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.

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?

My DH was a sought-after software engineer and is now a lawyer. He now makes more like $400k with his bonus and is up for partner this year. You don’t understand how quickly the salary scales up. I’m a lawyer too but no tech background. I have literally never heard of a law firm paying for someone to go to law school.

Law firms do pay for folks with the right background and credentials. See:

https://www.finnegan.com/en/careers/roles/technical-specialists.html

I don’t see where it says they will pay the tuition?

It doesn't, and it won't. A technical specialist is not a path to becoming an attorney, it's a purely non-attorney position.

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.

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.

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?

My DH was a sought-after software engineer and is now a lawyer. He now makes more like $400k with his bonus and is up for partner this year. You don’t understand how quickly the salary scales up. I’m a lawyer too but no tech background. I have literally never heard of a law firm paying for someone to go to law school.

Law firms do pay for folks with the right background and credentials. See:

https://www.finnegan.com/en/careers/roles/technical-specialists.html

I don’t see where it says they will pay the tuition?

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?

My DH was a sought-after software engineer and is now a lawyer. He now makes more like $400k with his bonus and is up for partner this year. You don’t understand how quickly the salary scales up. I’m a lawyer too but no tech background. I have literally never heard of a law firm paying for someone to go to law school.

Law firms do pay for folks with the right background and credentials. See:

https://www.finnegan.com/en/careers/roles/technical-specialists.html

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?

My DH was a sought-after software engineer and is now a lawyer. He now makes more like $400k with his bonus and is up for partner this year. You don’t understand how quickly the salary scales up. I’m a lawyer too but no tech background. I have literally never heard of a law firm paying for someone to go to law school.

My brother is a patent attorney (and equity partner at his firm). One thing to be mindful of is that the field is changing rapidly such that reimbursement rates for patent work are going down. Clients increasingly want to pay fixed fees for patent writing. And his own view is that a lot of the work is being commoditized with little value being placed on good work vs. not.

More to the point, though, why do you view patent law as your only way to increase your salary substantially? If you are familiar with evaluating new tech/IP, perhaps there's a role for you on the investment side? Or, you say you don't want to be in industry R&D, but what about roles like product management, product marketing, BD, etc? I have a STEM PhD and am in a strategy position earning $250K working remotely and with tons of flexibility. I could earn a lot more if I were willing to trade away some of my flexibility.

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?

They don't need top tech talent. To be an excellent patent attorney, you only need a good enough knowledge of the tech, but you must be an excellent attorney. Firms will pay to train people in the most difficult and in demand tech areas--i.e., electrical engineers and life sciences PhDs.

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?

You have a PhD in biomedical engineering? From a good school? And you are a social person with good communication skills? You can find a firm that will pay a salary for you to work as a patent agent and pay a big chunk of your tuition while you go to law school part time. Look at Finnegan or Sterne Kessler.

https://sternekessler.csod.com/ats/careersite/JobDetails.aspx?site=1&id=10

I'm not sure what's on offer right now, but the USPTO also often offers tuition reimbursement for patent examiners. It goes away when there are budget cuts, but comes back when the office is desperate for people.

Look at the evening program at Georgetown or GW. Don't go to a lower ranked program. If you can get into a T14, you could consider going full time and taking on debt.

--Chemistry PhD, JD who practices patent law

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).

Anonymous wrote:Law firms that pay well are extremely snobby. Going for free, then making $180k as a first year associate, won’t work out for most people. This goes double for people with tech degrees who tend to have sub-3.7 UG GPAs.

I knew a lot of non trads older than you who got biglaw though. Wasn’t an issue.

Sorry maybe that wasn’t clear. I meant that, to go to a top firm, you need a top law school (T20 would be my personal cut off) because they are snobby. To get a full ride to a top law school, you need top credentials.

Law firms that pay well are extremely snobby. Going for free, then making $180k as a first year associate, won’t work out for most people. This goes double for people with tech degrees who tend to have sub-3.7 UG GPAs.

I knew a lot of non trads older than you who got biglaw though. Wasn’t an issue.

Engineer here with a PhD from the top program for our field. I currently work in regulations and am mid 30s. I was wondering if it'd be possible to transition into patent law. I keep reading how there is a need for them because of a supposed shortage die to the fact that you have to have a technical degree to even pass the patent bar and the number of lawyers with a science/engineering degree is quite low. Is this even remotely true? I suppose I could transition by working as a patent agent for a firm. The salary would be nearly identical as what I make now anyway. But here is my question - would firms pay for last school for someone I their late 30s to early 40s to transition or is there unwritten age discrimination? Like I said right now I work in a regulatory field and get to see IP/new tech all of the time, but I'm torn between how to advance my career further. Either I stay in regulatory or move into more of the law side.

Yeah, I won't beat around the bush...I'm looking to make more money in the future. I'm tired of being under compensated. No, I have no desire to go back into industry to do r and d. I burned out of the lab. Yes, regulatory can be quite lucrative too, but often in a consulting role, which I'm not so hyped on pursuing. The only way I'd be interested in pursuing law school would be to go debt free. Do firms still do that these days to acquire patent attorney talent? Am I too old? I know there are lots of lawyers here. If it means anything, my background is in bioengineering, thus I have extensive experience in biology and biotech, especially working with gene theraoy/gene editing tech that's used for all sorts of human medicines, used to modify plants/crops, enhance animals for agriculture or for engineering biosystems for production of valuable commodities like fuel/medicine/other.