Several other questionable statements in the article:
“Look for clues to their reputation; quotes to the press, which will indicate how a lawyer may represent you; and a sense of workload.”
I don’t know of attorneys talking much to the press during patent prosecution. That advice seems better for high-profile civil litigation or criminal defense.

” If a lawyer is tied up with a alrge or ongoing case, you may want to pass on him or her.”
Aren’t most good attorneys fairly busy?

“If you want to dig even deeper, call your state Bar Association and ask whether the lawyers you are considering remain in good standing, and confirm the background you’ve found them to have.” Checking the bar’s website would be quicker and icer to bar officials. Moreover, the article doesn’t caution readers that complaints against attorneys only become public in most states if the bar association finds the complaint valid and decides to issue a public reprimand. Many cases are difficult to substantiate, and most complaints against attorneys are frivolous. So bar complaint histories really aren’t that helpful.

Keep up the good work in highlighting some of the poor advice mistakenly given by journalists in a rush.

It’s unfortunate that so many (most? all?) “business” periodicals regularly disseminate incorrect, even legally-dangerous, advice when it comes to IP.

If and until they’re willing to take steps like hiring attorney-writer/researchers; or at least hiring attorneys to review and fact-check pieces written by their regular writers; they would do their millions of readers a great service by NOT proffering legal advice.

Thanks for tackling this oft repeated travesty.

It was probably written by a well meaning spot writer who knows nothing about patent law but figures that some “common sense” can be applied and made to appear as though it were sage advice for the uninitiated.

As a general practice, I do give newbies calling in on the phone a couple of minutes of my time just to set them on the right path; for example, telling them what key words or phrases to google so they can educate themselves. I see nothing wrong with a prospective client interviewing a couple of attorneys on the phone just to get a feel of whom they will get along with. Of course, if the general counsel of some big tech corp. is calling you to see if you can pick up some of his overload work, you’re not going to say heck no, I don’t do telephone interviews. You’re going to say how high do you want me to jump sir? (Especially in this economy.)

I agree that the TV attorneys and free initial consultation folks make everyone think that is the norm. It isn’t that I don’t want to give folks some free information, but in this space what can you really tell someone without a patent search at least, or knowing a good deal about their invention? In the PI context the free consultation frequently leads to a new client. In the patent context a free consultation normally leads to inventors calling another dozen attorneys asking everyone different questions to collect as much information as they can. Totally different busineses.

I also get a lot of work from happy clients. Why would you not want to ask around to find someone who has treated others well and is competent?

The other thing I meant to mention was the geographical restriction. I get people sometimes who don’t want to work with me because I am not near them, but I have clients all over the US and all over the world, most of whom I have never met in person. That is the norm in the patent world, so advising that you work with only someone local who you can meet with face to face extremely limits the field and is not what sophisticated inventors do. Yes, it can be helpful to meet, but technical expertise and a work style and personality that match with the inventor means so much more (at least in my opinion).

-Gene

Are these folks for real? Your comments on right on about asking others which patent attorneys to go to. (Most of my referrals come from other attorneys who know me or current clients to tell prospects I know what I’m doing and am fair in what I offer for the price).

AC: PI lawyers have the free initial consulation because there are many, many of them (vs. very, very few of us patent attorneys). I normally give a prospective some initial general IP advice without charge, but if we’re going to get serious, I need to get paid for it (usually an advance of fees up front). Gene is correct: partnering is just another way of saying “I can’t pay you, but I’m entitled to your services for free.” The US is becoming too much like Europe: the “land of entitlements.”