Lockstep Law Firms Get a Leg Up: The Morning Minute
The news and analysis you need to start your day.
May 27, 2022 at 06:00 AM
5 minute read
Want to get this daily news briefing by email? Here's the sign-up.
|
WHAT WE'RE WATCHING
PAY PREDICTABILITY - There's something to be said for never knowing quite what to expect. It keeps you from stagnating and becoming complacent. Nothing wrong with livin' on the edge a little, right? But, when it comes to getting paid by your law firm, maybe we could dial back the drama just a smidge. In Silicon Valley right now, as Law.com's Jessie Yount reports, firms with unpredictable pay scales have found themselves at a distinct competitive disadvantage compared to the droves of elite Wall Street and British-born firms that have entered the market in recent years, many of whom have lockstep compensation models. Lockstep firms have a "huge advantage" when it comes to service partners, according to Major, Lindsey & Africa legal recruiter Bob Brigham, because compensation is based only on seniority, and does not depend on credit for originations or rainmaking ability. Service partners at these firms are likely to make nearly the same as an M&A or capital markets partner. Others pointed out that lockstep is particularly beneficial to young partners, who have the time and the runway to reap the benefits of the seniority-based system. "For a promising mid-career partner to know it is all upside from here, that they'll get a raise on day one and their compensation will go up every year for the next 10 years, that can be an appealing sell," says Keith Wetmore, a colleague of Brigham's at MLA and the former chair of Morrison & Foerster.
EXPERTISE IN NFTs - Good morning, in-house counsel! Hey, if you're not doing anything at the moment, how about you go ahead and learn everything there is to know about non-fungible tokens? K, thanks! As Law.com's Heather Nevitt writes in the latest Law.com Barometer newsletter, the discussion around the metaverse and specifically NFTs seems to have gone from 0-10 overnight, with a host of tricky legal and regulatory issues companies entering the field must navigate. This emerging area can be challenging to understand, but even more so for general counsel that are tasked with mitigating any type of potential regulatory or enforcement risk to their company. They need to have answers when internal stakeholders ask them to identify potential risks and opportunities in the emerging space and how it may impact the company. To receive the Law.com Barometer directly to your inbox each week, click here.
WHO GOT THE WORK?℠ - Lowe's has turned to attorneys Ury Fischer and Giulia Christine Farrior of Lott & Fischer and Steven Malin of the Law Office of Steve Malin to fend off a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The action, filed April 8 in Florida Middle District Court by Allen, Dyer, Doppelt, & Gilchrist, accuses Lowe's of selling patio and outdoor umbrellas which infringe on plaintiff ATLeisure's patented technology for opening an umbrella via a solar-powered crank. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Wendy W. Berger, is 6:22-cv-00682, ATLeisure, LLC v. Lowe's Home Centers, LLC. >> 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.
SAVING FACES - Johnson & Johnson Consumer was hit with a biometric privacy class action Thursday in New Jersey District Court. The complaint contends that the company's Neutrogena Skin360 app, which delivers personalized skin care recommendations, collects and stores facial scans in violation the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. The suit is backed by brought by Mazie Slater Katz & Freeman; Parasmo Lieberman Law and the Law Office of Allen Schwartz. Counsel have not yet appeared for the defendant. The case is 3:22-cv-03149, Melzer v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. Stay up on the latest deals and litigation with the new Law.com Radar.
|
EDITOR'S PICKS
'Much Wider Problem.' Abbott's Formula Troubles Predate Shortfall, Lawsuits Say By Amanda Bronstad |
1,550 Seats for D.C. Bar Exam Turn Out to Be Enough By Christine Charnosky |
What Netflix Can Teach Law Firms About Navigating Controversial Clients By Keith C. Wetmore |
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
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrump Likely to Keep Up Antitrust Enforcement, but Dial Back the Antagonism
5 minute readAs Tech-Focused Roles in C-Suite Expand, Newcomers Embrace Big Law Opportunities
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 3Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 4Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250