A Sobering Realization

I really cannot complain, you know.  In this economy, with so many attorneys being fired, talk of reduction of salaries, and so many of my law classmates still striving to find jobs, I should not complain.  After all, I have a great job.  I love the people that I work with, I look forward to going into work every day, and I am busy.  While our firm has had some slowdown, we are firing on all cylinders in other respects and are built to weather the recession intact.  We are still looking to hire, too (engineers and scientists with MS or PhDs + JDs), but still, that speaks a lot about the financial health of our firm.  They have not cut down on the amenities at the firm (which are, while not opulent as in some big firms, still very nice).  

As an IP attorney working in biotech, however, there are some crossroads that one comes to.  I have my doctorate in Molecular Endocrinology.  In my previous life, I was a gene jockey.  I love genetics, genomics, and molecular biology.  It makes sense to me just as the notes on a page might make sense to a musician.  When I set out to get my doctorate, I soon realized that a life at the bench was not for me.  I tend to be more social and less the stereotype of the nebbish scientist hunched over tubes writing alone in his office, asking for money for research every five years.  Although I loved the science, life as a scientist was not that appealing for me.  I considered law school right out of my graduate program, but I chose to work as a postdoc and then in private industry.  I recognized that, with the amazing advancements in gene sequencing that I was witnessing (climaxing, for me, with the completion of the race to sequence the human genome), I knew that the law would be the next avenue that would shape accessibility for so much of this information for the rest of the world.  Patent law made sense to me.  After all, it would allow me the chance to make a difference in helping shape the law as it applies to the rapid advances in scientific knowledge that seemed to move ahead of the law.  Witness the great stem cell debate or the new testing centers for genetic factors.  Imagine a world where employers and insurance companies demanded PCR tests and DNA profiles on their clients, employees and customers to determine predispositions to diseases and charging more or less for certain individuals.  The privacy issues alone are staggering if one thinks about it.  

One of the big areas for me has been in the arena of access to affordable pharmaceuticals.  Lined up on one side of the line are big pharma, the companies that are the innovators yet justify the high costs of prescription medications through statements expounding on the high costs associated with R&D.  On the other side are the generic manufacturers, those companies trying to bring products to market that are more affordable yet do not have the R & D expenses (thereby justifying their lower costs).  Caught in the middle of this tug of war between these conglomerates is the consumer, everyone who needs medicine.  Patents exist to reward innovation, but at what cost?  If someone is dying yet cannot afford an expensive medication that is under patent protection, is that just?  At the same time, the argument is that without patent protection, no one would feel inclined to innovate.  Why put up all of the money to create something where others can just swoop in and copy it?  

I always envisioned myself working on behalf of generic companies.  After all, they are working to get the drugs to the people (affordably) faster.  I could see myself involved in litigation with the big pharma companies, fighting on behalf of the underdogs.  There is, however, one problem.  In legal cannon, it is called conflict of interest, and it is exactly what it sounds like.  it pretty much means that you cannot, without a waiver provided by your clients, represent adverse parties at the same time.  Sometimes, the conflict can outlive the case itself and go on for the rest of your career-especially when you are privy to confidential corporate information from one of your clients.  

Last week, I realized that I would, most likely, forever be barred from IP practice in terms of helping generic companies.  This realization came as I was preparing patent applications for 2 of the largest name brand pharma companies in the world.  Because they are such behemoths, I would most likely be conflicted out of any future work for generics against these companies.  

It kinda saddened me.  Here I am, not even a full 8 months into my legal career, and I already realize that I will, in all likelihood, not be able to do what I wanted to do.  Can I still fight the good fight and do good?  Yes.  At the same time, I cannot use my knowledge on behalf of those who need it most.

Oh well-maybe things will change.  I hope so.  People who need medicine should be able to afford it.  People who innovate need some sort of inducement to do so.  What is the solution to this conundrum?