IP litigation in New York Forum

[Anonymous User]

Really love both, but need to make a decision.

Any thoughts will be appreciated.

[goodolgil]

Not that helpful, but I know KS used to, at least, be really strong, but then lost a bunch of prominent IP partners to Kirkland. Not sure how (if at all) that affected their practice.

[Anonymous User]

Not that helpful, but I know KS used to, at least, be really strong, but then lost a bunch of prominent IP partners to Kirkland. Not sure how (if at all) that affected their practice.

Past KS SA/Future Associate: They're still top-notch IP, despite the Kirkland poach. Very strong in life sciences especially and I know they're really looking for CS backgrounds.

Also, unlike Paul Hastings, KS did not no-offer this past year.

[Anonymous User]

I heard PH has insane hours..

[Anonymous User]

bump, no one takes the poll?

[azntwice]

i interviewed with both firms last year. my feeling is that kaye scholer would give you more options in terms of practice groups -- you would not be pigeonholed. paul hastings on the other hand only does hatch waxman and bio/pharma work, so if that's all you ever want to do, have at it. it you want more flexibility, go to kaye scholer.

[Anonymous User]

i interviewed with both firms last year. my feeling is that kaye scholer would give you more options in terms of practice groups -- you would not be pigeonholed. paul hastings on the other hand only does hatch waxman and bio/pharma work, so if that's all you ever want to do, have at it. it you want more flexibility, go to kaye scholer.

This. KS's IP group is integrated into their overall complex litigation group. You do not have to limit yourself to IP, you can explore other litigation practice areas while doing IP work. Additionally, if you don't have a hard science background, KS will still allow you to do IP work. It's a nice mixture and KS has good combo of pharma / tech clients. I don't know much about PH's IP practice so I can't comment on that.

[breakinghigh]

Interviewed with both. The IP group at PH is predominantly a bunch of defected Fitzpatrick Cella partners so the work you would be doing is all Hatch-Waxman pharma lit. The benefit is they seem to dole out responsibility early and you wouldn't have to do doc review.

Kaye Scholer has a much more varied practice and you get to be staffed on whatever case interests you.

Both options are great, and imo it would come down to where your background and interests lie.

[Anonymous User]

How about the long term career development? Sounds that Paul Hasting is better in terms of acquiring skills and training.

[breakinghigh]

The IP group at Paul Hastings gets wins, and I'm sure your training will be good. The interviewers I had didn't talk about training that much and were more focused on mentioning how much ass they've been kicking. Your training will also be great at Kaye Scholer. One of the things that stood out at KS is that the partners in the IP group really seem to invest in their associates. They'll take the time - an extra 20, 30 minutes - to explain to you why they're asking you to do the work in a specific way. In other words, they give context for all the assignments so you understand the broad strategy.

Honestly, I wouldn't advise following Vault or Chambers rankings on this one. The culture and people in the two groups are very, very different and I can talk about my impressions more in a PM. But fit and what kind of IP work you're interested in should come first here, I think.