Top Law Schools

I've heard of people getting offers from large law firms to have their tuition at a top 3-6 school fully paid, if they sign a contract to work for that firm for x amount of years after graduation. Does anyone here know how common that is, and how to at least have a chance at getting an offer like that? I have an extremely high LSAT score and a very good GPA, plus decent connections at a few of the top firms in the U.S. which might very well land me a lower-level job with at least one of them for the upcoming year- although I suspect that might not be enough time to get such an offer, even with my scores.

A few firms do something similar for people with outstanding technical backgrounds who work in technical roles at the law firm, and commit to coming back as patent attorneys. If all you've got going for you is a great lsat, then absolutely not going to happen.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say there's a zero percent chance of any "vault ranked" big law firm doing this.

No one's work product is worth that much lol

Maybe if you're the son of the owner of some large private company or something and you're guaranteeing them a huge amount of $$$$ in legal fees for the next few years.

I've definitely heard of smaller firms doing this tho

Honestly I would echo the sentiments of that guy in your Reddit thread. But to answer your question (as others have) the only time it happens really is those with technical background (i.e., patent) and usually for people who have worked there for a while first.

I have worked at three firms and they all had their own tuition reimbursement programs, though they didnt pay very much. After working there for a year, you would be eligible for $1,500/year for undergrad classes related to law (with a B or higher grade), $3,000/year for graduate level, and $5,000/year for law school. It wasn't a huge amount of money but I definitely took advantage of it and considered it a small "bonus" when I would complete a semester (UG).

As for getting your entire LS tuition paid for...I'm going to guess that it would be unlikely

Pearson Specter Litt

patent office pays for LS

pancakes3 wrote:patent office pays for LS

That seems to be the consensus here- do you know why patent lawyers would have their tuition paid for more than other fields?

ShouldIGoToLawSchool wrote:

pancakes3 wrote:patent office pays for LS

That seems to be the consensus here- do you know why patent lawyers would have their tuition paid for more than other fields?

I didn't mean a law office that does patent, but rather the USPTO.

ShouldIGoToLawSchool wrote:

pancakes3 wrote:patent office pays for LS

That seems to be the consensus here- do you know why patent lawyers would have their tuition paid for more than other fields?

Because law students with high undergrad GPAs and LSATs are fungible and a dime a dozen. If you're at a top school, virtually all your classmates fit into that category. Why would a school pay what's essentially a $250,000 signing bonus before even knowing whether your law school grades are any good? Remember, you are as likely to end up at the bottom of your class as anyone else. They would be better off just increasing their clerkship bonus if they wanted to get top candidates.

The only reason would be if you have some skill that 99% of other law students don't have, e.g. a PhD in electrical engineering.

ShouldIGoToLawSchool wrote:

pancakes3 wrote:patent office pays for LS

That seems to be the consensus here- do you know why patent lawyers would have their tuition paid for more than other fields?

because firms can actually make money off them

redtalun wrote:

ShouldIGoToLawSchool wrote:

pancakes3 wrote:patent office pays for LS

That seems to be the consensus here- do you know why patent lawyers would have their tuition paid for more than other fields?

because firms can actually make money off them

As someone with a technical background (Ph.D. in Chemistry), I explored this question before making the jump. There are two typical paths, one far more common than the other. The more common path is that the firm, after working there for 3-4 years, will pay for you to attend law school part time while you continue to work for the firm and continue to draw your firm salary. After graduating, you are required to stay with the firm for a certain number of years. The other, far rarer option, is for the firm to pay you to go to law school full time.

Interestingly, the patent attorneys I talked to were divided between paying for law school yourself or going to work and having the firm pay for you. The downside of having the firm pay is you lose mobility once you graduate due to being tied to the firm and it takes longer and is much more intense getting through law school at a much less intense school (the part time thing is a killer). You also don't have the opportunity to participate in a lot of the law school activities (journal, research) that would make you a better candidate for other firms. Overall, the consensus was that over the long run it's basically cost neutral, taking into account the time you'd spend earning a technical analyst's salary instead of a lawyer's salary.

The firm I interned at during UG would pay $5k a year in tuition. It's hardly a drop in the bucket to consider (small firm).

Currently work for a patent firm while going to school in the evenings. This is type of arrangement is common in patent law as opposed to other fields for a few reasons:

(1) Historically, engineers and scientists did not typically go to law school and so there was an extremely large demand for patent practitioners with the requisite technical backgrounds. Firms literally had to offer tuition reimbursement to recruit future associates. However, supply for patent attorneys has increased as patent law has become a common alternative career for scientists and engineers.

(2) The USPTO has strict academic requirements to practice patent prosecution, which I'm not aware other practices of law have. This is primarily the reason why law firms that strictly practice patent prosecution offer law school tuition reimbursement, while others do not.

(3) Patent prosecution often does not require one to go to law school to practice. In fact, you can take the patent bar even before enrolling in law school, and there are numerous practitioners who are patent agents, rather than patent attorneys. As such, large law firms that practice patent prosecution have realized that even if they pay an Agent $90k and cover their tuition, this will still be $15-20k cheaper than a JD.

(4) Patent prosecution is budget-sensitive. A lot of patent work is done on a fixed-fee basis, which places stress on practitioners to meet budgets. Firms have realized it's more efficient to hire a scientist/engineer, train them while their billing rate is low, and hire them as associates when they have 3-4 years experience when they graduate law school and can handle the increased billing rate.


With respect to whether this arrangement is worth it over the conventional full-time law school arrangement depends on the person. In my opinion, law review, journals, and other law school accolades are largely fictions created by the industry for hiring purposes. In real life, practice is much different from law school. If one is sure about patent law and not interested in the conventional "prestigious legal career" that TLS seems to promote, I can't imagine why you'd toss up the opportunity to receive actual legal experience, salary, tuition, and contacts to incur debt by going to law school full-time.

Desert Fox wrote:

ShouldIGoToLawSchool wrote:

pancakes3 wrote:patent office pays for LS

That seems to be the consensus here- do you know why patent lawyers would have their tuition paid for more than other fields?

Because certain specialties are really in demand--electrical engineers and biotech/pharma--and those fields have really great prospects outside of law. But also, student associates are profitable at patent boutiques. They can have you spend 1500 hours writing patents during school year and pay you some money and pay for school. The firm makes money for four years and then gets you full time.

Very few other practice groups could charge clients for someone who isn't even a lawyer.

A lot of these people have been prosecuting patents for 7 years before they graduate law school.

It also cannot be overstated how rare patent bar eligible law students still are. Out of my class of 250, there are maybe 18 or 20 of us that are eligible, and 15 who want to practice in patent prosecution. Only a handful (2 or 3) had prior prosecution experience before law school, but all of the part-time students are in law firms doing prosecution work as a day job. On average, my part-time peers and I will graduate with 2 years of full-time prosecution experience.

Desert Fox wrote:20 out of 250 is huge. It has to be way less than that on average.

I should mention that I'm talking about the top school in a tech-hub city that is conspicuously lacking law schools compared to the size of the city, and the school has a part-time program that caters to IP law.

I don't know how much of an outlier 20/250 is, but I can tell you that the local market could absorb double or triple the number of candidates, if not more.