Cooley v. Fenwick

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
Anonymous User
Posts: 273256
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Cooley v. Fenwick

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Sep 12, 2011 5:18 pm

Any thoughts about the health of these two firms, working conditions, etc?

They seem to have nearly identical practices in the Bay Area.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273256
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Cooley v. Fenwick

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Sep 12, 2011 7:28 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Any thoughts about the health of these two firms, working conditions, etc?

They seem to have nearly identical practices in the Bay Area.


I also would like to hear about this, particularly Fenwick.

Also, quality of Fenwick's litigation department also interests me, if anyone has any knowledge on this.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273256
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Cooley v. Fenwick

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Sep 12, 2011 8:22 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Any thoughts about the health of these two firms, working conditions, etc?

They seem to have nearly identical practices in the Bay Area.


I also would like to hear about this, particularly Fenwick.

Also, quality of Fenwick's litigation department also interests me, if anyone has any knowledge on this.


Also curious about Fenwick litigation. Is Fenwick more focused on venture/IPO/tech m&a than litigation?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273256
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Cooley v. Fenwick

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Sep 13, 2011 10:58 pm

General impression - and not particularly well-informed:

Cooley seems scrappy to me, and Fenwick seems uptight.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273256
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Cooley v. Fenwick

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Sep 15, 2011 2:22 am

Cooley seem to be freaking awesome. Fenwick? Yeah, kind of uptight.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273256
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Cooley v. Fenwick

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Sep 15, 2011 9:07 am

more anecdotes: lawyer I talked to who used to work for Fenwick spoke quite highly of it. I spoke to a former recruiter (durr) for Cooley who also loved that firm.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273256
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Cooley v. Fenwick

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jan 13, 2016 11:49 pm

bump

User avatar
RedGiant
Posts: 271
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2013 10:30 am

Re: Cooley v. Fenwick

Postby RedGiant » Fri Jan 15, 2016 9:11 pm

I am from the Bay Area and worked at WSGR as a senior corporate paralegal (transactional) for a number of years. Obviously this is generalizations. Cooley is generally regarded as "better" than Fenwick in the Bay Area--it's bigger, it simply has a better reputation. Cooley's offices are also nicer (and in PA vs. Mtn View, which matters a ton if you are commuting from up-Peninsula or SF). Cooley tends to be a "happy firm" (to the point of being fake/passive aggressive) and Fenwick is known as being actually more aggressive. I have worked across from both firms on many deals, and also interviewed (and received offers) for both firms. Both have very competent attorneys, but overall, I'd say Cooley's rep is better.

I cannot speak to litigation though. Over and out.

makerbreaker
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 12:52 pm

Re: Cooley v. Fenwick

Postby makerbreaker » Sat Jan 16, 2016 12:39 pm

Cooley has a top notch VC practice. While Fenwick has fund clients too, its reputation seems to come mostly from company work.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273256
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Cooley v. Fenwick

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Jan 16, 2016 2:30 pm

WSGR associate here.

I've worked across both firms several times, and I would give Cooley the nod here. Fenwick is also a great firm, but in general everyone I work with seems to have a slightly higher opinion of Cooley. In my opinion, there are great lawyers at both, but Cooley is more pleasant to work with--all of my experiences with them have been positive.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273256
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Cooley v. Fenwick

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Jan 16, 2016 5:28 pm

I am a patent litigation associate at Fenwick. I was at a more "prestigious" firm before that. The work quality, processes, attorneys, and staff at Fenwick are highly superior to that of my prior firm. Associates are treated like team members and their opinions respected-the feel on teams is flat, but not too flat. I actually like my co-workers, and diversity is good (esp. number of women). Having the flexibility to choose between different hours tracks is a plus, and people respect personal time/nights/weekends. As biglaw patent lit goes (assuming Fenwick is biglaw), I couldn't imagine working anywhere else.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273256
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Cooley v. Fenwick

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jan 18, 2016 11:27 am

Anonymous User wrote:I am a patent litigation associate at Fenwick. I was at a more "prestigious" firm before that. The work quality, processes, attorneys, and staff at Fenwick are highly superior to that of my prior firm. Associates are treated like team members and their opinions respected-the feel on teams is flat, but not too flat. I actually like my co-workers, and diversity is good (esp. number of women). Having the flexibility to choose between different hours tracks is a plus, and people respect personal time/nights/weekends. As biglaw patent lit goes (assuming Fenwick is biglaw), I couldn't imagine working anywhere else.


Can you tell us more about the different hours track?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273256
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Cooley v. Fenwick

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jan 18, 2016 6:23 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I am a patent litigation associate at Fenwick. I was at a more "prestigious" firm before that. The work quality, processes, attorneys, and staff at Fenwick are highly superior to that of my prior firm. Associates are treated like team members and their opinions respected-the feel on teams is flat, but not too flat. I actually like my co-workers, and diversity is good (esp. number of women). Having the flexibility to choose between different hours tracks is a plus, and people respect personal time/nights/weekends. As biglaw patent lit goes (assuming Fenwick is biglaw), I couldn't imagine working anywhere else.


Can you tell us more about the different hours track?


You can chose your hours track and take proportionately reduced compensation. 1950 is the track for market compensation. 1800 is still considered full-time, but you take proportionately reduced pay in exchange for working less hours. If you go over 1800, you are trued up at the end of the year, up to the 1950 rate. I hear there are more associates on the 1800 track than 1950 track, but not 100% sure if that is true. There are people on more reduced schedules than that, but those aren't standard options and are something you work out with the firm.

Note the hours requirement for first years is 1800 (and you get market pay).




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.