Top Law Schools

.

.

Jsa725 wrote:enthusiastically accept B, then revoke if accepted by A. not a big deal. happens all the time. employment is a two-way street.

Yep. I was going to say the same thing.

Accept it. Renege if you get the better job (assuming it's a larger market)

mr.hands wrote:

Jsa725 wrote:enthusiastically accept B, then revoke if accepted by A. not a big deal. happens all the time. employment is a two-way street.

Yep. I was going to say the same thing.

Accept it. Renege if you get the better job (assuming it's a larger market)

Couldn't agree more. It's not unethical. Your career services office just tries to convince you that it is because it can reflect poorly on them. But you gotta do you, homie.

Oh seriously? Because I'm having pretty much this exact same issue and didn't think revoking was a possibility at all.

Generally, revoking can be bad if it's the same market, but given the disparity in income, this is absolutely a good reason to revoke. If you were choosing between two, 160k firms, I wouldn't revoke because what's the point? But here, yes.

goldeneye wrote:Generally, revoking can be bad if it's the same market, but given the disparity in income, this is absolutely a good reason to revoke. If you were choosing between two, 160k firms, I wouldn't revoke because what's the point? But here, yes.

What about if you were choosing between a 150k firm and a 160k firm?

Anonymous User wrote:

goldeneye wrote:Generally, revoking can be bad if it's the same market, but given the disparity in income, this is absolutely a good reason to revoke. If you were choosing between two, 160k firms, I wouldn't revoke because what's the point? But here, yes.

What about if you were choosing between a 150k firm and a 160k firm?

Did this have to be anon? Also, what's the point of this question? OP already said that firm A pays more than double, and firm B pays about 55k a year, so the disparity is obviously huge here.

.

Danger Zone wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

goldeneye wrote:Generally, revoking can be bad if it's the same market, but given the disparity in income, this is absolutely a good reason to revoke. If you were choosing between two, 160k firms, I wouldn't revoke because what's the point? But here, yes.

What about if you were choosing between a 150k firm and a 160k firm?

Did this have to be anon? Also, what's the point of this question? OP already said that firm A pays more than double, and firm B pays about 55k a year, so the disparity is obviously huge here.

Yes, because I was asking for advice pertinent to my situation.

But you're right. Sorry for derailing the thread.

Anonymous User wrote:

Danger Zone wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

goldeneye wrote:Generally, revoking can be bad if it's the same market, but given the disparity in income, this is absolutely a good reason to revoke. If you were choosing between two, 160k firms, I wouldn't revoke because what's the point? But here, yes.

What about if you were choosing between a 150k firm and a 160k firm?

Did this have to be anon? Also, what's the point of this question? OP already said that firm A pays more than double, and firm B pays about 55k a year, so the disparity is obviously huge here.

Yes, because I was asking for advice pertinent to my situation.

But you're right. Sorry for derailing the thread.

ah this makes more sense, I too thought it was just pointless law school "where do we draw the line?" bs. IMO, if it's between 150k and 160k, the other characteristics of the two offers are what matter more, like practice area, geographic location, fit, etc.

hichvichwoh wrote: ah this makes more sense, I too thought it was just pointless law school "where do we draw the line?" bs. IMO, if it's between 150k and 160k, the other characteristics of the two offers are what matter more, like practice area, geographic location, fit, etc.

That's what I thought it was as well. I'm quick to jump on typical law student bullshit. My bad, anon.

In that case, compensation shouldn't be the deciding factor. Go with your gut.

Danger Zone wrote:

mr.hands wrote:

Jsa725 wrote:enthusiastically accept B, then revoke if accepted by A. not a big deal. happens all the time. employment is a two-way street.

Yep. I was going to say the same thing.

Accept it. Renege if you get the better job (assuming it's a larger market)

Couldn't agree more. It's not unethical. Your career services office just tries to convince you that it is because it can reflect poorly on them. But you gotta do you, homie.

I agree. This is not an ethical issue. An employer would be more than happy to revoke your offer for nearly any reason. This is how it works.

What's weird with my job search overall is I'm pretty much only getting CBs with massive national firms that pay way more than I expected to make and then regional firms that pay about 33% less than I expected to make. Nobody else in my school gets the former interviews and many people ranked lower than me are getting jobs better than the latter interviews. No idea how to read that...but that's another story.

My gut was telling me what everyone is saying. So that's what I did. Appreciate it guys.

Danger Zone wrote:

hichvichwoh wrote: ah this makes more sense, I too thought it was just pointless law school "where do we draw the line?" bs. IMO, if it's between 150k and 160k, the other characteristics of the two offers are what matter more, like practice area, geographic location, fit, etc.

That's what I thought it was as well. I'm quick to jump on typical law student bullshit. My bad, anon.

In that case, compensation shouldn't be the deciding factor. Go with your gut.

I think both would be a good fit for me, though I like the people at the 150k firm slightly more. I don't think I'll hear back from the 160k firm on time, even though I told them of my deadline, so I'll be forced to accept. I'm just wary of burning any bridges, given that I really like the first firm, and both are in the same secondary market (my target/home market).

Practice area is probably a wash. Maybe the 160k firm has greater prestige. I don't really care about prestige. I do care about dat paper, however, because I'm attending law school at sticker.

.

Jsa725 wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:I think both would be a good fit for me, though I like the people at the 150k firm slightly more. I don't think I'll hear back from the 160k firm on time, even though I told them of my deadline, so I'll be forced to accept. I'm just wary of burning any bridges, given that I really like the first firm, and both are in the same secondary market (my target/home market).

Practice area is probably a wash. Maybe the 160k firm has greater prestige. I don't really care about prestige. I do care about dat paper, however, because I'm attending law school at sticker.

seems like you should take 150k and never look back. you like the people slightly more and practice groups are a wash. 10k more per year is not a huge difference in your paychecks. in this case, "fit" should be your guide

edit: you will be spending the majority of your day with the people you work with. if its no bueno, then you will want to end your life. trust me. it is imperative to find a workplace that has people you like. otherwise it will be hell... and that 10k more will not go to student loans but rather




... to soothe your pain.



but OTOH, you may just want to choose the shittier workplace.... ya know, for the justification

Thanks for the advice. I was already leaning towards accepting and never looking back, but this just might seal the deal.

As for justification, I think I'm good. Cheap vodka works for all occasions, so whether I'm working at shitty big law firm 1 or shitter big law firm 2, I think I'll be in a good spot for that. In fact, your pic just made me thirsty. Kthxbai.

What about this just in case Firm C or D comes along? Accept both (and every other law firm that gives you an offer) and then next May, show up only for the one you finally decide on. Why put yourself through making a decision now? things can change dramatically before next summer.

No justification needed 'cause look at all the shit the firms put us through (ie. Kasowitz).

Anonymous User wrote:What about this just in case Firm C or D comes along? Accept both (and every other law firm that gives you an offer) and then next May, show up only for the one you finally decide on. Why put yourself through making a decision now? things can change dramatically before next summer.

No justification needed 'cause look at all the shit the firms put us through (ie. Kasowitz).

That was going to be my follow up. Should I continue searching of I get rejected at firm A? (My gut says I have a 60% shot of getting the position.) Firm B is a rather disappointing, yet not catastrophic result for me. I'd like to keep at it.

Devils advocate.

Why not ask for an extension until you'll hear from A? This is what I would suggest. Then you can worry about shit canning them if they say no (because I wouldn't want to work somewhere that was a dick about something like that anyway). Its pretty common "I'm waiting to hear from X, could I please have Y more weeks to get back to you"

Do this before just accepting and rejecting. Contrary to what people tend to be promoting in here, while it isn't an "ethical" violation it will still likely piss someone off and you'll be amazed at when it will come back to bite you in the ass.

(that said, if push came to shove and you had an option to take dream job after accepting meh job, then you fucking do it)

Jsa725 wrote:enthusiastically accept B, then revoke if accepted by A. not a big deal. happens all the time. at will employment is a two-way street.

Just a little fix.

Anyone experiencing pressure (not necessarily anything threatening but they have indicated that they would like to know asap) from firms before the 28 day deadline has passed? My CSO is really skittish that I'm sitting on my only offer while waiting to hear from another firm. (I should say its making me skittish too...) Lots of fears of firms revoking offers floating about, I guess. Thoughts?

.

Couldn't you just tell your top choice that you have an exploding offer but make it clear you'd rather work for them? That way you wouldn't risk pissing off your bottom choice by saying you're waiting to hear from your top choice. Or is that not a good approach?

BuckinghamB wrote:Couldn't you just tell your top choice that you have an exploding offer but make it clear you'd rather work for them? That way you wouldn't risk pissing off your bottom choice by saying you're waiting to hear from your top choice. Or is that not a good approach?

Well, I'm on hold essentially. They'd just reject me. Although, I have sort of indicated to them that this is the case.