Is it ever a good idea to lie about having another offer? Forum

[kahechsof]

Friends, the ethical problem here is brutally simple:

Whatever the reason to lie in this situation may be, that same reason is why lying is unethical.

If lying wouldn't help the situation, then you wouldn't lie. If you are lying, it's to gain an unethical advantage. The reason it's unethical is because you have to be dishonest in order to achieve this advantage.

Advantage achieved by dishonesty = unethical.

But you're forgetting situations in where a person perceives a lie to be advantageous when in reality it is not. I am not saying that is the situation here (separate issue), but those do exist. Furthermore, has anyone in this thread argued that lying is ethical?

Sure, I'll argue that.
Ethics are considered to be a subjective field. Thus, I can argue anything I like.

[Anonymous User]

I really don't think lying would result in OP being more likely to get an offer.

[minnbills]

Whatever happened to doing right for right's sake?

[c3pO4]

The ineffective lie is still not ethical. The dishonest statement that is unethical, regardless of its actual effect.

[IAFG]

The ineffective lie is still not ethical. The dishonest statement that is unethical, regardless of its actual effect.

dude okay this isn't a hypo, i am just saying, it's REALLY not worth it if it would have a negative or neutral effect on his chances, which i think it would.

[c3pO4]

The ineffective lie is still not ethical. The dishonest statement that is unethical, regardless of its actual effect.

dude okay this isn't a hypo, i am just saying, it's REALLY not worth it if it would have a negative or neutral effect on his chances, which i think it would.

OK. I agree. I thought you might be saying since it won't help, there's no harm in the lie. But you are saying don't do it especially because it won't help - so that's fine.

[northwood]

TL DR.
my 2 cents. dont lie.
go back to the discussions

[Grizz]

I'd def lie. Go ahead OP.

[vanwinkle]

Sure, I'll argue that.
Ethics are considered to be a subjective field. Thus, I can argue anything I like.

Legal ethics, on the other hand, are not that subjective. They're defined by rules of professional responsibility and legal precedent, and as a practicing attorney you can face legal repercussions for lying. For example: http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/legal_ ... ehalf.html

This is somewhat relevant to legal hiring because law firms' reputations are based on their attorneys' reputations. Most law firms wouldn't want to hire someone who lied to them for pure personal gain, because that person is more likely to lie to their clients or the court for the same reason. So, at the very least, they would fire you if they found out.

Also, lying about other offers is going to be treated the same as any other kind of lying to gain employment. Look up what lying on your resume will do to you, and imagine the same thing. The "ethics" employers impose in this regard is fairly uniform, especially in a recession where there's an abundance of job applicants. Almost universally, they'll refuse to hire you, rescind a job offer, and notify other potential employers that you lied.

Lying to gain employment is really covered by one word: Fraud. The meaning of that word isn't that subjective.

[mrloblaw]

I really can't believe that this has turned into a legitimate debate. Perhaps people should despise lawyers after all.

[mrloblaw]

Friends, the ethical problem here is brutally simple:

Whatever the reason to lie in this situation may be, that same reason is why lying is unethical.

If lying wouldn't help the situation, then you wouldn't lie. If you are lying, it's to gain an unethical advantage. The reason it's unethical is because you have to be dishonest in order to achieve this advantage.

Advantage achieved by dishonesty = unethical.

But you're forgetting situations in where a person perceives a lie to be advantageous when in reality it is not. I am not saying that is the situation here (separate issue), but those do exist. Furthermore, has anyone in this thread argued that lying is ethical?

Sure, I'll argue that.
Ethics are considered to be a subjective field. Thus, I can argue anything I like.

Ethics is not subjective. It is a social construct, and toward that end, there is a grey area in which society will tolerate unethical conduct. However, where society imposes penalties for violating codes of conduct (Try justifying a murder based on 'LOL ETHICS IS SUBJECTIVE; I CAN KILL WHO I WANT'), the rules are pretty clear. As Vanwinkle pointed out, society even further narrows the scope of the grey area for lawyers, because society sees it as important that we play by the rules, given the inordinate, completely monopolized power we wield in our system of government.

Is OP likely to get caught? Probably not. However, if he is caught, he might (and should) fail C&F. The profession has countenanced scumbag behavior for too long already.

[birdlaw117]

I really can't believe that this has turned into a legitimate debate. Perhaps people should despise lawyers after all.

I really can't believe you think this has turned into a legitimate debate. Nobody actually thinks lying is an okay thing to do here.

[mrloblaw]

I really can't believe that this has turned into a legitimate debate. Perhaps people should despise lawyers after all.

I really can't believe you think this has turned into a legitimate debate. Nobody actually thinks lying is an okay thing to do here.

I meant a debate in the sense that it's not categorically being opposed on deontological/absolutist grounds.

[c3pO4]

I really can't believe that this has turned into a legitimate debate. Perhaps people should despise lawyers after all.

I do agree that many lawyers are shady fools, but this thread is an example of what's good about lawyers, IMO. Arguing both sides of an issue, regardless of personal belief and popular opinion, is a really valuable exercise for democracy.

[birdlaw117]

I really can't believe that this has turned into a legitimate debate. Perhaps people should despise lawyers after all.

I really can't believe you think this has turned into a legitimate debate. Nobody actually thinks lying is an okay thing to do here.

I meant a debate in the sense that it's not categorically being opposed on deontological/absolutist grounds.

It's being opposed, but it's also being discussed. I don't really see the issue with that.

[Grizz]

I really can't believe that this has turned into a legitimate debate. Perhaps people should despise lawyers after all.

I do agree that many lawyers are shady fools, but this thread is an example of what's good about lawyers, IMO. Arguing both sides of an issue, regardless of personal belief and popular opinion, is a really valuable exercise for democracy.

This makes you seem like a difficult person who's a drag to be around.

[c3pO4]

I really can't believe that this has turned into a legitimate debate. Perhaps people should despise lawyers after all.

I do agree that many lawyers are shady fools, but this thread is an example of what's good about lawyers, IMO. Arguing both sides of an issue, regardless of personal belief and popular opinion, is a really valuable exercise for democracy.

This makes you seem like a difficult person who's a drag to be around.

Fair enough bro. Didn't mean to drag you down. How about that Vikings/Panthers game, tho?

[Ty Webb]

This thread reminded me that I hate law students. Both the OP and 99% of the responses in this thread are made by people who I would likely hate IRL.

[roguey]

I haven't seen anyone bring up the possibility that it could hurt the liar's chances. If you lie to a firm and they are not yet ready to make a decision about you, then isn't it a possibility they could say "go have fun!"? I know firms are competitive and they want to have the best, but you do not know exactly where they are in the process. Maybe they have 20 more people coming in who are awesomely promising and are willing to take the chance of losing you for the possibility that one of those 20 will be just as good, if not better. I could see lying as not only being horribly unethical but also it might kill one's chances. I could be way off though.

[MrAnon]

They just say "tell us if you get another offer" to be pleasant. They will not be pressed into giving you an offer just because someone else is.

[03121202698008]

No, just no. Pushing a firm with a deadline only gets you a quick yes or no. If it yes, you would have gotten it anyhow soon. On the other hand, if they weren't sure it's an auto-no. You're better to wait it out unless you really have a deadline.

[Grizz]

No, just no. Pushing a firm with a deadline only gets you a quick yes or no. If it yes, you would have gotten it anyhow soon. On the other hand, if they weren't sure it's an auto-no. You're better to wait it out unless you really have a deadline.

Credited.

But I recommend lying anyway. Can't go wrong.

[snailio]

Just tell them if they don't hire you, you're going to join the circus..........As a Clown.

[KMaine]

No, just no. Pushing a firm with a deadline only gets you a quick yes or no. If it yes, you would have gotten it anyhow soon. On the other hand, if they weren't sure it's an auto-no. You're better to wait it out unless you really have a deadline.

I agree with this. I also don't understand this myth about having another offer making you more desirable. They know your credentials, know whether they like you or not. Isn't it possible that the firms are not as insecure as you are and are actually making these decisions independently?

[Anonymous User]

They just say "tell us if you get another offer" to be pleasant. They will not be pressed into giving you an offer just because someone else is.

It's impossible to prove one way or the other, of course. But I get the sense that I got an offer from the firm I'll be at because I let them know I had another offer that was running up. It was about a month post-callback and I had checked in couple times, not getting much of a response. After I let them know I was running up against a deadline, I got pretty fast replies from the local hiring person and the firm-wide hiring person, and a call with an offer like two days after I'd broached the subject.

It's possible it could backfire if they don't have an opening, but if they do have a slot open up and it's between you and someone else without a ticking offer, it could break the tie.

Who knows. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. And anyways, the OP shouldn't lie. But I feel pretty confident my other offer helped me get a second one.