Should I go to law school part time? Forum

[Flboy82]

I've been a civil engineer for 6 years. I have my bachelor and master degrees from the top engineering school in my state. There is a school nearby that offers a part time law school and I am considering applying. As my career has progressed, I have found that I am designing less and less and found that my job is mostly interpreting various codes, which I enjoy.

I enjoy land use and real estate law, which I have been exposed to the most. However, intellectual property law sounds interesting as well. By going to a part time school, would I be limited in the type of law I could practice?

I appreciate your responses.

[rinkrat19]

You wouldn't necessarily be limited in the type of law you could practice, but rather in whether you're able to get a job as a lawyer at all. Ignore any employment stats you see on a law school's webpage and spend some time checking out lawschooltransparency.com for the best data we have available about your actual chances of getting a job.

The schools with part time programs range from mediocre (Georgetown/GW/Fordham) to complete dumpster fires.

Attending a part-time program tends to make your job prospects slightly worse than the rest of the class, if anything.

PT programs can be a good decision if a person has a guaranteed job upon graduation (like with a current employer who wants an employee to get a JD), and if debt is minimized. But keep in mind a PT student's class load is only lighter by about one class at a time, compared to a full-time student.

[haus]

I personally have decided to enroll in a part-time program, but it is obviously not for everyone.

I plan on continuing the job that I have had for several years while I go to school. I am doing this to control cost, allowing me to continue to be the primary income provider for my family. Also, I expect my current career will be helpful for what I will do in the future (currently I run a computer security incident response team for a government agency).

Also, the program I have selected allows me to earn the JD that I want, while allowing my family to avoid uprooting their lives.

This is not to say I expect everything to be sunshine and lollipops, but it is the path that I am comfortable with.

[Freebot]

Unfortunately, civil engineering is a weak field for patent law. The following describes the vast majority of patent prosecution:

1. Electrical or Computer or Software Engineering or Computer Science: Bachelor degree or higher is ok.
2. Mechanical Engineering: Bachelor degree might be ok but Masters is safer.
3. Chemical or Bio: Ph.D is practically required but Masters occasionally gets a job.

You can sometimes substitute a physics degree for electrical or mechanical engineering. This is the easiest sell in semiconductors.

[GULCsect7]

Speaking as a PT student, there are a lot of different reasons someone would do PT over FT. The two most common reasons I hear are:

1) financial (for example, to keep costs/loans down or to continue paying a mortgage, etc.) or
2) because the JD will supplement current work experience

I do not get the sense that PT students are at a disadvantage if they want to switch careers to working as a lawyer at a firm or government agency, but if they want to make that switch most of the PT students I know quit their job after a year or two of law school for summer associate positions or other legal internships (the exception there is PT students who already work in a law firm or in some type of legal capacity).

I do not know much about IP law, but based on your description of your work it sounds to me like getting a JD through a PT program might help you move up in your current field. But if you want to practice real estate law at a law firm you might have to quit your engineer job at a certain point to work at a law firm as a summer associate or intern. I'm sure your work experience would help getting those kinds of positions, but there is no guarantee of employment there... just something to keep in mind.

I would echo Rinkrat19's comment that PT isn't that much less work than FT, though. Going PT is a major lifestyle adjustment (at least it has been for me). You simply have far less time for anything other than work and law school. But if you are OK with that then it is absolutely doable. Getting good grades is certainly doable, too.

I'm happy to answer any questions you have on here or via a private message.

[collegebum1989]

PT law student in DC with technical background (BS/MS in Engineering). Currently working as an engineer full-time while attending school at night and will transition to an IP firm next year as a Patent Agent.

PT law school is perhaps the most advantageous for law students with IP backgrounds provided you can navigate the market and actually get an offer from a firm. This is the hardest part. I would say the general consensus about patent law in this thread is correct. Civil Engineering is definitely not in demand as other fields. I myself was in a non-EE/CS engineering field and struggled to finally get an offer with a firm. If you're not a EE/CS or a PhD in Bio/Chem (two traditional types of patent prosecution practice groups at most IP firms), it all boils down to how you market yourself, and to what type of firms.

I myself switched industries, worked in software development and tried to sell myself as a CS guy without an actual CS degree. This worked at some firms, and didn't at others. Being enrolled in an evening law school and passing the Patent Bar also helped. The year I applied without either, I literally got no interviews or callbacks. However, after being in law school, I was able to get multiple interviews.

If you have a full-time engineering job, I would say try applying to Technical Specialist positions with some IP firms in your locality and see if you can secure some interviews. These positions are usually geared for people with no IP experience. The firm essentially hires you, trains you to prosecute patents, and then expects you to go to law school in the evenings (some even pay for tuition) while you work for them as a Patent Agent. Be advised, however, that these positions are extremely difficult to get and usually requires a specific set of circumstances (right background, right market, right need within the firm, etc.).

You can also apply for Patent Examiner positions with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and use this as a means to transition to a firm in DC. There a bunch of Patent Examiners in my PT law class, many of whom intend to transition to a firm after their first year. A lot of patent attorneys in DC are ex-Examiners and a lot of them were also PT students at GULC/GW.


I also believe that when it comes to PT law school, a lot of the FT students on this board have no idea what they are talking about. Considering that we are a strict minority (maybe less than 5-10% of the overall law student population), there are a lot of misconceptions that get passed through these forums. For example, if you can get into GULC/GW part-time, your chances at biglaw will be equivalent to the FT students at those schools with similar grades. The only difference, however, will be the work experience you have while you are in law school. Therefore, if you can manage to get a Tech Spec position before or while you're in school, you'll have actual experience within the patent law field compared to the FT students who have none. I can't imagine how this would ever put you at a disadvantage. The recruitment for biglaw is the same regardless of what type of student you are. All law schools allow their PT students to participate in OCI and journals (although this may be more difficult to accomplish for PT students with jobs).

If you have any more questions about the transition - feel free to PM me. I got some great advice from others on this board and definitely believe it was helpful in my decision to attend law school PT.