The legal field already uses various large language models (LLMs) in actual applications, but their quantitative performance and reasons for it are underexplored. We evaluated several open-source and proprietary LLMs -- including GPT-series, Anthropic, Deepseek and Llama-3, variants -- on parts of the European Qualifying Examination (EQE) for future European Patent Attorneys. OpenAI o1 led with 0.82 accuracy and 0.81 F1 score, whereas (Amazon Web Services) AWS Llama 3.1 8B lagged at 0.50 accuracy, and a Python-deployed Llama 3.1 8B scored 0.55. The latter two are within the range of mere guessing for the two-answer forced-choice design. None of the evaluated models could have passed the examination fully, as accuracy never exceeded the average threshold of 0.90 required for professional-level standards -- also not models that are regularly promoted for their assumed beyond-PhD- and bar-admitted-lawyer-level performance. GPT-4o excelled at integrating text and graphics, while Claude 3 Opus often lost formatting coherence. Human patent experts evaluated the textual justifications and uncovered various critical shortcomings of each model. They valued clarity and legal rationale over the raw correctness of the answers, which revealed misalignment between automatic metrics and expert judgment. Model outputs were sensitive to modest temperature changes and prompt wording, which underscores the remaining necessity of expert oversight. Future work should target logical consistency, robust multimodality, and adaptive prompting to approach human-level patent proficiency. In summary, despite the outstanding performance of recent large models, the general public might overestimate their performance. The field has a long way to go to develop a virtual patent attorney. This paper wants to point out several specific limitations that need solutions.