Irell or Gibson? Forum

Anonymous User · Post by **Anonymous User** » Mon Sep 28, 2009 2:14 am

I'm trying to choose a firm, and have three options in LA. I'm interested in IP litigation, which draws me to Irell, but hesitant to commit to a practice that is so patent heavy. I've also heard that everyone burns out after two years. Gibson seems to offer a broader practice, but possibly slightly less prestige within LA. Then there's Quinn. What do you think?

Anonymous User · Post by **Anonymous User** » Mon Sep 28, 2009 10:28 am

Anonymous User · Post by **Anonymous User** » Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:30 pm

Can you elaborate on what you've heard about people burning out in two years at Irell? They were playing up the fact that to get full bonus, you only have to bill 1950 hours per year. Does everyone end up doing a lot more than that anyway?

Anonymous User · Post by **Anonymous User** » Mon Sep 28, 2009 2:57 pm

I spoke with attorneys who used to be with the firm, and some people who have summered there. They all told me that you're expected to bill FAR in advance of 1950, although that is indeed all you need to get full bonus. They said that this is one of the reasons people leave, although I've also heard that VERY few people ever make partner who started out at Irell. That said, I've heard that there's no better name to have on your resume when you're looking to lateral.

I'm still completely undecided.

Anonymous User · Post by **Anonymous User** » Mon Sep 28, 2009 5:27 pm

Anonymous User wrote:I'm trying to choose a firm, and have three options in LA. I'm interested in IP litigation, which draws me to Irell, but hesitant to commit to a practice that is so patent heavy. I've also heard that everyone burns out after two years. Gibson seems to offer a broader practice, but possibly slightly less prestige within LA. Then there's Quinn. What do you think?

I'm not sure Gibson offers less prestige than Irell in LA, I'd say they are pretty equal. That being said, prestige never really interested me and I wanted Quinn above both because I just thought I would fit better there. Go with the place where you think you'd be most comfortable and enjoy the people you work with. All 3 of the firms you listed are excellent firms, but they are also pretty different culturally.

Anonymous User · Post by **Anonymous User** » Mon Sep 28, 2009 6:22 pm

Anonymous User wrote:I'm trying to choose a firm, and have three options in LA. I'm interested in IP litigation, which draws me to Irell, but hesitant to commit to a practice that is so patent heavy. I've also heard that everyone burns out after two years. Gibson seems to offer a broader practice, but possibly slightly less prestige within LA. Then there's Quinn. What do you think?

If you want to litigate, Quinn is probably a good bet. Top-end work and an ultra-relaxed culture. That said, I've heard they work you into the ground. IIRC, the Vault guide said "Hours that will bring tears to your eyes."

Anonymous User · Post by **Anonymous User** » Mon Sep 28, 2009 7:11 pm

I've also heard that VERY few people ever make partner who started out at Irell.

Isn't that true at virtually every firm that interviews second-year law students, other than a few smaller litigation boutiques and MTO?

I've heard that there's no better name to have on your resume when you're looking to lateral.

That's interesting - I was wondering about lateral options from Irell. I imagine you'd have excellent prospects if you were trying to move to an IP practice group in LA or at least CA, and you had IP ligitation experience. But I wonder how a non-specialized, non-IP third-year litigation associate would do if he wanted to go to a firm in the south.

Have you heard anything genuine about the quality of work 1-3yrs get at Irell? How much rote stuff, would you guess?

Gooner · Post by **Gooner** » Mon Sep 28, 2009 7:29 pm

Anonymous User wrote:I'm trying to choose a firm, and have three options in LA. I'm interested in IP litigation, which draws me to Irell, but hesitant to commit to a practice that is so patent heavy.

Almost all IP practices are patent-heavy because that's where most of the money is. There are very few firms/offices that handle copyright & trademark without also taking patent cases (Pirkey Barber in Austin and Hogan & Hartson's NoVA office come to mind). I'd take that factor out of your equation.

Anonymous User · Post by **Anonymous User** » Tue Sep 29, 2009 8:06 pm

i had this choice and ended up choosing irell. i hadn't heard the burn out thing though, everyone i've talked to at irell billed between 2000-2200/year, which is bad but not terrible compared to other firms.

are you looking at gibson la or cc? these two areas are vastly different. it was one of the reasons why i chose irell over mto.

Irell or Gibson? Forum

Irell v. Gibson v. Quinn

Irell or Gibson?

Re: Irell or Gibson?

Re: Irell or Gibson?

Re: Irell or Gibson?

Re: Irell or Gibson?

Register now to search topics and post comments!

Re: Irell or Gibson?

Re: Irell or Gibson?

Re: Irell or Gibson?

Re: Irell or Gibson?

Register for access!