Neither highly regarded nor highly profitable.

Does anyone actually like these firm retreats though? They're generally mandatory, even if the bosses say otherwise, and you have to spend the entire time with a bunch of loser attorneys.

I actually enjoy our firm retreats. They are fun, informative, and allow us to bond with our colleagues in a fun, informal atmosphere. To all the MWE haters out there, get a life!

2:11 is certain that IT admins at MWE log their internet browsing and log keystrokes..

I think (s)he wants a raise.

2:11 you're a piker.

2:11 you're a piker.

I'm with 2:11 pm. Get a life or better yet, get back to work.

2:35 - I'm with your mom.

A mom joke. Oh, too funny. Hahahaha. HuzzaH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Check your facts, this email was not circulated to all MWE associates.

Who cares about MWE. It's the safety school of biglaw and by all accounts a horrid sweatshop.

The sanction award HAS NOT been affirmed by the 10th Circuit (or the Federal Circuit, which has jurisdiction over this patent action).

The Denver Post got some of its facts wrong.

This article gives a better overview:
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202990197454

The sanction award HAS NOT been affirmed by the 10th Circuit (or the Federal Circuit, which has jurisdiction over this patent action).

The Denver Post got some of its facts wrong.

This article gives a better overview:
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202990197454

why did the judge even let the case go to jury if he was going to overturn any verdict b/c of mwe's courtroom tactics? doesn't make sense.

That retreat memo *HAS NOT* been circulated to all associates. YOUR SOURCE IS WRONG.

Yes, sanctions are bad, but this isn't over yet given the appeals ahead.

MWE is a sweatshop to the same degree as Gibson, DLA, Cooley, etc. Associates in demanding practice groups work hard at most big firms. MWE's hours are not out of the ordinary. If you don't like working hard, then maybe biglaw isn't where you belong in the first place.

I have never seen a single drink ticket handed out at an MWE event. They always let us drink as much as we want.

Before posting this blog, I think DAVID LAT should have done more research than just the Denver Post. This story was reported more than a week ago in numerous legal publications. Not only is DAVID LAT relying on a non-legal publication like the Denver Post, which gets several important facts wrong, but he instead parlays this into an attack on the firm as a whole. Get over yourself, LAT. Maybe you should (1) fix this post with a correction, and (2) hire a fact checker since your Ivy League mind can't be bothered with such tasks.

Sorry, not all of us can go to Harvard/Yale and get offers at Cravath and enjoy lockstep bonuses. How's the weather up at the top of that ivory tower?

They will pay for it by using more Staff Attorneys and fewer associates and farming work to Texas.

Dear ATL_Ombudsman,

What are the factual errors?

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202990197454

Is this one accurate?

No such email was circulated here. I have been to many MWE events and there has never been a drink ticket in sight.

MWE is for poor people . . .

No drink tickets are needed because they serve smirnoff, johnnie walker red and two buck chuck.

@5:23 PM

The following statement in the Denver Post story is both factually incorrect and then quoted out of context in David Lat's blog:
"The U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals saw it differently and affirmed Matsch's decision to overturn the verdict."

Problems:
1. Back in February 2007, the FEDERAL CIRCUIT (not the Tenth Circuit because this is a patent case) affirmed Judge Matsch's decision to throw out the jury verdict.

2. Contextually, David Lat's blog post took the above quote to indicate the Matsch's sanctions have been affirmed. However, that's not true. As the Law.com article pointed out, the lawyers can appeal -- meaning these sanctions may not stick. Actually, at least The Denver Post included in that article the firm's statement that they intend to appeal. However, Lat chose to leave that out.

Overall, this article does a much better job of laying out the problem and why this whole issue has caused a stir in the legal community:

--------------------------------------------------------

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202990197454

Federal Judge Blasts Top IP Litigators
Zusha Elinson
The Recorder
02-15-2008

Two of the San Francisco Bay Area's most prominent IP litigators were excoriated this week by a federal judge for allegedly misleading jurors in a patent infringement trial.

McDermott Will & Emery's Terrence McMahon and Vera Elson were chastised for "abuse of advocacy" in the trial judge's Tuesday order requiring the firm and its client to pay the opposing side's attorney fees.

Colorado U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch's ruling comes in a patent fight between medical device companies in which Medtronic Inc., McDermott's client, accused BrainLAB of infringing on technology used to control surgical instruments. Matsch said the McDermott lawyers willfully ignored his rulings on claim construction in their arguments before a Colorado jury in 2005. In patent cases, those orders define the scope of the patents and, therefore, what the plaintiff's lawyers can argue for infringement.

"After the court issued its claim construction rulings, Medtronic's counsel proceeded cavalierly, with reckless indifference to the merits of Medtronic's infringement claims," Matsch wrote.

"At trial, [McDermott]'s conduct was in disregard for the duty of candor, reflecting an attitude of 'what can I get away with?' Throughout the trial, the [McDermott] lawyers artfully avoided the limitations of the patent claims and created an illusion of infringement. They did so with full awareness that their case was without merit."

The jury was originally swayed by the arguments and returned a $51 million verdict in favor of Medtronic after the 13-day trial. But Matsch set the verdict aside because of the "misleading trial tactics" by McMahon and Elson. His ruling was upheld on appeal last March.

With Tuesday's ruling on attorney fees, the firm and client Medtronic are on the hook for BrainLAB's costs, which IP lawyers say could reach into the millions, since it covers the litigation from 2005 to the present, including trial. BrainLAB has until March 12 to file its bill with the court.

McMahon is a widely known trial lawyer who heads McDermott's formidable IP practice. He's routinely called on for high-stakes cases. Elson is also a respected lawyer who heads the IP practice in Palo Alto. McMahon and Elson did not return phone calls and a McDermott spokeswoman said the firm had no comment.

Lawyers for McDermott, from Denver-based Holme Roberts & Owen, argued in court filings that trial conduct was "professional, proper and well within the bounds of appropriate advocacy."

"We were very pleased with the ruling," said Jay Campbell of Cleveland's Renner, Otto, Boisselle & Sklar, which represented BrainLAB. "We agree with the judge. In the context of the trial, it went far over the line of propriety."

Paul Vapnek, a legal ethics expert and patent lawyer at Townsend and Townsend and Crew, said the order shows that there are limits on "how far you can go in representing a client; winning at all costs is not what you're supposed to do."

Vapnek said the ruling in the Medtronic case will be held up as a cautionary tale for years to come.

"This is going to get circulated around the country as a symbol of what not to do when you're involved in litigation," said Vapnek, co-author of the Rutter Group's California Practice Guide to Professional Responsibility. "I'm going to make a note to put this in our book."

PROBLEM CLAIMS

McDermott was brought onto the patent infringement case, Surgical Navig Tech v. BrainLAB Mediz Comp., 1:98-cv-01072, in 2002. The lawyers argued for broad readings of Medtronic's patents during claim construction, but Matsch ruled them to be narrower -- making the argument for infringement more difficult.

The judge said in his Tuesday ruling that while McDermott paid lip service to the orders, the lawyers improperly pointed the jury toward Medtronic's broad reading of the patents. McMahon also made comparisons of the two companies' products, the StealthStation and VectorVision, instead of comparing Medtronic's patents to BrainLAB's product, "contrary to established law," Matsch wrote.

Finally, the judge railed on McMahon for using a Food and Drug Administration letter, in which BrainLAB sought approval for its device and alluded to Medtronic's StealthStation, to bolster the case for infringement.

"Medtronic's counsel were experienced patent litigators who understood the differences between the doctrine of equivalents and the FDA process," the judge wrote. "They knew that BrainLAB's statements in its FDA submission were not an admission that the BrainLAB products infringed the asserted patents."

Lawyers for McDermott argued that the court had an obligation to stop any litigation conduct that stepped over the line, according to the ruling.

Townsend's Vapnek said he had a similar initial reaction, but added that it can be an awkward position for a judge.

"Judges are often reluctant during trial in trying to control the lawyers too closely," Vapnek said. "They don't want to give the jury the impression they're picking one side or the other."

McDermott's lawyers also argued that the judge could have granted BrainLAB's summary judgment motion for dismissal if the case really didn't hold any water.

Judge Matsch, a respected veteran of the bench who oversaw the Oklahoma City bombing cases, shouldered some responsibility for not granting the motion to dismiss, saying essentially that he trusted McDermott when the lawyers claimed there were "material factual questions to be resolved at trial."

Although the firm wouldn't comment, lawyers speculate that McDermott will appeal the ruling. Vapnek also said Elson and McMahon would have to report themselves to the bar because of the sanction against the firm. "I would interpret this, in effect, as a sanction against them," he said

The retreat email was sent to associates on the ADC. Check with your ADC reps.

P.S. I've attended one or two MWE events where they had cash bars. A drink ticket would have been nice.

I have never been to a retreat where we had to pay for drinks. You just don't get top notch brands.

This thread has become a chat room for MWE marketing and recruiting staff...

I didn't get e-mail about cancellation of the retreat today (of course, it could have gotten lost in the endless PPTI's and other MWE mail that flood my inbox every day). Two years ago the "retreat" was in a Marriott outside of Dulles airport in mid-summer - so no great loss that it's cancelled as far as I'm concerned.

I recently left McDermott and clearly not a moment too soon. Despite the “two fries short of a happy meal” fiasco, McDermott’s management continues to turn a blind eye to its significant lack of ethics in its management ranks.

Recently, the arrogance of the IP department has shown no bounds. Shortly before I left McDermott, each department provided nominations for promotion to equity partnership. There was some semblance of partner involvement in this promotion process and therefore, a chance that fairness may actually prevail. Unfortunately, any notion of fairness is long gone. In an effort to “zealously advocate” (similar to the finding in the recent Medtronic debacle), the firm’s IP heads sought to promote a candidate to equity partner - at any cost. The firm’s IP heads submitted a memorandum that falsely attributed the firm’s success in the ITC to this candidate. More precisely, the memorandum attributed ITC victories to this candidate when the candidate never even worked on the cases. Even more shocking is that the firm appeared not to blink an eye at the blatant deceit but instead just promoted the candidate to an equity partner. I guess lying at McDermott has its benefits…

At least McDermott is consistent. It tries to hide its shortcomings under the rug – until the public finds out (in the case of the french fry comment or the Medtronic fiasco). While the firm touts its commitment to diversity and gender issues, another IP partner got himself into some big trouble that is conveniently hidden from the firm’s web site. This partner admitted to sexually assaulting an associate – the punishment? The firm moved his office one flight of stairs down and the victim -the poor associate – she was basically pushed out of the firm. Thanks for enforcing a reasonable sexual harassment policy!

Maybe I am not the only one who has figured out the skeletons in McDermott’s closet. Recently, there has been a number of high level departures in the LA and OC offices of McDermott as well. Sometimes, when your dirty laundry is finally aired, it has its consequences….

McDermott is great ... if you are an equity partner or guaranteed in writing to become one (slated). Every decision the firm makes is aimed at keeping that small group happy. My general impression is that I would not recommend coming to the firm with promises of promotion, better compensation, or the ability to build something new. These promises are meaningless if they are not in writing. I also would not come to the firm if I was a woman or if I want to be in a collaberative and accommodating environment. The firm was a nice place to work, but it is so focused on jacking up profits per partner that it has lost all the things that made it different. I don't know if what MWE former insider says is true. There have been instances of associates having affairs with supervising equity partners and getting promoted. Affairs are pretty common and most of it seems consensual to the couple, if not to everyone else that has to live with the relationship.

9:12 - Affairs and other office relationships are somehow unusual for Biglaw?

Ditto sleeping with partners. Has anyone had that *not* happen at their firm?

Saying MWE has sleazy office behavior is like saying Skadden works their associates like slaves. It's true, but you could insert any firm name and it would still be true.

9:50, you may not think it is a big deal, but it is when you have to live with it everyday. It sucks. To watch someone get promoted even when they did not come anywhere near to hitting billable hour requirements is hard to get over when other qualified people are passed over. To see a woman lose her job or feel forced to leave when the relationship tanks is not so great either. No matter what anyone says, the woman usually loses because the partners protect their own. I see it happening in my office right now. The partner appears to be involved with a junior associate that he supervises and helps set her pay. Anyone that thinks this will end well should think again. People are talking and that is never a good thing.

Denver lawyer here, so here's some local two cents worth of comment.

Judge Matsch is somewhat of a local legend. He has presided over some very high profile cases and is known as an excellent, fair judge. His decisions are very rarely overturned. The man knows his stuff.

Judge Matsch is also verrrrrry well known for ripping lawyers a new one if they step out of line in his court. And having seen Judge Matsch in action, when he blasts an attorney it is for a good reason. Any lawyer in this town will tell you: do NOT mess with Judge Matsch.

So MWE did just that and got their ass handed to them. Bully for MWE. Maybe next time they will do their homework, act like professionals and actually bring some value to the client.

FYI, "In bed" 2:44 pm, my mom is dead - HAVE FUN.

Lat has added a correction to the post.

This post is one-sided and not favorable to MWE. But gossip blogs like ATL traffic in snark, not balanced reporting.

Page Six isn't very nice to the celebs that it covers.

The appeal hearing is coming up . . . time to revisit this post?