So sick of this

[klaviernista]

Thanks, one firm I just talked to wants 1800 actual billed hrs (strictly prep and pros).  At 90% efficiency, that would be 2000 hr billable, which posters are saying is almost unbearable.  Lots of variables I know, but what is considered a viable efficiency?  Do even very experienced practitioners hit 99%?

Even at my best, I could only capture 85-90% of my time doing pure prep and pros. 

[stuffball]

same here.

[bald & chained]

Thanks, one firm I just talked to wants 1800 actual billed hrs (strictly prep and pros).  At 90% efficiency, that would be 2000 hr billable, which posters are saying is almost unbearable.  Lots of variables I know, but what is considered a viable efficiency?  Do even very experienced practitioners hit 99%?

Even at my best, I could only capture 85-90% of my time doing pure prep and pros. 

that's why I am doing mostly litigation now - can't deal with the rising billing rates and the simultaneously lowering caps.  But I don't really see litigation as a long term career plan either - I am not gonna be a trial lawyer and managing cases for others does not appeal to me.  Any ideas/suggestions, oh wise ones, for an exit strategy or career path for someone like me? I've done both lit and pros, but can't seem to make up my mind, since both suck in their own special ways.  I've considered piracy, but now that they've started putting armed guards on ships, that gravy train seems to be over as well.

[Obviously]

Does everybody remember the patent attorney that won the world series of poker a few years back.... that is the only truly viable exit strategy....high rollin'

[blakesq]

Born2bmild,  this is your partner.  Why are you posting at 8 pm?  Shouldn't you be working on a patent prep or pros? 

I do prosecution at a firm w/a 2000 hour billable requirement.  It is miserable.  I never relax or plan to have fun.  Basically, I work, or when I am not working, I feel like I should be at work.

Is it any better for you folks with lower billable requirements, smaller firms,  in-house, etc.?  I get emails from in-house counsel sometimes at 12 at night.  And clients somehow always want something done just when you finally think you can take a day off.  Everything has to be done now. 

I am beginning to think it isn't really my firm's billable requirement.  I think it is just the profession of law.  I am becoming convinced that lawyers in private practice really just don't have lives outside of work. 

Am I wrong?  The law degree was a lot of work, but I am not sure this is worth it.  Maybe go back to engineering, and at least be able to forget about work when I am not there. 

[DogDayPM 9er9er9er]

Any ideas/suggestions, oh wise ones, for an exit strategy or career path for someone like me? I've done both lit and pros, but can't seem to make up my mind, since both suck in their own special ways.  I've considered piracy, but now that they've started putting armed guards on ships, that gravy train seems to be over as well.

Many of the in-house postings I see state a definite preference for someone who can do prep/pros, knows litigation well enough to manage it for them, and has a patch on one eye and a parrot on the opposing shoulder. 

Go in-house.

[bald & chained]

Any ideas/suggestions, oh wise ones, for an exit strategy or career path for someone like me? I've done both lit and pros, but can't seem to make up my mind, since both suck in their own special ways.  I've considered piracy, but now that they've started putting armed guards on ships, that gravy train seems to be over as well.

Many of the in-house postings I see state a definite preference for someone who can do prep/pros, knows litigation well enough to manage it for them, and has a patch on one eye and a parrot on the opposing shoulder. 

Go in-house.

any ideas for what's the ideal level of "maturity" for transitioning in-house? The in-house salaries are quite lower than the firm salaries, so I might milk the firm life for a bit more.  Are you better off transitioning in-house as a mid-level associate, as a senior associate, or as a partner, or does it even matter?  I know pirates value combat experience, but there is something to be said for hiring young strong soldiers over experienced but crippled veterans.

[Jim_W]

It's pretty damn ironic hearing stories about overworked patent attorneys in this job market. I'd love a 2000 hour patent prosecution job right now, suffering be damned. And I know I'm not the only one. Seriously, there are worse things in the world than having a hard job and a six figure paycheck. I've worked hard jobs with long hours for a lot less than patent attorney money.

One other question this raises:
If there's so much work that patent attorneys are thinking of quitting the profession from exhaustion, why aren't any of the patent firms hiring? I mean, it's not like there's a shortage of patent attorneys right now.

[bald & chained]

One other question this raises:
If there's so much work that patent attorneys are thinking of quitting the profession from exhaustion, why aren't any of the patent firms hiring? I mean, it's not like there's a shortage of patent attorneys right now.

that's pretty naive thinking - be careful what you wish for.  Granted, it completely sucks on the outside looking for a job, but it's gotten pretty testy on the inside as well.  Lower caps, leaner staffed cases, fixed fees - basically, clients expect you to do more for less now and partners treat you like crap knowing that you don't have anywhere to go. But yes, in comparison to unemployed we are all a bunch of employed crybabies (for now). That said, you too should be happy that you are unemployed  in the US and not some war-torn country. So let's all concentrate on all the wonderful and positive things we still have in our lives (e.g., TiVo) and move on to more productive discussions, OK?

[stuffball]

It's pretty damn ironic hearing stories about overworked patent attorneys in this job market. I'd love a 2000 hour patent prosecution job right now, suffering be damned. And I know I'm not the only one. Seriously, there are worse things in the world than having a hard job and a six figure paycheck. I've worked hard jobs with long hours for a lot less than patent attorney money.

One other question this raises:
If there's so much work that patent attorneys are thinking of quitting the profession from exhaustion, why aren't any of the patent firms hiring? I mean, it's not like there's a shortage of patent attorneys right now.

Yeah, I hear you.  I made peanuts as a researcher for much of my professional life, working longer hours at a job that was arguably much harder, more demanding and more stressful.  It was certainly less stable.  As bad as patent prosecution gets, it's way better than much of what's out there for technical people.  It's just that patent prosecution is a tougher gig for making hours than others in the legal profession.  That said, your reminder that we should remember that life can be a lot worse is appropriate.

Patent firms aren't hiring for two reasons.  The first is that business is down.  The second is that firms know they can squeeze much more out of people already on their payrolls because those people have nowhere else to go.  Everybody's terrified and most people have mortgages and bills that would make even medium-term unemployment a financial death sentence.  Nobody's lateraling any more and, therefore, firms no longer have to treat top performers with kid gloves for fear they'll jump ship. 

There's no contradiction here:  the seemingly "ironic" combination of overworked and unemployed patent attorneys is, if not by design, then the result of opportunism.

[smgsmc]

In the NY/NJ area, business seems to be picking up again.  I've been contacted by three recruiters over the past two weeks.  They tell me that firms in this area laid off so many people earlier in the year that some are now short as business picks up again.  But, I'm afraid, this doesn't help people like Jim_W, who are trying to get an entry slot with no experience.  Firms are asking for 1.5 yrs+.

[stuffball]

DC isn't really picking up yet, at least in my sub-field.  I was getting calls from recruiters as late as July, but that seems to have completely stopped since September or so.

[DogDayPM 9er9er9er]

any ideas for what's the ideal level of "maturity" for transitioning in-house? The in-house salaries are quite lower than the firm salaries, so I might milk the firm life for a bit more.  Are you better off transitioning in-house as a mid-level associate, as a senior associate, or as a partner, or does it even matter?  I know pirates value combat experience, but there is something to be said for hiring young strong soldiers over experienced but crippled veterans.

Speaking from limited experience (I have been in 2 in-house patent depts and know how a couple of others are organized and hire), I'd say there's no maximum (with a qualification to come) but definitely a minimum.  You'd seldom get hired in-house without 6-8 years practical experience (some of the years could be PTO experience).  Exceptions here include political fights between HR, Finance and Legal where the position gets authorized for an 8-10 year lawyer but you only get enough money to hire at 1-2 years experience (even considering in-house salaries are bound to be less than at good sized firms), so you hire the near-noob and hope for the best. 

Relatively young partner level folks (10-20 years) might be a fit for a team leader type position in-house.  In a company with a large patent department this is a position where you lead a team of 3-8 others, carry maybe a 1/4 docket yourself, and act as the main patent advisor for a business unit.  Nice slot for those who are getting burned out by P&P.  But most often I've seen these filled from within or by scalping from other companies because there is the considerable question of whether the new hire will be able to fit well and work well within a corporate setting.  I have not seen a case where we set out specifically to hire a 15 year man for a worker bee type P&P role, although these folks do sometimes fall into your lap.

The only times I've seen very experienced people jump in-house was to take over a dept chief role.

So after reviewing the above, I guess I come out with "don't wait too long" (more than about 10-12 years experience, and you might be better at 5-8) if you want to go in-house.

FWIW going to some of the other recent comments:  I talk to people fairly regularly in a number of other corporate law depts and they are cutting staff and lawyers, failing to fill for attrition, etc., and being told to just make do.  I work about 60 hpw routinely with spikes depending on what's going on litigation-wise.  One of the drivers causing me to leave my last in-house position was 70+ hour weeks due to a "temporary" situation that after about 15 months looked like it was not going to end.  So for anyone thinking about jumping in-house, if you interface with client in-house patent attorneys why not have some frank discussions to get an idea of what they really work? 

[bald & chained]

Thanks DogDayPM, this is very interesting info.

[Jim_W]

Very interesting, thanks.

Also, lol at 15 month temporary situations.