Help! Foley & Lardner (DC office) v. Sterne Kessler

(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.

Foley & Lardner (DC) v. Sterne Kessler

Foley & Lardner
14
82%
Sterne Kessler
3
18%
 
Total votes: 17

Anonymous User
Posts: 273107
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Help! Foley & Lardner (DC office) v. Sterne Kessler

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Sep 07, 2013 4:55 pm

i have about a week to choose between the two for 2014 SA position. having a hard time deciding as i enjoyed meeting people from both places.

factors that are important to me (in no particular order):

    - biotech/pharma prosecution mainly but would like exposure to litigation;
    - don't mind working long hours but family life also important;
    - availability of good mentoring/training;
    - sufficient exit options available if i don't make partner.

thanks in advance.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273107
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Help! Foley & Lardner (DC office) v. Sterne Kessler

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Sep 08, 2013 2:54 am

OP here.

thanks for the votes so far.

any particular reason why people are voting for foley & lardner over sterne kessler?

thanks.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273107
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Help! Foley & Lardner (DC office) v. Sterne Kessler

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Sep 08, 2013 8:49 am

Foley is 10x better option for you than Sterne. Number of reasons why I as a 3L didn't take their offer:

- Starting salary only $140k (no lockstep increases. $20-25k less than comparable IP market)
- They represent entirely too many NPE
- Was not hearing good things about them around town.

Positive:

One positive that I would say about them is that they are really aggressive on the new Inter Partes Review. So as a prosecution associate, you might get good experience on that front.

Good luck.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273107
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Help! Foley & Lardner (DC office) v. Sterne Kessler

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Sep 09, 2013 11:09 am

Anonymous User wrote:Foley is 10x better option for you than Sterne. Number of reasons why I as a 3L didn't take their offer:

- Starting salary only $140k (no lockstep increases. $20-25k less than comparable IP market)
- They represent entirely too many NPE
- Was not hearing good things about them around town.

Positive:

One positive that I would say about them is that they are really aggressive on the new Inter Partes Review. So as a prosecution associate, you might get good experience on that front.

Good luck.


OP here again.

Thanks for the info.

Do you or anyone else know of any place to go to for more non-biased "reviews" of firms?

Never realized making this decision would be this difficult. I was leaning towards Sterne Kessler because I liked the idea of being in a place surrounded by like-minded former scientists. But the few comments I've gotten from non-Sterne Kessler people have made this decision a bit more difficult.

Would anyone else comment why Foley & Lardner would be a better choice over Sterne Kessler?

Thanks.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273107
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Help! Foley & Lardner (DC office) v. Sterne Kessler

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Sep 09, 2013 2:02 pm

Foley is definitely the way to go for experience and future opportunity.

At Sterne, you likely wouldn't have any exposure to litigation because you'd just be part of the bio group, and there's basically no cross-over between their technical groups and their litigation group (let alone relatively little litigation as it is).

And no need to worry because you'll certainly get the "like-minded former scientists" at Foley.

Don't kick yourself later over not choosing the clearly better firm.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273107
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Help! Foley & Lardner (DC office) v. Sterne Kessler

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Sep 09, 2013 2:21 pm

Another vote for Foley & Lardner

From what I have heard: Sterne Kessler would love to have hands, but not brains. The directors there give you work and you are not SUPPOSED to develop your own clients. You have to serve the directors well in order to have enough hours.

Most litigation would be patent invalidation cases . . .

Finally, in a global economy like ours, it is a disadvantage to have one single office for a law firm no matter how good your attorneys are.

Foley & Lardner at least would train you to attract new clients and have more interesting work if you want to learn patent litigation.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273107
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Help! Foley & Lardner (DC office) v. Sterne Kessler

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Sep 09, 2013 3:35 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Foley is definitely the way to go for experience and future opportunity.

At Sterne, you likely wouldn't have any exposure to litigation because you'd just be part of the bio group, and there's basically no cross-over between their technical groups and their litigation group (let alone relatively little litigation as it is).

And no need to worry because you'll certainly get the "like-minded former scientists" at Foley.

Don't kick yourself later over not choosing the clearly better firm.


I was told that you can have exposure to litigation when I had a callback with Sterne Kessler. In fact, Multiple people told me so. And I am not sure what the OPs impression of Foley or the person I quoted, but I had interviews with both and there was definitely a difference in culture between the two firms. My impressions was more "like-minded former scientists" (read as introverts) at Sterne. If you want prosecution then I don't think this is even a question. Sterne is always rated much higher for prosecution. But that being said, your paycheck will never touch what you will make at Foley.

Jimbo_Jones
Posts: 196
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2012 9:36 am

Re: Help! Foley & Lardner (DC office) v. Sterne Kessler

Postby Jimbo_Jones » Mon Sep 09, 2013 3:42 pm

Anonymous User wrote: Sterne is always rated much higher for prosecution.


By whom and by what measure?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273107
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Help! Foley & Lardner (DC office) v. Sterne Kessler

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Sep 09, 2013 4:07 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Foley is definitely the way to go for experience and future opportunity.

At Sterne, you likely wouldn't have any exposure to litigation because you'd just be part of the bio group, and there's basically no cross-over between their technical groups and their litigation group (let alone relatively little litigation as it is).

And no need to worry because you'll certainly get the "like-minded former scientists" at Foley.

Don't kick yourself later over not choosing the clearly better firm.


I was told that you can have exposure to litigation when I had a callback with Sterne Kessler. In fact, Multiple people told me so. And I am not sure what the OPs impression of Foley or the person I quoted, but I had interviews with both and there was definitely a difference in culture between the two firms. My impressions was more "like-minded former scientists" (read as introverts) at Sterne. If you want prosecution then I don't think this is even a question. Sterne is always rated much higher for prosecution. But that being said, your paycheck will never touch what you will make at Foley.


Is the salary discrepancy really that significant between the two firms?

I understand that you'd make $160K working 1850 billable hours at Foley, whereas at Sterne, you'd have to work 2000 billable hours to make the same amount. Is the difference really that significant? I had always assumed that regardless of what the firm's minimum hour billable requirement, people interested in making partner generally worked more than 2000 billable hours.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273107
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Help! Foley & Lardner (DC office) v. Sterne Kessler

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Sep 09, 2013 4:12 pm

Jimbo_Jones wrote:
Anonymous User wrote: Sterne is always rated much higher for prosecution.


By whom and by what measure?


To be honest, most rankings have the two firms even in terms of ranking. But those rankings are mostly an unfair comparison between big law and mid law. More people know of Foley and Lardner. So one way to put on level playing field is a consensus on the quality of patents each place creates. Here is two rankings side by side. One had Foley higher and the other Sterne.

--LinkRemoved--

Anonymous User
Posts: 273107
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Help! Foley & Lardner (DC office) v. Sterne Kessler

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Sep 09, 2013 4:13 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Foley is definitely the way to go for experience and future opportunity.

At Sterne, you likely wouldn't have any exposure to litigation because you'd just be part of the bio group, and there's basically no cross-over between their technical groups and their litigation group (let alone relatively little litigation as it is).

And no need to worry because you'll certainly get the "like-minded former scientists" at Foley.

Don't kick yourself later over not choosing the clearly better firm.


I was told that you can have exposure to litigation when I had a callback with Sterne Kessler. In fact, Multiple people told me so. And I am not sure what the OPs impression of Foley or the person I quoted, but I had interviews with both and there was definitely a difference in culture between the two firms. My impressions was more "like-minded former scientists" (read as introverts) at Sterne. If you want prosecution then I don't think this is even a question. Sterne is always rated much higher for prosecution. But that being said, your paycheck will never touch what you will make at Foley.


Is the salary discrepancy really that significant between the two firms?

I understand that you'd make $160K working 1850 billable hours at Foley, whereas at Sterne, you'd have to work 2000 billable hours to make the same amount. Is the difference really that significant? I had always assumed that regardless of what the firm's minimum hour billable requirement, people interested in making partner generally worked more than 2000 billable hours.


I think you only start to see discrepancy after 2 or 3 years in the job.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273107
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Help! Foley & Lardner (DC office) v. Sterne Kessler

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Sep 09, 2013 6:05 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Foley is definitely the way to go for experience and future opportunity.

At Sterne, you likely wouldn't have any exposure to litigation because you'd just be part of the bio group, and there's basically no cross-over between their technical groups and their litigation group (let alone relatively little litigation as it is).

And no need to worry because you'll certainly get the "like-minded former scientists" at Foley.

Don't kick yourself later over not choosing the clearly better firm.


I was told that you can have exposure to litigation when I had a callback with Sterne Kessler. In fact, Multiple people told me so. And I am not sure what the OPs impression of Foley or the person I quoted, but I had interviews with both and there was definitely a difference in culture between the two firms. My impressions was more "like-minded former scientists" (read as introverts) at Sterne. If you want prosecution then I don't think this is even a question. Sterne is always rated much higher for prosecution. But that being said, your paycheck will never touch what you will make at Foley.


Is the salary discrepancy really that significant between the two firms?

I understand that you'd make $160K working 1850 billable hours at Foley, whereas at Sterne, you'd have to work 2000 billable hours to make the same amount. Is the difference really that significant? I had always assumed that regardless of what the firm's minimum hour billable requirement, people interested in making partner generally worked more than 2000 billable hours.


It is really hard to put your finger on the value of 150 hours until you're actually doing it.

I would take Foley here in a heartbeat. I met plenty of "science introverts" when I interviewed there. Didn't interview at Sterne Kessler so I can't speak to them. I do know Sterne is interviewing a lot of people right now, both for new and lateral hires. Not sure what to read into that.

Foley's DC location is pretty sweet too right on the waterfront in Georgetown. Makes it harder though if you want to Metro, I guess.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273107
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Help! Foley & Lardner (DC office) v. Sterne Kessler

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Sep 16, 2013 2:37 pm

Anyone know what work life is like at Foley & Lardner in D.C.? I've heard you work long hours like any other place, but I was wondering whether it'd be possible to have a "normal" family life while working there.

From what I've heard, one significant advantage to working at Sterne Kessler is that they are more understanding of one's need to have a family life. You can choose to work less than the normal 1850 hours, but of course, for less money.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.