In my pre-law society org, we were talking to these lawyers that had come to speak with us and give us advice, and they said that Law-school and law-jobs are in high demand for Engineering majors. He then proceeded to say that anyone in the society that was an engineering major should talk to him after class because he might have an internship opportunity. So yeah, I’d say being an Engineer gives you an advantage
@Daniprelaw: To be clear, it gives an advantage in certain forms of patent work. If you want to do something else, your engineering degree doesn’t do much.
The LSAT score is the single most important factor in law school admissions. Although not an exact formula, one’s LSAT score probably accounts for about 60% to 65% of an admissions decision with one’s undergraduate GPA the second most important factor.
An engineering or science background is essential for one intending to practice in the area of patents & trademarks. The patent bar exam is shorter & easier than the regular bar exam such as the UBE.
If willing to consider Canadian law schools, then the LSAT is much less significant with the primary emphasis on one’s GPA.
P.S. LORs are not important unless they contain negative or derogatory information / insights / opinions about one’s ethics or honesty or, possibly, work ethic.
True for every school but Boalt.
I’d rate it more 55/45, but we are both just speculating here.
OP: Without an actual LSAT score, nobody can assess your chances for admission to any top law school. For Harvard, you probably should have a 170 or above in order to be a competitive candidate for admission. And only your undergraduate GPA is relevant for admission purposes as all are expected to have earned high grades in graduate school.
@Demosthenes49 That actually makes sense! They were Patent Lawyers after all! I was really confused as to why Family law or immigration law would be high in demand for Engineering majors specifically.
An engineering background is not just an “advantage” in a patent & trademark law practice, it is somewhat of a requirement as certain undergraduate courses are required in order for one to be eligible to sit for the patent bar.
For the sake of clarity, if you want to be a patent attorney, you’ve got to be an attorney in a US jurisdiction-in other words, take and pass the bar exam.
Here are the requirements:
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/OED_GRB.pdf
@crankyoldman: I may misunderstand your post, but one does not need to be an attorney in order to practice before the Patent and Trademark Office.
P.S. As to whether or not a “patent agent” as opposed to a “patent attorney” may share in law firm profits, I do not know beyond Washington D.C.
Maybe I’m wrong, but the rules seems to indicate attorney status:
§ 11.6 Registration of attorneys and agents.
(a) Attorneys. Any citizen of the United States who is an attorney and who fulfills the
requirements of this Part may be registered as a patent attorney to practice before the
Office.
https://work.chron.com/patent-attorney-qualifications-13342.html
https://www.kentlaw.iit.edu/academics/jd-program/certificate-programs/intellectual-property-law/patent-bar-exam
https://www.patentlawyer.io/patent-attorney-vs-patent-agent/
And who can argue with Wikihow?
https://www.wikihow.com/Become-a-Patent-Lawyer
So you can take the patent bar at any time and be a patent agent, but in order to be a patent attorney, it appears you need to have passed the bar. All the patent attorneys I have known have bar membership.
Yes, but one can be a patent agent without being an attorney.
Ok, but the questions are about “patent lawyers”(#25). And to clarify your unclear post(“An engineering background is not just an “advantage” in a patent & trademark law practice”), if you want to be a patent attorney, and practice patent law, you’ve got to be an attorney, not an agent.
I think that some issues are getting intertwined here.
ISSUE ONE: Does a law school graduate need to be a member of a state bar before being eligible to sit for the patent bar exam ?
My understanding is that a law school graduate who passes just the patent bar is eligible to practice before the Patent and Trademark Office. But, in order to be called a “patent attorney”, must also be a member of a state bar.
ISSUE TWO: Does one need to attend law school in order to practice before the Patent and Trademark Office ?
No. One can become a patent agent with a qualifying educational background & by passing the patent bar.
ISSUE THREE: Can a patent agent share in the fees & profits generated by lawyers & their law firm ?
Complicated answer other than in Washington DC bar jurisdiction area. But, other than for Washington DC law firms & jurisdiction area, my understanding is the answer is “no”.
fwiw: having a tech/eng/physical science background is a small plus for SV firms to support their Corp/Lit practices. Wilson Sonsini, for example, hires law grads with such backgrounds. However, that is a niche market.
No leadership on ECs is not a major problem. Try to understand how LSAC will interpret your undergraduate GPA and take a diagnostic LSAT. If you score over say 165 on the diagnostic cold, maybe 160, and you are committed enough to practice until you are scoring in the low 170s you have a good chance. It is amazing just how significant the LSAT really is. You have an interesting background - good luck. IP law has not seen the same degree of carnage as other areas of the law post economic downturn