New associate banter Forum
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 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.
-
- Posts: 432622
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: New associate banter
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.
-
- Posts: 432622
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: New associate banter
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??)
(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??)
- thesealocust
- Posts: 8525
- Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:50 pm
Re: New associate banter
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.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.
- JCougar
- Posts: 3216
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:47 pm
Re: New associate banter
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.
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.
- studebaker07
- Posts: 287
- Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 7:40 pm
Re: New associate banter
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.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
- thesealocust
- Posts: 8525
- Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:50 pm
Re: New associate banter
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.
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.
- studebaker07
- Posts: 287
- Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 7:40 pm
Re: New associate banter
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.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.
-
- Posts: 775
- Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2012 7:16 am
Re: New associate banter
lol if you need "patent applications" to be defined...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.
- studebaker07
- Posts: 287
- Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 7:40 pm
Re: New associate banter
It's not so absurd if there are potentially multiple inventions and the patents being assigned are not clearly defined from the outset, IMO.
- wiseowl
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 4:38 pm
Re: New associate banter
lol if you can't see how this could be ambiguous in about ten different wayslukertin wrote:lol if you need "patent applications" to be defined...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.
-
- Posts: 775
- Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2012 7:16 am
Re: New associate banter
That's an issue over the meaning of 'related'.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.
-
- Posts: 772
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 12:41 pm
Re: New associate banter
lukertin wrote:That's an issue over the meaning of 'related'.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.

Related Patent Applications: blahblahblahblah
/discussion ?
-
- Posts: 432622
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: New associate banter
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.
My kingdom for some regular workflow. This is just a drag.
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2013 7:05 pm
Re: New associate banter
Checking in here. Started about a month ago. At least there wasn't any traffic driving home at 1:30am last week!
- reasonable_man
- Posts: 2194
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 5:41 pm
Re: New associate banter
Anyone in here make the move to the attorney forum?
- thesealocust
- Posts: 8525
- Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:50 pm
Re: New associate banter
Already posting there 
I flagrantly ignored their verification rules and managed to make it in.

I flagrantly ignored their verification rules and managed to make it in.
- ragelion
- Posts: 2293
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 4:14 am
Re: New associate banter
No sudden movements, guys.reasonable_man wrote:Anyone in here make the move to the attorney forum?
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 942
- Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 2:03 am
Re: New associate banter
Made the move.reasonable_man wrote:Anyone in here make the move to the attorney forum?
- 5ky
- Posts: 10835
- Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 4:10 pm
Re: New associate banter
sent mine in right around when you did i think (9:45ish), still nothing.thesealocust wrote:Already posting there
I flagrantly ignored their verification rules and managed to make it in.
dat BLACKLIST
- reasonable_man
- Posts: 2194
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 5:41 pm
Re: New associate banter
You're awesome.ragelion wrote:No sudden movements, guys.reasonable_man wrote:Anyone in here make the move to the attorney forum?
-
- Posts: 387
- Joined: Mon May 03, 2010 2:47 pm
Re: New associate banter
I must be blind...please advise.
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Register now, it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- thesealocust
- Posts: 8525
- Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:50 pm
Re: New associate banter
Sticky at the top of the employment forum about a new hidden secret law talkin' guys club housejkay wrote:I must be blind...please advise.
- Stanford4Me
- Posts: 6240
- Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 1:23 am
Re: New associate banter
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?
-
- Posts: 942
- Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 2:03 am
Re: New associate banter
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?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?
- snowpeach06
- Posts: 2426
- Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2009 5:32 am
Re: New associate banter
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.
Anyway, I am excited, cuse tomorrow I get to interview interns. I feel so powerful.
Seriously? What are you waiting for?
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login