New associate banter

(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: 273475
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: New associate banter

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Sep 23, 2013 3:05 pm

Are people noticing more late nights in corporate or in litigation? I have a choice of a couple practice groups and this is one thing I'm curious about.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273475
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: New associate banter

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Sep 23, 2013 3:21 pm

Not at a firm, but since this is the closest thread, just had to say that I'm being oriented today and am beginning to grasp exactly how much bureaucracy I'll be wading through from now on. Holy crap.

(Also, they explained doing purchase orders, including for things like paying expert witnesses, and I was kind of like, fuck, are they going to let me do that??)

User avatar
thesealocust
Posts: 8447
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:50 pm

Re: New associate banter

Postby thesealocust » Mon Sep 23, 2013 3:52 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Are people noticing more late nights in corporate or in litigation? I have a choice of a couple practice groups and this is one thing I'm curious about.


Both can be busy, but corp is (a) more all-or-nothing and (b) less predictable. I don't think I've ever heard people take a view as to which strictly takes more hours over the course of a year.

User avatar
JCougar
Posts: 3175
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:47 pm

Re: New associate banter

Postby JCougar » Mon Sep 23, 2013 7:12 pm

I billed 46.7 hours my first week.

But my yield of billable hours/hours worked is much higher than I thought. With litigation, there always seems like there's more stuff to do. Minus lunch, I probably only was at work for 50 hours. We had a trial today that I couldn't go to because I'm still waiting for my bar score/getting licensed, but I worked some hours this weekend to help prepare. The other guy hired with me got to go and argue some motions today, because he took the bar in a state that already released their scores. He started work a month ago, though.

User avatar
studebaker07
Posts: 288
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 7:40 pm

Re: New associate banter

Postby studebaker07 » Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:43 pm

For all the transactional peeps, how much reliance on form agreements is too much? To get specific, I am talking about asset purchase agreements and transfer forms. The definition of the assets to be sold or transferred is necessarily one of the more important aspects of such an agreement, so you would expect that this section would be extremely variable. I think form agreements are great places to start, but others in my firm seem to think the forms are almost foolproof in every circumstance and that kind of annoys me.

User avatar
thesealocust
Posts: 8447
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:50 pm

Re: New associate banter

Postby thesealocust » Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:49 pm

The thing about precedents and forms is that they often incorporate a hell of a lot of thinking and analysis that isn't obvious when you're a rookie.

One of my favorite examples is a page reference to the risk factors on the front of a pricing supplement. Yeah, it's not a horrible idea... but it also just so happens to be an explicit requirement of reg S-K. It's the kind of thing you could see a million times in precedent documents and update for your deal without realizing was directly responsive to a Real Honest to God Law.

User avatar
studebaker07
Posts: 288
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 7:40 pm

Re: New associate banter

Postby studebaker07 » Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:55 pm

thesealocust wrote:The thing about precedents and forms is that they often incorporate a hell of a lot of thinking and analysis that isn't obvious when you're a rookie.

One of my favorite examples is a page reference to the risk factors on the front of a pricing supplement. Yeah, it's not a horrible idea... but it also just so happens to be an explicit requirement of reg S-K. It's the kind of thing you could see a million times in precedent documents and update for your deal without realizing was directly responsive to a Real Honest to God Law.


That makes total sense and I agree with the statement about precedents and the amount of previous experiences captured in a form. But what about vague and ambiguous words like "all related patent applications" when patent applications isn't clearly defined? That's the kind of ambiguity that bugs me.

lukertin
Posts: 775
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2012 7:16 am

Re: New associate banter

Postby lukertin » Mon Sep 23, 2013 9:02 pm

studebaker07 wrote:That makes total sense and I agree with the statement about precedents and the amount of previous experiences captured in a form. But what about vague and ambiguous words like "all related patent applications" when patent applications isn't clearly defined? That's the kind of ambiguity that bugs me.

lol if you need "patent applications" to be defined...

User avatar
studebaker07
Posts: 288
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 7:40 pm

Re: New associate banter

Postby studebaker07 » Mon Sep 23, 2013 9:06 pm

It's not so absurd if there are potentially multiple inventions and the patents being assigned are not clearly defined from the outset, IMO.

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

Re: New associate banter

Postby wiseowl » Mon Sep 23, 2013 9:11 pm

lukertin wrote:
studebaker07 wrote:That makes total sense and I agree with the statement about precedents and the amount of previous experiences captured in a form. But what about vague and ambiguous words like "all related patent applications" when patent applications isn't clearly defined? That's the kind of ambiguity that bugs me.

lol if you need "patent applications" to be defined...


lol if you can't see how this could be ambiguous in about ten different ways

lukertin
Posts: 775
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2012 7:16 am

Re: New associate banter

Postby lukertin » Mon Sep 23, 2013 9:19 pm

studebaker07 wrote:It's not so absurd if there are potentially multiple inventions and the patents being assigned are not clearly defined from the outset, IMO.

That's an issue over the meaning of 'related'.

Gorki
Posts: 772
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 12:41 pm

Re: New associate banter

Postby Gorki » Mon Sep 23, 2013 9:25 pm

lukertin wrote:
studebaker07 wrote:It's not so absurd if there are potentially multiple inventions and the patents being assigned are not clearly defined from the outset, IMO.

That's an issue over the meaning of 'related'.


:?:

Related Patent Applications: blahblahblahblah

/discussion ?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273475
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: New associate banter

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Sep 23, 2013 10:05 pm

I spent all weekend working like a madman, and now I'm back to having nothing on my plate.

My kingdom for some regular workflow. This is just a drag.

NewSouthernAssociate
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2013 7:05 pm

Re: New associate banter

Postby NewSouthernAssociate » Mon Sep 23, 2013 10:46 pm

Checking in here. Started about a month ago. At least there wasn't any traffic driving home at 1:30am last week!

User avatar
reasonable_man
Posts: 2200
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 5:41 pm

Re: New associate banter

Postby reasonable_man » Tue Sep 24, 2013 1:20 am

Anyone in here make the move to the attorney forum?

User avatar
thesealocust
Posts: 8447
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:50 pm

Re: New associate banter

Postby thesealocust » Tue Sep 24, 2013 1:21 am

Already posting there 8)

I flagrantly ignored their verification rules and managed to make it in.

User avatar
ragelion
Posts: 2302
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 4:14 am

Re: New associate banter

Postby ragelion » Tue Sep 24, 2013 1:21 am

reasonable_man wrote:Anyone in here make the move to the attorney forum?

No sudden movements, guys.

User avatar
Anastasia Dee Dualla
Posts: 1165
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 2:03 am

Re: New associate banter

Postby Anastasia Dee Dualla » Tue Sep 24, 2013 1:38 am

reasonable_man wrote:Anyone in here make the move to the attorney forum?


Made the move.

User avatar
5ky
Posts: 6384
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 4:10 pm

Re: New associate banter

Postby 5ky » Tue Sep 24, 2013 1:40 am

thesealocust wrote:Already posting there 8)

I flagrantly ignored their verification rules and managed to make it in.


sent mine in right around when you did i think (9:45ish), still nothing.

dat BLACKLIST

User avatar
reasonable_man
Posts: 2200
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 5:41 pm

Re: New associate banter

Postby reasonable_man » Tue Sep 24, 2013 1:40 am

ragelion wrote:
reasonable_man wrote:Anyone in here make the move to the attorney forum?

No sudden movements, guys.


You're awesome.

jkay
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon May 03, 2010 2:47 pm

Re: New associate banter

Postby jkay » Tue Sep 24, 2013 9:27 am

I must be blind...please advise.

User avatar
thesealocust
Posts: 8447
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:50 pm

Re: New associate banter

Postby thesealocust » Tue Sep 24, 2013 10:22 am

jkay wrote:I must be blind...please advise.


Sticky at the top of the employment forum about a new hidden secret law talkin' guys club house

User avatar
Stanford4Me
Posts: 6049
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 1:23 am

Re: New associate banter

Postby Stanford4Me » Tue Sep 24, 2013 10:40 am

I was going to but I was too lazy to take a picture of my diploma from two different angles. Is it possible to send this thread over to that sub-forum?

User avatar
Anastasia Dee Dualla
Posts: 1165
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 2:03 am

Re: New associate banter

Postby Anastasia Dee Dualla » Tue Sep 24, 2013 11:28 am

Stanford4Me wrote:I was going to but I was too lazy to take a picture of my diploma from two different angles. Is it possible to send this thread over to that sub-forum?


They won't do that because its unfair to those involved in this thread who maybe don't want to make the switch. Use your phone broseph. Also, how's life?

User avatar
snowpeach06
Posts: 2426
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2009 5:32 am

Re: New associate banter

Postby snowpeach06 » Tue Sep 24, 2013 12:19 pm

Somewhere in there it said you could just post a link to your firm bio. I did that, so I'll let you guys know if it's successful. Otherwise, I agree, it's much too much work to get access to a forum.

Anyway, I am excited, cuse tomorrow I get to interview interns. I feel so powerful.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.