agreedpatogordo wrote:If there's any difference in "prestige" it's not enough to matter
Irell or O'Melveny? 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: 7
- Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2014 11:04 pm
Re: Irell or O'Melveny?
- patogordo
- Posts: 4826
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 3:33 am
Re: Irell or O'Melveny?
Tbf that's true for like 99% of the questions in this forum
-
- Posts: 428538
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Irell or O'Melveny?
Different anon than OP - looking at OMM (downtown office), MTO (LA), and Irell (CC). Would love to hear bad things about each of them to help pare down the field - most of the differentiation I've gotten so far has been on the positive side.
Not super concerned about the OMM financial stuff from 2011/recession. Will be splitting with a 100% offer firm in a different market.
So basically this is just a bump.
Not super concerned about the OMM financial stuff from 2011/recession. Will be splitting with a 100% offer firm in a different market.
So basically this is just a bump.
-
- Posts: 428538
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Irell or O'Melveny?
if you just want the input of others who have navigated the LA market, as far as I'm concerned, for non-IP litigation the only firm in southern california that should really be considered from the offeree perspective alongside munger is gibson dunn. And even when presented with that choice most should take munger.Anonymous User wrote:Different anon than OP - looking at OMM (downtown office), MTO (LA), and Irell (CC). Would love to hear bad things about each of them to help pare down the field - most of the differentiation I've gotten so far has been on the positive side.
Not super concerned about the OMM financial stuff from 2011/recession. Will be splitting with a 100% offer firm in a different market.
So basically this is just a bump.
If you have an MTO offer and you are still seriously debating options like Omelveny, to me it shows you've already made some pretty damning conclusions about MTO or you have some strong aversion to being at a smaller firm. So why don't you lay out some of your trepidations or more specific reasoning because otherwise I don't see why everyone wouldn't just tell you to go to munger (or irell if you want IP lit)
-
- Posts: 428538
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Irell or O'Melveny?
Thanks for the response - that's kind of what my thinking has been.Anonymous User wrote:if you just want the input of others who have navigated the LA market, as far as I'm concerned, for non-IP litigation the only firm in southern california that should really be considered from the offeree perspective alongside munger is gibson dunn. And even when presented with that choice most should take munger.Anonymous User wrote:Different anon than OP - looking at OMM (downtown office), MTO (LA), and Irell (CC). Would love to hear bad things about each of them to help pare down the field - most of the differentiation I've gotten so far has been on the positive side.
Not super concerned about the OMM financial stuff from 2011/recession. Will be splitting with a 100% offer firm in a different market.
So basically this is just a bump.
If you have an MTO offer and you are still seriously debating options like Omelveny, to me it shows you've already made some pretty damning conclusions about MTO or you have some strong aversion to being at a smaller firm. So why don't you lay out some of your trepidations or more specific reasoning because otherwise I don't see why everyone wouldn't just tell you to go to munger (or irell if you want IP lit)
I don't have any damning trepidation about MTO - they were great. I just clicked very strongly with the O'Melveny people and have been sort of trying to talk myself into them. I do worry a bit about the turnover at MTO - seems like a very large summer class for the size of the firm - but it's still nothing close to as bad as the big NYC shops, and the hours/environment seem much more humane. Mostly I've only heard good things about Munger and am waiting for the other shoe to drop, if that makes sense.
I'd honestly prefer being at a smaller firm - that's my drawback with OMM. Though their LA office is actually the smallest of the three firms by a slim margin, it still seems like the big firm model (which I'd rather avoid). I also don't know how much credence to give to fit - I know the fit vs prestige question has been done to death on TLS, but it feels slightly different with these three firms in particular. And it's not like the fit was bad with MTO/Irell, I liked the people a lot, just not on the instant-good-friends level of OMM. It's to their credit, I suppose, that even with all the objective points against them, they're still in the picture given other options.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2014 11:04 pm
Re: Irell or O'Melveny?
What are you basing this on? All three are peer firms. Even if there is a difference in prestige or whatever else you're saying makes this an easy choice, I seriously doubt that the difference is big enough to affect anon's career prospects. Just go where you think you'll be happiest. Out of the three choices presented, I personally would choose Irell because I think it would be better to work in Century City than downtown (commuting/living situation much better for CC) and because I like the people in that office. I agree that Irell would be best for IP stuff but if you're basing this 'munger is best' stuff off of prestige then I think you're going about it the wrong way.Anonymous User wrote:if you just want the input of others who have navigated the LA market, as far as I'm concerned, for non-IP litigation the only firm in southern california that should really be considered from the offeree perspective alongside munger is gibson dunn. And even when presented with that choice most should take munger.Anonymous User wrote:Different anon than OP - looking at OMM (downtown office), MTO (LA), and Irell (CC). Would love to hear bad things about each of them to help pare down the field - most of the differentiation I've gotten so far has been on the positive side.
Not super concerned about the OMM financial stuff from 2011/recession. Will be splitting with a 100% offer firm in a different market.
So basically this is just a bump.
If you have an MTO offer and you are still seriously debating options like Omelveny, to me it shows you've already made some pretty damning conclusions about MTO or you have some strong aversion to being at a smaller firm. So why don't you lay out some of your trepidations or more specific reasoning because otherwise I don't see why everyone wouldn't just tell you to go to munger (or irell if you want IP lit)
- sideroxylon
- Posts: 2245
- Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 2:13 pm
Re: Irell or O'Melveny?
we get it, you really like OMMb123456 wrote:OMM trolling
-
- Posts: 428538
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Irell or O'Melveny?
From what I can tell, MTO's 'turnover' reflects a completely different process from cravath et al. Summer class is large relative to the number of incoming associates because 70-80% of any given class will be in chambers for a year or two. The firm gives you an open ended offer (probably with some reasonableness conditions) so you don't need to commit immediately, you can get a fellowship or clerk for a time first before accepting to return. It's not because people are completely miserable and looking to bail as soon as they have an easy out (although I'm not trying to say its all roses either, certainly some attrition from unhappy people occurs). While I've heard of people summering there and then heading to other elite lit boutiques post-clerkship, you don't see a lot of Munger to [Insert Large Vault Firm] lateral transplants a couple years out, in contrast to the mass exodus from the V10 to other firms that happens every year.Anonymous User wrote:Thanks for the response - that's kind of what my thinking has been.Anonymous User wrote:if you just want the input of others who have navigated the LA market, as far as I'm concerned, for non-IP litigation the only firm in southern california that should really be considered from the offeree perspective alongside munger is gibson dunn. And even when presented with that choice most should take munger.Anonymous User wrote:Different anon than OP - looking at OMM (downtown office), MTO (LA), and Irell (CC). Would love to hear bad things about each of them to help pare down the field - most of the differentiation I've gotten so far has been on the positive side.
Not super concerned about the OMM financial stuff from 2011/recession. Will be splitting with a 100% offer firm in a different market.
So basically this is just a bump.
If you have an MTO offer and you are still seriously debating options like Omelveny, to me it shows you've already made some pretty damning conclusions about MTO or you have some strong aversion to being at a smaller firm. So why don't you lay out some of your trepidations or more specific reasoning because otherwise I don't see why everyone wouldn't just tell you to go to munger (or irell if you want IP lit)
I don't have any damning trepidation about MTO - they were great. I just clicked very strongly with the O'Melveny people and have been sort of trying to talk myself into them. I do worry a bit about the turnover at MTO - seems like a very large summer class for the size of the firm - but it's still nothing close to as bad as the big NYC shops, and the hours/environment seem much more humane. Mostly I've only heard good things about Munger and am waiting for the other shoe to drop, if that makes sense.
I'd honestly prefer being at a smaller firm - that's my drawback with OMM. Though their LA office is actually the smallest of the three firms by a slim margin, it still seems like the big firm model (which I'd rather avoid). I also don't know how much credence to give to fit - I know the fit vs prestige question has been done to death on TLS, but it feels slightly different with these three firms in particular. And it's not like the fit was bad with MTO/Irell, I liked the people a lot, just not on the instant-good-friends level of OMM. It's to their credit, I suppose, that even with all the objective points against them, they're still in the picture given other options.
They say that they give offers with partnership as a reasonable prospect in mind. Some of this might be koolaid but I'm curious what your perceptions of "turnover" were
-
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2014 11:04 pm
Re: Irell or O'Melveny?
sideroxylon wrote:we get it, you really like OMMb123456 wrote:OMM trolling
chill. i just don't think minute differences in prestige are important. and anyway, it's not trolling bc i said i'd pick irell...
- glitter178
- Posts: 775
- Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 8:21 pm
Re: Irell or O'Melveny?
IIRC Irell pays double market bonus.
-
- Posts: 428538
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Irell or O'Melveny?
anon you are responding to --b123456 wrote:What are you basing this on? All three are peer firms. Even if there is a difference in prestige or whatever else you're saying makes this an easy choice, I seriously doubt that the difference is big enough to affect anon's career prospects. Just go where you think you'll be happiest. Out of the three choices presented, I personally would choose Irell because I think it would be better to work in Century City than downtown (commuting/living situation much better for CC) and because I like the people in that office. I agree that Irell would be best for IP stuff but if you're basing this 'munger is best' stuff off of prestige then I think you're going about it the wrong way.Anonymous User wrote:if you just want the input of others who have navigated the LA market, as far as I'm concerned, for non-IP litigation the only firm in southern california that should really be considered from the offeree perspective alongside munger is gibson dunn. And even when presented with that choice most should take munger.Anonymous User wrote:Different anon than OP - looking at OMM (downtown office), MTO (LA), and Irell (CC). Would love to hear bad things about each of them to help pare down the field - most of the differentiation I've gotten so far has been on the positive side.
Not super concerned about the OMM financial stuff from 2011/recession. Will be splitting with a 100% offer firm in a different market.
So basically this is just a bump.
If you have an MTO offer and you are still seriously debating options like Omelveny, to me it shows you've already made some pretty damning conclusions about MTO or you have some strong aversion to being at a smaller firm. So why don't you lay out some of your trepidations or more specific reasoning because otherwise I don't see why everyone wouldn't just tell you to go to munger (or irell if you want IP lit)
I'm not basing this off "prestige" or some opaque criterion, I'm providing my input as someone who has navigated the LA legal market, been presented with these options, talked with hundreds of knowledgeable attorneys on the issue and made tough choices. I opened with this and said it was just my perception -- I was very clear about this. You are strawmaning the TLS exclusivity bias.
I don't personally think O'Melveny is a peer firm to Irell or Munger as far as starting your career as a young litigation associate is concerned, although they handle similarly significant matters and for partnership its probably a wash (although Irell partners are incredibly loaded and its an exceedingly tough track). And you'd be hard pressed to find someone who agreed with you on that point. Substantively, not only will your compensation be higher at the smaller firms, but you'll receive more early responsibility and litigation experience (chairing depo's earlier, tackling MSJ's sooner, ect.), which makes you more of a value add, you work more closely with partnership, the small firms are far more selective about the work they take on so by extension you can be as well, your hours are more flexible, and in MTO's case, be able to share in the decision making of the firm at the highest level and have greater access to partnership on a shorter track (4-7 yrs). I agree it's fair for the anon who asked to go where he'll be happiest, but that wasn't how he or she framed the question and they made no mention of their relative happiness at each place.
As for the people, that's an inherently "personal" decision. I didn't click as much with Irell as Gibson/Munger when I was making the decision, but I won't question that anyone could have a different response there.
-
- Posts: 428538
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Irell or O'Melveny?
read my post above - if you still think this is about "minute differences in prestige," then I'm starting to doubt you've actually been to, researched and considered offers from all these places.b123456 wrote:sideroxylon wrote:we get it, you really like OMMb123456 wrote:OMM trolling
chill. i just don't think minute differences in prestige are important. and anyway, it's not trolling bc i said i'd pick irell...
-
- Posts: 428538
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Irell or O'Melveny?
Right, yea fully agreed - that meshes with everything I've heard. I guess my trepidation w/r/t turnover was that I know of a number who summered there and switched to other lit boutiques post-clerkship, which makes me wonder what it was about MTO that made them want to switch (since places like Keker are basically peeres, if perhaps even more selective). But I suppose I should just ask them personally. And thinking about it now, in each case it was switching geographic markets rather than moving between LA firms.Anonymous User wrote: From what I can tell, MTO's 'turnover' reflects a completely different process from cravath et al. Summer class is large relative to the number of incoming associates because 70-80% of any given class will be in chambers for a year or two. The firm gives you an open ended offer (probably with some reasonableness conditions) so you don't need to commit immediately, you can get a fellowship or clerk for a time first before accepting to return. It's not because people are completely miserable and looking to bail as soon as they have an easy out (although I'm not trying to say its all roses either, certainly some attrition from unhappy people occurs). While I've heard of people summering there and then heading to other elite lit boutiques post-clerkship, you don't see a lot of Munger to [Insert Large Vault Firm] lateral transplants a couple years out, in contrast to the mass exodus from the V10 to other firms that happens every year.
They say that they give offers with partnership as a reasonable prospect in mind. Some of this might be koolaid but I'm curious what your perceptions of "turnover" were
Thanks for the responses once again - it's good to be talked off the ledge.
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 428538
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Irell or O'Melveny?
I'm pretty sure you are better compensated at Keker/Susman post-clerkship, unless its SCOTUS in which case MTO rewards you very generously, which would explain why some highly qualified people make the switch. Although a lot of former summers still head back to munger, its just staggered.Anonymous User wrote:Right, yea fully agreed - that meshes with everything I've heard. I guess my trepidation w/r/t turnover was that I know of a number who summered there and switched to other lit boutiques post-clerkship, which makes me wonder what it was about MTO that made them want to switch (since places like Keker are basically peeres, if perhaps even more selective). But I suppose I should just ask them personally. And thinking about it now, in each case it was switching geographic markets rather than moving between LA firms.Anonymous User wrote: From what I can tell, MTO's 'turnover' reflects a completely different process from cravath et al. Summer class is large relative to the number of incoming associates because 70-80% of any given class will be in chambers for a year or two. The firm gives you an open ended offer (probably with some reasonableness conditions) so you don't need to commit immediately, you can get a fellowship or clerk for a time first before accepting to return. It's not because people are completely miserable and looking to bail as soon as they have an easy out (although I'm not trying to say its all roses either, certainly some attrition from unhappy people occurs). While I've heard of people summering there and then heading to other elite lit boutiques post-clerkship, you don't see a lot of Munger to [Insert Large Vault Firm] lateral transplants a couple years out, in contrast to the mass exodus from the V10 to other firms that happens every year.
They say that they give offers with partnership as a reasonable prospect in mind. Some of this might be koolaid but I'm curious what your perceptions of "turnover" were
Thanks for the responses once again - it's good to be talked off the ledge.
Also the lack of geographic flexibility certainly explains some people not returning. If your SO gets a job in Chicago/DC its not like you can switch offices at munger. Then again, anyone who is qualified enough for a munger offer can probably access those markets post-clerkship (or via 3L OCI) without too much sweat
-
- Posts: 428538
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Irell or O'Melveny?
From the associates that I've talked to, Irell century city is a bit intense, while Irell newport beach sounds pretty amazing (probably because it's a bit disconnected from the larger office and partners in CC). Irell Newport Beach would be fucking awesome if you can get that.
-
- Posts: 428538
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Irell or O'Melveny?
I've heard from numerous OC lawyers that Irell Newport is extremely intenseAnonymous User wrote:From the associates that I've talked to, Irell century city is a bit intense, while Irell newport beach sounds pretty amazing (probably because it's a bit disconnected from the larger office and partners in CC). Irell Newport Beach would be fucking awesome if you can get that.
-
- Posts: 428538
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Irell or O'Melveny?
How is Irell Newport these days? Is the firm a sinking ship? Is general (non-patent) litigation still a thing there?Anonymous User wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2014 5:26 pmI've heard from numerous OC lawyers that Irell Newport is extremely intenseAnonymous User wrote:From the associates that I've talked to, Irell century city is a bit intense, while Irell newport beach sounds pretty amazing (probably because it's a bit disconnected from the larger office and partners in CC). Irell Newport Beach would be fucking awesome if you can get that.
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 428538
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Irell or O'Melveny?
How is Irell Newport these days? Is the firm a sinking ship? Is general (non-patent) litigation still a thing there?Anonymous User wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2014 5:26 pmI've heard from numerous OC lawyers that Irell Newport is extremely intenseAnonymous User wrote:From the associates that I've talked to, Irell century city is a bit intense, while Irell newport beach sounds pretty amazing (probably because it's a bit disconnected from the larger office and partners in CC). Irell Newport Beach would be fucking awesome if you can get that.
-
- Posts: 428538
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Irell or O'Melveny?
Irell associate here. Newport office is now about half the size of the Century City office. To the best of my knowledge, there's no substantive difference between the two offices. Most matters are staffed by people from both offices.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 10:16 amHow is Irell Newport these days? Is the firm a sinking ship? Is general (non-patent) litigation still a thing there?Anonymous User wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2014 5:26 pmI've heard from numerous OC lawyers that Irell Newport is extremely intenseAnonymous User wrote:From the associates that I've talked to, Irell century city is a bit intense, while Irell newport beach sounds pretty amazing (probably because it's a bit disconnected from the larger office and partners in CC). Irell Newport Beach would be fucking awesome if you can get that.
Even with the shake-ups, things have been excellent this year. The firm is in good financial shape and there's steady work. I think the recent bonuses are telling. The firm has had some great results too the past year or so. Four trial wins with recoveries over $100 million, including a $1.1 billion judgment. Plus a 9-0 SCOTUS victory. We're a small firm, but were recognized as having one of the Practice Groups of the Year for both IP and Trials.
We're trying to expand our general litigation practice, but IP is still the main focus. If you want to do patent litigation, I don't think there's a better firm out there for an associate. If you want to do general litigation, I think it's still worth looking into, but be aware that you may still be staffed on some patent matters.
-
- Posts: 428538
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Irell or O'Melveny?
This is excellent, thank you for sharing.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 12:52 pmIrell associate here. Newport office is now about half the size of the Century City office. To the best of my knowledge, there's no substantive difference between the two offices. Most matters are staffed by people from both offices.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 10:16 amHow is Irell Newport these days? Is the firm a sinking ship? Is general (non-patent) litigation still a thing there?Anonymous User wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2014 5:26 pmI've heard from numerous OC lawyers that Irell Newport is extremely intenseAnonymous User wrote:From the associates that I've talked to, Irell century city is a bit intense, while Irell newport beach sounds pretty amazing (probably because it's a bit disconnected from the larger office and partners in CC). Irell Newport Beach would be fucking awesome if you can get that.
Even with the shake-ups, things have been excellent this year. The firm is in good financial shape and there's steady work. I think the recent bonuses are telling. The firm has had some great results too the past year or so. Four trial wins with recoveries over $100 million, including a $1.1 billion judgment. Plus a 9-0 SCOTUS victory. We're a small firm, but were recognized as having one of the Practice Groups of the Year for both IP and Trials.
We're trying to expand our general litigation practice, but IP is still the main focus. If you want to do patent litigation, I don't think there's a better firm out there for an associate. If you want to do general litigation, I think it's still worth looking into, but be aware that you may still be staffed on some patent matters.
-
- Posts: 428538
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Irell or O'Melveny?
Irell is the right choice. Cault ranking are bs because they are NY centric and transactional heavy. Small elite boutiques just dont get placed high. As someone who got offers from.both and was at Irell at one point, irell gives you more deep exposure to trials and more interaction with partners. Start at irell and move to OMM if you want.
I didnt stay at either and am about to leave law totally because I hate it. But Irell was a good experience. Far more so than most other firms I've been to.
I didnt stay at either and am about to leave law totally because I hate it. But Irell was a good experience. Far more so than most other firms I've been to.
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Register now, it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 428538
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Irell or O'Melveny?
Irell is the right choice. Cault ranking are bs because they are NY centric and transactional heavy. Small elite boutiques just dont get placed high. As someone who got offers from.both and was at Irell at one point, irell gives you more deep exposure to trials and more interaction with partners. Start at irell and move to OMM if you want.
I didnt stay at either and am about to leave law totally because I hate it. But Irell was a good experience. Far more so than most other firms I've been to.
I didnt stay at either and am about to leave law totally because I hate it. But Irell was a good experience. Far more so than most other firms I've been to.
-
- Posts: 428538
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Irell or O'Melveny?
Irell is the right choice. Cault ranking are bs because they are NY centric and transactional heavy. Small elite boutiques just dont get placed high. As someone who got offers from.both and was at Irell at one point, irell gives you more deep exposure to trials and more interaction with partners. Start at irell and move to OMM if you want.
I didnt stay at either and am about to leave law totally because I hate it. But Irell was a good experience. Far more so than most other firms I've been to.
I didnt stay at either and am about to leave law totally because I hate it. But Irell was a good experience. Far more so than most other firms I've been to.
-
- Posts: 428538
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Irell or O'Melveny?
Irell is the right choice. Cault ranking are bs because they are NY centric and transactional heavy. Small elite boutiques just dont get placed high. As someone who got offers from.both and was at Irell at one point, irell gives you more deep exposure to trials and more interaction with partners. Start at irell and move to OMM if you want.
I didnt stay at either and am about to leave law totally because I hate it. But Irell was a good experience. Far more so than most other firms I've been to.
I didnt stay at either and am about to leave law totally because I hate it. But Irell was a good experience. Far more so than most other firms I've been to.
-
- Posts: 428538
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Irell or O'Melveny?
Different anon, but I would take such a rosy picture (which seems pulled directly from marketing materials, to be honest) with a grain of salt. Partners don’t leave a firm in the numbers they’ve been leaving Irell unless something is seriously wrong. There are more than a few similarities to Boies, another top flight lit firm facing mass partner defections and continued difficulty with reliance on a 70+ mega-rainmaker with outsized influence in firm affairs.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 4:02 pmThis is excellent, thank you for sharing.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 12:52 pmIrell associate here. Newport office is now about half the size of the Century City office. To the best of my knowledge, there's no substantive difference between the two offices. Most matters are staffed by people from both offices.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 10:16 amHow is Irell Newport these days? Is the firm a sinking ship? Is general (non-patent) litigation still a thing there?Anonymous User wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2014 5:26 pmI've heard from numerous OC lawyers that Irell Newport is extremely intenseAnonymous User wrote:From the associates that I've talked to, Irell century city is a bit intense, while Irell newport beach sounds pretty amazing (probably because it's a bit disconnected from the larger office and partners in CC). Irell Newport Beach would be fucking awesome if you can get that.
Even with the shake-ups, things have been excellent this year. The firm is in good financial shape and there's steady work. I think the recent bonuses are telling. The firm has had some great results too the past year or so. Four trial wins with recoveries over $100 million, including a $1.1 billion judgment. Plus a 9-0 SCOTUS victory. We're a small firm, but were recognized as having one of the Practice Groups of the Year for both IP and Trials.
We're trying to expand our general litigation practice, but IP is still the main focus. If you want to do patent litigation, I don't think there's a better firm out there for an associate. If you want to do general litigation, I think it's still worth looking into, but be aware that you may still be staffed on some patent matters.
(Spoken as someone who spent most of the last decade in LA biglaw)
Seriously? What are you waiting for?
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login