Top Law Schools

disco_barred wrote:I bet chambers & partners does. I'd bet they even break it down by state, possibly even by subspecialty!

Anonymous User wrote:1) K&E
<----Significant Gap---->
2) Ropes
3) Fitz
Etc.

I'd say that, for IP, the only firms worth taking above K&E are places like Irell, and IP boutiques, but even then that's a stretch. Boutiques don't get the same high profile cases and large scope that K&E does, simply because K&E is a national firm. Also, I think K&E is a better name to have on the resume than most IP boutiques.

LawSchoolWannaBe wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:1) K&E
<----Significant Gap---->
2) Ropes
3) Fitz
Etc.

I'd say that, for IP, the only firms worth taking above K&E are places like Irell, and IP boutiques, but even then that's a stretch. Boutiques don't get the same high profile cases and large scope that K&E does, simply because K&E is a national firm. Also, I think K&E is a better name to have on the resume than most IP boutiques.

This is for lit, correct?

rayiner wrote:

LawSchoolWannaBe wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:1) K&E
<----Significant Gap---->
2) Ropes
3) Fitz
Etc.

I'd say that, for IP, the only firms worth taking above K&E are places like Irell, and IP boutiques, but even then that's a stretch. Boutiques don't get the same high profile cases and large scope that K&E does, simply because K&E is a national firm. Also, I think K&E is a better name to have on the resume than most IP boutiques.

This is for lit, correct?

Fitzpatrick Cella does prosecution.

LawSchoolWannaBe wrote:And I'm not sure K&E is better, and definitely not "<----Significant Gap---->" better, than lots of other places, in IP lit and IP as a whole.

rayiner wrote:

LawSchoolWannaBe wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:1) K&E
<----Significant Gap---->
2) Ropes
3) Fitz
Etc.

I'd say that, for IP, the only firms worth taking above K&E are places like Irell, and IP boutiques, but even then that's a stretch. Boutiques don't get the same high profile cases and large scope that K&E does, simply because K&E is a national firm. Also, I think K&E is a better name to have on the resume than most IP boutiques.

This is for lit, correct?

Fitzpatrick Cella does prosecution.

Anonymous User wrote:

rayiner wrote:

LawSchoolWannaBe wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:1) K&E
<----Significant Gap---->
2) Ropes
3) Fitz
Etc.

I'd say that, for IP, the only firms worth taking above K&E are places like Irell, and IP boutiques, but even then that's a stretch. Boutiques don't get the same high profile cases and large scope that K&E does, simply because K&E is a national firm. Also, I think K&E is a better name to have on the resume than most IP boutiques.

This is for lit, correct?

Fitzpatrick Cella does prosecution.

Fitz does a lot of things.

twistedwrister wrote:IP Law and Business puts out a list of the firms that handle the most patent cases each year:

--LinkRemoved--

This tells you which firms are actually getting the work. The usual suspects (K&E, Fish) top the list, but some firms might surprise you. For example, not too many people associate Covington, Akin Gump, Sidley, and DLA Piper with patent litigation, but they do quite a bit.

Note that this list only covers district court litigation, not Fed. Circuit/appeals or ITC work. I don't think the 2010 list is out yet.

Hope this helps.

Bosque wrote:

twistedwrister wrote:IP Law and Business puts out a list of the firms that handle the most patent cases each year:

--LinkRemoved--

This tells you which firms are actually getting the work. The usual suspects (K&E, Fish) top the list, but some firms might surprise you. For example, not too many people associate Covington, Akin Gump, Sidley, and DLA Piper with patent litigation, but they do quite a bit.

Note that this list only covers district court litigation, not Fed. Circuit/appeals or ITC work. I don't think the 2010 list is out yet.

Hope this helps.

Is this list adjusted for the size of the firm/IP division? Because if not, it could be very misleading.

twistedwrister wrote:

Bosque wrote:

twistedwrister wrote:IP Law and Business puts out a list of the firms that handle the most patent cases each year:

--LinkRemoved--

This tells you which firms are actually getting the work. The usual suspects (K&E, Fish) top the list, but some firms might surprise you. For example, not too many people associate Covington, Akin Gump, Sidley, and DLA Piper with patent litigation, but they do quite a bit.

Note that this list only covers district court litigation, not Fed. Circuit/appeals or ITC work. I don't think the 2010 list is out yet.

Hope this helps.

Is this list adjusted for the size of the firm/IP division? Because if not, it could be very misleading.

No, the list is not adjusted for firm size. Why in the world would you do that? The OP is looking for the biggest/best/most well-known IP firms, and the list is a good way to see which firms do a lot of patent litigation. A 200 lawyer firm that does 25 patent cases a year is "better" for patent litigation than a 20 lawyer firm that does 3 patent cases a year. Adjusting for firm size would be silly in this context.

dood wrote:also consider this:
weil tries ~30% of their patent cases, while most firms only try about 10% of patent lit cases, according to the weil partner i interviewed with today, which falls in line with what chambers says "weil doesnt fuck around, when opposing counsel is weil, u better know they are fully to prepared to try the case to the end."

also consider this:
no big firm will let a assoc litigate anything. 1st chair = managing partner or dude whos been around long time, 2nd chair = the partner u report to, 3rd chair = maybe local counsel, 4th chair = MAYBE senior assoc. VERSUS small firm, where a senior assoc will sit 2nd chair, and so forth.

so what is it u really want to do BROSKI? u want to become a true litigator? u should consider non-IP litigation too - IP cases are notorious for dragging on years before ever coming to trial.

alot of stuff for u to think about. not just who is the biggest, baddest IP lit firm.

my advice: go with the firm where u think u would fit in the best, ur gonna make friends faster, be able to get more substantive work from partners, have good mentors, etc <- all things that will help u get in to court, make partner, etc.

twistedwrister wrote:

Bosque wrote:

twistedwrister wrote:IP Law and Business puts out a list of the firms that handle the most patent cases each year:

--LinkRemoved--

This tells you which firms are actually getting the work. The usual suspects (K&E, Fish) top the list, but some firms might surprise you. For example, not too many people associate Covington, Akin Gump, Sidley, and DLA Piper with patent litigation, but they do quite a bit.

Note that this list only covers district court litigation, not Fed. Circuit/appeals or ITC work. I don't think the 2010 list is out yet.

Hope this helps.

Is this list adjusted for the size of the firm/IP division? Because if not, it could be very misleading.

No, the list is not adjusted for firm size. Why in the world would you do that? The OP is looking for the biggest/best/most well-known IP firms, and the list is a good way to see which firms do a lot of patent litigation. A 200 lawyer firm that does 25 patent cases a year is "better" for patent litigation than a 20 lawyer firm that does 3 patent cases a year. Adjusting for firm size would be silly in this context.

NYAssociate wrote:

twistedwrister wrote:I never said that the list was a ranking of the "best" IP firms. The list shows the firms that handled the most patent cases in 2009, which is valuable information for those looking at IP firms. Of course you should also look at Chambers -- it's a great resource for practice group rankings which has already been mentioned in this thread several times. Not so sure about Vault's practice group rankings. I'd rather rely on hard data (i.e., what firms are getting the work) than a survey of associates who know little (if any) more than the average law student.

Irell is a special case. I agree that it's a top patent litigation firm, but it's basically Morgan Chu and everyone else. He can afford to be picky about which cases to take, so Irell doesn't do as high a volume as other firms. Adjusting for size wouldn't really "help" Irell since Irell has a big IP litigation group (~70 attorneys). Adjusting for the size/quality of each case would help, but that's not easy to do.

Correct, correct, correct.