.

(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: 273369
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

.

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Sep 15, 2013 7:52 pm

.
Last edited by Anonymous User on Fri Sep 20, 2013 12:23 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273369
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: White & Case (NY) v. MoFo (SF)

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Sep 15, 2013 10:57 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Interested in IP litigation.
I would prefer to stay in New York, but I also want to maximize my exit options.
I am potentially interested in going in-house (into a tech company) after a few years in BigLaw.
Any thoughts?
Your input/reason for one over the other would be appreciated!

This is an unusual pair of choices for someone who wants to do IP litigation in New York, especially if (as seems to be the case given you want to end up at a tech company) your background is in EE/CS. White & Case is just an OK patent lit firm nationwide. My impression is that they do mostly pharma work in New York, and not a ton of even that. Of course, Google is a client, but a lot of firms represent Google. For what it's worth, I worked with a guy who used to work in patent lit at White & Case (not necessarily in New York) and hated it. On the other hand, MoFo is of course a powerhouse and on a whole different level from White & Case, especially in the tech space. The exit options are going to be correspondingly better to the extent that there are exit options for patent litigators.

I think the answer really depends on how much you want to stay in New York. If your preference is strong, I think you would be better off even at the New York office of MoFo than White & Case. If your long-term goal is in-house, even if you start out in New York you might want to move to California eventually. I'd imagine switching within MoFo to SF or Palo Alto would be much easier than lateraling.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273369
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: White & Case (NY) v. MoFo (SF)

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Sep 16, 2013 4:49 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Interested in IP litigation.
I would prefer to stay in New York, but I also want to maximize my exit options.
I am potentially interested in going in-house (into a tech company) after a few years in BigLaw.
Any thoughts?
Your input/reason for one over the other would be appreciated!

This is an unusual pair of choices for someone who wants to do IP litigation in New York, especially if (as seems to be the case given you want to end up at a tech company) your background is in EE/CS. White & Case is just an OK patent lit firm nationwide. My impression is that they do mostly pharma work in New York, and not a ton of even that. Of course, Google is a client, but a lot of firms represent Google. For what it's worth, I worked with a guy who used to work in patent lit at White & Case (not necessarily in New York) and hated it. On the other hand, MoFo is of course a powerhouse and on a whole different level from White & Case, especially in the tech space. The exit options are going to be correspondingly better to the extent that there are exit options for patent litigators.

I think the answer really depends on how much you want to stay in New York. If your preference is strong, I think you would be better off even at the New York office of MoFo than White & Case. If your long-term goal is in-house, even if you start out in New York you might want to move to California eventually. I'd imagine switching within MoFo to SF or Palo Alto would be much easier than lateraling.


Thanks for your input. Is there really that much of a difference between the two firms? I know White & Case is not as highly-regarded for its ip practice as Mofo is, but my impression was that they still seem to do a lot of really interesting work (Google, like you mentioned and other large tech companies). Could you possibly elaborate on why your friend hated working at White & Case? Was it more because of the type of work / type of clients or just the firm culture / atmosphere / hours?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273369
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: White & Case (NY) v. MoFo (SF)

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Sep 16, 2013 9:15 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Thanks for your input. Is there really that much of a difference between the two firms? I know White & Case is not as highly-regarded for its ip practice as Mofo is, but my impression was that they still seem to do a lot of really interesting work (Google, like you mentioned and other large tech companies).

Yes, there is a significant difference. There is enough patent litigation around that most firms probably won't be hurting for work, which is nice for your first few years there. But when you're looking at exit options a few years down the road, MoFo will look much better on your resume than White & Case. White & Case is a strong IP firm, no doubt, but MoFo is one of the top few in the country. (I don't work at either firm, so I don't have a dog in this fight.)
Anonymous User wrote:Could you possibly elaborate on why your friend hated working at White & Case? Was it more because of the type of work / type of clients or just the firm culture / atmosphere / hours?

A little of both, but more the culture than anything else. We worked together somewhere the hours could get pretty bad so I don't think it was that.

TokyoSoul
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2013 9:14 pm

Re: White & Case (NY) v. MoFo (SF)

Postby TokyoSoul » Mon Sep 16, 2013 9:20 pm

If you're seriously about IP, MoFo it is




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.