Davis Polk C+F Check? Forum

[Anonymous User]

About to accept an offer with DPW in NY, but noticed a line in the offer letter saying "you know we have a history of hiring people with 'professional integrity' so this offer is contingent on criminal record check, background checks, employment eligiblity and academic misconduct and degree verification.'

I had a small, academic integrity C+F issue in early college more than 6 years ago. Got into a few t14s no problem and attend one now fully disclosing it. Do I have anything to worry about? I know the firm has a conservative culture so I'm a little nervous suddenly.

[911 crisis actor]

Can you imagine it getting you frogmarched out of your office by security guards like happened to that one dude at Cleary last summer?

If not, I probably wouldn't worry about it.

[nsideirish]

Can you imagine it getting you frogmarched out of your office by security guards like happened to that one dude at Cleary last summer?

If not, I probably wouldn't worry about it.

Story? ATL article?

[911 crisis actor]

http://abovethelaw.com/2013/06/top-law- ... inal-past/

[dixiecupdrinking]

Worry about the bar, not your firm.

[nsideirish]

http://abovethelaw.com/2013/06/top-law- ... inal-past/

Obliged.

[sublime]

..

[Anonymous User]

Similarly, I have a high school equivalency, not a diploma (obviously I also have a college degree). Does anyone think that might present an issue?

[AReasonableMan]

Doubt your high school diploma matters. I also don't know why Cleary wouldn't have done a background check if they care that much. Maybe he said/did something weird, but all you need to see someone's criminal record is $15 and a social security number. I don't get why they wouldn't do it before a CB. It's $15, saves time, and the person could have went to a firm that maybe would've been ok with his history (if one exists - I wouldn't want him near my family).

Generally, I wouldn't worry about firm background checks. If they ask, answer truthfully. Most are limited to criminality. I also don't know if the background check companies would know your school record or anything. For instance, I keep in touch with some of my past employers. No one was called. It's not c and f scrutiny. Frankly, it kinda seems like a scam where firms say they do due diligence, and the background check companies do a 3rd grade check.

[Elston Gunn]

Doubt your high school diploma matters. I also don't know why Cleary wouldn't have done a background check if they care that much. Maybe he said/did something weird, but all you need to see someone's criminal record is $15 and a social security number. I don't get why they wouldn't do it before a CB. It's $15, saves time, and the person could have went to a firm that maybe would've been ok with his history (if one exists - I wouldn't want him near my family).

Because he had consensual sex with a 16 year old when he was 18 you wouldn't want him near your family?

[AReasonableMan]

Doubt your high school diploma matters. I also don't know why Cleary wouldn't have done a background check if they care that much. Maybe he said/did something weird, but all you need to see someone's criminal record is $15 and a social security number. I don't get why they wouldn't do it before a CB. It's $15, saves time, and the person could have went to a firm that maybe would've been ok with his history (if one exists - I wouldn't want him near my family).

Because he had consensual sex with a 16 year old when he was 18 you wouldn't want him near your family?

It says forcible? Even if it wasn't, no I wouldn't want to be associated with him.

With google's formula, even if he won a Noble Prize, Superbowl MVP, cured cancer, and posed for Playboy, his sex offender registry status would show up as one of the first few things.

Now think about it from a business point of view. Prestige matters, partially, because it matters to clients. Do you think clients care more about the distinction between Columbia and Cornell, or the distinction between diddling kids and not diddling kids? Every time he is CC'd on a client e-mail, because of his status on the sex offender registry, the firm risks an angry/confused/concerned client.

If it's what you say, I would support a bill that will have his sex registry page say, "Engaged in consensual intercourse with 16-year old minor when he was 18." I empathize with him doing what many of us did, but getting in trouble for it. But I want to work and go home, not change the world.

[Elston Gunn]

Doubt your high school diploma matters. I also don't know why Cleary wouldn't have done a background check if they care that much. Maybe he said/did something weird, but all you need to see someone's criminal record is $15 and a social security number. I don't get why they wouldn't do it before a CB. It's $15, saves time, and the person could have went to a firm that maybe would've been ok with his history (if one exists - I wouldn't want him near my family).

Because he had consensual sex with a 16 year old when he was 18 you wouldn't want him near your family?

It says forcible? Even if it wasn't, no I wouldn't want to be associated with him.

With google's formula, even if he won a Noble Prize, Superbowl MVP, cured cancer, and posed for Playboy, his sex offender registry status would show up as one of the first few things.

Now think about it from a business point of view. Prestige matters, partially, because it matters to clients. Do you think clients care more about the distinction between Columbia and Cornell, or the distinction between diddling kids and not diddling kids? Every time he is CC'd on a client e-mail, because of his status on the sex offender registry, the firm risks an angry/confused/concerned client.

"A Pennsylvania source advises us that John Arganbright had a consensual sexual relationship with a minor while he was a student at Lower Merion High School. "

[AReasonableMan]

Doubt your high school diploma matters. I also don't know why Cleary wouldn't have done a background check if they care that much. Maybe he said/did something weird, but all you need to see someone's criminal record is $15 and a social security number. I don't get why they wouldn't do it before a CB. It's $15, saves time, and the person could have went to a firm that maybe would've been ok with his history (if one exists - I wouldn't want him near my family).

Because he had consensual sex with a 16 year old when he was 18 you wouldn't want him near your family?

It says forcible? Even if it wasn't, no I wouldn't want to be associated with him.

With google's formula, even if he won a Noble Prize, Superbowl MVP, cured cancer, and posed for Playboy, his sex offender registry status would show up as one of the first few things.

Now think about it from a business point of view. Prestige matters, partially, because it matters to clients. Do you think clients care more about the distinction between Columbia and Cornell, or the distinction between diddling kids and not diddling kids? Every time he is CC'd on a client e-mail, because of his status on the sex offender registry, the firm risks an angry/confused/concerned client.

"A Pennsylvania source advises us that John Arganbright had a consensual sexual relationship with a minor while he was a student at Lower Merion High School. "

Sucks. I agree he should not be on the registry, but stand by my original point. He is, and is therefore a liability. I would not have faith in laypeople searching further, and not concluding Firm X has pederasts. He's not a protected class, and your goal is to make a living, and go home, not change the world. I see no benefit in not equivocating registry status with auto-ding.

Back on point - for this reason, it is ridiculous to relate this to OP's concern. Clients and other lawyers will never know he cheated almost a decade ago, and that's assuming they would care. It only matters to the extent it's a liability for the bar (likely 0), and to the extent the recruiting department cares (likely 0).