Current clerk with an offer from each firm. Clerking is the only job I’ve had since law school. I know that I’m interested in patent litigation and am especially interested in trial work. My current goal is to make partner, but I know so little about firm life that I don’t want to shut the door to exit opportunities like going in house.
I found a few old forums discussing this question (see, e.g., viewtopic.php?f=23&t=166987), but Irell has changed a lot since these forums were active.
I’m aware of the differences between Century City and DTLA (it’s a wash from my perspective). Based on my research, it looks like compensation would be better at Irell. Munger seems to have more prestige overall, but I’m wondering if patent litigators find Irell more impressive. I also know that Irell does a lot of plaintiff-side work, while Munger does mostly defense-side work. Partnership prospects seem similar between the two firms.
Aside from those differences, which firm would be better for: 1. trial experience and 2. exit opportunities for patent litigators? Which firm has a stronger reputation for patent litigation?
Any other advice would be appreciated. Thanks!
Irell (LA) vs. Munger (LA) for patent litigation? Forum
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 433364
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 433364
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Irell (LA) vs. Munger (LA) for patent litigation?
They are both valid but two quite different experiences. Irell specializes in IP. MTO is a general litigation firm that has some patent specialists. You would have more patent-focused colleagues but I get the sense that at MTO you would be a bigger fish in a smaller pond, since not all associates are willing to commit in a serious way to patent work.
