Law School Decision - BigLaw Patent Agent Forum

[trmckenz]

I am ready to make my law school decision and would appreciate some honest feedback regarding my law school choices.

About me:
163 LSAT (one take), 3.16 GPA
electrical engineering undergrad degree from NCSU
3+ yrs of work experience as a patent agent in BigLaw

Career Goals:
My highest priority is staying employed with my firm (V50) while attending school, as I am gaining solid experience and make great money. Therefore I will be attending law school on a part-time basis. I want to become an Associate at my firm upon graduation, which shouldn't be an issue. Eventually, I would like to bridge the gap between IP and Tax practices in my firm's Palo Alto office.

Financing:
I am responsible for paying tuition myself, so what I cannot pay out of pocket during the school year will be covered by loans. All Cost of Attendances (COAs) below are conservative four-year totals.

Law School Options:
George Washington - COA = $175,000
Fordham - COA = $115,000
SMU - COA = $90,000
Houston - COA = $85,000
Texas A&M - COA = $5,000

Notes:
I am currently waitlisted at GW, but I have a feeling that I will be accepted if I really go after it. My biggest question is this: is attending GW, potentially at sticker in a high COL market, worth the extra prestige / IP reputation / career options bump? Or should I be focused on minimizing my debt and building loyalty with my firm? I currently work in the firm's Dallas office, which is the patent HQ. SMU is the obvious path of least resistance, but I don't want to sell myself short.

Thanks in advance for your thoughts!

[cavalier1138]

Your experience certainly won't hurt your employment chances, but there's really only one important question (and the information is easily available to you):

How many attorneys at this firm graduated from any of these schools?

[trmckenz]

Your experience certainly won't hurt your employment chances, but there's really only one important question (and the information is easily available to you):

How many attorneys at this firm graduated from any of these schools?

Rough estimates, but:

George Washington - 20 attorneys
Fordham - 15 attorneys
SMU - 20 attorneys
Houston - 20 attorneys
Texas A&M - 0 attorneys

A&M is ruled out for other reasons as well...

[zozo1717]

0L, so all a grain of salt, but seems like you could get Georgetown PT with a 167-168. I would think that would give you the most options after graduation if your current firm doesn't work out. It would still be rough at sticker though..

Have you thought about waiting another year, retaking and saving up some money?

[trmckenz]

0L, so all a grain of salt, but seems like you could get Georgetown PT with a 167-168. I would think that would give you the most options after graduation if your current firm doesn't work out. It would still be rough at sticker though..

Have you thought about waiting another year, retaking and saving up some money?

Thanks for the input. I'm not above retaking, but I am wondering if going to a higher ranking school would even help me. Which career options do you think would be available to me as a GW/GT grad as opposed to an SMU grad, assuming my work experience is the same? Or perhaps asked differently, which career options would be closed to me by going to SMU? I'm having a difficult time seeing the bigger picture.

[zozo1717]

0L, so all a grain of salt, but seems like you could get Georgetown PT with a 167-168. I would think that would give you the most options after graduation if your current firm doesn't work out. It would still be rough at sticker though..

Have you thought about waiting another year, retaking and saving up some money?

Thanks for the input. I'm not above retaking, but I am wondering if going to a higher ranking school would even help me. Which career options do you think would be available to me as a GW/GT grad as opposed to an SMU grad, assuming my work experience is the same? Or perhaps asked differently, which career options would be closed to me by going to SMU? I'm having a difficult time seeing the bigger picture.

Based on what I've read and practicing lawyers I've spoken with, if you wanted to move out of patent pros to IP litigation Georgetown may help you more there. More firms may come and recruit at OCI, etc.

Just my own opinion, the only upgrade that may be "worth it" would be Georgetown if you're really looking for flexibility between patent pros/IP litigation/anything else. I wouldn't jump on GW over SMU at those costs considering where you already are with your job.

Feel free to PM. There is also a poster on here who is @ SMU part time and a patent agent as well - they can probably give the best advice

[kcdc1]

A few random thoughts:

• 1. Four years of FT work + PT school is going to be miserable. Really miserable.
  2. Does your firm have offices near all those schools, and would they support you transferring offices to go to school?
  3. If they like you enough to let you move around the country and divide your focus between work and school, why won't they help you out with tuition?
  4. The prestige of your law school might not matter to your current employer, but it will matter to others. I'd try to have contingency plans in case you don't wind up staying in the same job for the next 5+ years.
  5. Why tax?
  6. Palo Alto? If you want to be in CA, why are not looking at any schools in CA?

My impression reading your OP is that you don't really like patent law and are looking for some undefined next step. My vote is to not go to law school and go find something else you like better. Failing that, I'd say retake, get into a good school in CA, and focus on doing well in school for 3 years. Then apply to tax practice groups or whatever else interests you.

[trmckenz]

Thanks again zozo1717. I agree with your thoughts on GT. Maybe I'm really looking for reassurance that SMU is my best option?

A few random thoughts:

• 1. Four years of FT work + PT school is going to be miserable. Really miserable.
  2. Does your firm have offices near all those schools, and would they support you transferring offices to go to school?
  3. If they like you enough to let you move around the country and divide your focus between work and school, why won't they help you out with tuition?
  4. The prestige of your law school might not matter to your current employer, but it will matter to others. I'd try to have contingency plans in case you don't wind up staying in the same job for the next 5+ years.
  5. Why tax?
  6. Palo Alto? If you want to be in CA, why are not looking at any schools in CA?

My impression reading your OP is that you don't really like patent law and are looking for some undefined next step. My vote is to not go to law school and go find something else you like better. Failing that, I'd say retake, get into a good school in CA, and focus on doing well in school for 3 years. Then apply to tax practice groups or whatever else interests you.

Thanks very much for your good questions. I'll try to respond as best I can.

1. To me, the idea of being a full-time student again sounds far more miserable than FT work + PT school.
2. Yes and yes in DC and Houston offices (where we do patent prosecution).
3. My firm is developing a tuition assistance plan for me as we speak, but I haven't received the official amount of assistance yet.
4. Great point. I think I need to go to a T1 school, and that's the advice I've received from my previous bosses at other top firms. I am aware that Fordham, GW, and GT are ranked higher than SMU, but I see it as SMU = Fordham = GW < GT purely based on T14 status. I was wondering if GW's reputation in IP would warrant the sticker price for someone like me.
5. I prefer transactional work to litigation. I've been exposed to how tax issues often drive corporate restructurings and M&A activity, and IP (i.e., intangibles) is becoming an increasingly important element of these deals. I'd like to combine the two in some way to take a leading role in deal work.
6. Palo Alto is the hub of patent-centric work. My firm has a great tax practice in Palo Alto, but ironically no patent prosecution practice. There are no schools in CA that logistically make sense for me to attend part time due to location and the lack of patent prosecution practice.

While I'm not in love with patent law (can anyone truly love patent law?), it is in demand, it pays well, and it's comes fairly easily to me. Foregoing law school at this point seems a little counterproductive to my career, but I see your point... being a patent agent in Dallas isn't the most efficient path to joining a tax practice group in Palo Alto.

Am I banking too much on my assumed mobility within my firm structure? Realistically I should be able to gain exposure to other practice areas during SAs with my firm (confirmed with HR), and loads of people at my firm have switched practice groups/offices even after joining as an Associate. I also know I am no special snowflake.

[Londonbear]

If you're going to or okay with pay sticker, then why not retake and try to get Georgetown? I just can't see anyone okay with paying sticker at GW. I know during OCI, if you're going for IP, you're pretty set for Georgetown. During interview bidding, those were the slots that were always open. And anytime pretty much during the year you'll see biglaw firms wanting IP interested students. And part timers do as well as FT, so you can work during the year if you want to. I think Georgetown has a top PT program. And I think Georgetown would allow you with a little bit more room in terms of you don't have to be top 15% of your class to land Biglaw, even if you find out you don't want to do IP.

[kcdc1]

All of above sounded reasonable enough, assuming you're willing to make a career out of patent practice. I don't know how firms view practice group switches.

If I ran a firm (I don't) and I were employing a patent agent and I liked their work, I'd be willing to let them do school (and tap the brakes a bit during exam periods) and I'd help them out with tuition. That said, I don't know if I'd be thrilled if they finished school and wanted to start over in another practice group where they'd have little to no experience and their EE degree (the reason for the initial hire) would be much less useful. Maybe I'd be willing to let them give it a try, but I'd definitely pay them less than if they stayed in patent law. My attitude would be to only let them switch to another practice group if their school, grades, and other qualifications would make them competitive for the position absent any prior association with the firm.

I don't run your firm tho, and they might have a totally different perspective.

[postard]

If you're planning on "bridging the gap" in CA eventually, why not apply somewhere like Santa Clara? If the lack of a practice group is enough to not go to school in CA, why is it not enough to work there as an associate doing IP?

[dabigchina]

how applicable is patent prosecution to tax? you're interested in 2 very different, very specialized fields.

[trmckenz]

Thanks again for all of the comments. It's great to soak up different perspectives on law schools and practice area choice.

What I've learned so far is that, for now, I should keep my mouth shut about my interest in exploring other practice areas when negotiating my tuition assistance package. It overcomplicates the picture and isn't really relevant to my next step of attending law school and having the firm help pay for it, especially since I'm working with the IP head and HR of the firm to create the package. So I sincerely appreciate you all helping me realize that.

FWIW, I can see the cross-pollination of IP and Tax practices being particularly useful in the valuation of IP for tech companies. I don't know exactly how it works yet (I think it's more economics than anything), but apparently in transfer pricing of intangibles, Tax people tend to minimize the value of patents due to costly tax implications, whereas IP people tend to maximize the value of patents due to potentially larger paydays in settlements and acquisitions. A dichotomy exists probably because, like dabigchina said, two different types of people in two different specialized areas are working opposite each other. Maybe there is a real opportunity for someone like me to tidy that space up, but I now see it is a problem to be addressed later in my career (Associate level or greater).

For now, let's stick with the IP practice and assume I want to focus on building experience with patents in transactions, which is very much within the realm of my current role. It seems my focus should be on building loyalty and a good reputation for work in the patent HQ of the firm, no? I say this juxtaposed with the idea of leaving the HQ to obtain more pedigree in DC..

Which do you think would better position me for an internal move to the firm's Palo Alto office (assuming we have a patent practice in place by then or they let me help start one), SMU + loyalty vs GW + debt?

[postard]

If I was you and I had a gun to my head, I would go with SMU. Your chances at achieving your goals aren't going to be improved by GW and the debt would be a burden. Especially since the move to CA might need to be delayed, I would personally rather be in BigLaw in TX than in DC, and that's only more true w/o debt.

Objectively, I think retake is TCR.

[kcdc1]

Which do you think would better position me for an internal move to the firm's Palo Alto office (assuming we have a patent practice in place by then or they let me help start one), SMU + loyalty vs GW + debt?

TLS commenters aren't likely to be much help here IMO. Your situation is pretty unique. And TLS commenters are programmed to think that T14 schools are the only ones worth attending absent a full tuition scholarship.

If you want my opinion (which isn't worth much for the same reasons), I'd go SMU, but only if (1) you feel secure in keeping your job for at least 4 years (don't get fired during school), and (2) you'd be totally content making a career out patent prosecution.

Patent prosecution is insulated from the law school prestige game, and an EE degree is pure gold in that speciality. If you want to have options in other fields (including patent litigation and tech transactions), you need to worry about prestige and grades quite a bit more. GW is meaningfully more prestigious, especially for patent, but it ain't Harvard.

I'm decidedly anti-prestige, but the legal field slowly makes everyone snobs. When I read a firm bio and read that someone graduated cum laude at e.g., UVA, my impulse is to think "s/he's probably really smart." If I see the same for someone at GW, I think "s/he's qualified." When it's a low-ranked school, I wonder about whether there was any competition. Then I fight that impulse and try to get to know them without such idiotic bias creeping in.

I suspect a lot of people in reputable law firms feel similarly--some might even think the snobbishness is legitimate. If you stay in patent prosecution, you won't have to deal with it. If you stay in your current firm but switch practice groups, you might also get a bit of insulation because people will know you and won't evaluate you solely on your transcript. But going to another big firm in a different practice group would be really tough from a school like SMU, particularly in a non-Texas market.

You'll have to do the cost-benefit analysis based on your goals, your risk tolerance, and your finances. Good luck!

[dabigchina]

I'm 90% sure transfer pricing doesn't involve more than a modicum of technical patent knowledge. Granted, I've only ever worked with TP specialists and never gotten into the nitty gritty myself. It seems like econ is more useful there.

Also, you should probably find out if your PA office has a patent and or tax practice before committing to this plan. Also, since you seem to be from Texas, you should probably retake and go to UT for much less than what your COA is right now.

[HonestAdvice]

With this goal you should really go to a school where you have better odds. IP obviously has less people with a snowball's chance in hell competing for it, but is smaller.

[trmckenz]

Thanks again for the input. It has been super helpful for me to think through all of this.

At this point, it's unrealistic for me to leave my firm job solely to attend a higher ranked school unless it truly is Harvard-esque, as the opportunity cost is too high. The consensus is that no, GW is not Harvard-esque, even for patents.

Importantly, I already have an Associate job lined up at a well-known V50 firm that is willing to help me through law school... I need to be more content with that outcome. This conversation has helped me understand that the hand being dealt to me as an EE in patent prosecution is a blessing of not having to enter the rat race again (as opposed to a curse of settling for a lower-ranked law school).

I'm going to bank on the assumption that a T1 (top 50) school will be sufficient for my immediate post-graduation goals. There really is so much more to achieving success in a law firm than the school(s) one has attended, and I trust myself enough to compete and remain open to opportunities as they present themselves. Surely lots of things can and will change by the time 2020 rolls around.

So, I'm going to ride out the wave here in Dallas and head to SMU this fall. This week I will know more about what my firm can offer in terms of tuition assistance, and then the picture should be completely filled in. Thanks again.