Discussion of Firms and Life in SF/SV

[Tyrone Slothrop]

There's been a request from a newbie for dirt on Fenwick. Dirt on Fenwick, anyone?

[godrestye]

Originally posted by acousticguitar
Its on the other board that GT grabbed Caine Moss and Stefan Clulow from WSGR.

One of those two is no longer leaving.

Another tidbit: the litigation partners rumored to be leaving WSGR are not leaving.

So much for the "exodus" referenced on the other board.

[pretermitted_child]

I ran across this map, which reminded me of "The view of the world from 9th Avenue" cover of The New Yorker:

Legend
1. California. Unsurprisingly, California remains intact.
2. This is the state of Reno, which is easy to spot because it’s just outside the “Tahoe Region”.
3. The state of Vegas.
4. All Californians know that their neighbor to the north is Oregon. They know this because Oregon is where Chai was invented.
5. This is the state of Seattle unless you’re really wealthy, in which case it’s the state of Puget Sound. This is where Starbucks comes from. You’ll note that both Oregon and Seattle span the space between the west coastline and the I-5 corridor.
6. This is Death Valley. It’s hot here. Except in the winter, when it’s cold.
7. This is the state of Aspen. From the state of Aspen, you can ski straight into state #9
8. This state has two names for Californians. If you’re from Northern California, it’s known as “That Bastard of a President’s Ranch”. If you’re from Southern California, it’s called “The Alamo”.
9. The Midwest. It’s a huge state, as you can see, and for Californians, Midwest inhabitants on both sides of the Mississippi live on a strict diet of iceberg lettuce and Budweiser, which is why they have such big hair.
10. The blue vertical line is the Mississippi River. Californians don’t actually know where it is, they just know it’s in the middle of the country and that it runs “up and down”.
11. 11 points to the state of Chicago, which is a convenient home to the city of Chicago. [I can’t begin to tell you how many Californians think Chicago is a state].
12. This is Florida. It’s home to Disney World (which is just like Disneyland) and a lot of Cubans, like that Ricky Martin.
13. This is Back East, colloquially known as New England. It contains most of the 50 states because the Pilgrims thought small. That’s why they’re so rude Back East, you know. They don’t have room enough to spread out their yoga mats and become one with the universe.
14. New York, where the official state animal is the bagel.

Source: http://www.etherfarm.com/etherblog/a...224225238.html

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by pretermitted_child
I ran across this map, which reminded me of "The view of the world from 9th Avenue" cover of The New Yorker:

This is a rude reminder that we are on the same continent as the rest of the country. Nevada is so big that it's usually possible to forget this.

It's a banal take-off on a map of the U.S. according to Reagan.

[Jack Manfred]

My relatives went to Novella Spa this past weekend. They enjoyed it and would recommend it to others.

[c2ed]

So how much does it suck to be one of those whose exam got messed up by flooding or the software for the laptop exams? 700 people were affected out of 4700 or so? That's a pretty good chunk of people the bar examiners need to deal with now.

It's good that they can see how long people were held up in the exam by the computer glitches so they can somehow try to reward time, but you know if anyone just barely misses the cutoff score they're going to appeal.

C(I'll take good ol' pen and paper ... hasn't failed me yet)deuced

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Anyone know which SF (not SV) firms are hiring securities litigators?

I heard about some flooding (potential electrical hazard) and software problems too...

In the application somewhere, isn't there a section stating something to the effect that by electing to use a device (typewriter/laptop) the applicant assumes any and all performance-affecting risks associated with the device?

I don't recall.

[c2ed]

Originally posted by Hyperbaric

In the application somewhere, isn't there a section stating something to the effect that by electing to use a device (typewriter/laptop) the applicant assumes any and all performance-affecting risks associated with the device?

Dating myself like milk gone bad, laptops weren't even an option when I took the bar, so I'm of little use in answering this. However, I'd suspect that it would mean that you assume the risk of your computer being temperamental - not there being a systemwide glitch that would keep anyone who took it via software from having a chance to finish the exam. There's gotta be a limitation on that disclaimer somehow.

The flooding also sucks, though this is California. It seems every couple years there is some sort of natural disaster (though usually quakes) that disrupt what otherwise would be a perfectly tranquil exam.

C(a bigger nuisance to me were the tiny tables used that shook everytime the numbnut next to me erased his answer)deuced

[Flinty_McFlint]

Originally posted by c2ed
Dating myself like milk gone bad, laptops weren't even an option when I took the bar, so I'm of little use in answering this. However, I'd suspect that it would mean that you assume the risk of your computer being temperamental - not there being a systemwide glitch that would keep anyone who took it via software from having a chance to finish the exam. There's gotta be a limitation on that disclaimer somehow.

The flooding also sucks, though this is California. It seems every couple years there is some sort of natural disaster (though usually quakes) that disrupt what otherwise would be a perfectly tranquil exam.

C(a bigger nuisance to me were the tiny tables used that shook everytime the numbnut next to me erased his answer)deuced

I'll let you in on a little secret, I was shaking that table on purpose, just to see if you had fries to go with that...oh forget it.

Originally posted by c2ed
...There's gotta be a limitation on that disclaimer somehow.

I can't recall, as I said, but I'd think fairness to all would place the limitation at where it is for pen-pushers. That way, any further risks (foreseeable or not) would be assumed by choice in order to reap whatever benefit (speed, neatness, etc.) the individiual applicant perceives in typing.

I wrote. I think I'd be irked (at least up until the time I learned I passed) if typists could get out of a portion of the exam (I heard it was the second PT) after otherwise reaping the benefits of typing, especialy if I felt the PT typists weren't responible for was the more difficult of the two or took place on the last afternoon when my energy was flagging.

It'll be interesting to see what happens.

[Jack Manfred]

Originally posted by c2ed
Dating myself like milk gone bad, laptops weren't even an option when I took the bar, so I'm of little use in answering this. However, I'd suspect that it would mean that you assume the risk of your computer being temperamental - not there being a systemwide glitch that would keep anyone who took it via software from having a chance to finish the exam. There's gotta be a limitation on that disclaimer somehow.

I don't have perfect recall of my Bar Exam (and for that I'm glad), but I remember reading the disclaimer for using laptops and thinking, "Well, if anything goes wrong, I'm screwed." It seemed pretty comprehensive at the time.

In practice, the proctors allowed people to reboot if they were having problems before the morning and afternoon sessions began. This inevitably delayed the start of the sessions. I remember becoming increasingly annoyed at these delays until, on Day 3, I thought I had a problem with my laptop. I think I resolved the problem quickly and on my own, but after that, I was happy to give everyone all the time they needed to fix glitches.

[lost in transit]

I am a mid-level corp. associate from NYC and am interested in lateralling back home to the bay area. Originally, I planned to seek a position at the traditional biglaw shops (latham, wilson); but have recently become very interested in the new Heller Ehrman/Venture Law Group practice.

My hestitation is that [when I left CA] Heller was not a significant corp firm in the valley, but with the VLG acquisition, it seems that things may have changed. Thus, my question is whether Heller has become a larger player on the corp market. That is, are they now perceived as a significant competitor to the lathams and wilsons? Or, alternatively, are they now getting a larger portion of the interesting deals? Finally, even if this is the case, do people still recommend latham/wilson and the like?

Thank you in advance for your opinions.

[c2ed]

Originally posted by lost in transit
My hestitation is that [when I left CA] Heller was not a significant corp firm in the valley, but with the VLG acquisition, it seems that things may have changed. Thus, my question is whether Heller has become a larger player on the corp market. That is, are they now perceived as a significant competitor to the lathams and wilsons? Or, alternatively, are they now getting a larger portion of the interesting deals? Finally, even if this is the case, do people still recommend latham/wilson and the like?

Thank you in advance for your opinions.

First, welcome back to the placid environs of the Bay Area.

Second, Heller definitely has increased the prestige of the firm in the past few years. Latham and Wilson will always be perceived by the general public as better, but I think Heller has gained a much better name for itself in the business world and from what my friends are doing there, their deals are pretty interesting and amazing that they work on. They've also opened up an office in Beijing, and while it's unsure how much work will really float into the SF office from there, there are sure to be more international issues that the corp associates will need to address and it lends an interesting spice to their work mix.

I'd say go for it - definitely a better work environment than Latham, they still have a terrific bonus system, and yes, you'll get to work on top-notch deals.

C(but do they have a margarita machine?)deuced