Top Law Schools

How are employment prospects for patent lawyers? Particularly in DC and NYC. I have an advanced EE degree and a decent shot at getting into a T-14 and almost certainly into T-25. I hear a lot that these legal markets are saturated, but is that true for the IP field as well? Would be great to hear some advice about employment prospects and how to increase them.

Thanks!

Lots of lit, less pros. Chances decrease considerably if you fall out of t14. Demonstratable ties to DC are a plus, irrelevant to NY.

redtalun wrote:Lots of lit, less pros. Chances decrease considerably if you fall out of t14. Demonstratable ties to DC are a plus, irrelevant to NY.

What exactly do you mean by "demonstrable ties"? And also how much is "considerably"? I'm hopeful of getting into some T14's, but also considering schools like GW, WashU, Emory, and UNC. Are the career prospects out of such schools still hopeful for somebody in my position?

Anecdotal but I've heard that with the drop in in applicants, there's an even more precipitous drop in applicants that are patent-bar eligible so IP gives a good boost in employment prospects. Less anecdotal - most of GW's biglaw numbers are IP.

I think needing ties for being hired in DC is by virtue of DC being hypercompetitive rather than hiring partners having an active local bias. That's to say - you're not shut out if you don't have ties and you won't lose out to a less qualified candidate because he/she has ties, but between equally qualified applicants, you need to make decisions at the margin.

The job prospects for IP attorneys are pretty good, especially with a CS or EE background. If you haven't, you should definitely intern at an IP firm though, since it's one thing to have an abstract interest and another to have a concrete interest.

Salaries range for IP attorneys the same as every other attorney. The big firms pay entry level associates 145-160k. The smaller firms pay around 40-60k.

I don't know of any hiring preference for those who were patent agents. IP students tend to have better hiring cycles but I don't have any data regarding prior patent agents.

Salaries range for IP attorneys the same as every other attorney. The big firms pay entry level associates 145-160k. The smaller firms pay around 40-60k.

My experience is that the mid-size firms match the biglaw market salary on the pros side. I don't know about lit, and I don't specifically know about mid-size in DC or NY.

totesTheGoat wrote:

Salaries range for IP attorneys the same as every other attorney. The big firms pay entry level associates 145-160k. The smaller firms pay around 40-60k.

My experience is that the mid-size firms match the biglaw market salary on the pros side. I don't know about lit, and I don't specifically know about mid-size in DC or NY.

Do firms look for anything specific when recruiting for pros vs lit? ie do they have different background/educational specifications when hiring?

nycguy wrote:The job prospects for IP attorneys are pretty good, especially with a CS or EE background. If you haven't, you should definitely intern at an IP firm though, since it's one thing to have an abstract interest and another to have a concrete interest.

Salaries range for IP attorneys the same as every other attorney. The big firms pay entry level associates 145-160k. The smaller firms pay around 40-60k.

I don't know of any hiring preference for those who were patent agents. IP students tend to have better hiring cycles but I don't have any data regarding prior patent agents.

I don't have any experience as a patent agent, but do have a lot of experience in pretty cutting-edge research as an undergrad/grad in engineering. I'm considering law schools like WashU, GW, Emory, UCLA, Vandy because I think I can get substantial scholarships there. Do big law firms recruit from these schools in IP? Or is it pretty much T14 or bust like everybody says for general biglaw?

letsplayball wrote:

totesTheGoat wrote:

Salaries range for IP attorneys the same as every other attorney. The big firms pay entry level associates 145-160k. The smaller firms pay around 40-60k.

My experience is that the mid-size firms match the biglaw market salary on the pros side. I don't know about lit, and I don't specifically know about mid-size in DC or NY.

Do firms look for anything specific when recruiting for pros vs lit? ie do they have different background/educational specifications when hiring?

The only hard and fast requirement is that to do patent prosecution, you have to pass the patent bar examination, and the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office has specific educational requirements for being eligible to take the patent bar.

letsplayball wrote: I don't have any experience as a patent agent, but do have a lot of experience in pretty cutting-edge research as an undergrad/grad in engineering. I'm considering law schools like WashU, GW, Emory, UCLA, Vandy because I think I can get substantial scholarships there. Do big law firms recruit from these schools in IP? Or is it pretty much T14 or bust like everybody says for general biglaw?

If you have a BS and MS in EE and you are thinking about patent prosecution, I strongly suggest taking a year and working as a patent agent/technical advisor. I can't stress how silly people are who don't do it with your background. Especially with how the market is for EE/CS, a lot of my friends are making similar money working as developers without the hours, and you could see what you would be actually doing first hand without the tuition + 3 year investment everyone else on here is making. Personally I would work for a year and if I'm happy with it, then take the scholarship route.

Iron_man wrote:

letsplayball wrote: I don't have any experience as a patent agent, but do have a lot of experience in pretty cutting-edge research as an undergrad/grad in engineering. I'm considering law schools like WashU, GW, Emory, UCLA, Vandy because I think I can get substantial scholarships there. Do big law firms recruit from these schools in IP? Or is it pretty much T14 or bust like everybody says for general biglaw?

If you have a BS and MS in EE and you are thinking about patent prosecution, I strongly suggest taking a year and working as a patent agent/technical advisor. I can't stress how silly people are who don't do it with your background. Especially with how the market is for EE/CS, a lot of my friends are making similar money working as developers without the hours, and you could see what you would be actually doing first hand without the tuition + 3 year investment everyone else on here is making. Personally I would work for a year and if I'm happy with it, then take the scholarship route.

Most of patent agent/technical advisor positions want prior experience (usually USPTO patent examiner), PHD, or top notch grades, which I do not have.

letsplayball wrote:Most of patent agent/technical advisor positions want prior experience (usually USPTO patent examiner), PHD, or top notch grades, which I do not have.

you are right in that the hardest part is getting that first year of experience. once you have it, there are so many patent agent positions open right now. firms are feeling the downward pressure on pros fees and you're going to see that work being done more and more by agents instead of attorneys.

if you are interested in doing pros and don't have the experience, many of the IP firms will take part-time law students w/o experience. it's sort of like an extended "summer associate" trial period where they see how you work out for a few years at a really low billing rate and then at graduation they either no-offer you if you suck or give you a full-time offer if you do good work. there are a handful of firms that also pay tuition to these students.

the only down-side is that if you ever want to transition to something other than pros (e.g., lit), you'll pretty much have to leave the firm because 1) your docket will be overloaded with pros cases and you wont have time to take on anything else and 2) people will always think of you for pros work and nothing else since you'll become really efficient at at.

feel free to pm me for more details about part-time life

WillitBlend wrote:

letsplayball wrote:Most of patent agent/technical advisor positions want prior experience (usually USPTO patent examiner), PHD, or top notch grades, which I do not have.

you are right in that the hardest part is getting that first year of experience. once you have it, there are so many patent agent positions open right now. firms are feeling the downward pressure on pros fees and you're going to see that work being done more and more by agents instead of attorneys.

if you are interested in doing pros and don't have the experience, many of the IP firms will take part-time law students w/o experience. it's sort of like an extended "summer associate" trial period where they see how you work out for a few years at a really low billing rate and then at graduation they either no-offer you if you suck or give you a full-time offer if you do good work. there are a handful of firms that also pay tuition to these students.

the only down-side is that if you ever want to transition to something other than pros (e.g., lit), you'll pretty much have to leave the firm because 1) your docket will be overloaded with pros cases and you wont have time to take on anything else and 2) people will always think of you for pros work and nothing else since you'll become really efficient at at.

feel free to pm me for more details about part-time life

Agree with everything stated above. I'm currently a Patent Agent at a big firm that transitioned to the field before starting 1L. Not an EE/CS, and no PhD but great research experience and was enrolled in PT law school when I interviewed.

However, being a Patent Agent and attending LS part-time is not for everyone. The benefits are that you'll get law school paid for and make a pretty good salary (~90-110k at big firms). The downside is that you'll be billing like Associates (e.g., 150-200 hrs/month), and have to deal with taking classes in the evenings. Although prosecution is flexible and not as stressful as litigation, your docket does fill up and some times balancing school and work becomes unmanageable. You probably won't get the "law school experience" if you choose this route, but in the long run, if you're 100% sure about Patent law, and specifically, prosecution, it's the best possible way to get into the field.

Feel free to PM if you'd like more details.

letsplayball wrote: Most of patent agent/technical advisor positions want prior experience (usually USPTO patent examiner), PHD, or top notch grades, which I do not have.

Go get your reg number (Take the patent bar). It's a few hundred dollars investment, and firms will look at you a lot more seriously. You don't need an amazing resume to get a tech advisor/patent agent position. The patent pros market is about as hot a legal market as there is.

collegebum1989 wrote: However, being a Patent Agent and attending LS part-time is not for everyone. The benefits are that you'll get law school paid for and make a pretty good salary (~90-110k at big firms). The downside is that you'll be billing like Associates (e.g., 150-200 hrs/month), and have to deal with taking classes in the evenings. Although prosecution is flexible and not as stressful as litigation, your docket does fill up and some times balancing school and work becomes unmanageable. You probably won't get the "law school experience" if you choose this route, but in the long run, if you're 100% sure about Patent law, and specifically, prosecution, it's the best possible way to get into the field.

Feel free to PM if you'd like more details.

collegebum1989 is absolutely correct. I'll add my experience (feel free to PM me as well):

There are a few different types of opportunities out there for people who want to be patent agents/technical advisors. I didn't switch to a legal job until after my 1E year, so I'm not getting school paid for, nor do I have any obligation to my firm upon graduation. I'm making enough to offset any changes in lifestyle attributed to the work/school combo, but my income isn't really consistent since it's hourly and school takes precedence over a consistent work schedule. Depending on how the next 13 months go, I'll come out with slightly less than or slightly more than $100k in student loans before my wife and I sell our house. It could be as low as $50k after that, depending on how much we sell the house for.

I also concur that balancing school and work being unmanageable at times. The last month and a half has been one of those times for me (thus why I'm blowing off steam on TLS), and it's not fun. Some of this is self induced (I'm taking 17 cr. hours and working 30 hrs/week), but no matter your specific schedule, there are times when you have work deadlines that conflict with school deadlines, and you end up having to work 10 hours in a day and spend 3 hours at school. Add in commutes and scarfing down a meal or two, and you're looking at a 15 hour day before you even get to maintaining your household, going to the gym, or, God forbid, sitting down and enjoying a beer for 15 minutes. I got to watch Monday Night Football last night for the first time all season. I'm not a huge football fan, but it struck me last night that this was the first weekday with an hour or two of free time since late August, and that was just because I decided to throw caution to the wind and not do the work that I had planned to do last night.

However, despite being painfully overworked at times, and despite missing the "law school experience," I'm set up at a great 2L SA, and I'm learning things about patent prosecution that my day student classmates won't learn for another 2-3 years. Overall, I think it's worth going this route. It's hard, but it pays off in the long run.

totesTheGoat wrote:

collegebum1989 wrote: However, being a Patent Agent and attending LS part-time is not for everyone. The benefits are that you'll get law school paid for and make a pretty good salary (~90-110k at big firms). The downside is that you'll be billing like Associates (e.g., 150-200 hrs/month), and have to deal with taking classes in the evenings. Although prosecution is flexible and not as stressful as litigation, your docket does fill up and some times balancing school and work becomes unmanageable. You probably won't get the "law school experience" if you choose this route, but in the long run, if you're 100% sure about Patent law, and specifically, prosecution, it's the best possible way to get into the field.

I also concur that balancing school and work being unmanageable at times. The last month and a half has been one of those times for me (thus why I'm blowing off steam on TLS), and it's not fun. Some of this is self induced (I'm taking 17 cr. hours and working 30 hrs/week), but no matter your specific schedule, there are times when you have work deadlines that conflict with school deadlines, and you end up having to work 10 hours in a day and spend 3 hours at school. Add in commutes and scarfing down a meal or two, and you're looking at a 15 hour day before you even get to maintaining your household, going to the gym, or, God forbid, sitting down and enjoying a beer for 15 minutes. I got to watch Monday Night Football last night for the first time all season. I'm not a huge football fan, but it struck me last night that this was the first weekday with an hour or two of free time since late August, and that was just because I decided to throw caution to the wind and not do the work that I had planned to do last night.

both of these quotes describe my sentiments almost exactly.

that sounds horrible. Why not just work for el goog or le facebook?

redtalun wrote:that sounds horrible. Why not just work for el goog or le facebook?

It's temporary. Doing work alone (or school alone) is much less stressful than work plus school. However, by doing work plus school, I'll graduate with 2 years of patent prosecution experience that my non-working classmates won't have. When all is said and done, it'll be a 3.5 year sacrifice of a social life for an opportunity to get either biglaw or unicorn law.

Also, patent law is much more fun to me than engineering. I get to learn about people's inventions and ideas without having to be a subject matter expert. I found subject matter expertise to be sooooooo boring.

I'm a 1L at a strong regional in the South just gearing up for finals, so take this with a grain of salt. I have a biochemical background and have have spoken with patent attorneys from several biglaw firms and no one has given me any indication that I'll have any trouble pursuing patent prosecution, even without work experience (k-jd, but with significant undergraduate research experience). So while I'm sure the patent agent route would be solid, if you're pretty set on patent law you should be fine as long as your grades are fine. EE and CS degrees are the most sought after, but if I'm being told I'll be fine with a bio chem background you should have nothing to worry about.

It depends whether you just want an IP job, or whether you want a certain type of IP job.

JD + Patent Bar Eligible = Job. It doesn't necessarily equal a great job, though. All else being equal, my patent prosecution experience takes me from barely being considered for the great jobs to being a perfect candidate for the great jobs. However, I've certainly sacrificed quality of live over the last 2.5 years to be in this position.

It's a tradeoff... do you want to sacrifice your enjoyment in law school for a better chance at big/unicorn law, or do you want to enjoy law school at the sacrifice of your probability of getting the best patent law jobs?

totesTheGoat wrote:It depends whether you just want an IP job, or whether you want a certain type of IP job.

JD + Patent Bar Eligible = Job. It doesn't necessarily equal a great job, though. All else being equal, my patent prosecution experience takes me from barely being considered for the great jobs to being a perfect candidate for the great jobs. However, I've certainly sacrificed quality of live over the last 2.5 years to be in this position.

It's a tradeoff... do you want to sacrifice your enjoyment in law school for a better chance at big/unicorn law, or do you want to enjoy law school at the sacrifice of your probability of getting the best patent law jobs?

Thanks!! A couple questions if you don't mind:

-How much is the disparity between a so called "great" job and a "not-so-great job". I know this chasm can be pretty considerable in most other areas of law... how much is this true of IP law jobs?

- Are law school grades looked at with different standards for patent bar eligible vs non-eligible candidates (from a recruiting standpoint)?

letsplayball wrote: -How much is the disparity between a so called "great" job and a "not-so-great job". I know this chasm can be pretty considerable in most other areas of law... how much is this true of IP law jobs?

It's the difference between at or around market ($150k+) and high 5 figures. I don't personally know anybody making less than $95k in patent prosecution, but I'm sure there are some jobs in the $60s or $70s. The reason the floor is so high is because most of us can go back to engineering/science and make $90k+ if a law firm isn't going to pony up.

- Are law school grades looked at with different standards for patent bar eligible vs non-eligible candidates (from a recruiting standpoint)?

Yes and no. If you're applying for a patent bar required job, then there is no comparison. Non eligible candidates are instantly rejected. If you're applying for a patent bar preferred job (patent lit), then a PBE is going to be looked at more favorably than a non-eligible candidate. If you're applying to literally any other job, patent bar eligibility is entirely irrelevant.

Friends at my old firm say the lateral market for IP lit is the worst they can remember over the past 5-7 years, FWIW.

Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:Friends at my old firm say the lateral market for IP lit is the worst they can remember over the past 5-7 years, FWIW.

Any idea why that is?

letsplayball wrote:

Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:Friends at my old firm say the lateral market for IP lit is the worst they can remember over the past 5-7 years, FWIW.

Any idea why that is?

Alice, new rules of civil procedure, big companies increasingly deciding to cross-license or agree not to sue each other.