Top Law Schools

Hi,

I'm a going to graduate from law school next year. I am trying to decide between joining Knobbe Martens in Orange County vs. Paul Hastings in Palo Alto vs. Sidley Austin in Los Angeles for Patent Litigation. Does any one have insight into which of these would be a better place to start a career at? I am considering longevity of career at the firm and quality of life as some of the major factors.

Thanks!

In terms of actual experience - not trying to crap on you - it's awesome to have three offers from three great firms, but to my knowledge none of the three is a real powerhouse in IP lit.

Knobbe means paycut.

If you have a preference of PA or LA would choose one of the two higher paying in the location you prefer.

L’Étranger wrote:In terms of actual experience - not trying to crap on you - it's awesome to have three offers from three great firms, but to my knowledge none of the three is a real powerhouse in IP lit.

What firms are the "real powerhouses" in IP lit? Based on my experience, all three of those firms are regularly involved in high-profile patent litigation.

Anyway, OP: are you a total patent geek who wants to work around a firm full of patent nerds? Do you want the option of doing patent prosecution at some point? Then Knobbe is the place for you. Otherwise, I'd go with Sidley or Paul Hastings.

Also, as L'Estranger suggests, geography should be a major factor here. Surely you have a preference about Northern California versus Southern California.

Don't have much to offer except that the people at PH in PA seemed genuinely friendly and down-to-earth when I interviewed there.

kcdc1 wrote:Don't have much to offer except that the people at PH in PA seemed genuinely friendly and down-to-earth when I interviewed there.

They are genuinely nice guys. The PH tech IP practice isn't the greatest, but I wouldn't lateral anywhere else because of the QOL here. I'm not in PA, but I'm in another CA office and work with them on matters. I haven't worked with the new partner Yar Chaikovsky but he's got a great reputation. He's brought HTC, Twitter, Yahoo, and other great companies. We already have a ton of Samsung work (the second biggest client in the IP lit world). Our practice group is growing during a time patent lit really isn't.

I don't know much about Sidley Austin LA, but I thought they do more pharma/bio. PH in California doesn't really do that.

I'd go Knobbe if you want to do prosecution.

You should probably choose LA or Silicon Valley. That should be a big part of your choice.

rpupkin wrote:What firms are the "real powerhouses" in IP lit?

I thought word on the street was Quinn, KE, Irell, and Mofo.

Thanks for the replies everyone. My geographical preference is for Southern California. The people at Paul Hastings Palo Alto were way awesome when I interviewed with them. Here are the reasons I was leaning toward Knobbe even though they don't pay anywhere close to Paul Hastings or Sidley:

1. Work-life balance - 1750 billed requirement with 105 hours that can be used for vacation bringing it down to 1645 a year.
2. Early partnership track - 40-50% of the entering class makes it to partnership at the 6th year (although their Profits Per Partner isn't anywhere close to big law - the other side of that argument is that very few people make partner at big law).
3. I have worked in patent prosecution for a while as a patent agent and want to experience patent litigation. Knobbe gives me the option of switching back to patent prosecution if I don't like patent litigation without having to change firms.
4. Location - as I mentioned, I prefer SoCal.
5. Greater possibility of client interaction and perhaps going in-house after 4-5 years if I want to.
6. Long-term stability - they have low associate churn.
7. They normally don't hire laterals - they prefer to grow their partnership from within. I might be able to go to Paul Hastings after Knobbe, but the reverse might not be true, odd as that may seem.

The cons about going to Knobbe over Paul Hastings is that the people at PH seem really awesome and down to earth as mentioned above, the firm culture seems pretty chill. However, people and personalities aside I'm wondering if Paul Hastings is a big law sweatshop like other places?

Anonymous User wrote:Thanks for the replies everyone. My geographical preference is for Southern California. The people at Paul Hastings Palo Alto were way awesome when I interviewed with them. Here are the reasons I was leaning toward Knobbe even though they don't pay anywhere close to Paul Hastings or Sidley:

1. Work-life balance - 1750 billed requirement with 105 hours that can be used for vacation bringing it down to 1645 a year.
2. Early partnership track - 40-50% of the entering class makes it to partnership at the 6th year (although their Profits Per Partner isn't anywhere close to big law - the other side of that argument is that very few people make partner at big law).
3. I have worked in patent prosecution for a while as a patent agent and want to experience patent litigation. Knobbe gives me the option of switching back to patent prosecution if I don't like patent litigation without having to change firms.
4. Location - as I mentioned, I prefer SoCal.
5. Greater possibility of client interaction and perhaps going in-house after 4-5 years if I want to.
6. Long-term stability - they have low associate churn.
7. They normally don't hire laterals - they prefer to grow their partnership from within. I might be able to go to Paul Hastings after Knobbe, but the reverse might not be true, odd as that may seem.

The cons about going to Knobbe over Paul Hastings is that the people at PH seem really awesome and down to earth as mentioned above, the firm culture seems pretty chill. However, people and personalities aside I'm wondering if Paul Hastings is a big law sweatshop like other places?

I have heard that the bonus system at Knobbe basically works like so: once you get over your billable, you get a certain % of your billable hour, maybe 25%, towards your bonus. So if you bill say 2000 (average biglaw billing), and your billed at $300/hr (just guessing) as an associate, thats about a $22k (edit said about 25 originally) bonus. This is nice because not only do you get a better work/life balance, you can get the option of working hard + making a lot more too. So compensation at Knobbe could actually beat PH or Sidley if you work long/hard enough your first few years.

Like others have said, it's all IP, so you're going to be a bit geeky at times, more so than the other firms, but that isn't a bad thing necessarily.

Anonymous User wrote:Thanks for the replies everyone. My geographical preference is for Southern California. The people at Paul Hastings Palo Alto were way awesome when I interviewed with them. Here are the reasons I was leaning toward Knobbe even though they don't pay anywhere close to Paul Hastings or Sidley:

1. Work-life balance - 1750 billed requirement with 105 hours that can be used for vacation bringing it down to 1645 a year.
2. Early partnership track - 40-50% of the entering class makes it to partnership at the 6th year (although their Profits Per Partner isn't anywhere close to big law - the other side of that argument is that very few people make partner at big law).
3. I have worked in patent prosecution for a while as a patent agent and want to experience patent litigation. Knobbe gives me the option of switching back to patent prosecution if I don't like patent litigation without having to change firms.
4. Location - as I mentioned, I prefer SoCal.
5. Greater possibility of client interaction and perhaps going in-house after 4-5 years if I want to.
6. Long-term stability - they have low associate churn.
7. They normally don't hire laterals - they prefer to grow their partnership from within. I might be able to go to Paul Hastings after Knobbe, but the reverse might not be true, odd as that may seem.

The cons about going to Knobbe over Paul Hastings is that the people at PH seem really awesome and down to earth as mentioned above, the firm culture seems pretty chill. However, people and personalities aside I'm wondering if Paul Hastings is a big law sweatshop like other places?

Dude, you obviously should go to Knobbe.

As for Paul Hastings, I don't think it's worse than your typical big law sweatshop, but it's not some magic place. And, although it's understandable that a law student would focus on this, you really can't tell much from callbacks. When I did my callbacks many many years ago, I think the nicest, chillest office of lawyers I encountered was at Quinn. In real life, of course, Quinn is a notorious sweatshop. But everyone really did seem super chill during my interviews! It's not a meaningful measure of anything.

Oh, one word of warning about Knobbe. A friend of mine from undergrad worked there (he has since left), and he told me that the 1750-hour requirement is for hours actually realized. In other words, you only get credit for what the billing partner feels comfortable billing for and what the client will pay. That's very different from most big law environments, and I imagine it would be quite stressful for a first-year associate. Believe me, a lot of first-years in big law who are billing 2,000 hours aren't anywhere near 1,750 hours realized. It's something to think about.

But that concern aside, I would definitely got to Knobbe based on your interests and preferences.

ETA: OP, you should confirm that "1750 hours realized" thing. What I shared above is second-hand and possibly out-of-date.

@rpupkin - The billed requirement is a great point. That can be quite a hassle since it is partner dependent and budgets are tight in patent prosecution, it gets really tough to bill with increasing billing rates each year. That's one of the reasons I am transitioning to patent litigation so that efficiency, i.e. billed hours, is not an issue since almost everything gets billed. Even if I was to do prosecution in my first year at Knobbe, my prior experience as a patent agent will help out with the efficiency numbers. Great insight on Quinn Emmanuel, it's a real sweatshop from other people I know there as well, regardless of the personalities involved. Can you share why your friend left Knobbe? They had a spate of people leaving a few years back along with bad Glassdoor reviews, which has me worried.

@anonymous - you're right about the 25% bonus structure at Knobbe. However, big law bonuses starting third year will eclipse anything I can bill at Knobbe. However, if partnership is more likely at Knobbe, that difference can be made up over the course of my career.

rpupkin wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Thanks for the replies everyone. My geographical preference is for Southern California. The people at Paul Hastings Palo Alto were way awesome when I interviewed with them. Here are the reasons I was leaning toward Knobbe even though they don't pay anywhere close to Paul Hastings or Sidley:

1. Work-life balance - 1750 billed requirement with 105 hours that can be used for vacation bringing it down to 1645 a year.
2. Early partnership track - 40-50% of the entering class makes it to partnership at the 6th year (although their Profits Per Partner isn't anywhere close to big law - the other side of that argument is that very few people make partner at big law).
3. I have worked in patent prosecution for a while as a patent agent and want to experience patent litigation. Knobbe gives me the option of switching back to patent prosecution if I don't like patent litigation without having to change firms.
4. Location - as I mentioned, I prefer SoCal.
5. Greater possibility of client interaction and perhaps going in-house after 4-5 years if I want to.
6. Long-term stability - they have low associate churn.
7. They normally don't hire laterals - they prefer to grow their partnership from within. I might be able to go to Paul Hastings after Knobbe, but the reverse might not be true, odd as that may seem.

The cons about going to Knobbe over Paul Hastings is that the people at PH seem really awesome and down to earth as mentioned above, the firm culture seems pretty chill. However, people and personalities aside I'm wondering if Paul Hastings is a big law sweatshop like other places?

Dude, you obviously should go to Knobbe.

As for Paul Hastings, I don't think it's worse than your typical big law sweatshop, but it's not some magic place. And, although it's understandable that a law student would focus on this, you really can't tell much from callbacks. When I did my callbacks many many years ago, I think the nicest, chillest office of lawyers I encountered was at Quinn. In real life, of course, Quinn is a notorious sweatshop. But everyone really did seem super chill during my interviews! It's not a meaningful measure of anything.

Oh, one word of warning about Knobbe. A friend of mine from undergrad worked there (he has since left), and he told me that the 1750-hour requirement is for hours actually realized. In other words, you only get credit for what the billing partner feels comfortable billing for and what the client will pay. That's very different from most big law environments, and I imagine it would be quite stressful for a first-year associate. Believe me, a lot of first-years in big law who are billing 2,000 hours aren't anywhere near 1,750 hours realized. It's something to think about.

But that concern aside, I would definitely got to Knobbe based on your interests and preferences.

IP_xyz wrote:@rpupkin - The billed requirement is a great point. That can be quite a hassle since it is partner dependent and budgets are tight in patent prosecution, it gets really tough to bill with increasing billing rates each year. That's one of the reasons I am transitioning to patent litigation so that efficiency, i.e. billed hours, is not an issue since almost everything gets billed. Even if I was to do prosecution in my first year at Knobbe, my prior experience as a patent agent will help out with the efficiency numbers. Great insight on Quinn Emmanuel, it's a real sweatshop from other people I know there as well, regardless of the personalities involved. Can you share why your friend left Knobbe? They had a spate of people leaving a few years back along with bad Glassdoor reviews, which has me worried.

He left for geographical reasons. His wife got a job elsewhere. He liked Knobbe.

If the "spate of people" leaving was sometime in the 2009-2011 timeframe, I wouldn't read too much into it. All law firms had spates of people leaving/being forced out.

That is the timeframe for the departures. I'm glad your friend liked Knobbe though! Thanks again for your input!

rpupkin wrote:

IP_xyz wrote:@rpupkin - The billed requirement is a great point. That can be quite a hassle since it is partner dependent and budgets are tight in patent prosecution, it gets really tough to bill with increasing billing rates each year. That's one of the reasons I am transitioning to patent litigation so that efficiency, i.e. billed hours, is not an issue since almost everything gets billed. Even if I was to do prosecution in my first year at Knobbe, my prior experience as a patent agent will help out with the efficiency numbers. Great insight on Quinn Emmanuel, it's a real sweatshop from other people I know there as well, regardless of the personalities involved. Can you share why your friend left Knobbe? They had a spate of people leaving a few years back along with bad Glassdoor reviews, which has me worried.

He left for geographical reasons. His wife got a job elsewhere. He liked Knobbe.

If the "spate of people" leaving was sometime in the 2009-2011 timeframe, I wouldn't read too much into it. All law firms had spates of people leaving/being forced out.