The Promotion Process

Litigation firm C&D – Their USP is Intellectual Property Rights litigation.

Associates and non-partner associates work 80-120 hours a week – the work is time and skill
intensive.

Jordan Ramirez’s review would be conducted by Casey Clark at the Annual review meeting.

Rumor of early promotion of Mona Leung to partner – first time there’d be such a quick promotion.

History of the firm

Tian Cho, Anjali Dasgupta are the founders.

They studied Astrophysics and Nuclear engineering respectively in the early 1970s

They entered the legal profession after facing innovators who faced expropriation by others. They
turned into Intellectual Property Lawyer.

They selected Boston as their geography instead of California – since stready stream of bright
students. They founded the firm in the summer of 1980. Boston didn’t have a prominent law firm
specialising in IPR back then

Focus of the firm

The firm was Profitable in first year itself. This was because their target audience was prescient and
they could see this kind of litigation fast growing.

CAGR – 6.4%.

They grew up working “Small guy” lawsuits but their large business came from large corporations.
More cases were in the plaintiff stage.

They would select cases which they felt were likely to result in litigation than settlement. In
settlement, cases are settled before trial commences. But in trials, the firm has highest competitive
advantage there. Trials also bring in the highest value.

Median award for damages in trials – 2mn to 16 mn USD. The firm would charge 30-40% of any
award amount. Hourly rate billed to clients was far higher than the actual pay for associates.

Annual revenue per lawyer – 800k. (Their Pay as per Prof. Mulla is 500k) Significantly higher.
Profits/partner – 1600k (which is what Prof. Mulla said their compensation is)

250 lawyers, 40 partners – 200 – associates.

Leverage ratio is 1:5, Market is 3.5.

Extra skill of additional education in engineering, science, etc.

IPR

5% CAGR in cases.

There have been an explosion of behaviour in terms of patent infringement cases since its inception.
Majorly sometimes patents themselves are invalid or granted in an unenforceable way.

The organisation also defends companies for frivolous IPR violation complaints.
 Litigation process

Case assessment phase - Here there is a litigator who focusses on overview. They assess whether
sufficient evidence would support filing or defending the lawsuit. Attorney drafts and reviews pre-
trial prleadings.

Discovery phase – Gather information from all parties.

Trial strategy – prepare examinationa and cross examinations

Actual trial – bench trial – without jury.

C&D Litigation model

Normal practice would have 2-4 associates working on the case, there would be a partner who
would oversee their work. Attorneys writing pleadings to expert witnesses. 2-4 full time associates
with partner who oversees.

Skills required – orators, skilled technically in assessing merits of the case – ready to handle part of a
case.

Complexity and specializing – In the non-litigation track there exists a team leader. The TL manages
process of litigation. Strong management skills are required here.

Earlier there had been a model where people would go between being a team leader and litigator
but this wasn’t successful. Specialization was needed.

Team leader works with 2-6 associates at a given time. Sometimes multiple cases – 40 employees
are team leaders. Rest of the firm has litigators.

The organisational philosophy remains that they “Equally value TL and Litigators”

1/5th of the associates become partner

The base Salary remains the same for associates, but more internal credit and recognition is given to
TL..

Performance Assesment Process

This takes up 30% of the partner’s time.

There is an annual performance process conducted by the Development Coach. This spans from
associate’s first year to partner promoted 9-11 years.

Grading process – In this the Development Coach talks to partners, litigators, Team leaders, takes
notes – but not put in file. Something akin to 360 degree feedback

Grades on criterion –

1. Productivity (measures output in 2. Work efficiency (measures

my opinion)
3. Analytic – (measures Input in my
opinion)
5. Leadership – (Measures
Input/Throughput in my opinion)
throughput in my opinion)
4. Writing (measures input in my
opinion)
6. Initiative (Measures input in my
opinion)
 7. Independence (Measures
Throughput in my opinion)
9. Teamwork and firm relationships
(Measures throughput in my
opnion – cultural factor)
8. Judgement and maturity
(measures input and
throughput in my opinion)
10. Client relationships (measures
throughput and output in my
opinion)

The performance at graded at the following levels:

1. Meets partner level

2. exceeds average but short of partner expectation
3. average,
4. below average
5. unacceptable.

These ratings are given equal weight and converted to GPA. The GPA ranges from 0-4

Despite the grade, they don’t attempt to grade on the curve – Ensure that median grade is a C. Use
own discretion.

Not much focus on hours billed. Didn’t want to incentivize hours. Serve clients well, billing will take
care. Productivity grade – measures billed hours. Work efficiency. Not to make it total hours billed.
PA form for themselves, DC will later evaluate.

Evaluation weekend

They go to Cape Cod for the Evaluation weekend. Forced ranking method is used.

Two tenure bands exist: associates with 0-4 years and associates with 5+.

GPA plays strong role. GPA is a good predictor. Nothing differentiates TL and Litigator.

Associates are never told ranks, but their fit in the distribution is mentioned. Bands aren’t deflated
or inflator for any reason.

PAM – do not see assessment until the feedback form is given. The meeting lasts over an hour.

Annual bonus –

1. 100% of target bonus is given to the median employee.

2. The top 10% receives 140%,
3. bottom 25% - 60% bonus.

Incremental pay is low compared to industries. Total take home pay differs lesser.

Promotion to Partner

Progression towards being a partner. 1.6 mn – purchasing shares is the biggest investment.

Any one in bottom band for 3 years in row – must depart. Not in top half atleast once in any 4 year
period. Does not make partner at 11 th year – must depart. Most departures are semi-voluntary.
 Mona Leung

Top of her class at Masters in chemical engineering. She has Clerked for SC justice in the Appeals
court.

She is a courtroom advocate and has won cases worth billions of dollars. Sketches were shown at
Wall street journal. Skilled courtroom orator.

After her February performance there were rumours about her future at C&D – she might possibly
be leaving for competitor. Other rumours floated that she was earmarked for an early promotion or
both – partnership offer from main competitor. There has never been a promotion at a tenure less
than 9 years.

No formal news – person who spent could be first to tell newly elected partner she has made it.

Jordan and Casey

Jordan has studied Engineering physics from Caltech. She is a TL. Jordan became TL at 2 years. She is
the Top TL at the firm. 85% cases won, well above average. She is considered a top mentor.

Her development Coach was Grace who was an excellent partner but has since then retired. New
Development coach for her is Casey.

Casey is one of the longest tenured partners but has not formally worked together with Jordan for
over 3 years.