• Book Review: Turning Points

    by  • May 12, 2014

    If you’ve been up late probing the Interwebs for this kind of thing, you might have come across Turning Points: Changing Your Career from Science to Patent Law by Dustin Holloway. On Amazon at least, it’s about the only game in town.

    I bought it and read it, and will now tell you why you should do neither of those things.

    Let me first say that I wanted very much to like this book. (Failing that, I wanted at least to not mind this book.) It’s a rare space we occupy here, and Holloway is certainly right to offer advice to would-be science-lawyers. But I’m sorry to say this book misses the mark.

    Turning Points is, loosely, a combination of personal anecdotes and career advice mixed with a high-level primer on the patent system and what it’s like to work at a law firm. It’s also replete with sweeping generalizations and unflagged assumptions, some of which are downright dangerous to this audience.

    The one and only path

    “In the typical path,” we are told, “a scientist enters the law firm as a technical specialist and works there for approximately 1 year before law school begins,” while “[l]aw school itself takes 4 years of evening classes to complete.” Turning Points is full of bald, uncontextualized statements like this, all based on the silent assumption that the “typical” (if not only) path from science to law is to work as a technical specialist at a law firm, and then (optionally) attend law school later on, at night and on the firm’s dime. We’re also told that the only real place for these ex-scientists is in patent prosecution, not litigation, since a Ph.D. confers no career advantage for patent litigators. Point for point, this is all flat wrong.

    First, it’s not clear to me how many firms still offer to pay for law school as a hook to lure new technical specialists. At the very least it’s not universal, and to my knowledge this deal is becoming progressively harder to find. Law firms are not a charity enterprise, and I can’t imagine many are willing to foot a ~$200,000 bill to send you to school just so you can stop doing the job they hired you to do. Second, attending law school at night while working as a tech spec is far from a default path: I know a good number of scientists-turned-lawyers, and the vast majority of us attended law school full-time, during the day, and were self-financed. (See our interviews with Mark Bellermann, and Josh Weinger, for instance — and note that only a small minority of law schools offer night programs at all.) Third, there exists strong demand for lawyers with technical backgrounds in litigation and technology transactions as well as in patent prosecution, and I certainly feel that my life science Ph.D. is highly valued in my own biglaw IP litigation practice.

    There’s nothing wrong with Holloway offering his personal thoughts on his own experiences — and working as a tech spec before attending law school can be a good way to get a taste of the business before going whole-hog — but he does a true disservice to his audience by ignoring any other options.

    Curious advice

    Turning Points also offers advice on law school, a substantial portion of which is truly bogus. For instance, we’re told that your law school grades will suffer if you don’t speak up in class. (Not my experience: In the land of 100%-value final exams, how does speaking up help at all?) We’re told that “to read every case” is “next to impossible while working,” but that those wishing to succeed simply “must put in that effort.” And consider this holy grail of wishful thinking: “Certainly, academic pedigree matters, but a top performer from a state college will not be passed over in favor of a mediocre Ivy Leaguer.” Holloway forgot to cite his source, “The World As I Wish It Were.” The importance of the U.S. News rankings is hard to overstate.

    Holloway offers some advice for balancing work and law school, but it’s nothing you haven’t heard before, and he continues to ignore the elephant in the room — namely, that you need not be working during law school at all. He devotes an entire chapter (Chapter 5) to strategies for securing a law firm job, which in his case essentially boiled down to a lot of cold-mailing of resumes and using LinkedIn to set up lunches — which is probably what’s required given that he hadn’t gone to law school. (His listing of interview questions and potential answers is good, though somewhat out of place here.)

    Wait, who is this fellow?

    Holloway admits he “simply never enjoyed the practice of IP law” and “had no real passion for it.” Perhaps not the best candidate to write a book about transitioning from science to law. 

    Holloway includes some vignettes from folks working at law firms in various capacities, which could have used some editing to harmonize but are otherwise interesting. On the whole, Holloway paints a fairly bleak picture of law firm life, with scientists confined to patent prosecution (or “litigation support”), while in the “rat race to partnership,” “it is not uncommon for senior associates to work well into the evening every day of the week, simply to prove that they have what it takes.” (Sadly true.) He also includes some strange and unsupported statements about in-house lawyers, such as: “If a CEO departs, a chief counsel is a natural candidate to fill the role of CEO.” What? Says who? I mean, sure, it’s happened, but as a general rule? No.

    By this point — over two-thirds of the way through the book — I was really starting to wonder about Holloway’s own qualifications. He’d thus far played it pretty close to the chest, though it wasn’t hard to deduce that the path he described — tech spec to night school — was probably the one he himself took. But I admit to being shocked when he finally revealed the truth. Dr. Holloway dropped out of law school. He doesn’t have a J.D.  He doesn’t even work in law anymore, having spent “just over two years” at a law firm, a detour he was admits he considered “a waste of time” and “a blip that needs to be explained away.” In fact, Holloway admits he “simply never enjoyed the practice of IP law” and “had no real passion for it,” finding “the day-to-day practice of it to be rushed, deadline oriented, and sometimes repetitive.” One more: “If you hate writing patent applications and you hate meeting with clients, even the most stalwart persistence will crumble eventually.” Well then. Perhaps not the best candidate to write a book about transitioning from science to law. 

    Holloway includes some other material in this book that seems suspiciously like padding, including a rather large section detailing the anatomy of a patent, reviewing some key provisions of the patent statutes, and describing the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP), which he calls “a very useful guidebook.” Chapter 8, if you’re interested, is devoted to other careers (besides law) that scientists can pursue. This is interesting enough, though again somewhat out of place given the title. Given his relative focus on venture capital firms, I assume Dr. Holloway tried his hand there after his brief stint at a law firm and his single year of night school at Suffolk.


    To be fair, Turning Points isn’t a terrible book for what it is. But what it is is one person’s account of an ultimately unrewarding effort to break into law as a technical specialist, mixed in with some lessons learned about night school, the patent system, and general advice about job-seeking. The problem is there’s not much market for that kind of book, so Holloway targets Turning Points considerably more broadly. Consider the blurb: “Are you a scientist or engineer looking to make a career change? This book will help you understand what it’s like to work in patent law and how you can make the transition.”

    No, this book will present the author’s admittedly haphazard career path as the only one, and do its level best to conceal the fact that he in fact apparently ended up in law when all else failed, dropped out of law school, and didn’t even enjoy his brief time in IP law. When Holloway finally comes clean about this in Chapter 7 (“OK, you’ve got me!”) it’s a total credibility killer.


    As he reveals toward the end of the book, Dustin Holloway apparently fell into law by accident, pretty much hated it, quit after his first year of law school, and is now doing something else. At best, Turning Points grossly misstates its intended scope and omits its key assumptions. At worst, it’s flat wrong and affirmatively harmful to would-be patent lawyers currently working in science. Take with a grain of salt, or better yet, avoid. 

    * – – –

    Permalink: Comment or share →

    Supreme Court decides Myriad human gene patenting case

    by  • June 13, 2013

    A unanimous Supreme Court today held that isolated human genes are products of nature and cannot be patented under 35 USC 101, although cDNA (complementary DNA) can be.

    We’ve been following the Myriad case as it made its way through the courts. We will cover this development in more depth soon — for now, here’s the news:

    Justices, 9-0, bar patenting human genes [New York Times]

    Permalink: Comment or share →

    A Biochemist at Yale Law School: Interview with Josh Weinger (Part 1 of 2)

    by  • May 28, 2013

    Dr. Josh Weinger

    Dr. Josh Weinger

    Are you interested in transitioning from a career in science to law?

    How about to the top-ranked law school in the country?

    Josh Weinger did exactly that, and in part 1 of this exclusive interview you’ll learn about the two big reasons he left science, and get a rare inside peek into the life of a scientist currently enrolled in law school.

    Dr. Joshua Weinger did his undergraduate studies at Brandeis University and his PhD in Molecular Biophysics and Biochemistry at Yale. After spending several years as a postdoc at Rockefeller University, he enrolled at Yale Law School where he has now just finished his second year.

    With his pivotal 2L summer ahead of him, Josh joined us to talk about his own transition from science to law, his law school experience so far, and his own plans for the future.


    Permalink: Comment or share →

    From Scientist to Patent Law Firm Partner: An Interview with Mark Bellermann

    by  • May 9, 2013

    Dr. Mark Bellermann

    Dr. Mark Bellermann

    Attention all scientists considering a career in patent law! We’re delighted to bring you an interview with Mark Bellermann, a PhD scientist and principal of the patent law firm Brake Hughes Bellermann LLP.

    Dr. Bellermann did his undergraduate work at Yale, and holds a PhD in Atomic Physics from SUNY Stony Brook as well as a JD from Columbia Law School. Dr. Bellermann works chiefly in patent prosecution: His practice emphasizes preparing and prosecuting applications, preparing opinions regarding the infringement, validity, and value of patents, and client counseling on intellectual property matters.

    He joined us to talk about his own path from science to patent law, as well as to share advice and tips for those making the transition today.


    Permalink: Comment or share →

    Three Reasons Law School Will Surprise A Scientist

    by  • April 30, 2013

    We scientists are a rational bunch. What’s more, we’re used to being recognized for our legitimate achievements in research, to tests that make sense, to grades that reflect how much we’ve learned, and going on the job market at the end of our studies.

    Well, time to forget all that, you’re going to law school!

    1. Law School Admissions Officers Don’t (Much) Care About Your PhD

    As a freshly-minted PhD, when’s the last time someone cared about your undergraduate grades? If asked for your academic credentials today you’d likely tout your graduate coursework, publications, and teaching experience before your years-old undergraduate grades. After all, your graduate achievements came after undergrad, so they more accurately reflect what kind of student you are today, right? Of course they do — but law schools don’t care.


    Permalink: Comment or share →

    Beware the IP Law Rankings

    by  • April 27, 2013

    Are you using the wrong law school rankings?

    If you’re a grad-level scientist relying on the US News Best Intellectual Property Law Programs rankings, you may well be.

    Don’t confuse these IP rankings with the critically important US News Best Law Schools rankings. It’s quite honestly almost impossible to overstate the importance of those general rankings to law firms and lawyers in general. This is a commonly accepted truth that generates periodic gosh-oughtn’t-we-wise-up laments from the profession. (For instance, the ABA Journal in its July 2012 cover story The Pedigree Problem complained that “[t]his near obsession with pedigree is not only paralyzing to the career prospects of individual lawyers; it is damaging to the entire profession.” At this, lawyers nodded sympathetically before reverting to precisely what they were doing before, which was probably shredding resumes from graduates of modestly ranked schools.)


    Permalink: Comment or share →