New York Lawyer
October 8, 2002

Q:
I�m just finishing my PhD in chemical engineering and thinking about going to law school to become a patent lawyer. Will my PhD be an asset or a liability? What fields would allow me to start practicing while maintaining my current position an an engineer for a NY utility?

Submit Your Question

Find More Answers

A:

A lot of people say they are "thinking about going to law school" -- fresh college grads, folks with other advanced degrees, people looking for a booster rocket to speed them further along an established career path, people with stalled careers and frustrated dreams. To assess the reasonableness of their intentions and the potential payoff of a law degree, it is very important to know what they are thinking: what goals and objectives they have in mind, what doors they want the legal credential to open for them, what satisfactions they want out of their lives and careers.

Law school is very costly, in terms of bucks (or student loan obligations), effort expended, time spent and "opportunity costs" (other opportunities foreclosed by this choice). Legal study may a powerful way to learn analytical skills, develop communication and persuasive ability, and master the ability to be a "quick study" -- to pick up new knowledge on the fly. But it is a very expensive way to do that. It is best considered a specialist�s training -- a trade school, if you will. You can pick up generalist�s skills there, but that�s like learning better grammar by writing a lot of monographs on long-chain chemical polymers. In short, I generally do not recommend that people enter law school "by default," hoping that direction and purpose will dawn on them while they are taking all those classes.

As in all career-related decisions, focus is essential.

For lawyers, I believe the best lens for that focus is that of how the job market will view -- and value -- the "product" that emerges from law school with your name on it. As one HR professional once said to me, "I do not hire people to self-actualize on my front lawn. I�m a lot more interested in what I want than with what the job-seeker wants." Therefore, people "thinking about law school" should think longest and hardest (or do the most research) about the incremental leverage or opportunity that particular advanced degree will provide. In addition, people with previously-earned advanced degrees must consider what inferences the job market will draw about the juxtaposition of two different knowledge sets.

Will they "get it" -- that the two are meant to operate synergistically? Or will they assume that the acquisition of the subsequent degree means one is walking away from the career path normally suggested by the prior degree? In sum, they will ask whether you are augmenting your product profile or making a career change. The job market does not like career changes, because they force it to consider whether one is running toward something or away from something.

As a gross overgeneralization, PhD degrees are earned by people who a) are motivated primarily by the acquisition and dissemination of high-level knowledge; or b) are interested in a career discipline where a PhD is a required entry credential, like clinical psychology, marine biology, or pharmaceutical research. Since a JD is the entry credential for law, lawyers will look at PhD's with JD�s and naturally wonder what the hell is going on here.

Law is an applied science, so lawyers may be a bit leery of the "egghead factor;" they�ve seen a lot of brilliant people who can�t get the power to the ground. Or, they may wonder if economic factors have driven someone away from their first love, and law is the default choice. Not a very appealing career rationale either way. So PhD-lawyers do have an extra burden of persuasion when entering the job market. They must be prepared to answer the question, "Why this and why now? What is your career strategy here"

There are some perfectly good answers. Patent law is one of them, inasmuch is in addition to the JD credential, it absolutely requires technical expertise in the mechanical, chemical or electronic "art." High-level knowledge in the art suggests high-level competency as a patent or IP (intellectual property) lawyer. Employers may, of course, shake their heads and say (or think), "Wow, you went to school for a total of 7 years just to do this?" This is true where, as your letter suggests, you intend to pursue the JD directly after "just finishing up" the PhD. Be prepared to be asked whether you are a "professional student" who is reluctant to engage the real world.

In other, less technical areas of the law, I have found that a PhD is not a strong marketability asset and may act as a negative factor. To avoid this stigma, the knowledge focus of the PhD must relate directly to the nature of the kind of law you want to practice.

Like other marketability issues, the PhD issue can be spun and overcome, particularly if you�re an articulate, engaging candid personality. So don�t give up ... just be prepared.

The engineering/MBA combo reads quite differently to the legal world. An MBA is an applied skills degree, so you avoid some of the academic/egghead stigma. But jeesh, you�re talking about getting a third technical degree here. Whassup with that? Are you just a professional student? Or are you not so hot at figuring out what you want to do with your life? Now in fact, law, business and engineering can make for a very powerful combination of competencies. Think, for example, of all the diverse issues that underpin a successful civil engineering project or technology-based start-up enterprise. If you can design the product, plan the manufacturing and marketing, execute the lease for the greenfields site, negotiate with the manufacturing engineers, oversee construction of the facility, and make the dog-and-pony pitch to the seed-stage venture capitalists, you truly are a multi-threat ballplayer.

I must say that I can imagine no legal field that would "allow [you] to start practicing while maintaining [your] current position." I don�t know what kind of "practicing" you were thinking about, but once you start practicing, you�d better be prepared to devote heart, sole and many, many hours to effecting that career change. If you meant to ask what fields would allow you to maintain your job while attending law school, I think that depends more on the employer than the field. Your employer should know that you are expending time and effort to get a new credential. If they think that credential will redound to their benefit, they may even be willing to help pay for it. But if the only possible outcome of your JD is that you will leave the company that employs you while you educate yourself, don�t expect a lot of support. Again, the trick will be to pinpoint the nature of the post-JD role you�re shooting for and what value you can add in that new capacity. If you really have successfully "re-credentialled" yourself, you can pitch the "new you" to employers forcefully and confidently.

All in all, remember, and at all costs avoid, the old maxim: "If you don�t know where you�re going, any road will get you there."

Sincerely,
Douglas B. Richardson
President, The Richardson Group