The Scoop

Perhaps the firm's finest hour in patent litigation was its representation of Polaroid in its 15-year battle against Kodak. Polaroid accused Kodak of infringing upon its instant photo patents. In 1990 Polaroid secured an $925 million judgment and Kodak was driven from the instant photography business. Ironically, on the day that Kodak's last furious appeal was exhausted, Polaroid's stock fell six-and-a-half points, while Kodak's went up almost four points. The reason: analysts had expected Polaroid to win more money than it actually did. The lead attorney in the case for Polaroid was Fish & Neave's Herbert Schwartz. (Sullivan & Cromwell represented Kodak.)

Getting Hired

Increasingly less selective

Insiders say Fish & Neave especially likes candidates from Harvard, Yale, Berkeley, Georgetown, George Washington, Stanford, NYU, Columbia, and Cornell. Several sources have told us that the firm has become "less selective over the past few years." Says one: "The firm generally hires attorneys with technical degrees who graduated from top law schools. However, their standards have recently dropped. Some first-years from my class at Fish did not graduate from top law schools." Says another: "The firm prefers strong academic achievement, but given the dearth of persons having both technical backgrounds and credentials from top law schools, Fish & Neave is probably more open to people from less competitive law schools than other top firms."

According to insiders, the firm has also taken a cooler stance toward hiring laterals. Explains one: "Several years ago, during an extremely busy period, the firm attempted to reduce the heavy workload on associates by hiring a relatively large number of lateral associates, something it had done very little of in the past." Continues that contact: "This effort did not accomplish its intended goal."

Technical backgrounds preferred

Most candidates who submit resumes to Fish & Neave have technical backgrounds, sources say, but such a background is not a requirement, especially if the applicant is interested in copyright or trademark law. "I wouldn't say that Fish & Neave requires students with an engineering background, which sets it apart from most firms engaged in this kind of work," a source says. Still, an insider tells us that out of a class of 20 people, generally 15 to 18 will have technical backgrounds. Another insider says that "30 percent have an engineering background, about 50 percent have science backgrounds. The firm is particularly keen on applicants with an electrical engineering background."

The interview: Show devotion to IP work

As for the interview, a source advises: "To work at this firm, you have to be totally interested in intellectual property." Another associate agrees, advising: "Sell them on your interest in IP. Say 'This is what I want to do.' Other than that, if you don't have a technical background, express a willingness to tackle technical work. You can't be afraid of it."

Our Survey Says

Old school IP firm

Although it practices cutting-edge law, Fish & Neave seems preoccupied with its past. Our insiders nearly universally acknowledge the firm's outstanding reputation, and also frequently evoke the firm's long history. Says one, "We are considered one of the oldest and best patent firms in the world." Another describes the firm as "one of the oldest and very best intellectual property litigation firms in the country." Still another explains: "The firm's reputation is tied to the fact that it is one of the oldest intellectual property litigation boutiques around. The firm clearly wants to gain any benefit that flows from that reputation and has adopted the Wright Brothers airplane as a trademark."

Fish associates enjoy the fact that the firm continues to work on high profile cases. Many cite this fact as a reason they joined the firm, and as one of the uppers of working there. "I enjoy working on high-stakes cases with complex technologies," reports one mid-level associate. "The clients are high profile and the cases are often in the newspaper," reports one associate.

Traditional culture

Not surprisingly, Fish & Neave insiders regard their firm as a fairly traditional employer. One describes Fish as "a bit old fashioned, somewhat conservative, but collegial. The firm is imbued with a sense of history and tradition." In less flattering terms, another associate describes the firm as "hard-working, a little stiff, and a little technical."

The surest evidence of Fish's traditional culture is the firm's dress code. One insider reports: "It's relatively formal, professional dress. There's no dress-down days." This contact isn't exactly correct, however, the firm implemented casual Fridays for the first time in summer 1998, reverting back to business dress on Fridays in September. (The firm has reinstated casual Fridays for Summer 1999.) However, some Fish insiders still find their dress code too restrictive. One insider regards the policy as "a little uptight if you ask me. You feel kind of like an idiot walking around the area outside on Fridays during lunch when you're the only one wearing a suit and tie." Another insider gripes: "There was a casual Friday last summer for the first time. Although widely accepted and appreciated, the partners dismissed it without any feedback from associates after the summer." However, dress at Fish isn't totally uptight. One contact concedes that "men do wander the halls without coats." And, reports another contact: "Dress is fairly conservative but not Wall Street. Green, brown, and other color suits are fine. Also, women can wear pantsuits."

Mellow hours

"Hours here are great," raves one associate. A Fish litigator notes that "in litigation, it varies quite a bit - some months are easy, some brutal, but it evens out over the course of a year." That insider reports that "overall, it is very doable and you can maintain a life outside of work." Another contact agrees: "The hours vary drastically depending on the type of work one is doing. However, in general they are very manageable and are by no means completely ludicrous or overwhelming."

The firm's assignment system, however, draws some fire. "Work is distributed in an irrational way," says one insider. "One partner I worked with complained that he had been trying to find someone with my background for over a year," reports that insider. "Simultaneously I was requesting work similar to what this partner had wanted."

Fairly good partnership prospects

As for getting the partnership nod, Fish insiders seem to be optimistic. "[Partnership prospects are] better than at a general practice sweatshop," opines one. "If you can tough it out for eight-plus years," another says, "you've got a chance, but most leave before that." A more self-assured colleague asserts that "if you are good, you will make it." Although some Fish associates are not sure of their standing, others feel like the firm communicates to associates well. "Most people are given clear signals early on if they will not make partner," says one associate. "If you're encouraged to stay, it is more likely that your chances are high." Explains another: "You are reviewed each year and your prospects of making partner are part of that review." When asked what it takes to make partner at Fish, insiders again turn to the importance of partners with big books of business. While many associates cite the usual "work for many partners" and "do good work," one advises that associates "suck up to a powerful partner."

Employment Contact

Deirdre M. Rogan
Director of Legal Personnel
(212) 569-9118

Key Competitors

Kenyon & Kenyon;Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto;Pennie & Edmonds;Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati

More Company Profiles

For more career information, go to Vault.com
©2000, Vault.com Inc

Click here to email this page to a friend