pls. get the firm name right at least.
two ampersands

How you like me now?

1 -

Nope. Incoming associates will not be starting in January.

2--Why do you think it's two ampersands? They use "and" http://www.townsend.com/Who/WhoFirmHistory

Are you trying to trip Elie up?

The word ampersand is a corruption of the phrase "and per se and", meaning "and [the symbol which] by itself [is] and".[1]

Wikipedia

I never knew that's where it came from.

5 = Jim's favorite associates.

Does Townsend have any associates left that weren't let go?

4, you are whiny little bitch. You've let this bother you so much that you've taken yourself out of the game. I've never worked a day in biglaw (aside from the summer of course), but you are such a weak person that I doubt you would last long. Act like a man for Christ's sake. Go watch Gran Torino - I think that movie might help you.

Also - they have just reduced salaries of 1st years. Clearly they are thinking of bringing on 1st years, so dont sound so sure of yourself.

2 = epic fail

Now that's some real money, all for doing little or nothing. Attorneys have it made in the shade. Disgrace to mankind, excempt for Obamakind.

a friend summered in their SF office and when she got her no-offer, the partner made it sound like she was the only one who did not receive an offer. turns out no one got an offer -- they were just trying to prevent people from running to tell atl.

TTTownsend has not been doing well...clients are leaving left and right, and associates are being trashed up and down. Many are predicting that TTC will not survive in few more years. And this act is one further affirmation towards its inevitable. TTC is by far one of the worst, if not the worst, IP boutiques in the industry.

Turducken & Turducken & Crew.

TTC has some major assholes working there. Is that bitch Iris still there? Eff 'em all.

Re the end of lockstep and Elie's continuing rants on the subject: can someone please point out to me another profession where base pay is transparent and based solely on seniority? Does i-banking work this way?

In my professional experience (in both engineering and law), pay is negotiated, reasonably market-driven and at least nominally meritocratic. I just don't get the biglaw entitlement mentality, and most of my former managers would ROFL at the notion of lockstep.

Color me nonplussed.

American History baby. Downtown New York.

What clients have left?

How many summers received offers?

How is KMOB doing?

Townsend Townsend & Crew Cut

What drags TTC down is their low margin patent prosecution business. Most big firms have exited this field because there isnt much money to be made here. Patent drafting can be done cheap in India.

TTC's star practice is Antitrust. Obviously they must not be doing too well these days. I dont get it. We hear about all these too-big-to-fail establishments. TTC should be doing well in such an environment. Too bad they treat their associates like crap.

Call me when a good firm abandons lockstep.

The ship be sinking...

The ship be sunk. The only question is whether those who jumped while it was sinking can swim long enough for help to arrive.

13 works in Finnegan's marketing department.

Um..hello?

This actually announces their intention to unfreeze salaries when associates move up a step next year. Unlike firms that have frozen and announced nothing about 2010 (almost all), TTC associates (who were frozen) now know that they will be getting a step increase next year. And since they're frozen, no one actually at the firm now is taking a paycut, only the incoming first years. Why does no one else see this as actually good news?

co-sign 27.

Knobbe Martens, as far as I know, offered all of their summer associates that could start in Fall 2010 jobs. We were told we would be starting mid - late Sept 2010, though no firm date as of now. They are also looking for more 3Ls to fill out their fall 2010 class.

All of the fall associates for 2009 started this week. We were told this summer that there were no layoffs, nor plans for layoffs. LItigation seemed very busy. Prosecution not so much.

In other words this is the same salary structure as all of the other firms that have frozen salaries except for the fact that first years start at $145,000 instead of having both first and second years at $160,000.

It had a few really good years within the last five.

These bozos sent me the most obnoxious rejection letter I have ever received. Then I got an offer at a band 1 IP firm.

32-
Please post or quote. I've received several choice ones as well, including one from an AmLaw100 that had told me verbally that they were going to bring me back.

Completely agree with 27 that this is great news. If my cheap V30 firm goes along with this structure, I'd be thrilled. The one thing I did notice is that "Level 6" and "Level 7" seem lower than I think they are under the current frozen salary scale. Shouldn't they be 230K and 250K?

22, prosecution can be a profitable business if you are efficient and have a steady stream of work.

Furthermore, TTC really only had the one big Microsoft antitrust case which settled a while ago. They do not have a large antitrust practice.

34, have to agree. This is pretty exciting. This is way better than a pay cut. I know my V100 DC firm is on the fence looking what to do. ... a couple more like this and they'll probably follow along.... lemmings.

btw... 34, this is the old 145K scale with Year 2 making 160K (ostensibly so no one has to take a pay cut). That's why years 6 and 7 are 225 and 240.

Kenyon & Kenyon just adopted the same pay scale.

If they're just throwing the catchall Crew on the end, why do they need the second Townsend?

Gene Crew is one of the founders.

Or did I just get trolled?

Why are TTC, Kenyon, and Darby struggling? I'm in the IP department of an AmLaw 50 and prosecuting patents. We are busier than ever.

They're not - they're just capitalizing on the fact that the bigname GPs are crashing to nerf salaries. PPP are prob as high as ever. Same ole B.S.

Kenyon has been struggling for several years now. Maybe b/c some big litigations went kerplooie and a primarily prosecution practice can't support Kenyon's past desire to run with the big dogs salary-wise.

Check out the firm's website--lots of less than impressive resumes.

One thing everybody will say for Kenyon: management will keep even the deadweight.

I think the problem with TTC, Darby, and especially Kenyon is that they were able to jack up their rates and salaries during the boom, but they failed to step up or retain any quality in people/facilities/organization. Now that clients are looking for value prosecution and to GP firms for cut-rate litigation, Kenyon types don't have any profitable hook. Perhaps deflating salaries and making deferrals permanent for lackluster incoming associates will help them become competitive again.

Thanks, 37. I looked up the old 145K scale, and you're correct that it's the same, with one exception: "Level 4" is 185K, while it was 190K on the old scale.

-- 4th year associate billing crazy hours who's been stuck at 185K for two years

37,45---you are not taking one fact into consideration. The yearly billable requirement on the 145k scale was much lower. 1800 for prosecutors and 1825 for litigators. This is billshit. The way this was handled was bullshit. Management sent out this email and then made themselves onveniently unavailable for questions. Level 7 caps pre-freeze were 280k--a far cry from the currently proposed 240k cap.

Hey class of 2009/2010. Join the Unemployed Lawyers Club. By our powers combined, maybe we can help each other find jobs.

http://groups.google.com/group/unemployed-lawyers-club?hl=en&lnk=

It is deplorable and obnoxius that some partners and/or management have posted comments trying to insinuate that this is good news. It is not good news. It is ridiculous. Going lower than pre-2007 levels while keeping a higher billable requirement is good news? That fact that Townsend is now the lowest paid firm in the market is good news? The fact that Townsend has been complaining about the associates' salaries- the assoicates that do all their work- for over a year is good news? The fact that Townsend handled this completely unprofessionally is good news? The fact that Townsend will not be able to recurit and retain good talent now that they have instituted this crap pay scale is good news? The fact that PPP will not change and the same over-paid lazy partners will continue to make more money is good new? The fact that they will undoubtedly raise billable rates is good news? The fact that Townsend has continuously lied to the associates and ignored their reasoned and logical requests and arguments is good news? Seriously?

Screw you Townsend. It is absolutely embarassing.

I echo 48. Unfortunately, law firm partners/recruiters have caught on to the fact that they can pose as associates. Yet I have never seen anything as transparent as this--posting that this is actually "good news." Amazing, but in a way not surprising given that Townsend partners generally have no social awareness (or ability to bring in premium work). The argument that some of them might lateral to another biglaw firm is ridiculous--the clients these guys have are the bottom of the barrel...clients who complain about paying $300 per hour for a midlevel associate. (And partners at Townsend have lower billing rates that many associates at biglaw firms).

Let's face it: this resolves all doubt that Townsend is a tier 2/tier 3 shop. It's clearly inferior to Knobbe, Fish, Finnegan, and innumerable other GP firms.

Law students and laterals beware.

Let's face it, bottom line here--PPPs are down. There has also been complaints amongst partners that since 2003 associate salaries have increased by 25%, but firm revenue has only increased by 12%.

48, 49 Rather than partners commenting, the commenters are the firm's PR department or an outside PR firm. Latham's PR department even won an award for a newsletter.

Google: "promoted to partner" +[law firm name] +PR

and you will find some interesting results.

You can also go to some free news release aggregators, such as www.pr-inside.com and search for your firm's name.

I have relatives in the PR business. Their opinion of my NYC based AmLaw100's firms PR budget was maybe a $750k/year (at the low end) for visibility work (press releases, announcements, arranging interviews). Then there is training, presumably partners, how to give interviews, speak, etc. and crisis management when a case is lost.

The golden goose for PR flacks is the "non-profit/charity event" that would raise "x millions for the very worthy cause of xxx." An event like that with 300 attendees will generate more money for the PR firm and its subcontractors than what will be raised for charity - barring some mega-contribution.

Large PR firms have an even coordinator on staff and smaller firms associate with one. Not counting the service costs for the PR firm and the coordinator, every item is marked up at astonishing rates. Any attendee over the initial 300 is worth $300-500 (in NYC and LA) in the pocket of the PR firm - larger event space costs a premium which is passed through, larger kitchen/prep space is needed, additional wait staff. All costs are surcharged multiple times.

Every time that I read a press release thumping a partner on the chest for a win on some litigation that cost more than the settlement or every time I go to one of these events and eat an artery clogging meal, I feel embarrassed for the firm and sad for the laid-off associates.

I wish ATL would cover this. Despite all his faults, Elie's redeeming quality is his ability to see through the charade that is big law.

50 (TTC partner?) doesn't seem to realize the conceptual difference between "salaries" and "profit-sharing." Given this lack of understanding, let me be clear about the difference: profits are the residual gains after expenses (e.g. salaries) are paid. Profits should fluctuate; salaries should not.

Point 2: Townsend has handled this with about as much class as can be expected from a firm that touts itself on being full of geeks (look at its website). A few hours after the announcement that we'd all be losing about $25K per year, a firmwide email was sent out that we shouldn't forget that we get a 15% discount for Verizon phone services. Thanks for the reminder, Townsend!

At about the same time, another firmwide email was sent out about a meeting called "Law Firm Economics 101" we're invited to attend. Gee--I wonder what the bottom line of that meeting is going to be? Do they really think we can't recognize brainwashing when we see it?

Management's final proposal is even worse than the one it gave BEFORE associates spent days trying to figure out a compromise. Townsend management wasted our time and threw SHIT in our face to boot.

Thanks, you shitty ass TTTTTTTTTTTTC firm.

As a TTC client, can I expect a 15% discount on my next invoice?

Ditto 50--

Management's request that associates compile market information (which took days and endless telephone conference calls) for them and then not take one iota of the data into consideration=WASTE OF MY TIME!

Really good compensation strategy too--let's screw our 5th, 6th, and 7th year associates. You know, the one that actually do our work.

50--you forgot to also mention the "trial victory" email that went out shortly after as well. WooHoo, yeah, "Go team Townsend!" ---Suck it!

Management's faux attitude of "we welcome associate input and think that it is very important when making decisions such as this" was/is nothing but an empty gesture. I'd have more respect for them if they just told me to F' off!

Even more frustrating is the way this has been handled, very classy. Send an email on a Friday and then run out of the office to catch your flight---thanks, TTC cowards.

Suck it TTC, I'm going home.

Disgrunted Townsend associates, here's a "news flash" for you:

Townsend never was a player.

Stop whining about being part of a TTT firm. You should have known they aren't even listed in Vault, they're not Amlaw 100--they don't even have a link devoted to them on abovethelaw.

And Townsend won't have a problem with recruiting, either, because the Hastings law graduates they hire are just happy to find a job.

Whatever, you people can call me a partner all you want. The fact is that my firm has always had a billable requirement of 2000 hours (only 100 of which can be pro bono), and my pay is frozen at 185K. That's only 25K more than 1st years (i.e., people 3 years younger than me, who have no clue what they're doing), and 25K less than 5 years (i.e., people 1 year above me, who pretty much do the same work as me). My firm has not committed to unfreezing salaries, and pretty much everyone has assumed that we'll be frozen for another year. So, yes, this is good news for me.

And of course, my cheap firm, which demands at least 2000 billable hours in exchange for my frozen salary, is billing me out at over $400/hour.

55 = disgruntled liberal arts undergrad that is angry patent attorneys can do everything they can do, plus more, and do it better.

AmLaw 100 does not matter. Sorry.

56 = whiner that knew or should have known his/her firm sucked. Townsend used to be a good firm, that is why it is so frustrating for associates that they are behaving this way.

43/44 - Searching for news on Kenyon and Darby does not yield any information about salaray cuts or deferrals, so I'm curious why you lump them into the same class as TTC? If anything, it is my experience that the patent shops with less GP visibility (Oblon, Knobbe, Cella, BSKB, Darby, Sughrue, Oliff, etc.) are doing fine right now. Contrast this with the multiple, negative stories about more GP-type IP shops (Fish, Morgan & Finnegan, TTC, etc.)

Please, if you can do it, point me to a story showing crap going down at Darby or Kenyon. Otherwise, I'm going to assume this is limited to TTC overextending its sucky self beyond patents and into nonprofitable practices.

48 - TTC is far from the lowest paying firm in the market. I'm a 7th year at DLA, and I earn the same amount as a 6th year at TTC on the new scale.

55- take your "i don't know anything" undergraduate liberal arts degree and shove it up your a$$.

59--it is obvious that what you know is absolutely nothing.

Hey - 59 - newsflash for ya buddy. I used to have an offer from Sughrue, but now I don't. So yeah, you could say "crap" went down there.

And Kenyon? I know several deferred associates there who are worried that promised start dates next year may vanish this fall.

News like this is left off ATL because nobody cares about these crap firms, not because the firms are doing "fine."

62-- Good for you! Hope you enjoy all of the foreign prosecution paper pushing that you will be doing at Sugrue! Talk about crap!

Patent geeks trash talking each other = funniest thread of comments on ATL in a long time.

Townsend is an old established regional IP firm. Around 2000, it paid less than the big players, much like Farella. It was known for actually being a bit more laid back. Something changed around 2003. The firm had a few big contingency wins, and started taking on biggest ITC cases. Everyone got greedy. The fiefdoms got more entrenched. Litigation suddenly had more sway then prosecution. They merged with Legal Strategies Group, which changed the culture. Many of the good people left (and a few bad apples as well). Luckily, SS stepped down. But the firm had raised its rates. You don't get a TTC midlevel at $300. Sorry.

64=Victory!

50,

Wasn't 2003 the year that the Integraph money came in?
Go back to 2000. What was PPP? What is going to be this year (a very bad year). That's right. You are still doing quite well, especially considering that some folks who bring in no business have been given equity. I hope Jim can pass his huge book to you guys when he retires. If not, ya'll are screwed.

For the record, Iris is hot.

Townsend associates have a problem. Most went to Davis, Hastings, or Santa Clara, and can't really vote with their feet. They are stuck (except the prosecutors, who frequently go out on their own or to other small firms and make more money working less hours).

If you can negotiate the politics, Townsend is a good firm. Bill 2100 hours a year. Don't expect much of a bonus. See where it takes you.

Townsend is a place where you can show up as a temporary hire and later make equity partner, despite having a short and tiny book of business. Not many places provide that much upward mobility.

Does Knobbe start people at $130?

When it comes to Townsend no offers, all I can think about is Rick James on Eddie Murphy's couch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LW3gTKa6rFo

"I'VE BEEN KICKED OUT OF BETTER HOMES THAN THIS!!!"

71-
Is that the definition of a TTT?

Townsend hires from shitty schools. Their SF contingent is largely from USF and Golden Gate. A few Hastings and Davis grads added for good measure. These strivers arent walking away. They will take it up their ass like any TTT striver would.

When you have an advanced degree in a rigorous field, you don't worry about your law school's rank. You go at night for free while making more money than most humanities degree will ever be worth. And you enjoy it more because you're there by choice and because you enjoy the challenge, not because you lack for better options.

And the best part is that when you graduate you don't turn into a bitter prestige-whore ATL troll.

76 you're delusional. Clients dont pay the big bucks for a bunch of TTT grads. Even your undergrad degrees are from TTT colleges. You are a bunch of wannabes. GTFO.

Wrong again. Clients care about work product and trust. And if you're the typical egg-head scientist/engineer IP boutique client, you're basically oblivious to law school prestige anyway.

But I do like the way you refer to me in the plural. I'm not fat, though. Nor am I with Townsend, if that's what you're getting at.

I'd like to second 76. When hiring an IP attorney client look for specific expertise and knowledge (and perhaps industry experience). No one cares where you studied torts, crim pro or community property.

77 - once you get out in practice (assuming you will get a job) you'll realize law school means shit, and work ethics and client service means everything. I graduated from a 4th tier school, and am still employed by my V-50 firm while many T-14 grads were laid off in the past year. If you think you are entitled to any special deference because of where you went to school, you will have a miserable career, though it will be both mercifully short and undistinguished.

77,

76 is correct for IP law. Even at my V50, GP firm, clients consider law schools second -- after college, where the type of degree and prestige of the school is important.

Even outside of IP, law school only matters for the first year, when the firm cant say much about you except -- they graduated from a law school people have heard of.

That being said, getting a job in biglaw is significantly easier from a more prestigious school.

79,

Take it easy, buddy. That rather large chip on your shoulder can easily become destructive, as it can be a good motivator.

still way overpriced. why are clients paying such outrageous rates for nubs practicioners?... patent prosecution isn't worth that kind of money. a chimp could file the useless RCEs with the pathetic arguments/amendments /declarations that these fools do for a fraction of the cost. get real.

still way overpriced. why are clients paying such outrageous rates for nubs practicioners?... patent prosecution isn't worth that kind of money. a chimp could file the useless RCEs with the pathetic arguments/amendments /declarations that these fools do for a fraction of the cost. get real.

If you really believe that the salary a patent practitioner can demand is a market inefficiency, you're welcome to exploit it by going back to school for a chemical/electrical engineering degree, staying in school for an advanced degree, working in industry for a decade, and THEN going back to law school. Then you can over-bill for doing "monkey work" do your heart's content.

Do you really expect clients to get excited about your U Mich degree when you don't understand their work or even speak their language? Meanwhile, a dozen Suffolck first-years made $3k/wk this summer. Or better yet, are making $80k+ as technology specialists while the firm pays for them to go to law school at night. Guess what else, when those "monkeys" graduate, those years count towards seniority. They'll pass the bar and go straight to fifth-year associate status and pay... without ever even having to bother sending out a resume.

Kinda sucks for your philosophy B.A., doesn't it?

82/83 - e6k is that you? Do you transcend online legal fora as you transcend patent law itself?

the problem, 83, is that many of these high-dollar prosecutors don't have electrical or chemical engineering degrees. Check out one particular New York based IP bigtique--their website shows many associates who have "engineering" degrees from 4th tier schools. What they don't tell you is that those are civil engineering degrees, and the attorneys working on the prosecutions have to learn the technology from scratch, and are billing the client for their learning curve. I can tell you from personal experience that some of these 4th tier civil engineers are fairly worthless. We hired in the early 00s whoever we could get, and now management won't shake them loose.

ATL reported (in the huge deferral roundup chart) that Kenyon deferred the class of 2009 until January 2010 with a 10k stipend. I can confirm this because I know several of those affected.

There has been no official word on salary cuts or freezes yet, but there are rumblings that the new associates will start at $145k because that's what the 2009 summers made (annualized).

Getting into Hastings isn't hard.

78-80 = same TTC partner.

Why are there twice as many litigation partners in Townsend's SF office than associates? That's crazy!

79,

Please let us know what special insight an associate at a "V 50 firm" from a TTT has about how clients hire patent litigator. I can't wait to find out. What is that? You were just making stuff up? Oh. Ok. I get it. Thanks.

91, I am an in-house IP counsel and the last thing I look at when I hire patent litigators is the school. I don't have the tech degree and I am not about to learn anything but the basics.

So, the first thing I look at is their experience and whether they have an engineering degree and if they can explain it to me in basic terms. I pass on patent litigators without engineering degrees all the time. In fact, I spec which associates work on the litigation to assure that they have engineering degrees.

I leave the tech stuff to engineering and R&D. The litigators can sit with them, but I prefer that the litigators just get it done.

-not 79, former TM associate

79, keep telling yourself that. I am now 4 years out of law school and a patent litigator in Palo Alto biglaw. Yes, I still have a job.

Perhaps you havent worked on a pitch yet. When youre pitching a client it looks good to have Harvard and Berkeley grads on there as opposed to shitty USF and Golden Gate grads. Sure you need tech specialists but again it doesnt help if they are from TTTs like Chico state or some other shitty college.

Pedigree matters forever, not just the first year. There is a reason that Inhouse counsel go to biglaw. So when they CEO comes busting his ass he can say that he had the brightest ivy league grads working on the case. If he tells the CEO, "Hey I got a firm with Golden Gate grads on the case but they all Phds in Molecular Biology," he'll get fired. If you were in fact an IP Litigator, you'd know that we use experts for understanding technology. But the pedigree the attorneys - you can put a price on that. Enjoy TTTTTTTC.

92,

Townsend's best patent litigators don't have technical degrees.

One thing that is lost in the discussion, lay-offing mid-level to senior level patent pros associates is suicide for partners. Even when the client is shielded from the associates, the associates know who exactly the contact person is at the client and can just turn around and solicit their business at half the cost a firm charges.

Patent pros is almost malpractice proof if you are diligent about docketing. Foreign pros is all about how much money the foreign client can save.

92,

Let me guess, you didn't attend a top 14 school. It makes sense that your hiring criteria would include people like yourself.

96, YLS grad here. Suck it.

Sincerely 92

95 is right. Clients see the bills. They know who is actually doing the work. Poach 'em.

92/97,

I don't think Townsend has had an associate with a YLS degree within the past decade, unless if the Y stands for Yeshiva.

94, If I wanted to be a techie I would have gotten a tech degree. Patent litigation is about understanding the technology. I hire technical people who understand it to solve a problem.

I don't care whether the litigator is the "best;" his/her cases may have resolved about inequitable conduct as opposed to actual tech issues.

I want someone to handle the tech issues, because I don't. Two people without tech backgrounds dealing with a tech issues is a disaster.

-92

92,

You have no idea how patent litigation works. Did you graduate from UC Davis or something?

99, I never said I was with Townsend. TM stands for trademark, my former practice area as an associate.

- 92

92,

But you suggested that you had been with Townsend. You also haven't denied that you are or have been with Townsend.

So a Yale Law School graduate who formerly practiced trademark law and is now in-house is trolling this anonymous board, and sticking up for litigators with technical degrees and TTT JDs.

have a unicorn in my backyard I can sell you.

101, you are the reason I avoid patent litigators without tech degrees. Good luck with bsing your clients.

"Oh, you really don't need an engineering degree for patent lit. Everybody has to learn it as the case progresses."

The blind man leading the blind.

If you are actually practicing patent litigation, I feel sorry for your clients. I know nothing about the technologies that my company engages in. That's why we hire competent patent pros counsel and competent patent lit counsel and insist both fully understand the technologies that are involved. Just as when I have a litigation in the UK, I hire UK counsel as opposed to a French counsel.

Let me guess you were some shyster litigator and suddenly invented yourself as a patent litigator. You are part of the incompetent slew of people in that field.

I feel sorry for all the clients that you screwed over.

103, I am not nor have I ever been with Townsend or any firm in Cali.

92

104,

Real patent litigation is always a team effort. Not everyone on the team needs to have a technical degree. The best engineers don't make the best trial attorneys. Look at Quinn. Great trial lawyers. Great writers. They play it like a good game of chess. The win. This is part of the reason why GP firms are beating the crap out of the IP boutiques that reflexively hire only those with tech backgrounds.

106, you are the reason I avoid patent litigators without tech degrees. Good luck with bsing your clients.

"Oh, you really don't need an engineering degree for patent lit. Everybody has to learn it as the case progresses."

The blind man leading the blind.

92,

Please let us all know. When you are hiring a patent litigator, do you ask for the resume of each and every associate and partner who will work on the case? Do you not hire the firm if one resume does not include a technical degree? Do you look the partner in the eye and ask him to include a team of attorneys only with technical degrees? What happens when you lose the case? How does the CEO respond?

This is part of the reason why GP firms are beating the crap out of the IP boutiques that reflexively hire only those with tech backgrounds.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
106, please list 5 cases in the last 5 years where that happened. Also, list the other cases where that didn't happen.

Thanks for playing along.

I know you secretly wish that you had an EE or ChemE so you can play along with the real patent litigators. I am content to hire them and let them do my work.

One problem with anonymous blogs is that after 100 posts like this, I completely forget who is pretending to be who.

108, yes, we review the resume from everyone. Only those that are approved are allowed to bill to the matter. Only those with technical degrees are approved. It's part of the engagement.

Every once in a while an unapproved time keeper bills and we strike that part off the invoice and warn them that the next time we will disallow the entire invoice.

What do I tell the CEO when we have lost? I hired the most competent firm, that every attorney on the matter had a technical degree. My ass is covered.

Imagine, telling the board that some philosophy major just lost us $100 million. "but he was the best" Lol.

110, feel free to meet me at the ACC's annual meeting next month. I will be happy to regale you with more reasons why non-tech patent litigators are just complete hacks.

-92

92,

I'll bring my unicorn.

92,

So you can't hire Quinn. You can't hire Keker. You can't hire Townsend, at least not Dan, Jim, or Ted, who are probably your best bets. Is Roger still trying cases?

111,

"Disallow the entire invoice"? So you nickel and dime lawyers on your patent cases? You must be a great client to work with.

92-
My comment wasn't directed at anyone in particular. I'm just an engineer at Townsend who is thoroughly enjoying this thread.
-110 (but not 113)

92,

Trademark lawyers are lame.

Hehehe, soft IP.

115, Considering that after the most recent infringement complaint was filed I received ten voice mails in the span of an hour from patent litigators, yes, we seem to be a great client. Countless more emails followed to multitude of people in my office.

Yes, I nickel and dime invoice. That's my job. It covers my ass.

115, Imagine, telling the board (who have no idea what a Quinn or a Townsend is) that some philosophy major just lost us $100 million. "But he was the best."

As for the unicorn thing, seriously, is that some sort of phallic fixation that you are having?

92,

"He was the best" is what matters. If the board doesn't know the difference between Quinn, Keker, or Weil versus Fish, why would they think that a failed engineer with a degree from a state school would be better than a patent litigator with a proven track record, albeit with a journalism degree? It isn't as black and white as you want it to be.

119,

I am sure the Matt Powers' of the world sit around all day waiting to leave you a voicemail. Is it even ethical to solicit clients in such a manner?

Once you buy the unicorn from me, do whatever you want to it. I never thought about its horn in a sexual manner, but hey that's just me. The horn does have ridges, however (for your pleasure?)

92,

I'd love for you two walk up to John Keker and let him know that you wouldn't hire him to represent your company because he has a social science undergraduate degree. That would be great entertainment.

Mr. Keker,

After reviewing your resume, we decided that you didn't have the skills we were looking for. It isn't about winning. Rather, if you lose our case, perhaps because of bad facts, It is about how I would respond to the question from our board of directors, "did the guy who lost our case have a degree in international diplomacy or something lame like that?"

For this reason, we went with a guy with a JD from Golden Gate and a undergraduate degree in engineering from a crappy state school.

Whew! My ass is covered!

Haters and prestige whores aside, I think it's safe to say that the Tier-1s at Fish fared no better than the Tier-2s at TTC this year.

Townsend had a layoff and a pay cut, but at least they didn't have to kill an entire office and an entire practice group.

The moral of the story, I guess, is never to bet too many of your chips on Microsoft. That holds true for litigation work and term papers!

123, 124, the beauty of being a purchaser of services as opposed to a being a seller of services is that the purchasers don't need to do anything they don't want.

Deferred for Life,

What do you think of posts 76-126? Does this give you the warm and fuzzies that your career would be in good hands if you weren't deferred? Do you see the arrogance of everyone in biglaw? Do you see why you have been screwed from the moment you took the LSAT?

Has TTC had layoffs recently? There are two people that I know at TTC who are no longer listed on the website. I am facebook friends with both and on fb they both still claim to be working at TTC.

Let's keep perspective here.

Townsend is quite clearly medlaw.

120, I understand your logic, but you place too much importance on law firms. Law is a commodity, just like the raw material. Work in-house for a while and you realize that there are constituencies far more important - finance for one.

To other poster with the crappy state engineering school hang-up, the majority of engineers in industry are from crappy state schools. Showing off a Tier 3 grad with a state school undergrad to an engineering group that infringed half a dozen patent is less jarring than showing off an Harvard JD with philosophy BA from Princeton. Ahh, so is life.

To the other posts, yes, trademark sucks (I hated it enough to escape, though the IP group that I worked for was much nicer than the corp/FSG group with whom I worked), and I do shudder a bit when I say soft IP. Sorry 110, for getting you in the crossfire.

128-
A small one in April:
http://abovethelaw.com/2009/04/layoffs_townsend_crew.php

To all the Haterz, come tomorrow morning I will still be in-house, still decide who will get a litigation assignment, what I am prepared to pay and how to staff it, and

at some point in the future I may have to justify to a board who have no firm notion of law firm prestige or who is the best in some niche practice what happened when we lost. My money and quite literally my kid's money is riding on that justification. I have decided what sounds better, you can decide what sounds better when you are in my shoes.

132, are you drunk or just retarded? That was the dumbest thing I've ever read.

132-huh?

27, 28, 34, 36, 37, and 45= obviously TTC management or partners.

Could you possibly be anymore transparent or pathetic?

Sad.

Sorry all for having missed this great discussion - I had to do some work and then had a golf game/client development event to attend this afternoon.

91 and 93 - I was not referring to litigators but rather prosecution attorneys (though I can assume from 92's comments that the same would apply for litigators). 91 - I am not making things up. As a senior associate doing licensing work (and having an advanced science degree), I have from time to time been asked by clients to help out identifying suitable IP counsel for prosecution.

93 - you're clearly clueless. You cannot do without the Ph.D. molecular biologist (or his/her equivalent) when preparing for the Markman hearing. If you tried to go through the patent litigation process with only HYS liberal arts undergrads, entirely without involving attorneys with the relevant combination of legal and scientific skills, your ass would be fired for sure.

Thanks again for an entertaining late night read.

- 79

This school rank v. advanced degree argument is stupid. This is not a difficult concept. There are distinct advantages to having a relevant advanced and/or technical degree in patent litigation, and it is a must for the soul-crushing prosecution business.

In litigation, there is a lot to be said for really understanding the technology and being able to read scientific literature. You are far more likely to spot issues in the claims, the description, the prior art that will help you make your case. So you history majors get a tech person to review it and tell you what you need to know. Fine, but the tech person may not understand the law very well. Hence, the argument that both the legal and technical experience are very useful.

That all being said, there are, nevertheless, at least some very good IP litigators without any scientific background. Some are from HYS, etc., and others are not. And we spend a great deal of time trying to explain technology to them. This can have good outcomes as well.

But for those you who still think your IT because you went to HYS, get over it already. Yes, it helps you get your foot in the door, but I know lots of idiots from those schools, so you need to continue to prove yourself even after you start your 1L year at Harvard.

I've got a tech degree (Physics) and can't find a job to save my life.

136 and 137,

"HYS" is a term only used by people who went to law school within the past 7 years. When the people who actually are conducting the Markman hearings these days went to law school, Stanford was not a "top 3" school. Rather, Chicago and U of M had that spot.

Preview of Webster's (2010):

"TTT":

1. Synonymous with lack of quality, e.g. Townsend and Townsend. Usage: "Townsend and Townsend is TTT."
2. Slang for "Townsend's Third Tier."
3. An acronym referring to the cheapest IP firm in America, a position currently held by Townsend and Townsend, which pays less than every other major IP or GP firm.
4. The crackling that jim and Maureen make when they compute average profits per partner as being $710K, rather than merely $700K, due to screwing TTT's associates over.
5. The purring of high end cars owned by Townsend partners as they leave the office early so as to avoid having to look the associates they just screwed in the eye.
6. A symbol used to denote bad luck or unhappiness, e.g. the opposite of 777.
7. A symbol to denote triply shoddy, rather than one denoting doubly shotting, such as "TTC"
8. A repetive sound made by partners in response to questions from associates as to why they decided to screw associates over.
9. The fake static sound that TTT partners make over the phone when directly queried about the firm's justification for cutting associate salaries.
10. A derogatory term referring to the caliber of law school that Townsend and Townsend recruits from, i.e. the opposite of HYS, schools which Townsend does not bother to recruit at.

Preview of Webster's (2010):

"TTT":

1. Synonymous with lack of quality, e.g. Townsend and Townsend. Usage: "Townsend and Townsend is TTT."
2. Slang for "Townsend's Third Tier."
3. An acronym referring to the cheapest IP firm in America, a position currently held by Townsend and Townsend, which pays less than every other major IP or GP firm.
4. The crackling that jim and Maureen make when they compute average profits per partner as being $710K, rather than merely $700K, due to screwing TTT's associates over.
5. The purring of high end cars owned by Townsend partners as they leave the office early so as to avoid having to look the associates they just screwed in the eye.
6. A symbol used to denote bad luck or unhappiness, e.g. the opposite of 777.
7. A symbol to denote triply shoddy work, rather than one denoting doubly shotty work, such as "TTC"
8. A repetive sound made by partners in response to questions from associates as to why they decided to screw associates over.
9. The fake static sound that TTT partners make over the phone when directly queried about the firm's justification for cutting associate salaries.
10. A derogatory term referring to the caliber of law school that Townsend and Townsend recruits from, i.e. the opposite of HYS, schools which Townsend does not bother to recruit at.

11. Emphasis commonly placed on the word "shitty" when referring to Townsend's treatment of its associations, e.g., "Boy that reduction in salaries by Townsend and Townsend and Crew was so shiTTTY"

12. The highest risk rating available for law firms, e.g. the opposite of a AAA rating. Usage #1: "Your risk of winning this important trial with Townsend and Townsend and Crew is TTT. I thought you said you were risk averse?" Usage #2: "Townsend and Townsend and Crew presents newly hired associates with a TTT risk of having their credentials diluted by association with inferiority."

13. An antonym for $$$.