Jd phd??

[Capita]

Hi I was wondering if any one went for a JD PHD. I was thinking along the lines of getting my PHD in biochemistry and getting the law degree to be a lawyer for pharmacutical companies. Anyway my questions are what may be the salary for this kind of job and would thoes two combined degrees land me a job like that?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[FrkyBgStok]

Probably not much more than one by itself. My cousin was majored in chem in college and got his JD and he said the science background helped to get into patent law, but other than that, it wasn't any different.

 

[FrkyBgStok]

Duplicate post but I might add, you can get into patent law without science, but he got a good job at a good firm because he had a science background.

 

[Law2Doc]

Hi I was wondering if any one went for a JD PHD. I was thinking along the lines of getting my PHD in biochemistry and getting the law degree to be a lawyer for pharmacutical companies. Anyway my questions are what may be the salary for this kind of job and would thoes two combined degrees land me a job like that?

Agree with the prior poster -- salaries for dual degrees tend to be same as with the JD alone, so you'd never do a second degree for this reason. There actually is very little value to a PhD per se to work for a pharmaceutical industry in a legal capacity. The PhD comes in handy if you want to sit for the patent bar. Honestly in most cases when you combine unrelated degrees, the onus is on you to sell to companies/firms what the value is. You won't have a ready track record as to what kind of jobs this leads to because frankly nobody is advertising for a PhD/JD, MD/JD etc. The are either looking for a scientist, or a lawyer, but rarely both. Now you could go into a lawyer interview and try to sell them why having the second degree might be valuable to them. You run the risk of being "overqualified" -- they will be concerned that you are settling for a law job for now but might jump ship for a science/medical job. And nobody is going to pay you more because when they decided they needed another lawyer they intended to just pay for a lawyer. And truthfully the pay scale of lawyers almost always is based on years of experience, so you will spend X years longer in training only to end up at the bottom rung when you start looking for a job. So yeah, this is a pretty bad idea IMHO unless you already have a specific career goal in mind. You don't get both degrees and say "what can I do with this combination". You go into it saying this is my dream job, and this is the combination I will need to do it. And if such a job doesn't exist, you don't just get the degrees hoping you can "sell" it to a company.

 

[Law2Doc]

Duplicate post but I might add, you can get into patent law without science, but he got a good job at a good firm because he had a science background.

Not so much. You need to have a fairly significant number of science courses under your belt to sit for the patent bar. I know quite a few sci majors who had to take a few more courses before they were allowed to sit for the test.

 

[FrkyBgStok]

Not so much. You need to have a fairly significant number of science courses under your belt to sit for the patent bar. I know quite a few sci majors who had to take a few more courses before they were allowed to sit for the test.

guess i was wrong. thanks for clearing it up. so sure you could go into patent law with a biochem phd.

 

[ArkansasRanger]

Yeah, my mom has a cousin that's a patent lawyer who I think studied engineering prior to law school.

 

[vc7777]

Not so much. You need to have a fairly significant number of science courses under your belt to sit for the patent bar. I know quite a few sci majors who had to take a few more courses before they were allowed to sit for the test.

In fact, correct me if I am wrong L2D, but I think you can actually be admitted as a patent AGENT to the USPTO without a J.D. if you have a technical background. This isn't to be confused with a 'patent lawyer'. You can only perform patent-related activities such as filing and preparing patent applications. But if your intention is to market yourself as a patent-savvy go-between to a pharma company then this may be of interest to you.

 

[Capita]

Wow I am surprised that pharmaceutical companies don't have a go to lawyer that they pay well to defend drugs that are though to be harmful to the public or against civil law suites for a bad drug and I would think it would be hard for this lawyer to defend it if he didn't have a overall good grasp of the body and drug production. I should keep dreaming for a filthy paying job I thought a job like this working for the big pharm companies doing their dirty work would pay say 500k a year would be good.

 

[FrkyBgStok]

I think that's what we all dream of.

 

[Law2Doc]

Wow I am surprised that pharmaceutical companies don't have a go to lawyer that they pay well to defend drugs that are though to be harmful to the public or against civil law suites for a bad drug and I would think it would be hard for this lawyer to defend it if he didn't have a overall good grasp of the body and drug production. I should keep dreaming for a filthy paying job I thought a job like this working for the big pharm companies doing their dirty work would pay say 500k a year would be good.

A lawyer doesn't need a PhD to defend a "bad drug". He just has to bring in an expert in the case who can explain the scientific stuff to the jury (after previously explaining it to the lawyer). Also in general while pharmaceutical companies have many lawyers working for them, they almost universally go to outside counsel (law firms) for litigation matters. Meaning a pharmaceutical company lawyer would never be involved in defending a lawsuit. The in-house pharmaceutical lawyers tend to be involved in troubleshooting, business planning, mergers and acquisitions, tax planning, patent prosecution, and the like. For courtroom related stuff, you go to a lawfirm and hire them. It's simply more cost effective.

 

[scrappydoo2k2]

I'd like to chime in here because I'm a registered patent agent. You do not need a PhD to become a patent agent, only a techincal background (BS or related undergraduate course work in science or engineering) in order to sit for the patent bar. Upon passing the patent bar, you are a registered patent agent and can work in patent prosecution (i.e. draft patent applications and argue for the patentability of your client's invention). You cannot, however, litigate. Only attorneys can litigate, whether they are patent attorneys or just regular attorneys.

Patent agents typically earn fairly well (about $75K per year) with the appropriate background and experience. I mention background because, unfortunately, one who holds only a BS degree in a life science (e.g. biology, chemistry, etc) cannot usually expect to make that kind of coin. So if you're looking forward to some decent coinage, and you only have a BS is biology or chem, you should seriously consider obtaining an advanced degree (PhD or JD), or just go back and get a degree in electrical engineering!

Kinda makes you wish you took the easy Business classes in like all your rich friends. The road is long for the science major.

 

[mspeedwagon]

I know someone like this so this is in fact the case.

In fact, correct me if I am wrong L2D, but I think you can actually be admitted as a patent AGENT to the USPTO without a J.D. if you have a technical background. This isn't to be confused with a 'patent lawyer'. You can only perform patent-related activities such as filing and preparing patent applications. But if your intention is to market yourself as a patent-savvy go-between to a pharma company then this may be of interest to you.