rethink(ip)

Whats Your Definition of a Rainmaker? Bullshitter?

Posted by Douglas Sorocco at November 24, 2005 12:02 PM

I really hope that the young associate who writes the BigLaw Associate is real and not some pseudo-writing experiment like Anonymous Lawyer.  The posts over at BigLaw crack me up and hopefully offer some unintentional glimpses into some biglaw practices.

For example, BigLaw’s newest post is entitled “A New Plan” and is the most recent in a series of angst ridden posts dealing with whether he/she/it/they should leave the biglaw firm where they are currently employed.

The whole post is interesting for the fact that he/she/it/they have finally succombed to the fact that they will never leave biglaw and he/she/it/they are justifying the reason for not leaving (although, look back a few posts for what I believe are the real reasons – money, awe from peers, and “biglaw prestige”)

What I found most striking in the post is this statement regarding the senior attorney she is assigned to:

… I have come to the conclusion that perhaps my problem is not the Firm, but Senior (and myself to a large extent). We have a totally dysfunctional working relationship. Senior is a rainmaker and knows how to keep his clients happy; not so much with quality work (although he is undeniably VERY smart), as with backslapping, belly laughing locker room humour.

What? Say again? Hello?

Yikes!

I don’t think my definition of rainmaker would/should/could be modified with the statement “not so much [because] of quality work”… I wonder if their clients feel the same way.

Where I come from (all at once … “Oooooooook – la – homa, where the wind comes sweeping down the plain….” [MP3]), modifying the term rainmaker in such a manner results in that person simply being a bullshitter – someone with a good handshake but nothing of any worth to the client.

Is this the definition of rainmaker that biglaw is teaching its associates and, if so, is it any wonder why clients are demanding change in how legal services are to be delivered?  What happened to client service, attention to detail, quality work and delivery of innovative, helpful and useful counsel?  

If this is the trend – maybe instead of Chief Marketing Officers at biglaw, they should just hire Chief Bullshitters.  It would certainly be easier for recruiters to find them — you don’t really need any particular qualifications and if it is big enough of a trend, some enterprising CLE provider will start teaching “Chief Bullshitter Bootcamps” for the forward thinking law office.

I really hope BigLaw Associate is for real… it bodes well for us “little guys”, I think.

Who says the USPTO is not listening?

Posted by J Matthew Buchanan at November 22, 2005 08:56 AM

Did you catch this?  Last week, Steve posted another “thing we hate about the USPTO.gov web site.”  In that rant, Steve detailed one of our favorite frustrations about the web site — the fact that, before Sunday, you had to include the dub-dub-dub (www) in the URL, or you were out of luck.

Then, magically, the problem was fixed on Sunday.

Hmmmm.  It could be a coincidence, right?  Yes, but highly unlikely.  That problem has existed for as long as the three of us can remember.  It’s nearly popped a vein in my head at least 100 times.

The better explanation is that they’re listening.  That’s right, the big governmental agency that is the United States Patent and Trademark Office is listening to the blogosphere.  And someone, somewhere inside the agency fixed, nay, changed, something as a result.  How cool is that?

I wonder how long it would have taken to achieve this simple change had we submitted a letter or formal complaint of some sort?

It’s amazing that such a small technical change can be symbolic for something so big.

We love the USPTO.  We really do.  We want to see the agency improve…and we’re glad to help.  We’ll keep talking, and hopefully they’ll keep listening.  You can help with the talking side of the equation — If you have any suggestions, ideas, complaints, etc., let us know…

Things We Love About the USPTO.gov Website

Posted by Stephen M. Nipper at November 20, 2005 11:20 AM

First,

Then,...guess what starts working? Try going to http://uspto.gov NOW. (hint: it works)

See my previous "hate" entry regarding this issue here.

Things We Hate About the USPTO.GOV Website, #4

Posted by Stephen M. Nipper at November 17, 2005 04:53 PM

USPTO's website is http://www.uspto.gov.

Guess what happens when you go to http://uspto.gov. If you guessed "The page cannot be displayed," give yourself 10 points. If you've ever typed in uspto.gov and received the same error before, give yourself and additional 10 points.

I'm not really sure what it is called..."domain mapping" maybe, but I'm pretty sure its an easy thing to fix. (maybe someone will leave a comment explaining how to fix it)

Previous things we hate: No. 1, No. 2, No. 3.

And then there were two...

Posted by Stephen M. Nipper at November 13, 2005 12:58 PM

Do you know how many times this last week I had to answer the question "so when are YOU joining?" Oftentimes it was the first thing out of their mouths...ever before saying "hi." I was probably asked that question a dozen times at BlawgThink this week. Every time I had the same answer.

Sure, some of you know what I am talking about already, but for those that don't, last week fellow rethinker Matt Buchanan announced that he was leaving his small Toledo law firm to join rethinker Doug Sorocco's Oklahoma City firm (Dunlap Codding & Rogers). Matt isn't moving from Toledo (the question everyone was asking him), but will set up an office there in Toledo.

So....And then there were two "rethinker" firms (Dunlap Codding & Rogers and Dykas, Shaver & Nipper (my firm)).

It is an amazing opportunity for both of them (DCR and Matt), and the collaboration and association will benefit all of their clients. I know Matt. I know Doug. They have very similar experiences, backgrounds and practice areas. The two of them working together, with DCR's resources and assets, to serve their existing clients and the clients they acquire in the future is a truly amazing thing. And I have a front row seat!

So what does it mean for Rethink(IP)?

Nothing really.

Our mission remains the same, as will our content. Don't expect anything trendy (you're not going to see "RETHINK(IP), NOW ON CIABATTA BREAD") anytime soon, but I can tell you that we have some big plans...big I tell you!

So. Back to the original question. When am I joining DCR? I'm not. I have the absolutely best situation I could ever imagine right now. I'm in a growing little firm, working with great people and with great clients. Life is good. Will it keep people from asking? No.

Congrats Matt. Congrats DCR. What an amazing story that has only just begun.

And then there were two.....

Things we hate about the USPTO.GOV website #3

Posted by Stephen M. Nipper at November 3, 2005 01:21 PM

Give me a button to Assignments please.

Previous things we hate: No. 1, No. 2.

Email Subscription to Our Trademark (and other) News Feeds

Earlier today we had a reader point out that we didn't provide an easy way to subscribe to the Trademark News and Notices feed via email. To remedy that we created a subscription box which we'll have to incorporate into the border:

Enter your Email





Powered by FeedBlitz

You can also directly access that Trademark Feed sign up form by going to this URL.

While I'm at it, here are our Patent Lawsuit email subscription feed and our All USPTO News email subscription feed.

As always, please forward this to any of your colleagues who would find it useful.

Insourcing Quid Pro Quo

Posted by Stephen M. Nipper at November 2, 2005 10:31 AM

Insourcing is one of the main reasons Matt, Doug and I were drawn together almost a year ago. It was a conversation about how to work together to promote the insourcing of patent services to inland patent firms instead of outsourcing them abroad that started this great rethinking project. We've clearly gone beyond insourcing a major Rethink(IP) theme, but that topic is still close to our hearts.

In reviewing my client base recently I noticed something I hadn't seen before (and I'm sure my fellow rethinkers see too in their own practices), namely that the amount of work we are doing for foreign patent and trademark firms has substantially increased in the past few years. Substantially. Maybe The World is Flat has just opened my eyes more to the impact of technology and the Internet on my practice.

I'm not sure whether they are ditching their big city firms and insourcing to the Intermountain West and/or Midwest for customer service, for price, or for other reasons, but it is clearly happening. What amazes me is how quickly foreign IP attorneys get it, but US businesses as a whole don't.

Foreign IP work has traditionally been "quid pro quo," in that "if you send me work, I'll send you work." Perhaps it is due to the low performance of the US dollar or perhaps other factors, but the reality is that having IP work done in the US is as expensive as ever. In my opinion, this is a fact which is causing some foreign IP firms to consider other cost effective ways of protecting their client's intellectual property in the States, and one of those ways is insourcing. The result is that foreign firms are sending lots and lots of work to smaller firms in smaller metropolitan areas, firms that can't possibly support the old school quid pro quo.

Is it the end of "tit for tat" in IP work? I doubt it, but it is sure to have ripples in the market for worldwide IP services.

Other thoughts, insight and comments appreciated (the comments are open)...