Which of these firms best for patent litigation? Forum

[dood]

...

[Anonymous User]

There's an article out there, that was released they day they announced this program - they say they want people who are not in it for the money, but who are in it for the "long haul" - they also take potshots at trad. law firms for the lack of training, and bemoan associates wasting away their lives doing doc review.

I understand and appreciate this particular point of view, but I don't understand what they do with the fact that the brightest and best young lawyers aren't going to let "doc review" hamper their own progress, if they're motivated to be the best, they'll plough through whatever needs to be ploughed through.

This "lifestyle + training" camp thing seems to be well intentioned, but ultimately misguided, but maybe I'm wrong and Howrey will come out of this - 10 years from now - as a team of highly trained superlawyers.

[Anonymous User]

Having a "deep bench" is nice and all, but as an associate, you really don't care about that stuff. You want job security and a prestigious name on your resume that you can fall back on when you don't make partner. That makes K&E the runaway favorite.

Kirkland > Simpson, Jones Day, Sidley?

For IP litigation? Yes, according to both Vault, Chambers, and people I've spoken to.

Well see if their rep stays afloat after the departure of John Desmarais, but for now they're definitely better than those other three.

I think the question was directed towards the traits of "prestigious name" and "job security" specifically -- in which case I'd disagree. For that stuff, the overall firm becomes more important.

[Anonymous User]

Simpson gets ZERO votes yet is the highest rated Vault firm on that list?

[Anonymous User]

Kirkland's getting a lot of votes despite no John Desmarais

[Wavelet]

.

[Anonymous User]

Didn't Finnegan recently represent one side in the Bilski decision? (altho they lost)