Nationwide Layoff Watch: Morgan & Finnegan
A recent article in IP Law & Business suggested that rumors of the demise of IP specialty law firms have been greatly exaggerated. According to the piece, intellectual property boutiques continue to survive, despite encroachment on their turf by general-practice firms.
This is not to say, however, that everything is peachy in IP land. The article notes that Morgan & Finnegan, one prominent IP shop, “has lost 10 partners in the past year, and its overall head count is down considerably.” (We wonder if they included Jeremy Pitcock in the partner losses.)
The firm has been shedding associates and staff, too. Earlier this week, we heard from several tipsters that Morgan & Finnegan was laying off lawyers, technical and scientific advisors, and staff.
We confirmed the news with Pat Bowers, director of administration for Morgan & Finnegan. She acknowledged the layoffs (and even had the courage to use the “L” word, which many other firms shun).
The firm believes in “the importance of communication,” explained Bowers. “It’s not like we were doing it behind closed doors.” Prior to informing the affected employees, administration sent out a firm-wide email explaining that the firm was “scrutinizing our direct and indirect expenses, and looking at our staffing needs in New York and D.C.”
The affected employees were notified of the layoffs starting on Friday of last week and ending yesterday by close of business (so if you’re at the firm and haven’t heard anything, you’re in the clear). Bowers declined to provide exact numbers, citing confidentiality concerns, but said that (1) the firm “laid off less than 7 percent of attorneys and staff,” and (2) the cuts were centered on staff, not lawyers.
More details, below the fold.
Bowers explained that the size of the firm’s general staff had not changed for the past 18 months. After examining its needs, the firm made cuts “to eliminate any redundancies, and to try to improve our internal operating efficiency.”
“We don’t see the economic slowdown improving anytime soon,” said Bowers. “So we wanted to take a proactive stance.”
Severance and health insurance coverage are being provided to the laid-off employees. Bowers described the severance as “industry-standard.”
As for why it took a few days to announce the cuts, Bowers explained that “we wanted to make sure we had all the appropriate people in the office” when we broke the news to them. Other firms, which shall remain nameless here, have laid off employees while they were out of the office, telling them they were out of a job over the phone.
Bowers is not a fan of firing over the phone. “Put yourself in the other person’s shoes,” she said. “Ask how you would like to be treated.”
Have IP Boutiques Gone Extinct? Hardly [IP Law & Business]
(77) Comments
Comments
Comments hidden for your protection. Show them anyway!
I AM FIRST !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YIPEEEE!!!!!!!!!!! MADE IT YALL. HATERS GO AWAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-HOLLABACK GIRL
I thought IP was hot these days? Why layoffs?
Turd
these pretzels are making me thirdsty
Not thirdsty enough.
Signed,
3
I doubt its much consolation to those who are laid off, but you have to give them credit for doing this the right way.
Guys in my high school used to be fired by exclusively IP shops. 'Twas no big deal.
I know a guy who summered at their New York office. He was a scumbag, I hope he got no-offered.
Doing just 9 over here
Wow, I'm just so damn tenny.
Where have several of those partners gone? Cadwalader.
Enough of the FIRSTIES...
A lot of IP litigation is discretionary. When your business is slow, are you really going to want to shell out the dough to file that expensive false advertising suit against a competitor?
Patent attorney here - I can't speak for M&F, but I am up to my ears with patent applications and responses to Official Actions. I hope things work out for M&F, they do good work.
NY IP boutiques are a dying breed. they cant compete with general practice firms for litigation work, and they cant compete with patent microboutiques for prosecution work.
15: you don't know shit. Many IP boutiques are swamped. . . they are cheaper than biglaw and do a better job.
15: you don't know shit. Many IP boutiques are swamped. . . they are cheaper than biglaw and do a better job.
15: you don't know shit. Many IP boutiques are swamped. . . they are cheaper than biglaw and do a better job.
13 and 15 are douches - Real IP attorneys are doing Patent preparation and prosecution - NOT litigation. Litigators are litigators and patent attorneys are patent attorneys. Without a registration number, you aren't a true IP attorney - you are either a litigator or a wannabe hack.
this isn't news. M&F has been bleeding partners and associates for years. Those former M&F people at Cadwalader left awhile back and spent a few years at Chadborne & Parke. There's also another group of former M&F people at Dickstein, Quinn, and Orrick.
What is this "IP boutique" - is it a special variety of flowers?
I'm shocked that Morgan is still around - they have been bleeding attorneys for the last 7-8 years. in 2003, I think they had over 100 attorneys now - if they have 40 I would be surprised.
Wasn't ATL favorite Jeremy Pitcock at Morgan & Finnegan at one point?
When I was at Morgan & Finnegan, they laid off attorneys every 6 months - you never knew if you were going to be next. I left before they could lay me off.
22 - I think they have just about 40 attorneys, and it's mostly partners and first and second years.
I'm sure the laid off attorneys can always go to Cadwalader.
13 is a true idiot. False advertising lawsuit? WTF is that? The real IP bucks involve patent litigation, often concerning disputes over key technologies that could rake in $$$ in royalties and fees. False advertising? ROFL.
How's Kenyon doing?
I had an OCI interview with M&F...they were pricks.
19: most patent litigators (self included) have a reg number, and have prosecuted patents before becoming litigators (it's what makes us better as patent litigators, we know what drafting applications, fighting rejections, etc. etc. entails).
28: ditto. I'm headed for IP litigation, but I have a reg number and have patent prosecution experience.
Oh, and I'm really glad that M&F didn't want me when I interviewed with them at OCI.
Morgan is sinking... They stopped paying pension to retired partners.
M&F sealed its fate when it moved downtown. It stinks downtown.
28 is correct. I started my career in a general practice firm and moved to a boutique because of the attitude many here have displayed. Being a patent attorney first, even if for a short period, makes you a better patent litigator. Attorneys without reg numbers are just jealous because patent attorneys can do everything "regular" attorneys can plus more. That being said there are great litigators out there that can absolutely litigate any type of IP, but clients want a majority of patent attorneys on their litigations, with maybe a few good experienced non-patent attorney litigators. Think about it- the in-house attorney giving out patent litigation is usually the IP counsel- meaning they are patent attorneys themselves, and understand the complexity involved and know attorneys with technical backgrounds are necessary.
IP boutiques have been doing great- at least mine is... A lot of general practice IP sections tend to just serve prosecution needs of their corporate clients and get treated as the red-headed step-children. There are some IP boutiques that do mainly foreign paper-pushing prosecution, but they tend to be singular smaller firms. The good boutiques (Finnegan, Townsend, Kenyon, Fish, etc.) have great litigation opportunities and do it very well.
30, why would you say a firm is sinking because they stopped paying pension to retired partners? Hasn't every sanely-run law firm eliminated unfunded pension plans years ago? Maybe Morgan is getting its house in order. And how do you know this? I think we can all agree that retirees aren't likely to be posting on ATL, so how would you have access to this kind of information?
"30, why would you say a firm is sinking because they stopped paying pension to retired partners?"
Please stop exposing your ignorance, dear.
aw, 27 didn't get a call-back.
Some of the best patent litigators in the country don't have a reg number or a science background. In fact, often a reg number is a hinderance to doing patent litigation because many atent lawyers (and I confess I am one myself, though I try not to tell people that) tend to get lost in the details of highly technical arguments, forgetting that they are presenting the case to a jury of people which probably about a highschool education.
As for M&F, it's been struggling for years and should probably reinvent itself as a prosecution and opinion shop. In my personal opinion, their litigators are third tier, at best.
f"orgetting that they are presenting the case to a jury of people which probably about a highschool education."
Such as yourself?
Kenyon is strong, they had a big summer class this year, with 100% offers.
Almost all associates will hit their billables, the firm is very very busy.
36 - you are rationalizing your inability to hang with those who have a reg number. See post 19 - you are either a litigator or a hack. That fact that you state, "often a reg number is a hinderance to doing patent litigation because many atent lawyers (and I confess I am one myself, though I try not to tell people that) tend to get lost in the details of highly technical arguments" speaks VOLUMES. Two words hack - Markman hearing!
Attention all potential Morgan & Finnegan Summer Associates
M&F has a long history of layoffs.
In '93, my understanding is that they revoked all offers they had previously made to their '92 summer associate class (other than the ones who were clerking at the firm during their third year) only 2 weeks before the bar.
Severance package was $5,000 and, of course, their was no health package.
Communication was via a letter with a $5,000 check. No phone call. No face-to-face.
Glad to see their ship is still sinking ! ! !
The only IP boutiques worth mentioning in NY are Fitzpatrick Cella and Kenyon & Kenyon. If you can't get into one of these or BigLaw, then you are better off just going to some prosecution mill. MoFi treats people like garbage, and has done so on a consistent basis.
38 = Kenyon Troll
40 = What are you, 1000 years old? What on earth are you talking about...1993...and "your understanding"? That is a total BS story. And how does whatever may have happened in 1993 pertain to what is happening today?
Kenyon did not make 100% offers.
"how does whatever may have happened in 1993 pertain to what is happening today?"
Uhh . . . perhaps as an indication of how the firm handles financial challenges? You aren't actually this stupid, are you r42?
I had a callback with Morgan for a summer position for this past summer. It seemed like a nice place. The people seemed nice. They didn't make an offer. Oh well. Offices are nice though.
41, what's your evidence that MoFi treats people like "garbage." I've heard they're not a sweatshop, provide good work for associates and the partnership prospects are reasonable. They rank high in associate surveys. Should a 3L interviewing for a job consider them, or just go to a BigLaw sweatshop?
40, still sinking since '93? I would call that a slow leak at most, if not outright bouyancy. Did Morgan rescind your offer in '93? Get over it!
40 -- maybe they revoked your offer because "their" standards ruled you out. After all, it is important to have writing skills in the legal profession. I hope you've been able to remain gainfully employed since '93 in some field that did not highlight your grade school level comprehension of the English language.
42 here.
40 - what happened in 1993 is not at all indicative of how a firm deals with financial challenges in 2008. Particularly since many of the partners who are making the major decisions in 2008 are very likely different partners than the partners guiding the major decisions in 1993. You are quite illogical, 40.
46 - i have a friend who works over there and he seems to like it. good lifestyle, gets good work and lots of responsibility from eveything he's told me. it sounds like it's different than a junior associate at a biglaw sweatshop.
"41, what's your evidence that MoFi treats people like "garbage"
-- how about the fact that they lay attorneys off every time they get into financial difficulty...
"what happened in 1993 is not at all indicative of how a firm deals with financial challenges in 2008"
-- And yet, it eems like the evidence is contradicting you. Feel free to ignore the history of the firm and believe that an entirely new set of partners now taken control of the firm if you like. If I were a potential summer associate with a choice, I would certainly consider it.
"41, what's your evidence that MoFi treats people like "garbage"
-- how about the fact that they lay attorneys off every time they get into financial difficulty...
"what happened in 1993 is not at all indicative of how a firm deals with financial challenges in 2008"
-- And yet, it eems like the evidence is contradicting you. Feel free to ignore the history of the firm and believe that an entirely new set of partners now taken control of the firm if you like. If I were a potential summer associate with a choice, I would certainly consider it.
"40 -- maybe they revoked your offer because "their" standards ruled you out..."
Well done job Morgan troll -- but, why would a firm make an offer to a 2L after a summer program, only to revoke it prior to the 2L's starting as a regular associate.
Perhaps you need to give a little more thought to your defense of MF. good luck.
52 - If you were running a firm, what would you do when you got into financial difficulty: hire more lawyers? What exactly is your point? You seem to think there is an endless pool of money to pay inflated associate salaries no matter how much they contribute to a firm? Sorry, there's no free lunch in the real economy. Only Bush and Cheney's hack pals get those deals.
"If I were a potential summer associate with a choice, I would certainly consider it."
What is going unsaid on this blog is that not very many summer associates have a choice. It's not the firms' fault. The economy sucks. If I were a summer associate with an offer from a quality firm, I would take it in a heartbeat, particularly if they were taking steps to reduce their cost structure, as Lat's story on Morgan indicates they are doing. Note Lat's story said the attorney ranks were not significantly affected. Just one opinion, but I actually read Lat's article before posting wild-eyed "advice."
54 - Obviously there are no "endless pools of money," but there are two types of firms: (a) those that suck it up for the year or two that it takes to work themselves through leaner times, and (b) others, such as MF, that have a history of wacking associates when times get tough.
I am not sure why you are having such difficulty getting the point, but let's spell it out for you: If you were a 2L picking between a type "a" or a type "b" firm, which would you choose?
56, what is your basis for saying that MF is not a type "a" firm. Lat's story said nothing about "wacking associates." You may know something Lat didn't report, but I suspect you're merely lashing out with innuendo because you were terminated for cause by MF at some time in the past.
Let's all interview at Cadwalader!!! Enough with these piker firms who lay off a few associates!!! Let's go to work for the real ball-busters!!! We'll either become real men with hugely swollen gonads, and income expectations, or lose our nuts altogether. Much more exciting than working for a run of the mill firm where all that matters is work quality.
I heard about the no pension rumor at MF too. Hope cutting attorneys and staffs helps... you can sublet the entire empty floor out.
The depth of caring about fat cat retired law firm partners purportedly not receiving their pension payments is bringing a tear to my 2L eye. Isn't this blog supposed to be for the living?
55 "I actually read Lat's article before posting wild-eyed 'advice.'"
- thanks for having read LAT's article before posting your "wild-eyed advice" that 2Ls should look at "reduce their cost structure" through associate layoff as a postive thing (by the way, you are quoting MF's spin on this, not any conclusion by LAT).
56 "what is your basis"
- how about:
(a) firm size apparently has been decreasing for the past several years (ok, lets agree to call it a "slowly leaking" ship rather than a "sinking" one);
(b) MF itself acknowledged that it was "laying off lawyers" (query: did you not read LAT's article or do you not know what "wacking" employees means?); and
(c) MF did similar layoffs in the past.
61 - You really seem to have a problem with MoFi. There has to be more to it than your desire to protect the welfare of newbie associates. What gives? For what it's worth, I read it the same as 55: they primarily cut staff, that's what Lat said.
61 - MF has plenty of good people left, but perhaps one should ask why these posters have a problem with someone pointing out that MF revoked offer letters in the past. Maybe you should instead ask what gives with the series of attack dog posts suggesting that (a) MF's history of layoffs is irrelevant and (b) it is really a good thing that MF has laid off people. Whether cuts are "primarly staff" or not, does not really change the issue that MF has again decided to "reduce its cost structure" through "laying off lawyers."
I stumbled upon this series of postings and can't figure out for the life of me what has gotten into these people. As best as can be discerned, the argument is about allegedly revoked offers 15 years ago. There is no indication from the ATL story that Morgan revoked any offers since then. In fact, the ATL story doesn't even mention anything that may have happened 15 years ago. So even if they did revoke offers 15 years ago, which was when the current class of 2Ls was in 3rd grade, what really is the point? Does anyone have any evidence that Morgan has revoked offers to this year's class? If true, that would be news, and I would like to know. What say you intrepid posters who are so intent on drawing inferences from the distant past?
Morgan is not a "sweat shop" -on yeah, there is simply no work. There are more partners than associates now! Partners, why don't you go get work instead of laying off people?
64 - please see post 24 for the "indication" that you seek.
66 - 24 doesn't refer to the content of the Lat article. Again, what is the basis for the revoked offer discussion? Morgan cut some staff and they're being taken to task for something that may have happened well into the last century! Get real. What is the posters' real agenda here? Could the posters be Morgan's self-perceived hot-shit departed partners lashing out because things haven't worked out quite so well for them in their new digs just down the street?
67-- i think it would be relevant to any potential associate to know that the firm has a history of laying off attorneys (not only staff) as witnessed by (a) '93 revoked offers 2 weeks before the bar exam, (b) as 24 indicates, they apparently have been laying off people since then, and (c) LATS article about the firm now laying off "lawyers" (not only staff as mischaracterized in your post).
if you would not consider a firm's history, because it is "so last century," that's cool.
What is the latest about Morgan & Finnegan?
As for morgan & finnegan they were wrong how they let go of staff , and good lawyers. They ran For cover they were looking out for tham self and for get about every body else . Not even a thank you for all the years we work.but good luck.
As for morgan & finnegan they were wrong how they let go of staff , and good lawyers. They ran For cover they were looking out for tham self and for get about every body else . Not even a thank you for all the years we work.but good luck.
As for morgan & finnegan they were wrong how they let go of staff , and good lawyers. They ran For cover they were looking out for tham self and for get about every body else . Not even a thank you for all the years we work.but good luck.Injoy working for morgan & finnegan for the last 10 years, good luck to paul, J,R. And to all my good freinds.
As for morgan & finnegan they were wrong how they let go of staff , and good lawyers. They ran For cover they were looking out for tham self and for get about every body else . Not even a thank you for all the years we work.but good luck. I Injoy working for morgan & finnegan for the last 10 years, good luck to paul, J,R. And to all my good freinds.
As for morgan & finnegan they were wrong how they let go of staff , and good lawyers. They ran For cover they were looking out for tham self and for get about every body else . Not even a thank you for all the years we work.but good luck.Injoy working for morgan & finnegan for the last 10 years, good luck to paul, J,R. And to all my good freinds.
As for morgan & finnegan they were wrong how they let go of staff , and good lawyers. They ran For cover they were looking out for tham self and for get about every body else . Not even a thank you for all the years we work.but good luck. I Injoy working for morgan & finnegan for the last 10 years, good luck to paul, J,R. And to all my good freinds.
As for morgan & finnegan they were wrong how they let go of staff , and good lawyers. They ran For cover they were looking out for tham self and for get about every body else . Not even a thank you for all the years we work.but good luck. I Injoy working for morgan & finnegan for the last 10 years, good luck to paul, J,R. And to all my good freinds.
As for morgan & finnegan they were wrong how they let go of staff , and good lawyers. They ran For cover they were looking out for tham self and for get about every body else . Not even a thank you for all the years we work.but good luck. I Injoy working for morgan & finnegan for the last 10 years, good luck to paul, J,R. And to all my good freinds.