Five associates from Goodwin share their views on what it takes to become a successful life sciences lawyer.
Chambers Associate: Which practice areas fall within the life sciences sector?
Jesse Fishman, associate: Our Life Sciences practice is really a diversified lifecycle practice. We offer our clients a wide array of transactional, regulatory and litigation expertise within the Life Sciences arena. Some of those more specific practice areas include, general corporate, capital markets, M&A, venture capital, regulatory, privacy, compensation and benefits, intellectual property, tax, etc.
Alison Liou, associate: Life sciences clients require counseling in a variety of different practice areas, including emerging companies and venture capital (EC/VC), mergers and acquisitions (M&A), licensing, collaborations, and strategic technology transactions, intellectual property (IP), regulatory and compliance, healthcare, capital markets, and public companies. Practice areas such as data privacy, antitrust, tax, debt finance, bankruptcy, global trade, litigation, and employment also regularly support the life sciences clients.
Clark Zhang, associate: Our clients in the life sciences sector face wide-ranging issues that are handled by our attorneys specializing in the intellectual property, healthcare, regulatory, licensing, litigation, and corporate (capital markets, M&A, emerging company venture capital) practice areas. As our clients face issues that are increasingly interdisciplinary, practicing in the life sciences requires a basic understanding across all of these practice areas.
Kathryn Clerici, associate: Our Life Sciences group spans a wide range of practice areas, including general corporate, licensing, capital markets, emerging companies and venture capital (EC/VC), mergers and acquisitions (M&A), regulatory, and intellectual property. This multidisciplinary approach enables us to support our life sciences clients at every stage of their lifecycle—from formation through early financing rounds to public offerings and exits—no matter what opportunities or challenges arise.
Kristen McCarthy, associate: There are number of practice areas that fall within the life sciences sector – regulatory, including healthcare and FDA regulatory, data privacy, intellectual property, licensing, ECVC, M&A, capital markets and ongoing corporate governance, among others. There are also a host of specialty groups that support the various practice areas, as well as the life sciences and securities litigation group.
CA: Does Goodwin have a particular specialty in any of these?
JF: Without question. As a diversified lifecycle practice, Goodwin’s Life Sciences group has a deep understanding of client needs, and with that, comes an ordinary course of specialization. Throughout the lifecycle of a company, or even just the lifecycle of a particular transaction, I work closely with colleagues on our corporate, regulatory, intellectual property, compensation and privacy teams to drive solutions for a particular client’s needs.
AL: Goodwin has a broad life sciences platform, with experts in each of the practice areas described above. The broad life sciences platform allows the different practice areas to work together to address all of our life sciences clients’ legal needs, in all phases of the company lifecycle. Goodwin’s life sciences group’s breadth and depth is one of its greatest strengths.
CZ: Goodwin is a full service firm with broad expertise across all the aforementioned practice areas in the life science sector. This enables us to effectively meet the needs of clients across the entire corporate lifecycle. When our clients come with issues, we mobilize and leverage the appropriate expertise to provide the required guidance and counsel. For example, as an intellectual property specialist, I advise on intellectual property issues during complex transactions and serve as one part of Goodwin’s larger team towards the successful closing of those transactions.
KC: While we have deep expertise across all key areas—IP, regulatory, licensing, capital markets, EC/VC, and M&A—our real specialty lies in how we bring it all together for our clients. Our corporate client teams serve as outside general counsel with specialist groups on speed-dial to provide any subject matter advice our clients may need. Our corporate teams typically quarterback the client relationship, providing continuity and efficiency through their historical knowledge of the client, which is uniquely beneficial during complex transactions. Beyond the big transactions, this ongoing relationship enables us to also provide practical guidance on the everyday decisions that shape our clients’ business over time.
KM: Definitely – we pitch ourselves as life-cycle life sciences lawyers and it rings true, most companies start at Goodwin at a pretty early stage – inception or early financing stage – and are carried all the way through to an exit event like M&A or an IPO by the Goodwin team. Along the way, we are partnering with the client to ensure they have solid corporate governance practices in place and generally advise them on day-to-day matters as they arise. After this, we are typically ongoing SEC counsel to a public company and continue our representation and consultation for years to come, ranging from corporate needs to specialist-related needs such as regulatory or intellectual property work.
CA: What do you enjoy least and most about your work?
JF: I would say working closely with our clients to find creative solutions for their needs is top of the list. Our clients have such cutting edge science, that many times, we are working on something novel and trying to explain a very complex product or idea to a layperson. Another thing I really enjoy here, is the people, both within and outside of Goodwin. Our group has such a great sense of camaraderie and I think our clients feel that when working with us. It makes for a great partnership.
AL: I thoroughly enjoy brainstorming and executing on strategies that allow Goodwin’s clients to collaborate with other organizations in the industry in order to develop and commercialize cutting-edge platform technologies, therapeutics, diagnostics, and medical devices. It is incredibly rewarding to advise on, draft, negotiate, finalize, and operationalize a licensing or collaboration transaction that leads to real-world benefits not only for our clients, but also the patients that they seek to help. Transactions I worked on earlier in my career have now resulted in therapies that have received regulatory approval, and are transforming patients’ lives for the better every day.
I generally enjoy all aspects of my work, but one of the most difficult aspects of my work is solving challenging problems with no clear-cut answers. As new life sciences technologies emerge, I often encounter “first-of-its-type” licensing and collaboration transactions, with no comparable precedents. In these situations, a deep understanding of the client’s technology and goals, research and discussion with colleagues, and a great deal of creativity are required to craft bespoke transaction strategies that achieve all parties’ aims.
CZ: As a patent attorney, I enjoy playing my role in helping my clients develop important technologies (e.g., diagnostic tools, therapeutic assets, etc.) that will significantly improve human health in the long run. I love that I can leverage my technical and legal trainings to help my clients obtain the best IP protection that aligns with their business goals. The most difficult part of the work is the occasional unpredictability that requires dropping everything to help on a client’s urgent matter. However, it remains a privilege and is most rewarding to be able to assist when our clients most need it.
KC: What I enjoy most about my job is the opportunity to build lasting relationships with clients and the variety of the work. As a corporate senior associate, I’m part of the ongoing Goodwin team for a number of public and private company clients. I’ve worked on many of these clients since early in my career at Goodwin and supported them through day-to-day legal issues, private venture financing rounds, IPOs, public offerings, spin-offs, and mergers. I also enjoy diving into their businesses—understanding their strategy, operations, and assets—which makes the work not only more interesting but also allows me to add real value during strategic discussions.
Of course, the same things that make the work rewarding can also be challenging. Because I’ve worked with many clients for years, I feel deeply invested in their success, which makes it hard when things don’t go as planned—like when a clinical trial fails. And since the corporate ongoing team is often the client’s first call when an urgent issue arises, the work can be unpredictable and, at times, high-pressure. But even in those moments, it’s a privilege to be a trusted advisor, helping clients navigate both the highs and the lows.
KM: I enjoy collaborating with clients and colleagues to solve legal problems, some issues of first impression and others with a well-worn path. I respect and admire the clients I work with for the causes they are working for – many seeking to cure disease or create innovative technologies to help others. The least attractive part about the work is managing the demand and unpredictability of some of the work.
CA: What are the differences between noncontentious and litigious life sciences work?
JF: Aside from the initial structuring and negotiating deal terms, most of the transactional work here is very collaborative. Teams work together to find solutions. This differs than litigious Life Sciences work where, for example, there may be intellectual property dispute over a patent.
AL: I think of noncontentious life sciences work as any type of work that does not involve an ongoing or threatened dispute. This includes transactional work and general corporate work related to growing and running a company. Litigious life sciences work, on the other hand, is any type of work that involves an ongoing or threatened dispute.
CZ: As an intellectual property attorney, my practice primarily resides in the noncontentious life sciences work. For example, I represent my clients in front of the patent office. Although the interactions with patent examiners can be contentious at times, we are typically working towards a common goal of obtaining the strongest/most defensible granted patent. I enjoy the noncontentious life sciences work given that we are often working as a team towards a common goal. Conversely, litigious life sciences work as involving two parties whose interests are diametrically opposed and often times can be a zero-sum game.
KC: Most of my practice is noncontentious, meaning we’re supporting clients through transactions where all parties are ultimately working toward a common goal. For example, in an IPO, while there is separate counsel for the company and for the underwriters, everyone is aligned in wanting a successful offering. That’s true for most life sciences transactions. Even in the midst of tough negotiations around a merger or financing, the mindset is generally collaborative: 'How do we get this deal done?' This stands in contrast to litigious work, where the parties are inherently in conflict and the dynamic is more adversarial.
KM: I tend to be non-adversarial, so working in the noncontentious life sciences space has been rewarding and a big part of what I like about the job – in the noncontentious space, we are often working toward the same, common interest as the team of attorneys representing the underwriters on an offering or investors in a private financing, since all parties want the company to ultimately succeed. I don’t work in the litigious space but imagine the work is more adversarial by nature.
CA: Can you give us an idea of the clients you work with and why they need lawyers?
JF: I work with a wide variety of life sciences clients from early-stage to seasoned public companies. Each client has their own unique set of needs from their lawyers. Some need help with transaction structuring or financing, others need help with day-to-day operations.
AL: I work with public and private biotechnology, pharmaceutical, diagnostic, medical device, and other life sciences companies, as well as research institutions. These life sciences companies are at all stages of the company lifecycle, are of all sizes, and are from all over the world. These companies seek my help with complex strategic collaboration and partnering transactions, licensing transactions, research, development, manufacturing, and commercial agreements, M&A transactions, royalty financings, financings, and other intellectual property and strategic transactions. They seek my legal advice, but also often seek broader strategic business advice based on my deal experience.
CZ: I represent clients across the full corporate life cycle. I enjoy representing early stage clients because their intellectual property strategy can play a huge role in their future success. I further enjoy representing clients that are in the growth stage as they continue to expand and secure additional rounds of fundraising. The IP strategy for clients in the growth stage can be significantly different from early stage clients. Finally, i enjoy representing late-stage clients as they continue to grow or move towards an exit strategy (e.g., IPO or acquisition). Again, the IP strategy for a late stage client will differ from early stage or growth stage clients.
KC: We work with a wide range of clients—from scientists in a lab with a novel idea looking to form a company, to large public companies with multiple commercial products on the market. For early-stage clients, we assist with everything from foundational legal matters—like employment documents and company formation—to higher-level strategic questions, such as structuring initial financing rounds, drawing on our experience with similarly situated companies. As our clients grow and build out their in-house legal teams, we often shift into a more traditional outside counsel role, supporting them on major transactions and complex business/legal strategy considerations.
KM: I work with a wide variety of life sciences clients from early-stage to public companies. Each client has their own unique set of needs from their lawyers – some of the early-stage folks require more corporate governance assistance and have more straightforward questions about formation and other equity matters. As a Company grows and evolves, it tends to have more complex questions and over time they tend to solicit responses from us for only the more complex, technical questions they haven’t been able to sort through in house. In both respects, I think clients lean on us both for legal expertise and for counseling based on what we’ve seen in the industry, since we work with such a broad swath of clients and have such great exposure to the life cycle process.
CA: How does the work differ from more traditional areas of law such as finance?
JF: I think the opportunity to be a Life Sciences lawyer at Goodwin allows us to be more well-rounded than other attorneys. We need to understand our client’s products and regulatory environment in addition to just servicing them as a just a finance attorney.
AL: Life sciences work differs from more traditional areas of law in that the industry is constantly evolving. By its very nature, the industry is driven by new technological advances, discoveries, and breakthroughs. Over the course of my career, my deals have embodied a wide range of technological trends - from small molecules, cell therapy, gene editing, gene therapy, antibody-drug conjugates, to, more recently, artificial intelligence-driven platforms. There is always an opportunity to learn something new and the ability to adapt to a constantly changing environment is key.
CZ: At its core, patent law is concerned with protecting valuable technological inventions. This requires an understanding of the sciences and how the technological inventions represent an improvement over the status quo. As an IP attorney, I view one of my roles to be a translator for my clients. Specifically, I translate the scientific invention into legal patent protection which can be an asset for the company for subsequent licensing/enforcement.
KC: Many of our life sciences clients operate with lean teams, so they can focus their resources on research and development. As a result, we often play a more integrated role in their legal and business needs. As a corporate associate, I’ve had the opportunity to build long-term relationships with clients by working closely with them on day-to-day matters over the course of years.
What also sets this work apart is the mission behind it. We work with people who have devoted their careers to developing therapies that can truly change or even save lives. It’s hard not to become emotionally invested in that kind of work, and it adds a layer of meaning that’s very different from more traditional areas like finance and private equity.
KM: I think the substance of the questions we receive and the types of folks we are working with differ greatly – we work with a lot of entrepreneurs who are taking major risks to cure/solve a problem in the world and need legal assistance to do so. In the financial space, I imagine risks are taken on a different scale and the questions a bit more directly legal and financially-driven.
CA: Where does the life sciences sector intercede with politics?
JF: Our industry is political because it impacts health on a macro scale as well as on a personal scale. Take for example, Roe v. Wade (or it being overturned recently), this directly impacts access to healthcare and other personal freedoms. Newsworthy topics such as, access to medicines, medicine pricing and FDA regulatory processes are regularly in the news, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic.
AL: Generally speaking, the life sciences industry is a very heavily-regulated industry. When advising clients, I often seek input from my colleagues with expertise in regulatory and compliance, healthcare, data privacy, antitrust, and global trade to ensure that the transaction is in compliance with the latest regulatory requirements and guidance.
CZ: The life sciences industry is heavily regulated and therefore, will often be significantly impacted by political changes. Many of our clients are developing technologies/therapeutics that require FDA approval to ensure that patients receive safe and effective treatments. Additionally, changes introduced through legislation (e.g., impact on drug prices due to the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 and impact on taxes due to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025) will often directly or indirectly impact our clients. We (Goodwin) seek to consistently stay abreast of these changes and keep our clients informed. At its core, patent law is concerned with protecting valuable technological inventions. This requires an understanding of the sciences and how the technological inventions represent an improvement over the status quo. As an IP attorney, I view one of my roles to be a translator for my clients. Specifically, I translate the scientific invention into legal patent protection which can be an asset for the company for subsequent licensing/enforcement.
KC: The life sciences sector is closely tied to political developments, particularly when it comes to regulatory policy, healthcare reform, and global events that can impact clinical trials. As a result, we stay current on political shifts so we can advise clients on both strategic planning and disclosure considerations.
For example, our public company clients rely on us to help assess and update the risk factor sections of their SEC filings. These disclosures outline risks to investors, which often include regulatory changes, political uncertainty, global conflicts, and new legislation. As a corporate associate, I collaborate with my clients and with colleagues across specialized practice areas to identify and evaluate these risks and craft the applicable disclosure for the filings.
KM: In several places – especially these days with the new administration there are everchanging landscapes from a corporate and regulatory perspective that a life sciences company needs to consider for their deals, reporting practices and interactions with authorities – both private and public companies have to monitor political developments, such as diversity practices, climate change practices, corporate governance matters, layoffs at regulatory agencies and other items. This is in addition to the financial implications of new legislation which ripple through the financial statements and MD&A.
CA: Are there any political developments that have affected the sector recently? Are there any on the horizon?
JF: See above re Roe v. Wade being overturned, COVID-19 as well as the Inflation Reduction Act.
AL: Political uncertainty tends to affect the level of risk life sciences companies are comfortable with, with more uncertainty leading to less risk-taking behavior. Consequently, the recent political uncertainty has affected how our life sciences clients run their companies from a day-to-day basis as well as their financing and deal-making strategies.
CZ: As a patent attorney in the life sciences, patent law typically does not receive much of the political spotlight in comparison to other more polarizing issues (e.g., drug prices, taxes). One notable piece of bipartisan legislation is the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act, sponsored by Senators Thom Tillis and Chris Coons, which focuses on clarifying the types of inventions that are eligible for patent protection. This legislation has been introduced for several years now and would be important for providing clarity for companies developing important technologies in the diagnostics and artificial intelligence/machine learning domains.
KC: One key political development we are monitoring closely is the U.S. relationship with China and related legislative actions. The BIOSECURE Act was a hot button issue for many life sciences companies in 2023-2024 because they have historically relied solely on Chinese manufacturers. Tariffs were another key issue for our industry in the spring of 2025, particularly those that rely on imports from Chinese suppliers and/or manufactures. Additionally, funding cuts for regulatory bodies such as the FDA and SEC have impacted development and deal timelines, respectively, and created a lot of uncertainty for our clients. Many life sciences companies have tight cash runways, so political developments can have a major impact on their clinical trial timelines, strategies and regulatory planning.
KM: Recent layoffs at regulatory agencies and shifting practices at the SEC and the FDA have been top of mind as we assess disclosure for clients. For public companies, the administration has been driving changes discussed above (diversity, climate change, corporate governance, etc.) and this has all transpired over the preceding six months and will continue to evolve. Although the impact may not be significant, life sciences clients have to monitor and consider the impact that global tariffs will have on their business amidst an evolving landscape.
CA: What is the most interesting deal/case you have worked on?
JF: I’ve really enjoyed working with companies secure financing for a particular product they have in development and how it may impact the sector at large.
AL: Earlier this year, I was part of the multijurisdictional Goodwin life sciences team that advised Zealand Pharma on its collaboration with Roche on the largest ever single asset partnership deal worth up to $5.3 billion, to co-develop and co-commercialize petrelintide monotherapy and potential combination products, including petrelintide/CT-388, in the U.S. and Europe, as a therapy for people with obesity. I was one of the senior associates on the deal team and was involved in every aspect of the very fast-paced transaction- from term sheet discussions all the way through the drafting, negotiation, finalization, and operationalization of the collaboration.
CZ: Today, we are seeing many cross-border transactions involving US companies that license or acquire therapeutic assets initially developed in China. The size of these transactions have skyrocketed to the hundreds of millions and even billions of dollars. I’m thankful for the opportunity to have represented clients on such transactions.
KC: My heart is in IPOs—they’re some of the most dynamic and rewarding transactions I’ve worked on. What makes them particularly interesting is that they’re all about telling the client’s story to the market. You work closely with the company, the underwriters, and the SEC to craft that story in a way that resonates with investors while meeting all the regulatory requirements.
It’s incredibly satisfying to see that story take shape through the drafting process, evolve during 'testing-the-waters' meetings, and then finally come to life when the company rings the bell and their ticker goes live. We are often reminded during those final calls leading up to an IPO closing that this funding event will be critical to getting the company’s product candidates through clinical trials and into the hands of patients who desperately need them. IPOs are also complex, with many parallel workstreams happening behind the scenes—from diligence to governance to disclosure—and as corporate counsel, I get to quarterback it all and keep the process moving smoothly. It’s a true team effort, and one of the most exciting parts of my practice.
KM: I have a strong preference for the initial public offering work, as it always involves helping a company take their vision and craft a narrative to put out to the world and make an argument why they are worth investing in – we get to work with some of the other people at the Company we wouldn’t normally work with including the medical and clinical teams and really get a sense of what it is like to work at their business on a day-to-day basis. We work closely with underwriters’ counsel to bring this story to life and to the market and it is always an exciting milestone for a Company.
CA: How important is a scientific background to your work?
JF: While certainly helpful, it probably isn’t necessary as a corporate lawyer to have a scientific background. Being able to understand the science and what your client does comes as part of the learning and education process here. We have helpful educational opportunities here to get those without science backgrounds, up to speed as quickly as possible and have a basic understanding of the biotech or biopharma world.
AL: A scientific background is helpful, but definitely not necessary. A genuine interest in the life sciences and a willingness and self-driven motivation to be constantly learning is all you need!
CZ: As an intellectual property attorney, and specifically a life sciences patent prosecution associate, a scientific background is crucial to my work. A large part of my practice involves interfacing with our client’s scientific inventors to understand their technological inventions, drafting patent applications that accurately capture those technological inventions, and prosecuting those patents in front of US and ex-US patent offices (which sometimes require explaining the technological inventions to patent examiners). Many of the members of our intellectual property practice group have advanced technical degrees which enables us to bring our technical expertise in servicing our client’s needs.
KC: A science background is helpful but not necessary. Most of the non-specialized attorneys in our group do not have a science background, but we all are interested in the industry and have learned a lot of science over our years of practice. When we need assistance understanding specific scientific matters, we have specialists in our regulatory and IP practice, as well as science advisors, to help advise.
KM: A scientific background is helpful to my work, but not critical. The understanding of most of the basic elements expands over time and I typically find that sufficient.
Read the Inside View on Goodwin
Last updated: August 2025