Discussion of Firms and Life in SF/SV

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
The Recorder reports that the Milberg Weiss firm is going to split into an East Coast firm, to be headed by Melvyn Weiss in New York, and a West Coast firm, to be headed by Bill Lerach in San Diego and Pat Coughlin in San Francisco.

So now the number of class action law suits will double?

[Ben Bitdiddle]

I ran across this link: http://www.twise.com/barexam/ which may be of interest to 1Ls and 2Ls who are planning to take the CA Bar Exam.

Can someone with a subscription please post the law.com article about Claude Stern leaving for Quinn?

How is Fenwick doing these days?

[foot&mouth]

Rumor has it that Arter & Hadden voted to dissolve today...

any truth?

[leagleaze]

Originally posted by foot&mouth
Rumor has it that Arter & Hadden voted to dissolve today...

any truth?

No clue, but there is an article in law.com http://www.law.com/jsp/pubarticleCA....=1055463665594 Says they are fighting off dissolution, perhaps the fight failed?

"The partner sounded a dubious note when asked if he thought Arter would pull through. He answered, "I don't think so." "

Originally posted by woohah
Can someone with a subscription please post the law.com article about Claude Stern leaving for Quinn?

How is Fenwick doing these days?

Another Top Litigator Jumps Ship at Fenwick

Renee Deger
The Recorder
06-16-2003


Fenwick & West has suffered another blow to its litigation team with the fourth departure by a high-level partner from the practice group in six months.

Claude Stern, an intellectual property rainmaker known for his work on big-ticket cases for software companies, is set to start work today in the Silicon Valley office of Los Angeles-based litigation firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges.

His exit follows defections by John Steele and Timothy Roake to competitors and the departure of Patricia Lucas, who was appointed to the Santa Clara County Superior Court bench.

Though all four appear to have left for different reasons, the effect on the firm has been the same: Fenwick faces a thinning team of litigation partners at a time when litigators are being counted on to rake in revenue. Gordon Davidson, Fenwick's chairman, said litigation comprised almost half of the firm's gross of $142 million last year.

* * * * *

Stern, who joined Fenwick in 1994, estimated his book of business has ranged from $5 million to $7 million in revenue.

He's likely to see a jump in compensation at his new firm. Profits per partner at 192-lawyer Quinn Emanuel hit $1 million in 2002, according to a Recorder survey of law firm finances.

Meanwhile, Fenwick has lost some buying power. The Mountain View-based firm logged $650,000 in profits per partner last year, a 16 percent drop from 2001.

* * * * *

Lynn Pasahow, current head of Fenwick's litigation group, said litigation is still a top recruiting priority, and money hasn't been an issue in his efforts to attract new partners.

"The average per-partner number doesn't have a whole lot to do with what you're going to pay any individual person for his or her practice," Pasahow said. "We're ready to pay what an individual's practice is worth."

* * * * *

Quinn Emanuel has 10 lawyers in its Redwood Shores office and about 25 in San Francisco, according to Charles Verhoeven, the managing partner of the offices.

"We always have our eyes open for people attracted to our business model, which is litigation only," Verhoeven said. "They can come to our firm and be king, whereas in a full-service firm, the scenario is different."

I edited this to extract some interesting points from the article, but so that we wouldn't be quoting the entire thing. It's copyrighted material not available to the public. Please don't copy entire articles and post them here. -- T.S.

The Brits are doing a better job on some of theses stories than the locals (and for free, too):

http://www.legalweek.net/ViewItem.asp?id=15221

http://www.legalweek.net/ViewItem.asp?id=15223

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Skip_Farnum
The Brits are doing a better job on some of theses stories than the locals (and for free, too):

http://www.legalweek.net/ViewItem.asp?id=15221

http://www.legalweek.net/ViewItem.asp?id=15223

Interesting.

"Silicon Valley icon the Venture Law Group (VLG) is set to make a key strategic decision that will either set it on a course for a merger with West Coast ally Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe or reassert its prized independence."

The British press seems to understand that legal markets are no longer just regional or national in a way that the local rags have not quite gotten yet.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
"Silicon Valley icon the Venture Law Group (VLG) is set to make a key strategic decision that will either set it on a course for a merger with West Coast ally Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe or reassert its prized independence."

Not to disagree with the laudatory comments about the British legal press, but doesn't the statement quoted above mean "VLG is about to decide either to keep doing what it has been doing, or to do the opposite"?

This doesn't strike me as "news," though I agree that it's appropriate for the legal press to look beyond confines of their own geographic region.

Sidd(plus, it's so cute when the Brits call it "Ventures")Finch

[i]
I edited this to extract some interesting points from the article, but so that we wouldn't be quoting the entire thing. It's copyrighted material not available to the public. Please don't copy entire articles and post them here. -- T.S.

Fair point, but we have been posting entire copies of Recorder articles for at least a couple of years. Perhaps the Recorder cares, but the discussion around article postings tends to be what provides half of their subsequent story ideas. Otherwise, they'd have to act like journalists and actually investigate beyond press releases.

Is is ok to post articles from other sites that are available for free, such as Legal Week?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Old news on the FB and Ohio board, but in case you missed it:

fuckedcompany.com reports a rumor that Arter & Hadden will dissolve in two weeks, without severance for anyone.

This article is a more polished look at the firm's problems. According to it, their SF office is down from 25 lawyers a few years ago to 13 now.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by I like Pooh
Fair point, but we have been posting entire copies of Recorder articles for at least a couple of years. Perhaps the Recorder cares, but the discussion around article postings tends to be what provides half of their subsequent story ideas. Otherwise, they'd have to act like journalists and actually investigate beyond press releases.

Is is ok to post articles from other sites that are available for free, such as Legal Week?

edited to now say:

Articles from the Recorder have been posted here (and on the infirm site) for years, to no complaints that I know of, and presumably with the notice of the reporters who apparently troll this site for leads. I checked with leagl, who doesn't mind if y'all post full articles from time to time, but only when you feel it is necessary. Also, understand that if the company in question complains, we will have to remove and or edit it as needed. We don't want to violate copyright law, but will leave it up to your judgment.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I am not a copyright lawyer, but am reliably informed that "fair use" doesn't include reproducing all of an article.

... at least not reproducing it here, yes.

It would be hard to fit the square peg of "fair use(s)" of educational uses, etc., with the round hole of an internet chat board such as this.

The practical viability use of this (extensively or completely quoting articles) will turn on the publication's outlook on things. I'm sure that a number of free sites, who want their words disseminated wildly, would be tickled to see their articles reproduced here, even if they could otherwise choose to exercise their copyright rights and cause problems.

Those who do complain, I'd suspect, are driven by economic incentives. If they are charging for access to the article, and someone reproduces it for free here, I could understand their irritation.

In the absence of knowing (or gambling) about it, linking is certainly the safer route.


in case it's not clear, Gattigap is responding to an earlier version of my post that I then changed -- T.S.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Those who do complain, I'd suspect, are driven by economic incentives. If they are charging for access to the article, and someone reproduces it for free here, I could understand their irritation.

Lots of sites don't charge for access to articles, but sell advertising, the value of which is utterly dependent on the amount of traffic to the site. So they, too, might be annoyed by having articles fully reprinted elsewhere rather than links posted.

Post the links, it's safer that way.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Skip_Farnum
The Brits are doing a better job on some of theses stories than the locals (and for free, too):

http://www.legalweek.net/ViewItem.asp?id=15221

http://www.legalweek.net/ViewItem.asp?id=15223

Not to disparage any VLG lawyer, but what does Orrick have to gain from the acquisition? VLG clearly gains, but Orrick already has a fairly prominent west coast presence.