<p>There is a vast over-supply of lawyers. The monetary benefits may not be as much as you think.</p>
<p>florida, I think the OP was talking about monetary gain being a very experienced professional. His given example would leave someone rather well off monetarily. He wasn’t referring to a new ‘run-of-the-mill’ law school grad.</p>
<p>LaBarr, given your options, I suppose you should do what you can see yourself enjoying years later. If you know enough about it and think you would enjoy forensic science for the next 25-35+ years, then that is where you should go. You mention that you only see yourself as a lawyer though, doing the lawyer-ly things, so if you’re willing and patient enough to take the time to pursue the advanced engineering degree and get into that agreed niche of patent law, then it MAY all pay off. Of course I can’t predict the future, but again, if someone today was having that plan come to fruition at the tail end, then they would have better opportunities available than someone who lacked their credentials (once more, depending on location). If I remember right, some of the patent attorney job opening requirements mentioned patent law exp as the highest req. A few years or so, so maybe you can search to see what some of the basic reqs employers are looking for now in your area?</p>
<p>I like you last sentence there (I could pursue a degree in advanced engineering and/or materials science and, while not necessarily cutting off ties to the forensic engineer career option, set myself up better for a career as a patent attorney, should I choose to be so audacious.) If the latter option can still keep other opps open for you, and if you believe them to do so, then I’d say it’s a ripe option. Personally, that’s how I would do it and how I would try to position myself: keep as many doors open without shutting as many.</p>
<p>Most individuals, indeed even on this site, that are asking about going into law right now are almost immediately shot down, and I think this is mainly because that stop at that very thought - the law degree. However, it’s a little inspiring and more rare to see someone actually have a PLAN for what they are doing and for where they eventually hope to be.</p>
<p>I am a lawyer.</p>
<p>I think that the kids who want to go to law school are watching too much TV, where being a lawyer is glorified.</p>
<p>The truth is that the hours are horrible. The work environment is akin to a sweat shop from the year 1920. There are so many lawyers, even from top schools and from top law firms, looking for jobs in any given week that you can be fired at any moment, because the law firm you work for is getting 50 resumes a week.</p>
<p>Also, once you hit about age 32, there are few jobs for lawyers.</p>
<p>Believe me, I know what I am talking about. I base my advice not only on my own experience, but that of a myriad of co-workers and friends who were or are also lawyers.</p>
<p>Now, if you can go to Harvard Law School, then things might be different.
But even then, I want to stress the word “might”.
The employment market is a different place if you are a Harvard law graduate. But even then, if you are smart enough to get into a top law school, then you are smart enough to get a job in a different field. </p>
<p>Remember, you will be spending THREE YEARS of your life going to law school, and a LOT of money. You could be doing something else.</p>
<p>In my opinion, I think a lot of kids go to law school because they are liberal arts majors, and are not good in science or engineering, and don’t know what else to do. So they either go for a law degree or an MBA (which is another degree that has been “cheapened” over the past 20 years). Down here in Florida, MBA schools literally are advertising on billboards on I-95.</p>
<p>In short, unless you truly want to be a lawyer, and are ready to swim against a very strong tide, I would do something else.</p>
<p>^"In my opinion, I think a lot of kids go to law school because they are liberal arts majors, and are not good in science or engineering, and don’t know what else to do. So they either go for a law degree or an MBA (which is another degree that has been “cheapened” over the past 20 years). Down here in Florida, MBA schools literally are advertising on billboards on I-95.</p>
<p>In short, unless you truly want to be a lawyer, and are ready to swim against a very strong tide, I would do something else."</p>
<p>This is exactly what the OP is doing. They’ve mentioned that a. they wouldn’t be a liberal arts major, b. they would obtain an advanced science degree to allow themselves an out in case law doesn’t pay off for them soon enough, c. they truly want to be a lawyer expressed in the fact that they say it’s the only thing they see satisfying them in a career, and d. know what they want to do by having an expressed plan . . . multiple in fact.</p>
<p>florida, I’m sure you know a lot more of what we’re talking about than I do (for the record: I’m not a lawyer and don’t plan to be one), but I’ve been researching a long time into this as my wife is Paralegal and is/was also thinking about the law school route (BA in Philosophy from a well regarded LAC). So, from what you state above, you haven’t described the OP, but rather the ‘run-of-the-mill’ law grads we have previously mentioned.</p>
<p>I typically find that patent attorneys are such a special niche that most other lawyers do not know how to talk about them. I mean, you either know science and engineering, or you know something else, in my opinion. We engineers are modest, but between us, you can pick someone out who doesn’t know science and engineering from anyone else. It’s just not something you can pick up in your free time like you can the liberal arts and politics. Even with my high interest and capabilities in math and science in high school, and my high interest in chemical engineering, this degree has been a very tough venture. Every semester, I have developed into, what I feel, a more capable and mature person, and I give my major almost all credit for that. Now, don’t get me wrong, it doesn’t take a genius to be a chemical engineer. I know several people in my major that party and goof off (I take things very seriously in comparison). However, and this is important, if you let it, chemical engineering can make you into a much better person. It is a constant challenge; it is fierce. You never feel confident, your professors never settle. It is such a complex field. And engineers are professionals. While they may not be lawyers, engineers are every bit as much of a professional to me. Although, I think engineering alone is a much less demanding profession than is being a lawyer, in most cases. Lawyers don’t really have an easy route - with engineering, you can be a lousy, lazy one, or you can be a dedicated, respected one, each one determining how much work you put into it.</p>
<p>Now, with this said, I want to say that my background will stick with me and get me through challenges for the rest of my life. I have talked to multiple patent attorneys who say their greatest achievement was their undergraduate engineering degree, that’s what they were most proud of. I have met patent attorneys who have been very successful, and I have met those who have not made it. While some of those who did make it got lucky, I can say that ALL those who didn’t were not, in my opinion, up to the task of preparing to be a good attorney. They went straight to law school, didn’t know very much. Shoot, I have a friend who didn’t even mean to take the LSAT! He happened to take it by accident, somewhat, and ended up in law school to postpone making a career decision for three more years out of engineering because he didn’t know what he wanted to do! Well, needless to say, the choice was made for him, and to his surprise. He is now a sad attorney, one that doesn’t have respect for the field and often paints a grim picture of life as a lawyer.</p>
<p>Now, I have also met successful attorneys who have painted a similar picture. You have to spend some time with them, but it eventually comes out. It’s rare to find a lawyer who is truly happy with their job. So, I understand as much as I can about their life without being a lawyer, yet. It’s as much as I can do. But every day I think about things I can do to help me be prepared. I practice writing (even some of the smartest engineers I know cannot write worth a damn). I study the philosophies in my spare time, reading political memoirs and the likes of Plato’s Republic. I take place in writing competitions and do clerical work for several non-profit engineering organizations on campus. </p>
<p>Now, damn it, it may be my curse, but I think I am meant to be a lawyer, whether I end up as a happy one or not. Something in me says, with enough preparation, I can do it. I will find a place that needs my skills if I start forging those skills now, and plan 5, 10, 20 years into my future – advance degrees, work experience, professional certifications. I feel like I AM going to law school because of my passion, and as was stated earlier, I also believe that alone to be a poor choice. But, I feel that going strictly off of logical reasoning alone is also a poor choice. Myself, I feel like I have both going for me. I am passionate about it, but I’m not letting that blind me. </p>
<p>I’m sorry for those who have read through this all and not enjoyed it. It is terribly long.</p>
<p>I want to add that I think it true that doing it right just doesn’t cut it anymore - not today, not in this field. But I can’t make it if I don’t try.</p>
<p>Seems like you’ve made a decision then. Best of luck.</p>
<p>Thank you.</p>
<p>@LaBarrister</p>
<p>And That my friend is called passion, something that others opposed in this blog lack…
And at least in my profession if you don’t have it ='s Frustration 
Good luck!</p>
<p>I just want to add that though this thread grew continuously digressive, though not necessarily in a negative manner, the main goal of it all along was to provide a single place for those to come who were interested in hearing and sharing stories of happy attorneys such as stacy and suzy100. These people are few and far between, and I wanted to provide a place for them to agglomerate their stories.</p>
<p>Thank you all for the great advice.</p>
<p>LaBarrister, I am a practicing patent attorney who entered the field late after more than 25 years as a serial entrepreneur. I love the work, run my own solo practice and am doing very well at it after only a few years out of law school. There is actually a major shortage of patent attorneys right now, especially for software. Patent attorneys number less than 20,000 in the US out of more than 1.2 million attorneys so they represent a tiny fraction of all attorneys. </p>
<p>One of the good things about patent law is that where you went to law school is completely irrelevant. You really don’t learn patent law in law school anyway. I actually went to law school at night at a top 40 public law school while working full time, which is not unusual for patent attorneys. Your technical/scientific background is much more important. My MIT engineering degree opens me more doors than if I was on the Harvard Law Review. (I have actually never even met a Harvard trained patent attorney if they even exist). Most law firms, even the very big ones, don’t have their own patent practice so I often get referrals from bigger firms. </p>
<p>Still, to do well in patent law, you have to be good at it. It is a small enough field that if you suck (fail to get patents for your clients), you won’t do well. It is certainly less stressing than most areas of law and even if working for a boutique patent firm, your hours will be nowhere near as hectic as your typical biglaw associate. Once trained (typically five years) you become very valuable to your firm (or any other firm). Most patent attorneys tend to specialize in a particular field, although it is not always true: I pretty much handle any field I like. It is not very glamorous or especially lucrative unless you handle litigation or can work your way into the Chief IP Officer position at some high tech company. I am doing very well at it because I can tap a large network of prior connections and people assume I know what I am talking about. As in all fields of law, the rainmakers (the ones getting the clients) make the most. </p>
<p>In your situation, there are several ways to determine if you would actually like the work:</p>
<p>One is to work as a patent examiner for the USPTO for a few years. With a chemical engineering degree you would actually qualify. The job pays well and is a very valuable experience under your belt if you ever want to be hired later as a patent attorney. Plus, you can go to law school at night.</p>
<p>Another option is to work in industry in your field (chemical engineering) for some time and get your employer to pay for law school later or go to night school. Several of my classmates did just that. With all the chemical/pharmaceutical companies applying for patents you won’t have any problems finding a job in patent law later. </p>
<p>I just don’t understand your fascination with forensic science. You would leave one of the most lucrative fields of engineering for an obscure field with absolutely no value for a future career in patent law.</p>
<p>cellardweller
First, I would like to express what a contrast in tones I see in your writing as opposed to some patent attorneys I know around my area. Perhaps, is it, because where I am from there are few places for patent attorneys to work? (AR, if I must say) I think your MIT degree has opened more doors for you than any degree could in patent law, considerably; though, I will hold no such degree! My chemical engineering degree is not from a top school, though my school is good. My law school will probably be higher ranked than top 40, but that will be due to personal preference. I do hope that will help me at the beginning of my career. </p>
<p>I want to pursue a master’s degree and work in industry after getting a bachelor’s. I think it will help make up for my lack of credentials early on, (undergraduate GPA looking about a 3.4, though last two years looking around a 3.7) that way when I get out of law school I can have some technical background. That is what is important to me. I already set in on patent law courses at my school’s law school and meet with patent attorneys around town. Also, I meet once a week with a professor who does expert witness work, and he lets me read some of the boiler plate from his cases. What I am trying to say here is that I think I’ll like it, and that’s why I want to focus on my technical background as opposed to working with the USPTO.</p>
<p>Now, as for forensic science, the reason it is so alluring is because I am scared of the legal job market, even for patent attorneys. You make it out to sound nice, but I know some patent attorneys who are hard up! And you have a degree from MIT. I see life very differently from these attorneys, though. I see life differently now than they described seeing things when they were in my position (they – two of them – got the same degree as I’m pursuing - chemical engineering - from the same school) and I do not think my career will turn out like theirs at all. I just enjoy what I do and where I am headed too much to let it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Great example of a niche in law that ISN’T hurting in job market potential.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As stated before, this may vary by location. Patent attorney in SV? Yup, you’re almost guaranteed a job with a couple years exp. LaBarr, would you be open to relocating after law school if it meant better job prospects?</p>
<p>Not sure if I posted before, but anyways… </p>
<p>If you want to be a patent lawyer, how large of a market would you think for chemical engineering? Were there any other aspects of legal work that you like? The reason I ask is unless there would be a very huge reason to get into patent law ( more so than just money), you might find yourself interested more in other subjects than patent law.</p>
<p>I initially wanted to become a patent lawyer because it was said that my field has a huge market ( EE and minor in BME). I then just started in lawschool parttime while working full time in electric utilities. Took a patent intro course and found out its not for me! Some people loved it, but I just dont like it. This course has assignments where we go looking at patent databases for a fake invention and we need to determine how we need to draft the patent so that it is not in conflict with the other patents. However, I found that contract law very interesting and I might get into business law or ip law.</p>
<p>As a chemical engineer you would actually be able to cover a very broad field including very fast growing fields such as nanotechnology, greentech, biotechnology even pharmaceuticals, plastics and new materials of all types in addition to the more tradtional chemical industry. Unlike in areas such as software where patenting is a fairly new concept, every new process or product in chemical engineering or materials science is patented because the market oportunity for any product is typically very large. Even though I am not a chemical engineer I do a fair amount of nanotechnology. </p>
<p>Patent prosecution (drafting of patents) may seem complicated or boring at first but it need not be. I spend my time with the engineers and scientists developing the inventions, discuss what is novel, why they do what they do. The actual writing part is actually the smallest part of my work. Once I know where the inventive concept is, drafting the patent goes quite fast. I actually like the process of finding ways to describe an invention in the broadest terms possible to give the patent claims as much scope as possible. There are also now very powerful tools that help in the drafting and automates the search. </p>
<p>General IP law is also interesting and I do a fair amount of technology licensing work. You are essentially the agent for the inventor trying to get the best deal possible for his/her invention or alternatively negotiate with a university to get a license for a new discovery. This takes a lot more business savvy and experience and much less technical knowledge. Sometimes you have to evaluate if a company’s product infringes somebody else’s patents (freedom to operate analysis). Recently I was asked to evaluate the chances that a company being sued for infringement would win the case (risk analysis). If you are into litigation patent cases can generate huge verdicts but they also take years to conclude. Good patent litigators can easily make in the seven figures. I don’t handle litigation at all. I would need a whole team for that. But most patent cases settle out of court anyway. </p>
<p>I like best working for the little guy, the tech startup, the entrepreneur. I often get paid partially in stock as small companies often are cash poor. I don’t charge by the hour and only work on retainer. I get embedded in the company and typically work for them for years as their part time CIP Officer. I set up a plan over time to build a patent portfolio and develop an IP strategy for them. Over a few years some of these patents can be worth millions. That business development work is the real fun part!</p>
<p>turtlerock
I am more than willing to relocate both for and after law school. I want to go where ever the job market can provide me with a well-paying job. How good is Silicon Valley for patent attorneys? How tough is the competition there? If California is where I decide to practice, should I go to law school there, even if the places I get in at in California are significantly less prestigious than others? I feel like doing so would be a smart decision, but I still want to be competitive in the job market in SV. I have a hunch that only the most qualified patent attorneys find jobs there, but I could easily be mistaken.</p>
<p>BEngineer
Quite honestly, BEngineer, I may find something in law school that does interest me more than patent law, but I would probably still to utilize my skills from engineering toward the purpose of patent law. I will find a balance between what I like and what makes the most sense, and I will make patent law interesting if it’s not absolutely fascinating. If I fall head over heels for something else, though, I will consider following that. Do you know how relevant courses in business are to patent lawyers who want to work in litigation? Should one interested take extra business/corporate law courses? I like business/corporate law, as well. I wouldn’t mind working for corporations (the idea now is of interest, anyway).</p>
<p>cellardweller
I like that you have found what you enjoy most about patent law, as, I suppose, is only inevitable. What made you decide to pursue prosecution? Did you have to practice litigation in or after law school to realize you didn’t like it as much?</p>
<p>Most of the patent litigators I know are not members of the patent bar.</p>
<p>Many of the patent prosecutors I know are not lawyers.</p>
<p>It is true that many patent litigators are not practicing patent attorneys. They are still experts on patent law. It is also an entirely different field from any other type of litigation. You can’t really switch to patent litigation from other types of litigation as it is extremely specialized and technical. If you handle patent litigation you do nothing else. Also only big firms generally handle patent litigation because of the enormous costs of patent suits. (Several million dollars on average). My mentor in law school is one of the best litigators in the country but he said his personal life has taken a hit. You have no control over your time as a litigator: events outside of your control completely drive your schedule. </p>
<p>The vast majority of patent prosecutors (around 75%) are attorneys. You can be a patent agent but you will make a lot less money and will always need to be supervised by an attorney. You can’t handle licensing or any other form of IP law. You can’t solicit clients. You are just a worker bee completely dependent on others.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Where do I begin? I’m not in HR or a hiring manager, so I can’t say definitively on competition, but by my personal experience, 8/10 of jobs posted for ALL attorney openings are patent/IP related (Paralegal openings seem the same way) in SV.</p>
<p>A quick search on some of the trusted job search engines I’ve used return results for Adobe, Apple, Tesla, Intel, Qualcomm . . . heck, even NASA has a Patent Attorney position open at the Ames Research Center in Santa Clara (GS-13 level - reqs are be a member of the bar, have a JD, and have 1 year specialized exp at the GS-12 equivalent level)! Most of those other companies mentioned have the same reqs with required exp ranging from 5-12 years depending on if the position title says “Senior so and so” or not. I WISH I could be a Patent Attorney in SV right now. Because my wife is a Paralegal every time I’ve searched for legal jobs with her we’ve seen tons of Patent Attorney/Paralegal positions flooding around for at least the last couple years.</p>
<p>Competition? Maybe for the cushy jobs like NASA or even Apple. But I didn’t even mention private firms that may staff a patent attorney or two in their ranks.</p>
<p>BECAUSE there seems like a short supply of Patent Lawyers, I wouldn’t think companies are being too picky on where someone received their degree so long as they have some valuable patent exp and seem like they’d work well. Again, I AM NOT in HR or a hiring manager. Just some bum who has actually payed attention to this kind of stuff for the last several years by sheer nature of being married to someone in the legal profession. Take it for what you will, but you can verify using your own job search techniques.</p>
<p>It is not because of the shortage of patent lawyers that firms are less picky about where the attorneys got their degree from. It just has never been the case. Biglaw as a general rule does not hire or train patent lawyers. Patent law in general and patent prosecution particular is a highly specialized field of law, where you only acquire the skills necessary through practice. Law firms or corporations may specifically require a certain number of years of practice (2, 5 or even 10) or a technical specialty (software, micro-electronics, chemistry). In some fields such as drug development you pretty much need a PhD in biochemistry or equivalent to be qualified. </p>
<p>My suggestion for somebody with a BS in Engineering or science, interested in eventually getting into patent law would be:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Pass the patent bar as soon as possible after graduation. You don’t need to be an attorney to pass the bar or have taken any classes in patent law. you just have to learn a lot of rules and procedures. There are cheap online tools to help practice for the test. The test is pretty hard but once you have memorized the rules you should be ready.</p></li>
<li><p>Work in industry for a few years to acquire some technical experience. It helps to know the field where you intend to practice. Discuss with the company paying for law school, especially if it is at night. Most big companies have internal IP departments where they work on patents together with outside law firms. </p></li>
<li><p>Go to law school at night, ideally at your flagship state U. law school. You will save a lot of money. Some law schools offer IP clinics where you can get experience helping inventors perform searches and file applications (generally provisional as filing a complete utility application requires extensive supervision). </p></li>
<li><p>After law school, get experience working for a boutique patent law firm for 3 to 5 years. Most patent law firms are small </p></li>
<li><p>Set up your own practice or get hired as in-house IP counsel.</p></li>
</ol>