White Shoe NY Firm Satellite Offices for Bay Area Litigation

(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: 273553
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

White Shoe NY Firm Satellite Offices for Bay Area Litigation

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Jul 27, 2012 6:00 pm

I'm interested in Bay Area IP or commercial litigation, and I was hoping to get some feedback on the advisability of working at the Bay Area office of a big-name NY firm with a shallow Bay Area litigation practice (i.e. STB, DPW, Weil) vs. a native-California firm with a larger Bay Area litigation presence (i.e. WSGR, Cooley, Latham, MoFo, Fenwick).

More specifically, DPW has ~16 litigators in its SV office, Weil has ~31 litigators in SV (minus their biggest IP lit partner now, apparently), and STB has about ~30. Latham, MoFo, WSGR, Cooley, and Fenwick easily have litigation departments 2-4x the size of the NY satellite offices I just mentioned.

What are the downsides of working in a smaller satellite office - does the brand name from NY translate over to a smaller Bay Area practice in terms of exit options, availability of litigation work, etc, or is it generally more advisable to go with the firm that has the bigger presence in the Bay?

edited for geographical sloppiness.
Last edited by Anonymous User on Fri Jul 27, 2012 6:17 pm, edited 4 times in total.

bdubs
Posts: 3729
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 2:23 pm

Re: White Shoe NY Firm Satellite Offices for SV Litigation

Postby bdubs » Fri Jul 27, 2012 6:03 pm

Anonymous User wrote:I'm interested in SV commercial litigation, and I was hoping to get some feedback on the advisability of working at the SV office of a big-name NY firm with a shallow SV litigation practice (i.e. STB, DPW, Weil) vs. a native-California firm with a larger SV litigation presence (i.e. WSGR, Cooley, Latham, MoFo, Fenwick).

More specifically, DPW has ~16 litigators in its SV office, Weil has ~31 litigators in SV (minus their biggest IP lit partner now, apparently), and STB has about ~30. Latham, MoFo, WSGR, Cooley, and Fenwick easily have offices 2-4x the size of the NY satellite offices I just mentioned.

What are the downsides of working in a smaller satellite office - does the brand name from NY translate over to a smaller SV practice in terms of exit options, availability of litigation work, etc, or is it generally more advisable to go with the firm that has the bigger presence in SV?


Is there is such a thing as lit in SV?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273553
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: White Shoe NY Firm Satellite Offices for SV Litigation

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Jul 27, 2012 6:09 pm

bdubs wrote:Is there is such a thing as lit in SV?

OP here, I edited my post for clarity, since you're absolutely right that SV specifically (i.e. the Peninsula: Redwood Shores, Menlo Park, Palo Alto) doesn't focus much on lit (apart from some IP lit). I should have made it more clear I'm interested in both SF and SV. STB, DPW, and Weil only have SV offices in the Bay Area, yet do have limited commercial litigation practices. The other firms I mentioned have SF and SV offices.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.