Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Pinkitt]

I started a patent agent job at a big law firm and it didn't work out, since it was too stressful and it affected my health.
I still thinking about being a patent attorney, but my health cannot deal with a stress.

Is it realistic to be a patent attorney someday when I am fragile on stress? Should I look for another career?
Is it just impossible to deal with law firm? What about law school?

For those of you who practice as a patent agent/attorney, are you all very strong on deal with stress or how do you do that?

[UVAgal4]

Umm, I think if you found being a patent agent too stressful then don't become an attorney.
But perhaps you just needed more time to get used to everything, the deadlines, the exactitude, etc.

[klaviernista]

Sue,

It is a bit hard to answer your question, because what one person may find stressful, another person might not.  From your prior posts and our discussions, it seems to me that you find certain specific aspects of being a patent agent stressful, e.g., the billable hour, the deadlines, the extreme need for attention to detail, etc.  If that is the case, then the honest truth is that being a patent agent/attorney may not the best career for you.  Why?  Because the elements I just mentioned are, for the most part, universally present in some way  shape or form in EVERY patent agent/attorney position.

My suggestion is that you take a very long look at why you WANT to be a patent agent/attorney.  A lot of prospective attorneys I talk to are interested in the field for two reasons, namely the money, and to get out of a laboratory setting.  My personal opinion is that those two reasons alone are not sufficient in most cases to justify the investment of time and money that is required to become a patent attorney/agent.  You need to genuinely enjoy some aspect of the job (or at least think that you will), else the stress that comes with it will be very difficult to deal with.   

Personally, I find satsifaction in my job for a number of reasons that don't include money or working in an office environment.  For example, I enjoy the fact that I learn something new, every single day I am at work.  I also enjoy the challenge that comes along with managing a massive docket of applications and meeting deadlines for a client.  I don't view them as being stressful (though they can be), but rather as a "time trial" in a drag race (i.e., how quickly can I move cases safely across the finish line).  Not to say that I don't get stressed out about certain aspects of my job.  I definitely do.  E.g., I absolutely hate it when my job encroaches on my personal life, which it has a tendency to do if I am not careful. 

All that said, I think that if you are honest with yourself, you will realize that for any given job, there will be things you like, things you don't like, and things you find stressful (but which you do not necessarily dislike).   The question is whether what you like or need from the job is worth dealing with what you don't like, and/or what you find stressful.  If you can objectively answer "yes" to that question with respect to any particular career, than that career is probably worth pursuing.  But from your prior posts and our discussions, I think you need to be brutally honest with yourself before you decide to move forward with pursuing a career as a patent agent/attorney (or not).  Just remember one thing.  You DO NOT HAVE to be a patent agent/attorney, and there is NOTHING wrong with choosing to do something else.

[khazzah]

it seems to me that you find certain specific aspects of being a patent agent stressful, e.g., the billable hour, the deadlines, the extreme need for attention to detail, etc.  ..
... the elements I just mentioned are, for the most part, universally present in some way  shape or form in EVERY patent agent/attorney position.

It's true that an hour requirement and deadlines are present in every agent/attorney position. But there's a huge difference between a 1600 hour requirement, an 1800 requirement, a 1900 hour requirement, etc. It's quite possible that someone who is stressed in meeting 1900 would be fine at a lower requirement, and if that's true, you gotta pick an arrangement with lower hours.

To some degree, the same is true with deadlines. Some find having 4 responses due in a week is stressful, while others find that having 2 a week is stressful. The number of deadlines you must meet in a given time period is typically strongly correlated with the hours requirement. ie, you're not going to meet 1900 hours a year by filing 1 response a week. But it's also related to the workload at the firm -- it might be that you have a short period with a lot of deadlines, followed by another period with fewer deadlines, yet averaging out to 1800/year.

you will realize that for any given job, there will be things you like, things you don't like, and things you find stressful (but which you do not necessarily dislike).   The question is whether what you like or need from the job is worth dealing with what you don't like, and/or what you find stressful.

Great advice. Know thyself.

[polarbear]

"Big Law" is well known to be stressfull.  There are actually patent law employers that don't just say they are "family friendly" but actually are.  I would suggest doing some informational interviewing at these firms and then decide how you might like it.
Good luck

[Robert K S]

In-house prosecution has got to be one of the least stressful legal profession jobs, especially in relation to pay.  Long deadlines (1-3 months or more), pay-your-way-out-of-malpractice (with extension-of-time petitions), lots of opportunities to make corrections, pretty hard to breach ethics/commit fraud unless you're really trying... YMMV.

[klaviernista]

In-house prosecution has got to be one of the least stressful legal profession jobs, especially in relation to pay.  Long deadlines (1-3 months or more), pay-your-way-out-of-malpractice (with extension-of-time petitions), lots of opportunities to make corrections, pretty hard to breach ethics/commit fraud unless you're really trying... YMMV.

Depends on the gig, I think.  In my current job, I am more of a corporate generalist than a patent attorney.  My patent work only takes 40% of my time, and it is quite easy.  On the other hand, I know in house guys that manage thousands of cases and are stressed out beyond belief.

[Robert K S]

To manage hundreds of cases I can see as being reasonable.  To sign off on the prosecution of thousands of cases?  I don't believe this could be possible, at least not ethically.  At some point one has a duty to one's prior clients not to take on additional cases that would increase the workload to such an extent that it would jeopardize the rights of the earlier clients.

[Isaac]

I don't believe this could be possible, at least not ethically.  At some point one has a duty to one's prior clients not to take on additional cases that would increase the workload to such an extent that it would jeopardize the rights of the earlier clients.

An in-house attorney is an employee.  There is only one client, and much of the work involves delegation to outside counsel. 

[klaviernista]

To manage hundreds of cases I can see as being reasonable.  To sign off on the prosecution of thousands of cases?  I don't believe this could be possible, at least not ethically.  At some point one has a duty to one's prior clients not to take on additional cases that would increase the workload to such an extent that it would jeopardize the rights of the earlier clients.

Agreed.  Like Isaac said, much of he work is delegated to outside counsel.  But managing those applications and the flow of that work is, in and of itself, quite difficult. 

[smgsmc]

I started a patent agent job at a big law firm and it didn't work out, since it was too stressful and it affected my health.
I still thinking about being a patent attorney, but my health cannot deal with a stress.

Is it realistic to be a patent attorney someday when I am fragile on stress? Should I look for another career?
Is it just impossible to deal with law firm? What about law school?

For those of you who practice as a patent agent/attorney, are you all very strong on deal with stress or how do you do that?

Hi Pinkitt.  I just sent you a PM.

smgsmc

[Pinkitt]

My stress was from billable hours and efficiency part. I didn't have much deadline problem at least for my short experience. Since I was new, I kept asking how to get efficient and to write better, especially when I don't really know how to write better, but all the attorneys were too busy to guide me.

Things what I liked about it was 1. patent application/office action response writing. I am not a good writer but I am an okay one especially with technical papers. Since I was not creating a whole idea, it was not too bad. 2. Topics were interesting to learn; reading a lot of patents and comparing them too.

What I was not happy about was 1. I didn't know about how to take care of billable hours; even if I can go to bathroom. 2. There were no one to talk to; not friendly environment at least. 3. My perfectionism. I had pressure of "being good", and mostly it was me who criticized;

I don't know if my stress was transitional from engineer-> patent agent. I was hoping to be more comfortable working there; but I had too short(about 3 months) experience to judge it from the experience either. I am trying to give myself one more chance; but is it a good idea?

[AnotherCog]

My stress was from billable hours and efficiency part. I didn't have much deadline problem at least for my short experience. Since I was new, I kept asking how to get efficient and to write better, especially when I don't really know how to write better, but all the attorneys were too busy to guide me.

Things what I liked about it was 1. patent application/office action response writing. I am not a good writer but I am an okay one especially with technical papers. Since I was not creating a whole idea, it was not too bad. 2. Topics were interesting to learn; reading a lot of patents and comparing them too.

What I was not happy about was 1. I didn't know about how to take care of billable hours; even if I can go to bathroom. 2. There were no one to talk to; not friendly environment at least. 3. My perfectionism. I had pressure of "being good", and mostly it was me who criticized;

I don't know if my stress was transitional from engineer-> patent agent. I was hoping to be more comfortable working there; but I had too short(about 3 months) experience to judge it from the experience either. I am trying to give myself one more chance; but is it a good idea?

Given your concerns, I'd go back to engineering. (I'm not saying this negatively, either - I actually respect engineers as a whole more than I do lawyers).  It's just very unlikely that you're going to ever solve #1 or #2 of your concerns.  The billable hour is a staple at almost every law firm.  Yeah, you can go in-house to escape having to record your life in 6-minute increments, but most in-house gigs want firm experience first.  Patent law is also a relatively unfriendly profession.  That's not to say that the people that practice patent law are unfriendly, it's just that patent law requires immense amounts of concentration and doesn't usually involve much collaboration.  In terms of #3, you could train yourself to care less about the quality of your work, but do you really want that? You gave it a shot and didn't like it - there's nothing wrong with that.  Just be glad that you saved yourself the expense of law school to find that out. No matter what you decide, good luck.

[Robert K S]

An in-house attorney is an employee.  There is only one client, and much of the work involves delegation to outside counsel.

Even in house, there are multiple "clients".  (Different inventors, departments, subsidiaries, spin-offs, etc., who may--nay, invariably will--have competing interests.)  A client is anyone to whom a duty of diligence is owed.

Not everybody delegates to outside counsel.  Some of us are better (and come cheaper) than any outside counsel could be.

[Isaac]

Even in house, there are multiple "clients".  (Different inventors, departments, subsidiaries, spin-offs, etc., who may--nay, invariably will--have competing interests.)  A client is anyone to whom a duty of diligence is owed.

The inventors are generally not your clients.    If departments have competing interests, that needs to get squared away, perhaps not by you, and I don't see how those kinds of conflicts get simpler when more hands are involved.

I can see subsidiaries and spin-offs having problems, but even if somebody else handles those, you can still have a huge docket of cases to handle.

Not everybody delegates to outside counsel.  Some of us are better (and come cheaper) than any outside counsel could be.

Cheaper yes, and perhaps more attuned to your clients needs.  But I'll interpret the 'better than any outside counsel could be' as just puffing and chest thumping.

If you don't delegate, then you cannot handle thousands of cases and you should not try.   I'm not sure that criticizing those who do delegate is meaningful.