Is there really a need for patent lawyers and is it possible to transition to it as a non trad?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s highly unlikely you will find anyone willing to pay you to go to law school. If you have the background to be admitted to the patent bar, you can do that and become a patent agent without going to law school. From a law firm’s perspective, it’s more cost effective to hire you as a patent agent (at a lower salary than a patent attorney), and then have you feed the technical knowledge to the attorney who’s going to do the actual legal work (and who paid for their own law degree).

But why would firms cheapskate for top tech talent then? Wouldn't that just keep driving the so called shortage? You can try to cheapskate and talent will just go to industry for $150-200k+. Why would and electrical/computer engineer work for a cheap lawfirm if Google would pay $200-300k?

Top firms paying biglaw market salaries aren't having too much of a problem attracting enough patent attorneys out of law school (without paying for their legal education). The firms having trouble are the smaller boutique firms who can't keep up with the biglaw (or Google) pay scale.

If OP has a sufficiently strong connection with a firm that they would want to recruit him, that's the one avenue that might make this work for him. But otherwise, it's too big a risk for a firm to do what OP wants. If he gets admitted to the patent bar and goes to work for a firm as a patent agent for a few years and shows himself the have tremendous promise as an attorney, then maybe the would agree to pay for him to go to a night program. But we're talking maybe three years at the firm before they'd consider it, for years for a part-time night program, that makes it seven years before OP could even start practicing law, at which point OP would start climbing the ladder to partnership. So even if OP started this whole process today, we're talking at least 15 years before OP has a prospect of making partner, which means probably more like 18 years before OP has a shot at making truly big money.

You clearly have no idea. Just because you're an attorney, it doesn't mean you know everything. Biotech PhD +JDs is a highly desirable niche. It is does not conform to your expectations.

Hmm, I guess I wouldn’t know, being an IP attorney and all.

IME, it’s less common for a technical person to make really big money, because they don’t tend to be the ones bringing in the business. The rainmakers tend to be on the litigation/regulatory side (they’re simply higher-profile), and then those people feed work to the people who know the science/engineering. Realistically, clients are less interested in how educated the technical folks are, they want to hear about big court victories, effective settlements, etc., because their ultimate business interest is in the resolution of the matter, not so much how you get there. Other than from a cost standpoint, that is, which is another thing that tends to keep rates for technical people lower. Clients are reluctant to pay a lot for services they think their own in-house engineers could do well enough (whether they actually could do it is a different issue, we’re talking perception).

You are still talking nonsense. There is a lot of very well paid legal work that requires a deep scientific background, particularly with repsect to biologic drugs. As somone now in house, I personally oversaw about $10M in such work last year. I am the client. I frequently need advice from PhD + JDs, not a generic litigator.

That doesn’t conflict at all with what I said. Yes, the technical folks do a lot of work, the question is who gets credit for the client relationship. A client may stay with a firm in part because of they have a really good technical team, but those usually aren’t the people who first brought the client in, and they’re not the folks getting the origination credit. A rainmaker isn’t working a lot of billable hours personally, they’re generating billable hours for everyone else to work.

You fundamentally misunderstand how clients give out work. And even if you were correct, it has nothing to do with OP. There is plenty of well paid work for a good PhD + JD without being your so-called "rainmaker."

I don’t think you understand how law firms work. I get that you understand the client side, but that’s not the same thing law firm internal dynamics.

I do deal with this and how partners get credit varies drastically from firm to firm. When the rules are archaic, giving credit to old white hairs, it often creates a negative client experience. We have moved away from those firms. I still maintain that his has nothing to do with OP, who is probably 20 years from needing to worry about any of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s highly unlikely you will find anyone willing to pay you to go to law school. If you have the background to be admitted to the patent bar, you can do that and become a patent agent without going to law school. From a law firm’s perspective, it’s more cost effective to hire you as a patent agent (at a lower salary than a patent attorney), and then have you feed the technical knowledge to the attorney who’s going to do the actual legal work (and who paid for their own law degree).

But why would firms cheapskate for top tech talent then? Wouldn't that just keep driving the so called shortage? You can try to cheapskate and talent will just go to industry for $150-200k+. Why would and electrical/computer engineer work for a cheap lawfirm if Google would pay $200-300k?

Top firms paying biglaw market salaries aren't having too much of a problem attracting enough patent attorneys out of law school (without paying for their legal education). The firms having trouble are the smaller boutique firms who can't keep up with the biglaw (or Google) pay scale.

If OP has a sufficiently strong connection with a firm that they would want to recruit him, that's the one avenue that might make this work for him. But otherwise, it's too big a risk for a firm to do what OP wants. If he gets admitted to the patent bar and goes to work for a firm as a patent agent for a few years and shows himself the have tremendous promise as an attorney, then maybe the would agree to pay for him to go to a night program. But we're talking maybe three years at the firm before they'd consider it, for years for a part-time night program, that makes it seven years before OP could even start practicing law, at which point OP would start climbing the ladder to partnership. So even if OP started this whole process today, we're talking at least 15 years before OP has a prospect of making partner, which means probably more like 18 years before OP has a shot at making truly big money.

You clearly have no idea. Just because you're an attorney, it doesn't mean you know everything. Biotech PhD +JDs is a highly desirable niche. It is does not conform to your expectations.

Hmm, I guess I wouldn’t know, being an IP attorney and all.

IME, it’s less common for a technical person to make really big money, because they don’t tend to be the ones bringing in the business. The rainmakers tend to be on the litigation/regulatory side (they’re simply higher-profile), and then those people feed work to the people who know the science/engineering. Realistically, clients are less interested in how educated the technical folks are, they want to hear about big court victories, effective settlements, etc., because their ultimate business interest is in the resolution of the matter, not so much how you get there. Other than from a cost standpoint, that is, which is another thing that tends to keep rates for technical people lower. Clients are reluctant to pay a lot for services they think their own in-house engineers could do well enough (whether they actually could do it is a different issue, we’re talking perception).

You are still talking nonsense. There is a lot of very well paid legal work that requires a deep scientific background, particularly with repsect to biologic drugs. As somone now in house, I personally oversaw about $10M in such work last year. I am the client. I frequently need advice from PhD + JDs, not a generic litigator.

That doesn’t conflict at all with what I said. Yes, the technical folks do a lot of work, the question is who gets credit for the client relationship. A client may stay with a firm in part because of they have a really good technical team, but those usually aren’t the people who first brought the client in, and they’re not the folks getting the origination credit. A rainmaker isn’t working a lot of billable hours personally, they’re generating billable hours for everyone else to work.

You fundamentally misunderstand how clients give out work. And even if you were correct, it has nothing to do with OP. There is plenty of well paid work for a good PhD + JD without being your so-called "rainmaker."

I don’t think you understand how law firms work. I get that you understand the client side, but that’s not the same thing law firm internal dynamics.

I do deal with this and how partners get credit varies drastically from firm to firm. When the rules are archaic, giving credit to old white hairs, it often creates a negative client experience. We have moved away from those firms. I still maintain that his has nothing to do with OP, who is probably 20 years from needing to worry about any of this.

At which point OP will be 60.

[Anonymous]

I know people who went to work as technical specialists right after their PhD, then became patent agents and student associates at the same law firm ( places like Sterne Kessler Goldstein Fox). But this was a while ago so I don't know if they still do that. And they had degrees from top schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I don’t think you understand how law firms work. I get that you understand the client side, but that’s not the same thing law firm internal dynamics.

I do deal with this and how partners get credit varies drastically from firm to firm. When the rules are archaic, giving credit to old white hairs, it often creates a negative client experience. We have moved away from those firms. I still maintain that his has nothing to do with OP, who is probably 20 years from needing to worry about any of this.
DP here who's brother is a partner at an IP boutique. I agree with the PP you are disagreeing with. I've seen this from the client side and have a fair bit of understanding about the internal workings of IP law (my brother was in-house at a big company and has also worked in a couple of different firms). You are right that there is some variation in compensation structures, but I think you are misinformed if you think that rainmakers are somehow not better compensated than people doing the technical work...and overall you seem misinformed about the trends in compensation for patent attorneys.

I think OP would be best off sticking with regulatory work if there is an opportunity to move toward private sector work in the same field with mid-6 figure compensation. If s/he were to go into non-R&D private sector work that is closely related to product, s/he could also end up mid-six figure easily...but with a much higher ceiling assuming they are well-positioned to move up the management/executive ladder (though the bioengineering labor pool is larger than other STEM fields, so in general it's harder to move up the pay scale). At the end of the day, though, it really comes down to priorities. I just wouldn't trade the stress of BigLaw for a 7 figure salary...especially at a time where clients are asserting a lot of leverage to reduce attorneys' fees.

[Anonymous]

Just a data point. 10 years into my engineering career (masters no PhD) went to law school at night, T50-60 program so solidly second tier though with a ranked patent law program fwiw, generous with scholarship money, not in DC but in a major legal market. Graduated law school in my mid 30s with solid (law review) performance just a few years ago. Had no problems getting big law offers in major markets in patent law, if that’s what you want. Though I think some firms were a little put off by age, I did not find that was the case in patent practices which seem to operate as a firm within a firm but also are home to a lot of second-career lawyers because of th STEM credentials required, it’s just a different set than the normal part of most practices. I would say engineers down to around the 30% rank in my class were able to secure big law pay patent work if they wanted it, some did, some stayed with smaller patent prosecution firms where they were already working. You could dip your toes in by taking the patent bar now and see if you find the material engaging, a stem degree is all that’s required for the patent bar, no law school needed.

[Anonymous]

Do NOT do it unless you are the kind of people who can generate business

[Anonymous]

I know someone who did this after top undergrad (cal tech) and top MA (MIT). After about three years work experience took the patent agent bar and worked as a patent agent while going to a mid ranked law school at night part time. He graduated and was an associate at age 30, we are 35 now, who knows if he will make partner. Senior associates at top law make about 400k. That has a terminal end though... if you don’t make partner you’ll miss out on the life of big bucks and you need to bring more than technical skills to make partner at big law. My dh was making about 400k at a firm and didn’t make partner and came in at director level in regulatory at a pharma company and is making about the same but it’s 250 base about 50 bonus and then about 100 in stock every year. The lifestyle in regulatory is MUCH easier and less stressful and family friendly. I’d save my sanity and just focus on regulatory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know someone who did this after top undergrad (cal tech) and top MA (MIT). After about three years work experience took the patent agent bar and worked as a patent agent while going to a mid ranked law school at night part time. He graduated and was an associate at age 30, we are 35 now, who knows if he will make partner. Senior associates at top law make about 400k. That has a terminal end though... if you don’t make partner you’ll miss out on the life of big bucks and you need to bring more than technical skills to make partner at big law. My dh was making about 400k at a firm and didn’t make partner and came in at director level in regulatory at a pharma company and is making about the same but it’s 250 base about 50 bonus and then about 100 in stock every year. The lifestyle in regulatory is MUCH easier and less stressful and family friendly. I’d save my sanity and just focus on regulatory.

You mentioned you DH is in regulatory. Is/was him also a patent attorney?

[Anonymous]

Another firm that pays for people with technical PhDs to get a JD is Wolf Greenfield. They all go to Suffolk law nightschool.

My impression is that you can make a ton of money if you make partner, but most don't. Regulatory work (which is what I also do) pays well, is less stressful, and doesn't require a JD.

One other thing to consider - do you actually want to practice law?

[Anonymous]

You can emigrate to New Zealand and practice patent law without a law degree. That’s what my molecular biology PhD BIL did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know someone who did this after top undergrad (cal tech) and top MA (MIT). After about three years work experience took the patent agent bar and worked as a patent agent while going to a mid ranked law school at night part time. He graduated and was an associate at age 30, we are 35 now, who knows if he will make partner. Senior associates at top law make about 400k. That has a terminal end though... if you don’t make partner you’ll miss out on the life of big bucks and you need to bring more than technical skills to make partner at big law. My dh was making about 400k at a firm and didn’t make partner and came in at director level in regulatory at a pharma company and is making about the same but it’s 250 base about 50 bonus and then about 100 in stock every year. The lifestyle in regulatory is MUCH easier and less stressful and family friendly. I’d save my sanity and just focus on regulatory.

You mentioned you DH is in regulatory. Is/was him also a patent attorney?

Yes, but also practiced fda regulatory while at his firm. Focus on drugs and med devices while at his firm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is no shortage of patent attorneys.

Signed,
-A patent attorney who has hustled for work/jobs my entire career

My DH works in tech, he is WAY more in demand and has more opportunities. Makes more money too.

You gotta work in europe, the number of people with Reg numbers in the USA exploded in the past 20 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no shortage of patent attorneys.

Signed,
-A patent attorney who has hustled for work/jobs my entire career

My DH works in tech, he is WAY more in demand and has more opportunities. Makes more money too.

Hmmmmm....based on a few posts it sounds like I should just stick with regulatory affairs/regulatory work. It seems to pay just as much as big law and the path is shorter.

How much do you make doing regulatory work?

Now $110k, but the growth for the regulatory world is exponential. It takes a long time and a lot of man hours to become an expert on regs that are specific to product development. You have to put your time in and start with lower salaries, but you can make $250-400k being director of regulatory affairs at a myriad of companies after about 10 years exp. I know one guy just left to be director of a company, and he's probably raking in half a million now. The company that recruited him was basically saying 'name your price'. My issue was deciding whether or not to stick with regs or move on to law. They're very related, yet at the same time much different.

Sounds like your current career path has good potential --$250 to $400K. My DH is a patent attorney, and he makes $300K.

As an alternative, have you considered an MBA or investment banking?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Another firm that pays for people with technical PhDs to get a JD is Wolf Greenfield. They all go to Suffolk law nightschool.

My impression is that you can make a ton of money if you make partner, but most don't. Regulatory work (which is what I also do) pays well, is less stressful, and doesn't require a JD.

One other thing to consider - do you actually want to practice law?

This is an important point. Do you actually WANT to do the work of an attorney day in and day out. Having excellent academic credentials, being used to working hard and willing to devote all your time and energy is just the minimum required at places with the much higher pay you are seeking
. All the people hired at for example BigLaw would have similar qualifications. But the pressures are a killer and turnover is high. Getting hired is just the start.