Top Law Schools

Plan: to work at a firm for a few years and then go in house at a biotech/pharma/tech company.

Would it be better/easier to get an in house job at one of those companies by working at a top IP firm (e.g. Fish, MoFo, Finnegan, Quinn, etc.) as a patent attorney and presumably get the job by having worked directly with the company....OR would it be better/easier to work at a top firm in general like Wachtell or Cravath which has a more minimal IP presence but has the prestigious name recognition?

Anonymous User wrote:Plan: to work at a firm for a few years and then go in house at a biotech/pharma/tech company.

Would it be better/easier to get an in house job at one of those companies by working at a top IP firm (e.g. Fish, MoFo, Finnegan, Quinn, etc.) as a patent attorney and presumably get the job by having worked directly with the company....OR would it be better/easier to work at a top firm in general like Wachtell or Cravath which has a more minimal IP presence but has the prestigious name recognition?

My impression from talking to associates at a MoFo-like firm is that your in-house opportunities are going to be highly driven by whom your clients are while you're at the firm—that's how you'll make the connections and do the networking that leads to you finding out when the right position comes along. Ergo, if you want to work at a biotech/pharma company, you should work at a firm that works with those types of companies and understands their space. Cravath is not the answer for everything. The biopharma company will likely want to go with the person they know, not the person with Cravath on their resume.