Top Law Schools

So I'm not expecting good news here, but any advice or otherwise would be greatly appreciated. I'm currently a rising 2L at a T2 school (in the 70's) and I work at a small law firm in a big city this summer and will continue throughout my 2L year (anonymous but New York, Chicago, D.C. comparatively). My grades are less than stellar (50-75% class) without moot court or main journal. However, my undergrad is in hard science (engineering background) and I'm eligible to sit for the patent bar. I'm wondering if I am able to pull myself back into the top third or even top 40% by the end of my 2L, would I be able to apply competitively for a big law or medium law firm. I'm not expecting an 160k position but something that would allow me to work in the city around the 100-120k mark. Comments and advice?
Thanks

What's your technical background? If you have a good technical background then patent prosecution is a possibility.

Depends on your technical background, and your level of education within your technical background. Your best shot at biglaw is if you're an EE w. an advanced degree, and worst shot if you simply have a BS in Bio/Chem.

Anonymous User wrote:What's your technical background? If you have a good technical background then patent prosecution is a possibility.

I switched majors several times but I studied Computer Science Engineering for a year and another year studying a mixture of Civil and Industrial Engineering. For my last two years I was geared more towards Agricultural Engineering but my earned degree was a B.S. in Technical Systems. I have enough engineering credits to sit for the Patent Bar, just not the degree title. The undergraduate school I studied at is highly recognized for engineering and mathematics if that helps at all (consistently top 5). My post grad plan is to pursue patent litigation or prosecution so I'm more or less wondering if that gives me a leg up on others when it comes to getting a position at big law/mid law

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:What's your technical background? If you have a good technical background then patent prosecution is a possibility.

I switched majors several times but I studied Computer Science Engineering for a year and another year studying a mixture of Civil and Industrial Engineering. For my last two years I was geared more towards Agricultural Engineering but my earned degree was a B.S. in Technical Systems. I have enough engineering credits to sit for the Patent Bar, just not the degree title. The undergraduate school I studied at is highly recognized for engineering and mathematics if that helps at all (consistently top 5). My post grad plan is to pursue patent litigation or prosecution so I'm more or less wondering if that gives me a leg up on others when it comes to getting a position at big law/mid law

You'll have a tough time with a Technical Systems major, especially if your undergraduate grades aren't good. You may be able to find something if your law school is in DC since there's a ton of mid sized patent boutiques.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:What's your technical background? If you have a good technical background then patent prosecution is a possibility.

I switched majors several times but I studied Computer Science Engineering for a year and another year studying a mixture of Civil and Industrial Engineering. For my last two years I was geared more towards Agricultural Engineering but my earned degree was a B.S. in Technical Systems. I have enough engineering credits to sit for the Patent Bar, just not the degree title. The undergraduate school I studied at is highly recognized for engineering and mathematics if that helps at all (consistently top 5). My post grad plan is to pursue patent litigation or prosecution so I'm more or less wondering if that gives me a leg up on others when it comes to getting a position at big law/mid law

You'll have a tough time with a Technical Systems major, especially if your undergraduate grades aren't good. You may be able to find something if your law school is in DC since there's a ton of mid sized patent boutiques.

It is particularly difficult to move from a mid sized patent boutique into a big law firm? Or if i manged to get a position at a mid sized patent/IP firm after my 2L year would I be more competitive?

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:What's your technical background? If you have a good technical background then patent prosecution is a possibility.

I switched majors several times but I studied Computer Science Engineering for a year and another year studying a mixture of Civil and Industrial Engineering. For my last two years I was geared more towards Agricultural Engineering but my earned degree was a B.S. in Technical Systems. I have enough engineering credits to sit for the Patent Bar, just not the degree title. The undergraduate school I studied at is highly recognized for engineering and mathematics if that helps at all (consistently top 5). My post grad plan is to pursue patent litigation or prosecution so I'm more or less wondering if that gives me a leg up on others when it comes to getting a position at big law/mid law

You'll have a tough time with a Technical Systems major, especially if your undergraduate grades aren't good. You may be able to find something if your law school is in DC since there's a ton of mid sized patent boutiques.

It is particularly difficult to move from a mid sized patent boutique into a big law firm? Or if i manged to get a position at a mid sized patent/IP firm after my 2L year would I be more competitive?

For patent prosecution, it'll be hard to move up because firms (including smaller boutiques) care a lot about the technical degree (unless you have work experience). For patent litigation, the degree is less important but grades/school matter a lot more. Not to be discouraging, but I have some friends at T1 schools with median grades that weren't able to break into patent firms with similar degrees.

Are you going to PLIP? If not you should. With your credentials biglaw will definitely be an uphill battle. You could make yourself more marketable by passing the patent bar. But yeah, with your background you will need to hustle your way in. That and take all the IP classes you can.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:What's your technical background? If you have a good technical background then patent prosecution is a possibility.

I switched majors several times but I studied Computer Science Engineering for a year and another year studying a mixture of Civil and Industrial Engineering. For my last two years I was geared more towards Agricultural Engineering but my earned degree was a B.S. in Technical Systems. I have enough engineering credits to sit for the Patent Bar, just not the degree title. The undergraduate school I studied at is highly recognized for engineering and mathematics if that helps at all (consistently top 5). My post grad plan is to pursue patent litigation or prosecution so I'm more or less wondering if that gives me a leg up on others when it comes to getting a position at big law/mid law

You'll have a tough time with a Technical Systems major, especially if your undergraduate grades aren't good. You may be able to find something if your law school is in DC since there's a ton of mid sized patent boutiques.

It is particularly difficult to move from a mid sized patent boutique into a big law firm? Or if i manged to get a position at a mid sized patent/IP firm after my 2L year would I be more competitive?

No, it's very easy to go from even a small patent boutique to a large law firm. The problem is that a lot of large law firms don't have patent prosecution practices, or they have very small ones. If you're good you can also earn more money and work less at the right boutiques, so you end up in a situation where it might not make much sense to go to a large firm if you want to stick with patent prosecution.

ClubberLang wrote:Are you going to PLIP? If not you should. With your credentials biglaw will definitely be an uphill battle. You could make yourself more marketable by passing the patent bar. But yeah, with your background you will need to hustle your way in. That and take all the IP classes you can.

Thanks for all the input guys. I am going to PLIP but I've heard getting a position there is difficult so I'm trying to cover my bases and hopefully make some more contacts in the field. I'm going to try to pass the patent bar by the end of the summer, although I've been told it's got a relatively low pass percentage, especially first timers. Will the fact that I have work experience in the legal field help me much? Even though its in personal injury as opposed to IP?

Have you considered going to the patent office as an examiner instead? 120-140k after a few years with 6-12 weeks of vacation depending on overtime.... Also work from anywhere in the world. Also possible to lateral to midlaw prosecution after 3-4 years...

I wouldn't bank on finding a patent law gig with those credentials. The degree is the most important part, other than work exp in the industry. The fact you are patbar eligible makes it possible to practice but it's gonna be tough. Maybe u should actually pass the patent bar ASAP if you're serious about selling yourself as patent

Anecdotally, I remember SKGF handing out callbacks like candy at PLIP two years ago (they also handed out silly putty and had the best suite at PLIP). I didn't have a science degree (or stellar science grades) but still got a callback with median law school grades. I was at a T14 though and my interview was randomly with an alum...but still, they gave a shitton of callbacks. Just hustle and start mass mailing next week to firms you don't have OCI/job fair screeners with.

Even if you don't get a patent job out of law school, never give up if that's what you want to do. Lots of people in this industry have unorthodox backgrounds and paths.

Anonymous User wrote:I'm going to try to pass the patent bar by the end of the summer, although I've been told it's got a relatively low pass percentage, especially first timers. Will the fact that I have work experience in the legal field help me much? Even though its in personal injury as opposed to IP?

I don't think that the pass rate reflects the difficulty of the exam and is more a function of people not taking the exam seriously. If you can, take the PLI prep course. Your PI experience (or any experience in the legal field except patent law) won't help at all because it tests on very specific patent office practice rules (e.g., "what are the necessary parts of a provisional patent application").

Anonymous User wrote:No, it's very easy to go from even a small patent boutique to a large law firm. The problem is that a lot of large law firms don't have patent prosecution practices, or they have very small ones. If you're good you can also earn more money and work less at the right boutiques, so you end up in a situation where it might not make much sense to go to a large firm if you want to stick with patent prosecution.

I think you bring up a good point that is rarely discussed here. I did patent pros at a large gp firm at it sucked. Doing 2000+ billable hours of pros at a $400+/hr billing rate is not sustainable (nor healthy) on much if any prosecution budget. Which is why most big firms don't do it (or very little of it), and if they do they aren't hiring fresh law school grads to do it. At small/mid IP boutiques, you can make decent money working a lot less. Not as much as the market base + market bonus firms but a lot better when you look at it from a $/hr perspective. Also, many small/mid IP boutiques offer you a cut of any pros work you do above and beyond a minimum hour requirement (e.g., slater matsil, Harrity & Harrity, etc.). So you get paid a certain salary up to, say 1500 hours, and then 25-40% of all work billed above and beyond that. So if you are a real gunner you might be able to make more (at least in the first few years) than at a market paying firm.

Anonymous User wrote:Depends on your technical background, and your level of education within your technical background. Your best shot at biglaw is if you're an EE w. an advanced degree, and worst shot if you simply have a BS in Bio/Chem.

Is EE > Bio still true? Seems to me that bio patent lit is lit fam.

Abbie Doobie wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:I'm going to try to pass the patent bar by the end of the summer, although I've been told it's got a relatively low pass percentage, especially first timers. Will the fact that I have work experience in the legal field help me much? Even though its in personal injury as opposed to IP?

I don't think that the pass rate reflects the difficulty of the exam and is more a function of people not taking the exam seriously. If you can, take the PLI prep course. Your PI experience (or any experience in the legal field except patent law) won't help at all because it tests on very specific patent office practice rules (e.g., "what are the necessary parts of a provisional patent application").

Anonymous User wrote:No, it's very easy to go from even a small patent boutique to a large law firm. The problem is that a lot of large law firms don't have patent prosecution practices, or they have very small ones. If you're good you can also earn more money and work less at the right boutiques, so you end up in a situation where it might not make much sense to go to a large firm if you want to stick with patent prosecution.

I think you bring up a good point that is rarely discussed here. I did patent pros at a large gp firm at it sucked. Doing 2000+ billable hours of pros at a $400+/hr billing rate is not sustainable (nor healthy) on much if any prosecution budget. Which is why most big firms don't do it (or very little of it), and if they do they aren't hiring fresh law school grads to do it. At small/mid IP boutiques, you can make decent money working a lot less. Not as much as the market base + market bonus firms but a lot better when you look at it from a $/hr perspective. Also, many small/mid IP boutiques offer you a cut of any pros work you do above and beyond a minimum hour requirement (e.g., Slater Matsil, Harrity & Harrity, etc.). So you get paid a certain salary up to, say 1500 hours, and then 25-40% of all work billed above and beyond that. So if you are a real gunner you might be able to make more (at least in the first few years) than at a market paying firm.

Yea I've been hearing more and more that patent boutiques are the better way to go. Do you know what kind of credentials firms like that are looking for? And what is the best way to go about finding positions available for law students in those types of firms? I assume many of them don't show up to PLIP or OCI.

Anonymous User wrote: Yea I've been hearing more and more that patent boutiques are the better way to go. Do you know what kind of credentials firms like that are looking for? And what is the best way to go about finding positions available for law students in those types of firms? I assume many of them don't show up to PLIP or OCI.

you are correct in that many of the smaller boutiques don't go to plip/oci. patentlyo job postings are a pretty good source for ip boutique jobs. another thing that i did when looking for jobs is to just go down the list of top patent firms put out by IP today (http://www.cantorcolburn.com/media/news ... 0Firms.pdf) and see if they have any postings on their websites or if you have any connections at these firms.

Abbie Doobie wrote:

Anonymous User wrote: Yea I've been hearing more and more that patent boutiques are the better way to go. Do you know what kind of credentials firms like that are looking for? And what is the best way to go about finding positions available for law students in those types of firms? I assume many of them don't show up to PLIP or OCI.

you are correct in that many of the smaller boutiques don't go to plip/oci. patentlyo job postings are a pretty good source for ip boutique jobs. another thing that i did when looking for jobs is to just go down the list of top patent firms put out by IP today (http://www.cantorcolburn.com/media/news ... 0Firms.pdf) and see if they have any postings on their websites or if you have any connections at these firms.

Geez, I got a buddy two design patents issued while I was still in lawl school. Who knew I could've made the Top Patent Firms list?

glitched wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Depends on your technical background, and your level of education within your technical background. Your best shot at biglaw is if you're an EE w. an advanced degree, and worst shot if you simply have a BS in Bio/Chem.

Is EE > Bio still true? Seems to me that bio patent lit is lit fam.

It's not that EE > Bio, it's just that a lot of firms want MA/Ph.Ds for Chem/Bio. I think.

Abbie Doobie wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:I'm going to try to pass the patent bar by the end of the summer, although I've been told it's got a relatively low pass percentage, especially first timers. Will the fact that I have work experience in the legal field help me much? Even though its in personal injury as opposed to IP?

I don't think that the pass rate reflects the difficulty of the exam and is more a function of people not taking the exam seriously. If you can, take the PLI prep course. Your PI experience (or any experience in the legal field except patent law) won't help at all because it tests on very specific patent office practice rules (e.g., "what are the necessary parts of a provisional patent application").

Anonymous User wrote:No, it's very easy to go from even a small patent boutique to a large law firm. The problem is that a lot of large law firms don't have patent prosecution practices, or they have very small ones. If you're good you can also earn more money and work less at the right boutiques, so you end up in a situation where it might not make much sense to go to a large firm if you want to stick with patent prosecution.

I think you bring up a good point that is rarely discussed here. I did patent pros at a large gp firm at it sucked. Doing 2000+ billable hours of pros at a $400+/hr billing rate is not sustainable (nor healthy) on much if any prosecution budget. Which is why most big firms don't do it (or very little of it), and if they do they aren't hiring fresh law school grads to do it. At small/mid IP boutiques, you can make decent money working a lot less. Not as much as the market base + market bonus firms but a lot better when you look at it from a $/hr perspective. Also, many small/mid IP boutiques offer you a cut of any pros work you do above and beyond a minimum hour requirement (e.g., Slater Matsil, Harrity & Harrity, etc.). So you get paid a certain salary up to, say 1500 hours, and then 25-40% of all work billed above and beyond that. So if you are a real gunner you might be able to make more (at least in the first few years) than at a market paying firm.

I joined a mid-size patent prosecution boutique paying in the 40-50% range out of law school. I wanted to work in a larger practice group rather than a large firm with a small practice group. Generally, I recommend that people go to a large firm if they can and then go to a boutique like mine after 1-3 years. You can join a patent prosecution focused firm, even the larger ones, at any time in your career.

Compared to most of my peers at larger firms, I have significantly more control over my docket. I can pick and choose which clients I want to work on. I can choose to work 100 hours in a month and nobody can say anything because we're percentage-based. We also don't work with rude clients. Our pressure to generate revenue is probably just a lot lower than large firms. I've also noticed that we have a lot of higher paying clients than many big law firms. Everything is commoditized nowadays, but we don't work with too many extremely high-volume commoditized type of clients (even though I like that type of stuff). I think that a lot of firms would be impressed with our client list. Associates that they're interested in are also provided their own clients with partners helping develop them.

In terms of compensation, it can be great. When I was a third year I earned around $200k working maybe 1700 hours (100% efficiency with my low billing rate). My work quality is high, but I don't have the personality to do this work in a high volume. I don't think that I would be able to match/surpass the new 180 scale until I advance to the higher percentage tiers in my firm.

I think a situation where you're doing prosecution like 75% of the time and litigation support 25% of the time would be ideal. But it's hard to find that type of role.

Abbie Doobie wrote: I think you bring up a good point that is rarely discussed here. I did patent pros at a large gp firm at it sucked. Doing 2000+ billable hours of pros at a $400+/hr billing rate is not sustainable (nor healthy) on much if any prosecution budget. Which is why most big firms don't do it (or very little of it), and if they do they aren't hiring fresh law school grads to do it. At small/mid IP boutiques, you can make decent money working a lot less. Not as much as the market base + market bonus firms but a lot better when you look at it from a $/hr perspective. Also, many small/mid IP boutiques offer you a cut of any pros work you do above and beyond a minimum hour requirement (e.g., Slater Matsil, Harrity & Harrity, etc.). So you get paid a certain salary up to, say 1500 hours, and then 25-40% of all work billed above and beyond that. So if you are a real gunner you might be able to make more (at least in the first few years) than at a market paying firm.

I concur; pros at a biglaw/gp firm is really rough. I seriously doubt that it'll even be an option in a decade, too. More and more companies would rather hire the small boutiques or bring it all in-house, than pay what most biglaw firms will charge for this stuff, pros doesn't rake in the same kind of money lit does (and probably never will), and the number of people trying to get into pros is shrinking; none of which which encourages biglaw firms to take pros seriously.

Probably better to aim for a boutique than to go to biglaw and then get laid off in five years.

Anonymous User wrote:

Abbie Doobie wrote: I think you bring up a good point that is rarely discussed here. I did patent pros at a large gp firm at it sucked. Doing 2000+ billable hours of pros at a $400+/hr billing rate is not sustainable (nor healthy) on much if any prosecution budget. Which is why most big firms don't do it (or very little of it), and if they do they aren't hiring fresh law school grads to do it. At small/mid IP boutiques, you can make decent money working a lot less. Not as much as the market base + market bonus firms but a lot better when you look at it from a $/hr perspective. Also, many small/mid IP boutiques offer you a cut of any pros work you do above and beyond a minimum hour requirement (e.g., Slater Matsil, Harrity & Harrity, etc.). So you get paid a certain salary up to, say 1500 hours, and then 25-40% of all work billed above and beyond that. So if you are a real gunner you might be able to make more (at least in the first few years) than at a market paying firm.

I concur; pros at a biglaw/gp firm is really rough. I seriously doubt that it'll even be an option in a decade, too. More and more companies would rather hire the small boutiques or bring it all in-house, than pay what most biglaw firms will charge for this stuff, pros doesn't rake in the same kind of money lit does (and probably never will), and the number of people trying to get into pros is shrinking; none of which which encourages biglaw firms to take pros seriously.

Probably better to aim for a boutique than to go to biglaw and then get laid off in five years.

I currently work in biglaw patent pros. There's sort of an unspoken rule that pros attorneys don't have to bill 2000 hours. I've done it, but it's very tough to do without hour inflation. A patent pros business unit inside a biglaw firm is often used by IP groups as a way to get a foot in the door to get litigation work. It can be very effective because as a pros attorney, you have some access to the client's patent portfolio, and can spot potential issues, develop a trusting relationship, etc. IMO while pros isn't exactly known for raking in the billiables, some pros attorneys do rake it in, and importantly biglaw pros associates get paid the same as their litigation counterparts. I think pros is more of a necessary evil for some biglaw firms. No need for the doom and gloom of biglaw pros going way in X years - people have been saying that for a long time, and while the pros business models have shifted, there is still demand due to such a low supply of prosecution attorneys...

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Abbie Doobie wrote: I think you bring up a good point that is rarely discussed here. I did patent pros at a large gp firm at it sucked. Doing 2000+ billable hours of pros at a $400+/hr billing rate is not sustainable (nor healthy) on much if any prosecution budget. Which is why most big firms don't do it (or very little of it), and if they do they aren't hiring fresh law school grads to do it. At small/mid IP boutiques, you can make decent money working a lot less. Not as much as the market base + market bonus firms but a lot better when you look at it from a $/hr perspective. Also, many small/mid IP boutiques offer you a cut of any pros work you do above and beyond a minimum hour requirement (e.g., Slater Matsil, Harrity & Harrity, etc.). So you get paid a certain salary up to, say 1500 hours, and then 25-40% of all work billed above and beyond that. So if you are a real gunner you might be able to make more (at least in the first few years) than at a market paying firm.

I concur; pros at a biglaw/gp firm is really rough. I seriously doubt that it'll even be an option in a decade, too. More and more companies would rather hire the small boutiques or bring it all in-house, than pay what most biglaw firms will charge for this stuff, pros doesn't rake in the same kind of money lit does (and probably never will), and the number of people trying to get into pros is shrinking; none of which which encourages biglaw firms to take pros seriously.

Probably better to aim for a boutique than to go to biglaw and then get laid off in five years.

I currently work in biglaw patent pros. There's sort of an unspoken rule that pros attorneys don't have to bill 2000 hours. I've done it, but it's very tough to do without hour inflation. A patent pros business unit inside a biglaw firm is often used by IP groups as a way to get a foot in the door to get litigation work. It can be very effective because as a pros attorney, you have some access to the client's patent portfolio, and can spot potential issues, develop a trusting relationship, etc. IMO while pros isn't exactly known for raking in the billiables, some pros attorneys do rake it in, and importantly biglaw pros associates get paid the same as their litigation counterparts. I think pros is more of a necessary evil for some biglaw firms. No need for the doom and gloom of biglaw pros going way in X years - people have been saying that for a long time, and while the pros business models have shifted, there is still demand due to such a low supply of prosecution attorneys...

That is definitely not the case at my firm. I was off by 40 hours one year and got dinged for it in my review/was asked every month the year after if I was on track to hit my requirement.

You're right that it's tough to do, but many firms don't really care, and will ding you (and ultimately fire you) if you don't hit that mark. The pros partners may not have the power to decide otherwise. Not all firms are like this, but some are. Just one of the many things to keep in mind when looking for a job somewhere.

I've noticed that firms that absorbed a prosecution group/firm tend to have lower hours requirements than firms with their own developed group.