i always knew i should have changed my major

First!

White Girls With Asian Guys

Go for it. It's just a matter of time until practice groups stratify in pay (a la the dechert frg).

I don't see a problem with it. At most firms, patent lawyers with EE degrees bill out at higher rates than regular associates without any specialty degrees.

If they are more valuable to the firm, then why not compensate them at a rate commensurate with that value?

Anybody who cries about it can go apply for an EE degree if they so choose. No one's stopping them.

although i have only a worthless journalism degree, i support this. engineers should make more for having had to put up with the rigors of an engineering major while the rest of us lib arts majors partied.

Kudos to them for laying it on the table and being (apparently) willing to take other associates' opinions into consideration.

But I'd be surprised if the associates will be happy to bifurcate the market -- it's a slippery slope. If there's so much business out there, then hire raise salaries across the board to get the EEs in the door and raise rates on the projects to cover the costs. Otherwise, what's next? An extra $20K for the new hires who are in demand next year in another area? And then some other area the year after that?

You'll end up with a patchwork where nobody knows who is making what ... wait, perhaps that is the idea?

good for Quinn for being so open about this.

Ha, LOVE the name "Pennypacker"!

"engineers should make more for having had to put up with the rigors of an engineering major while the rest of us lib arts majors partied."

unfortunately the engineering majors who didn't choose electrical both lose out on the pay and the partying. i can seen how a political science major might support this, but as someone with a non-EE hard science background, i would feel slightly screwed if my firm pulled something like this. plus, all hard science (i.e., patent bar) people bill at the same rate at my firm... EEs don't bring in more money.

Haven't they ever heard of capital letters over there at Quinn Emanuel? It's makes the partner's correspondence look like he's a twelve-year old girl on instant message.

kudos to Quinn for asking around early in the process. But if I were a mechanical or chemical engineer, who went through the same rigorous coursework and is doing the same work, I'd be kind of pissed.

also, "alot" is not a word. big-show trial lawyers should know this.

But there must be a reason for the high demand for EEs. Can someone explain?

Well, between this and Quinn's $15,000 URM summer associate bonus stipend, seems like Quinn is definitely (1) thinking about its composition and (2) willing to pay to get where it wants to go.

I don't know about $20,000 extra a year in comp. Signing bonuses and year end bonuses seem to be a better way to address the shortage (without locking in a permanent difference in structure).

Where are the capital letters in that e-mail? Seriously.

Also, I tend to support the idea of patent folks getting more money (I'm a bit biased). However, note that he refers specifically to "litigators" and not "prosecutors." There is likely no shortage of EE patent prosecutors, but rather litigators that are good in the EE arts.

This makes lots of sense. Litigation is an entirely different set of skills.

Moreover, litigators tend to bill higher and have more hours than the typical prosecution monkey. So I can definitely see the problem attracting well qualified EEs into the litigation ranks.

Did Dechert go to $160K in DC? If so, do their FSG associates earn MORE than $160K?

444: And let's not forget math majors, who are just as "hard science" as the rest but who can't take the patent bar for reasons that are beyond me.

why no capital letters?

it's easy

ee = electrical engineers = e.e. cummings

Seriously? It's the shift key man! Become familiar with it! Also, "alot" is TWO words.

4:44 - About capital letters: John Quinn is known for being a super-relaxed "California" name partner -- although I think he started at Wachtell before migrating west. The office has a very casual dress code as well. Don't let the loose writing style fool you though; his word is law at that firm -- they don't run things by committee, Quinn just emails the rest of the firm whenever he is contemplating a policy change. Of course, that will make it interesting when he leaves/retires/dies. Either the firm will rally around his anointed successor, or form a bureaucracy and manage like other traditional firms.

The lack of capital letters is certainly jarring, but what blew me away was his improper usage of "its."

I find it hard to believe that a lawyer with any type of stature at a firm would send this email to associates.

Who doesn't use capital letters?

4:59, you sound like an insider. Has the firm done anything on this issue yet?

4:44 - Not to mention people with degrees in physics and chemistry.

Did you see their logo? Maybe it is a comment on their casual culture.

e(lectrical) e(ngineer) cummings? Like Mohandas ("Engineer" in Arabic) Ghandi - who was in fact an attorney?

Why not pay people to go back to school and get an EE degree. I'd do it.

qe has some goofy bio pics. The angles are rather "artsy."

5:06 Mohandas means "Servant of Krishna", not "Engineer." And Gandhi was Indian, not Arab. But he was an attorney.

If they are in such hot demand, other firms will simply match the extra pay...

Clients who insist on engineers for their patent litigation are fools. I don't know of any engineer-judges, and rarely do you see one on a jury. If an attorney with a liberal arts degree doesn't understand the technology as explained by the client, neither will the decisionmaker.

get over the fucking capital letter freak out you tight-ass twits

There's a shortage of EE prosecutors as well, but prosecution doesn't have the margins to justify high salaries.

As for why there is a shortage - well, most people in law school aren't engineers, so supply is limited. Let's assume that engineers head to law school relatively equally (in terms of specialty). However, there's much, much more EE patent work out there than any other discipline. Think about all the cool gadgets you have/want? How many of those don't have complicated electronic circuits?

So, why not send some attorneys back to school to get a BSEE?

So, they're looking for EE's with social skills.

Good luck with that.

Giddy Up! Can't wait for my firm to follow suit....

It takes an EE to make a gEEk.

" If an attorney with a liberal arts degree doesn't understand the technology as explained by the client, neither will the decisionmaker."

Um, exactly. This is why you hire a EE atty to make sure decider will understand the tech.

5:25 - they're hoping that $20,000/year will do that. Probably a smaller investment than tuition, with a larger potential payout as well.

Nice, let's hope this payscale is adopted by all firms.

i agree that ee majors should make more, but they should make more by going out and being real engineers. go create the next google and let us worthless liberal arts majors fuss over how to make a brief more "punchy."

5:18 - I think the point is for the lawyer to understand and then explain it better.

The shortage of EEs in law is also due at least in part to the fact that most EEs can get a relatively high-paying job ($70K seems pretty typical) right out of college. Therefore, it is not financially beneficial for most of them to forego three years of salary and incur $100K+ in debt to go to law school. Very few other majors, including even other science and engineering majors, provide comparable earning potential with just a bachelor's degree.

In fact, one reason the supply of EE attorneys is not even lower is that many firms with IP practices hire engineers as patent prosecutors and pay their law school tuition, along with a healthy salary, in order to provide sufficient financial incentive for them to switch fields. If such patent agent programs did not exist, the supply-demand discrepancy would be even more dramatic.

The shortage of EEs in law is also due at least in part to the fact that most EEs can get a relatively high-paying job ($70K seems pretty typical) right out of college. Therefore, it is not financially beneficial for most of them to forego three years of salary and incur $100K+ in debt to go to law school. Very few other majors, including even other science and engineering majors, provide comparable earning potential with just a bachelor's degree.

In fact, one reason the supply of EE attorneys is not even lower is that many firms with IP practices hire engineers as patent prosecutors and pay their law school tuition, along with a healthy salary, in order to provide sufficient financial incentive for them to switch fields. If such patent agent programs did not exist, the supply-demand discrepancy would be even more dramatic.

Oh brother. Lighten up over the form of the email. Quinn is the only firm like, um, itself. I interviewed there about four years ago and wore a suit as instructed by my OCS, and the moment I walked in I regretted being so ridiculously overdressed. To this day I'm convinced that's why I didn't get an offer, since Urquhart himself had invited me for a callback on the spot.

Anyway, it's a unique place. Most relaxed firm culture in the world. Their waiting room looks like something out of a toy store. It's all bright colors and casual. Associates wear shorts and sandals and looks like surfer bums/potheads (and probably a fair number of them are). It's a very work hard/play hard atmosphere, and their philosophy is you don't have to look like a great lawyer to be a great lawyer. They're very substance over form, to the point of sacrificing form at least as far as their offices go. I have to say, they get mad respect from me for that.

As for the question, in principle I think it makes perfect sense. The whole reason we're all paid so much (what with these recent raises) is because the demand has risen so much in the past decade while the supply has remained stagnant. When demand goes up and supply remains stagnant, salaries have to go up. If the market for this niche group of lawyers is the way Quinn says it is, then it's inevitable that their salaries will raise. It isn't as much about which group makes them the most money, it's about which group they need in which they're having trouble getting top people.

On the other hand, this sets an ugly, nasty precedent, to the point that they could end up treating associates like partners in terms of job expectations, but with a fraction of the money and none of the power (in other words, bad news for associates).

Won't anyone think of the operating engineers? IUOE would be a great group to sit down with and discuss an increase in salary with...

law firms should recruit EE's from the top programs like MIT, Caltech, and Georgia Tech, and pay for them to go to law school. Back in engineering school, very few of my classmates had any idea that they could use their degrees for a non-traditional career. Then again, those campus visits at Google sound pretty cool.

Damn you worthless CS degree........

Quinn is on the very short list of firms that I would much prefer to be with on the same side of a litigation matter rather than against.

I don't worry about most of the biglaw firms -- they are pretentious but of very uneven quality. Quinn is damn good.

5:47, many firms do exactly that (see my earlier post), though it is not limited to EE majors. The recruits work at the firm while attending law school, doing mostly patent prosecution work. In return, they get law school tuition reimbursement and a salary. However, as noted by Quinn's e-mail and the market generally, even these incentives are not enough to fill the market demand. Part of the equation is probably that the overwhelming majority of EE students do not want to become lawyers, even if it would be pretty lucrative for them to do so.

hmm @ 5:47 = GaTech troll

All of you people who say Quinn should pay to put people through school, etc., are total idiots. They need people right now, not several years from now.

It may make sense in the long term, but not now.

Dear Mr. Quinn,

What I learned in second grade was that "a lot" is TWO words, not ONE.

No gold star for you today.

Dear 5:56,

What I learned in pre-school is that if someone has already said something, you don't need to repeat it, even if you have a better way of saying it.

No gold star for you today.

Breaking w/ lockstep sets a dangerous precedent; why not do something like give EEs signing bonuses? Like w/ SC clerks.

Electrical Engineering has turned into a huge discipline not only covering circuits, but also radio / radar transmission and signals / systems (how information is encoded before it is sent out over a radio signal). This encompasses a significant amount of modern technology. Cell phones, satellite tv, how information is transmitted over cable, how information is transmitted via the internet, plus the many products that now have microcontrollers in them cars, most kitchen and other household appliances, etc.

This is not to say that people in other majors (science and non) can't handle learning what is going on, but they are at a distinct disadvantage. Plus, the customer hiring you has a much better chance that you'll have some clue what the hell they're talking about and be able to compare products in a meaningful way. Does this mean people with EE degrees should get paid more? I don't really know, but then again I'm a bit of a commy, so I think anything over 6 figures is kinda criminal.

shocking that he doesn't know the difference between "its" and "it's"

As an EE (not at Quinn), I gotta say this is an interesting, though probably unwise implementation. EEs are certainly scarce, but classing them "up" isn't the way to attract more to your firm. As someone else mentioned, a discreet signing bonus or an end-of-year mandatory bonus is the way to go if your firm is wanting for EEs and ready to pay for them. I personally would feel a little weird if I were making 20K more than those in my class. I also imagine it would inevitably breed a little hostility and competitiveness. Moreover, I can already see the partner/associate conversations: "We're paying you 20K more than your peers, and this is the best you can do?!" Not cool. Keep 'em lockstep, but win 'em other ways. That being said, it will be interesting to see how this shakes out and spreads (if at all) to other disciplines.

I was a comp sci major. I did 90% of the same work EE's did, except for all the circuits we did it theoretically (on paper via diagrams/equations) as opposed to in labs. I can easily keep up with my EE peers at my firm, so I disagree with this.

As an EE in law school I'd much rather see a signing bonus and annual bonus bump than a salary pay differential even though this might not work out as well for me in the end (although the time value of money is not to be under estimated). The reasons for this are most of the above (don't want to break lockstep) as well as the fact that I don't want to have to a salary cut if we move out of demand or I decide to move out of patent lit.

However, I imagine that Quinn is looking more at laterals than at new hires from the tone of the email and in that case this might be a better approach in terms of recruitment.

It's the right move. Supply and demand. No hard feelings, I shouldn't have dumped EE from my majors in college.

Comp Sci vs. EE is a contentious issue, but most schools there is a greater emphasis on signals processing, circuitry, communications, digital logic, and heck, even POWER when you study EE, and an obvious emphasis on programming when you study comp sci. That said, I agree with you that the same kind of mind gravitates and excels at both - the problem is explaining that to clients.

Do clients really insist on staffing EE degrees? What about other areas that touch on EE? Depending on the area, a CS, CompE, BME, TelecomE, Physics, or even ChemE (for PVD or CVD processes) is better trained than a EE. Whats with the one size fits all approach?

6:32 -- look at EE as multidiscplinary and you'll see why clients steadfastly insist on having EE staffing. May not be so, but it is what it is.

"The lack of capital letters is certainly jarring, but what blew me away was his improper usage of "its."

I find it hard to believe that a lawyer with any type of stature at a firm would send this email to associates.

Who doesn't use capital letters?"

i find that most of the smartest attorneys always send emails with the most careless grammatical/punctuation errors. as long as it's internal and informal, anything goes.

Top firms are also looking harder for HYS graduates than lower tier-1 grads. Does that mean HYS grads should get paid more than their fellow associates?

6:41, if clients demanded it and moved cases because of it - in a word, yes.

What is next, extra money for JD and MBA? Gimme a break.

7:07 - You're comparing an MBA to an EE degree? Actually, MBA compared to any science or engineering degree is a joke. It is like me telling you that a banana stand is worth the same as a Maserati.

Take four years of rigorous, mindnumbing math and science, then one of schmoozing and wining and let me know which you think clients give a shit about.

7:07, some firms do in fact give a signing bonus to JD+MBAs.

7:07, at many places they do give you extra money for an MBA (and other advanced degrees) by granting a year (or more for some PhDs) of seniority.

7:07 - Some firms do pay extra money for a JD/MBA. K&E gives a one-time 20K bonus for JD/MBAs that start with the firm.

6:41 - heck yes!

Sad part about tech degrees is how fast you forget most of it. I think I'm down to 10% of what I knew at my undergrad graduation.

While I'm not an EE (I'm CIS), offering additional compensation to those with needed skills or backgrounds certainly sounds like a reasonable method of attracting such individuals.

I do agree, however, with many of the other commentators that firms who seek such individuals should now also start recruiting and paying for bright engineering students who are interested in pursuing IP work.

As a former programmer, I was attracted to the law when development discussion for a FOSS project I was working with suddenly turned serious concerns about liability for misuse of our code. I decided to investigate our legal position, and in the process fell in love with the law. I get much more joy out of assisting others in protecting themselves and their creations than I ever did when worrying about memory leaks or an extraneous semicolon.

Offering additional compensation, or even attractive bonuses to those already in the field with the necessary skills is a reasonable method of resolving the immediate situation. I urge, however, that firms also consider a long-term approach to meeting their needs in the future.

The electrical engineers that Quinn Emmanuel needs have a scarce skill set, one that other Quinn Emmanuel lawyers lack. It's a no-brainer to pay them more. In any other industry, it wouldn't even be open for debate.

Quinn advertises in the Burbank airport with its (supposed) 90% and up win percentage. Had I not gone to law school, I would have thought it was an advertisement for an accidentes law firm.

Well, I would say that I regret switching from EE . . . but, of course, if I stayed an EE there is little chance I would have gone to an HYS rather than a CAP.

As far as clients needing EEs, it's kind of silly if it is patent litigation. Any competent litigator could handle the most complicated, EE-heavy patent case. (Considering the judge will most likely require daily assistance with using the internet tubes.)

dear mr. quinn,

i have a BS Computer Engineering. i clean up real nice and i am presentable in front of clients. i am willing to take online classes to get an ee. please, please hire me. at my firm i am paid the same as english majors who apparently spent their entire undergrad partying.

i deserve to be hired. please, please. even if you pay me only a $1 more, the acknowledgment of my hard work in getting an ce would be greatly appreciated.

thank you,

jd + computer engineering

They decided not to do it. Which is tragic, since I'm an EE.

9.25, what do you mean? how do you know?

btw, please let's all adopt the quinn writing style.

Paying a signing bonus to JD/MBAs makes sense when you consider that they generally didn't get the chance to get paid $3k/week to go to lunch and schmooze during their second summer because they were too busy taking classes.

Mark: And then you joined a journal, and found yourself right back to worrying about extraneous semicolons . . . .

Some clients of my firm insist that ONLY EEs staff patent litigations involving EE technology. This is just plain silly. All you need is (1) a technical expert who is great at explaining complex technology to non-experts and (2) competent patent litigators who can understand technology once it is explained to them. There are so many facets to a patent case besides the technology (e.g. civil procedure, inequitable conduct, damages). Staffing a case with all EEs, just because they are EEs, is not the best way to win. In a "perfect" world, in-house consel would leave staffing up to the veteran patent litigators at the firm who will be running or supervising the case.

QE wants more EEs because their clients demand them, not because, from what I can tell, they believe a better outcome results when they staff a case with more EEs. I'll take Morgan Chu or Evan Chesler on my team over a run-of-the-mill EE patent litigator any day.

One more point: it is kind of interesting that QE is giving in to this somewhat illogical demand that some of its clients have. Obviously QE been able to win, and win big, in the past without having the number of EEs that its clients want. With such an impressive track record, you would think that the partners would be able to convince their clients that staffing litigations with a bunch of EEs is not only not necessary but can be unwise.

8:59- Have you read an EE heavy patent case? They are really difficult to understand even for EE BS's. Thats why they have the federal circuit in the first place. "Competant litigators" wanting to do patent work get stomped in no time.

7:11:

How many times do I have to tell you--there's always money in the banana stand!

10.37,
all patent cases get down to about one three word limitation in the independent claim.

an english major after about a 1000 hrs can understand the issue.

10:39-

High five!

nyc to 190!

ee's to 210!

nyc to 190!

nyc to 190!

nyc to 190!

I am happy for all these engineer types, what's the latest list of shame?

A shoutout to Hotlanta, Atlanta needs a raise!

Anon 5:18 "I don't know of any engineer-judges, and rarely do you see one on a jury"

Well, then you must not know a goddamn thing about the Federal Circuit. You know, that place where Patent litigators go on appeal.

Pauline Newman - Chemistry/ChemE, worked for American Cyanamid.
Kimberly Moore (probably to be the longest serving federal appellate judge in history, if she so desires) - BS/MS in EE from MIT
Arthur Gajarsa -- BS in EE from RPI.
Judge Lourie -- PhD Chemist/Chem Engineer.

That's 1/3 of the non-Senior Judges. But I guess you've never heard of them OR the Federal Circuit. We should all bow before your towering ignorance.

The late, great Judge Rich was also an engineer. Sharon Prost has a BS, but probably not in science.

if my firm wanted to pay me to get an EE degree somehow, I'd be down for that. 'course i don't have an undergrad science degree either, but i'm smart.

Sure, most attorneys who are smart enough to be at firms that are handling bleeding-edge patent litigation are smart enough to learn the underlying technology, GIVEN ENOUGH TIME. Which is really the point, because time is money. Time is limited, so the problem becomes one of maximizing billable time while minimizing wasted / unbillable time.

Having enough EE's or other technically trained attorneys on a case can, and usually does, reduce the amount of time we all have to spend in a room holding hands while explaining the underlying background of some tech to each other, hitting the books at the library, or having an outside technical expert walk through the answers to a bunch of irrelevant questions.

So less time is wasted, leaving more time to bill, more of that time shows up on the bill to the client (maybe even at a higher rate), who is happy to have worked with attorneys that speak the right technical / technological dialect, so the client pays the bill and tells his friends how great his experience was with your firm. This brings more new and repeat business to your firm.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Took me less than 2 weeks of law school to figure out that having a M.S. in comp sci from a top 5 engineering school was pretty much useless when it came to understanding Palsgraff.

Three years and a J.D. later I am still trying to figure out why the hell a 25yr old first year associate gets paid 160K to shuffle paper into different piles. It also makes me wonder how the world would be different if all the smart kids I went to law school with were actually doing something useful with their lives.

Of course, I'm joining the firm crowd. Have to pay off those loans somehow. But I ain't really happy about my life choice.

If Quinn could figure out how to distinguish itself from the other law firms that are competing for -- and landing -- EE associates, it wouldn't need to raise salaries. Quinn is already one of the market leaders in terms of compensation, so there isn't a concern that its EE associates are being underpaid vis-a-vis other firms. And yet, apparently Quinn is losing out on EE associates (and clients) to peer law firms. Time to look at the intangibles (firm culture, recruiting, etc) to figure things out . . . and to determine what can be done differently.

Time to tell clients to shut their pieholes (good luck). The partners, and the most experienced people when it comes to litigation, haven't been in EE since the graduated at least 13 years ago. Their EE knowledge has probably degraded to the level of a freshman EE major, and yet they manage to win cases. This is because, in the end, patent litigation is still a legal issue, and furthermore still hinges on a jury. Understanding the technology is great, but being able to explain it to a jury is better. Technically inclined people that learn technology fresh (via help from tech advisors), are better at convincing a jury (or even a Fed Cir judge) of their position.

The same frequently applies to patent prosecution. The better someone manages to explain technology in layman terms, the more solid a patent becomes (and with potentially broader, non-prior art, coverage).

The fear that this would lead to a slippery slope away from lockstep compensation, which is somehow a bad result, is hilarious. If this leads to everyone being paid differently depending on their skill set, then that's the way it should be. Finally supply and demand is starting to work, instead of this current wage-fixing going on.

Let's say a hospital needs more surgeons. How does it attract more surgeons? By raising the surgeon salaries, duh. To suggest that they should send some of their general practitioners back to school or that they can only give out a signing bonus is a sign of how ridiculous and narrow-minded law students are. You would think this board would understand how supply and demand shapes wages and results in doctors in each class not being paid the same.

The only problem with supply and demand as applied here is that it is cyclical, and not firm specific. E.g. Quinn Emmanuel needs EE's because of their clients, another firm needs Chem E's, a third firm needs Comp E's, a fourth has a shortage of Corporate Attorneys.

Unless there is a difference in billing rates, the salaries should not be altered, otherwise you'll have a first year EE being paid higher than a second year Chem E, at which point the Chem E will jump ship to a firm that pays more to Chem Es.

You'll create an unintended effect of people going to firms where their specialty is more needed, and this will have a tendency to create boutique firms. Unfortunately, boutique firms do not do so well in the modern legal market, because clients often have more than a certain type of issue (even if that one type is the most frequent one).

Anyone can be a corporate attorney (in fact isn't that the de facto path now into biglaw?). Science degrees in general are in higher demand than others simply because of their scarcity across the board. Not too many engineers go to law school. OTOH, anyone can become a corporate attorney.

8:47 - Oh no, the horrors, people going to firms where their specialty is more needed. Isn't that the whole point of supply and demand?

If a firm does not want to become a boutique firm with lots of Chem Es, they don't have to pay more to Chem Es. Presumably they pay more to a certain category became they need that category.

The billing rate is irrelevant. A firm that bills lawyers out at $250 finds that it needs more EEs than ChemEs. So they pay EEs $75/hour and ChemEs $60/hour. Who cares that they're billed out at the same rate.

I have an Industrial Engineering degree, I graduated with a JD in May and passed the Patent Agent's exam last summer and I want to work in Patent Litigation but everyone considers my IE degree useless (I loved my degree and before you start, yes, I've heard it all before.... Imaginary Engineering but we make more than EEs coming out of undergrad). I've had more than one partner at a law firm tell me to go back and get a EE degree. If someone would pay for it, I'd go in a heart beat.

"i find that most of the smartest attorneys always send emails with the most careless grammatical/punctuation errors. as long as it's internal and informal, anything goes.

Posted by: aristeia | July 16, 2007 06:36 PM "

Well, that may be true... but in my experience, people who send out careless grammatical/punctuation errors also include uneducated idiots.

Dechert DC saw the light and admitted the error of its ways. All first year associates in their DC office now make 160K, regardless of practice group.