|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:10 partners, 5 associates, 5 senior counsel, 5 of counsel, so ?
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 08:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 00:09 |
|
|
How does one transition into a boutique practice firm (that is, get hired into as an outsider)? Just be really good at that particular specialized area, and hope the right set of people notice?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 13:43
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:How does one transition into a boutique practice firm (that is, get hired into as an outsider)? Just be really good at that particular specialized area, and hope the right set of people notice? Hope is not a strategy. Instead, just ask them. Find local networking events that they'll be at, and make an impression. Read their blog posts and media publications. Call one of their partners and offer to take them to lunch so you can pick their brains about getting into boutique practice. Contacts and networking.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 13:57
|
|
|
Fiddlesticks. Networking. That thing. Thanks for the Don't Forget How To Be A Professional 101.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 14:09
|
|
|
Ersatz posted:Boutique. If you get it your experience is going to be really different from mine, and I'll be curious as to how it goes. Some of the boutiques are prosecution sweatshops (you might be turning around responses in four billable hours), others supposedly have much better work-life balance than you can find at a large firm. Are responses to rejections anything like responses to arguments?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 14:26
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:How does one transition into a boutique practice firm (that is, get hired into as an outsider)? Just be really good at that particular specialized area, and hope the right set of people notice? I work at a boutique (at least until everything goes through for an upcoming lateral move). In our practice area, it seems like we and most other similar firms get a slow trickle of junior associates from the summer program, plus recruiting laterals around the 3rd-5th year range that have relevant experience. But yeah. Networking.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 15:06
|
|
|
Ersatz posted:Boutique. If you get it your experience is going to be really different from mine, and I'll be curious as to how it goes. Some of the boutiques are prosecution sweatshops (you might be turning around responses in four billable hours), others supposedly have much better work-life balance than you can find at a large firm. To expand on this, the key thing you will want to try to determine during an interview is how much of the work is foreign originated prosecution. At most of the decent boutiques I'm familiar with (and the one I spent some time at before jumping ship for more money and stress), you'll be exposed to a fair amount of new application drafting, opinion work, and other analysis in addition to your prosecution docket. The majority of the sweatshops I'm familiar with handle mostly U.S. national phase filings and foreign origin prosecution under the close supervision of foreign in-house counsel. Of course, you can make good money in a sweatshop if you have a strong work ethic and can move volume - many of these firms work on an eat-what-you-kill system where you get paid by the response, and you can get very efficient at patent prosecution if you do it long enough. However, at the right firm you'll get a broader range of experience and learn how to draft an application, how to license it, how to provide freedom-to-practice opinions, and the like. Having at least some exposure to these skills makes it easier to sell yourself to potential clients (if you have long term plans to push for partner), and makes you more desirable for in-house positions (if you don't). Green Crayons posted:How does one transition into a boutique practice firm (that is, get hired into as an outsider)? Just be really good at that particular specialized area, and hope the right set of people notice? My first job at a small boutique (<10 attorneys/patent agents) I got through applying through my schools career services office. My second job at a mid-sized boutique (~70 attorneys) I got through a headhunter. While it's always easier to get a job if you know the right people, if you have the appropriate skill set in whatever the boutique specializes in, in most cases I would say just send your resume. NJ Deac fucked around with this message at 15:14 on Oct 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 15:11
|
|
|
Play Dota you nerds.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 16:06
|
|
|
mikeraskol posted:Play Dota you nerds. Play Archeage you nerds.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 16:07
|
|
|
mikeraskol posted:Play Dota you nerds. Dota's too hard for me. Hell, posting is clearly too hard for me. I need easy things in my life.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 16:16
|
|
|
Direwolf posted:Job goes up on job board, I like job description, I send in application, they call me same day and have lovely conversation with lady on other end about position and firm. Depends largely on the area of practice. A few substantiated grievances in either criminal defense or family (especially if it's a high volume practice) isn't that big a deal because they are often dealing with irrational/emotional clients and probably get grieved all the time. Stay under the microscope log enough and someone is bound to spot some
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
Yesterday I spent the better part of an afternoon conducting voir dire around the deep philosophical question of "Horde or Alliance" Today I spent the better part of an afternoon listening to a trial judge complain about how old he felt and answering questions that may as well have been "So...is that anything like Pong? I hear the kids like Pong."
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
Arcturas posted:Dota's too hard for me. Hell, posting is clearly too hard for me. I need easy things in my life. Dota is just another really good way to inflict pain and misery in your life, I find it complements big law extremely well. Just got home from a crushing day at work, let's play a one hour Dota match where your team screams at each other the entire time yet still drags the game out for too long only to lose. Gives me some perspective.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Depends largely on the area of practice. A few substantiated grievances in either criminal defense or family (especially if it's a high volume practice) isn't that big a deal because they are often dealing with irrational/emotional clients and probably get grieved all the time. Stay under the microscope log enough and someone is bound to spot some There's a big difference between having someone file a grievance, which is an occupational hazard in criminal defense and in particular public defender work, and going to a disciplinary hearing and losing. I've averaged a grievance every two years. In one they opened an investigation (I had blown a deadline) but it was already fixed by the time they contacted me. The rest were, "this is what your client said you did/didn't do, what's your side of the story?" and were closed upon my reply. Best one: "In open court, the judge accused me of stabbing my grandmother in the neck and robbing her and Mr. Mon didn't do anything about it!" (He was charged with stabbing his grandma in the neck and robbing her - and stealing her car. The 'accusation' was the judge reading the basis for the application to revoke probation in his two other cases) Three simple tricks bar grievers HATE: 1. Communicate with your client. Explain what's happening and why. Answer their questions. Take their calls, return their calls, keep them updated. Make them think, "God, my attorney won't stop talking to me about my case!"* 2. Keep contemporary notes. KEEP CONTEMPORARY NOTES KEEP CONTEMPORARY NOTES 3. When you screw up, start getting it unscrewed immediately. Ask for help if you need it. Then tell your client what you did and how you are fixing it. *Know when this isn't working.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
joat mon posted:There's a big difference between having someone file a grievance, which is an occupational hazard in criminal defense and in particular public defender work, and going to a disciplinary hearing and losing. I've averaged a grievance every two years. In one they opened an investigation (I had blown a deadline) but it was already fixed by the time they contacted me. The rest were, "this is what your client said you did/didn't do, what's your side of the story?" and were closed upon my reply. Completely agree. My point was just that having *a* public record, by itself, isn't necessarily a red flag that the person is not worth working with. But yeah...talk to your client.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
I discovered a great new phrase for dealing with family law clients. "Great. Send me a check."
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 21:46
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Are responses to rejections anything like responses to arguments? If you're wondering if Examiner's response to the brief is anything like examiners response to applicants arguments in an OA, then yeah - pretty much. Except for the realization that the board might read what you wrote and have the power to over rule you in an embarrassing fashion. I suggest a new grounds for rejection. More opportunity for the thing to just go away.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
Sovereign citizen filed a lawsuit in our court today. So that's fun.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
Alaemon posted:Sovereign citizen filed a lawsuit in our court today. So that's fun. Fun. One of our judges has a beautiful way of dealing with these on the criminal side: sir, since you don't recognize the laws of this state or the authority of this court, you can't make a valid promise to appear, so I can't set bail. Marshalls?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
CaptainScraps posted:I discovered a great new phrase for dealing with family law clients. The ONE trick family law attorneys dint want you to know!
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
My last divorce client would call me to bitch about his ex-wife, sometimes for up to an hour at a time. I would turn the timer on and play Minesweeper. Every 5 minutes or so I'd interject and remind him I was billing for the call and we were accomplishing nothing. No effect. Every single month he'd call to complain about the bill. He could not seem to make that causal link.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
Soothing Vapors posted:My last divorce client would call me to bitch about his ex-wife, sometimes for up to an hour at a time. I would turn the timer on and play Minesweeper. Every 5 minutes or so I'd interject and remind him I was billing for the call and we were accomplishing nothing. No effect. In a former life I was a JAG type...had to advise sailors who married strippers and were now dealing with the completely foreseeable consequences of that decision. After multiple iterations of "OK, I can talk to you about what forms to fill out and where to file and whether or not your separation agreement looks legit...but if you want to spend the next hour talking about how the bitch done you wrong, the chaplain is down the hall" didn't work, I went to build a bear workshop and made a bear in a rough approximation of our uniform that said the following when you squeezed its paw: "Hi. I'm the divorce bear. Please tell me all about that rotten bitch you married. I care so LT [redacted] doesn't have to." He sat on the shelf next to the "Ethics and Appropriations Kitty".
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:In a former life I was a JAG type...had to advise sailors who married strippers and were now dealing with the completely foreseeable consequences of that decision. After multiple iterations of "OK, I can talk to you about what forms to fill out and where to file and whether or not your separation agreement looks legit...but if you want to spend the next hour talking about how the bitch done you wrong, the chaplain is down the hall" didn't work, I went to build a bear workshop and made a bear in a rough approximation of our uniform that said the following when you squeezed its paw: "Hi. I'm the divorce bear. Please tell me all about that rotten bitch you married. I care so LT [redacted] doesn't have to." He sat on the shelf next to the "Ethics and Appropriations Kitty". But dear god, the only thing on earth I can imagine worse than doing family law is doing family law for soldiers and army wives
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
CaptainScraps posted:Play Archeage you nerds. play poker you nerds
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
Soothing Vapors posted:Hahaha It was my personal vision of hell. The later anecdote was from an SJA tour where legal assistance was only done as a courtesy to the command and most of my focus was on operational and fiscal law (and responding to But my first assignment was straight up legal assistance. And yes...military wives are the worst. Surpassed only by wives of retired military. I volunteered to go to Iraq just to get away from it...and then volunteered to extend in Iraq to avoid having to go back. In the balancing test, mortars were more appealing than dealing with those hambeasts (though in fairness...they weren't particularly precise mortars. more like some dudes sticking a rocket in a PVC pipe and hoping for the best)
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted: Is there a SCOTUS threadnaught contest going on?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 00:51
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:In a former life I was a JAG type...had to advise sailors who married strippers and were now dealing with the completely foreseeable consequences of that decision. After multiple iterations of "OK, I can talk to you about what forms to fill out and where to file and whether or not your separation agreement looks legit...but if you want to spend the next hour talking about how the bitch done you wrong, the chaplain is down the hall" didn't work, I went to build a bear workshop and made a bear in a rough approximation of our uniform that said the following when you squeezed its paw: "Hi. I'm the divorce bear. Please tell me all about that rotten bitch you married. I care so LT [redacted] doesn't have to." He sat on the shelf next to the "Ethics and Appropriations Kitty". ActusRhesus posted:It was my personal vision of hell. The later anecdote was from an SJA tour where legal assistance was only done as a courtesy to the command and most of my focus was on operational and fiscal law (and responding to This is the first time I've actually enjoyed reading two posts in a row from someone new to the thread. I nominate this guy for best new poster of the year.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 00:58
|
|
|
HiddenReplaced posted:This is the first time I've actually enjoyed reading two posts in a row from someone new to the thread. Same.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 01:21
|
|
|
HiddenReplaced posted:This is the first time I've actually enjoyed reading two posts in a row from someone new to the thread. Actually, a she. She really stirred up the SCOTUS thread by trying to discuss legalities instead of parroting the prevailing political opinions over there. It begins about here: ActusRhesus posted:This is great news. Requiring facilities that conduct invasive medical procedures to adhere to set medical standards would be detrimental to women's health.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
loving debate threads. I don't understand how a lawyer would spend all goddamn day arguing against real people, in real courts, for real money and at the expense of the lawyer's humanity...and then spend his/her precious spare time arguing against internet keyboard jockeys for free. What kind of sick monkey gets off on that? TELL ME
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 02:21
|
|
|
But people are WRONG on the INTERNET
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 02:29
|
|
|
HiddenReplaced posted:This is the first time I've actually enjoyed reading two posts in a row from someone new to the thread. fixed  and thank you. Will there be acceptance speeches involved?patentmagus posted:
Heh...yeah...about that...I don't know what I loved more: (1) having avatar changed to Godwin's law violation (is that still a thing?); (2) having someone flounce only to start sending PMs 15 minutes later because they were too embarrassed to return post flounce but damnit must get that last word in!; or (3) the standard go-to irony of being called a misogynist by a man in response to a conversation about women's health. Phil Moscowitz posted:loving debate threads. I don't understand how a lawyer would spend all goddamn day arguing against real people, in real courts, for real money and at the expense of the lawyer's humanity...and then spend his/her precious spare time arguing against internet keyboard jockeys for free. The kind who had all their cases pushed over to the next term and is going through adversarial withdrawal. But you're right re:debate threads...it's like playing chess with a chicken. Eventually it will just knock over all the pieces, poo poo on the board, and then fly back to the roost to cluck about its victory.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 02:33
|
|
|
patentmagus posted:Actually, a she. She really stirred up the SCOTUS thread by trying to discuss legalities instead of parroting the prevailing political opinions over there. It begins about here: Non lawyers discussing the law is like a kitten trying to figure out a tortoise.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
nm posted:Non lawyers discussing the law is like a kitten trying to figure out a tortoise. D'aawwwwwwwwwww... now I feel all warm and fuzzy. Incidentally, a friend of mine and I were recently involved in a 24 hour play festival, in which she chose to write a "space opera" for her submission. Her conclusion was that anyone can write sci-fi if they just put the word "space" in front of random nouns. Actual Dialog: "Space Prom? Are you kidding? Isn't that just a lame bit of under the space suit, over the space bra action?" Your title text reminded me of that...good times. ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 03:11 on Oct 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 03:08
|
|
|
I loving hate working on motions against pro sers because nothing they do is ever covered under statute or case law because God Damnit why did I work until 9pm on a Friday night for a pittance of a salary
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
Man, I feel like the area of worker's comp is the land time forgot. Attorneys will be like "you want to take this employee's depo? ... Eh, I don't feel like doing that right now and neither does my client. Look, we'll just put this case in a 3-5 year stasis until his Social Security benefits status changes and there won't be any offset issues." "... but it's my depo," I say. "It's cool, I'll just pay the bill for the court reporter's time, see you in 3 years." Most of them work for contingency fee, but they're all good, because about now, they're settling the cases from like 1999.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 04:22
|
|
|
MechaX posted:Man, I feel like the area of worker's comp is the land time forgot. I once did a cross in a worker's compensation hearing that went: "Doc, how much are they paying you to testify for them?" "$250 an hour." "Wanna testify for me? I'll give you $300." "That's inappropriate." "Yeah, it probably is, but you'd do it."
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 04:33
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:D'aawwwwwwwwwww... now I feel all warm and fuzzy. Please tell me this is posted somewhere for me to read.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 08:26
|
|
|
Unamuno posted:play poker you nerds play hearthstone you nerds
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 09:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 00:09 |
|
|
I'm enough of a nerd to read D&D too but where I draw the line is typing in complete sentences
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 09:42
|
|