Electrical Engineer --> Patent Lawyer?

Zoolander

I'm currently finishing up a bachelor's in Electrical Engineering. Over the course of the degree, I've realized that I don't enjoy engineering that much. I do well in the courses, but I don't have the passion and energy for it that a lot of my peers do. I see many of them initiating projects on their own and tinkering with things in their free time and I just don't have that enthusiasm.

I've always been interested in going to law school. Unfortunately, I know very little about the profession and specifically about patent law (which is probably the best fit after an engineering degree). I should have taken some engineering law courses to test the waters, but unfortunately I didn't, and I don't want to extend my bachelors by taking some now.

I want to spend some time doing research on this preliminary idea to make sure that it's not just a whim. Any thoughts? Does anyone have similar experiences of going from engineering to law school? Is anyone a patent lawyer?

Neaden

I'm not a patent lawyer myself so take this with a grain of salt. From what I have heard from patent lawyers it is a very high paying job with extremely long hours going over some rather boring stuff. Most of the big firms have a very high burn out rate of initial people from the stress. On the other hand you do make really good money, and could probably afford to retire early or go to China or whatever it is that you might want to do.

fightinfilipino

Zoolander wrote: »

I'm currently finishing up a bachelor's in Electrical Engineering. Over the course of the degree, I've realized that I don't enjoy engineering that much. I do well in the courses, but I don't have the passion and energy for it that a lot of my peers do. I see many of them initiating projects on their own and tinkering with things in their free time and I just don't have that enthusiasm.

I've always been interested in going to law school. Unfortunately, I know very little about the profession and specifically about patent law (which is probably the best fit after an engineering degree). I should have taken some engineering law courses to test the waters, but unfortunately I didn't, and I don't want to extend my bachelors by taking some now.

I want to spend some time doing research on this preliminary idea to make sure that it's not just a whim. Any thoughts? Does anyone have similar experiences of going from engineering to law school? Is anyone a patent lawyer?

i am not a patent lawyer (or a lawyer at all, really), but i do work at an employment-based immigration firm and work with a lot of patent lawyers immigrating to the US. i know the ins and outs of patent lawyer duties because a lot of our clients are coming to the U.S. on the basis of their employment. usually large-ish law firms will sponsor our clients for immigration because those firms need patent lawyers.

patent and IP law is indeed very lucrative, and attorneys in the field are in high demand. particularly, people with actual science backgrounds are highly sought after. patent law however, is boring. unless you are involved in the policy side of patent/ip law (copyright reform, legislation, treaties, that sort of stuff), you will most likely be involved in technical document drafting that conforms with patent application submission guidelines, lots of technical reading regarding your clients' particular field(s), due diligence tasks (aka reading through a lot of other patents to make sure your clients patents don't conflict), and a lot of other mundane tasks.

on top of that, law isn't something that you can go in to lightly. despite what many people think, lawyering is a very demanding and precise profession, and you need to make absolutely sure it's something you want to do. law school itself is not a humanities cakewalk. it's by no means impossible, though.

Raggaholic

I'm not a patent lawyer, nor a lawyer... yet (stupid joint program extending my graduation date), but the above is very true. Patent lawyers are in HIGH demand. A lot of people get into law school, find out about patent law, and then realize they don't have the science requirement to be able to get licensed in patent law (some states have different bar requirements for that practice, some have different requirements before licensing you). Very few people want to go back and do the work, so it stays in high demand with people knowing the demand is there.

I know a single patent lawyer and it doesn't seem like very rewarding work for him. He was a chemist and he got hired on as a patent attorney. Although he gets pay that would make me punch my mother in the face, he works long hours and hasn't gotten to write a chemical patent after three years of working on other types. He's not happy, but he needs the money.

My advice is to find out as much as you can about it and maybe shadow a patent lawyer for a couple of weeks. The last thing you want to do is go through the investment of law school (which will probably exceed your unddrgrad) and find out it's something you don't want to do.

So, that's my two cents on it. Hope it helps.

fightinfilipino

Raggaholic wrote: »

Although he gets pay that would make me punch my mother in the face

ahahaha you didn't read the thread in SE++ did you?

Zoolander

Thanks for the input, it's been really helpful. The consensus seems to be that it is a high-paying, high-stress, boring job. My initial idea was that it could be interesting because each different project could be based on a different technology, so you're always learning something new, even if you are doing the same tasks for each project. And while I don't want to be immersed in the hardcore technical aspects of engineering, I do enjoy learning about technology.

fightinfilipino: You mentioned immigrating patent lawyers. Would you have any idea how much they have to go through to be certified in the US? One big issue I have is that I would really prefer a career that I can (fairly) easily transfer to another country. I'm in Canada now, and I'm pretty sure I'll be moving in the future, either to the U.S. or elsewhere.

And I'm going to find out about shadowing a patent lawyer. I'm kicking myself for not taking an engineering law course earlier, but this seems like a good substitute. I'm also looking to get some textbooks and material I can look over.

Gigaton

I'm not a patent lawyer of any kind but I did obsessive research on that very subject for about 3 months straight (Thanks for the OCD mom). One thing I thought I should ask in this thread is if you like to read and write and happen to be very skilled in it. The profession requires a TON of writing.

There are two main overall types of a patent lawyer: Prosecution and Litigation.
Prosecution simply means that would actually write the patents which can be a little monotonous and alot of people think it can be excruciatingly boring.
Litigation is when are argue in behalf of a client when there is a dispute over the details of a patent. Some in the profession say this is more "exciting" then prosecution but honestly it just depends on what floats your boat.

Zoolander

Gigaton wrote: »

I'm not a patent lawyer of any kind but I did obsessive research on that very subject for about 3 months straight (Thanks for the OCD mom). One thing I thought I should ask in this thread is if you like to read and write and happen to be very skilled in it. The profession requires a TON of writing.

I do like reading and writing, I'd say much much more than your average engineer. I even like public speaking. This is one of the things that turns me off engineering: you barely ever use any soft skills.

But as I understand it, a starting lawyer will probably be doing a lot of prosecution and very little if at all any litigation, right?

Thanks for your insights, keep them coming please!

Gigaton

Zoolander wrote: »

Gigaton wrote: »

I'm not a patent lawyer of any kind but I did obsessive research on that very subject for about 3 months straight (Thanks for the OCD mom). One thing I thought I should ask in this thread is if you like to read and write and happen to be very skilled in it. The profession requires a TON of writing.

I do like reading and writing, I'd say much much more than your average engineer. I even like public speaking. This is one of the things that turns me off engineering: you barely ever use any soft skills.

But as I understand it, a starting lawyer will probably be doing a lot of prosecution and very little if at all any litigation, right?

Thanks for your insights, keep them coming please!

Yeah, prosecution is usually whats mare sought after since only lawyers (or scientists) that have passed the patent bar (a test you can only take if you have at least a BA/BS in science or engineering) are able to prosecute and any only a lawyer (of any kind) can do litigation. So basically, to be the most marketable kind of patent lawyer would be to have a BA/BS in sci or eng in addition to a law degree. Try not to over-think the "boring" warnings, there are plenty of patent lawyers that love what they do, but it's in a similar vein of some accountants that love accounting.

DrFrylock

I am not a patent lawyer, but I worked as a consultant on a couple of patent infringement cases with a large law firm. I worked with a team of about 6 attorneys - four partners and two associates. All were patent litigators. Occasionally we would interact with one or two attorneys from the firm who were ordinary patent attorneys (patent prosecutors). Most of the litigators did have scientific or engineering degrees and had all passed the patent bar, although this was mostly a formality as they did not interact with the patent office very often. One of the associates explained that the firm asked all the litigators to get their 'tickets' to practice before the patent bar so, if needed, they could sign or draft paperwork in case the patent attorneys had gone home for the weekend or whatever.

This firm is a top 25 firm in general, and a top 10 firm in patent litigation, so I imagine that the lifestyle was a little bit more hardcore than in smaller firms. These guys worked very very hard all the time. I am sure they made a lot of money. There were several times when I sat in one-day meetings that cost somebody more than I made in a year in my regular job - I am not exaggerating about this. The difficulty with being a litigator in this firm was that they money was good, but there was very little time to enjoy it.

The work was always extremely challenging and high-pressure. I wouldn't call it boring. Parts of it were boring - it's never fun going through 14 boxes of paper, or cataloging the contents of 250 unlabeled CDs. But I'd say a good 70% of the time the attorneys were engaged in strategizing, drafting arguments, preparing motions, doing research, meeting with various experts, etc. One thing they told me they liked about their job was that each case was in a slightly different field and they got to learn about all of them - biology, electronics, software, chemistry, manufacturing, engineering, etc. They didn't learn about these things by themselves - they had experts and consultants to help teach them (this was my role). In return, they gave me a top-notch education in patent law for free.

Probably the key skill for patent litigators is communication. Patent litigators are, in a sense, educators. They have to take a very obscure, esoteric subject and communicate about it effectively. They also have to communicate their interpretation of the law effectively. Sometimes this communication is oral, and sometimes it's written. Sometimes it's in front of a judge who hears a million other cases on a million other subjects, and sometimes it's in front of a jury composed of people without scientific or technical backgrounds. This communication has to be correct and concise, but it also has to be extremely precise. That is, to make a case, you have to make sure that every single base is covered - if you leave anything out, your case can go to hell in an instant.

So, there are many good reasons to be a patent litigator:

• It's dynamic: You get to meet interesting people and learn interesting things.
• It's exciting: Due to the pressure and the uncertainty, you're always on your toes waiting to see what's going to happen next.
• It's intellectually stimulating: For a large number of reasons. Litigating a case is like solving a huge puzzle - you have to be able to manage and organize tons of little pieces.
• The money is very good: Can't beat the salaries at the top firms.
• It's not engineering: Some people like technical subjects, but don't want to practice them 8 hours a day. Some of these people become managers, but a few of them become patent attorneys and litigators.

While we worked togther, they would occasionally joke about me quitting the engineering life and going to law school - I was young enough and probably could have if I wanted to. However, I quickly realized that there were substantial differences between being an engineer and being a lawyer. The following are the reasons I will not ever go to law school to become a patent litigator:

• Competition: As a scientist or engineer, you are mostly competing against abstractions: nature, deadlines, etc. If you are smart, choose your problems carefully, and work hard, you will generally solve them. When you succeed, everybody is happy. As a litigator, you are competing against other human beings. These human beings are out to thwart your every effort every step of the way. Whoever wins, somebody else has to lose. You can be smart, choose your cases carefully, work harder than you've ever worked before, and come out at the end with nothing. Less than nothing, actually, because you've spent someone else's money and given them nothing in return.
  
• Uncertainty: In science and engineering, you strive for repeatable outcomes. In the law, this isn't the case. If you and the other side submit the best motions you can, you may win or you may lose. Very little is cut-and-dry in the legal world - if some situation is obviously favoring one side or the other, then that situation immediately becomes a nonissue. Therefore, just about every issue you encounter will be in dispute, and as clear as something may be to you, it may not be at all clear to a judge or jury. Yes, we have stare decisis and appeals courts, but the law is ambiguous and imperfect in a tremendous number of ways.
  
• Pressure: In science or engineering, you have lots of opportunities to fix something if you screw up. In litigation, not so much. If you forget to put in a motion, or you miss some point you were supposed to make, or you cite the wrong case, or you fail to take into account some minor detail, you can be fucked. Game over - no second chances. Also, the hours suck. I think it would be very difficult to be a top patent litigator and have many outside interests. It can be very hard to do simple things like maintain a relationship or have a family. What good is it making $200,000 a year if you're working 14 hours a day, six days a week?
  
• Inefficiency: In science and engineering, you generally try to optimize your work so you get the desired result with the least amount of effort. In law, you have to prepare for a million contingencies in advance so you can deal with the one or two that actually arise. You have to come up with all possible objections to your arguments, and counter-arguments for each. However, only a very tiny percentage of these will actually be useful. The problem is, you can't know which ones you'll need in advance. I once spent days preparing a deck of about 150 PowerPoint slides with the associates in advance of an important hearing with oral arguments. On the day of the hearing, we used about 5.

As the Oracle's plaque in The Matrix says, te nosce - know thyself. Patent litigation can be a lucrative and exciting career, although it's not for everybody. And, as I found out, you don't have to be a lawyer to be involved - there are always opportunities for consultants and expert witnesses. I got to be involved in every aspect of our cases short of actually addressing the judge and jury directly, and then at the end I got to go back to my ordinary engineering career. It was fun to "play" an attorney for a couple years without actually having to go to law school.

So that's what I know about patent litigation. I don't know much about what it's like being a patent prosecutor, but maybe others can fill you in here. If you have any questions, just post them here or PM me and I'll try to answer.

Zoolander

DrFrylock, thank you so much for taking the time to write that. I want to lime your entire post. I especially appreciate the reasons why you personally wouldn't take a job as patent litigator, particularly since you come from an engineering background. Thank you!

I see a lot of things I would enjoy in your description (ex. "They have to take a very obscure, esoteric subject and communicate about it effectively"). I guess it's all about whether I'll enjoy the work enough to handle the pressures. I'm going to have to inquire about job shadowing at a local firm.

grungebox

Just so you know, you don't have to do patent law after law school just because you're an EE anymore than a person with a foreign language major has to do immigration law after law school.

Also, have you considered just working at a law firm as a technical advisor. I know at least 3 people that ended up getting a BS or MS in EE then working for Fulbright and Jaworski as technical advisors for their attorneys.

Serpent

Zoolander, maybe consider being a contract lawyer too -- an engineering background is pretty useful there too. This is more what I'm interested into moving into.

elizabex

I'm starting a law program this fall, and thought I'd throw this out there, since it was recommended to me by my program:

Official Guide Legal Specialties

Zoolander

Thanks so much for the suggestions of different careers and the book suggestion. Like I mentioned in my OP, I'm at the research stage, so all these suggestions are really helpful.