Is this a first "mixed message" announcement --- ie that terminations were partly performance and partly economically based? This approach would tend to cast a pall over everyone they terminated, imo.

Although I share in your wishes of good luck, I disagree with your following statement: "it's nice to see Fish & Richardson clearly state their reasons for the attorney departures we reported." Although the reasons are stated, the statement itself is meaningless. F&R says that "many" of the departures were based on performance. and that "others" were "purely economic." However, without disclosing how many were in each category, each associate's departure is subject to being interpreted as being for performance, not economic, reasons.

Akin Gump Austin Office Defecting En Masse.

The flip side is that it allows the people axed for performance to claim that it was for economic reasons (which many prospective employers would believe in this environment).

The sky is falling!!

How dare you pull my coveted "FIRST" post.

Moderater, I'm offended by chocolate city. Please remove.

I'm offended by your spelling. It's "moderator," not "moderater."

#8 is probably a former fish & richardson attorney who made $160k for correcting typos. Keep up the good work!

To me, this sounds like PR damage control. They've already announced salary freezes and staff layoffs, so now they are claiming that "many of these departures occurred as the result of year-end performance evaluations" implying that only a few were "purely economic decisions." This looks like they are trying to save their reputation and not admit that they are bad financial shape.

Nearly 50 dismissals with most of them being performance related doesn't make sense. If Fish was flush with business, even those with bad performance reviews would be kept around because (1) they represent revenue for the firm, and you can't afford to throw away revenue in these economic times; and (2) a firm would much rather quietly keep a bad performer and then shuffle them off in-house to a client or potential client to ensure more work for the firm in the future.

I dont get the reluctance to admit the firings are based on the economy. Everyone knows Bush/Cheney left us in the shitter, but we will eventually get out of this Republican Depression.

What is a "Fish & Richardson"?

DLA Piper failing to pay associate bonuses also on claims of "performance problems."

10 NAILED IT!

Actually, I doubt they would have come clean if they were not called out by this blog. Bravo, ATL! Bravo!

I'm from a good school (Hostra) and got a call back from Fish. Does anyone know if they are still making offers to law school students?

-nervous T-10

Very fishy if you ask me.

This memo give no indication that the bleeding has stopped for FR. It also throws the whole layed off group under the bus by mixing layoffs necessitated by the economic situation with performance based terminations.

If I were a FR associate, present or recently-parted, I would be none too happy with this self-serving garbage.

So sick of firms pretending that economic layoff somehow become "performance" layoffs just because they use evaluations to decide which people to can.

If they have no work, they still aren't going to fire people by pulling names out of a hat. =P

50 seems like a significant reduction to me. According to NALP forms from '08 it looks like they had a total of 457 attorneys when they were filled out. Now I don't know if that number includes the incoming class, but regardless, 50 out of 460?

That's 10%+

Translation: the herds of self-entitled 24 yr. olds thinking they will be safe by flocking to IP practices will not be spared from slaughter.

Better call Mom and Dad and ask them to hold off on converting your old bedroom into an S&M playroom for a year or two.

Good luck to the departed/departing F&R attorneys.

Hey GOODWIN, when are you gonna show some balls and admit you've been shoving associates out the door for many months now????? Huh????

The statement by Fish only mentions support staff? Where does it admit attorney layoffs?

Performance vs economic.

It works this way. The firm expects attrition. Every year x number of associates leave. We have a goal for this number for each class. When too many associates leave, we try to hire laterals. However, now, not enough associates are leaving. So, we have to tell them to go. Those are performance lay offs.

We also have less work than before, so we cannot support the same number of associates. These are economic layoffs.

Read the full statement more carefully. Fish distinguishes between "legal staff" (read: associates) and "support staff."

I love the people who label any your attorney who don't like being fired as "entitled" and "spoiled" etc.

I bet mostly peopel who could not get into BigLaw, or who chose the non-profit route and always cry about the crosses they bear for everyone to hear.

#25 is a partner at Fish

@23: "legal staff"=attorneys. You'll learn this by the time you finish law school, hopefully.

20 - i dont disagree with much of your post, but the average poly sci/econ fuctard does not have the option of becoming an IP attorney (unless we call trademark peeps IP). An engineering degree (at least an EE or a CE as compated to mechnical) is required for most decent IP gigs.

I wish we knew if it was corporate or IP people, and from which offices...

23- I understand the distinction you are making, but I think in real-world practice the two aren't readily distinguishable.

"Not enough" associates are leaving because there is not enough work for all the associates staying. Its circular in a way.

And in normal times I doubt its consistently the crappy associates that are leaving. In some cases quite the opposite.

27 (6:21-2) here: Sorry--It *was* 23 that I directed my comment at, but something got deleted and the clueless newbie is 22 now.

29 - Yeah me too. Would be nice to know if there are patent people or non-patent people. And prosecution vs. litigation for that matter.

I am not a PR expert, but I think the best approach for law firms to take is to be open about the layoffs, take the public relations hit, and move on.

If you try to do "stealth layoffs," you just drag out the fear, palace intrigue, demoralization, and gossip. And you make your (soon-to-be-former) employees hate you.

See, e.g., Latham (comment thread still active):

http://abovethelaw.com/2009/01/stealth_layoff_open_thread_lat.php?show=comments#comments

28 - You forget biology and chemistry. Just jealous because our cases are more interesting? Haha.

For the love of Christ. Law students seem to believe that IP is booming. Its a lie. The firms you interviewed at are trying to tell you that. Clients are cutting back. Look at the layoffs in the tech sector. We are slow, not as slow as corporate, but slow. And clients are looking at any way to save a buck, that includes your pompous-ass "since I was an engineer I'm soooo much smarter than the rest of you and DESERVE 160K" that I heard from every child I interviewed.

I bet the "economic" firings are corporate guys, because (1) it's a lot harder to justify their fees in this economy, and (2) there is simply less corporate work as the corporate world is frozen in anticipation of the future (and subsequently hurting the future...).

I bet the "performance" firings were IP guys...probably pros, but also lit. Pros because in this economy, companies are not willing to shell out $10k for an improved widget patent which as of yet has no profitable use (whereas when money is flowing, cover-your-ass and patent everything). Seeing as how patent lit is FR's cash cow, I bet any lit firings were for people who truly had performance issues.

35 - I agree, no IP groups are "booming". They are, however, doing better than most groups. My IP group actually made budget in 2008, and was the only group to do so firmwide. We certainly are not booming with work, but we are safe(r) from layoffs than most.

But now that you mention it, I was an engineer, I AM soooo much smarter than you and I DESERVE 160K!

Fish to drop Richardson in favor of Estrada and Wilcox to form Fish & Chips.

28, that's BS. Only at crappy shops and IP-only boutique firms. My v10 firm has plenty of humanities majors who are IP litigators (if you were talking about prosecutors, you're right -- but they are money losers and will be the first to get laid off). And we routinely chew up opposing counsel that only hire EE majors (or BS degree-holders generally) who can't write a brief, argue a motion, or lawyer a case. It's the function of the technical expert to give the attorneys a working knowledge of the technology in a case -- it's going to have to be abstracted to a 30,000-foot level for a judge or jury to digest it anyway. You still have to have creative arguments and litigation skills, which tend to be in shorter supply among engineers.

I think 23 has a good point, and you missed it 30. his point is that the target size of each class is dependent on the market, so to the extent they are reducing target class size its based on the market. to the extent its trimming to stay at the same target its for performance reasons. If you only want the 10 best people of a certain class year, then numbers 11 on down get cut for performance (unless all but 10 leave on their own, in which case they are the 10 best). if, on the other hand, the firm thinks that you're a capable associate number 7, but they have to get rid of 7 through 10 now even though they like you and that wasn't part of the normal firm strategy, that's economy. and, when its junior people who they haven't had much chance to evaluate, calling it economy is more fair. more senior people, performance may be more accurate, as they have apparently not made themselves indispensable yet.

36: First paragraph is ok. Second paragraph is wrong. Prosecution is a cheaper investment and will create future revenue. If clients stop seeking protection over R&D, then they might as well shut their doors for good. Litigation is risky and expensive, and is being cut. Clients are opting for re-examination, which is largely handled by prosecutors, instead of litgation.

I'm not saying that prosecution isn't down, because it is. Some prosecutors may have to go. But it is more likely that litigators will be cut before proscutors for economic reasons.

41 is right. In addition, (some) prosecutors are capable of handling both prosecution and litigation, while litigators generally can't cross over - for educational reasons and/or patent bar reasons.

39, I'm sure you were a fantastic memo writer as a 2L, but a good prosecutor is much harder to find than a good litigator.

WHOEVER LIVES IN NYC IS OFFICIALLY AN IDIOT.

http://wcbstv.com/breakingnewsalerts/nyc.budget.mayor.2.921808.html

42: beyond not true. If we could find 10 decent litigators, we would hire them tomorrow. Prosecutors never bill more than 2K/year. And are some of the most inflexible b*stards in the firm.

43 - Actually rents are finally going down a bit. IF you keep your job (if) its sort of a GOOD time to be here.

Lots of ways to eat at fancy restaurants cheap etc too.

40 - No I think we are pretty much on the same page.

In theory I appreciate the distinction you and 23 are typing to draw, you arent WRONG, I just dont' think that in real world practice you can consistenly make that distinction....too many "what ifs." -30

muffmarkets? Anyone?

Quote from Fish's hiring freeze press release: "legal staff (this includes associates, technology specialists, counsels, staff attorneys, litigation technology analysts, and patent agents)"

How many of the 49 canned "legal staff" do you think are non-lawyer technology specialists, litigation technology analysts, and patent agents? Maybe Fish let some of them go. That may make sense, since they cannot bill as high...then again, they don't require as much pay either, so who knows!

44 - I admit that I never bill more than 2K a year. Then again, I do real work instead of due diligence, doc review or whatever. Both the billing rates and salaries of first-year monkeys doing that work need to be cut dramatically. My 100% billed efficiency at my elevated billing rate easily justifies my salary, albeit for only 1800-1900 hrs. The reason is that a Humanities major simply can't do my work.

I'm sorry you have had such bad experiences with your prosecutors, but we're not all inflexible bastards. Wouldn't you rather have someone who could handle both sides?

42

49 - I do patent lit, but passed the patent bar anyway.

I def do a good amount of boring document review etc, but a lot of prosecutors I have talked to say they find it boring. Not all obviously, but the "conventional wisdom" in my experience is that patent lit is typically more exciting but prosecution has more regular hours.

Just a matter of taste I guess.

What about Darby & Darby? It's one of the few IP firms left...

50 - That's probably true. I recently made a lateral move to a firm that allows me to do about 30% litigation/lit support, just to break of the monotony usually associated with prosecution (at my previous firm I was stuck doing all prosecution). I do love the 9:30-6:00 schedule I can swing with prosecution, however.

I don't know how senior you are, but if you still have a low billing rate and there is someone who will give you a little prosecution training, take it now. It will be impossible to get when your rate goes up. Having both skill sets can be valuable. I'm also a sick dancer, so I'm kind of a triple threat.

49

Do firms like Fish, Finnegan, and other IP only boutiquea/bigtiquea run circles around large, GP firms that do IP litigation? Does hiring engineers and scientists to handle litigation really give these firms an advantage over GP firms who will throw a humanities person onto an IP case?

Prosecutor here. Billed 2150 last year and 2050 the year before. There are plenty of prosecutors who never bill 2k, but I also know many who do and then some.

Certainly boring, but the workstyle fits my personality and lifestyle. To each his own.

49: 44 here. Yes, rather have someone who can do both sides. Do not know why there are so few of those. I think its logistical, lit gets busy, you push of pros work and back and forth. Eventually people just seem to specialize.

20 here.

My comment is only intended to be an "I told you so" to the ATL minions/BigLaw IP associates who, until very recently, selected their career paths based on the mistaken assumptions that 1) BigLaw firms truly care about their associates 2) IP practices are somehow immune from the general economic climate.

Now that the layoffs at Gunderson and FR have debunked assumption #2, let's talk about assumption #1. Anyone that thinks firms won't be able to attract top talent once they have a reputation for laying off junior associates is deluding herself/himself. Last time I checked, there are plenty of 1- and 2Ls out there at every school in the T25 that have debilitating amounts of student debt. Do you really believe those students are going to turn down an offer from a big firm that laid off junior associates in this market when their first Direct Loan statement arrives in the mail?

25-You can suck my IP-nis,

I do 80% IP lit and 20% patent prosecution. I've seen excenllent lawyers on both sides. But in general, IP lit is much more lucrative and many general practice firms use prosecution only to keep a good client relationship so more lit work can be brought over. Till this point, I've seen more prosecutors being let go than litigators.

I love seafood.

57 - Can you specify a firm? Do you mean let go recently for economic reasons? I have actually been observing the opposite, so I'm just curious.

53: in my experience (as a humanities major 5th year IP Lit associate at a v10 non-IP-only firm): absolutely not. In fact, much the opposite. Unless one side just has better facts, the better lawywers generally win. Being a good lawyer > being a good scientist.

60, 53 here again. But what about the argument that you cannot be a good IP litigator without knowing the science/technology? I hear this from IP boutiques all the time - is there any merit to this?

61, that is way oversold. You have a technical expert who will have a PhD and will have focused narrowly on precisely the technology that's being litigated for years (including working for companies in the field and, typically, being a professor at a large research university). That person understands the technology far better than some law firm associate with a bachelor's degree in the general field. And that person can explain the technology to the extent necessary to the lawyers (frankly, outside of some semiconductor and wireless technology stuff I just don't find the technology *that* hard to grasp). You can't present a coherent or persuasive case to a judge or jury if you're caught up in the details (or if you suck at writing because you've never had to write anything besides answers to problem sets).

LAYOFFS? Don't talk about -- LAYOFFS?!? You kiddin me? LAYOFFS?!?

62 - I wouldn't say way oversold. It definitely makes you more efficient to be able to understand the technology quickly and tech clients/employees appreciate you being able to speak geek with them. Obviously some technology is easy to grasp for both laymen and engineers, but given two equally qualified attorneys, I'd pick the engineer with background in the technology.

That said, I agree with you that it's the better lawyer that wins. If the engineer can't write, their engineering background won't save them. It's a good plus, but it's only a plus.

Of course, there's also having an IP litigator who's prosecuted or worked at the patent office, which is an science-exclusive group and which I'd consider much more valuable. Nobody picks a patent apart like a person who's pushed dozens of applications through the PTO.

Jim Mora---HILARIOUS

this talk about who makes a better litigator is stupid. a good litigator is someone that can grasp a lot more than the techical aspect. when you go into trial, the jury pretty much tunes out the technical aspect and you are left with "impressions", i.e. the jury is going to pick who they like or who they thought put on a better case. that is when you need a good lawyer with a good personality to be in tune with the jury. you dont need any particular degree, you just need to not be a tool. i am an engineer who does ip litigation and works mainly for our main ip litigator, a polysci major. he rocks and i learn a lot about what being a lawyer means from him.

this talk about who makes a better litigator is stupid. a good litigator is someone that can grasp a lot more than the techical aspect. when you go into trial, the jury pretty much tunes out the technical aspect and you are left with "impressions", i.e. the jury is going to pick who they like or who they thought put on a better case. that is when you need a good lawyer with a good personality to be in tune with the jury. you dont need any particular degree, you just need to not be a tool. i am an engineer who does ip litigation and works mainly for our main ip litigator, a polysci major. he rocks and i learn a lot about what being a lawyer means from him.

Didn't Allen Iverson give a nearly identical rant at least two years before Mora gave his?

68, yes, Iverson's was about getting benched or fined for not going to practice. "Practice. It's practice, man. Practice." Mora's was more apoplectic and high-pitched.

Are you prep./pros. guys also able to get opinion or client-counseling work? I always thought that companies generally don't pinch pennies on that stuff (present times may be excluded). My understanding is that a noninfringement or invalidity opinion can easily cost a client $50K to $100K, and can provide up to 100 hours of work. A mid-level associate can basically write the whole thing; a partner can then spend a little time reviewing and revising it. Throw in some opinion work and some work counseling the client on the infringement risk of its products in development, and that hours requirement doesn't look so bad.

If it's just prep./pros., how do you keep from killing yourselves?

67 is right on. You need not be a scientist/engineer, but you do need to be smart. You've got to have a good handle on the technology in order to have real efficacy in the courtroom. The Sr. patent partner I work for is wildly successful. He majored in history, but he has no problem understanding the technology behind the patents he litigates.

Incidentally, he typically only hires people with technical backgrounds and encourages them to take the patent bar....

The lead trial attorney does not need a technical degree. But every GP firm (KE Mofo et al.) all have techies.

The vast majority of patent cases never reach the courtroom. You're going to need hardcore techies to get you through Claim Construction, Infringement, Invalidity and MSJs. A team with no techies will get its ass handed to it during Claim Construction. That alone will decide the case - it won't survive long enough to even reach trial.

You need people to bind the technical facts to the law. A hired gun expert isn't going to cut it.

71-You can't have a degree in history and become a patent prosecutor. All patent lawyers MUST have techie background degrees in science or engineering and then your typical law degree, and then obtain their Reg. Nos. from the USPTO.

Unless you subscribe to the belief that any exposure is good exposure, this thing is a PR nightmare. F&R was featured here 3 times in one week. First for salary freezes. Then for staff layoffs. And now admitting to stealth layoffs since November.

I don't think anyone faults a firm for conducting layoffs in this economic climate. But this is not the way to go about doing it.

As a F&R associate, I knew about these layoffs in November. I would get calls every so often from other associates telling me that they've been let go for "performance" reasons. Having worked with some of these people, I assure you that they are good attorneys. They did their jobs well and billed 2100+. Their only weakness was that they were not liked or not as liked by some of the principals.

This press release continues to reinforce my belief that F&R treats its people like garbage. After being told by multiple partners in management that "we've never laid off people" and "we don't plan to" in October, November and January, the firm now throws everyone who's left under the bus.

I came to F&R because of its touted quality of life and open environment. This proves that F&R is no different than any other firm. It certainly is no different than K&E which all the partners at F&R like to portray as a sweatshop. At least places like K&E admit to it. At F&R you are duped into coming. I hope that law students and laterals going forward know what they’re getting themselves into when they come here. It shouldn’t be for the “quality of life” or “associate satisfaction.”

Who is the new king of the IP boutiques? Fitzpatrick? Kenyon?

what does this mean for incoming associates?

75: Kenyon is KING. take that be-atches.

it's all performance-based. Failure of the partners to bring in the business. Failure of the clients to drum up business to give to the partners. But all of this is obvious and therefore a waste of time to argue why people are being layed off in this economy.

I dont understand this whole i rip BS's to shreds in court crap? really you have an ug degree in history from UM realized it was worthless and never had a job went straight into law school and now you "rip people to shreds". Who even says that.
like the guy in the $5k suit is going to hold the elevator for the guy in a $150 suit. COME'ON

Who is the new king of the IP boutiques? Fitzpatrick? Kenyon?

I don't think layoffs affect anything like that. Sooner or later, if it hasn't already happened, other boutiques like Fitzpatrick and Kenyon will have layoffs as well. I've already heard of lots from Fish & Neave (in Ropes and Gray)... but I guess they really aren't an actual boutique.... just a remnant of one.....

The people who are arguing that a tech background doesn't make a HUGE difference are always non-technical people trying to justify their positions.

A good lawyer with a deep technical knowledge of the relevant subject matter will grasp subtitles and come up with arguments that a non-technical person will not. It certainly won't win the day every time, since many times there are obvious factual hurdles that cannot be overcome, but it makes a difference.

-- Former BigLaw IP Litigator Who's Worked With Both Technical and Non-Technical People Extensively (Now Big Tech In-House)

#76 - "what does this mean for incoming associates? "

...probably very little. The scariest thing for incoming FR associates is salary was not actually set in FR's offer letter...it just said last year was $160k and they expect it to be near that again...so, theoretically, they could pay incoming associates less than $160k, but that would be a real asshole-ish thing to do and a lousy way to welcome your new hires.."welcome to the firm; here's your notification of a pay cut!"

FR's economic-based layoffs had to be on their weak corporate side, which has never quite had the business they are looking for. Their performance-based layoffs are likely their IP side, so if you're an incoming IP attorney you probably are OK in the short term...just don't have crappy work, because apparently they'll (understandably) cast you off as an under-performer.

Can any current FR associates (AHEM #74?) please let me know if my assumption is correct that economic firings are corporate and performance firings are IP? (I know 74 said the people fired for performance reasons are actually good performers, but I'm just referring to the reason given and not their actual performance.)

F&R has a lot of problems that laterals or new associates should be aware of.

One obvious problem is the firm's lack of integrity. In November, firm management/Peter Devlin visited different offices to reassure people that although the economy was soft, no one would be let go. Firm management outright lied about this, as the ensuing layoffs prove.

Second, F&R is a place where a**-kissing is more important than merit. This permeates the culture. Fish has expanded the number of offices dramatically in recent years, and many of the equity & nonequity partners who have been kept on bring in absolutely no business. They are kept because they are pals of more important people. The only way to justify their existence is to give them work that associates at other firms get (depositions, hearings, etc.), which means that associates at Fish often get inferior work relative to their friends at firms like Kirkland, Wilmer, etc.

These layoffs don't solve Fish's problems. The bloated, ineffective partners remain. Many very productive associates have been let go, whereas the a**-kissing ones survive. Yet there will continue to be a shortage of work, and associates will continue to get sub-par experience for the reasons above. Top law students are figuring this out and going elsewhere, leading Fish to hire more and more people from TTT schools.

The only thing that keeps the firm afloat is its rankings in IP magazines for the most # of patent lawsuits - this proves very helpful in marketing. Yet the cases Fish gets often settle quickly and bring in little revenue...thus, Fish gets a high ranking for lots of lawsuits, but the quality of the litigation itself is pretty low.

Get out while you can.

And go where? Who else worthwhile is going to pay $160k outside NY for an IP Lit associate in this economy?

84 - obviously depends on geography. Places outside NY that include 160K offices: Chicago, DC, Texas, California, Boston, and even a few smaller markets. Plenty of great firms are looking for good IP associates.

As for the "worthwhile" aspect of your comment...sometimes very prestigious places give associates crappy work experiences, and less prestigious places can give great experiences. And visa versa, of course. You really need to do due diligence and ask around. Firm brands, unfortunately, don't provide much guidance.

Are the bankruptcy groups slow? At a v50 firm with large bankruptcy group and we are fairly slow, when we should be carrying the firm. It is scary.

Fish and Richardson has been known for years as a place that has a lot of borderline average/passable senior associate and junior partner types. They weren't awful but they weren't very good. Fish kept them because they paid them nothing. Fish has more people of those years pulling down 300K than any other firm. That bubble is now bursting. Fish will be 1/2 of its current size in 3 or 4 years.

83 -- This is the world. It's not a fair place. Welcome. Ever hear the phrase: "it's not who you are, it's who you know"? That's life...it's unfair...get used to it because Fish doesn't have the monopoly on your particular complaint. (Also, the word is ASS not A**. As in: "I'm an ASS for correcting your A**.)

I don't care how well you know the law and how wonderful your work product is; in litigation, if you do not work well with others, you're likely a greater burden than a help, and you may get shit canned. So yeah, relationships with the higher-up's help, but the key may be ability to work well with partners rather than ability to complement his wife's shapely a**. Prosecution is not as bad about this, but still--nobody wants to work with a jerk even if they only have a little interaction with them.

In a fair world, you wouldn't need to suck up...but then again, utopias never really work anyway.

Love the "Guy in a $5000 dollar suit" comment. Come, on.

-- Mister Manager

PS Can someone with spare time, i.e. law student or layoff casualty, please take over for Count Layoffula

81 - yeah, b/c a BS = deep technical knowledge, right? Oh, and even if you have this extremely deep knowledge, good luck translating that to the judge/jury, who presumably won't have such knowledge. The fact of the matter is, technical knowledge helps, but not everyone on the team needs loads of it. That's what you have tech specialists and experts for. They do the work in helping out with the technology, and the rest of the team handles the litigation. Litigators have to handle specialized areas of knowledge all the time - hire the experts to help out.

How are we still arguing tech BS vs. BA? Everyone knows: (a) if you're an IP guy with a BS, you think a BS is necessary, and (b) if you're an IP guy with a BA, you think a BS is unnecessary...nobody here is going to change anyone's personal bias so just shut up about it! It's really annoying when all i am here for is inside information about layoffs...

Full disclosure: I've got a BS and I consider myself a capable trial attorney, in front of a jury or not. However, my colleagues who only have a BA are also capable trial attorneys and generally can grasp the science when necessary.

88 - there are shades of gray in this world too, and many of the best firms take pains to ensure that merit trumps "politics" in terms of promotion. Fish is less of a meritocracy than other places, and many of its "service" and "income" partners don't survive in the firm b/c of their merit.

Kenyon is king? you're kidding, right? king at f-ing up big litigation?

and the valley office? bunch of lame-ass prosecutors...

Kenyon is nothing. It has lost most of its Teva work to other firms. It will be the next IP shop to go under.

63: You made my night. Thanks for the reference, especially for me reading it on the eve of the Super Bowl. Keep up the good work.

#82: Fish laid off people in its IP and corporate groups. As for performance based, I don't know if it is strictly IP. My guess is that it is not. Fish was trying to cover its ass. Why delineate between practice groups?

As for the rest of you arguing the difference between having a technical degree and not having one, I don't believe there is that big a difference. A technical background might help in understanding the patent and in expert discovery. But the advantage is insubstantial. However, having a technical background in times like these means you are diversified. Many associates with technical degrees can still make 6 figures or close to it in industry if they are laid off. Laid off IP litigators with history degrees = future barista at Starbucks. HTH.

39--

In my opinion, having a technical background is a huge plus as an IP litigator. The advantage comes mostly in being able to meaningfully respond to expert witnesses in depositions and cross examination.

For the record, most small ("TTT") IP shops pay a little over 100K starting out and only expect you to work 40-50 hour a week.

Partners frequently make over a million dollars per year because they don't have to share their money with partners from less profitable practice groups.

It's a good way to live.

--Small firm IP lawyer in a flyover state

PSA - if you get laid off while your harder working co-worker doesn't, then your layoff is PERFORMANCE based - because if you had performed better, you wouldn't have gotten fired. Not enough work you say? Well maybe you should have BROUGHT some work into the firm instead of acting like a typical entitled, spoiled brat. I routinely meet third years that haven't even TRIED to bring business into their firm!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL LAZIES !!!!!!!

What about Townsend and Townsend and Crew?

99. Would you say more third years have tried than have not? In my experience a third year is just not in the position to be pitching to clients. A third year does not have the legal skills to impress a client, and probably has not been around long enough to form any meaningful contacts.

99, at my firm, associates are not encouraged to seek out clients. There is no incentive at all for associates to bring in clients. No cuts and no encouraging words during performance review. Why should associate?!

102 Any firm of any substance does not want 3rd year associates bringing in work. Clients who go with such junior people are concerned generally only with the bill; they create conflict problems and generally dont pay.

Females can bring in work if they get their flirt on.

Monday layoffs: I'm betting the day's first big report will come from S&C. How about you?

PS I predict 20% of all associates employed as of 1/1/2008 will become unemployed within the next 18 months.

PPS I also predict that 90% of all service partners will be de-equitized or shown the door within the next 18 months.

I'm an associate and I could easily pull in business. The reality is the firm does not want me to drum up business because firms want to maintain the illusion that associates are beholden to "rainmaking partners."

106-- Illusion? Beholden? What are you a dope? The firm turns down work so that is can maintain an illusion? You really think this?

The ship be sinking...

If your firm isn't profitable in prep/pros, then they have crappy associates or clients. I'm a biglaw pros that can write a patent, or respond to an office action, within the client's budget and without getting time knocked off (there are always a few technically difficult cases that take too much time...but those usually get offset by easy ones). Any good mid-level can.

Reexam/opinion work is also very profitable...with easier hours too.

As far as BS/BA. In court, it doesn't matter. If reexams pop up (which they usually do now), not having the pros background hurts, and only the BS will have it. The PTO rules have land mines everywhere. I can always tell when I am up against litigators, and always spank them procedurally.

109 here...and it is easy to bill over 2K a year. Prosecutors who say otherwise should work harder. And sure, the hours are harder than litigator hours...but you get to choose when to take them, so suck it up.

WilmerHale's IP is booming, as are a number of other firms. If you do a good job, then your practice will be thriving. Most that are failing had crappy attorneys who managed to become IP attorneys cos of short supply and high demand, but only the relatively skilled ones remain once the economy tightens.

WilmerHale's IP is booming, as are a number of other firms. If you do a good job, then your practice will be thriving. Most that are failing had crappy attorneys who managed to become IP attorneys cos of short supply and high demand, but only the relatively skilled ones remain once the economy tightens.

111/112

I may be a "crappy attorney" (according to you), but at least I know how to only post 1 comment.

How many technical experts actually do their own work? These are some of the laziest people I have ever worked with. You need a technical degree to do IP lit because of the PhD blowhards that charge $500/hr do nothing.

How many technical experts actually do their own work? These are some of the laziest people I have ever worked with. You need a technical degree to do IP lit because the PhD blowhards want you to write their report.

Thanks 126. I guess I just assumed IP people were fired from the comments and Elie's article. But it's true that the memo itself doesn't actually say that.

-125

ATL is experiencing techinical difficulties. A number of posts on this thread have mysteriously disappeared though not removed by a moderator. We apologize for the inconvenience caused by our TTT site.

#25 Too bad there's not a grammar and spell check button