litigants. New Jersey-based plaintiffs personal injury lawyer K. Raja Bhattacharya of Bendit Weinstock, for example, said his experience trying cases has not supported the notion of women jurors being more hospitable to plaintiffs. "The rule of thumb that I've practiced with is it's good to have a jury that can relate to your client, so that would mean if my plaintiff is a female then a female majority jury would be preferred," he said. "I can't always get that obviously, and I've had female supermajority juries no-cause my female client." Meanwhile, Aria Amrom, of MMG Jury Consulting, said "selecting a jury simply based on gender can be dangerous and improper," adding that "more often than not, life experience is more predictive of verdict propensity than demographic variables."

MONEY WELL SPENT -  For the Am Law 200, 2021 saw gross revenue rise 9.1%, total head count grow by 1.3%, revenue per lawyer jump 7.7%, and profits per equity partner climb 11.8%. Meanwhile, associates enjoyed significant salary increases and most partners saw draws that made up for any losses they sustained in 2020—or compounded their gains. Through the first half of 2022, demand hasn't let up even as deal flow slows down, and most firm leaders with a decent balance of deal lawyers and litigators will tell you they have the countercyclical staffing necessary to make good on the next downturn. But, as Law.com's Dan Roe reports, the good times can only roll for so long. As costs continue to rise and demand eventually falls back to Earth, fortune will favor those firms that were prudent with their profits during this boom period. "We will certainly see some disgruntled partners and an increased level of movement from firms," said law firm consultant Marcie Borgal Shunk, president and founder of The Tilt Institute. "This isn't going to be a blanket scenario where all firms are hit equally. The firms that didn't cut expenses down to the bone, who used the extra capital to invest rather than distribute to partners, will be better-positioned coming out of this high-flying market than the firms that chose to give all of the money to their partners."

WHO GOT THE WORK?℠ - Michael E. McCarthy of Greenberg Traurig has entered an appearance for Samsung Electronics America Inc. in a pending consumer class action over the company's "water resistance" marketing of its Galaxy Watch Active 2v smart watch. The suit, filed March 4 in California Central District Court by Borison Law; Sheehan & Associates and The Keeton Firm LLC, contends that the watch is not water resistant and when used in water the product becomes damaged. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge John W. Holcomb, is 5:22-cv-00402, Nic Dahlquist v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. >> Read the filing on Law.com Radar. and check out the most recent edition of Law.com's Who Got the Work?℠ column to find out which law firms and lawyers are being brought in to handle key cases and close major deals for their clients.

UNSAFETY FEATURES? - Major car manufacturers were hit with a product liability class action Tuesday in California Northern District Court. The complaint centers on the use of ammonium nitrate, a volatile and unstable chemical, as the propellant for gas-hybrid airbag inflators manufactured by co-defendant ARC Automotive. The court case was brought by Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy; Levin Papantonio; Newsome Melton PA; and Davenport Law Firm. Counsel have not yet appeared for the defendants. The case is 3:22-cv-03053, Britton et al v. Arc Automotive, Inc. et al. Stay up on the latest deals and litigation with the new Law.com Radar. 

EDITOR'S PICKS