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

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: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][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]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. [/quote]

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.[/quote]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."  [/quote]

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.[/quote]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.[/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