I run a research group (lab) at a major university in western US. Have Ph.D. in neuroscience, and BAs in chem+biochem from prominent universities. I love the work. However, issues within the university, and in US science funding in general, make job security a real concern for the next 20 years. The binge/purge cycle of grant seeking is also highly stressful on psyhe and family relations. Salary is fine, but will not likely increase much without transitioning to administrative duties. Finally, I find myself increasingly interested in the intersection between science and society, particularly in product development and application.
IP-Law seems a potentially attractive way to contribute my scientific expertise to a business venture. However, online information presents a fairly mottled view. My age (early 40s), family, and restriction of location make a standard JD-Associate-Partner career plan seem problematic at the outset. Concerns: job availability; work-family balance; security; salary.
In the job application process, is there any advantage to having successfully funded and managed a research group, or are all Ph.D. on an equal footing? Is the IP law market already saturated, especially outside the major cities?
Nueroscience is seen as a major growth area for biomedical pharma. Is neuroscience adequately handled by current biochemist-lawyers, or do law firms also see this as a growth field needing specialists?
Salary and hours. How does 2000 billable hours translate into hours on the job? Is 70 hrs de rigeur for associates, or are there viable alternatives at 55 hrs that don’t relegate you to the sidelines permanently? Ideal situation would be an opportunity to do 50+ hrs for 7 years, then ramp to 70 hrs when the kids are out of the house. Would that be a non-starter for any reputable IP law firm?
Thanks in advance for any and all responses.
Author
Topic: Transition from lab to law (Read 950 times)
