I really like being a lawyer. It’s not always perfect (no career or job is), but the field has been a really good fit for me. Much of what initially interested me in physics—the deep thinking, logical thinking, and working through problems—carries over into the legal profession.

Before becoming an attorney, I majored in physics and philosophy as an undergraduate at the University of Colorado Boulder. While I briefly considered a legal career during college, I instead decided to pursue a career in science writing. I started with a science writing internship for the American Water Works Association, an industry group for drinking water utilities and related professionals, followed by an internship at the American Physical Society (APS). That APS internship transitioned into a permanent position managing the society’s physics outreach website. I did that for several years and really enjoyed it, but law school remained in the back of my mind.

Indeed, I thought a legal career would still include much of what I enjoyed about science writing. I loved writing and wanted to do more persuasive writing. The idea of going into patent law appealed to me—I would still be connected to writing and physics, but it would be a new path. So, after several years at APS, I quit my job, traveled with friends for a summer, then started law school. I loved law school.

Since I had a physics degree, just before my first year of law school I was able to take an exam to become a patent agent—someone who can write patent applications and apply for patents at the patent office on behalf of clients. Having a science background, and especially the patent agent credential, gave me a leg up for a paid summer associate position at a national law firm. During that first summer, I worked on both patent litigation (acting as a lawyer for clients in patent infringement lawsuits before courts) and patent prosecution (securing patents for clients at the patent office). During my second law school summer, I focused on patent litigation and more general litigation at two national law firms.

If you end up working for a big law firm after graduating from law school, odds are the offer came from a firm where you interned over the summer, as was the case for me. I took a postgraduate job at a big firm in Silicon Valley, doing a mix of patent and general business litigation.

After working in Silicon Valley for a while, my wife and I relocated to Colorado, and I became a clerk for a federal district court judge. Clerkships are a valued credential that many lawyers pursue, especially those interested in litigation. In that position, I worked closely with the judge, advising and writing opinions for him to edit and approve. I loved it. Because he was a federal judge, he addressed all kinds of cases, from criminal to civil.

Next, I went to a law firm where I focused on large patent disputes that often spanned multiple countries. I enjoyed that work, but big firms can be bureaucratic and intense, so it’s common for associates at those firms to move on after several years. When the judge whom I had previously clerked for asked me to fill an unexpected absence in his chambers for a few months, I took the opportunity to return. I recently finished that temporary position and am starting at a smaller law firm that does business litigation.

Legal practice and physics research share several similarities. In both, you think logically. And in a way, both involve starting with a hypothesis or position and testing it. In law, you test it against case law and legal statutes and, eventually, before a judge or jury; in physics, you test your hypothesis against the natural world. Overall, the type of thinking involved is similar, although law involves a lot more writing. 

If you like writing, thinking through logical arguments, viewing sometimes contentious issues from different perspectives, and trying to persuade someone (often through educating them—not necessarily arguing and yelling), the law could be a good fit for you.

---