Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: IP, CA: foley & lardner v. paul hastings  (Read 3000 times)

holla123

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
    • Email
IP, CA: foley & lardner v. paul hastings
« on: February 16, 2008, 02:04:09 PM »
looking for your opinions on which is better for patent law (not sure if I want to do prosecution or litigation). also, is it a bad idea to split your summer as a 1L?

thorc954

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 376
    • View Profile
Re: IP, CA: foley & lardner v. paul hastings
« Reply #1 on: February 16, 2008, 02:38:12 PM »
looking for your opinions on which is better for patent law (not sure if I want to do prosecution or litigation). also, is it a bad idea to split your summer as a 1L?


I wanna say Foley.

definitely not a bad idea to split your first summer, but it is highly unlikely you will find a firm that will allow you to. 

Peaches

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 0
    • View Profile
Re: IP, CA: foley & lardner v. paul hastings
« Reply #2 on: February 17, 2008, 10:43:22 AM »
If these are your choices, you're clearly a highly competitive student at a top school.  Sometimes even firms that say "no splits" will allow students like you to split.  It's worth asking.

bom

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Re: IP, CA: foley & lardner v. paul hastings
« Reply #3 on: February 17, 2008, 07:54:35 PM »
peaches, ur logic doesnt make any sense. if just because of the firms hes deciding between, he must be a highly competitive student at a top school, then the assumption is that all the people those firms are considering are highly competitive students at top schools.
if all the students considering those firms are highly competitive/top school kids, then obviously it wouldnt make sense for the firms to let him split simply on that basis...basic logic reasoning.

Peaches

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 0
    • View Profile
Re: IP, CA: foley & lardner v. paul hastings
« Reply #4 on: February 17, 2008, 08:31:56 PM »
Um, I said sometimes.  He's probably cleared the threshhold, and if he's the cream of the crop they may allow him to split even if the policy is generally not.  Also, he could potentially split with one of those firms and an additional firm that normally doesn't allow splits.  The point is that exceptions are made at some firms.

bom

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Re: IP, CA: foley & lardner v. paul hastings
« Reply #5 on: February 17, 2008, 08:41:29 PM »
thats fine. im just pointing out that you cant say a firm will do something out of the ordinary because of a characteristic that you attribute to the OP solely on the basis of his considering that firm in the first place.

holla123

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: IP, CA: foley & lardner v. paul hastings
« Reply #6 on: February 18, 2008, 03:31:14 AM »
Cream of the crop ... Thx. My biggest concerns are the following;
foley overall vault rating is lower than ph but in ip they are a top 10 vault firm
does that matter? The people at both firms were great and pay is the same as is location.
so what other things should one consider? Also, what impression would the firm get if I was to split?

P.S. Please excuse the typos and other mistakes I am typing this on an iPod

Peaches

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 0
    • View Profile
Re: IP, CA: foley & lardner v. paul hastings
« Reply #7 on: February 18, 2008, 08:21:14 AM »
I don't know about vault/IP tradeoff, so someone else should answer that.

On splitting:  Eventually for most students, it comes down to the people and firm culture between similarly-prestigious firms.  In order to find out which firm "fits" you, it's best to work for the firms you are most interested in.  So firms know that it's advantageous to students to split, and it's generally accepted.  I don't think it sends a particular message to a firm except that you are interested in another firm.  But that applies to almost all of their 1L and 2L summer associates.  As a 1L though, I'd be sure to really put in the effort and maximize my time at each firm -- especially if the other 1Ls aren't splitting -- if you're interested in returning. 

thorc954

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 376
    • View Profile
Re: IP, CA: foley & lardner v. paul hastings
« Reply #8 on: February 18, 2008, 10:12:17 AM »
the vault aspect doesnt matter all that much, or at least to me, it didnt.  They are both well respected firms, so where they rank is not that important.

One consideration you should make is the size of the IP programs at each and the make ups of their program.  I am not IP but I chose my firm based on the size of their practice area and the specializations within it.  I felt that a larger practice area was better suited for me.  I forgot what you said you did undergrad or even if you had even said, but you might want to make sure that the one you chose has a decent mechanical engineering practice if thats what you studied or whatever.  Just a consideration that is kind of important.  When firms only have 2-3 attorneys in a specific niche i would assume its harder to break into their group and harder to get work. 

Ad oculos

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Re: IP, CA: foley & lardner v. paul hastings
« Reply #9 on: February 18, 2008, 07:54:15 PM »
foley overall vault rating is lower than ph but in ip they are a top 10 vault firm
does that matter? The people at both firms were great and pay is the same as is location.
so what other things should one consider? Also, what impression would the firm get if I was to split?

I wouldn't worry so much about overall vault ranking.  Practice area rankings (i.e. Chambers) makes all the difference.  Assuming pay/location is the same, go to the place where you think you'd be a better fit.