L&E/contractual issues with BigLaw associate paycuts? Forum

[ghostoftraynor]

Love the everyone, including L&E attorneys, is wrong about at-will employment shtick.

[QContinuum]

There’s a recent thread somewhere in which, to my surprise, a bunch of people think even that wouldn’t be binding given the nature of at-will employment (FWIW, I think they’re wrong).

Not to derail the thread and re-litigate that thread, but I think most ppl agree a signed offer letter is binding. The question would be if it is still binding after your first day. Either way, unless there is a signed offer letter, GT's guarantee isn't a real guarantee

Also, not to relitigate the at-will brouhaha but want to point out an even "easier" path potentially available to GT: start date deferrals.

"Guaranteed" offers is great and all but it really doesn't come close to making up for cancelling the summer program. Those summer program offers were, once upon a time, "guaranteed" offers too.

[wwwcol]

I’m only a student myself. You should check the Reddit chart being updated every day about what firms are doing in the lawschool forum.

As of today, Cravath and DPW have guaranteed post-grad offers in the V10 with pay. I think firms less capable of doing that who haven’t already announced will do something like Stroock (canceling program, 15k stipend plus offer) or Hogan (reduced weeks/pay of SA plus offer). The harshest outcome in the V100 so far is Arent Fox’s outright cancellation without pay yet a guaranteed offer... and I still consider that a good outcome.

Greenberg Traurig guaranteed post-grad offers as well, if a V60 can do it, a V10 is going to look pretty shitty. I think guaranteed post-grad offers are going to be the norm, with variations among firms guaranteeing summer pay

I don't say this with ill will but a "guaranteed" offer means nothing. If the situation further devolves, a lot of these "guaranteed" offers are going to disappear.

Yeah, unless they are sending over signed offer letters now, there isn't a lot binding them other than bad PR

There’s a recent thread somewhere in which, to my surprise, a bunch of people think even that wouldn’t be binding given the nature of at-will employment (FWIW, I think they’re wrong).

Not to derail the thread and re-litigate that thread, but I think most ppl agree a signed offer letter is binding. The question would be if it is still binding after your first day. Either way, unless there is a signed offer letter, GT's guarantee isn't a real guarantee

My dude, an offer letter isn’t “binding” anything. You commit to the firm, they commit nothing to you except a potential for at-will employment. And you can be damn sure there’s a provision that says “may be revoked at our sole discretion depending on the state of the economy”

[trebekismyhero]

I’m only a student myself. You should check the Reddit chart being updated every day about what firms are doing in the lawschool forum.

As of today, Cravath and DPW have guaranteed post-grad offers in the V10 with pay. I think firms less capable of doing that who haven’t already announced will do something like Stroock (canceling program, 15k stipend plus offer) or Hogan (reduced weeks/pay of SA plus offer). The harshest outcome in the V100 so far is Arent Fox’s outright cancellation without pay yet a guaranteed offer... and I still consider that a good outcome.

Greenberg Traurig guaranteed post-grad offers as well, if a V60 can do it, a V10 is going to look pretty shitty. I think guaranteed post-grad offers are going to be the norm, with variations among firms guaranteeing summer pay

I don't say this with ill will but a "guaranteed" offer means nothing. If the situation further devolves, a lot of these "guaranteed" offers are going to disappear.

Yeah, unless they are sending over signed offer letters now, there isn't a lot binding them other than bad PR

There’s a recent thread somewhere in which, to my surprise, a bunch of people think even that wouldn’t be binding given the nature of at-will employment (FWIW, I think they’re wrong).

Not to derail the thread and re-litigate that thread, but I think most ppl agree a signed offer letter is binding. The question would be if it is still binding after your first day. Either way, unless there is a signed offer letter, GT's guarantee isn't a real guarantee

My dude, an offer letter isn’t “binding” anything. You commit to the firm, they commit nothing to you except a potential for at-will employment. And you can be damn sure there’s a provision that says “may be revoked at our sole discretion depending on the state of the economy”

My offer letter didn't have any provision about being revoked at the sole discretion of the firm and it was signed by members of exec committee. I am not saying it commits them anything beyond hiring you for a day, but I think there is an argument that it would.

[giggaman1228]

The idea that an offer letter is binding the firm to hire someone for one day (or at all) is hilarious. Good luck litigating it. It doesn't work, and there's a reason you can't find any cases of it working. An offer letter is not a guarantee of employment. Even if a judge magically agrees you are entitled to one day of employment, congrats, you get 1 day's salary as breach, good day.

Getting this thread back somewhat on track, the reality is that no one has any idea of the long-term ramifications on many key industries. People will likely not be flocking back to theaters, stores etc, and that will have lasting impacts on many practices. No one can know right now.

[QContinuum]

The idea that an offer letter is binding the firm to hire someone for one day (or at all) is hilarious. Good luck litigating it. It doesn't work, and there's a reason you can't find any cases of it working. An offer letter is not a guarantee of employment. Even if a judge magically agrees you are entitled to one day of employment, congrats, you get 1 day's salary as breach, good day.

https://www.chwilliamslaw.com/your-lega ... erminated/

[PeanutsNJam]

What's stopping firms from characterizing a rescinded offer as simply a termination of employment that just happens to be before you've done any work for which the firm is contractually obligated to pay you for?

If you roll up to a partner's house 1 week before the start date and scream racial epithets at them, what, are they contractually bound to pay you for 1 day? No, they can fire you on the spot.

[boxie]

The idea that an offer letter is binding the firm to hire someone for one day (or at all) is hilarious. Good luck litigating it. It doesn't work, and there's a reason you can't find any cases of it working. An offer letter is not a guarantee of employment. Even if a judge magically agrees you are entitled to one day of employment, congrats, you get 1 day's salary as breach, good day.

https://www.chwilliamslaw.com/your-lega ... erminated/

Not sure a plaintiff's firm website is a great authority on enforceability of offer letters. But here are some more links:
https://davidrichlaw.com/may-my-company ... arts-work/ , which says case law in NY makes it very difficult to sue on a revoked offer; and
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/ca ... -been-made , which says that New Jersey does have a well-recognized theory of promissory estoppel for revoked offers in some circumstances.

TL;DR: The underlying presumption is that jobs are at will and can be revoked at any time, including before the job actually commences and regardless of offer letter. However, there are some jurisdictions and some circumstances where the facts will support a theory of recovery.

[ksm6969]

The idea that an offer letter is binding the firm to hire someone for one day (or at all) is hilarious. Good luck litigating it. It doesn't work, and there's a reason you can't find any cases of it working.

Might want to walk this back. See Bower v AT&T https://casetext.com/case/bower-v-at-t-technologies-inc :

While, in practical effect, it may be hard to distinguish the case in which an employee is fired a day after beginning work from the situation in which a potential employee is prevented from assuming a promised at-will position, the cases are different. In the former case, the employer has completely fulfilled his promise; in the latter, the promise has not been kept in any respect. In the end, we believe this distinction sufficient to tip the balance in favor of the burdened employee ...

(which is not to say it is the law in every jurisdiction-- it is admittedly a minority rule-- just that it is not 'hilarious' and that you can certainly find cases of it working)

I actually think summer associates have the best case here, since their offers are generally for a definite time period, and thus not presumed at will. But I highly doubt many law students will want to even threaten litigation against a potential employer for what might be max of $40k in damages or so.

[objctnyrhnr]

The idea that an offer letter is binding the firm to hire someone for one day (or at all) is hilarious. Good luck litigating it. It doesn't work, and there's a reason you can't find any cases of it working.

Might want to walk this back. See Bower v AT&T https://casetext.com/case/bower-v-at-t-technologies-inc :

While, in practical effect, it may be hard to distinguish the case in which an employee is fired a day after beginning work from the situation in which a potential employee is prevented from assuming a promised at-will position, the cases are different. In the former case, the employer has completely fulfilled his promise; in the latter, the promise has not been kept in any respect. In the end, we believe this distinction sufficient to tip the balance in favor of the burdened employee ...

(which is not to say it is the law in every jurisdiction-- it is admittedly a minority rule-- just that it is not 'hilarious' and that you can certainly find cases of it working)

I actually think summer associates have the best case here, since their offers are generally for a definite time period, and thus not presumed at will. But I highly doubt many law students will want to even threaten litigation against a potential employer for what might be max of $40k in damages or so.

Well hold on—the idea would be that by relying on that offer, they didn’t apply for anything else and withdrew other applications. Let’s assume they had an offer from one of the no-cut firms but they withdrew they ap there because they liked the fit at the cut firm that’s gave them an offer.

Now they’re SOL because it’s way too late to get an offer from that top firm and the ship has sailed. They end up at some PI firm making a third of what the firm who cut them was offering.

I think we’re looking at some real damages, right?

[Sackboy]

In practice, suing to enforce an offer letter or collect damages is a big loser, especially for the very simple at-will offers that biglaw makes. When plaintiffs win these cases, the contracts are much different or the employer did something exceptionally stupid. It would be a massive waste of time and resources to sue. This is an inane thought experiment.

[objctnyrhnr]

In practice, suing to enforce an offer letter or collect damages is a big loser, especially for the very simple at-will offers that biglaw makes. When plaintiffs win these cases, the contracts are much different or the employer did something exceptionally stupid. It would be a massive waste of time and resources to sue. This is an inane thought experiment.

Practice tip: before writing something like this, it’s smart to do a quick google.

Of course, you’ll be able to find caselaw rejecting the idea as well...but calling it inane pretty much means promissory estoppel could never ever trump the idea of at-will employment, and that’s incorrect.

See Mers v dispatch printing
http://www.myemploymentlawyer.com/wiki/ ... oyment.htm

Ohio Supreme Court applied promissory estoppel to make exception to at will employment doctrine

See merricks v savers inc

D mass does the same thing (albeit in mtd context)

https://www.morrisonmahoney.com/resourc ... nt-promise


When I first posed this idea, it got a TON of pushback (and evidently continues to), essentially amounting to “at Will employment trumps all your idea would never have a chance.”

I hope these posters use more care before making such unequivocal statements about the law to partners, professors, and clients.

[nixy]

You seem weirdly defensive about this. The post you're responding to said "in practice" and "When plaintiffs win these cases, the contracts are much different or the employer did something exceptionally stupid. It would be a massive waste of time and resources to sue." None of those things are countered by you finding a few cases where it did work. The "inane" part of the thought experiment was applying it to biglaw offers, which you've done since this started. Your snipes about people's professionalism in responding to these arguments are strange and off-putting (no one here is or thinks they are responding to partners, professors, and clients?).

[wwwcol]

You seem weirdly defensive about this. The post you're responding to said "in practice" and "When plaintiffs win these cases, the contracts are much different or the employer did something exceptionally stupid. It would be a massive waste of time and resources to sue." None of those things are countered by you finding a few cases where it did work. The "inane" part of the thought experiment was applying it to biglaw offers, which you've done since this started. Your snipes about people's professionalism in responding to these arguments are strange and off-putting (no one here is or thinks they are responding to partners, professors, and clients?).

The saddest part about this thread is it’s clearly some effort by people to assure themselves they have recourse if their firms cut them or never hire them.

Y’all you have no recourse. You’re entirely at the mercy of the firm

[objctnyrhnr]

You seem weirdly defensive about this. The post you're responding to said "in practice" and "When plaintiffs win these cases, the contracts are much different or the employer did something exceptionally stupid. It would be a massive waste of time and resources to sue." None of those things are countered by you finding a few cases where it did work. The "inane" part of the thought experiment was applying it to biglaw offers, which you've done since this started. Your snipes about people's professionalism in responding to these arguments are strange and off-putting (no one here is or thinks they are responding to partners, professors, and clients?).

If “weirdly defensive” is defending my apparently minority position on a hypo of my creation using actual evidence and pushing back about people who call it ridiculous for well-grounded reason, and doing this during a massive stay at home order, then sure: call me weirdly defensive.

Arguments on issues of first impression that have some legitimate backing with other caselaw are not inane—that’s the notion I’m pushing back on. I did quote one poster’s take, but my comment was continuing to push back more broadly on all the “it’s at will and that’s that” naysayers. In my mind, that includes the poster I responded to.

And yeah so these cases are not directly on point but I think an argument could be made that this hypo with the biglaw offer is even stronger because of the intense reliance. Think about it: you get an offer like a year before you start and don’t do any job hunting your 3L year as a result, and by the time you learn your offer has been rescinded, all the good entry level jobs have been taken. And of course this doesn’t factor in whatever applications you withdrew one year earlier for the SA.

And lastly, the only way to interpret that post was that the idea has no chance of success. Think about it: if it has a decent chance of success it’s absolutely not a waste of resources. If you want to go in by yourself and not draw attention for everybody’s sake, you file it under seal and either seek reliance damages or specific performance (admittedly the latter wouldn’t start you on a good foot, but it’d be way better than unemployment) OR if there are more than 40 offers rescinded then you could do it as a class action and make a good chunk of change and kick off your career as a plaintiffs lawyer. So if it has a chance of success, it necessarily follows that it wouldn’t be a waste of resources.

*none of what I’ve said here or elsewhere is legal advice; this is just a debate on a forum. If anybody is considering this they need to consult with a lawyer about their case

*i have no personal stake in any of this as I am a mid level associate at one of the firms that said they wouldn’t be cutting or laying off. This is just a thought experiment of my own creation

[ksm6969]

In your defense (and I think most of your suggestions here are unworkable), I do think people are assuming NY law would necessarily apply (and NY law is strong on at-will presumption). But at least for offers, if an NY firm recruits at OCI in another state and makes an offer, there is a chance the case can be brought in another jurisdiction that is not so strong on the at will presumption, or that recognizes stronger estoppel claims or good faith requirements in at-will employment relationships. (And as I said, even in NY the at will presumption does not attach to employment with set duration, eg summer associate positions).

[objctnyrhnr]

In your defense (and I think most of your suggestions here are unworkable), I do think people are assuming NY law would necessarily apply (and NY law is strong on at-will presumption). But at least for offers, if an NY firm recruits at OCI in another state and makes an offer, there is a chance the case can be brought in another jurisdiction that is not so strong on the at will presumption, or that recognizes stronger estoppel claims or good faith requirements in at-will employment relationships. (And as I said, even in NY the at will presumption does not attach to employment with set duration, eg summer associate positions).

I’ll take your point about ny.

Perhaps I feel so personally invested in it because I just don’t think it’d be fair to the new grad, and I like to believe there’s always at least a chance that there’s space for new law when the defendant does something objectively unfair that screws somebody over. The firm rescinding offers would effectively be absolutely screwing these associates because these former students relied upon these offers in their decision not to do more job hunting when the getting was good.

My billables may mostly consist of defending the “big guy,” but I am most prideful of my pro bono practice that mainly consists of plaintiffs work for low income individuals taking down relatively small entities that wrong them, just because there’s no law that says the conduct is not allowed. I see the Grad’s position in this hypo as similar to my pro bono clients.

So let’s say you’re in a non-ny jurisdiction and this happens to you the June before the September you’re supposed to start. First move of course is scramble to try to find another job at a legitimate firm. But a climate that begets offer rescinding is also probably a climate that’s not going to be super friendly to an unemployed grad trying to get into an amlaw200 firm.

So what do you do then? Take the naysayers in this thread at their word and go work for a personal injury or drug dealer defense firm (or whatever the transactional equivalent is, if there is one)?

Or would you give this a shot, citing the precedent in response to the MTD that says promissory estoppel can (at least sometimes) create an exception to the general at will presumption? Hope for a settlement or maybe consider taking it all the way?

[The Lsat Airbender]

Perhaps I feel so personally invested in it because I just don’t think it’d be fair to the new grad, and I like to believe there’s always at least a chance that there’s space for new law when the defendant does something objectively unfair that screws somebody over. The firm rescinding offers would effectively be absolutely screwing these associates because these former students relied upon these offers in their decision not to do more job hunting when the getting was good.

Not every injustice has a legal remedy. Fact of life.

[LBJ's Hair]

In practice, suing to enforce an offer letter or collect damages is a big loser, especially for the very simple at-will offers that biglaw makes.

I had an old boss that used to tell us that if we were gonna insider trade, we'd better make enough to flee the country because we'd (a) definitely get caught, and (b) never work in the industry again.

Think the same thing applies here. Putting aside the merits, hard to see how settlements in these cases would be worth the reputational harm filing a lawsuit against a former (non)employer would do to a young (any?) lawyer.

[objctnyrhnr]

In practice, suing to enforce an offer letter or collect damages is a big loser, especially for the very simple at-will offers that biglaw makes.

I had an old boss that used to tell us that if we were gonna insider trade, we'd better make enough to flee the country because we'd (a) definitely get caught, and (b) never work in the industry again.

Think the same thing applies here. Putting aside the merits, hard to see how settlements in these cases would be worth the reputational harm filing a lawsuit against a former (non)employer would do to a young (any?) lawyer.

As I mentioned, you’d probably do it under seal, particularly if you’re seeking specific performance. That way, the law firm can confidentially settle with you to get rid of your lawsuit without having to give the other rescinded offerrees the same thing. Frankly, given the chance you beat the MTD (or even go further), I don’t think the firm would mind keeping it all under wraps; court would likely allow it—particularly with all parties assenting to the request.

Would be crazy to get specific performance and actually get hired. On the one hand, maybe they’d be looking for a first chance to fire you. On the other, maybe they’d respect the move/tenacity/creativity/experience gained. Regardless if it went this direction, would probably make sense to try to jump ASAP (of course lateraling to biglaw from biglaw is way easier than getting hired out of unemployment without biglaw associate on res).

Alternatively, if the entering class now with rescinded offers was big enough (wanna say the rule in most jurisdictions is 40 people if memory serves), you’d do it as a class action and just deal with the reputational harm. Lawyers do sue law firms, you know. it happens. Look at the suits against JD going on right now. If you blew the whole thing up and it worked, could be a great beginning to a career as a plaintiffs L&E attorney. In fact, maybe you’d get hired by a plaintiffs firm as a result.

(As you can see, thinking about how this ridiculous hypo would play out has occupied a few of my thoughts during quarantine.)

[QContinuum]

Think the same thing applies here. Putting aside the merits, hard to see how settlements in these cases would be worth the reputational harm filing a lawsuit against a former (non)employer would do to a young (any?) lawyer.

We're not talking about a "stealthed" junior or midlevel. Everyone agrees that at-will means associates can be let go at any time for just about any reason (putting aside the specific exclusions for unlawful discrimination/retaliation/harassment/etc.), so there's generally no legal remedy. And further, even if there was a legal remedy (because there was, e.g., unlawful harassment), everyone agrees the much better practical/career move would be to focus on lateraling asap. Though, even suing might not actually blow up one's lateraling prospects - see, e.g., https://abovethelaw.com/2008/07/musical ... rd-chance/

But in any case, we aren't even talking about a current associate who can try to lateral. Rather we're talking about someone whose BigLaw career has never gotten off the ground, due to having their offer rescinded before even starting, in the context of a severe economic contraction. This new grad is in a much different legal position. They weren't fired as an at-will employee; they were made a job offer that they relied upon in not accepting a different offer or hustling more before/during/after OCI. And as an unemployed 3L/recent grad in a severe economic downturn, they're unlikely to ever work in BigLaw anyway (let alone any positions that de facto require BigLaw experience - in-house/AUSA gigs). So it's not like they'd be blowing up their BigLaw career by suing - they never had a BigLaw career to look forward to to begin with, the retracted offer made sure of that.

[LBJ's Hair]

Think the same thing applies here. Putting aside the merits, hard to see how settlements in these cases would be worth the reputational harm filing a lawsuit against a former (non)employer would do to a young (any?) lawyer.

We're not talking about a "stealthed" junior or midlevel. Everyone agrees that at-will means associates can be let go at any time for just about any reason (putting aside the specific exclusions for unlawful discrimination/retaliation/harassment/etc.), so there's generally no legal remedy. And further, even if there was a legal remedy (because there was, e.g., unlawful harassment), everyone agrees the much better practical/career move would be to focus on lateraling asap. Though, even suing might not actually blow up one's lateraling prospects - see, e.g., https://abovethelaw.com/2008/07/musical ... rd-chance/

But in any case, we aren't even talking about a current associate who can try to lateral. Rather we're talking about someone whose BigLaw career has never gotten off the ground, due to having their offer rescinded before even starting, in the context of a severe economic contraction. This new grad is in a much different legal position. They weren't fired as an at-will employee; they were made a job offer that they relied upon in not accepting a different offer or hustling more before/during/after OCI. And as an unemployed 3L/recent grad in a severe economic downturn, they're unlikely to ever work in BigLaw anyway (let alone any positions that de facto require BigLaw experience - in-house/AUSA gigs). So it's not like they'd be blowing up their BigLaw career by suing - they never had a BigLaw career to look forward to to begin with, the retracted offer made sure of that.

I don't necessarily disagree with any of this, I just -- personally -- am not sure if the risk-reward is worth it, particularly for young people. If you can get $100K without anyone ever knowing that you sued, that's great, but is that realistic? I dunno, I'm not really an expert on this, just thinking that I've had to mark Yes/No on employment forms asking me if I've ever been involved in litigation against my former employer, etc.

[objctnyrhnr]

Think the same thing applies here. Putting aside the merits, hard to see how settlements in these cases would be worth the reputational harm filing a lawsuit against a former (non)employer would do to a young (any?) lawyer.

We're not talking about a "stealthed" junior or midlevel. Everyone agrees that at-will means associates can be let go at any time for just about any reason (putting aside the specific exclusions for unlawful discrimination/retaliation/harassment/etc.), so there's generally no legal remedy. And further, even if there was a legal remedy (because there was, e.g., unlawful harassment), everyone agrees the much better practical/career move would be to focus on lateraling asap. Though, even suing might not actually blow up one's lateraling prospects - see, e.g., https://abovethelaw.com/2008/07/musical ... rd-chance/

But in any case, we aren't even talking about a current associate who can try to lateral. Rather we're talking about someone whose BigLaw career has never gotten off the ground, due to having their offer rescinded before even starting, in the context of a severe economic contraction. This new grad is in a much different legal position. They weren't fired as an at-will employee; they were made a job offer that they relied upon in not accepting a different offer or hustling more before/during/after OCI. And as an unemployed 3L/recent grad in a severe economic downturn, they're unlikely to ever work in BigLaw anyway (let alone any positions that de facto require BigLaw experience - in-house/AUSA gigs). So it's not like they'd be blowing up their BigLaw career by suing - they never had a BigLaw career to look forward to to begin with, the retracted offer made sure of that.

I don't necessarily disagree with any of this, I just -- personally -- am not sure if the risk-reward is worth it, particularly for young people. If you can get $100K without anyone ever knowing that you sued, that's great, but is that realistic? I dunno, I'm not really an expert on this, just thinking that I've had to mark Yes/No on employment forms asking me if I've ever been involved in litigation against my former employer, etc.

Even to the extent that’s a thing, pretty sure (particularly in this climate) that wouldn’t/shouldn’t be an unemployed post grad’s top concern after a rescinded offer. You gotta realize—this is a really brutal situation to be in. My proposal was really a go for broke move, and if it were me I’d be pushing for specific performance and deal with all the shit that happens later.

[giggaman1228]

You seem weirdly defensive about this. The post you're responding to said "in practice" and "When plaintiffs win these cases, the contracts are much different or the employer did something exceptionally stupid. It would be a massive waste of time and resources to sue." None of those things are countered by you finding a few cases where it did work. The "inane" part of the thought experiment was applying it to biglaw offers, which you've done since this started. Your snipes about people's professionalism in responding to these arguments are strange and off-putting (no one here is or thinks they are responding to partners, professors, and clients?).

The saddest part about this thread is it’s clearly some effort by people to assure themselves they have recourse if their firms cut them or never hire them.

Y’all you have no recourse. You’re entirely at the mercy of the firm

Most posts on this forum in general are transparent efforts to obtain some relief from an ongoing neurotic anxiety.

I've worked with laterals who have been fired within a month of their start date in biglaw, after not gelling with one or two partners. Terrible to see it, given that he had turned down other offers to come to this particular biglaw firm. If you take legal advice from this thread, you'd think he could cite some AT&T case and retire early on his zillions. Absurd.

[objctnyrhnr]

You seem weirdly defensive about this. The post you're responding to said "in practice" and "When plaintiffs win these cases, the contracts are much different or the employer did something exceptionally stupid. It would be a massive waste of time and resources to sue." None of those things are countered by you finding a few cases where it did work. The "inane" part of the thought experiment was applying it to biglaw offers, which you've done since this started. Your snipes about people's professionalism in responding to these arguments are strange and off-putting (no one here is or thinks they are responding to partners, professors, and clients?).

The saddest part about this thread is it’s clearly some effort by people to assure themselves they have recourse if their firms cut them or never hire them.

Y’all you have no recourse. You’re entirely at the mercy of the firm

Most posts on this forum in general are transparent efforts to obtain some relief from an ongoing neurotic anxiety.

I've worked with laterals who have been fired within a month of their start date in biglaw, after not gelling with one or two partners. Terrible to see it, given that he had turned down other offers to come to this particular biglaw firm. If you take legal advice from this thread, you'd think he could cite some AT&T case and retire early on his zillions. Absurd.

1. That is absolutely not the hypo that’s being discussed. Originally it was a pay slash without a corresponding hours redux, and now it’s a rescinded offer. What you describe even this theory’s biggest defender (me) wouldn’t push back on.

2. Getting “zillions” is absurd, I agree. That’s correct, but it’s also not at all what anybody on this thread suggested would occur. In the offer-rescind hypo, in my view specific performance would be what I’d be shooting for personally if I were the recent grad.

3. For the fifteenth time this is a thought experiment similar to something a contracts professor would pose in class. This is NOT legal advice.

4. Your dismissal of the idea of “citing cases” somewhat on point to have a shot at a favorable outcome on a MTD on an issue of first impression as “absurd,” together with your conflation of the situation you described and the situation being discussed, suggest to me that you’re not qualified to really comment on this. Maybe that’s off-base, but it feels like you aren’t really understanding the whole litigation thing as a concept.