Discussion of Firms and Life in SF/SV

[AngryMulletMan]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Gort, Master of the Guardians, is correct. I meant to say that the news media is equally unqualified to judge the stature of litigators and transactional lawyers alike, because those "high-profile" litigators are, in various ways, in bed with the particular reporters who repeatedly write puff pieces about them. I can't go into details, but I've seen it happen.

I was trying to be coy about it.

Thanks for the clarification. Was wondering if Trogdor was burninating a little early as post was before 4:20.

AM(...and then I smoke two more)M

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by AngryMulletMan
Was wondering if Trogdor was burninating a little early as post was before 4:20.

No, no. Trogdor comes in the niiiiiiiiiiiiight! Check out all my majesty:

[Flinty_McFlint]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
No, no. Trogdor comes in the niiiiiiiiiiiiight! Check out all my majesty:

You people are weird. I like that.

[c2ed]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
C'mon, Deuce -- do you really think it's as bad as all that? Two of the top 10 are lesbians, for goodness sakes.

Would I like to see more balance in the ranks of the most accomplished lawyers? Sure, and everywhere else too. But pretending that this list looks like, say, the 1950s Supreme Court is just not accurate.

I obviously was not clear in my posts about this, so I'll try to clarify a bit. I don't mean to say at all that the list looks like the 1950s Supreme Court. Or even the 1978 Supreme Court. I'm cheered that there are at least 2 women on the list of 10, and 5 all told. That is, indeed, better than it could have been. And I believe I stated in an earlier post that I'm not all that surprised by the breakdown of gender and race as many law schools didn't even accept women or minorities until the early '70s (maybe earlier, I don't have the stats at hand) so the pool of women or minorities that would be considered by their peers for such a list is rather small (how you missed that comment from me, Sidd, I do not know... you owe me a drink... hmph!).

My comment was meant to be more general about the legal profession, not just this list (and certainly not a commentary on the Chronicle or necessarily on its methods of surveying for the results - though it still reminds me of the crappy 'prestige' lists that are put out). Simply put, I welcome the day when there are fewer impediments placed in front of women and minorities in our profession with regards to their careers and when the ranks of "the best" aren't nearly de facto white and male only because that's the pool (this is way generalizing, but I hope it's clearer). I see that day coming, as there are many many more women and minorities in law school and becoming lawyers with each year. Thus, in an absolute sense the chance of seeing them on these sort of lists increases.

But, and this is where my skepticism comes in, to get to the point where they would be considered, they obviously need to have had an opportunity to work on some kick ass (term of art) matters. The issue of women and minorities succeeding in firms has been discussed somewhat here, and for the moment I'm going to pass on rehashing that conversation. But many obstacles still exist (they're being slowly eroded, but they're there). And it's tough as hell to get to the 'big time' in criminal work.

So, in 10 years, the breakdown might not be much different. In 20, I suspect it would be much. And do I think that every list needs to be 50-50 men-women, and have every race represented? No. Some years there might be 9 women in the top 10 (in which case I likely will do a little dance of glee in my office), some years 1; some years, there may be only 1 white person on the list, some years, all of them. And yes, perhaps this just happened to be a year with less diversity. I think it just points to a stage we're at in the profession where it's still more white and male at 'the top' than not. Like all professions, that's changing (and yes, I know that some professions have even worse track records than the legal profession... as I'm not a pro football coach and this isn't a chat board for the NFL, at the moment, I'm not concerned with that, but I do acknowledge it).

As to litigators vs. business lawyers, that won't change, I suspect. I don't think the Chronicle is capable of identifying the "best" business lawyers. "Best" basically means "highest profile" in this survey, and that favors litigators.

Totally agree with you there. It's just much more likely to see a lawyer in the news for a high profile case rather than a high profile transaction. Sigh.

Kind of ironic, though, when you think about what the Chronicle has previously said about Sonsini.

Doncha think?

C(probably digging a deeper hole for myself in Sidd's eyes, but what the hell - sometimes the ground needs tilling)deuced

[Seven of Nine]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
No, no. Trogdor comes in the niiiiiiiiiiiiight! Check out all my majesty:

Awwww, yeah. But never Fear StrongBad will save you, fair maidens!
Or maybe, he'll just do a little dance. Or something.



Seven (The Cheat, is GROUNDED) of Nine

Originally posted by c2ed
Simply put, I welcome the day when there are fewer impediments placed in front of women and minorities in our profession with regards to their careers and when the ranks of "the best" aren't nearly de facto white and male only because that's the pool (this is way generalizing, but I hope it's clearer). I see that day coming, as there are many many more women and minorities in law school and becoming lawyers with each year. Thus, in an absolute sense the chance of seeing them on these sort of lists increases.

C2ed, I do agree with you. Thankfully we're long past the days when little armies of women lawyers (and other professionals) marched to work dressed in uniforms of manlike suits, Di-Fi scarf ties, and tennis shoes (to be exchanged for high heels once their offices were reached). While women no longer need to wear the white male lawyer's uniform, I suspect that, in order to survive and succeed, they must still adopt (at least a convincing facade of) most of the traditional white male values, pov, and modes of thinking and behaving. And, quite likely, lawyers of color (men and women) must do the same.

Using Brobeck as an example, though some might dismiss it as stereotyping, I believe that the women and minority lawyers were/are likely far more troubled than their white male colleagues by how badly the staff was and is being treated. Almost without exception, however, the women and minority lawyers (associates and partners) have not spoken up, have done virtually nothing to help the staff. Rather, again almost without exception, they have kept quiet and towed the line set by the four white guys who are running Brobeck's winddown.

So, in this and many other instances, I'm left wondering what is the point of striving for that which results in only skin deep diversity in a law firm? If women and people of color must alter and/or mask that which is different about them to be allowed to enter and remain in the white male club (class), where's the value of diversity? Of course, it's nice to see women and people of color get more of a shot at the big bucks. And maybe that's all it is. (Ah Bartleby, ah humanity.)

[Sidd Finch]

Today's Recorder confirmed the existence of rumors that VLG might be talking to Orrick about considering a possible merger. Or something to that effect.

Could someone please explain to me why on Earth Orrick would want this deal? The VLG lawyers demonstrated that they didn't want to be with a big firm when times were good (I'm not sure which firm they came from -- was it Orrick?) The only reason I can think of is that Orrick has profited off the referral relationship with VLG, and is worried that VLG will shut its doors without a merger partner.

Sidd(threadless)Finch

Originally posted by Klaatu B. Nikto
Using Brobeck as an example, though some might dismiss it as stereotyping, I believe that the women and minority lawyers were/are likely far more troubled than their white male colleagues by how badly the staff was and is being treated. Almost without exception, however, the women and minority lawyers (associates and partners) have not spoken up, have done virtually nothing to help the staff. Rather, again almost without exception, they have kept quiet and towed the line set by the four white guys who are running Brobeck's winddown.

Stereotyping women/minorities, white males or both?

[IP4U]

general question...
Which firm (big or small, GP or not) do you believe has the "best" IP Lit practice in the Valley today?
Heller?
Wilson?
Finnegan?
Fish?
Dewey?
???

[AngryMulletMan]

Originally posted by Klaatu B. Nikto
C2ed, I do agree with you. Thankfully we're long past the days when little armies of women lawyers (and other professionals) marched to work dressed in uniforms of manlike suits, Di-Fi scarf ties, and tennis shoes (to be exchanged for high heels once their offices were reached). While women no longer need to wear the white male lawyer's uniform, I suspect that, in order to survive and succeed, they must still adopt (at least a convincing facade of) most of the traditional white male values, pov, and modes of thinking and behaving. And, quite likely, lawyers of color (men and women) must do the same.

....

So, in this and many other instances, I'm left wondering what is the point of striving for that which results in only skin deep diversity in a law firm? If women and people of color must alter and/or mask that which is different about them to be allowed to enter and remain in the white male club (class), where's the value of diversity? Of course, it's nice to see women and people of color get more of a shot at the big bucks. And maybe that's all it is. (Ah Bartleby, ah humanity.)

Now, we've progressed to the days where "little armies of women lawyers march to work" dressed in Gap khakis and blue button-down shirts. (Except, of course, litigators.) The only reason why women are dressing differently is that everyone dresses differently now. I don't think that looking at wardrobe (while it might be great sport on the FB) really indicates much about how far women or minorities have "progressed" in the profession. I think the change in wardrobe may have something to do with the fact that men (if you think the men on the FB are in any way indicative of what real men lawyers think) absolutely hate wearing ties and a bunch of SF/SV firms thought it would be cool to dress down to look more like their clients. And now there is a backlash in many firms to go back to the old ways of dress, so there you are.

And altering what is different about oneself (class) often happens in the context of education. After we've been through seven years of schooling, we are bound to speak differently, think about things we hadn't thought about before schooling and so on. In short, college is often the place where young adults learn how to behave like upper middle class folks, regardless of where they came from. College has become, for many, more about where you are going and less about where you came from. College is sometimes seen as a ticket out of the home town.

Unless you are already upper middle class, college can change you so that you can't go back, even if you thought you wanted to when you started. Just like there are social pressures in college to behave like those you believe to be successful, there are social pressures back home to reject those who went away to college because they were "too good" or "too smart" for the neighborhood. Going away to college can be seen as a betrayal of the home town. To those of us who were working class, there is an entire range of response to education and to an aspiration to become part of that "army" of professionals. I know of several lawyers in my high school graduating class and none of them went back to the old home town. All of us feel quite estranged.

Whether or not it was worth it remains to be seen. And class diversity is not necessarily eliminated by becoming a professional. There was an op-ed piece not so long ago (in the American Lawyer? I can't remember) written by a lawyer who noted that even when people earn roughly the same amounts of money, there are other factors which do not eliminate class difference among professionals. Who gets an inheritance? Who must spend earnings to take care of parents and other family members? Who gets assistance in buying a first home or in starting a practice? Who gets help in paying for college and/or law school? Affirmative action aside, these things continue to matter. Unfortunately, professionals who deal with issues such as these are seen as irresponsible in managing their financial affairs by those who do not have to contend with such issues, which further reinforces stereotypes.

Further, I do NOT think that women and people of color are necessarily getting much more of "a shot at the big bucks". I remember very clearly hearing students and professors at my law school professing loudly "not everyone has the right to attend [insert name of law school here]." The point is, not everyone has access to the credentials that the big-bucks firms require as a ticket to entry. The point is, we all know some really, really dumb people who had the "right" to attend [insert name of law school here]. And we all know some racist, sexist and classist individuals who would like to make sure that certain of us understand that we do not have the "right" to attend [insert name of law school here].

So, unless and until we can come up with a way to make access to credentials more fair, those of us who had access have to bite our tongues from time to time and learn to get along and extend a hand to people who are deserving of a "shot at the big bucks" by, first, recognizing our own bias and, next, working damned hard to eliminate it.

AM(rant, yes. solutions, no)M

Brobeck, Cooley, Wilson, Gunderson, VLG, Fenwick

[c2ed]

Ok, perhaps this will be entertaining. This is one of those "what the fuck is wrong with people" days for me. While (luckily) most of my friends and acquaintances seem to be on an even keel, others have absolutely lost their minds.

And then I read stories like this one with some wackadoo convicted of sucking kids' toes.

And then there is this one about some guy's bizarre protest.

Lastly, I can't describe how upsetting this story is about how India is using technology to help abandoned babies.

Damn, I need a drink.

C(luckily, it's happy hour... have a good one)deuced

[Sidd Finch]

Okay, I read the middle story only -- the one about the protest.

Actually, I just read the headline. That is severely disgusting.

[AngryMulletMan]

Originally posted by c2ed

And then there is this one about some guy's bizarre protest.

Maybe he's just been reading too much Sophocles. He's clearly taken the Greek thing too far.

Oppenheimer Lawyers May Be Going to Dechert

Alexei Oreskovic
The Recorder
05-22-2003


A significant group of Oppenheimer Wolff & Donnelly's Silicon Valley partners may be jumping ship to 700-lawyer Dechert, according to two sources with knowledge of the situation.

The move puts in question the future of Oppenheimer's Silicon Valley office, and leaves the Minneapolis-based firm with a massive, and potentially crippling, lease.

The departing attorneys are primarily intellectual property litigators, which make up the majority of Oppenheimer's 40-attorney Silicon Valley office. The group is expected to launch a new Silicon Valley office for Dechert, which established a three-attorney San Francisco outpost in January.

A spokesperson for Dechert said the firm does not comment on rumors.

Chris Graham, managing partner of Oppenheimer's Silicon Valley office, did not return a call for comment, and an Oppenheimer spokesperson declined to comment.

But one source familiar with the deal confirmed that Dechert had sent offer letters to a number of Oppenheimer attorneys.

According to another source inside Oppenheimer, 10 to 12 Silicon Valley attorneys, primarily corporate lawyers, had not received offers from Dechert. The fate of these attorneys, including whether Oppenheimer would retain them, is unclear.

An all-hands meeting was scheduled for late Wednesday afternoon at the Silicon Valley office, according to the source.

In February, Oppenheimer announced plans to spin off its Silicon Valley office, citing differences in the Minnesota and California technology markets. "The firm and our office concluded that it would be easier for the attorneys in our office to grow our business if we were on a different platform than Oppenheimer provides," Silicon Valley partner Michael Kalkstein said at the time.

Initially, the plan called for the unusual step of selling the entire office, including the lease and accounts receivables, to a firm looking for a one-stop California presence.

The reports of Dechert hiring Oppenheimer attorneys suggested that the office had not found a buyer.

Most significant for Oppenheimer is the Palo Alto lease. According to former Oppenheimer partners, the firm's Silicon Valley lease still has 10 years left on it. And the lease, for two separate buildings comprising 55,000 square feet, was signed in 1999 when corporate real estate prices were much higher than at present.

"They've got very substantial lease obligations," said one former Oppenheimer partner. "My guess is that unless they can somehow void them or find somebody to take the leases off their hands, I think they've got a problem."

The firm's earlier decision to spin off its Silicon Valley office is the latest indication that Oppenheimer is falling back to its Midwestern roots after a decade of aggressive expansion. In February, the firm announced it was shutting down its Los Angeles office. The firm's Orange County office headcount has been cut almost in half over the past two years, while its New York office has withered to three attorneys.