Page 1 of 1
In IP world, what constitutes "Big Law"
Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2014 3:49 pm
by erythromycin
I had previously thought that Big Law was the top 100 or so firms with large numbers of attorneys (from the several hundreds to thousands) that were general practice. I thought that firms that specialized in one area were considered boutiques, even though some of them are quite large. However, as I look around for info on this site and others, sometimes I see large IP firms listed as "Big Law" (i.e. Finnigans, Knobbe Marten, Fish Richardson). They certainly are very competitive jobs to land, and the pay seems "Big Law" to me. What are people's definitions of "Big Law," especially when it comes to IP?
Re: In IP world, what constitutes "Big Law"
Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2014 3:53 pm
by InTheHouse
erythromycin wrote:I had previously thought that Big Law was the top 100 or so firms with large numbers of attorneys (from the several hundreds to thousands) that were general practice. I thought that firms that specialized in one area were considered boutiques, even though some of them are quite large. However, as I look around for info on this site and others, sometimes I see large IP firms listed as "Big Law" (i.e. Finnigans, Knobbe Marten, Fish Richardson). They certainly are very competitive jobs to land, and the pay seems "Big Law" to me. What are people's definitions of "Big Law," especially when it comes to IP?
Does it matter?
Re: In IP world, what constitutes "Big Law"
Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2014 3:55 pm
by ph14
erythromycin wrote:I had previously thought that Big Law was the top 100 or so firms with large numbers of attorneys (from the several hundreds to thousands) that were general practice. I thought that firms that specialized in one area were considered boutiques, even though some of them are quite large. However, as I look around for info on this site and others, sometimes I see large IP firms listed as "Big Law" (i.e. Finnigans, Knobbe Marten, Fish Richardson). They certainly are very competitive jobs to land, and the pay seems "Big Law" to me. What are people's definitions of "Big Law," especially when it comes to IP?
I would say that what most people consider to be "big law" are the firms with large numbers of attorneys who pay market (or reasonably close to it) for the geographic area. That's really what people mean when they say "big law." Smaller firms are called "boutiques." I don't know how many lawyers that those firms have, but they likely would be considered "big law."
Re: In IP world, what constitutes "Big Law"
Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 1:19 pm
by FSK
.
Re: In IP world, what constitutes "Big Law"
Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 1:22 pm
by Abbie Doobie
flawschoolkid wrote:Have a friend at Finnegan. His office is ~400 attorneys. They pay market, recruit through SA exclusively, etc. If it walks, looks, and quacks like a duck.....
Not true. A good chunk of their recruitment comes from patent agents and student associates. This is true for a number of IP firms.