Print

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

[klaviernista]

I been trained as a professional eletrical engineer in the power industry and as a first year IP associate.  It is no joke to compare the two.  If anything the joke may be in reverse.  An associate if he or she errs, will likely cost the firm time to correct, at worst malpractice or some other sanction.  A poorly trained or inexperienced field engineer in the utility or industrial processing industries could easily get him or herself, or someone else, killed.

So I don't get the joke.

Please don't take this the wrong way, because I certainly appreciate that the "physical" risks faced by a field electrical engineer are greater than those faced by your average patent associate.  That said, there are patents that are literally worth hundreds of millions of dollars.  Take the prozac patent, for example.  At the end of its life, that patent was protecting a drug that brought in $17 million dollars every day to the patentee.  Shoddy drafting and prosecution of that patent could easily have eliminated its value.  So, while patent lawyers are not likely to cause someone physical harm if they are incompetent, they surely can cause substantial damage to the financial wellbeing of a patentee.

[Number_27]

Need I remind you that with just a few years of industry experience an EE, ME or Chem E experience and attorney/engineer is near or at $100k, perhaps over.  I don't know what the case is for other technically trained prospects but an MD, Ph D molecular biologist, those folks have some options too I would imagine.

And engineering school somewhat prepares you for a career as an engineer so you are able to hit the ground running, so to speak, much quicker.

Law school doesn't do much to prepare you as a patent attorney. 

That is simply not true.  An EE could be hired in any range of industries working on any number of electrical/electronic technologies.  Not to mention any types of business all which must be learned.  This is an unsupported assertion in support of what in my experience is an unsupported position.  Any new graduate professional is green, very few are "dumb" as stated in one of the previous posts.  There is much less special with the training needs of a patent attorney than many are suggesting in this thread.

[Number_27]

I been trained as a professional eletrical engineer in the power industry and as a first year IP associate.  It is no joke to compare the two.  If anything the joke may be in reverse.  An associate if he or she errs, will likely cost the firm time to correct, at worst malpractice or some other sanction.  A poorly trained or inexperienced field engineer in the utility or industrial processing industries could easily get him or herself, or someone else, killed.

So I don't get the joke.

Please don;t take this the wrong way, because I certainly appreciate that the "physical" risks faced by a field electrical engineer are greater than those faced by your average patent associate.  That said, there are patents that are literally worth hundreds of millions of dollars.  Take the prozac patent, for example.  At the end of its life, that patent was protecting a drug that broguht in $17 million dollars every day to the patentee.  Shoddy drafting and prosecution of that patent could easily have eliminated its value.  So, while patent lawyers are not likely to cause someone physical harm if they are incometent, they surely can cause substantial damage to the financial wellbeing of a patentee.

A new power plant costs $1.5 - $2 billion or more. Check out what is costs to build a new highly automated factory or industrial processing plant, same money amounts at risk and facility engineers are responsible. An incompetent control systems engineer could render these investments worthless in a few keystrokes.  A junior engineer defeated a primary control protection system a year or two ago and blacked out most of Florida, care to guess how much that cost?   A similar scenario may well have led to the recent San Diego, So Cal, Arizona blackout.  And the 2003 blackout of the near enitre Northeast and Canada cost more than a few billion.

I do not mean to suggest that what patent attorneys do is not highly specialized, hard work and that competent patent attorneys are not worth what they get paid; they are. Nor do I suggest it is in any way easy to do.  But I do think you guys who are posting have a bit of a case on yourselves, you're situation with regards to training new professionals entering your area of expertise is not that special or unique; it just isn't.

[bleedingpen]

There is much less special with the training needs of a patent attorney than many are suggesting in this thread.

Whether training a new patent attorney requires anything "special" isn't the point.  It is the time investment required to train a new attorney with consideration to the relatively minor increases in pay that 2nd and 3rd year attorneys command that matters.  And that consideration is increased even more in this economy where it is really tough to budget for 2-3 years away, especially when there is a ton of experienced laterals looking for work. 

[klaviernista]

I do not mean to suggest that what patent attorneys do is not highly specialized, hard work and that competent patent attorneys are not worth what they get paid; they are. Nor do I suggest it is in any way easy to do.  But I do think you guys who are posting have a bit of a case on yourselves, you're situation with regards to training new professionals entering your area of expertise is not that special or unique; it just isn't.

Ah, but it is unique to the practice of law.  There is no other field of law where a combination of a technical degree and a law degree is required. 

FWIW, I never said that training a new patent attorney was any different from training a new engineer.  In fact, I don't believe I have ever attempted to make that comparison.  My points in this thread have been focused on the fact that firms hire based on need.  And if a need is immediate, a firm will hire a lateral associate 90% of the time to avoid having to spend years, literally, training the new associate.

[bleedingpen]

FWIW, I never said that training a new patent attorney was any different from training a new engineer.  In fact, I don't believe I have ever attempted to make that comparison.  My points in this thread have been focused on the fact that firms hire based on need.  And if a need is immediate, a firm will hire a lateral associate 90% of the time to avoid having to spend years, literally, training the new associate.

Klav, Karen, and others, what do you think is the average time spent training a new associate until they are reasonably competent?  Just trying to get an idea as to whether others agree with me.

I have seen some associates pick it up in literally a year, while others weren't quite there by year 3 or 4. 

[Number_27]

I do not mean to suggest that what patent attorneys do is not highly specialized, hard work and that competent patent attorneys are not worth what they get paid; they are. Nor do I suggest it is in any way easy to do.  But I do think you guys who are posting have a bit of a case on yourselves, you're situation with regards to training new professionals entering your area of expertise is not that special or unique; it just isn't.

Ah, but it is unique to the practice law.  There is no other field of law where a combination of a technical degree and a law degree is required. 

FWIW, I never said that training a new patent attorney was any different from training a new engineer.  In fact, I don't believe I have ever attempted to make that comparison.  My points in this thread have been focused on the fact that firms hire based on need.  And if a need is immediate, a firm will hire a lateral associate 90% of the time to avoid having to spend years, literally, training the new associate.

That is a different point but one I disagree with as well, perhaps even more so.  The learning curve of  a patent attorney has precious little to do with the technical aspects of the position.  It is the learning curve associated with being a new attorney, like any other new attorney.  Learning the law, the professional responsibilities in practice, dealing with clients, drafting disclosures and claims, the in and out of dealing with the administrative agency you're most often dealing with, the USPTO, etc.  Most all the associates and partners with whom I worked had industry experience as engineers, there was not a great need or indeed any need to come up to speed technically other than learn about your client's particular technology.  You don't have to be a lawyer to do that as evidenced by the existence of patent agents.

The new patent attorney comes to the office already with the tech and law degrees, it is time to learn how to be a lawyer just like any SEC, tax , energy or other legal specialist, or even more general practitioners.  Claim drafting and specifications are hard to draft in way that is most advantageous to one's client.  I would argue so is drafting a will, trust, and many other legal documents.  I suspect firms specializing in those fields are also hesitant to allow new associates to go it alone on those types of matters.

My point, in line with the origins of the thread, continues to be that if firms have been for the past few years hiring almost entirely from the pool of exerienced patent attorneys there is of necessity a growing pool of green but highly capable new entrants. That should be viewed as an opportunity for those firms who have historically been at a disadvantage competing for the top of the class graduates.

[Number_27]

There is much less special with the training needs of a patent attorney than many are suggesting in this thread.

Whether training a new patent attorney requires anything "special" isn't the point.  It is the time investment required to train a new attorney with consideration to the relatively minor increases in pay that 2nd and 3rd year attorneys command that matters.  And that consideration is increased even more in this economy where it is really tough to budget for 2-3 years away, especially when there is a ton of experienced laterals looking for work. 

But that was in fact my point and the discussion in which I was participating.  As for first year salaries, the fact that patent attorneys who are industry experienced engineers, molecular biologists, computer scientists, what have you all have other options for making a living.  You are not just competing with other firms for the services of these folks. If I were to offer an experienced engineer who has just graduated from law school $50k to come work for me and undertake the risks and challenges of beginning anew in a new field of endeavor, I would consider myself lucky if that individual only laughed in my face.

I understand firms can hire laterals or out of work experienced practitioners, and I understand the attractions in doing so.  But if that is the case, and all evidence suggests it is hence this thread, I also understand that there must be a growing pool of green yet highly capable new entrants.

And that should also be viewed as an opportunity to build a firm's capabilities.

[klaviernista]

Klav, Karen, and others, what do you think is the average time spent training a new associate until they are reasonably competent?  Just trying to get an idea as to whether others agree with me.

I have seen some associates pick it up in literally a year, while others weren't quite there by year 3 or 4. 

It really depends on what aspect of the practice you are looking at.  With respect to drafting and general prosecution, the average time to a reasonable level of competency is about 2 years, in my experience.  As to managing client matters, client development, etc., the time is usually much longer, but only because that is (perhaps incorrectly) not considered a "core competency."  I.e., there is a general view that one should learn to be a lawyer before they start managing client matters and developing business.

[Isaac]

My point, in line with the origins of the thread, continues to be that if firms have been for the past few years hiring almost entirely from the pool of exerienced patent attorneys there is of necessity a growing pool of green but highly capable new entrants. That should be viewed as an opportunity for those firms who have historically been at a disadvantage competing for the top of the class graduates.

Maybe.   But my experience when looking for my first job was that few firms wanted to take on the headache of training that new entrant.  Firms were paying extremely high rates of pay required to attract those new attorneys with top academic credentials, only to see a good many of those associates seek greener pastures 2-3 years later.   It should be quite obvious that the firm who landed those laterals got a far better deal that did the associate's first firm.

A good 3-5 year associate requires little if any oversight.  As long as there are plenty of those folks available, I don't see the economic case for hiring new grads who will tie up plenty of partner time for the first few years.