Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Jobs and Careers
Reply to "Is there really a need for patent lawyers and is it possible to transition to it as a non trad?"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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).[/quote] 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?[/quote] 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.[/quote]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. [/quote] 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). [/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics