<p>There are books you can buy discussing the law admissions process…one I was flipping through had a chapter talking about the LSAT and GPA…the author said that the LSAT told adcoms if you CAN do the work, your GPA told them if you WILL do the work…both very important when considering a candidate.</p>
<p>So, if you get a high LSAT, the question is, alright, per his GPA, will this person be lazy or will they use their ability to actually do the work. </p>
<p>If you have a technical degree, a 3.3ish shows that you did the work. Its difficult as hell, and everyone knows it. Yeah, theyre motivated to get the high GPAs no matter what becuase of US News, but if you get a high enough LSAT, you will be helping them out with that which is good enough. They can get high GPAs from the history majors - no offense.</p>
<p>Getting back to the OP, I answered a similar question in the thread on IP law:
</p>
<p>In general, as long as you go to a reasonably good law school and do well there, you need not go to a tier1 school to succeed in IP law, especially if you want to practice patent law where, as Greybeard wtote, your technical education and overall qualifications are at least as important if not more so.</p>
<p>As a specific example, here in the Bay area employers will generally regard Hastings and Santa Clara law schools as more or less in the same level, so that if you attend and do well in either you will be pretty well qualified for a good position. Do poorly in one of these, however, and you will not be very competitive overall.</p>