Harrity & Harrity -- any info/experience/anything? Forum

[wildcatatpenn]

Hey TLS, been a long time.

JW, does anyone know anything at all about Harrity & Harrity?

I am a mid-level patent pros associate in Biglaw "ish." Considering a move, but only to somewhere that fits a very specific idea that I have in my mind.

I've heard of this Harrity firm, and basically all I know is that they have a different model of some sort. Basically what I can discern from publicly available info.

Any chance anyone here knows anything more?

[The Lsat Airbender]

Considering a move, but only to somewhere that fits a very specific idea that I have in my mind.

???

Like, you want to exclusively work remotely?

[wildcatatpenn]

Considering a move, but only to somewhere that fits a very specific idea that I have in my mind.

???

Like, you want to exclusively work remotely?

Yea something like that. Not necessarily exclusively, but I currently have a commute around 1.5-2 hours that I really don't have to ever do, but do like 2-3 days a week. This allows me to live somewhere that I love and I'm not really looking to move (or do that drive everyday).

"Very specific" also has some practice-related elements that would be a reason for moving at all.. Type of work and such.

[Anonymous User]

They have an... eccentric method of self-promotion. I applied and was scheduled to go in for in-person interviews. I noticed on the schedule that lunch was set aside for a 1 hour presentation about how awesome their firm model was. The recruiting manager was also very hyperbolic in talking up the firm... like it was a privilege for me to even be considered. I got weirded out and backed out of the interview.

No clue what it's actually like to work there.

[wildcatatpenn]

They have an... eccentric method of self-promotion. I applied and was scheduled to go in for in-person interviews. I noticed on the schedule that lunch was set aside for a 1 hour presentation about how awesome their firm model was. The recruiting manager was also very hyperbolic in talking up the firm... like it was a privilege for me to even be considered. I got weirded out and backed out of the interview.

No clue what it's actually like to work there.

Thanks for the story lol.

That doesn't sound too surprising just from what I see online and the air that seems to be about them. Ik they love to tout their comp thing, something about making more than biglaw or something like that...

My assumption has always been it's an Eat what you Bill system, super low overhead, etc...
Would love more info still if anyone...previous poster @The Last Airbender... knows anything more. I feel like I have a LinkedIn "friend of a friend" or wtv at virtually every firm in the world except these guys

[Anonymous User]

Separate interviewee. I got the same weirded out impression as the previous guy, and definitely agree that they make it feel like you should be grateful for the privilege of being selected for an interview. Their interview process is also significantly substantive and less fit-oriented. They make you write a sample app.

It is one of those firms with a particular and specific way of doing things. If you can fit into that and churn out work, great. Otherwise, you will make less and leave. Not all reviews are positive. They also separate application drafters from office action responders, and you pick one to specialize in. I thought that was strange.

[Anonymous User]

Not to hijack your thread, but I’m looking into another firm (not Harrity) that has a similar model - eat what you bill, work remote if you want, etc. Anyone have any anecdotes about these situations?

Obviously the main concern is that work will dry up for awhile leaving some leaner months, but otherwise it sounds like a decent idea if it works out like it’s designed. Bonus points for not being weird like Harrity seems to be...

[Anonymous User]

Not to hijack your thread, but I’m looking into another firm (not Harrity) that has a similar model - eat what you bill, work remote if you want, etc. Anyone have any anecdotes about these situations?

Obviously the main concern is that work will dry up for awhile leaving some leaner months, but otherwise it sounds like a decent idea if it works out like it’s designed. Bonus points for not being weird like Harrity seems to be...

I worked for several years at this type of law firm. It's a common model in patent prosecution. You get a percentage of what you bill as your income, typically ranging from 30-50%, but sometimes up to 70% in special situations (e.g., you're also managing a client, the client manages all filing and docketing, etc.).

I felt like the firm would rather have less work than have more work, whereas in biglaw it was the other way around. I'd say that the people who were most happy were those who wanted to work 80% time. People who wanted to work less thought that there was still too much work, and full timers thought at times that there wasn't enough work. It was common to turn down new business, too. I liked how the firm was pickier on clients than in biglaw though.

I left because the monthly compensation was too unpredictable for me at the time, but overall the compensation was competitive. Nowadays, I would be ok going back to that model.

An important thing to ask about is how the budget is shared. You're getting a percentage of your billed hours, not your billable hours. So, if the budget is $12k for a patent application, a partner will bill on the same matter (at some firms staff also bill on the matters). Your time gets written off. So, you might end up with 40% of $10k instead of 40% of $12k. There was a lot of tension in the firm between associates and certain partners who were inefficient and/or useless. Sometimes they would take huge chunks of the budgets, and were perceived as stealing money from associates. It caused a mass exodus and major reforms within the firm.

[Anonymous User]

Not to hijack your thread, but I’m looking into another firm (not Harrity) that has a similar model - eat what you bill, work remote if you want, etc. Anyone have any anecdotes about these situations?

Obviously the main concern is that work will dry up for awhile leaving some leaner months, but otherwise it sounds like a decent idea if it works out like it’s designed. Bonus points for not being weird like Harrity seems to be...

I worked for several years at this type of law firm. It's a common model in patent prosecution. You get a percentage of what you bill as your income, typically ranging from 30-50%, but sometimes up to 70% in special situations (e.g., you're also managing a client, the client manages all filing and docketing, etc.).

I felt like the firm would rather have less work than have more work, whereas in biglaw it was the other way around. I'd say that the people who were most happy were those who wanted to work 80% time. People who wanted to work less thought that there was still too much work, and full timers thought at times that there wasn't enough work. It was common to turn down new business, too. I liked how the firm was pickier on clients than in biglaw though.

I left because the monthly compensation was too unpredictable for me at the time, but overall the compensation was competitive. Nowadays, I would be ok going back to that model.

An important thing to ask about is how the budget is shared. You're getting a percentage of your billed hours, not your billable hours. So, if the budget is $12k for a patent application, a partner will bill on the same matter (at some firms staff also bill on the matters). Your time gets written off. So, you might end up with 40% of $10k instead of 40% of $12k. There was a lot of tension in the firm between associates and certain partners who were inefficient and/or useless. Sometimes they would take huge chunks of the budgets, and were perceived as stealing money from associates. It caused a mass exodus and major reforms within the firm.

Thanks for the feedback. That’s about what I figured. Can you expand on the “competitive compensation”? Competitive to what? I’m assuming it’s not big law money, but if it’s 150-160k working close to a 9-5 schedule that’s not the worst setup out there.

[Anonymous User]

Not to hijack your thread, but I’m looking into another firm (not Harrity) that has a similar model - eat what you bill, work remote if you want, etc. Anyone have any anecdotes about these situations?

Obviously the main concern is that work will dry up for awhile leaving some leaner months, but otherwise it sounds like a decent idea if it works out like it’s designed. Bonus points for not being weird like Harrity seems to be...

I worked for several years at this type of law firm. It's a common model in patent prosecution. You get a percentage of what you bill as your income, typically ranging from 30-50%, but sometimes up to 70% in special situations (e.g., you're also managing a client, the client manages all filing and docketing, etc.).

I felt like the firm would rather have less work than have more work, whereas in biglaw it was the other way around. I'd say that the people who were most happy were those who wanted to work 80% time. People who wanted to work less thought that there was still too much work, and full timers thought at times that there wasn't enough work. It was common to turn down new business, too. I liked how the firm was pickier on clients than in biglaw though.

I left because the monthly compensation was too unpredictable for me at the time, but overall the compensation was competitive. Nowadays, I would be ok going back to that model.

An important thing to ask about is how the budget is shared. You're getting a percentage of your billed hours, not your billable hours. So, if the budget is $12k for a patent application, a partner will bill on the same matter (at some firms staff also bill on the matters). Your time gets written off. So, you might end up with 40% of $10k instead of 40% of $12k. There was a lot of tension in the firm between associates and certain partners who were inefficient and/or useless. Sometimes they would take huge chunks of the budgets, and were perceived as stealing money from associates. It caused a mass exodus and major reforms within the firm.

Thanks for the feedback. That’s about what I figured. Can you expand on the “competitive compensation”? Competitive to what? I’m assuming it’s not big law money, but if it’s 150-160k working close to a 9-5 schedule that’s not the worst setup out there.

It can be biglaw money, or even more. It depends on your efficiency. For me, I earned less in my junior years, more in my mid-level years, and I probably would have gone back to earning less if I stayed in my senior years because it was more prosecution heavy than biglaw. I started when biglaw starting salary was $160k, and I probably earned $135k in my first year, but also didn't work an equivalent number hours. In my second year, I earned slightly below biglaw compensation. In my third year, I earned more than biglaw while working 80-100 hours a few months. Probably would earn less compared to biglaw after the salary increases to $190k though.

Some people had major efficiency issues, so they didn't earn much. Some people just wanted to do a part-time job. These people were earning $90k-$120k or so. Some people were very efficient and very good, so they earned well. It really just depends. I felt like if your work product wasn't good, then you wouldn't earn as much because people wouldn't want you to work with them on their clients. The firm cared a lot about quality because of the business model. If you were good, they would even set you up on a path to taking over clients. Some of my friends are still there and they're happy.

[wildcatatpenn]

It can be biglaw money, or even more. It depends on your efficiency. For me, I earned less in my junior years, more in my mid-level years, and I probably would have gone back to earning less if I stayed in my senior years because it was more prosecution heavy than biglaw. I started when biglaw starting salary was $160k, and I probably earned $135k in my first year, but also didn't work an equivalent number hours. In my second year, I earned slightly below biglaw compensation. In my third year, I earned more than biglaw while working 80-100 hours a few months. Probably would earn less compared to biglaw after the salary increases to $190k though.

Some people had major efficiency issues, so they didn't earn much. Some people just wanted to do a part-time job. These people were earning $90k-$120k or so. Some people were very efficient and very good, so they earned well. It really just depends. I felt like if your work product wasn't good, then you wouldn't earn as much because people wouldn't want you to work with them on their clients. The firm cared a lot about quality because of the business model. If you were good, they would even set you up on a path to taking over clients. Some of my friends are still there and they're happy.

OP here... any chance you could share (in DM?) the name of the firm? Also happy to setup a throwaway email, or whatever works.

I'm realllly looking to move more and more atm, current situation continues to get worse and worse... bleh.

And appreciate this info, regardless. It sounds pretty great to me, tbh.

[Anonymous User]

It can be biglaw money, or even more. It depends on your efficiency. For me, I earned less in my junior years, more in my mid-level years, and I probably would have gone back to earning less if I stayed in my senior years because it was more prosecution heavy than biglaw. I started when biglaw starting salary was $160k, and I probably earned $135k in my first year, but also didn't work an equivalent number hours. In my second year, I earned slightly below biglaw compensation. In my third year, I earned more than biglaw while working 80-100 hours a few months. Probably would earn less compared to biglaw after the salary increases to $190k though.

Some people had major efficiency issues, so they didn't earn much. Some people just wanted to do a part-time job. These people were earning $90k-$120k or so. Some people were very efficient and very good, so they earned well. It really just depends. I felt like if your work product wasn't good, then you wouldn't earn as much because people wouldn't want you to work with them on their clients. The firm cared a lot about quality because of the business model. If you were good, they would even set you up on a path to taking over clients. Some of my friends are still there and they're happy.

OP here... any chance you could share (in DM?) the name of the firm? Also happy to setup a throwaway email, or whatever works.

I'm realllly looking to move more and more atm, current situation continues to get worse and worse... bleh.

And appreciate this info, regardless. It sounds pretty great to me, tbh.

I'd rather not share the name of the firm, but there are lots out there. You can look at a firm like Schwegman. They're a national firm with tons of remote attorneys. I heard that they start at something like 37.5% a few years ago for a position at a physical office. Maybe the remote positions are higher, or they've increase rates with competition. Fisher Broyles is a 100% remote GP firm with a huge patent pros practice. I think I read in an article that they're maybe 50%? Maybe even higher.

Probably almost any prosecution oriented firm fits the model nowadays. Look at patentlyo's job listings for these types of firms all over the country.

[wildcatatpenn]

It can be biglaw money, or even more. It depends on your efficiency. For me, I earned less in my junior years, more in my mid-level years, and I probably would have gone back to earning less if I stayed in my senior years because it was more prosecution heavy than biglaw. I started when biglaw starting salary was $160k, and I probably earned $135k in my first year, but also didn't work an equivalent number hours. In my second year, I earned slightly below biglaw compensation. In my third year, I earned more than biglaw while working 80-100 hours a few months. Probably would earn less compared to biglaw after the salary increases to $190k though.

Some people had major efficiency issues, so they didn't earn much. Some people just wanted to do a part-time job. These people were earning $90k-$120k or so. Some people were very efficient and very good, so they earned well. It really just depends. I felt like if your work product wasn't good, then you wouldn't earn as much because people wouldn't want you to work with them on their clients. The firm cared a lot about quality because of the business model. If you were good, they would even set you up on a path to taking over clients. Some of my friends are still there and they're happy.

OP here... any chance you could share (in DM?) the name of the firm? Also happy to setup a throwaway email, or whatever works.

I'm realllly looking to move more and more atm, current situation continues to get worse and worse... bleh.

And appreciate this info, regardless. It sounds pretty great to me, tbh.

I'd rather not share the name of the firm, but there are lots out there. You can look at a firm like Schwegman. They're a national firm with tons of remote attorneys. I heard that they start at something like 37.5% a few years ago for a position at a physical office. Maybe the remote positions are higher, or they've increase rates with competition. Fisher Broyles is a 100% remote GP firm with a huge patent pros practice. I think I read in an article that they're maybe 50%? Maybe even higher.

Probably almost any prosecution oriented firm fits the model nowadays. Look at patentlyo's job listings for these types of firms all over the country.

Thanks, and Yeh, definitely know these guys. Never thrown my hat in the ring, for some reason. I guess it's just been the uncertainty of the model or maybe perception, or something.

Definitely seems attractive to me now, though. Might have to take a stab, tbh..

Any experiences what it's like interviewing for these kindsa firms? I mean, pretty selective (Harrity definitely seems to be), or more willing to take chances with the EWYK payment structure? Dunno what these guys rates are like, but I'd have to imagine there'd be toooooons of patent practitioners around the country that would love these kindsa spots...

[Anonymous User]

Separate interviewee. I got the same weirded out impression as the previous guy, and definitely agree that they make it feel like you should be grateful for the privilege of being selected for an interview. Their interview process is also significantly substantive and less fit-oriented. They make you write a sample app.

It is one of those firms with a particular and specific way of doing things. If you can fit into that and churn out work, great. Otherwise, you will make less and leave. Not all reviews are positive. They also separate application drafters from office action responders, and you pick one to specialize in. I thought that was strange.

Same experience here. I withdrew after speaking with their recruiting manager.