IP LITIGATION: Kirkland (NY) v. Quinn (NY) v. Wilmer (NY) v. Irell Forum

[roylopez99]

Interested in patent litigation in the tech/EE space. I am really torn and having a difficult time distinguishing meaningful differences. In terms of experience, culture, and opportunities, what are the pros and cons? Targeted NY because first choice for personal reasons, but I liked Irell for the size/work they do in this field.

[Ant_King]

I wont discuss Quinn because I didn't interview with them. I had offers at the other three.

Kirkland: above market bonuses and great training, but high workload and high stress. Partners operate on an "eat what you kill" model, and this culture trickles down the ranks. Very difficult to make equity partner, but a great place to lateral from.

Wilmer: pays market, great training, and a particularly strong life sciences practice. The culture is more laid back than Kirkland, although I suspect associates bill similar hours. It is also extremely difficult to make partner here, although possibly easier than Kirkland.

Irell: highest upside; excellent bonus compensation, and high probability of making partner in 7 years. Irell also has the highest downside; they offer less security big firms as it would suck to be forced to lateral if they start sinking when Morgan Chu retires. They also spend less wooing associates if you care about that kind of stuff.

I'm splitting the summer at Irell and another firm so I can make a more educated decision about their future.

[Anonymous User]

Personal experience working at Quinn (West Coast) is that the NY office doesn't do as much patent lit, and the one guy I know who does is kind of a douche. I don't know much about the other firms (other than general reputation) so I'd probably say not QE, unless you met some great patent litigators there you really like (maybe it's different now). In my time they did a lot of financial lit there so you might get sucked into that there.

[Anonymous User]

WH associate here and I agree that all these are great options - congrats on the offers! I think the gating question should be whether you want to do plaintiff or defense work. QE/Irell do predominately plaintiff-side cases whereas K&E/WH do mostly defense-side (at least in the tech space).

There are pros/cons to both sides of the v, so all I can do is explain why I personally picked defense. I can't give too much info without self-identifying, but I do have experience at both at a small plaintiff side IP lit boutique and at WH.

IMHO plaintiff-side IP firms tend to take a more aggressive posture in litigation. That means fighting every issue tooth and nail even if the court/jury isn't likely to care. That's often part of a strategy to drive up the cost of litigation to force favorable settlements, but there are other reasons as well. No matter how chill QE claims to be, they are a huge PITA to litigate against (I have been adverse to both Q&E and Irell). I think that aggressive litigation style permeates, to some degree, into the culture within these firms (it certainly did at the boutique I worked at). People seem to be more competitive and aggressive, even with their peers. The prevalence of contingency fees probably doesn't help, as it makes the partners focus heavily on the win at any cost. Also, some of these firms (Irell in particular) tend to run the "defendant is a big fat liar" trial theme that just doesn't sit right with me, either.

That's not necessarily all bad - there are a lot of incredibly successful plaintiff-side attorneys, and many associates enjoy working with them. It just wasn't for me. And maybe others ITT have had different experiences. Anecdotally, I've heard good things about a particular Irell partner who has been an absolute terror to deal with from the other side. Also, I think Irell is known for giving junior attorneys depo/court experience earlier than peer firms, so that's something to consider as well.

I ended up picking WH over K&E for personal reasons, but I was happy to find that the culture here could not be more different from what I described above. Though this isn't true in every case, the litigators here tend to focus on more long term client relationships and credibility with the court rather than always winning every minute issue no matter the cost. Self-identified "collegial" firms seem to be a dime a dozen these days, but I honestly think that word accurately describes my group. It's also worth noting that it can also be easier to head in house from defense side firms due both to fewer conflicts with big tech and to more opportunities to interface with clients who actually make products.

I did want to add to a few points from other posters. First, WH also offers above-market bonuses, though they are much quieter about it. My bonuses have always been higher than my peers at Q&E for similar hours, and I know that many of our junior associates report double market or even more for high hours. Midlevel/senior comp at K&E (and maybe Irell?) is probably higher, but I'm not sure if K&E's numbers are skewed upward by their insanely profitable corporate practice.

IP lit is booming right now, so you'll probably work a lot at any of these places. K&E is well known for being a sweatshop, but those in demand in WH IP lit are often working 2400-3000 hours on the reg, sometimes more. I came in super high last year and received a huge extra bonus for it (though I would gladly give the $$$ back for my time).

Finally, while there has definitely been some turmoil at Irell in other groups, their IP lit practice still seems to be profitable/busy. They had some big wins in the last year, too. Nobody can predict the future, but my $0.02 is that you're probably safe in their IP lit group.

[mardash]

Personal experience working at Quinn (West Coast) is that the NY office doesn't do as much patent lit, and the one guy I know who does is kind of a douche. I don't know much about the other firms (other than general reputation) so I'd probably say not QE, unless you met some great patent litigators there you really like (maybe it's different now). In my time they did a lot of financial lit there so you might get sucked into that there.

Haha I think I know the guy and agree he’s kind of a douche.

[Anonymous User]

QE/Irell do predominately plaintiff-side cases whereas K&E/WH do mostly defense-side (at least in the tech space).

+1, though I like plaintiff's work more.

Irell is known for giving junior attorneys depo/court experience earlier than peer firms, so that's something to consider as well.

This is underrated and not emphasized enough. For a litigator (including IP lit), experience is essentially all that matters.