Twelve Tips to Become a Great Law Firm Associate

Nearly everyone at a law firm was an associate at one point in his or her career, and some played (or play) the part better than others.  Here are twelve things that, in our opinion, make an associate great.

Be Available And Responsive.  Partners expect you to be available pretty much 24/7, because, as noted below, one of your jobs is to make them look good, and they want to look good all of the time.  Check your e-mail and cell phone voicemails at night and on the weekend, and be prepared to work late at night or on the weekend.  Respond promptly to other attorneys’ questions and communications.  Set an out of office notification if you’re in a deposition, court, or on vacation, so that those you’re working with will know when you’ll likely get back to them.                

Don’t Be Helpless.  If a partner asks you to draft and serve a subpoena, or a 30(b)(6) notice, etc., don’t say right away, “I’ve never done this before.  Can you show me how to do it?”  Take good notes as to what the partner wants, then figure out how to do it.  Show some initiative and read the applicable federal rule, research the subject matter on Lexis/Westlaw, discuss the project with a more senior associate, etc.  Don’t immediately ask for help from the partner who assigned you the project.  There’s a good chance that the partner himself doesn’t know how to do the project (e.g., “serve Defendant A in South Korea through the Hague”), or, if he does, he doesn’t have the time to explain how to do it to you (it would often take him more time to explain it to you than to do it himself).

Know How To Perform Support Staff Functions.  You should know how to operate a fax machine, pdf a document, electronically Bates-label or redact a document with Adobe, and operate the copier machine.  In many instances, you’ll be working late at night or on the weekend with a partner, and you’ll be the one expected to perform these tasks.  Or, there may be many times that your support staff isn’t available during the day that your big brief is due to be filed.  And, in other cases, you may have to fix your support staff’s mess-ups.

Make Your Time Entries Spotless.  There is nothing worse than reviewing bills, a task typically assigned to younger partners.  It can take hours to review a single bill.  As an associate, make sure that your time entries do not need to be edited.  That means, at a minimum, no spelling errors and full time entries (e.g., “telephone conference with A. Partner regarding temporary injunction research,” not “telephone conference.”).  Also, know your clients’ policies regarding outside counsel bills.  Many clients won’t think twice about paying for a 9 hour time entry for a day spent legal researching the Erie doctrine, but will fly off the handle at a $5.75 charge for a bagel and a coffee that shouldn’t have been billed.  Others refuse to pay for entries that are “block billed.”

Turn in Perfect Work.  Assume that anything you turn in to a partner could be immediately forwarded to a client or filed with a court.  Don’t put qualifiers in your cover e-mail like, “I wasn’t able to spend as much time on this as I would’ve liked” as nobody likes to see such things and it’s basically an (advance) excuse for poor work product.

Don’t Turn Down Work.  Never turn down work (subject to the qualification immediately below).  When you turn down work, a partner will have to either find someone else to do the work, or do it herself, neither of which she wants to do (since she contacted you to do it).  The partner has already formed a belief in her mind that you are the right person for the job.  Don’t let her down.

Turn Down Work If You Truly Cannot Get It Done.  The only thing worse than turning down work is accepting work and then not getting it done in time or turning in bad work product, both of which will require the partner to do the work himself or to find someone else to do the work—unacceptable outcomes for the partner, which he’ll blame you for.  So, if you can’t produce great work product on time when asked to handle a project, explain to the partner that you’d really like to help but you have too much on your plate already.  In certain instances, you can suggest to the partner that he or she discuss your workload with the other partners you’re working with (i.e., that if your help was truly necessary, the partner could discuss your workload with other partners and rearrange your work flow).  You can also offer to help find someone else to do the work you were slated to do.

Take Charge of a Case / Your Assignments.  Sometimes, it’s tempting to be an automaton and just do the minimum amount required of you.  It involves less thought, and certainly less effort, to simply do the project assigned to you, go home, and never think about the project or case again.  But that’s taking a short cut, and you should strive to make yourself indispensable to those you work with.  For instance, if you’re assigned to research issue A, and in the process you notice issues B and C, raise such issues with your colleagues.  Others on your case may be on many, many cases, and may not have the time that you have to devote to the issue or the case.  Or, if you serve a subpoena on a third party, take charge and make sure the date for the deposition is calendared and ask the partner running the case if she’d like you to take the deposition (or help prepare for it).  Volunteer to respond to the summary judgment motion that came in.  Be the master of the case’s facts or law.  Relatedly, when assigned a project, know when the deadline is and stay in contact with the partner who assigned the project.  Don’t require the partner to hound you about your progress, whether you’ll meet the deadline, etc.

Speak Up Once.  The practice of law is an art and not a science.  This means that, for any given problem or issue, there may be many “correct” ways to handle it.  You may not agree with how a partner intends to handle a situation.  You can, and should, offer your opinion on how best to deal with a problem.  But once you’ve offered your opinion, be quiet.  (There are very limited exceptions to this piece of advice, mostly dealing with ethical requirements; but if ethics aren’t implicated—and they are not in the vast majority of instances—then say your opinion once and then let it go.)  Nobody wants the know-it-all associate to constantly repeat his or her opinions.        

Make Partners Look Good.  We’ve heard it been said that, as an associate, your clients are the partners.  There’s a lot of truth to that.  One of the main reasons for your existence is to make partners look good—good in front of clients, the court, opposing counsel, etc.  Don’t feed them factual or legal information that is wrong, because it’s unlikely that they’ll have time to check your work product.  Be available whenever you are needed.  Take charge of the case, and follow the other tips in this post.  Doing so will help both yourself and the partners you’re working for.

Don’t Expect the Work to be Glamorous, But Learn From The Work You’re Tasked With.  In The Karate Kid, Mr. Miyagi agrees to teach Daniel-san karate.  Mr. Miyagi tells Daniel-san, “We make sacred pact. I promise teach karate to you, you promise learn. I say, you do, no questions.”  Mr. Miyagi then assigns Daniel-san to a series of seemingly meaningless, mundane tasks—sanding the floor, painting the fence, painting the house, and waxing cars—that take Daniel-san four full days to complete.  Daniel-san eventually has enough, and confronts Mr. Miyagi, accusing Mr. Miyagi of not teaching karate but of making Daniel-san a slave.  Mr. Miyagi then tells Daniel-san to “show me wax-on wax-off” and Mr. Miyagi throws punches at Daniel-san, which Daniel-san expertly fends off with the “wax-on wax-off” technique that Mr. Miyagi had taught him to wax cars with.  Mr. Miyagi then does the same thing with “paint the fence,” “sand the floor,” etc., and Daniel-san comes to the realization that Mr. Miyagi has taught him a whole lot of karate over the four days.  (Clip of the movie available here.)

The practice of law is a lot like The Karate Kid.  Although it’s a shame to say, when you graduate from law school after paying well-over $100,000, you don’t have the slightest clue about how to practice law.  (Personally, we believe that a lot of this is attributable to the fact that approximately half of all law school professors never practiced law at all, and nearly all of them are not currently practicing.  Could you imagine if you were taught in medical school by a professor who had never stepped foot inside of a hospital?)  You’ll be assigned a bunch of projects by the partners at your firm, and hardly any of them will be glamorous.  For example, you could be assigned to draft and have a subpoena served on a third party witness.  And you won’t have the slightest clue about how to go about doing this, because law school doesn’t teach you such things.  But you’ll read Rule 45, find the correct form, fill it out, find a process server, and arrange for service.  And then, from that point on, you’ll be an expert at serving subpoenas.

After performing hundreds of tasks like this (e.g., answering complaints, drafting expert reports, researching arcane questions of law, drafting 30(b)(6) notices, interviewing witnesses, taking depositions, drafting declarations, filing motions in limine, etc.), you’ll be well on your way to being a “real” lawyer and knowing how to practice law and run a case from its beginning, through trial and appeal. And if you learn from all of the projects you are assigned, you’ll be able to best the Cobra Kai at the All Valley Championship with a crane kick.

Don’t Be Schlocky.  “Schlockiness” is caused by incompetence, laziness, or both.  Things that make you look schlocky (and that we see all of the time) include, but are not limited to, the following:

  • Filing a brief with missing citations (e.g., “Smith Decl. at ¶ __.”).
  • Not using proper Bluebook citation form.
  • Not pinpointing your case cites.
  • Fully justifying the body of your brief, but not the footnotes (or vice versa).
  • “Replying all” when you really only meant to hit “reply.”  (Sending an “internal” communication to opposing counsel is the worst form of this.)
  • Sending an e-mail saying, “Attached please find . . .” but forgetting to attach the attachment.
  • Attaching the wrong attachment.
  • Putting a method of service in your certificate of service that won’t be used (e.g., “the foregoing document was served by first class mail on any counsel who is not registered on ECF”).
  • When electronically signing your name (i.e., “/s/ John Doe”) having two lines underneath a portion of the signature instead of one.
  • Using the wrong date on your letters, briefs or discovery materials.
  • Sending out discovery without changing names from prior cases (i.e., “Party A requests that you produce your documents in 30 days” when you represented Party A two years ago and represent Party B in this case.
  • Sending a 10+MB scanned document by e-mail when it could’ve been made much smaller by printing the document to pdf.
Posted in Practice Tips | Comments Off on Twelve Tips to Become a Great Law Firm Associate

Williams-Pyro Files Patent Infringement Suit Against Warren Watts Technology

On August 3, 2012, Williams-Pyro filed a lawsuit (available here) against Warren Watts Technology, alleging that Warren Watts infringes Williams-Pyro’s U.S. Patent No. 5,518,075, titled “Fire Extinguisher.”  Williams-Pyro claims that Brent Williams, the son of one of the founders of Williams-Pyro, worked for Williams-Pyro and became “intimately familiar with the ’075 Patent and the best selling StoveTop FireStop product.”  Brent Williams then, according to the complaint, left Williams-Pyro in 2011 to start his own company, Warren Watts.  Warrant Watts “manufactures one product:  a stovetop fire suppression product named Auto-Out.  Warren Watts’ Auto-Out product is nothing more than a ripoff of Williams-Pyro’s StoveTop FireStop product” and infringes the ’075 patent.

Williams-Pyro seeks, among other things, damages and an injunction.

Williams-Pyro is represented by J. Lyndell Kirkley and B. Dan Berryman, both of Kirkley & Berryman, L.L.P.; and Michael Anderson, of Kelly Hart & Hallman LLP.

Posted in New Lawsuits Filed | Comments Off on Williams-Pyro Files Patent Infringement Suit Against Warren Watts Technology

Copyright Infringement Suit Regarding Facebook Page Removed to Northern District of Texas

On August 2, 2012, T-F Harbor removed a lawsuit brought by Sharon Lewis and Lisa Cauble (“plaintiffs”) to the Northern District of Texas.  The lawsuit (available here) alleges that T-F Harbor “maliciously contacted Facebook and had [it] remove [plaintiffs] as administrators of the Facebook Page [The Harbor Rockwall] and transfer the page and the administrator rights over to [T-F Harbor].”  The lawsuit asserts causes of action for copyright infringement, interference with existing contract, conversion, and quantum meruit.

As (correctly) noted in T-F Harbor’s removal papers, federal (not state) courts have exclusive jurisdiction over copyright infringement claims under 28 U.S.C. 1338(a).

Judge Fish will preside over the case.

Plaintiffs are represented by Jamie Pruitt, of The Pruitt Law Firm.

T-F Harbor is represented by Jon Hyland and Caleb Trotter, both of Munsch Hardt Kopf & Harr, P.C.

Posted in Judge Fish, New Lawsuits Filed | Comments Off on Copyright Infringement Suit Regarding Facebook Page Removed to Northern District of Texas

Chief Judge Fitzwater Strikes Down Farmers Branch Election System

On August 2, 2012, following a bench trial, Chief Judge Fitzwater, in Fabela v. City of Farmers Branch, Texas, entered an Order (available here) finding that the at-large system of electing members of the City Council of the City of Farmers Branch violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.  Plaintiffs contended that Farmers Branch’s system of electing City Council members at-large denies Hispanic voters the opportunity to participate meaningfully in the electoral process and to elect representatives of their choice, in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.  No Hispanic had been elected under the at-large system, and there had been at least four recent elections in which a Hispanic candidate had run for City Council and lost, despite receiving a majority of the Hispanic vote.

Judge Fitzwater agreed with the plaintiffs and ordered the City of Farmers Branch to submit within 60 days a plan to remedy its violation of the Voting Rights Act.

Plaintiffs are represented by William Brewer, III, Dunham Biles, Jeremy Camp, and Nathan Pearman, all of Bickel & Brewer.

Farmers Branch is represented by Robert Heath and John Long, IV, both of Bickerstaff Heath Delgado Acosta LLP.

Posted in Judge Fitzwater | Comments Off on Chief Judge Fitzwater Strikes Down Farmers Branch Election System

Judge McBryde Denies Joint Motion for “Brief” Continuance of Trial Date

On August 1, 2012, Judge McBryde entered an Order in JP Morgan Chase v. Hicks (available here) denying the parties’ joint motion for a “brief” continuance of trial date.  JP Morgan Chase, Hicks, HSG Sports Group, and Jacobs had asked the Court to extend the trial date by 6 weeks, with a corresponding extension to other case deadlines to “facilitate the further exchange of information through briefly extending the period for discovery, [as this extension would be] beneficial to all Parties’ understanding of the matters at issue in this litigation.”  (Joint Motion available here.)  The parties also stated that “the short extension requested in this Joint Motion will be beneficial in continuing” settlement discussions.

Judge McBryde’s Order stated that, after considering the motion, the Court believed that it should be denied (without further explanation).

JPMorgan Chase is represented by Robert Malionek, Julie Gerchik, and Wayne Flick, all of Latham & Watkins; and Michael Rochelle, of Rochelle Hutcheson & McCullough.

Jacobs is represented by Lee Morris, Joseph Wielebinski, and Phil Appenzeller, Jr., all of Munsch Hardt Kopf & Harr PC; and Chris Akin, Jeffrey Tillotson, and Michael Lynn, all of Lynn Tillotson Pinker & Cox LLP.

Hicks is represented by Lewis LeClair, Brett Charhon, and Martin Robson, all of McKool Smith, P.C.

HSG Sports Group Holdings is represented by John Gaither of Neligan Foley LLP.

Posted in Judge McBryde (Ret.), Northern District Practice Tips | Comments Off on Judge McBryde Denies Joint Motion for “Brief” Continuance of Trial Date

Judge Solis Denies Motion to Withdraw As Counsel in Galaxy Powersports Case

On July 25, 2012, Judge Solis denied Ufot Umana and Stanley Kuan’s motion to withdraw as counsel for defendant Benzhou Vehicle Industry Group (decision available here).  Movants had sought to withdraw as counsel after being discharged by Benzhou in March 2012, and movants and Benzhou could not effectively communicate nor agree on case strategy.  In their motion to withdraw (available here), Attorneys Umana and Kuan noted that no counsel was to be substituted in their place at the time.

Galaxy Powersports opposed the motion to withdraw, noting that the case had been on file since 2010, and that Benzhou, as a corporate entity, could not represent itself.  (Opposition available here.)  Galaxy Powersports argued that the motion for withdrawal was simply a “delay tactic.”

Judge Solis’ Order noted that the motion to withdraw was filed shortly before Galaxy Powersports filed a motion for summary judgment, and that withdrawal would significantly disrupt the prosecution of the case.  Judge Solis directed Benzhou’s counsel to respond to Galaxy Powersports’ motion for summary judgment, and stated that Benzhou’s counsel could re-urge their withdrawal motion once briefing on the summary judgment motion concluded.

Galaxy Powersports is represented by Krista Potter and Lu Pham, both of Cantey Hanger, L.L.P.

Benzhou Vehicle Industry Group is represented by Ufot Umana, of Munsch Hardt Kopf & Harr P.C.; and Stanley Kuan.

Posted in Judge Solis (Ret.), Northern District Practice Tips | Comments Off on Judge Solis Denies Motion to Withdraw As Counsel in Galaxy Powersports Case

Galderma Files ANDA Suit Against Watson Pharmaceuticals in Northern District of Texas

On July 27, 2012, Galderma Laboratories filed a lawsuit (available here) in the Northern District of Texas against Watson Pharmaceuticals.  Galderma claims that Watson submitted an ANDA (abbreviated new drug application) seeking approval to engage in the commercial manufacture, use, and sale of generic Adapalene and Benzoyl Peroxide Gel.  Galderma claims that this product infringes the claims of three of its patents.  Galderma seeks, among other things, damages and injunctive relief.

Galderma is represented by Michael WilsonJamil Alibhai, and Daniel Venglarik, all of Munck Wilson Mandala, LLP; and Aaron FountainStuart Pollack, and Jeffrey Johnson, all of DLA Piper LLP.

Posted in New Lawsuits Filed | Comments Off on Galderma Files ANDA Suit Against Watson Pharmaceuticals in Northern District of Texas

Combat Zone Files Copyright Infringement Lawsuit Against 7 Doe Defendants in the Northern District of Texas

On July 27, 2012, attorneys for Combat Zone Corp. filed a lawsuit against 7 John/Jane Doe defendants, accusing them of committing copyright infringement by illegally downloading (via BitTorrent) Combat Zone’s “motion picture” Mommy and Me #2.  (From what we can tell from Google searches, the “motion picture” is a pornographic film.)  A copy of the complaint is available here.  Combat Zone filed suit against the Doe defendants because defendants’ true identities are unknown.  Combat Zone intends to serve subpoenas on the Doe defendants’ ISPs seeking their true identities, and has filed a motion for leave to conduct discovery prior to the Rule 26(f) conference.

Judge Boyle has been assigned the case.

In prior, recent suits involving copyright infringement claims brought by creators of pornography against Doe defendants in the Northern District of Texas, Judge Ferguson ordered severance of all Doe defendants except Doe #1 (see, e.g., Order available here).

Combat Zone is represented by Thomas Jacks and Scott Meyer, both of Chalker Flores LLP.

Posted in Judge Boyle, New Lawsuits Filed | Comments Off on Combat Zone Files Copyright Infringement Lawsuit Against 7 Doe Defendants in the Northern District of Texas

Magistrate Judge Toliver Grants Summit 6’s Request for Increased Deposition Time in Patent Infringement Case

Summit 6 has sued RIM, Samsung, Multiply, Facebook, and Photbucket for patent infringement in the Northern District of Texas.  On July 23, 2012, Magistrate Judge Toliver took up Summit 6’s request for additional deposition time to obtain discovery from RIM.  Summit 6 had been given 30 hours to depose RIM, but, in response to Summit 6’s Rule 30(b)(6) notice, RIM designate five witnesses on a subset of the noticed topics, and expected to designate at least three more Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses.  Summit 6 argued that RIM’s decision to designate so many witnesses had “effectively run” Summit 6 out of its 30 hours, and that Summit 6 could not have foreseen that RIM would designate so many witnesses.  It requested 20 additional hours to take depositions. 

In response, RIM argued that Summit 6 “cannot account for all of the time it has spent taking depositions from RIM’s witnesses, which it should be required to do in order to prove that it is entitled to additional time.”  RIM further requested that, if Summit 6 was granted extra time, RIM be given four additional hours to use for deposition time and grant Summit 6 no more than 13 additional hours.

Judge Toliver found (opinion available here) that Summit 6 had:

[M]ade the showing necessary to overcome any concerns grounded in Rule 26(b)(2).  In particular, the discovery sought is not unreasonably duplicative, as [Summit 6] points out that it will address the topics of prior art, licensing practices, non-infringing alternatives, the factual basis for RIM’s defenses, and facts related to RIM’s alleged infringement, none of which have been covered in the prior depositions.  RIM has not suggested that this information is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.  Moreover, [Summit 6] has not had ample opportunity to obtain this information because RIM does not dispute that it has not yet designated the individuals who can testify to those topics. Indeed, RIM’s designation of numerous individuals (and more to come) in response to a single corporate deposition notice has hampered [Summit 6’s] ability to make the best use of its time. Finally, considering the magnitude of the case, the interests at issue, and the parties’ resources, the Court finds that the burden and expense of the proposed discovery do not outweigh the discovery’s likely benefit.

Judge Toliver ultimately allowed Summit 6 15 additional hours of deposition time, and denied RIM’s request for additional hours of deposition time. 

Summit 6 is represented by Douglas Cawley, Ashley Moore, Bradley Caldwell, James Quigley, John Campbell, Kevin Burgess, Mitchell Sibley, Phillip Aurentz, and Theodore Stevenson, III, all of McKool Smith, P.C.

RIM is represented by Thomas Melsheimer, Bret Winterle, Carl Bruce, Michael Bittner, Robert Earle, Scott Thomas, and Thomas Reger, II, all of Fish & Richardson; Charles Everingham, IV, of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP; and John Emerson, of Haynes & Boone LLP.

Samsung is represented by Brian Erickson, Andrew Valentine, Chang Kim, James Nelson, Krista Celentano, Mark Fowler, and Todd Patterson, all of DLA Piper LLP.

Multiply is represented by Eric Findlay and Brian Craft, both of Findlay Craft

Facebook is represented by Deron Dacus, of The Dacus Firm, P.C.; and Christopher Nalevanko, Corey Manley, Gregg LoCascio, John Dubiansky, and Jonathan Brightbill, all of Kirkland & Ellis LLP

Photbucket is represented by Dan Davison, Brandy Nolan, Miriam Quinn, and Richard Zembek, all of Fulbright & Jaworski.

Posted in Discovery, Magistrate Judge Toliver | Comments Off on Magistrate Judge Toliver Grants Summit 6’s Request for Increased Deposition Time in Patent Infringement Case

Posner on Too Many Patents

Judge Posner, of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, has written an article in The Atlantic titled “Why There Are Too Many Patents in America.”  We disagree with much of his opinions expressed in the article, but it is an interesting read nonetheless for anyone who practices patent law.

Posted in Developing Law | Comments Off on Posner on Too Many Patents