Top Law Schools

Hi All,

I'd like to get some advice/feedback on whether or not to stay at a patent boutique firm or move to a large general practice biglaw firm (DLA Piper). I graduated law school in 2015 and I have been doing patent prosecution since graduating. I enjoy my current job, and the firm pays us well, although below Cravath scale. I have not yet gained experience in patent litigation, and my current firm does not do any litigation. I do frequently work on due diligence, FTOs, and opinion work. My firm is a small firm that does top level prosecution work (we are ranked in chambers for patent prosecution and always rank well in Vault for quality of life, etc.)

My career goals are either to make partner at a firm or go in house as a back-up plan (probably evaluate this once I reach 6-7 year associate). Considering that I would do patent prosecution at DLA, would it be better to stay at my current firm or make the move? Obviously DLA would be more money, add BigLaw pedigree to my resume, and perhaps has potential for doing work outside of patent prosecution, but I have been doing well at my current firm and enjoy the partners I work with.

Thoughts and suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks!

It'll all depend on your preferences. If QoL is most important, it sounds like you have what you want at your current firm. If you want to branch out more into lit and bolster your transactional experience, DLA is gonna give you many more opportunities for that type of work. If it's important to keep in-house open as a viable option, it doesn't really matter where you go. I would guess that you're more likely to make partner at your boutique than at DLA, but that's not necessarily true.

Reading between the lines, it sounds like you're most interested in gaining some broader experience. If you're okay with the QoL hit that will come from going to DLA, do it.

If your primary plan is to become a partner, then generally it's easier to do so at smaller boutiques than larger firms. However, you have to pay attention to the partnership dynamics at your current firm. Who has recently been elevated to partner, and why (particular skill sets, tech backgrounds, client relationships)? What qualities do they look for? How often do they elevate associates? How is your relationship with the partners - do they just see you as a good worker, or have they tried to mentor you? Etc. Only then can you start to judge whether it makes sense to stay.

You don't say it, but I assume you already have an offer from DLA. Are you sure that you can expand your work beyond patent prosecution while you are there? Some firms claim they give associates flexibility but in reality pigeonhole you into certain work/clients. If in doubt, it's something to ask DLA associates in follow-up interviews.

In-house positions generally like varied work experience, so it's better to have some litigation experience. I am in-house doing IP, and my work breakdown is about 50% prosecution, 20% transactional, 15% litigation (+15% bureaucratic BS).

Overall though, it's tough to give advice because it depends on your personal preferences, as totestheGoat mentioned. Neither option is objectively wrong.

jhett wrote: (+15% bureaucratic BS).

Only 15%? Lucky!

Many big-law firms have been getting out of the prosecution game or trimming down the size of the practice group. Particularly on the engineering side there is a lot of pressure to just crank out responses and applications for as cheap as humanly possible--which doesn't really fit with big-law billing rates.

I don't see a lot of harm at trying your hand in a big-law group, but I would check ahead of time if you are actually going to get the exposure to transaction/litigation work that you are expecting. Be prepared for a drop in quality of life and slimmer partnership prospects. Also, be sure to keep exit options in mind (e.g., going in house, putting up your own shingle, or moving back to a boutique or other firm).