Musical Chairs: Jeremy Pitcock Has Left the Building
Some of you may recall the strange tale of Jeremy Pitcock, a successful IP litigator in New York. As we previously reported, he recently left Kasowitz Benson, where he headed the intellectual property practice, for Morgan & Finnegan. That's par for the course, in this age of increased lateral partner movement. The weird part was that Kasowitz issued a statement, apparently in response to Morgan's trying to tout Pitcock's move as a hiring coup, in which Kasowitz said they fired Pitcock for "extremely inappropriate personal conduct."
The plot thickens. A source informed us that Jeremy Pitcock is no longer at Morgan & Finnegan, which we have confirmed. His bio is no longer on the firm website, which has also been scrubbed of the press release touting his hire. If you try emailing him at his Morgan & Finnegan email address, which is the one provided in his LinkedIn profile, as we did, your message will bounce back to you.
We tried calling Jeremy Pitcock at the Morgan & Finnegan phone number listed in his profile. The nervous-sounding woman who answered the phone told us that he's no longer with the firm, that she didn't have forwarding information for him, and that his last day in the office was "last week."
Did Morgan & Finnegan get rid of Pitcock after investigating the alleged "inappropriate personal conduct"? One source said it would be surprising. First, Pitcock is a superstar IP lawyer. Rumor has it that "when he left Simpson, he had a $6 million book of business, as a 6th or 7th year associate. He decided he wanted to be a partner [immediately, rather than waiting a few years,] and Kasowitz took him up on that."
Second, some claim Morgan & Finnegan has a reputation for tolerating a certain degree of inappropriate personal conduct. One source tells us that "they aren't known for being friendly to women -- or in some cases, they're known for being too friendly. There were partners who asked female associates on dates repeatedly and others who referred to female associates as 'pretty young girls.' Still others simply refused to work with women."
We contacted the firm's spokesperson to inquire about Pitcock's departure; she wasn't in, so we left a message. We haven't heard back from her yet, but if we do, we'll let you know.
If you have the 411, feel free to email us. Thanks.
Update (2:30 PM): We just heard back from the Morgan & Finnegan spokesperson. She stated that the firm generally does not comment on internal firm matters.
Update (6/6/08): Jeremy Pitcock has filed a $90 million defamation lawsuit against Kasowitz Benson. See here.
(49) Comments
When the guy looks like Hugh Grant, why did he have to force himself on the poor girl?
10 bucks says he jumped ship to Cadwalader.
Mayer Brown would be my guess. MB apparently interviewed him when he changed jobs, but he chose MF instead.
Very interesting. I'm dying to know where this clown ends up, and why he ends up there.
i'm dying to know!
nomination for lawyer of the day:
http://www.charlotte.com/local/story/474126.html
c/o
http://gwlawstudents.wordpress.com/2008/02/07/maximum-contempt/
Was that wrong? Because no one told me when I was hired that type of behavior would not be tolerated...
1.19 - Hugh Grant???? you have got to be kidding! I think you must have put your beer goggles on pretty early today
1:42 - remember, the camera adds 10 lbs and fifteen years of sad desperate nights spent not making out with Ms. Hurley (or a hooker in the park, whatever).
Did he go to HLS? Maybe it has something to do with a steam room at a Florida hotel and a 15-year-old boy?
Looks like Hugh Grant? Huh?? Time to clean your glasses off sweetheart.
Lat, you still haven't answered the question - just how badly does an attorney have to behave in order to get fired for "extremely inappropriate personal conduct"?
Keep at it Lat - there has to be a good story here.
1:21 - too funny!!
But really, SOMEone has to know why Kasowitz canned him. . .
Mm mm mm ... bring on the drama!
20 buck says 1:19 IS jeremy pitcock!
http://www.mit.edu/activities/safe/cases/mit-erulkarbitran/protest-rally
If this is him, he is a counter-protester to a movement against sexual harassment...I guess he just doesn't change :-)
I don't know about Hugh Grant, but I'm sure a lot of girls are into a George Costanza look alike.
IP Litigator = Lack of Social Skills
I think they are turned on by his stentorian voice.
I've found that something as innocent as the offer of a moustache ride can be seen as sexual harassment these days. Quite appalling!
$6m book? Awesome.
IP Litigator = rolling in $$$
Even the skanky hooker who was caught blowing Hugh Grant was way hotter than this guy. On second thought, let me take another look... No, Still fug.
dead girl or live boy?
1) They're IP only, and primarily in patents. So the % of female lawyers there is much smaller than at most firms.
2) Same as above, meaning that most of the lawyers were GEEKS in high school and college -- most of them majored in comp sci, real science, or some form of engineering. Of course male geeks are going to be awkward both ways around women.
It's not maliciousness or even intentional; if anything, it's just residual geek awkwardness towards women, not sexism.
He's going to clerk for Clarence Thomas.
I'm an IP litigator and I'm pretty social.
HOYVIN-GLAYVIN!
if he really has a $6m book, he should just open his own shop.
He had a $6MM book, eh?
So that means he had 1 client with a patent litigation problem. Whooptee doo!!!!
Anyone else have Firefox crash on them unusually often when reading ATL?
@
2:15, 2:31
IP Litigator = Probably paying for it, but can buy the very best.
I noticed some strange things while interviewing with M&F. That in itself was enough for me to decline the offer... I wasn't even aware of their alleged inappropriateness towards females.
3:08,
Whooptee doo!!? How big is your book?
3:13 -- elaborate re "strange things."
3:13(1)-
If he was paying for it, he wouldn't be in this situation.
Yeah 3:13, do tell!
I'm an IP Litigator and I engage in extremely inappropriate conduct in the workplace, so I find this post very funny.
4:02 - I think I used to work with you.
I can't say the strangest thing because it might out me if M&F reads this, but it has to do with the recruiting office.
One thing that stuck in my mind was that the hiring partner basically told me he resented paying the first years $160k. He has the right to feel that way, but it is a really strange thing to say when you're trying to recruit someone.
Another attorney got really riled up when I asked whether IP boutiques could compete against GP firms. It was like I personally offended him.
Also, the atmosphere was just different than in other firms. I could visibly see evidence of overworked attorneys, understaffed cases, and a non-friendly working environment. Not good signs.
4:40 - I've heard so many partners whine about paying new first year rates that I would not count that as odd. Stupid recruiting perhaps, but not odd.
3:13,
I would say that everything you mentioned is par for the course. It seems like every law firm (regardless of size or practice) is filled with overworked attorneys, understaffed cases, and partners who think all associates are overpaid.
I doubt another incident happened to Pitcock at M&F.
It's probably just that once M&F found out why he really left Kasowitz, they wanted no part of him. He probably didn't tell them why he left Kasowitz, and that's why M&F had the press release where they said they "nabbed" him and got him to "jump ship."
In fact, he is going to have trouble getting into a pship anywhere. He could go solo, but his clients may have got wind of this and they would leave him too. I doubt Simpson would take him back, *maybe* as "Counsel" but then again STB has a reputation to uphold.
Poor guy, he's a brilliant IP litigator but it's going to be tough for him to work this "racket" ever again.
Yes, but what did he do that got him fired from Kasowitz in the first place??
6:30,
True, but usually a firm can put on a happy face and good act for a recruit. If what the poster saw *was* the good act, or if they're too burnt out to even try, these are not good signs. And if the hiring partner is openly hostile about associates in the interview, what on earth goes on once you get there?
All this whining about how unfair it is to complain about $160K starting salaries for neophyte lawyers is really crimping my shorts. As a senior attorney who hopes to make partner, I've been aware for years how little newly minted associates can contribute. No more than 1 out of 10 is even worth using -- most of them require more investment of time than just doing the work myself. It's really an ethical issue that I think law firm partners are slowly coming to appreciate. The MF hiring partner was probably just reacting to having to bill out these green, unproven attorneys at such high rates to cover their salaries. He was probably just "committing" full disclosure in warning the interviewee that he would have to work hard to justify his salary.
So does no one know what got him fired from Kasowitz in the first place??
I guess not - too bad.
patent cases cost ~ 1 - 2 million a year to litigate all out. so, he had small number of active cases. hard to say that 6mm book is sustainable especially if several cases settle.