Top Law Schools

Ask away.

What is one thing that you love about your job and what is one thing you wish would change?

Also, what is a typical day like?

jrsbaseball5 wrote:What is one thing that you love about your job and what is one thing you wish would change?

Also, what is a typical day like?

I love my job. My second favorite thing is drafting briefs and sections of briefs. My absolute favorite thing was going to trial. I hope I do it again soon.

I typically get in around 8 and leave around 6:30. Have been staffed on 2 cases, and now just took on a third. Days are very dynamic, and can involve working with many different people things (i.e. on briefs, research, invalidity charts, etc.), or days can be very solitary when I am working on a large brief or other written work product.

This is an outcome I would be happy with coming out of LS. Did you get your position out of OCI/2L SA? Getting out at 630 sounds tame compared to other stories; are you paid a market rate? Do you find the salary sufficient to make debt payments/live nicer than during law school?

Do you ever feel like you are compromising your values on a case you are assigned? (Client committing Environmental waste, labor rights violations, supporting corporate malfeasance and abuse of lower income communities, ect.) Do you have opportunities to feel fulfilled?

Its really nice to hear you love your job. Congrats and thank you

jbagelboy wrote:This is an outcome I would be happy with coming out of LS. Did you get your position out of OCI/2L SA? Getting out at 630 sounds tame compared to other stories; are you paid a market rate? Do you find the salary sufficient to make debt payments/live nicer than during law school?

Do you ever feel like you are compromising your values on a case you are assigned? (Client committing Environmental waste, labor rights violations, supporting corporate malfeasance and abuse of lower income communities, ect.) Do you have opportunities to feel fulfilled?

Its really nice to hear you love your job. Congrats and thank you

Yes, I got my position from OCI and a 2L SA.

Yes, I am paid 160k. The salary is definitely sufficient to live well, pay off student debt, and save money, and I live in one of the most expensive cities in the country.

I get the impression my hours are more humane than a good many other firms than my friends are at, but my hours requirement is lower.

I only do patent litigation, so i don't think I am faced with ethical issues quote the way you mentioned. But there are others I face on a daily basis - i.e. deciding how to characterize case law and facts. I have found that if I think a partner is either overstating the facts or law, I can make constructive suggestions to tame it down so I don't feel like we are doing anything wrong. It is often the case that associates know the intricate facts and case law issues better than partners, as we are more in the weeds.

What kind of work did you do at trial?

bk187 wrote:What kind of work did you do at trial?

I had a few main responsibilities-I drafted outlines of direct exams of two experts, prepped them for their testimony, and worked to keep the partner in the loop and get him prepared on the technology. That was my main thing. Another huge thing was being in charge of working with the graphics team to get the graphics ready for those experts and opening/closing. Also drafted a cross-examination outline for a corporate witness. And tons of other small things along the way, like exhibit objections, etc.

What I liked about it from a big picture standpoint was getting to know the partners on the case very well and to work directly with them much more than usual. It was also great to just see it all come together after being through the pre-trial stages.

Where did you go to school T10, T20, etc? Were you near the top of your class?

Do you worry about technology taking over your job one day? This is a serious question in light of articles from the New Republic (and many others) about the tough legal job market because of technological advances and outsourcing.

Thanks for doing this.

Which city do you work in?

Since you do patent litigation, do you have a STEM background? Is a STEM background necessary for doing patent litigation?

UMich11 wrote:Where did you go to school T10, T20, etc?

T10

UMich11 wrote:Were you near the top of your class?

Not really. Probably around the middle of the pack after 1L. Grades improved significantly after that, but I don't know if it mattered, as I got my job with 2L OCI.

Louis1127 wrote:Do you worry about technology taking over your job one day? This is a serious question in light of articles from the New Republic (and many others) about the tough legal job market because of technological advances and outsourcing.

For the most part, not really. At least at my firm, technology and contract attorneys have already taken over the vast majority of document review. I actually haven't done any document review.

As for other functions in litigation, I guess legal research could also be outsourced to a certain extent, but I doubt partners and senior associates would really trust that. It can fairly hard to research some points and takes knowledge of the facts of the case and area of the law.

Lovely Ludwig Van wrote:Which city do you work in?

San Francisco.

Lovely Ludwig Van wrote:Thanks for doing this.

You're welcome. There are seemingly a good deal of misconceptions about biglaw out there (and not all biglaw is the same).

snowedin wrote:Since you do patent litigation, do you have a STEM background? Is a STEM background necessary for doing patent litigation?

Yes, I am a tech person. I don't think it is necessary to do patent litigation. But more of the associates in patent lit have tech backgrounds, and my firm prefers to hire those with a tech background.

How my firm does it is to put 1-2 people on each patent lit case that have a relevant technical background that can handle the technical issues. I have been on two main cases. On one, I was the technical person and did a lot of the technical work-infringement analysis, expert reports, working with experts, explaining the technology to other attorneys, etc.

On the other, the case is not in my technical background, so I did more of the legal aspects of the case (motion practice, discovery, some claim construction and invalidity charting). I am not a software person, but at least with simpler software concepts, non-CS people can do some invalidity and claim construction things because the concepts are explained in English (kinda).

What's your yearly billable hours quota? (Based on your typical 8:00 - 6:30 schedule, I would guess around 2,000?)

PRgradBYU wrote:What's your yearly billable hours quota? (Based on your typical 8:00 - 6:30 schedule, I would guess around 2,000?)

For first years, 1800. After that, 1950.

But I am going to be over both of those, mostly as a result of trial and a month of deposition after deposition. On track to be at 2300ish ( ), but probably will end up around 2150-2200 because of vacation/time-off.

Anonymous Associate wrote:

Louis1127 wrote:Do you worry about technology taking over your job one day? This is a serious question in light of articles from the New Republic (and many others) about the tough legal job market because of technological advances and outsourcing.

For the most part, not really. At least at my firm, technology and contract attorneys have already taken over the vast majority of document review. I actually haven't done any document review.

As for other functions in litigation, I guess legal research could also be outsourced to a certain extent, but I doubt partners and senior associates would really trust that. It can fairly hard to research some points and takes knowledge of the facts of the case and area of the law.

Thanks!

Anonymous Associate wrote:

PRgradBYU wrote:What's your yearly billable hours quota? (Based on your typical 8:00 - 6:30 schedule, I would guess around 2,000?)

For first years, 1800. After that, 1950.

But I am going to be over both of those, mostly as a result of trial and a month of deposition after deposition. On track to be at 2300ish ( ), but probably will end up around 2150-2200 because of vacation/time-off.

Sheesh -- you've got a great thing lined up right now.

PRgradBYU wrote:

Anonymous Associate wrote:

PRgradBYU wrote:What's your yearly billable hours quota? (Based on your typical 8:00 - 6:30 schedule, I would guess around 2,000?)

For first years, 1800. After that, 1950.

But I am going to be over both of those, mostly as a result of trial and a month of deposition after deposition. On track to be at 2300ish ( ), but probably will end up around 2150-2200 because of vacation/time-off.

Sheesh -- you've got a great thing lined up right now.

Have to agree with this.

How much of you getting the job had to do with your technical background? What's the rough ratio of those with tech backgrounds to those who don't at your firm?

Did you choose this firm over any other firms that are seen as "more prestigious?" If so, why? (Fit, practice area specialty, hours reqs, etc.)

jrsbaseball5 wrote:How much of you getting the job had to do with your technical background? What's the rough ratio of those with tech backgrounds to those who don't at your firm?

I am sure it helped, but I am unsure how much. In patent litigation, I'd say about 1/3 of the associates have a technical background.

Samara wrote:Did you choose this firm over any other firms that are seen as "more prestigious?" If so, why? (Fit, practice area specialty, hours reqs, etc.)

Yes, and for a lot of reasons. All of the reasons you mentioned. I also liked how they farm out doc review, which means I don't have to do it.

In addition, as a mixed-race (non-URM) female, diversity was also important to me-I felt more comfortable going somewhere where there were a good many female attorneys in patent lit and people of a variety of backgrounds. It not only is a more welcoming environment, but it also makes things more interesting on a daily basis.

Your firm sounds great. Makes me want to reconsider IP. Thanks and congrats

Anonymous Associate wrote:

snowedin wrote:Since you do patent litigation, do you have a STEM background? Is a STEM background necessary for doing patent litigation?

Yes, I am a tech person. I don't think it is necessary to do patent litigation. But more of the associates in patent lit have tech backgrounds, and my firm prefers to hire those with a tech background.

How my firm does it is to put 1-2 people on each patent lit case that have a relevant technical background that can handle the technical issues. I have been on two main cases. On one, I was the technical person and did a lot of the technical work-infringement analysis, expert reports, working with experts, explaining the technology to other attorneys, etc.

On the other, the case is not in my technical background, so I did more of the legal aspects of the case (motion practice, discovery, some claim construction and invalidity charting). I am not a software person, but at least with simpler software concepts, non-CS people can do some invalidity and claim construction things because the concepts are explained in English (kinda).

In another thread, I asked this:

When beginning a career in patent litigation, does one’s engineering discipline necessarily play a role in the type of cases he/she may participate in?