LA Litigation: Latham v. Irell 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: 2
- Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 9:31 pm
LA Litigation: Latham v. Irell
Interested in General Litigation; no particular interest in IP
-
- Posts: 547
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 1:59 pm
Re: LA Litigation: Latham v. Irell
In before the Latham-hate.
-
- Posts: 428547
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: LA Litigation: Latham v. Irell
LATHAMMMM
- rayiner
- Posts: 6145
- Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am
Re: LA Litigation: Latham v. Irell
Yeah... low leverage, huge bonuses, early substantive responsibility, versus the firm that spawned an internet meme.
-
- Posts: 428547
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: LA Litigation: Latham v. Irell
rayiner wrote:Yeah... low leverage, huge bonuses, early substantive responsibility, versus the firm that spawned an internet meme.
This. Not even a close call, OP. Go to Irell.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 428547
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: LA Litigation: Latham v. Irell
Irell is good
-
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 9:31 pm
Re: LA Litigation: Latham v. Irell
any more votes?