Top Law Schools

.

IP > regular lit

SV > NYC

Is the IP lit or transactions, or a mix?

Desert Fox wrote:IP > regular lit

SV > NYC

Is this in general, like IP work tends to be more interesting, more secure, have better exit options, etc.? And SV is a faster-growing/better market? Sorry if this is clueless.

flawschoolkid wrote:Is the IP lit or transactions, or a mix?

Mix. They do do some other things, but IP dominates and overlaps with almost all of their work.

Anonymous User wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:IP > regular lit

SV > NYC

Is this in general, like IP work tends to be more interesting, more secure, have better exit options, etc.? And SV is a faster-growing/better market? Sorry if this is clueless.

flawschoolkid wrote:Is the IP lit or transactions, or a mix?

Mix. They do do some other things, but IP dominates and overlaps with almost all of their work.

Manhattan sucks, and you don't want to be there. And this board seems to think IP (especially mixed experience) gets you much better exit ops.

Anonymous User wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:IP > regular lit

SV > NYC

Is this in general, like IP work tends to be more interesting, more secure, have better exit options, etc.? And SV is a faster-growing/better market? Sorry if this is clueless.

flawschoolkid wrote:Is the IP lit or transactions, or a mix?

Mix. They do do some other things, but IP dominates and overlaps with almost all of their work.

I just mean personally, I think IP is better than general lit. The work, the exit options, etc. etc.

SV is better than NYC because NYC is a urinal.

Haha ok, thanks, that makes sense. I guess I also have the secondary concern that, without a technical degree, I might not be able to handle IP stuff that well.

For what it's worth, your reactions are completely different from my counselor, who says NY firm is a dead win (IP is so technical and not for everyone, NY is a great place to start a career!!, etc.). But I'm not sure she knows what she's talking about because she messed up some basic employment facts earlier.

Anonymous User wrote:Haha ok, thanks, that makes sense. I guess I also have the secondary concern that, without a technical degree, I might not be able to handle IP stuff that well.

For what it's worth, your reactions are completely different from my counselor, who says NY firm is a dead win (IP is so technical and not for everyone, NY is a great place to start a career!!, etc.). But I'm not sure she knows what she's talking about because she messed up some basic employment facts earlier.

There's plenty of work to go around that doesn't require a technical background.

I wouldn't go to an IP-only office that only hires 2-3 summers unless I knew exactly what I wanted to do, but the location preference is understandable.

What are the firm's offer rates?

Pikappraider wrote:What are the firm's offer rates?

NY firm has given 100% offers historically, and it's something they tout, so I think they'll stick to it. SV is largely 100%; they no-offered a guy two years ago for getting repeatedly drunk in the office.

Anonymous User wrote:

Pikappraider wrote:What are the firm's offer rates?

NY firm has given 100% offers historically, and it's something they tout, so I think they'll stick to it. SV is largely 100%; they no-offered a guy two years ago for getting repeatedly drunk in the office.

I don't see the problem.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Pikappraider wrote:What are the firm's offer rates?

NY firm has given 100% offers historically, and it's something they tout, so I think they'll stick to it. SV is largely 100%; they no-offered a guy two years ago for getting repeatedly drunk in the office.

I don't see the problem.

Splitting is starting to look impossible given the timeframes required by each. I think I'll have to choose between one or the other.

You already said you want to go back to SV - your fiance is there and it's where you're from. Why wouldn't you just start then in the market that you want to end up in the future? If you start in NY, there's no guarantee you'll be able to move your way back to SV.

summered in SV, non-tech background

SV: great weather, great lifestyle, culture tends to be more friendly, hours are presumably better. I dont have a tech background, and I would not choose IP - too much of a headache to deal with technical stuff - but that depends on the person, I assume. In terms of exit opportunities, if you are thinking in house, companies might need people in IP prosecution (but that will require tech background) and IP tx (licensing, etc), but IP lit would not be in high demand. So pay attention to what the SV firm does. Bonus also might not be on the NY scale - you also need to look into that.

Talked with a senior associate in NY and was told that switching market NY -> CA or CA -> NY in corp would not be a huge problem because the work is not that different. Might be a different story with IP, i don't know. 3L now and I can tell you that both markets are active in 3L hiring. So worst case scenario if you want to jump ship after 2L, it's possible to do that after 2L as well, although if you did IP in SV and didn't like it, it'll be harder to persuade NY to take you in for corp or lit, IMO.

Anonymous User wrote:summered in SV, non-tech background

SV: great weather, great lifestyle, culture tends to be more friendly, hours are presumably better. I dont have a tech background, and I would not choose IP - too much of a headache to deal with technical stuff - but that depends on the person, I assume. In terms of exit opportunities, if you are thinking in house, companies might need people in IP prosecution (but that will require tech background) and IP tx (licensing, etc), but IP lit would not be in high demand. So pay attention to what the SV firm does. Bonus also might not be on the NY scale - you also need to look into that.

Talked with a senior associate in NY and was told that switching market NY -> CA or CA -> NY in corp would not be a huge problem because the work is not that different. Might be a different story with IP, i don't know. 3L now and I can tell you that both markets are active in 3L hiring. So worst case scenario if you want to jump ship after 2L, it's possible to do that after 2L as well, although if you did IP in SV and didn't like it, it'll be harder to persuade NY to take you in for corp or lit, IMO.

Thanks, this was really useful. You kind of hit the nail on the head in terms of what I'm worried about - if I take SV and IP doesn't click for me personally, then I'm worried about options being limited after that.

I've done some more research on the transition from NY to CA. Some people say that you should aim to start in CA as early as possible, as it's a difficult market to break into, and the CA ties outweigh the NY experience. But others say that doing corporate/M&A/securities makes the transition feasible after 2L and/or after a few years in NY.

I'd really appreciate any more info on what it's like to transition from NY to CA and how feasible it is. For me, spending a few years in NY is not problematic (especially if it lets me see what practice area I really want) - I just want to end up in CA long-term. I guess the main hesitation with choosing SV is that I'm not all that sure IP is my calling.

Got my expiration date pushed to Friday, at least.

If they only do IP and you don't want to do that, that's a problem. Do they have no other practice groups?

Transactional work is generally transferable from NYC to CA, but keep in mind you'll be competing with MANY OTHERS who are attempting to lateral back home to California (basically everyone from CA eventually wants to head back) and you'll have to deal with studying for the CA bar while you are working, which would be shitty as hell. But from what I've heard, it is doable, but it could take some years, whereas you have a golden opportunity to start in CA now. The IP-only thing is a big problem though, so you have to weigh that.

Edit: does your NYC firm have CA offices? Perhaps you could look into a split or how amenable they are to a transfer down the road?

Anonymous User wrote:If they only do IP and you don't want to do that, that's a problem. Do they have no other practice groups?

Transactional work is generally transferable from NYC to CA, but keep in mind you'll be competing with MANY OTHERS who are attempting to lateral back home to California (basically everyone from CA eventually wants to head back) and you'll have to deal with studying for the CA bar while you are working, which would be shitty as hell. But from what I've heard, it is doable, but it could take some years, whereas you have a golden opportunity to start in CA now. The IP-only thing is a big problem though, so you have to weigh that.

Edit: does your NYC firm have CA offices? Perhaps you could look into a split or how amenable they are to a transfer down the road?

It's not that I don't want to do IP, necessarily, but that I have no experience with it and I don't know whether I'd take to it. I'm interested in exploring it but I've no idea if the actual work would fit me. So it'd basically be taking a risk - but if CA is really that hard to crack, maybe the risk is worth it.

SV firm has a really small "general" litigation practice (but I heard their associates basically handle IP litigation) and a yet smaller corporate group (which I could try to do, but they were upfront about it not being their main thing).

NY firm doesn't have CA offices, unfortunately.