|
I guess I don't really have a point to make here aside that billing 2400 or whatever can encompass vastly different experiences; I know people getting crushed doing it, but through whatever confluence of factors, it's decent for me. I play soccer, fool around with my hobbies, do stuff with my s/o, etc. it was just that post earlier about 2500 hours that got me thinking about this.
Mr Gentleman fucked around with this message at 19:21 on Jul 27, 2012 |
#
?
Jul 27, 2012 19:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 10:41 |
|
|
zilong posted:USPTO guys, how do I nail the phone interview I have next week? It's for GS-7 chemistry. My understanding is that these lower level interviews consist of behavioral questions and basic understanding of what the PTO does. That's exactly what mine was. Behavioral questions about time management, a time when you had to write persuasively or make an argument, etc., and some questions about the purpose of a patent and the PTO. No questions about science at all. Good luck, they weren't rough on me at all. Be prepared for them to be on a lovely speakerphone and have thick accents though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2012 19:22
|
|
|
Mr Gentleman posted:I'm on track to bill 2400+ but it's really not bad. my firm requires almost nothing in terms of non-billable time, so it's not like I'm working 10 hours to bill 5 hours. if I'm in the office, I'm billing. I think I have like 14 hours of work for the whole year that hasn't been billable. but the firm is also jammed with work. Mr Gentleman posted:I guess I don't really have a point to make here aside that billing 2400 or whatever can encompass vastly different experiences; I know people getting crushed doing it, but through whatever confluence of factors, it's decent for me. I play soccer, fool around with my hobbies, do stuff with my s/o, etc. it was just that post earlier about 2500 hours that got me thinking about this. gvibes fucked around with this message at 19:26 on Jul 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2012 19:24
|
|
|
Martin Random posted:I consider anything above 2200 to be a high billing requirement worth a pretty significant salary given what you're giving up to be able to do that, and in order to pay for the inefficiencies that arise from a worker devoting that much time to work and not other maintenance issues like cooking cleaning and attending to personal business himself. That's where you need the salary - to pay for drycleaning, food prep, laundry services, conveniently located apartment, all the poo poo that makes you able to not spend time on day to day and instead be a crisp, neatly pressed billing machine. Do they mean billable or time? That's an insane billable requirement, but not bad at all if it's non-billable too. No firm has an express billable hour requirement that high to my knowledge. Even firms like Lieff Calabraser that bill like motherfuckers say they only require 2000 billables. Gvibes, 2600 is loving nuts. How are you that efficient? I don't think I could get to that unless I was doing doc review all day or similar billable activity that's low-brainpower and high realization. Omerta fucked around with this message at 19:59 on Jul 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2012 19:56
|
|
|
Omerta posted:Do they mean billable or time? That's an insane billable requirement, but not bad at all if it's non-billable too. No firm has an express billable hour requirement that high to my knowledge. I was under the impression that 2400 billables was about standard for any big firm these days.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2012 19:59
|
|
|
Mons Hubris posted:I was under the impression that 2400 billables was about standard for any big firm these days. I think that's a big exaggeration. I've had partners show me associate billing lists and the average in notorious sweatshops (in Atlanta) was around 2150-2250. Full disclaimer: I don't know poo poo about the Northeast. And even if the firm did have 2400 billables as a requirement, they certainly wouldn't tell you in the interview. Mr Gentleman posted:I guess I don't really have a point to make here aside that billing 2400 or whatever can encompass vastly different experiences; I know people getting crushed doing it, but through whatever confluence of factors, it's decent for me. I play soccer, fool around with my hobbies, do stuff with my s/o, etc. it was just that post earlier about 2500 hours that got me thinking about this. I can see it being soul-crushing if you were transactional or something so your billable time would be split between 4 hour days and 16 hour days. Omerta fucked around with this message at 20:09 on Jul 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2012 20:04
|
|
|
My firm has a soft requirement of 1000 hours per year...... but then again I'm broke. As a lazy bum I'm OK with the tradeoff.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2012 20:14
|
|
|
Omerta posted:I think that's a big exaggeration. I've had partners show me associate billing lists and the average in notorious sweatshops (in Atlanta) was around 2150-2250. Full disclaimer: I don't know poo poo about the Northeast. yeah, transactional loving sucks; my friend who works "less" than me has a way worse life because he always ends up canceling anything he schedules for fun, while at the same time has to sit in the office doing nothing at times because he isn't sure when work is going to show up during oci, I found that places with strangely low billable requirements (I guess, e.g., 1600-1800 hours, adjust as needed for your city/practice area) needed more scrutiny. not all of them were bogus, but I felt a lot of people ignored three things: (1) what you needed to bill on paper vs. what you needed to bill to not get fired; (2) whether the line was so low because hitting that line was actually tough to do (which suggests various lovely things); and (3) whether you would need to be sitting at the office for 2500 hours a year anyways because of admin stuff/waiting for assignments/etc. I feel like most (but not all) people I knew who chose firms based on low billables ended up working just as much, or at least spent just as much time at the office, as people who chose firms with notoriously high billables. Mr Gentleman fucked around with this message at 21:37 on Jul 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2012 21:34
|
|
|
So, now that the bar is over, I'm on to apartment hunting.... Anyone have input on billing while on transit by reading documents/cases or redlining briefs or whatever? I'm considering ~1 hour commute per day in exchange for about ~$15,000 a year in housing cost and tax savings...
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2012 22:27
|
|
|
Napoleon I posted:So, now that the bar is over, I'm on to apartment hunting.... Some of the Mid/SmallLaw associates (30-50 attorney firm, which is mid to large for the market because we're not coastal) at my firm get a bit of doc review done on public transit. Typically one hour each way. It really depends on how well you can focus with distractions, and the type of reading. I'd also recommend printing four to a page; it means you'll be flipping pages less often so you don't have to move as much, and it helps you distinguish your doc review binders from everyone else's. What kind of transit are you thinking of using? I'd say train > light rail > bus for the transit around here; I'd probably slap subway in with light rail, depending on how crowded it is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2012 22:30
|
|
|
Light rail & subway in, car service home most nights. Are firms going to freak out about security if I do that? Napoleon I fucked around with this message at 23:13 on Jul 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2012 23:07
|
|
|
I would never imply someone was padding their hours. HiddenReplaced fucked around with this message at 23:30 on Jul 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2012 23:25
|
|
|
Mons Hubris posted:I was under the impression that 2400 billables was about standard for any big firm these days. But if you are in a super-busy practice area or something, things may be different. Omerta posted:I can see it being soul-crushing if you were transactional or something so your billable time would be split between 4 hour days and 16 hour days.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2012 23:54
|
|
|
Popero posted:Working twelve hours a day is A Bad Thing. I left after 10 hours today because I couldn't concentrate. I felt guilty the moment I opened the door to my apartment. Oh well. I'll be putting in a good solid day on Sunday...
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 00:04
|
|
|
HiddenReplaced posted:I would never imply someone was padding their hours. reported for lack of professional courtesy
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 02:16
|
|
|
Mr Gentleman posted:really? that's like 50 hours a week over 48 weeks. What year are you? I don't mean this as an insult at all, but this mindset is how I was when I first started as a junior associate. As I get more senior, I'm finding that 50 hours billed as a first year is far different than billing 50 hours now. And whatever practice area you are in, it's hard to avoid peaks and valleys in your hours, unless you just do massive amounts of doc review/diligence (which also allows you to be more efficient with your time spent in the office).
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 04:47
|
|
|
Omerta posted:Do they mean billable or time? Billable. And they say "more than X hours" which means its a minimum.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 05:46
|
|
|
Omerta posted:I think that's a big exaggeration. I've had partners show me associate billing lists and the average in notorious sweatshops (in Atlanta) was around 2150-2250. Full disclaimer: I don't know poo poo about the Northeast. The official requirements are 2000 at most firms in the DC/NY market. Most people where I am are on track for significantly more this year, but we're also hiring a lot. Classmates in biglaw seem to be in similar experiences - 2000 official, everyone is on track for more, but they're trying to bring it down to the 2050-2250 level per person because more than that just isn't healthy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 06:27
|
|
|
Martin Random posted:Billable. And they say "more than X hours" which means its a minimum. That can't be correct. They're exaggerating or you misunderstood them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 06:34
|
|
|
commish posted:What year are you? I don't mean this as an insult at all, but this mindset is how I was when I first started as a junior associate. As I get more senior, I'm finding that 50 hours billed as a first year is far different than billing 50 hours now. And whatever practice area you are in, it's hard to avoid peaks and valleys in your hours, unless you just do massive amounts of doc review/diligence (which also allows you to be more efficient with your time spent in the office). first year. and I can agree with this given what more senior associates do; although our senior associates are logjammed like crazy too (as in people are having difficulty even staffing new cases). those guys appear to range from living at the office to very reasonable hours at the office. I will say I do zero doc review now (I have done a little). again, like I said above, I don't have any real point to make. I just wanted to convey my experience because the guy who mentioned billing 2500 hours made me think about my own numbers and what it's been like. Mr Gentleman fucked around with this message at 07:27 on Jul 28, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 07:21
|
|
|
Omerta posted:That can't be correct. They're exaggerating or you misunderstood them. It's in the offer letter. My guess is that they pad the gently caress out of their hours, or outright lie.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 08:03
|
|
|
Linguica posted:It's "clientele". Actualy it's "clientèle" 
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 21:41
|
|
|
It's actually "rent"
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 21:50
|
|
|
Gotta love state appellate defenders. Looking at two briefs right now: 1st one: On appeal from the dismissal of defendant's post conviction petition, the state appellate defender argues that the state appellate defender provided ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal. Almost got me to concede, well played. 2nd one: state appellate defender cites record and cuts off the last sentence. Argues that prosecutor misstated the law and the judge fell for it. Last sentence is judge's response that he knows the law and the prosecutor is wrong. Agesilaus fucked around with this message at 23:22 on Jul 28, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 23:18
|
|
|
Agesilaus posted:Gotta love state appellate defenders. Looking at two briefs right now: My favorite appellate argument - from the state public defender appeals division - was that the court erred in granting the public defender's own motion during trial. It was a really stupid motion, but still. The Court of Appeals had fun with that one. I don't have the cite, but it's Orville Newhall v. State of Alaska. Or maybe it's Newhill. Or something.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 23:59
|
|
|
BigHead posted:My favorite appellate argument - from the state public defender appeals division - was that the court erred in granting the public defender's own motion during trial. It was a really stupid motion, but still. The Court of Appeals had fun with that one. I don't have the cite, but it's Orville Newhall v. State of Alaska. Or maybe it's Newhill. Or something. hth
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2012 00:19
|
|
|
BigHead posted:My favorite appellate argument - from the state public defender appeals division - was that the court erred in granting the public defender's own motion during trial. It was a really stupid motion, but still. The Court of Appeals had fun with that one. I don't have the cite, but it's Orville Newhall v. State of Alaska. Or maybe it's Newhill. Or something. I had a similar one late last year: the state appellate defender argued that the court improperly denied the people's request for a continuance.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2012 00:28
|
|
|
BigHead posted:My favorite appellate argument - from the state public defender appeals division - was that the court erred in granting the public defender's own motion during trial. It was a really stupid motion, but still. The Court of Appeals had fun with that one. I don't have the cite, but it's Orville Newhall v. State of Alaska. Or maybe it's Newhill. Or something. "OOh! OOOh! I'm actually going to have an objection sustained! There's SupCt case law directly on point! Judge will have no choice! .... Sustained! OH YEAH! OH YEAH ... ... oh poo poo." Beware the Pyrrhic objection.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2012 02:50
|
|
|
zilong posted:USPTO guys, how do I nail the phone interview I have next week? It's for GS-7 chemistry. My understanding is that these lower level interviews consist of behavioral questions and basic understanding of what the PTO does. Zilong my interview was pretty straight forward - the interviews tend to stay away from patent-law related questions and more towards how you deal with deadlines, pressure, and interacting with various parties. I wouldn't sweat it too much, once you get through the HR gauntlet and sound like a normal person in the interview you should be in a good spot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2012 05:08
|
|
|
Thanks dawg  
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2012 05:13
|
|
|
Joined our firm's tax group as a junior associate. One of the partners in the corporate group was trying to bust my balls about tax lawyers and their lazy work ethic and 1300 billables a year. My response? "Jealousy can be so ugly". His response? "... Yeah.  "
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2012 06:11
|
|
|
Agesilaus posted:2nd one: state appellate defender cites record and cuts off the last sentence. Argues that prosecutor misstated the law and the judge fell for it. Last sentence is judge's response that he knows the law and the prosecutor is wrong. Oh, wonderful news. Right after I finished complaining about the SADs inability to quote the record properly, I noticed that opposing counsel's main case was over-ruled on this very issue by the state supreme court a couple of years ago. Of course, that supreme court case is nowhere to be found in the SAD brief.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2012 06:29
|
|
|
Schitzo posted:Joined our firm's tax group as a junior associate. One of the partners in the corporate group was trying to bust my balls about tax lawyers and their lazy work ethic and 1300 billables a year. What area of tax?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2012 14:23
|
|
|
Schitzo posted:Joined our firm's tax group as a junior associate. One of the partners in the corporate group was trying to bust my balls about tax lawyers and their lazy work ethic and 1300 billables a year. Good for you. Of all the folks in corporate law, I have found that the tax people have been the nerdiest and most awesome to hang out with. Also, the easiest workload.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2012 16:38
|
|
|
Thanks for the tips, PTO bros. I can't believe I've waited this long, and it's only half way.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2012 18:18
|
|
|
Martin Random posted:Good for you. Of all the folks in corporate law, I have found that the tax people have been the nerdiest and most awesome to hang out with. Also, the easiest workload. Not in Tax Law, though I do deal (amongst other things) with tax stuff at my firm. I tend to enjoy the tax-related work the most out of all my duties. I even have a copy of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and the Treasury Regulations (which I'm glancing at right now). Good times. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2012 18:34
|
|
|
PTO buds, want to get some beers after work some time next week? Thinking like Wednesday or so, maybe Rock It Grill or some other gay bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2012 19:22
|
|
|
Baruch Obamawitz posted:PTO buds, want to get some beers after work some time next week? Thinking like Wednesday or so, maybe Rock It Grill or some other gay bullshit. Ooh that sounds fun. I don't check this thread much these days but I just stopped by and I think I could go for it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2012 22:01
|
|
|
Now that the bar's over, I can draw again. Except drawing is hard. Remembering things I learned for the bar is also hard. I try to think back to secured transactions and all I can remember is this one problem in law school about repossessing someone's $10,000 myna bird. Whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2012 22:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 10:41 |
|
|
entris posted:What area of tax? Mix of planning and litigation at this stage, not sure which way I'll end up going right now, still too new to have much of an opinion either way.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2012 02:18
|
|