Print

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

[lawyer2be]

Hey guys, so I'm in bit of a dilemma. I have a job offer as a patent engineer from a firm in my state. Which would you guys choose?

1. Finish my master's -> go to a T14 law school -> get into a law firm as a patent attorney (1st year)

2. Finish my master's -> go to patent engineering job -> part-time law school (2nd tier) paid by firm -> become attorney at the firm as experienced associate (possibly 4th year)

[khazzah]

Can't answer that question in the abstract. Depends on what your goals are.

Make money as soon as possible? Make the most money over the long term? Make decent money but still have a life? Get skills that will allow you to start your own practice someday?

[lawyer2be]

How about make the most money over long term?

[IPLoya]

This is one of those "good problems" to have - congrats. 

Option 2 sounds like the clear winner, to me.  I believe a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.  The distinction between T14 and Tier 2 does not seem quite so significant in view of other considerations.

First, while the cost of education varies among law schools, it is rarely cheap, so having someone bankroll you is a huge advantage. 

Second, you will have the guidance and support of experienced practitioners to help you through law school, both in terms of knowledge and moral support.

Third, you really get to "kick the tires" on the profession, generally, and on this particular firm; and they get to kick the tires on you.  Chances are, after making the commitment to join a firm and attend law school, you will not change your mind....but at least you have that option if you decide you hate law school, writing patent apps, or whatever. 

Fourth, you emerge from law school with more than just your foot in the door, both in patent law and at a particular firm.  That is a big advantage over a new law grad with good credentials and a strong technical background, but no training and a big "?" over your head.  Training the new guy is a big startup cost to a firm, so you might be more heavily scrutinized approaching firms with the degree but no experience.  And there's no telling what the economy and IP law market will be like in 3-4 years.  Also, you would probably be riding a steeper part of the learning curve in order to become profitable as a 1st-year associate with no experience, versus having more time to learn the ropes as a part-time student and technical advisor.

This all assumes you are good with time management (you probably are or you wouldn't be in this situation), and that if you have a family/wife/kids that they are and would be understanding.  Full-time law school is a big time commitment, but I imagine full-time work and part-time law school would be a tad bit more challenging.

[bleedingpen]

I am a big-time believe in going to the best ranked school that you can, provided that other significant factors aren't at play.  And IMO, you should go with option 2.  Being debt free, while working and gaining experience is an overriding factor IMO.

[lawyer2be]

Thanks for the advice guys. IMO I see option 2 as the right choice, too, but one thing that worries me is making partner. My goal is to make partner and option 2 provides a faster track. But in the future, does coming out of a part time law school give u a disadvantage compared to someone from Harvard/Stanford/Yale JD? Or is your work at the firm the primary criteria for becoming partner?

[IPLoya]

I think that really depends, on a case-by-case basis.  Most firms appreciate a good pedigree.  Some are simply obsessed with it, and only want to hire (and offer P/S to) the people with the highest class rank at the highest-ranked law school...but does that mean they are more desirable to work for?  (I ask that rhetorically; it's always been a contentious issue).  There are many reputable boutique firms who hire from 1st to 4th tier (is it still Tiers 1-4?  I never paid much attention, and it's been awhile), who place more value on hiring personable people with a strong work ethic and a solid technical background, and whom are highly trainable.  If they are good at making rain, all the better.  A firm that is offering you the deal you describe *sounds* more like the latter...would P/S really hinge upon whether you chose Tier 1 or 2?  For what it's worth, I doubt it.

[AnotherCog]

Hey guys, so I'm in bit of a dilemma. I have a job offer as a patent engineer from a firm in my state. Which would you guys choose?

1. Finish my master's -> go to a T14 law school -> get into a law firm as a patent attorney (1st year)

2. Finish my master's -> go to patent engineering job -> part-time law school (2nd tier) paid by firm -> become attorney at the firm as experienced associate (possibly 4th year)

Option 2 sounds like a clear winner, provided that you actually have all of that in writing.  There's a world of difference between firms that "may" pay for law school and those that "do" pay for law school (and all of it).  Starting at a 4th year associate straight out of law school also sounds somewhat fishy. Assuming everything's kosher, though, the probably works to your favor with that setup.

[bleedingpen]

Option 1 is better suited for big law.

Option 2 for boutiques.

I think most will tell you that life is better in boutiques.  In the first few years of practice, biglaw will provide a better salary, but over the long-term, not so sure that you won't make better money in a boutique. 

[khazzah]

Or is your work at the firm the primary criteria for becoming partner?

If by "work" you mean "quality of work" or "quantity of work", then I say No.

The primary criteria for partnership is how much value you bring to the firm. Law firms measure value in dollars. Book of business (ie, clients) is the primary measure of value. Revenue (hours billed) may also be considered. But law firms can get plenty of revenue out of you as an associate, so high billings may not be enough to make partner.

[lawyer2be]

Thanks again for the advice guys. I think I'm def. geared more towards option 2... Think I will go to part-time law school and work my way up the ladder...

[lawyer2be]

Also, is it only IP law that many people go to part-time law schools? What is it like for corporate law etc..? I've really noticed that many of IP law partners have degrees from part-time law... but not other lawyers in different practice areas.

[IPLoya]

I've really noticed that many of IP law partners have degrees from part-time law... but not other lawyers in different practice areas.

Because they already had marketable degrees before law school

Seriously though, no clue on other areas of law.

[lawyer2be]

is this the case for patent litigation too? i heard for litigation law school name is more important than prosecution.

[bleedingpen]

is this the case for patent litigation too? i heard for litigation law school name is more important than prosecution.

law school prestige matters more for patent litigation.