Can I back out of my job acceptance? Forum

[Anonymous User]

So my firm has an extra early deadline to decide if I want their job offer. It's a good job excellent pay and I like the people I'd be working with. The problem is I have a callback with my dream job in a location I'd be much happier in. The call back is right after my deadline to decide if I want the first the job. Assuming I can't get them to push the deadline back can I accept the first job and then back out if I get the second job. The jobs are on different sides of the country, the first job is at a Big law firm the second one isn't. They don't really do similar work so I find it hard to believe that this will come back and bite me from a professional stand point. Is this a C&F issue? It does seem like I'm screwing my firm over but the deadline they gave me is very arbitrary and is basically 4 weeks. What does TLS think?

[bk1]

You're fine bro.

[kalvano]

The firm wouldn't hesitate for a second to fire your ass if their situation changed at all.

[Anonymous User]

You're fine bro.

So even though they have you sign that offer sheet paper, it's not an issue?

[bk1]

You're fine bro.

So even though they have you sign that offer sheet paper, it's not an issue?

They can fire you or back out whenever they feel like it. So can you.

Signing an offer letter isn't consigning yourself to slavery. You can always back out.

[Void]

You'd be breaching your agreement but what can they do about it? They can't force you to work, and ITE they will be able to replace you faster than a well-lubed bolt of lightning.

[Anonymous User]

Thanks. It makes sense I think they just drill it into your head that once you sign that paper you're locked in. I was just worried it would be some type of C&F issue.

[kalvano]

Thanks. It makes sense I think they just drill it into your head that once you sign that paper you're locked in. I was just worried it would be some type of C&F issue.

That's Career Services, whose priority is the school, not what's best for you.

[cynthiad]

You can back out but you will be burning your bridges. It's considered unprofessional to back out of an offer you've accepted. This could come back to bite you not just if you ever want to work there again, but anywhere the people who remember you from there go on to work. Did you summer at this firm? If so, you can't use them as a reference, but future employers might contact them anyway and hear about this. It's not illegal or a breach of contract or anything, all it will hurt is your professional reputation.

[Anonymous User]

You can back out but you will be burning your bridges. It's considered unprofessional to back out of an offer you've accepted. This could come back to bite you not just if you ever want to work there again, but anywhere the people who remember you from there go on to work. Did you summer at this firm? If so, you can't use them as a reference, but future employers might contact them anyway and hear about this. It's not illegal or a breach of contract or anything, all it will hurt is your professional reputation.

It's one firm that doesn't even have offices in the place I want to work. While I agree with you it may be unprofessional it's also unprofessional to no offer a ton of people. Also by giving up Big Law out of law school I'm basically giving up Big Law forever. I just don't see how it hurts me that much. As someone earlier said, big law knows how this game is played. Do other people think this will adversely affect me?

[Anonymous User]

1. Have you contacted the firm you have an offer with and asked them to extend the deadline?
2. Have you contacted the firm you have an interview with and asked them if they can move your interview forward?

I would do either/both of those two things before I signed that paper.

[NYstate]

It isn't a C and F issue to get a job in another location and decide to move. If the first firm won't give you more time, take their offer. You don't want to pass up a sure thing just for an interview.

I can't see how this will hurt you in anyway. They will be able to replace you without much effort at the first firm.

I wouldn't worry about it at all.

Just make sure you read the offer letter carefully and comply with any notice provisions.

[Void]

It's not illegal or a breach of contract or anything, all it will hurt is your professional reputation.

Sorry to get all legal nerd on you, bu how is it not breach of contract? It certainly is. He promised to work, in exchange for their promise to pay him. His decision not to work is failed performance and a breach. But it's an efficient breach and the firm couldnt really get any remedy.

[NYstate]

It's not illegal or a breach of contract or anything, all it will hurt is your professional reputation.

Sorry to get all legal nerd on you, bu how is it not breach of contract? It certainly is. He promised to work, in exchange for their promise to pay him. His decision not to work is failed performance and a breach. But it's an efficient breach and the firm couldnt really get any remedy.

I thought an offer letter was basically you accepting the terms of employment salary and benefits. It isn't an employment contract. Anyway it doesn't matter because he can quit at any time.

OP: does the offer letter say anything about you terminating the agreement? I would be surprised if it has anything more than a notice period, if that.

[Blessedassurance]

It's not illegal or a breach of contract or anything, all it will hurt is your professional reputation.

Sorry to get all legal nerd on you, bu how is it not breach of contract? It certainly is. He promised to work, in exchange for their promise to pay him. His decision not to work is failed performance and a breach. But it's an efficient breach and the firm couldnt really get any remedy.

are you in law school?

[Void]

It's not illegal or a breach of contract or anything, all it will hurt is your professional reputation.

Sorry to get all legal nerd on you, bu how is it not breach of contract? It certainly is. He promised to work, in exchange for their promise to pay him. His decision not to work is failed performance and a breach. But it's an efficient breach and the firm couldnt really get any remedy.

I thought an offer letter was basically you accepting the terms of employment salary and benefits. It isn't an employment contract. Anyway it doesn't matter because he can quit at any time.

OP: does the offer letter say anything about you terminating the agreement? I would be surprised if it has anything more than a notice period, if that.

A letter is an offer. If OP confirms in writing its an enforceable agreement that he will work for $X for Y amount of time (assuming those terms are in the letter). But like I said, he can breach because they would have no remedy. They obviously won't like him any more, but I think OP understood that.

[Void]

It's not illegal or a breach of contract or anything, all it will hurt is your professional reputation.

Sorry to get all legal nerd on you, bu how is it not breach of contract? It certainly is. He promised to work, in exchange for their promise to pay him. His decision not to work is failed performance and a breach. But it's an efficient breach and the firm couldnt really get any remedy.

are you in law school?

Nope. Just graduated. I pre-apologized for getting nerdy, if that counts.

[Blessedassurance]

It's not illegal or a breach of contract or anything, all it will hurt is your professional reputation.

Sorry to get all legal nerd on you, bu how is it not breach of contract? It certainly is. He promised to work, in exchange for their promise to pay him. His decision not to work is failed performance and a breach. But it's an efficient breach and the firm couldnt really get any remedy.

I thought an offer letter was basically you accepting the terms of employment salary and benefits. It isn't an employment contract. Anyway it doesn't matter because he can quit at any time.

OP: does the offer letter say anything about you terminating the agreement? I would be surprised if it has anything more than a notice period, if that.

A letter is an offer. If OP confirms in writing its an enforceable agreement that he will work for $X for Y amount of time (assuming those terms are in the letter). But like I said, he can breach because they would have no remedy. They obviously won't like him any more, but I think OP understood that.

i don't think you understand how an efficient breach relates to damages, good sir.

eta: in general, you have no idea what you're talking about

[Danger Zone]

It's called at-will employment for a reason.

The reason, in case you still haven't figured it out, is that there is no contract.

[Void]

i don't think you understand how an efficient breach relates to damages, good sir.

eta: in general, you have no idea what you're talking about

I love this classic TLS "you're an idiot but I'm too badass to explain why" response.

[Void]

It's called at-will employment for a reason.

The reason, in case you still haven't figured it out, is that there is no contract.

I'll just leave this here so you can catch up on your reading: https://www.americanbar.org/newsletter/ ... racts.html

[Danger Zone]

I probably could have phrased that more artfully, since there can still be a contract on other conditions, but what I meant was if an employment relationship is at-will, then there is no enforceable provision regarding termination of employment.

[Void]

I probably could have phrased that more artfully, since there can still be a contract on other conditions, but what I meant was if an employment relationship is at-will, then there is no enforceable provision regarding termination of employment.

Sure there is, unless there's an out clause/notice provision. An employer can sue for costs incurred in replacing you if you agree to a specified term and then never show up. But a law firm (like most employers these days) won't really incur any such costs because employees are a dime a dozen.

Also, an efficient breach = when the benefit of breaching outweighs the cost of liability. Where liability is $0 and benefit is a job you'd prefer, breach is efficient.

[A. Nony Mouse]

You're assuming the offer letter specifies a term. (It's not clear the OP even has a letter at all.)

[Blessedassurance]

i don't think you understand how an efficient breach relates to damages, good sir.

eta: in general, you have no idea what you're talking about

I love this classic TLS "you're an idiot but I'm too badass to explain why" response.

an efficient breach does not preclude recovery for damages.