Page 1 of 1

Fish & Richardson v. Finnegan

Posted: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:30 pm
by Anonymous User
Which is better for IP? Let's ignore office locations for now. CB w/ one of them on Tue.

Re: Fish & Richardson v. Finnegan

Posted: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:38 pm
by Anonymous User
FINNEGAN

Re: Fish & Richardson v. Finnegan

Posted: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:39 pm
by Anonymous User
FISH & RICHARDSON

Re: Fish & Richardson v. Finnegan

Posted: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:48 pm
by digitalcntrl
Finnegan

Re: Fish & Richardson v. Finnegan

Posted: Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:00 pm
by NYAssociate
.

Re: Fish & Richardson v. Finnegan

Posted: Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:03 pm
by Anonymous User
care 2 elaborate re Finnegan? Where've you heard this stuff from.

Re: Fish & Richardson v. Finnegan

Posted: Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:09 pm
by NYAssociate
.

Re: Fish & Richardson v. Finnegan

Posted: Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:12 pm
by Anonymous User
NYAssociate wrote:Isn't Finnegan a sinking ship [NO] and didn't F&R no-offer their entire summer associate class in 2009? [NO AGAIN] I mean, since we're doing all these "don't forget LATHAM" threads, might as well mention these black marks [No, because neither fired first-years like Latham did].

Re: Fish & Richardson v. Finnegan

Posted: Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:15 pm
by NYAssociate
.

Re: Fish & Richardson v. Finnegan

Posted: Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:17 pm
by Anonymous User
Hmmmmm. Tough choice. Let's try and visualize it.

Fish & Richardson
--ImageRemoved--
--ImageRemoved--

Finnegan
--ImageRemoved--


I think I'm gonna have to take Fish & Richardson here. Just a very potent combination.

Re: Fish & Richardson v. Finnegan

Posted: Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:17 pm
by Anonymous User
we all know about fish, what about finnegan makes it a sinking ship?

Re: Fish & Richardson v. Finnegan

Posted: Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:25 pm
by NYAssociate
.

Re: Fish & Richardson v. Finnegan

Posted: Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:31 pm
by Anonymous User
NYAssociate wrote:Regarding Finnegan, it's just stuff I've been hearing around. An obvious factor is that it's not that well diversified, given how focused it is on IP, which could create problems (and apparently has) in the event of a downturn. Unless you're working at a litigation boutique, I think it's always better to be part of a practice group at a full service firm, as there are opportunities to bill hours in related areas if you can't find work, and thus opportunities to avoid getting laid off.

From ATL
Finnegan freezes and slashes salaries: http://abovethelaw.com/2009/10/whats-go ... henderson/
Finnegan promotes only 4 to equity partnership: http://abovethelaw.com/2009/11/new-part ... p-for-you/
Finnegan no-offers half of its 2009 summer class: http://abovethelaw.com/2009/10/whats-go ... henderson/
LOL if you think F&R and Finnegan are "sinking ships," then you either (1) must work at WLRK or (2) are a bitter idiot who probably got Lathamed (and does nothing but troll ATL from the couch) and is just bashing every firm while unemployed.

ITE, OP should be proud and enthusiastic about his/her CB with either firm. Good luck OP.

Re: Fish & Richardson v. Finnegan

Posted: Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:38 pm
by NYAssociate
.

Re: Fish & Richardson v. Finnegan

Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 12:13 am
by radek
TBF, Fish really IS a sinking ship.

Re: Fish & Richardson v. Finnegan

Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 12:15 am
by NYAssociate
.