I was interviewed by one partner and one attorney for a total of about 2.5-3h, both were very interested and pleasant to talk to. Most of the interview was conducted by the partner, while the attorney added some questions here and there. The interview started with an In tray exercise. I was given 30 min to prepare what, why and in which order I would perform my tasks on a given work day before discussing my answers with the two interviewers. It is definitely worth to practise this. In the next part we discussed my research projects-be pepared to talk about this in great detail and to be asked follow up questions on technical equipment you used. I was further asked to describe scientfic methods to a layperson. Questions included: How does a confocal microscope work? What are antibodies, how to they work? How do proteins interact in general (forces)? Can you explain microarray analysis to a layperson? This took about an hour. Most of the questions came naturally out of the discussion, but as the interviewers didn't take notes this made the interview seem a bit random. I had also been asked to prepare a presentation of 5 minutes (without slides) about an invention that I felt was important to me or society during my lifetime and was subsequently asked technical questions about this topic. Besides detailled questions about my area of expertise I was also asked general questions about what I think patent attorneys do and what attracts me to the profession. Further I was asked to explain the difference between a roller and wheels and to come up with a one sentence definition of wheels (of a car). Finally I had 30 min to write a description of a staple remover, which I had to hand in when I left. Overall the whole interview felt like a test and seemed to miss any assessment of the cultural fit.