If dreams of offering legal advice to the founder of the next Microsoft is your goal, you may need to get in line.
A growing legion of law students think the surest route to nirvana is to practice intellectual property and patent law. They view those specialties as offering challenging, plentiful work, the ’90s equivalent of ’80s bankruptcy and environmental law.
As even mainstream businesses hone their competitive edge through technological advances, demand is likely to continue for attorneys who can help computer whizzes protect semiconductor innovations or draft Web site development agreements.
“There’s a lot of competition for talent in this field. The workload is growing faster than the law firms can find and develop help,” says Barry Weiss, a partner in the 20-lawyer firm of Gordon & Glickson in Chicago, which focuses on the information technology industry and has its own R&D department.
Legal recruiter Laura Hagen in Major, Hagen & Africa’s Chicago office agrees. “We’re seeing a lot of firms beef up existing intellectual property (IP) departments or acquire entire departments from other firms,” she said.
Technolawyer wannabes see another advantage: the possibility of taking an equity position in the companies they counsel in exchange for discounted fees and maybe hitting the jackpot if the company goes public.
Yet in spite of the surge in demand, many young lawyers question what is the best course to gain employment, particularly as the field becomes more popular–and crowded.
Among their questions: What major should they choose as undergrads? What related elective classes should they take in law school? Once admitted, should they practice at a generalist firm with an IP department, at one of the increasing number of high-tech law boutiques or in-house at a start-up firm or corporation?
For patent lawyers, the answers are more clear cut, at least regarding training. They need an engineering background since they must take separate patent as well as general bar exams.
Ruffin Cordell, now a partner in the Washington, D.C., boutique IP firm of Fish & Richardson, followed that route and has found himself highly marketable. He studied electrical engineering at Louisiana State University, worked for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and took patent classes nights at Georgetown University Law Center.
He first worked for a giant law firm and had his pick of jobs when he switched to his current smaller firm two years ago. “If you can walk, talk, and breathe electrical work, you’re marketable. If you can do litigation, you’re more marketable. We’re still years from (resolving) Year 2000 litigation claims.”
For non-patent lawyers, there is less of a definitive script. Part of the reason is that the field is so new that no one knows what undergrad courses are relevant. Also, law courses and job skills keep evolving as technology develops.
Years ago, the related offerings at law schools were minimal. Jane Kaufman Winn, an associate law professor at Southern Methodist University School of Law in Dallas since 1989, said her popularity has soared since she started teaching a class titled Law of the Internet two years ago.
Within firms, the challenges change almost daily. “A few years ago it was unusual to have many firms know how to write an e-mail policy. Today, many do and there are numerous forms that we can tailor,” says Weiss of Gordon & Glickson.
David Post, a law professor at Temple University Law School in Philadelphia and co-founder of the Cyberspace Law Institute, concurs. “We don’t know what this practice will look like. I’m not even sure what lawyers in this area should call themselves since they offer different skills and come from different backgrounds.”
Post majored in anthropology as an undergraduate, didn’t take any special classes in law school and first worked at a large generalist D.C. law firm with a small high-tech transaction practice before heading to academia where he teaches introductory IP, copyright law, computer law and law of the cyberspace.
“In hindsight, I would have taken a copyright class in law school if I had known I would work in this area, but I learned the area on the fly, and it turned out fine,” he says. Other attorneys who graduated from law school a few years back voice similar sentiments. Robert W. Sacoff, a partner who handles international trademark law for the Chicago firm of Pattischall, McAuliffe, Newberry, Hilliard & Geraldson, was an undergrad English major. A course in trademark and unfair competition at Northwestern University School of Law piqued his interest, though he worked first at a generalist firm.
His current 30-lawyer firm specializes in litigating disputes for heavily marketed and advertised consumer products. “We do a lot of chip cases, whether microchips or potato chips,” he says.
With the explosion of demand from non-technology as well as high-tech businesses, many lawyers may feel compelled to specialize earlier, however. They needn’t–at least for now, experts say. A good broad legal education is still a safe route.
Northwestern University School of Law agrees. The school encourages applicants to work before matriculating. “The legal market puts a premium on mature lawyers with good judgment. One way to acquire those skills is to have been in the workplace, been a member of a team and understood what’s needed to get a project done,” says David E. Van Zandt, dean.
The school encourages students to enter its combined law and business graduate program with the J.L. Kellogg Graduate School of Management by offering a single admission application, one of the few to do so.
In addition to avoiding a narrow focus, experts also advise grads not to rush to a high-tech boutique if they’re not sure of their specialty since they’re better able now to test the waters at a large generalist firm with a strong IP department led by a strong mentor, Hagen says.
The more critical issue, she and others say, is to determine the most comfortable work culture, be it large or small and traditional or entrepreneurial.
