Finnegan vs Fish vs General Practice Firm IP Group Forum

[Anonymous User]

I'd like to know the opinions of these firms for career advancement, quality of life, work environment, and stability. Fish and Finnegan are the top of the charts for IP, but the General Practice Firm actually is larger and has a higher PPP, though the IP practices is not as highly respected. Is there a clear winner here?

Thanks!

[crazyblink653]

I'd like to know the opinions of these firms for career advancement, quality of life, work environment, and stability. Fish and Finnegan are the top of the charts for IP, but the General Practice Firm actually is larger and has a higher PPP, though the IP practices is not as highly respected. Is there a clear winner here?

Thanks!

I'd say you really can't go wrong either way. That said, I know a partner who has been at Finnegan his entire career and loves it. He works long hours, but he says the people at the firm are top notch and really friendly. Plus, he always has interesting work. Finnegan is the premier IP boutique and has the resources of a large firm, given its size.

I don't know much about the other firms, but just thought I'd offer what I know about Finnegan.

[Bosque]

I am really curious why 2 people have voted for the GP firm with that really general range of possible firms. Just the magical Vault 50 in the description? Not the choice I would pick, but I also don't particularly like GP firms. (I would also wager the guys picking the GP firm are not IP).

Anyway, I voted for Finnegan, but I am pretty biased at this point. I loved Fish when I visited last year too, so I won't say you would be wrong to pick them. I think Finnegan is in a better place financially/job security-wise right now, but they are both fantastic firms. Go with the one you like better.

[dresq]

Since you are talking about satellite offices, there is no general answer. Your poll is useless. The work you do will be limited to the relatively few partners dictating the work you'll be doing. Your exit options will also hinge, in large part, on that same work and on the related clients. The right answer here is to look at the partners you'd be working for and who their clients are.

As a general proposition, I'd shy away from satellite offices altogether if you're worried about having wide-ranging exit options. You'll be exposed to less variety of work and fewer potential future employers, and your training may be limited as well.

[Bosque]

Since you are talking about satellite offices, there is no general answer.

True. Although, in Finnegan's case if you are talking about the Reston "satellite" office, that office is close enough to the main one in DC that it doesn't really make a difference.

[englawyer]

depends very much on the GP firm and office. for example, even though Weil is currently in Chambers Band #1, they might be in decline now that Matt Powers left and either has or will cherry pick their best people:

http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdail ... sweil.html

you should really dig into the various partners and their clients available at all your options. it is also a good idea to figure out if IP is a priority for the GP firm or did they just buy out some boutique to access the boutique's corporate clients for cross-selling of corporate and commercial litigation.

finally, if your primary interest is prosecution, avoid GP. litigation could go either way, but GP prosecution seems to be on the way out for cost reasons.

HTH

[Anonymous User]

depends very much on the GP firm and office. for example, even though Weil is currently in Chambers Band #1, they might be in decline now that Matt Powers left and either has or will cherry pick their best people:

http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdail ... sweil.html

you should really dig into the various partners and their clients available at all your options. it is also a good idea to figure out if IP is a priority for the GP firm or did they just buy out some boutique to access the boutique's corporate clients for cross-selling of corporate and commercial litigation.

finally, if your primary interest is prosecution, avoid GP. litigation could go either way, but GP prosecution seems to be on the way out for cost reasons.

HTH

OP here: Thanks for all the input. I think what you said about the GP firm is exactly what happened: The firm recently acquired a well respected IP office for the purpose of expanding into that market and cross-selling. The ironic thing is that this makes me more ok about going to the satellite office because it is the main office for the IP work.

Also, when looking at the offices, the GP firm has over 60% partners and the Fish and Finn offices have less than 20% partners. Should this be an important distinction?

[dood]

the GP really matters. why name 2 firms and not GP? just tell us what firm and we can give u a better answer.

[Bosque]

He did say band 3/4 (assuming he means Chambers). Let see if we can come up with any candidates:

Band 3
cooley llp
Covington & Burling LLP
Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP
Kaye Scholer LLP
Keker & Van Nest LLP
Latham & Watkins LLP
McDermott Will & Emery LLP
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP

Band 4
dla piper LLP (US)
Fulbright & Jaworski LLP
goodwin procter llp
Haynes and Boone, LLP
Kenyon & Kenyon LLP
Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear
mckool smith
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP & Affiliates
Vinson & Elkins LLP

Struck through all firms that are not V50.

[Anonymous User]

OP here

You guys are cracking me up -- this is like a puzzle to solve! I really do appreciate all the input, however. I just feel like I'm about to make a major decision with so little information to go on.

The reason why I didn't name the GP firm is that Fish and Finn have a lot of candidate overlaps, but the GP firm (for an IP candidate) does not have overlap. So I would essentially be outing myself if I listed it. I know, it would really help to know which one. But you have already provided some good guidance -- look at the partners and the clients. The clients seem to weigh in favor of the GP firm, but I just wanted to see if I was being silly by walking away from Fish / Finn because they are such great places.

[Bosque]

Fair enough. I really don't think it would out you, at least not to the firms, but I won't muse any further if you don't want me to (although I think I have it narrowed down to three).

[dood]

Fair enough. I really don't think it would out you, at least not to the firms, but I won't muse any further if you don't want me to (although I think I have it narrowed down to three).

dla, goodwinn, orrick.

based on that assumption, go with goodwinn. dal and orrick are not > fish or finnegan for IP.

[Bosque]

Fair enough. I really don't think it would out you, at least not to the firms, but I won't muse any further if you don't want me to (although I think I have it narrowed down to three).

dla, goodwinn, orrick.

based on that assumption, go with goodwinn. dal and orrick are not > fish or finnegan for IP.

Given those three, I don't think I would pick any of them over Fish or Finnegan for IP. Of course, I am guessing at this point the OP is talking about a choice between firms he has a callback at, and not actual offers, so I would advise him not to get his heart set on any of his options quite yet. A call back is still pretty far from a job.

[Anonymous User]

I have this same question. Anyone willing to give me advice in a PM?

Thanks

[09042014]

Finnegan has been losing partners but it's still an amazing IP group.

I'm just not sure how long IP lit and patent pros shop can stay married to each other.

[iplulzer]

Not naming the GP firm makes this thread stupid and useless.

It's presumably a large firm and they have many satellite offices and candidates. You didn't even need to say you had an offer there. How on earth would anyone know its you? Silliness.

[Anonymous User]

Accepted an offer at Fish & Richardson in my ideal location. I liked fish significantly more than any of the other 7 firms I had CB's with up till that point. After accepting, I cancelled callbacks at Finnegan and other GP firms. I am not sure whether I am interested in IP prosecution or IP litigation in the long term, but with a science background I want to stick to IP. Should I regret this decision to cancel the Finnegan interview, or is Fish still a great option?

[checkers]

Accepted an offer at Fish & Richardson in my ideal location. I liked fish significantly more than any of the other 7 firms I had CB's with up till that point. After accepting, I cancelled callbacks at Finnegan and other GP firms. I am not sure whether I am interested in IP prosecution or IP litigation in the long term, but with a science background I want to stick to IP. Should I regret this decision to cancel the Finnegan interview, or is Fish still a great option?

Sorry I'm not knowledgeable enough to weigh in on your question, but I'm very interested in Fish and wanted to know what it was that you liked about them so much. It really must have made an impression since you decided to not shop around, so I'd appreciate it if you could expand on, without outing yourself of course, your impressions.

[Anonymous User]

Accepted an offer at Fish & Richardson in my ideal location. I liked fish significantly more than any of the other 7 firms I had CB's with up till that point. After accepting, I cancelled callbacks at Finnegan and other GP firms. I am not sure whether I am interested in IP prosecution or IP litigation in the long term, but with a science background I want to stick to IP. Should I regret this decision to cancel the Finnegan interview, or is Fish still a great option?

Sorry I'm not knowledgeable enough to weigh in on your question, but I'm very interested in Fish and wanted to know what it was that you liked about them so much. It really must have made an impression since you decided to not shop around, so I'd appreciate it if you could expand on, without outing yourself of course, your impressions.

Quoted poster: the Fish offer was in my top city and they say they will allow me to start off in prosecution and litigation at least in the beginning (not sure which one I want to do yet). besides that, i saw that they were ranked highly in IP, and generally liked the people and the office.