Would it be dumb to accept at any of these firms? (Mostly IP Forum

[Anonymous User]

edit: any private info, feel free to PM me, as I posted non-anonymously below (WildcatatPenn)

Considering several offers, and a couple more that I expect to hear from very shortly. I will need to make a decision basically immediately after hearing (or not hearing) from a couple, because my deadline is about to expire.

Are any of these firms/offices definitively worse or better than another on the list, such that it would be retarded to accept there or to turn that offer down?

Baker Botts Silicon Valley (IP Pros+Lit)
Ropes & Gray Silicon Valley (IP Lit)
Knobbe Martens in Orange County (IP Pros+Lit)
Kenyon & Kenyon NY (IP Pros+Lit)
Baker & Hostetler Philadelphia (IP Pros+Lit)
Finnegan DC (IP Pros+Lit)
Pillsbury SF (General Lit, which maybe includes a little IP Lit but definitely not dedicated to IP)

FWIW, I hope to work in Northern California, with the rest of the locations all roughly equal in terms of personal desirability. I also have a strong IP background, but my heart wouldn't be broken if I didn't end up working in it (e.g. at Pillsbury). OTOH, I enjoy IP lit. I do NOT want my career to end up solely in patent prosecution however.

Geographic/personal considerations aside, is there anything on this list that jumps out as "You would be an idiot not to accept that opportunity."?
Similarly, anything that stands out as, "WTF do NOT accept there given your other options."?

Finally, any general comments or feedback on any of these firms, or any advice at all on this landscape is VERY appreciated.

I am having a hard as hell time making this decision.

Thanks.

[Anonymous User]

The best is probably Kenyon.

Finnegan is not what it used to be and Fish seems to be out-doing them in non-prosecution areas.

Otherwise, all the silicon valley offers seem reasonable but be prepared as the landscape of litigation is changing due to the rise of PTAB and other legislative developments.

[Anonymous User]

I would research their offer rates. Even if you're confident, nice, and do a great job, you're still going to worry at various points of the summer or have a random nightmare. If not, the risk-reward is with really small practice groups your work may be almost exclusively from one or two partners. You'll learn quickly that the partners and associates are who you work for, not firm XXX. It'd be more accurate for your swag coffee mug to read Jim Brown than Kenyon. If it's just the IP groups, I'd check out the offices honestly. How people are in their habitat with each other in a random 5 minute period is probably going to be a much more indicative experience than a job interview or marketing propaganda.

Things to consider in relatively descending offer:

1.) Offer rate.
2.) Work flow (are there enough hours?)
3.) How do the partners treat the associates?
4.) How do the associates treat their junior associates and staff?
5.) Do you like and want to be somewhat like these people?
6.) Vault rankng
7.) Cafeteria
8.) Gym
9.) Vending machine selection and price
10.) Personal office situation (I might value this less than others, because I found sharing made work more tolerable).
11.) Are the people pleasant or at least tolerable to look at on a daily basis?

[Anonymous User]

OP here

The best is probably Kenyon.

Finnegan is not what it used to be and Fish seems to be out-doing them in non-prosecution areas.

Otherwise, all the silicon valley offers seem reasonable but be prepared as the landscape of litigation is changing due to the rise of PTAB and other legislative developments.

Thank you for the feedback. Did not interview at Fish btw.

Interesting. Do you think the firm's national reputation plays into the smaller offices much? Or should I focus just on the office?
For example, Ropes & Gray is Chambers Band 2 Nationally and Baker Botts is Band 3 Nationally, while in CA, they are respectively Band 4 and no band at all.
I know Vault is hated, but no consideration should be given to Ropes's "Vault prestige" or whatever correct?

Do you think it would be idiotic in terms of career outlook to take e.g. Baker Botts over Kenyon? Or is the difference not *that* dramatic?

I would research their offer rates. Even if you're confident, nice, and do a great job, you're still going to worry at various points of the summer or have a random nightmare. If not, the risk-reward is with really small practice groups your work may be almost exclusively from one or two partners. You'll learn quickly that the partners and associates are who you work for, not firm XXX. It'd be more accurate for your swag coffee mug to read Jim Brown than Kenyon. If it's just the IP groups, I'd check out the offices honestly. How people are in their habitat with each other in a random 5 minute period is probably going to be a much more indicative experience than a job interview or marketing propaganda.

Absolutely agree about offer rates, but I *believe* they were all 100% this past year, except for maybe Kenyon? NALP shows 82% for them 2 summers ago, so I well definitely follow up with them on that. OTOH, Baker Botts SV was 4/6 two years ago, but this past summer was 100%. They said it was extreme extenuating circumstances to make the no offers, and given that they were 100% this past year I'm inclined to agree. Am I off here in your opinion?

[JamMasterJ]

PM me, have something private to say about a firm on here.

[Anonymous User]

The best is probably Kenyon.

Finnegan is not what it used to be and Fish seems to be out-doing them in non-prosecution areas.

Complete nonsense. Unless you have a really strong preference for NYC, no one in their right mind would pick Kenyon over Finnegan. These two firms are not in thesame class. Check out both firms client list, cases, federal circuit presence (Finnegan has a ridiculous number of fed cir clerks), vault ranking (Finnean is ranked, Kenyon isn't) and chamber ratings both for the firms (band 1 vs band 4) and the number of ranked lawyers.

I CBed at both and even their offices are in different classes. Finnegans are much nicer AND Kenyon makes juniors share offices.

Nothing against Kenyon, just... no comparison.

[wildcatatpenn]

OP here

PM me, have something private to say about a firm on here.

PM sent, and any other private tips via PM definitely appreciated!!

The best is probably Kenyon.

Finnegan is not what it used to be and Fish seems to be out-doing them in non-prosecution areas.

Complete nonsense. Unless you have a really strong preference for NYC, no one in their right mind would pick Kenyon over Finnegan. These two firms are not in thesame class. Check out both firms client list, cases, federal circuit presence (Finnegan has a ridiculous number of fed cir clerks), vault ranking (Finnean is ranked, Kenyon isn't) and chamber ratings both for the firms (band 1 vs band 4) and the number of ranked lawyers.

I CBed at both and even their offices are in different classes. Finnegans are much nicer AND Kenyon makes juniors share offices.

Nothing against Kenyon, just... no comparison.

Thanks for the differing POV. How do you feel the West Coast offices play into overall reputation? Assuming you have any idea about those...not sure if east coast IP attys pay attention to Silicon Valley

[Anonymous User]

OP here

PM me, have something private to say about a firm on here.

PM sent, and any other private tips via PM definitely appreciated!!

The best is probably Kenyon.

Finnegan is not what it used to be and Fish seems to be out-doing them in non-prosecution areas.

Complete nonsense. Unless you have a really strong preference for NYC, no one in their right mind would pick Kenyon over Finnegan. These two firms are not in thesame class. Check out both firms client list, cases, federal circuit presence (Finnegan has a ridiculous number of fed cir clerks), vault ranking (Finnean is ranked, Kenyon isn't) and chamber ratings both for the firms (band 1 vs band 4) and the number of ranked lawyers.

I CBed at both and even their offices are in different classes. Finnegans are much nicer AND Kenyon makes juniors share offices.

Nothing against Kenyon, just... no comparison.

Thanks for the differing POV. How do you feel the West Coast offices play into overall reputation? Assuming you have any idea about those...not sure if east coast IP attys pay attention to Silicon Valley

I don't know much about the west except that Finnegan has a Palo alto office (another edge over Kenyon lol) but I don't know how that would compare to "native" west coast firms.

[Anonymous User]

Finnegan is your best bet, and I agree with the above poster on the comparison b/w Finnegan and Kenyon

[Anonymous User]

OP here

The best is probably Kenyon.

Finnegan is not what it used to be and Fish seems to be out-doing them in non-prosecution areas.

Otherwise, all the silicon valley offers seem reasonable but be prepared as the landscape of litigation is changing due to the rise of PTAB and other legislative developments.

Thank you for the feedback. Did not interview at Fish btw.

Interesting. Do you think the firm's national reputation plays into the smaller offices much? Or should I focus just on the office?
For example, Ropes & Gray is Chambers Band 2 Nationally and Baker Botts is Band 3 Nationally, while in CA, they are respectively Band 4 and no band at all.
I know Vault is hated, but no consideration should be given to Ropes's "Vault prestige" or whatever correct?

Do you think it would be idiotic in terms of career outlook to take e.g. Baker Botts over Kenyon? Or is the difference not *that* dramatic?

I would research their offer rates. Even if you're confident, nice, and do a great job, you're still going to worry at various points of the summer or have a random nightmare. If not, the risk-reward is with really small practice groups your work may be almost exclusively from one or two partners. You'll learn quickly that the partners and associates are who you work for, not firm XXX. It'd be more accurate for your swag coffee mug to read Jim Brown than Kenyon. If it's just the IP groups, I'd check out the offices honestly. How people are in their habitat with each other in a random 5 minute period is probably going to be a much more indicative experience than a job interview or marketing propaganda.

Absolutely agree about offer rates, but I *believe* they were all 100% this past year, except for maybe Kenyon? NALP shows 82% for them 2 summers ago, so I well definitely follow up with them on that. OTOH, Baker Botts SV was 4/6 two years ago, but this past summer was 100%. They said it was extreme extenuating circumstances to make the no offers, and given that they were 100% this past year I'm inclined to agree. Am I off here in your opinion?

So I will address your concerns successively,

(i) Do you think the firm's national reputation plays into the smaller offices much? Or should I focus just on the office?

No, the firm's national reputation does not play into the smaller offices. The reason I say this is because many firms have barely active outposts in markets they are not really that strong in, in order to project reach.

(ii) Do you think it would be idiotic in terms of career outlook to take e.g. Baker Botts over Kenyon? Or is the difference not *that* dramatic?

I do not think that it would be idiotic to take Baker Botts over Kenyon. However, if your intention is to remain committed to a career in IP (either prosecution or litigation) keep in mind that coming from a firm which is primarily focused on IP will have slightly more bearing than a GP firm with a substantive IP practice, down the road.

[Anonymous User]

This is super anecdotal, but my bud did not enjoy his summer at finnegan. He felt associates seemed especially replaceable (especially life science background). He ended up at a GP firm with a top IP practice.

[Anonymous User]

Go to where you want to end up. If it's Northern California then Baker Botts or Ropes are fine, pick where you feel comfortable (though at ropes you have the chance of maybe moving to SF if you prefer that in terms of where you'd like to live). Pillsbury SF has had a bad rep for the past 5-7 years.

If you want to be in the Northeast, Finnegan is overrated and declining, but still close to your best option. As the other poster suggests associates are very fungible there but if they like you they have a good pipeline to CAFC which is nice. All things being equal Baker Hostetler might be the better option, but again, figure out where you want to live.

[r6_philly]

All things being equal Baker Hostetler might be the better option, but again, figure out where you want to live.

Baker Hostetler Philly was just Woodcock Washburn and was questionable after losing groups of people only a few years ago. And it only started having a summer program again recently. I don't know why you would suggest picking it over any of the other firms?

[Anonymous User]

i'd say finnegan is a good choice, as is pillsbury

Baker Botts Silicon Valley (IP Pros+Lit): hq in texas, lots of travelling, mediocre clients
Ropes & Gray Silicon Valley (IP Lit): interesting clients but the lawyers are stuffy, bland, very little personality
Knobbe Martens in Orange County (IP Pros+Lit): billed hours are worse than billable hours. you'll be stuck with longer work days and less pay
Kenyon & Kenyon NY (IP Pros+Lit): ???
Baker & Hostetler Philadelphia (IP Pros+Lit): not bad but in philidelphia... not sure about the details
Finnegan DC (IP Pros+Lit): generally a good firm, though nothing spectacular... not sure about the details
Pillsbury SF (General Lit, which maybe includes a little IP Lit but definitely not dedicated to IP): good people though mediocre clients, you'll be doing a lot of work for stanford

[wildcatatpenn]

i'd say finnegan is a good choice, as is pillsbury

Baker Botts Silicon Valley (IP Pros+Lit): hq in texas, lots of travelling, mediocre clients
Ropes & Gray Silicon Valley (IP Lit): interesting clients but the lawyers are stuffy, bland, very little personality
Knobbe Martens in Orange County (IP Pros+Lit): billed hours are worse than billable hours. you'll be stuck with longer work days and less pay
Kenyon & Kenyon NY (IP Pros+Lit): ???
Baker & Hostetler Philadelphia (IP Pros+Lit): not bad but in philidelphia... not sure about the details
Finnegan DC (IP Pros+Lit): generally a good firm, though nothing spectacular... not sure about the details
Pillsbury SF (General Lit, which maybe includes a little IP Lit but definitely not dedicated to IP): good people though mediocre clients, you'll be doing a lot of work for stanford

Thank you, and everyone else here for all of the input, I appreciate it so much!!!

Your take on Baker Botts and Ropes & Gray is very interesting. This is actually like, EXACTLY, the vibe I got from each when I did my CBs. I really liked the people at BB, and Ropes I felt like I was at the dentist office. But Ropes seems to have the better work. Would it be a mistake to take BB in this situation? OTOH, I *love* SF, and really for that reason I really like Pillsbury, and enjoyed the people there too.

Not sure if it's shown through my previous posts, but I think I'm leaning BB, primarily because of NorCal location, and I really enjoyed the people (especially associates). Just nervous that I would be accepting an "inferior" offer if I went there, versus some other options... I try not to get caught up in prestige and shit, but it's tough to differentiate what truly matters from what doesn't.

I also find it very interesting that so many people have said literally opposite things about many of the firms on the list lol. Finnegan class of its own vs downfall, same for Kenyon, Pillsbury, BakerHostetler, Knobbe, ... lol

[Anonymous User]

i'd say finnegan is a good choice, as is pillsbury

Baker Botts Silicon Valley (IP Pros+Lit): hq in texas, lots of travelling, mediocre clients
Ropes & Gray Silicon Valley (IP Lit): interesting clients but the lawyers are stuffy, bland, very little personality
Knobbe Martens in Orange County (IP Pros+Lit): billed hours are worse than billable hours. you'll be stuck with longer work days and less pay
Kenyon & Kenyon NY (IP Pros+Lit): ???
Baker & Hostetler Philadelphia (IP Pros+Lit): not bad but in philidelphia... not sure about the details
Finnegan DC (IP Pros+Lit): generally a good firm, though nothing spectacular... not sure about the details
Pillsbury SF (General Lit, which maybe includes a little IP Lit but definitely not dedicated to IP): good people though mediocre clients, you'll be doing a lot of work for stanford

Thank you, and everyone else here for all of the input, I appreciate it so much!!!

Your take on Baker Botts and Ropes & Gray is very interesting. This is actually like, EXACTLY, the vibe I got from each when I did my CBs. I really liked the people at BB, and Ropes I felt like I was at the dentist office. But Ropes seems to have the better work. Would it be a mistake to take BB in this situation? OTOH, I *love* SF, and really for that reason I really like Pillsbury, and enjoyed the people there too.

Not sure if it's shown through my previous posts, but I think I'm leaning BB, primarily because of NorCal location, and I really enjoyed the people (especially associates). Just nervous that I would be accepting an "inferior" offer if I went there, versus some other options... I try not to get caught up in prestige and shit, but it's tough to differentiate what truly matters from what doesn't.

I also find it very interesting that so many people have said literally opposite things about many of the firms on the list lol. Finnegan class of its own vs downfall, same for Kenyon, Pillsbury, BakerHostetler, Knobbe, ... lol

anon who made the list here. BB is not a bad firm, the only caveats are that it is not really a firm for ambitious people because you're absolutely right about selling yourself short, and that there is a LOT of traveling, primarily to texas. if you're okay with those restrictions, go for it! if you're bent on spending most of your time in norcal, pillsbury is probably a better choice in that they're headquartered there and rarely send people out of the area. if you're looking for something more prestigious -- try to think of prestige as quality of clients you will be able to list on your resume when you lateral or move to a different job -- Ropes; you can always lateral to Latham or Gibson if you get bored later.

do not, under ANY circumstance, accept knobbe. i've heard horror stories where people's "billed hours" show up as over 100 hours less than otherwise "billable" hours due to clients unwilling to pay for "certain things"