Law Firm Profiles Result

More Profiles ::

IN-DEPTH RESEARCH REPORT
on Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto

  • - Financial Information
  • - Compensation
  • - Billing Rates
  • - Lateral Partner Moves
  • - Pro bono
  • - Key Contacts

Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto

  • Designation: New York
  • Head Count: 173
  • Gross Revenues: $131,000,000
  • Revenue Per Lawyer: $755,000
  • Profits Per Partner: $890,000
  • Year Over Year Change: 2

Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto is a New York-based law firm. According to the National Law Journal's 2011 NLJ 250 rankings of firms based on size, Fitzpatrick, Cella had 168 attorneys and was the 238th largest firm in the United States that year. The firm ranked 173rd on The American Lawyer's 2011 Am Law 200 rankings of law firms by revenue with $127,500,000 in gross revenue in 2010. In addition to its New York headquarters, the firm has offices in Washington, D.C. and Costa Mesa, California. An intellectual property firm, Fitzpatrick, Cella's practice is divided into twelve groups: litigation, patent prosecution, trademarks, licensing and transactions, e-commerce and new media, pharmaceuticals and chemicals, biotechnology, copyrights, electronic and computer technologies, unfair trade practices, nanotechnology, and patent interferences.

Firm Rankings

Survey Rank Year Over Year Change Description
Am Law 100 NR N/A Gross revenue
Am Law 200 171 2 Gross revenue
NLJ 250 229 9 Lawyer head count
The A-List NR N/A Overall excellence
Pro Bono Scorecard 135 46 Pro-bono commitment
Diversity Scorecard 57 -57 Minority head count
Midlevel Associates Survey 70 -21 Job satisfaction
Summer Associates Survey NR N/A Summer programs

In the News

IN BRIEF: Apartheid Liability

: The National Law Journal : January 21, 2014

A federal judge ruled on April 17 that victims of South African apartheid can seek compensation from three Fortune 100 companies under the Alien Tort Statute, directly contradicting a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruling in another case implicating that law. Plus more from NLJ.com and other ALM publications.

Profit Pressure Prompting Firm Leaders to Swing Ax

Julie Triedman : The Am Law Daily : January 15, 2014

Six Am Law 200 firms have now confirmed layoffs of staffers this year.

Personal Notes on Lawyers

: New York Law Journal : January 09, 2014

Holwell Shuster & Goldberg has added John DiMatteo as a partner to lead the firm's intellectual property practice, among other news of moves and promotions.

The Churn: Ten McKenna Partners Join Sheppard Mullin, Plus More Lateral Moves

Tom Huddleston Jr. : The Am Law Daily : January 08, 2014

Sheppard Mullin adds 10 McKenna Long partners in Southern California; three patent litigators land at O'Melveny; and Weil hires a Goldman Sachs restructuring specialist.

Judge Blocks Generic Version of Actavis Drug

Jan Wolfe : The Litigation Daily : January 17, 2014

A judge has denied a bid by Amneal Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Lupin Ltd. to launch a generic version of the Actavis oral contraceptive Lo Loestrin. The ruling is a big-dollar win for Covington & Burling; Fitzpatrick Cella Harper & Scinto; and McCarter & English.

Litigation

: New York Law Journal : January 09, 2013

In this Special Report from the New York Law Journal: "Defining the Scope of Cyber-Insurance Protection," "How Inter Partes Review Differs From District Court Patent Litigation," "Utilizing Computer-Generated Evidence in Medical Malpractice Cases" and "'Allied' May Expand Circumstances for Reopening a Bankruptcy Auction."

How Inter Partes Review Differs From District Court Patent Litigation

Christopher E. Loh and Christopher P. Hill : New York Law Journal : January 09, 2013

Christopher E. Loh and Christopher P. Hill of Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto write: Inter partes review is an adversarial process that involves discovery and depositions, is subject to the Federal Rules of Evidence, and culminates in oral argument. Although IPR in these respects resembles patent litigation, there are significant differences between the two that patent attorneys—particularly litigators who wish to participate in IPR—should bear in mind.