<p>Hi everyone,</p>
<p>Does anyone know if it makes sense to do a PhD and then law school or just an MS and then law?</p>
<p>I want a PhD because I enjoy researching and working on unique projects. I've been doing it for a while and there are many subfields in EE that I would like to explore. I also enjoy teaching, so that is definitely another plus. But I'm thinking that maybe later on I might want to work as a patent lawyer. Would I be too "old" for most law companies at that point? Do they look for "young" JDs or would my PhD background be beneficial to my resume? It would also take a total of 8 years to complete (5+3). That's equivalent to med school lol.</p>
<p>Just considering my options ... any thoughts?</p>
<p>Thanks.</p>
<p>Am not a patent attorney, but I know a couple so my comments are entirely based upon personal experience and I have NO data to back them up. </p>
<p>However, both of the patent attorneys went the PhD route. (One has his doc in physics; the other in EE). Both had research careers in their fields and later (one in their early 40's, the other in his early 50's) decided to retrain in patent law. One worked for the federal government (at a national research lab); one worked for a major tech company(HP). In both cases, the employer encouraged the researcher to go to law school and paid tuition, books and provided a living stipend, and once each had passed the bar gladly employed them at a generous salary. </p>
<p>Good patent attorneys are in strong demand, esp those with excellent technical backgrounds. If you like doing original research--then do go for the doc. You're not burning bridges--you can still go to law school later. Age doesn't seem to be an issue.</p>
<p>"Good patent attorneys are in strong demand"</p>
<p>Bad ones too. I have interacted with dozens of patent attorneys in my stint in biotech. The research background is important in as far as having the capacity to understand new scientific concepts. You could easily gain this ability during the course of an MS. The reason that so many patent attorneys have PhDs as well, is that patent law tends to be a career change for scientists. People who already have a career in research that get fed up with whatever and become attorneys instead.</p>
<p>I know two patent attorneys - my mom and one of my old hallmates - and neither of them had a higher sci/eng degree than a bachelor's (though both had substantial research experience as undergrads).</p>
<p>As for the age thing, I gather that it does help to be younger (my mom said so), but my mom got her law degree when she was 40, and easily got a job with a good firm, so it's clearly not impossible.</p>
<p>This question should be crossposted to the lawschool forum. From what was said over there, IP-law/patent-law is a "hot area" right now, and with the economy in its current downturn, the law-school applicant pool is likely to swell.</p>
<p>2 people I knew at Stanford pursued the patent attorney route. Both of them earned B.S. in electrical engineering, Stanford/M.S. in electrical engineering (coursework only, no thesis or exit exam), worked for 1-2 years, then applied to law-school (1 went to UCB/Bolt, the other to Columbia. Both were awesome test-takers, too (LSAT wise)) Neither had much in the way of work-experience (and no PhD-level research), so I would have to say the research-background isn't necessary if your application can clearly demonstrates a strong analytical-background.</p>