Top Law Schools

There have been couple threads about reneging on offers in the past. ITE, I can get past the moral qualm of breaking one's word. Especially to good ol law firm. But beyond burning bridges, don't you have to worry about passing the C&F check for the bar/employer affidavits/questions about honesty etc.??? Maybe it's not that big of a consideration if you're staying in the private sector world, but if you're applying to gov. jobs and the firm doesn't really care about NALP guidelines (gasp)???

NALP guidelines aren't laws or real rules. They are voluntary.

also curious about this. Also wondering how likely you are to lose both jobs if you reneg on one in favor of the other. (think different cities). Need to let job A know before I'll hear back from jobs B&C in my preferred city.

Technically, according to NALP guidelines, you can release yourself from your acceptance:

"If, because of extraordinary and unforeseen circumstances, it becomes necessary for a candidate to modify or be released from his or her acceptance, both the employer and the office of career services should be notified promptly in writing." (from the NALP website)

unforseen circumstances seems pretty ambiguous to me.

OP

Didn't mean to imply that I thought NALP was anything more than voluntary.

If job A and B are in different cities or industries the burning bridges and/or losing both offers seems less likely. But it sounds like breaking your oral contract/offer letter is the kind of things C&F would take seriously and potentially screw you in a much larger way.

That's been my thinking on it, but given that there have been TLSers who renege/advocate reneging I'm wondering if the consequences aren't as bad as they seem..

Anonymous User wrote:But it sounds like breaking your oral contract/offer letter is the kind of things C&F would take seriously and potentially screw you in a much larger way.

What? No.

OP

?? I must have been unclear. Yeah these are at-will. How does that change the C&F question? Part of C&F is affidavits from previous legal employers. Theres a space reserved for any issues/complaints that the employer may want to point out. What I'm really wondering is has anybody reneged on employer A and then have A come back and screw him later on in the C&F arena

There's nothing to "screw you" on, you aren't required to take a job that's offered to you, and accepting a job offer doesn't lock you in to that job if a better offer comes around. It's the very definition of at-will employment. Either one of you can back out at any time.

Anonymous User wrote:OP

?? I must have been unclear. Yeah these are at-will. How does that change the C&F question? Part of C&F is affidavits from previous legal employers. Theres a space reserved for any issues/complaints that the employer may want to point out. What I'm really wondering is has anybody reneged on employer A and then have A come back and screw him later on in the C&F arena

If you didn't end up working for them (because you reneged), they're not a former legal employer, and won't get asked about you during the C&F process. It's who you've actually worked for, not anyone who's ever offered you a job.

This won't get you in trouble with C&F, as it's not really technically a violation of anything. NALP is all voluntary.

This is, however, a really bad career move. Forget the ethical quandary--you're now the guy whose word means fuck all, and if the old firm you gave your word to calls your new firm and both your offers get revoked, it would be entirely justified. It would need to be a really high-upside move, like your one chance to breaking into Biglaw or something. Don't break your word to Paul Hastings because Latham called.

A. Nony Mouse wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:OP

?? I must have been unclear. Yeah these are at-will. How does that change the C&F question? Part of C&F is affidavits from previous legal employers. Theres a space reserved for any issues/complaints that the employer may want to point out. What I'm really wondering is has anybody reneged on employer A and then have A come back and screw him later on in the C&F arena

If you didn't end up working for them (because you reneged), they're not a former legal employer, and won't get asked about you during the C&F process. It's who you've actually worked for, not anyone who's ever offered you a job.

I'm talking about the law firm you spent your 2L summer at extending you an offer. They're still your previous legal employer for that summer no?

Anonymous User wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:OP

?? I must have been unclear. Yeah these are at-will. How does that change the C&F question? Part of C&F is affidavits from previous legal employers. Theres a space reserved for any issues/complaints that the employer may want to point out. What I'm really wondering is has anybody reneged on employer A and then have A come back and screw him later on in the C&F arena

If you didn't end up working for them (because you reneged), they're not a former legal employer, and won't get asked about you during the C&F process. It's who you've actually worked for, not anyone who's ever offered you a job.

I'm talking about the law firm you spent your 2L summer at extending you an offer. They're still your previous legal employer for that summer no?

Oh, that makes more sense (I was assuming you were talking about offers for SAs). Still, at-will employment. Quitting a job isn't a C&F issue. All they could say is "s/he accepted a job and then left." But they wouldn't bother because there isn't anything illegal or unethical about that - burning bridges may have negative consequences sometimes, but that doesn't make it an ethics issue. And they're not going to bother making something up just to screw with you because you burned your bridges, because they don't care that much.

What Nony said. C&F only relates to ethical issues. Reneging on a job offer may burn bridges, but it isn't an ethical issue.

Monochromatic Oeuvre wrote:This won't get you in trouble with C&F, as it's not really technically a violation of anything. NALP is all voluntary.

This is, however, a really bad career move. Forget the ethical quandary--you're now the guy whose word means fuck all, and if the old firm you gave your word to calls your new firm and both your offers get revoked, it would be entirely justified. It would need to be a really high-upside move, like your one chance to breaking into Biglaw or something. Don't break your word to Paul Hastings because Latham called.

OP, no offense to this guy ^^^, but he doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.

At-will employment means firms rescind offers every year. Several firms across the country, big and small, hundreds of offers every year are rescinded by law firms. It's the nature of the beast. And on the flip-side, I have NEVER heard of a single person losing a job offer because they bailed on a (wholly unenforceable) promise to work for a different employer.

kalvano wrote:There's nothing to "screw you" on, you aren't required to take a job that's offered to you, and accepting a job offer doesn't lock you in to that job if a better offer comes around. It's the very definition of at-will employment. Either one of you can back out at any time.

This.

smallfirmassociate wrote:

Monochromatic Oeuvre wrote:This won't get you in trouble with C&F, as it's not really technically a violation of anything. NALP is all voluntary.

This is, however, a really bad career move. Forget the ethical quandary--you're now the guy whose word means fuck all, and if the old firm you gave your word to calls your new firm and both your offers get revoked, it would be entirely justified. It would need to be a really high-upside move, like your one chance to breaking into Biglaw or something. Don't break your word to Paul Hastings because Latham called.

OP, no offense to this guy ^^^, but he doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.

At-will employment means firms rescind offers every year. Several firms across the country, big and small, hundreds of offers every year are rescinded by law firms. It's the nature of the beast. And on the flip-side, I have NEVER heard of a single person losing a job offer because they bailed on a (wholly unenforceable) promise to work for a different employer.

TBF those firms, like Brown Rudnick, take a hit to their reputation when they do it. I think that's MO's main point, even though he makes it a little hyperbolic. Reputation is generally considered to be a valuable commodity for an attorney and welching could potentially diminish someone's reputation a bit.

Also, rescinding offers because there isn't enough work is a little different anyways. This would be like rescinding an offer because the firm had the opportunity to hire someone from a better school.

smallfirmassociate wrote:

Monochromatic Oeuvre wrote:This won't get you in trouble with C&F, as it's not really technically a violation of anything. NALP is all voluntary.

This is, however, a really bad career move. Forget the ethical quandary--you're now the guy whose word means fuck all, and if the old firm you gave your word to calls your new firm and both your offers get revoked, it would be entirely justified. It would need to be a really high-upside move, like your one chance to breaking into Biglaw or something. Don't break your word to Paul Hastings because Latham called.

OP, no offense to this guy ^^^, but he doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.

At-will employment means firms rescind offers every year. Several firms across the country, big and small, hundreds of offers every year are rescinded by law firms. It's the nature of the beast. And on the flip-side, I have NEVER heard of a single person losing a job offer because they bailed on a (wholly unenforceable) promise to work for a different employer.

It has happened. I dunno how likely because not enough people renege on their offers for their to be some kind of sufficient sample, but it's not a made-up thing. As an associate you don't have a hell of a lot besides your reputation. This is a surprisingly small industry. People talk, word gets out fast, and shit lists have surprising staying power.

Brown Rudnick is probably a good analogy for the "Oh, reneging happens all the time so whatever" crowd--a highly toxic place that people are avoiding unless they have no other options.

I'm not saying there's no possible scenario in which it would make sense to bite the bullet and take the reputational hit (and possibly more tangible risks), I'm just saying that if you're gonna play with fire, the grass had better be A LOT greener on the other side.

Eh, I still say to go where your heart is. I've seriously never had anything remotely close to the following conversation with another person/attorney: "Yeah, Attorney X, he's a good guy. I like him, and he seems to know his shit. But I just can't trust him. When he was a 2L, he fucking reneged on his offer from Shitstain Muddick and instead went to Shartsis & Freetos' corporate division. We're talking a total asshole here when it comes down to it, Bob."

Srsly, nobody cares. The only people who care are your CSO workers, because the firms might bitch to them.

Monochromatic Oeuvre wrote: Brown Rudnick is probably a good analogy for the "Oh, reneging happens all the time so whatever" crowd--a highly toxic place that people are avoiding unless they have no other options.

This should be obvious, but the damage done to a law firm when a law student reneges is incomparably tiny compared to the damage done to a law student when a law firm reneges. There's a good reason Brown Rudnick is vilified. I agree with you that burning bridges is probably not a great idea, but let's be honest, the firm isn't losing sleep over one less SA.

rickgrimes69 wrote:

Monochromatic Oeuvre wrote: Brown Rudnick is probably a good analogy for the "Oh, reneging happens all the time so whatever" crowd--a highly toxic place that people are avoiding unless they have no other options.

This should be obvious, but the damage done to a law firm when a law student reneges is incomparably tiny compared to the damage done to a law student when a law firm reneges. There's a good reason Brown Rudnick is vilified. I agree with you that burning bridges is probably not a great idea, but let's be honest, the firm isn't losing sleep over one less SA.

Right, but the flipside is that there's more reputational harm done to an individual than to a firm. End of the day, Latham and Weil can fuck people over and will still have ten times as many qualified applicants as they can take. On the flip side, people have been entirely blacklisted out of Biglaw before. To be fair, that's mostly reserved for people who earned the label of "severe liability." You can think as that as the individual version of Dewey.

Monochromatic Oeuvre wrote:

rickgrimes69 wrote:

Monochromatic Oeuvre wrote: Brown Rudnick is probably a good analogy for the "Oh, reneging happens all the time so whatever" crowd--a highly toxic place that people are avoiding unless they have no other options.

This should be obvious, but the damage done to a law firm when a law student reneges is incomparably tiny compared to the damage done to a law student when a law firm reneges. There's a good reason Brown Rudnick is vilified. I agree with you that burning bridges is probably not a great idea, but let's be honest, the firm isn't losing sleep over one less SA.

Right, but the flipside is that there's more reputational harm done to an individual than to a firm. End of the day, Latham and Weil can fuck people over and will still have ten times as many qualified applicants as they can take. On the flip side, people have been entirely blacklisted out of Biglaw before. To be fair, that's mostly reserved for people who earned the label of "severe liability." You can think as that as the individual version of Dewey.

Source on individual blacklist? I do not believe that for a second.

In the past few weeks I’ve heard some wild horror stories about people who reneged. Not every partner blows it off, some actively take it as a personal affront. If you are considering reneging, you best gauge the temperament of the person you’re dealing with and make certain your disclose to your new firm that you are reneging (especially if your new firm is in the same city).

twenty 8 wrote:In the past few weeks I’ve heard some wild horror stories about people who reneged. Not every partner blows it off, some actively take it as a personal affront. If you are considering reneging, you best gauge the temperament of the person you’re dealing with and make certain your disclose to your new firm that you are reneging (especially if your new firm is in the same city).

I reneged on my offer and I knew a couple other people from school who did as well since we were all at 3l oci. I have no idea what any of you are talking about. I ended up with four offers including 2 from law firms and no one cared about my other firm. I'm just not sure where you guys are getting this from. I talked to quite a few people before I decided to renege on my offers and literally no one said they experienced anything like you guys are mentioning.

What most people said here is correct. I would add the 6 months later, no one remembers or cares, unless you reneged in some memorable fashion. So just take whatever job you want and move on.

wildcatatpenn wrote:

Monochromatic Oeuvre wrote:
Right, but the flipside is that there's more reputational harm done to an individual than to a firm. End of the day, Latham and Weil can fuck people over and will still have ten times as many qualified applicants as they can take. On the flip side, people have been entirely blacklisted out of Biglaw before. To be fair, that's mostly reserved for people who earned the label of "severe liability." You can think as that as the individual version of Dewey.

Source on individual blacklist? I do not believe that for a second.

It goes without saying that fraud and malpractice can get you shut out. As for the rest, I'm sure there's lots of matters that never made the news, but there are enough public ones to make the point. My personal favorite is the "superior legal mind" guy who sued Kasowitz for boring him as a first-year.

unc0mm0n1 wrote:

twenty 8 wrote:In the past few weeks I’ve heard some wild horror stories about people who reneged. Not every partner blows it off, some actively take it as a personal affront. If you are considering reneging, you best gauge the temperament of the person you’re dealing with and make certain your disclose to your new firm that you are reneging (especially if your new firm is in the same city).

I reneged on my offer and I knew a couple other people from school who did as well since we were all at 3l oci. I have no idea what any of you are talking about. I ended up with four offers including 2 from law firms and no one cared about my other firm. I'm just not sure where you guys are getting this from. I talked to quite a few people before I decided to renege on my offers and literally no one said they experienced anything like you guys are mentioning.

I've had a couple of people tell me that in interviewing for lateral associates they are skeptical of people that jump ship too quick. It's like that old Ginuwine song "you're telling me it's different, but what the hell is different? If you cheated on him you'll do it to me"

I've also heard people say it doesn't matter. Like I said, I think MO is being a bit hyperbolic. But sometimes you can really be surprised about what a burnt bridge does several years down the line.