Can a firm revoke an offer prior to the 28 day deadline? Forum

[mar9]

HELP!!!

18 days ago I received an offer from a top 100 NY law firm. It is my only offer, and I have been waiting to hear back from several other firms that placed me "on-hold". Two days ago, the firm that gave me an offer called me to say that more students than expected had accepted their offer and that the firm had reached their max summer class size.

The recruiting coordinator inquired as to where else I was considering, and strongly suggested that I look elsewhere. When I asked her if she was revoking me offer, all I got was "We really don't want to" and a request for me to follow up with other firms and my school's career services. When I told her that I wanted to accept right then on the spot, she said I should follow up with other firms first and call her back on Monday.

I plan on calling first thing Monday (tmrw) morning to tell her I am accepting. Can she say no to my acceptance?? Can a firm really revoke an offer prior to the 28 days, just because they reached their max??? Isn't this there own fault for accepting too many students? Can they really even pressure me into deciding this early- before I have even heard back from everywhere I am "on-hold"????


Somehow this all doesn't seem right... I went from being completely calm and thrilled to have one "guaranteed" offer, to now being completely stressed out about potentially ending up with nothing.

Any advice or suggestions would be greatly appreciated

[Should I Transfer??]

I don't really have any knowledge on this topic, but I would talk to your career services office before you call the firm to get their advice as well the advice from this board...seems like a very delicate situation.

My guess is that they can revoke if they want, but obviously don't want to for risk of harming their reputation.

[thesealocust]

You're screwed.

The firm "can't" revoke it per the rules, but the NALP "rules" are really the NALP guidelines-firms-sometimes-follow-but-only-when-it-suits-them-and-never-if-they-think-they-either-can-or-need-to-get-away-with-ignoring-them.

Talk to your career services office and pray they can intervene, otherwise your only real option is going nuclear by trying to out/shame the firm via Above The Law, which is a questionably wise path to take.

As far as what the recruiter told you, it seems clear that if you try to accept they'll revoke the offer. Maybe that's wrong, and you should probably do your best to accept it anyway since you have few other options, but the implication of her words seem pretty clear (that you are no longer welcome at the firm for the summer).

Good luck sorting it out, it's a seriously crappy situation to have landed in.

[koalatriste]

if the firm revokes your offer, go crazy to ATL. this is the path that you *need* to take if they do that.

[nevdash]

Sorry man, seems like a tough situation. Seems like the only thing you can do at this point is talk to your CSO, then possibly wait for one of your on-holds to materialize. If that doesn't work out in the next ten days, approach the firm and ask them if there are any alternatives (deferring for a year or something). If that doesn't work out, out the firm and do everything you can to destroy their reputation.

[bhan87]

Word of caution. If you do try to accept and they take you for the summer class, there's the possibility of them no-offering you. This is anecdotal, but there were quite a few firms over the past couple years that have no-offered summer associates because they were only looking for X number associates, but X + 2 accepted summer associate positions.

[crit_racer]

Sorry to hear this OP

[Huluba]

This is a terrible situation. Has anyone heard of this happening before? Sorry OP.

[Anonymous User]

Word of caution. If you do try to accept and they take you for the summer class, there's the possibility of them no-offering you. This is anecdotal, but there were quite a few firms over the past couple years that have no-offered summer associates because they were only looking for X number associates, but X + 2 accepted summer associate positions.

It doesn't sound like OP has too many options and a summer with a firm that might no-offer him is better than one than without a firm job at all. Honestly, there's nothing keeping the firm from letting him accept and then firing him the first day of the summer program. So even if these NALP rules were the word of god, set in stone, they can't practically stop the firm from hiring or firing who they want.

I think that at this point, OP needs to convey to the firm that word leaking out of this could be very bad news for them. I'm sure that they already know this, but they should also know that OP is not one to keep things on the DL. I'm sure there's a very tactful way to get this across. They need to keep the offer in place not out of the goodness of their hearts, but because this could cause serious damage to future recruiting efforts.

[homestyle28]

Frankly it sounds like you're screwed. Unless the firm really steps up and honors its commitment to you, which sounds like a long shot. Lame b/c the NALP rules are there, in part, to let you explore your options for 28 days. ITE it seems like everything has tightened up and firms don't feel much freedom with their class sizes.

Obviously talk to your CSO to see if there's anything they can do to help. If you had any really strong connections during your CB I might try to reach out there too.

Sorry for ya friend.

[Anonymous User]

Same thing happened with a classmate of mine, and from your description I'm betting at the exact same firm. Sorry about your situation, not much you can do to avoid that. Go straight to CSO.

[ph14]

Out the firm.

[09042014]

Word of caution. If you do try to accept and they take you for the summer class, there's the possibility of them no-offering you. This is anecdotal, but there were quite a few firms over the past couple years that have no-offered summer associates because they were only looking for X number associates, but X + 2 accepted summer associate positions.

It doesn't sound like OP has too many options and a summer with a firm that might no-offer him is better than one than without a firm job at all. Honestly, there's nothing keeping the firm from letting him accept and then firing him the first day of the summer program. So even if these NALP rules were the word of god, set in stone, they can't practically stop the firm from hiring or firing who they want.

I think that at this point, OP needs to convey to the firm that word leaking out of this could be very bad news for them. I'm sure that they already know this, but they should also know that OP is not one to keep things on the DL. I'm sure there's a very tactful way to get this across. They need to keep the offer in place not out of the goodness of their hearts, but because this could cause serious damage to future recruiting efforts.

This is some pretty shitty advice.

Accept the offer tomorrow morning, sign their letter and send in the paperwork. Maybe, they will revoke, maybe they will not. Don't ask if you can accept, just do it. In fact, do it by email right now.

I'd keep looking either way. If you find another firm, this firm won't care that you are going back against them. If you can't find anything, well, maybe they will hold it against you, but they probably won't. It wouldn't really make sense for them to no offer you, just because you were the last to accept. They'd probably just no offer the summer they liked the least.

But keep looking for another SA. And treat 3L oci like you don't have an offer, because you might not.

[bhan87]

Word of caution. If you do try to accept and they take you for the summer class, there's the possibility of them no-offering you. This is anecdotal, but there were quite a few firms over the past couple years that have no-offered summer associates because they were only looking for X number associates, but X + 2 accepted summer associate positions.

It doesn't sound like OP has too many options and a summer with a firm that might no-offer him is better than one than without a firm job at all. Honestly, there's nothing keeping the firm from letting him accept and then firing him the first day of the summer program. So even if these NALP rules were the word of god, set in stone, they can't practically stop the firm from hiring or firing who they want.

I think that at this point, OP needs to convey to the firm that word leaking out of this could be very bad news for them. I'm sure that they already know this, but they should also know that OP is not one to keep things on the DL. I'm sure there's a very tactful way to get this across. They need to keep the offer in place not out of the goodness of their hearts, but because this could cause serious damage to future recruiting efforts.

This is some pretty shitty advice.

Accept the offer tomorrow morning, sign their letter and send in the paperwork. Maybe, they will revoke, maybe they will not. Don't ask if you can accept, just do it. In fact, do it by email right now.

I'd keep looking either way. If you find another firm, this firm won't care that you are going back against them. If you can't find anything, well, maybe they will hold it against you, but they probably won't. It wouldn't really make sense for them to no offer you, just because you were the last to accept. They'd probably just no offer the summer they liked the least.

But keep looking for another SA. And treat 3L oci like you don't have an offer, because you might not.

I think this is the correct course of action.

[bdubs]

Word of caution. If you do try to accept and they take you for the summer class, there's the possibility of them no-offering you. This is anecdotal, but there were quite a few firms over the past couple years that have no-offered summer associates because they were only looking for X number associates, but X + 2 accepted summer associate positions.

It doesn't sound like OP has too many options and a summer with a firm that might no-offer him is better than one than without a firm job at all. Honestly, there's nothing keeping the firm from letting him accept and then firing him the first day of the summer program. So even if these NALP rules were the word of god, set in stone, they can't practically stop the firm from hiring or firing who they want.

I think that at this point, OP needs to convey to the firm that word leaking out of this could be very bad news for them. I'm sure that they already know this, but they should also know that OP is not one to keep things on the DL. I'm sure there's a very tactful way to get this across. They need to keep the offer in place not out of the goodness of their hearts, but because this could cause serious damage to future recruiting efforts.

This is some pretty shitty advice.

Accept the offer tomorrow morning, sign their letter and send in the paperwork. Maybe, they will revoke, maybe they will not. Don't ask if you can accept, just do it. In fact, do it by email right now.

I'd keep looking either way. If you find another firm, this firm won't care that you are going back against them. If you can't find anything, well, maybe they will hold it against you, but they probably won't. It wouldn't really make sense for them to no offer you, just because you were the last to accept. They'd probably just no offer the summer they liked the least.

But keep looking for another SA. And treat 3L oci like you don't have an offer, because you might not.

Totally agree with DF here.

Wanted to add that even if the OP is the one that causes the firm to exceed its targets s/he is not necessarily the one that will get no offered at the end of the summer (if they have to no offer someone). If people like OP and s/he produces work that is superior to peers, OP will probably get the offer over them. OP should probably start out the summer assuming that they are digging out of a hole though just because of the situation that they put HR in.

[mar9]

Thanks for all of the advice. Fortunately, as soon as I hung up with the recruiter on Friday I immediately spoke with our CSO over the phone and in person. They called the firm on my behalf and said that things should work out if I call to accept first thing Monday morning. OCS mentioned that although it is very rare, a few students in the past have had their offer revoked when the firm reached its target size prior to the student's 28 days expiring. They also mentioned that 3 other firms had called them this year, in a similar situation.

What a nightmare... I've tried my best to remain polite and professional with the firm and OCS, but I made it clear that if I ended up with nothing I would go all out publicizing what had happened, and would make it my personal mission to encourage every future student to ignore the NALP rules and accept all offers right away- bc if the firms aren't going to play by the rules, why should we?

Hopefully the potential harm to both the firm and my school's reputation will be enough to avoid getting totally screwed.

Thank you Desert Fox for your suggestion to email them right away. I just did so, in case for some reason accepting on Sunday helps compared to Monday. I'm still bitter that they just forced me to accept 9 days early before I heard elsewhere. Sundays are meant for football and beer, not overanalyzing every last detail of this painful and cruel recruiting process.

I'll let you know how it works out when I call tomorrow.

And tell your friends to accept any outstanding offers ASAP!!!

[rayiner]

Word of caution. If you do try to accept and they take you for the summer class, there's the possibility of them no-offering you. This is anecdotal, but there were quite a few firms over the past couple years that have no-offered summer associates because they were only looking for X number associates, but X + 2 accepted summer associate positions.

It doesn't sound like OP has too many options and a summer with a firm that might no-offer him is better than one than without a firm job at all. Honestly, there's nothing keeping the firm from letting him accept and then firing him the first day of the summer program. So even if these NALP rules were the word of god, set in stone, they can't practically stop the firm from hiring or firing who they want.

I think that at this point, OP needs to convey to the firm that word leaking out of this could be very bad news for them. I'm sure that they already know this, but they should also know that OP is not one to keep things on the DL. I'm sure there's a very tactful way to get this across. They need to keep the offer in place not out of the goodness of their hearts, but because this could cause serious damage to future recruiting efforts.

This is some pretty shitty advice.

Accept the offer tomorrow morning, sign their letter and send in the paperwork. Maybe, they will revoke, maybe they will not. Don't ask if you can accept, just do it. In fact, do it by email right now.

I'd keep looking either way. If you find another firm, this firm won't care that you are going back against them. If you can't find anything, well, maybe they will hold it against you, but they probably won't. It wouldn't really make sense for them to no offer you, just because you were the last to accept. They'd probably just no offer the summer they liked the least.

But keep looking for another SA. And treat 3L oci like you don't have an offer, because you might not.

This is the credited advice.

[apparentlynew]

they should also know that OP is not one to keep things on the DL. I'm sure there's a very tactful way to get this across.

Hilarious.

[KidStuddi]

As much as this sucks for OP, I actually think this is an example of a firm acting responsibly. If OP actually had more than one option, wouldn't we all be applauding the firm's transparency in giving the OP a heads up that they did not expect a class as big as they have? Speaking personally, I would have greatly appreciated the firms I was picking between giving me that type of information so that I could make an informed decision. It seems like they're actively working to avoid a situation where they would have to no-offer summers. I think that's admirable and no one should be jumping up and down on the firm for telling the truth. The alternative of just lying to OP and pretending everything is great only to then no-offer someone next summer for "fit" reasons seems to be much less desirable.

Now if the firm doesn't allow OP to come at all (and assuming OP actually was told he had 28 days either verbally or in writing), that's a different story. In that eventuality, I fully support a shaming campaign and I think the WSJ legal blog / ATL would too.

[thesealocust]

As much as this sucks for OP, I actually think this is an example of a firm acting responsibly. If OP actually had more than one option, wouldn't we all be applauding the firm's transparency in giving the OP a heads up that they did not expect a class as big as they have? Speaking personally, I would have greatly appreciated the firms I was picking between giving me that type of information so that I could make an informed decision. It seems like they're actively working to avoid a situation where they would have to no-offer summers. I think that's admirable and no one should be jumping up and down on the firm for telling the truth. The alternative of just lying to OP and pretending everything is great only to then no-offer someone next summer for "fit" reasons seems to be much less desirable.

Now if the firm doesn't allow OP to come at all (and assuming OP actually was told he had 28 days either verbally or in writing), that's a different story. In that eventuality, I fully support a shaming campaign and I think the WSJ legal blog / ATL would too.

Where I come from, a firm acting responsibly wouldn't screw up its offers/yield calculus badly enough to either revoke or soft-revoke said offers.

[Old Gregg]

As much as this sucks for OP, I actually think this is an example of a firm acting responsibly. If OP actually had more than one option, wouldn't we all be applauding the firm's transparency in giving the OP a heads up that they did not expect a class as big as they have? Speaking personally, I would have greatly appreciated the firms I was picking between giving me that type of information so that I could make an informed decision. It seems like they're actively working to avoid a situation where they would have to no-offer summers. I think that's admirable and no one should be jumping up and down on the firm for telling the truth. The alternative of just lying to OP and pretending everything is great only to then no-offer someone next summer for "fit" reasons seems to be much less desirable.

Now if the firm doesn't allow OP to come at all (and assuming OP actually was told he had 28 days either verbally or in writing), that's a different story. In that eventuality, I fully support a shaming campaign and I think the WSJ legal blog / ATL would too.

Where I come from, a firm acting responsibly wouldn't screw up its offers/yield calculus badly enough to either revoke or soft-revoke said offers.

It's a weird economy. Difficult to predict yield even based on past patterns.

Even institutions that have it down to a science (I.e., law schools and colleges) have weird years, hence years where they don't take any from the waitlist and others where they take a lot.

[IAFG]

I agree that you should try to accept, but actually do follow up with all those firms you're on hold with and try to accept somewhere else instead. Obviously this firm isn't going to be pissed if you accept and turn them down to go somewhere else.

[KidStuddi]

As much as this sucks for OP, I actually think this is an example of a firm acting responsibly. If OP actually had more than one option, wouldn't we all be applauding the firm's transparency in giving the OP a heads up that they did not expect a class as big as they have? Speaking personally, I would have greatly appreciated the firms I was picking between giving me that type of information so that I could make an informed decision. It seems like they're actively working to avoid a situation where they would have to no-offer summers. I think that's admirable and no one should be jumping up and down on the firm for telling the truth. The alternative of just lying to OP and pretending everything is great only to then no-offer someone next summer for "fit" reasons seems to be much less desirable.

Now if the firm doesn't allow OP to come at all (and assuming OP actually was told he had 28 days either verbally or in writing), that's a different story. In that eventuality, I fully support a shaming campaign and I think the WSJ legal blog / ATL would too.

Where I come from, a firm acting responsibly wouldn't screw up its offers/yield calculus badly enough to either revoke or soft-revoke said offers.

While you may be omniscient, where I come from we do not expect that characteristic in others. We do, however, respect honesty and people who try and do the right thing when events do not go as planned. Maybe that's my east coast elitism shining through, who knows.

[IAFG]

Where I come from, a firm acting responsibly wouldn't screw up its offers/yield calculus badly enough to either revoke or soft-revoke said offers.

Where I come from, it's cornbread and chicken.

... anyone?

[sunynp]

Where I come from, a firm acting responsibly wouldn't screw up its offers/yield calculus badly enough to either revoke or soft-revoke said offers.

Where I come from, it's cornbread and chicken.

... anyone?

Sounds like a number of firms got acceptances from people they thought were likely to go elsewhere. It may be an unexpected trickle down effect of bigger firms hiring fewer people etc. After last year's hiring which seemed like a small step up, these year sounds like it is probably treading water or going backwards.

Firms might have been blindsided by this. If they want to try to be able to offer 100% of the summer associates, they have to keep the class smaller.

Or, they may have realized now that they wont need as many first years next year as they had hoped. So it is better to just not get the people in the firm summer program if they aren't going to need them.