Print

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

[skoz686-iplaw]

Nice deal.  Wish I knew about the deals in Oz.

What you need is a bar admission to a state and admission to the USPTO to say you are a patent lawyer.

The way to do it is:

Come back to the US, do a one year LLM and take state exam.  Most palces requires US citizienship, NY does not.  Thus, most foreigners take the NY bar exam.  Take the PTO bar.  Presto.  Instant patent lawyer.  No US JD required.

You do not need a US LLM to take the State Bar Exam if you have a 3-year LLB degree from Australia, New Zealand, Canada or UK. These degrees are fully accepted by the State Bar admission authorities that allow foreign law degree holders admission.

LLB degree holders from the Indian sub-continent and most other countries do need an additional US LLM to sit for the Bar exams of those States. It's best to contact the particular State one is interested in, directly.

[Isaac]

The District of Columbia is an example of a jurisdiction where anyone with a law degree from a non ABA approved jurisdiction, including one from Australia, Canada, etc could qualify by obtaining an LLM from an a school with an ABA approved JD program.  Having a foreign LLB from a country with English common law  does not work in DC the way it does in NY.

[RJ]

Iguess, you can get correspondence LL.B from Universities in U.K. or India.  In many countries, LL.B is a first degree.  All you need is a high school diploma to join these LL.Bs.

After your correspondence LL.B, you can join LL.M in U.S.  You don't need to take LSAT to get into LL.M in U.S.  If you get good numbers in your correspondence LL.B, you can even get into a top US law school.

I believe, it takes three years to get LL.B by mail (after high school?!) and then one year LL.M in US.  It is possible to get 125K law firm job when you are just 21 yrs old.

It is probably easier to get a job with LL.M from a top U.S law school rather than JD from tier 2 U.S law school (I am not sure!)

The question is whether you can compete with JDs in your law career! Law career is not a joke!
 

[skoz686-iplaw]

The District of Columbia is an example of a jurisdiction where anyone with a law degree from a non ABA approved jurisdiction, including one from Australia, Canada, etc could qualify by obtaining an LLM from an a school with an ABA approved JD program.  Having a foreign LLB from a country with English common law  does not work in DC the way it does in NY.

 

True. But if you are a member in good standing of any other State bar for 5 years, then DC waives the exam, and you can directly get admitted to the DC bar. The same goes for States like Massachusetts, Michigan, Ohio, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin. For some of these States like Washington, 3 years may be enough to waive the bar exam and get admitted to their jurisdiction.

Most foreign lawyers take the NY or California bar exams. Although the California bar exam is longer and some say harder, some lawyers have no choice but to take it, as that's probably the only jurisdiction that allows correspondence degrees for admission (although after some hurdles). From what I remember, New York does not allow correspondence degrees for admission.

The good thing is Patent law is Federal Law. So, admission to any State Bar and the USPTO will suffice to start working as a Patent Attorney.

There is a number of Patent Attorneys in DC law firms that are only admitted to NY or California, and the USPTO. These same attorneys can waive into the DC bar, should they find the need to, after 5 years.

So, if someone is holding a 3-year LLB degree (not by correspondence) from Australia, Canada, New Zealand or UK, and do not have the extra money or time to put into an LLM (which is not cheap), there are some good options available.

Note that English Common Law is practised in the Indian subcontinent, and some other countries as well, but their LLB degrees do not get the same recognition (LLM waiver from some States) as the above mentioned countries do. So, their lawyers have no choice but to invest the additional time and money in a US LLM, even to take the NY bar.

I am in no way against doing an LLM, as I myself plan to do one here in Australia (which by the way, has one of the best Intellectual Property LLMs in the world at the University of Melbourne). But not needing to do a US LLM to become a US Patent Attorney definitely makes it easier for me. As I do not have to worry about investing the additional time or money in a US LLM.

[Isaac]

I think you are 100% correct sk686.   If getting admitted to CA or NY gets you where you need to be, then the route you describe will work.   For many, but not all patent attorneys, being licensed in NY or CA only is not a huge obstacle.

I'll just add that a US IP LLM would not be very helpful in getting admitted to the DC bar.  DC requires 26 hours of bar topics course work, so what's needed in DC is one of those LLMs geared especially for international students.

One caveat about waiving in after practicing for X years.  The rules in DC and Mass are fairly liberal concerning waiving in.  They only require being licensed for some period of time.  However some states like Michigan only count time practicing in the jurisdiction in which you are licensed.  So if you have a CA license and are practicing patent law in NY, you may not be able to waive into Michigan even after practicing for the required time.

[IPRLVR]

Actually, with regards to the Federal Practice issue. most firms are getting very strict.  When I joined my present firm, I had to get admitted to the DC bar within three months.  The line between practice of law in a State and Federal patent law is just too thin.  For instance, an assignment is a contract - arguably state law.

[Isaac]

I don't know what the extent of that trend is.  I still see associates at DC firms listed as "supervised by X" when the attorney is not licensed in DC.   It does strike me as an inflexible arrangement.  

Certainly at large firms attorney's may get involved in activities that are not strictly practice before the patent office and thus would require being licensed in the state being practiced in.

But you picked an interesting example.   Very often the assignment that gets recorded at the patent office is wholly a boilerplate document reciting some consideration and the fact of the transfer.  The document is used simply for the purpose of recording the assignment at the PTO, while the details of the actual agreement is memorialized elsewhere (such as in the employment contract or other separate agreement).   Without getting into the details, I'd suggest that at least arguably, a non attorney to practice before the PTO can record such a document when the transfer is uncontested following the precedent in Sperry v. Florida.