3.21 NYU, IP Litigation or Tax interest, Bid List Critique

(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: 273560
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

3.21 NYU, IP Litigation or Tax interest, Bid List Critique

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Jul 05, 2012 11:34 am

Edit: Target ideal market = LA, then SF, and NY. But ultimately biggest concern is getting that J.O.B.

Edit 2: Removed personal details.

Rank| Firm | Vault | City
1 | Foley & Lardner LLP | 69 | Los Angeles
2 | Perkins Coie LLP | 67 | Los Angeles
3 | Hunton & Williams LLP | 74 | Los Angeles
4 | Sidley Austin LLP (IP Schedule) | 15 | Los Angeles
5 | Sidley Austin LLP | 15 | New York
6 | Bryan Cave LLP | 72 | Los Angeles
7 | Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP | 59 | Los Angeles
8 | Goodwin Procter LLP | 40 | New York
9 | White & Case LLP | 17 | New York
10 | Kaye Scholer | 71 | New York
11 | Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP | 88 | New York
12 | Morrison & Foerster LLP | 24 | Los Angeles
13 | O'Melveny & [deleted] LLP | 24 | Los Angeles
14 | Winston & Strawn | 46 | Los Angeles
15 | Baker & Hostetler LLP | 68 | Los Angeles
16 | K&L Gates LLP | 52 | Los Angeles
17 | Holland & Knight LLP | 63 | Los Angeles
18 | Paul Hastings LLP | 29 | Los Angeles
19 | Proskauer & Rose | 37 | Los Angeles
20 | Kirkland & Ellis LLP | 9 | Los Angeles
21 | Fenwick & West LLP (Tax Only) | 94 | Mountain View, CA
22 | DLA Piper LLP | 39 | San Francisco
23 | Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP | 12 | Los Angeles
24 | Latham & Watkins LLP | 10 | Los Angeles
25 | Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP | 27 | Los Angeles
26 | Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP | 92 | Los Angeles
27 | Alston & Bird LLP | 60 | Los Angeles
28 | Fish & Richardson P.C. | 65 | San Diego, CA
29 | Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati | 47 | San Diego, CA
30 | Ropes & Gray LLP | 36 | Silicon Valley, CA
31 | Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP | NA | San Francisco
32 | Jones Day | 19 | Los Angeles
33 | Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP | 51 | Palo Alto, CA
34 | Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP | 36 | San Francisco
35 | Schiff Hardin LLP | NA | San Francisco, CA
36 | Baker Botts L.L.P. (IP Schedule) | 43 | New York
37 | Dechert LLP | 50 | New York
38 | Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP | 36 | New York
39 | Fulbright & Jaworski LLP | 49 | New York
40 | Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP | 45 | New York
41 | Weil, Gotshal & Manges (IP Schedule) | 6 | New York
42 | Pryor Cashman LLP | NA | New York
43 | Baker & McKenzie | 34 | New York
44 | Bingham McCutchen LLP | 56 | New York
45 | Chadbourne & Parke LLP | 85 | New York
46 | Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP | 80 | New York
47 | Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP | 33 | New York
48 | Bracewell & Giuliani LLP | 84 | New York
49 | Brown Rudnick Berlack Israels | NA | New York
50 | Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP | 31 | New York
Last edited by Anonymous User on Thu Jul 05, 2012 3:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

azntwice
Posts: 160
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 6:46 pm

Re: 3.21 NYU, IP Litigation or Tax interest, Bid List Critique

Postby azntwice » Thu Jul 05, 2012 12:10 pm

Definitely play up your IP interest, it's a super hot field right now. However, LA is not where that field is. You should be shooting for either NY, Palo Alto or SF.

User avatar
glitched
Posts: 1040
Joined: Wed May 19, 2010 9:50 am

Re: 3.21 NYU, IP Litigation or Tax interest, Bid List Critique

Postby glitched » Thu Jul 05, 2012 12:16 pm

Looks like a good list ;)
Last edited by glitched on Thu Jul 05, 2012 12:22 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273560
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: 3.21 NYU, IP Litigation or Tax interest, Bid List Critique

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Jul 05, 2012 12:18 pm

azntwice wrote:Definitely play up your IP interest, it's a super hot field right now. However, LA is not where that field is. You should be shooting for either NY, Palo Alto or SF.


I agree but I really prefer to be in LA.

For me, it goes LA > > > > > > SF > > Palo Alto > NY

User avatar
wiseowl
Posts: 1071
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 4:38 pm

Re: 3.21 NYU, IP Litigation or Tax interest, Bid List Critique

Postby wiseowl » Thu Jul 05, 2012 12:37 pm

But as he's just told you, that doesn't really matter. If you want IP lit, it isn't in LA outside of very limited entertainment law IP and places like Irell that you probably aren't getting.

Don't make the mistake others have of striking out because of zero flexibility. Like it or not, the jobs are in NY. Very few jobs in SF/SV period, and few in your interest areas in LA. Maybe look at OC/SD a little more if you want to compromise a bit.

Paul Hastings is an LA-based firm that you might consider if you really want to be in LA. Maybe put it higher?

User avatar
glitched
Posts: 1040
Joined: Wed May 19, 2010 9:50 am

Re: 3.21 NYU, IP Litigation or Tax interest, Bid List Critique

Postby glitched » Thu Jul 05, 2012 12:57 pm

But as he's just told you, that doesn't really matter. If you want IP lit, it isn't in LA outside of very limited entertainment law IP and places like Irell that you probably aren't getting.

Don't make the mistake others have of striking out because of zero flexibility. Like it or not, the jobs are in NY. Very few jobs in SF/SV period, and few in your interest areas in LA. Maybe look at OC/SD a little more if you want to compromise a bit.

Paul Hastings is an LA-based firm that you might consider if you really want to be in LA. Maybe put it higher?

Hmmmmmmmmm... interesting.
Last edited by glitched on Thu Jul 05, 2012 1:01 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273560
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: 3.21 NYU, IP Litigation or Tax interest, Bid List Critique

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Jul 05, 2012 12:59 pm

wiseowl wrote:But as he's just told you, that doesn't really matter. If you want IP lit, it isn't in LA outside of very limited entertainment law IP and places like Irell that you probably aren't getting.

Don't make the mistake others have of striking out because of zero flexibility. Like it or not, the jobs are in NY. Very few jobs in SF/SV period, and few in your interest areas in LA. Maybe look at OC/SD a little more if you want to compromise a bit.

Paul Hastings is an LA-based firm that you might consider if you really want to be in LA. Maybe put it higher?


Paul Hastings LA office contains zero IP lawyers (according to the NALP directory). I only added them because of the name recognition and the fact they have 1 tax partner.

Where did you get your information about LA firms being strongly non-IP? I mainly used the NALP directory (which I understand may not be perfect), and mainly chose firms with 5+ partners and 5+ attorneys doing IP litigation. I also looked at the firm's website at a few firms and see the number of attorneys doing IP litigation in the LA office. I did this blindly for every firm coming to our OCI in both LA, SF, SD and NY before ranking them. To make the ranks, I chose based on location, selectivity, firm size, and available slots. I mean, if you have contradictory data though, I'd like to see it. Haha this sounds like me getting really defensive (and I probably am) but I'm being quite genuine here - I would really like to see some data so I could make a good choice.

User avatar
wiseowl
Posts: 1071
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 4:38 pm

Re: 3.21 NYU, IP Litigation or Tax interest, Bid List Critique

Postby wiseowl » Thu Jul 05, 2012 1:26 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
wiseowl wrote:But as he's just told you, that doesn't really matter. If you want IP lit, it isn't in LA outside of very limited entertainment law IP and places like Irell that you probably aren't getting.

Don't make the mistake others have of striking out because of zero flexibility. Like it or not, the jobs are in NY. Very few jobs in SF/SV period, and few in your interest areas in LA. Maybe look at OC/SD a little more if you want to compromise a bit.

Paul Hastings is an LA-based firm that you might consider if you really want to be in LA. Maybe put it higher?


Paul Hastings LA office contains zero IP lawyers (according to the NALP directory). I only added them because of the name recognition and the fact they have 1 tax partner.

Where did you get your information about LA firms being strongly non-IP? I mainly used the NALP directory (which I understand may not be perfect), and mainly chose firms with 5+ partners and 5+ attorneys doing IP litigation. I also looked at the firm's website at a few firms and see the number of attorneys doing IP litigation in the LA office. I did this blindly for every firm coming to our OCI in both LA, SF, SD and NY before ranking them. To make the ranks, I chose based on location, selectivity, firm size, and available slots. I mean, if you have contradictory data though, I'd like to see it. Haha this sounds like me getting really defensive (and I probably am) but I'm being quite genuine here - I would really like to see some data so I could make a good choice.


Paul Hastings' website lists 9 lawyers in the LA office that do IP.

That said, this example illustrates part of the problem with this. NALP and websites don't mean much of anything. If a partner handled a case or two twenty years ago that related to IP somehow they might well put "IP" as a practice area tag. Doesn't mean they do it on a daily basis at all.

I'll say up front that I, and many others, for the most part consider "IP litigation" to essentially mean patent litigation. Is there copyright and trademark litigation going on? Of course. Is a decent percentage of that work being done in LA? Yep. But search for "soft IP" on this forum or on any other law-related forum. Soft IP lit is a fraction, and a tiny one, of the jobs in the nebulous "IP litigation" category. Patent litigation is done out of NY, SF/SV, and DC in the highest quantities.

And I'll be frank, and I apologize for doing so, but you're below median. I know it's at NYU, but still...these jobs are highly sought after by people throughout the country with tiptop grades. Without relevant work experience, you will quite possibly struggle.

I'm really not trying to argue with you, puncture your dreams, etc. I just have seen a lot of people head in to OCI wanting to work on copyrights and trademarks and it's simply not that easy.

I'm studying for the bar so I can't compile much more "data" for you...that's up to you. But I am someone going into IP litigation at a v100 firm.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273560
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: 3.21 NYU, IP Litigation or Tax interest, Bid List Critique

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Jul 05, 2012 1:36 pm

wiseowl wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
wiseowl wrote:But as he's just told you, that doesn't really matter. If you want IP lit, it isn't in LA outside of very limited entertainment law IP and places like Irell that you probably aren't getting.

Don't make the mistake others have of striking out because of zero flexibility. Like it or not, the jobs are in NY. Very few jobs in SF/SV period, and few in your interest areas in LA. Maybe look at OC/SD a little more if you want to compromise a bit.

Paul Hastings is an LA-based firm that you might consider if you really want to be in LA. Maybe put it higher?


Paul Hastings LA office contains zero IP lawyers (according to the NALP directory). I only added them because of the name recognition and the fact they have 1 tax partner.

Where did you get your information about LA firms being strongly non-IP? I mainly used the NALP directory (which I understand may not be perfect), and mainly chose firms with 5+ partners and 5+ attorneys doing IP litigation. I also looked at the firm's website at a few firms and see the number of attorneys doing IP litigation in the LA office. I did this blindly for every firm coming to our OCI in both LA, SF, SD and NY before ranking them. To make the ranks, I chose based on location, selectivity, firm size, and available slots. I mean, if you have contradictory data though, I'd like to see it. Haha this sounds like me getting really defensive (and I probably am) but I'm being quite genuine here - I would really like to see some data so I could make a good choice.


Paul Hastings' website lists 9 lawyers in the LA office that do IP.

That said, this example illustrates part of the problem with this. NALP and websites don't mean much of anything. If a partner handled a case or two twenty years ago that related to IP somehow they might well put "IP" as a practice area tag. Doesn't mean they do it on a daily basis at all.

I'll say up front that I, and many others, for the most part consider "IP litigation" to essentially mean patent litigation. Is there copyright and trademark litigation going on? Of course. Is a decent percentage of that work being done in LA? Yep. But search for "soft IP" on this forum or on any other law-related forum. Soft IP lit is a fraction, and a tiny one, of the jobs in the nebulous "IP litigation" category. Patent litigation is done out of NY, SF/SV, and DC in the highest quantities.

And I'll be frank, and I apologize for doing so, but you're below median. I know it's at NYU, but still...these jobs are highly sought after by people throughout the country with tiptop grades. Without relevant work experience, you will quite possibly struggle.

I'm really not trying to argue with you, puncture your dreams, etc. I just have seen a lot of people head in to OCI wanting to work on copyrights and trademarks and it's simply not that easy.

I'm studying for the bar so I can't compile much more "data" for you...that's up to you. But I am someone going into IP litigation at a v100 firm.



hmmm fair enough. So would you recommend that I move more of those bottom NY firms to the top? Or try and go through the OCI bidlist again? I researched most, if not all, of the firms on the list the OCI list and had a pretty big compilation. Are there any firms that stick out to you that I should definitely boost? Or that I should add/delete?

User avatar
wiseowl
Posts: 1071
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 4:38 pm

Re: 3.21 NYU, IP Litigation or Tax interest, Bid List Critique

Postby wiseowl » Thu Jul 05, 2012 1:41 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
wiseowl wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
wiseowl wrote:But as he's just told you, that doesn't really matter. If you want IP lit, it isn't in LA outside of very limited entertainment law IP and places like Irell that you probably aren't getting.

Don't make the mistake others have of striking out because of zero flexibility. Like it or not, the jobs are in NY. Very few jobs in SF/SV period, and few in your interest areas in LA. Maybe look at OC/SD a little more if you want to compromise a bit.

Paul Hastings is an LA-based firm that you might consider if you really want to be in LA. Maybe put it higher?


Paul Hastings LA office contains zero IP lawyers (according to the NALP directory). I only added them because of the name recognition and the fact they have 1 tax partner.

Where did you get your information about LA firms being strongly non-IP? I mainly used the NALP directory (which I understand may not be perfect), and mainly chose firms with 5+ partners and 5+ attorneys doing IP litigation. I also looked at the firm's website at a few firms and see the number of attorneys doing IP litigation in the LA office. I did this blindly for every firm coming to our OCI in both LA, SF, SD and NY before ranking them. To make the ranks, I chose based on location, selectivity, firm size, and available slots. I mean, if you have contradictory data though, I'd like to see it. Haha this sounds like me getting really defensive (and I probably am) but I'm being quite genuine here - I would really like to see some data so I could make a good choice.


Paul Hastings' website lists 9 lawyers in the LA office that do IP.

That said, this example illustrates part of the problem with this. NALP and websites don't mean much of anything. If a partner handled a case or two twenty years ago that related to IP somehow they might well put "IP" as a practice area tag. Doesn't mean they do it on a daily basis at all.

I'll say up front that I, and many others, for the most part consider "IP litigation" to essentially mean patent litigation. Is there copyright and trademark litigation going on? Of course. Is a decent percentage of that work being done in LA? Yep. But search for "soft IP" on this forum or on any other law-related forum. Soft IP lit is a fraction, and a tiny one, of the jobs in the nebulous "IP litigation" category. Patent litigation is done out of NY, SF/SV, and DC in the highest quantities.

And I'll be frank, and I apologize for doing so, but you're below median. I know it's at NYU, but still...these jobs are highly sought after by people throughout the country with tiptop grades. Without relevant work experience, you will quite possibly struggle.

I'm really not trying to argue with you, puncture your dreams, etc. I just have seen a lot of people head in to OCI wanting to work on copyrights and trademarks and it's simply not that easy.

I'm studying for the bar so I can't compile much more "data" for you...that's up to you. But I am someone going into IP litigation at a v100 firm.



hmmm fair enough. So would you recommend that I move more of those bottom NY firms to the top? Or try and go through the OCI bidlist again? I researched most, if not all, of the firms on the list the OCI list and had a pretty big compilation. Are there any firms that stick out to you that I should definitely boost? Or that I should add/delete?


I'm still not clear on what you're actually pursuing. Are you trying for patent litigation or for copyright/TM litigation? Or are you trying for tax stuff?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273560
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: 3.21 NYU, IP Litigation or Tax interest, Bid List Critique

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Jul 05, 2012 1:43 pm

Trying to do patent litigation. And also tax - yeah it's kinda random but I really liked tax.

sbalive
Posts: 399
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 1:05 pm

Re: 3.21 NYU, IP Litigation or Tax interest, Bid List Critique

Postby sbalive » Thu Jul 05, 2012 2:54 pm

A few things. First, if you're bidding on multiple markets, you shouldn't stack them like that, because you risk not getting any bids in one of them -- you should intersperse them again. Also, the sequence seems wrong, in that the NY firms you've listed towards the bottom will probably get snapped up first, while generally IP-only schedules are available with low bids. (You should consult with career services to figure out whether that's the case, but it's likely.) You also should put more SV offices in there to play up IP lit -- realizing you like Tax, but with that GPA, you may want to sell yourself more to IP lit just to get in the door to the best firm possible (and if you do well in 2L, then maybe try to get into another firm as a 3L with an offer in hand).

Generally, the firms are ok, witha few omissions, but you should rework the bid order, and also maybe substitute some OC, SD, and SV offices for LA offices, since LA offices tend to be more grade-sensitive & less excited about IP. Remember that in a lottery, your focus is on maximizing interview slots versus slotting in your own personal preferences.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273560
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: 3.21 NYU, IP Litigation or Tax interest, Bid List Critique

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Jul 05, 2012 3:00 pm

sbalive wrote:A few things. First, if you're bidding on multiple markets, you shouldn't stack them like that, because you risk not getting any bids in one of them -- you should intersperse them again. Also, the sequence seems wrong, in that the NY firms you've listed towards the bottom will probably get snapped up first, while generally IP-only schedules are available with low bids. (You should consult with career services to figure out whether that's the case, but it's likely.) You also should put more SV offices in there to play up IP lit -- realizing you like Tax, but with that GPA, you may want to sell yourself more to IP lit just to get in the door to the best firm possible (and if you do well in 2L, then maybe try to get into another firm as a 3L with an offer in hand).

Generally, the firms are ok, witha few omissions, but you should rework the bid order, and also maybe substitute some OC, SD, and SV offices for LA offices, since LA offices tend to be more grade-sensitive & less excited about IP. Remember that in a lottery, your focus is on maximizing interview slots versus slotting in your own personal preferences.


I was thinking almost the same thing about the IP-schedule vs. bottom firms, but don't know how to really play that game. You think I should Sidley Austin LLP (IP Schedule) or Baker Botts to lower 20's? Sidley Austin LA IP would probably be my first choice far-reach firm so I really want a chance to interview there. Here is an updated list:

1 | Foley & Lardner LLP | 69 | Los Angeles
2 | Perkins Coie LLP | 67 | Los Angeles
3 | Hunton & Williams LLP | 74 | Los Angeles
4 | Sidley Austin LLP (IP Schedule) | 15 | Los Angeles
5 | Sidley Austin LLP | 15 | New York
6 | Bryan Cave LLP | 72 | Los Angeles
7 | Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP | 59 | Los Angeles
8 | Goodwin Procter LLP | 40 | New York
9 | DLA Piper LLP | 39 | San Francisco
10 | Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati | 47 | Palo Alto, CA
11 | Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP | 36 | San Francisco
12 | White & Case LLP | 17 | New York
13 | Kaye Scholer | 71 | New York
14 | Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP | 88 | New York
15 | Baker Botts L.L.P. (IP Schedule) | 43 | New York
16 | Dechert LLP | 50 | New York
17 | Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP | 36 | New York
18 | Fenwick & West LLP (Tax Only) | 94 | Mountain View, CA
19 | Chadbourne & Parke LLP | 85 | New York
20 | Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP | 45 | New York
21 | Paul Hastings LLP | 29 | Los Angeles
22 | Morrison & Foerster LLP | 24 | Los Angeles
23 | O'Melveny & [deleted] LLP | 24 | Los Angeles
24 | Winston & Strawn | 46 | Los Angeles
25 | Baker & Hostetler LLP | 68 | Los Angeles
26 | K&L Gates LLP | 52 | Los Angeles
27 | Holland & Knight LLP | 63 | Los Angeles
28 | Proskauer & Rose | 37 | Los Angeles
29 | Kirkland & Ellis LLP | 9 | Los Angeles
30 | Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP | 12 | Los Angeles
31 | Latham & Watkins LLP | 10 | Los Angeles
32 | Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP | 27 | Los Angeles
33 | Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP | 92 | Los Angeles
34 | Alston & Bird LLP | 60 | Los Angeles
35 | Fish & Richardson P.C. | 65 | San Diego, CA
36 | Ropes & Gray LLP | 36 | Silicon Valley, CA
37 | Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP | NA | San Francisco
38 | Jones Day | 19 | San Francisco
39 | Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP | 51 | Palo Alto, CA
40 | Schiff Hardin LLP | NA | San Francisco, CA
41 | Fulbright & Jaworski LLP | 49 | New York
42 | Weil, Gotshal & Manges (IP Schedule) | 6 | New York
43 | Pryor Cashman LLP | NA | New York
44 | Baker & McKenzie | 34 | New York
45 | Bingham McCutchen LLP | 56 | New York
46 | Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP | 80 | New York
47 | Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP | 33 | New York
48 | Bracewell & Giuliani LLP | 84 | New York
49 | Brown Rudnick Berlack Israels | NA | New York
50 | Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP | 31 | New York


Considering moving

41 | Fulbright & Jaworski LLP | 49 | New York
43 | Pryor Cashman LLP | NA | New York
44 | Baker & McKenzie | 34 | New York
45 | Bingham McCutchen LLP | 56 | New York

up rank 26 and make them right above K&L Gates. Thoughts?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273560
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: 3.21 NYU, IP Litigation or Tax interest, Bid List Critique

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Jul 05, 2012 3:32 pm

Final list:
Rank | Firm | Vault | City
1 | Foley & Lardner LLP | 69 | Los Angeles
2 | Perkins Coie LLP | 67 | Los Angeles
3 | Hunton & Williams LLP | 74 | Los Angeles
4 | Sidley Austin LLP (IP Schedule) | 15 | Los Angeles
5 | Sidley Austin LLP | 15 | New York
6 | Bryan Cave LLP | 72 | Los Angeles
7 | Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP | 59 | Los Angeles
8 | Goodwin Procter LLP | 40 | New York
9 | DLA Piper LLP | 39 | San Francisco
10 | Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati | 47 | Palo Alto, CA
11 | Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP | 36 | San Francisco
12 | White & Case LLP | 17 | New York
13 | Kaye Scholer | 71 | New York
14 | Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP | 88 | New York
15 | Baker Botts L.L.P. (IP Schedule) | 43 | New York
16 | Dechert LLP | 50 | New York
17 | Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP | 36 | New York
18 | Fenwick & West LLP (Tax Only) | 94 | Mountain View, CA
19 | Chadbourne & Parke LLP | 85 | New York
20 | Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP | 45 | New York
21 | Paul Hastings LLP | 29 | Los Angeles
22 | Morrison & Foerster LLP | 24 | Los Angeles
23 | O'Melveny & [deleted] LLP | 24 | Los Angeles
24 | Winston & Strawn | 46 | Los Angeles
25 | Baker & Hostetler LLP | 68 | Los Angeles
26 | Fulbright & Jaworski LLP | 49 | New York
27 | Pryor Cashman LLP | NA | New York
28 | Baker & McKenzie | 34 | New York
29 | Bingham McCutchen LLP | 56 | New York
30 | Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP | 80 | New York
31 | K&L Gates LLP | 52 | Los Angeles
32 | Holland & Knight LLP | 63 | Los Angeles
33 | Kirkland & Ellis LLP | 9 | Los Angeles
34 | Fish & Richardson P.C. | 65 | San Diego, CA
35 | Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP | 27 | Los Angeles
36 | Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP | 51 | Palo Alto, CA
37 | Ropes & Gray LLP | 36 | Silicon Valley, CA
38 | Proskauer & Rose | 37 | Los Angeles
39 | Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP | 12 | Los Angeles
40 | Latham & Watkins LLP | 10 | Los Angeles
41 | Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP | 92 | Los Angeles
42 | Alston & Bird LLP | 60 | Los Angeles
43 | Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP | NA | San Francisco
44 | Jones Day | 19 | San Francisco
45 | Schiff Hardin LLP | NA | San Francisco, CA
46 | Weil, Gotshal & Manges (IP Schedule) | 6 | New York
47 | Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP | 33 | New York
48 | Bracewell & Giuliani LLP | 84 | New York
49 | Brown Rudnick Berlack Israels | NA | New York
50 | Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP | 31 | New York

Any suggestions still welcome but I think I'm done (have to eat lunch soon and bidding will probably end by the time I come back). Thanks to all who helped.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273560
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: 3.21 NYU, IP Litigation or Tax interest, Bid List Critique

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Jul 05, 2012 4:03 pm

Doesn't bidding end at midnight?

itbdvorm
Posts: 1573
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 9:09 am

Re: 3.21 NYU, IP Litigation or Tax interest, Bid List Critique

Postby itbdvorm » Thu Jul 05, 2012 4:18 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Final list:
Rank | Firm | Vault | City
1 | Foley & Lardner LLP | 69 | Los Angeles
2 | Perkins Coie LLP | 67 | Los Angeles
3 | Hunton & Williams LLP | 74 | Los Angeles
4 | Sidley Austin LLP (IP Schedule) | 15 | Los Angeles
5 | Sidley Austin LLP | 15 | New York
6 | Bryan Cave LLP | 72 | Los Angeles
7 | Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP | 59 | Los Angeles
8 | Goodwin Procter LLP | 40 | New York
9 | DLA Piper LLP | 39 | San Francisco
10 | Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati | 47 | Palo Alto, CA
11 | Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP | 36 | San Francisco
12 | White & Case LLP | 17 | New York
13 | Kaye Scholer | 71 | New York
14 | Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP | 88 | New York
15 | Baker Botts L.L.P. (IP Schedule) | 43 | New York
16 | Dechert LLP | 50 | New York
17 | Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP | 36 | New York
18 | Fenwick & West LLP (Tax Only) | 94 | Mountain View, CA
19 | Chadbourne & Parke LLP | 85 | New York
20 | Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP | 45 | New York
21 | Paul Hastings LLP | 29 | Los Angeles
22 | Morrison & Foerster LLP | 24 | Los Angeles
23 | O'Melveny & [deleted] LLP | 24 | Los Angeles
24 | Winston & Strawn | 46 | Los Angeles
25 | Baker & Hostetler LLP | 68 | Los Angeles
26 | Fulbright & Jaworski LLP | 49 | New York
27 | Pryor Cashman LLP | NA | New York
28 | Baker & McKenzie | 34 | New York
29 | Bingham McCutchen LLP | 56 | New York
30 | Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP | 80 | New York
31 | K&L Gates LLP | 52 | Los Angeles
32 | Holland & Knight LLP | 63 | Los Angeles
33 | Kirkland & Ellis LLP | 9 | Los Angeles
34 | Fish & Richardson P.C. | 65 | San Diego, CA
35 | Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP | 27 | Los Angeles
36 | Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP | 51 | Palo Alto, CA
37 | Ropes & Gray LLP | 36 | Silicon Valley, CA
38 | Proskauer & Rose | 37 | Los Angeles
39 | Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP | 12 | Los Angeles
40 | Latham & Watkins LLP | 10 | Los Angeles
41 | Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP | 92 | Los Angeles
42 | Alston & Bird LLP | 60 | Los Angeles
43 | Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP | NA | San Francisco
44 | Jones Day | 19 | San Francisco
45 | Schiff Hardin LLP | NA | San Francisco, CA
46 | Weil, Gotshal & Manges (IP Schedule) | 6 | New York
47 | Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP | 33 | New York
48 | Bracewell & Giuliani LLP | 84 | New York
49 | Brown Rudnick Berlack Israels | NA | New York
50 | Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP | 31 | New York

Any suggestions still welcome but I think I'm done (have to eat lunch soon and bidding will probably end by the time I come back). Thanks to all who helped.


Try lobbing in your resume to Fross Zelnick (copyright/tm boutique in NYC) if things don't go well. You are bidding in a fairly scattered fashion so things frankly may not go great

Also Roberts and Holland should be on anyone's list if interested in tax

Anonymous User
Posts: 273560
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: 3.21 NYU, IP Litigation or Tax interest, Bid List Critique

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Jul 05, 2012 4:21 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Doesn't bidding end at midnight?


July 5, 6:00 PM EST

Anonymous User
Posts: 273560
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: 3.21 NYU, IP Litigation or Tax interest, Bid List Critique

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Jul 05, 2012 4:22 pm

itbdvorm wrote:Try lobbing in your resume to Fross Zelnick (copyright/tm boutique in NYC) if things don't go well. You are bidding in a fairly scattered fashion so things frankly may not go great

Also Roberts and Holland should be on anyone's list if interested in tax


Can you explain what you mean by bidding fairly scattered and what can I do to fix this issue...?

Roberts & Holland has far too high of a GPA cutoff and it's not worth throwing a bid at them.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273560
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: 3.21 NYU, IP Litigation or Tax interest, Bid List Critique

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Jul 05, 2012 4:25 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Doesn't bidding end at midnight?


July 5, 6:00 PM EST

On symplicity it definitely says July 05, 11:59 p.m.

It doesn't really matter to me, I'm done. Just passing that along. Might as well have everything in by 6 to be safe I guess.

Edit: According to the email that just went out bidding ends at 6:00. Just thought I would mention that to avoid confusion for people.

itbdvorm
Posts: 1573
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 9:09 am

Re: 3.21 NYU, IP Litigation or Tax interest, Bid List Critique

Postby itbdvorm » Thu Jul 05, 2012 5:24 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
itbdvorm wrote:Try lobbing in your resume to Fross Zelnick (copyright/tm boutique in NYC) if things don't go well. You are bidding in a fairly scattered fashion so things frankly may not go great

Also Roberts and Holland should be on anyone's list if interested in tax


Can you explain what you mean by bidding fairly scattered and what can I do to fix this issue...?

Roberts & Holland has far too high of a GPA cutoff and it's not worth throwing a bid at them.


Most people have at least a target market or a target practice area (or some degree of complementariness between a couple). Your practice areas are widely divergent and so are your markets. You're better off taking a rifle approach than a shotgun.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.