I am half-way through a part-time LPC after attaining a 2:1 in law and have been applying for training contracts for several years without getting so much as a single interview.
Working in law - in particular in intellectual property (IP) - is all I've ever wanted to do but should I cut my losses now and train to be a trademark attorney? Is it just as competitive and are there often vacancies? Or is there any particular experience or qualification that could help me get into IP?
Click 'Comment on this article' to post your advice in confidence - or click here to share your wisdom on the Legal Week Wiki, where no topic is off limits. Rate or slate your firm and its rivals with our ground-breaking insider's guide to City law.
And remember, Career Clinic is only as good as the questions we receive, so email your career conundrums to community@legalweek.com.
Are you sure you want to IP, it's mainly just writing over the top threatening letters to sue house wifes and fans of the IP
What makes you so keen to do IP law? Until you have actually experienced it in practice it seems foolhardy, and rather naive to be so restrictive in your outlook.
I know a great many junior lawyers who started their training contracts wanting to do something 'sexy' only to find themselves enjoying an area they would previously never have considered.
Have you only been applying to niche IP/media type firms? If so, time to cast your net a bit wider and aim for a broad commercial training - ideally at a firm with a decent IP department, I'd have thought.
My friend, I know exactly how you feel. All I want to do is IP - I have heard a year's experience in IP and not one interview. It could be that I was aiming at the top 10 IP practices. I'll give you the same advice I was given recently - cast your net wide, all you have to do is qualify. You can always take an IP course during your training contract (if they do not have an IP seat).
I looked at being a trademark or patent attorney....more out as a the next best alternative then my liking for IP. Re-assess your training contract applications. Good luck!
It is not clear to me why you embarked on the LPC when for several years you did not even get an interview. However, given that you are putting the time and effort into the LPC, the best thing may be to concentrate on qualifying as a lawyer. About half the people I was at Law School with wanted to do IP, and most ended up doing something completely different (even tax). The most important thing is that you qualify and to that end apply as widely as possible. During your training contract you may find, as others have done before you, that you enjoy something else. Otherwise make a deft move on qualification into something you do enjoy. Good luck.
The main firms with strong specialist IP departments also have corporate departments for which they always struggle to find corporate NQs. If you apply to these places and say that, while you are interested in IP, you also have a strong interest in corporate deals in the tech sector, you might do a bit better than if you just bang on about IP all the time, which bores Grad Recruitment at these places to tears.
I too was utterly convinced I wanted to do IP. I couldn't get a summer placement at a sexy IP firm and, in despair, took a mini-pupillage with a set of IP chambers instead. My initial elation quicky turned to tedium. It was undoubtedly the most boring week of my life. On the swelteringly hot afternoon of my last day, after a particularly dull hearing, I fainted in the ladies toilets. When I came to my senses, I found I had lost all desire to go into IP. I ended up training at a corporate firm and qualifying into tax, which is much more interesting. I concluded that the problem with IP is that it is dull law about interesting things (tax, on the other hand, is interesting law about dull things). Cast your net wider, concentrate on trying to get a training contract that will give you a good corporate/commercial grounding and stop getting ahead of yourself.
As a Trade Mark Attorney at a law firm I can confirm that it is competitive. There are a lot of people applying to become trade mark attorneys - and you need to remember that not all of these will be law grads. I think that the Oxbridge bias exists more in relation to the top trade mark firms than many law firms.
Do keep on, however. Certain firms certainly have a preference for candidates that have an LPC or the ability to cross-qualify.. you just need to do your research!
Hi All. I'm a trade mark attorney, and I run my own firm, but when I started we were plain old trade mark agents. The job is completely differnent from being a solicitor, in fact lots of my clients are solicitors.
Don't think of trade mark attorney as a second best option, if you have a more positive outlook you might come across more employable. It has to be said we get lots of CV's from people who view our profession as second best, because an applicant can't get a training contract; that won't sit well with the guy or girl who is interviewing you; no one wants to beleive that they are the second option.
IP is a sexy area but when you get down to it, all jobs are a task, for me it is the people that I have met over the years and the enjoyment of being involved in a profession that is legal, but is also so much more business focused than many roles.
Don't dismiss any role and I would agree with lots of comments; keep your options open, you might be surprised what you like!
Do you mean "Should I INCREASE my losses and be a trademark attorney"?
"I concluded that the problem with IP is that it is dull law about interesting things (tax, on the other hand, is interesting law about dull things)" - Interesting Point.
What does everyone else feel about this remark, and, what other areas of law are like this? I am a GDL student and am always keen to find out what law is like in practice, as I find most of the GDL boring because of its irrelevance.
I am also a GDL student and am keen to hear the responses to the above question also, although I must admit I don't find the GDL boring as I'm sure the seven core areas of law we study are the most relevant and cross-disciplinary!
Young, dumb... Irrelevance to what? You don't know, because you just asked what areas of law are like in practice. You can find out in another 2 years when you start your training contract what the different areas are like, by doing some, and by talking to your friends doing others. I can tell you this - I still use things I learned on the GDL.
In response to Young Dumb, I totally agree with the comment "I concluded that the problem with IP is that it is dull law about interesting things (tax, on the other hand, is interesting law about dull things)". Don't confuse the subject matter of your work with the actual law - quite often although the subject matter may sound "sexy" the actual law involved is straighforward and tedious to work in. Tax and pensions, both areas with generally dull subject matter but interesting law because it's more complicated and technical. If you're technically inclined, that makes it more challenging and interesting than other practice areas.
I would like to know what grumpy associate still uses from the GDL; besides things like the basic concepts of contract and tort.
Thanks for the comments so far, when deciding what might interest you it clearly seems worth weighing up the dull/complex divide as much as if not more than the sexy/boring one. Does anyone have any comment on white collar crime work? Whilst I'm studying for my GDL I work as a fraud investigator and am interested in moving into this area.
As an ex-IP lawyer (not patents) I can safely say that IP can be very tedious if you are drafting licence agreements. If, however, you are involved in trademark 'prosecution' or litigation then there is certainly some creativity involved.
Regarding Copyright, forget it. There is very little work around to keep everyone busy.
Just to expand on my comment about the difference between tax and IP, if you are finding the GDL boring and irrelevant then you may find that corporate is for you. My experience of corporate was very little law about quite interesting things.
Sorry to pin you down but, what sorts of interesting things? I personally went into law because I liked the business world, but didn't like the salary I was earning elsewhere! Perhaps its not surprising I don't much like black letter law (even though I studied history and loved it)
Standard corporate/commercial work almost invariably involves some sort of business facilitation. A business has decided to do something and, on the corporate side, it's your job to help them make it happen. What they are making happen usually involves quite a lot of money (or they wouldn't be paying lawyers to help) and so things can get, dare I say it, quite exciting. Or at least they can when you get to partnership level. At a junior level, corporate involves a certain amount of routine work for people that (outside of work) you'd cross the road to avoid. Moreover, unless you happen to be placed with a particularly inspiring partner, not that there are many of them about, it's really up to you to figure out what's going on and how what you're doing fits into the bigger picture. Corporate/commercial also gives you a good grounding for moving to an in-house role (which may be more what you need to keep you interested) after a few years of practice. Unless you like the idea of working for a bank, in which case consider finance if you can bear it/find anything at all to do right now. Finally, try to do something that suits your talents by all means but try not to seek fulfillment in the office. If the work was fulfilling, it would pay less.
What about reputation management, passing off - is that interesting (as opposed to out and out IP law)
Try Brand Protect LLP (in Oxfordshire) a growing and specialist IP firm which is keen to offer positions to keen IP lawyers. See website for more info.
I am a trade mark attorney at a large law firm, there are actually quite a few of us around and I agree with the comments above it is very competitive to get a position. The trade mark attorney professional is divided between around 20-30 percent (and growing) of trade mark attorneys being based in law firms, with the remainder being based in traditional trade mark/patent attorney practices or in-house. It should not be viewed as a second best professional, its simply a different profession to a solicitor, its very technical and you will advise much more on the letter of the law than most solicitors. You will deal alot with new product launches and marketing departments which I find interesting, and a lot more interesting than contract law for example. If you work for a law firm you may at times face some solicitors looking down on you, but they are generally ill informed. If you want to be exposed slightly more to the litigation side of things go to a law firm, but there are many good trade mark/patent attorney practices around. Personally I would advise working as a trade mark attorney for a law firm, but thats my personal experience. Good Luck!
Latest Jobs
