Top Law Schools

So I started working as a junior in house counsel at a small company (the legal department is just me and the GC) 3 months ago straight out of law school. When I first got the job the offer letter stated that the first 3 months will be probationary period. Well the 3 months will be up next Monday and the GC told me today that she will be letting me go and start looking for someone more experienced. She said the reason for my termination is unsatisfactory performance (on my defense, I was thrown onto stuff that I had never seen in my life w/o any kind of training whatsoever and the GC knew from the get go that I had 0 experience).

She told me I might want to consider submitting a letter of resignation instead of being let go.

What should I do? I am under the impression that she wants me to just resign, and I don't want to burn any bridges.

How does severance work? Are there unemployment considerations?

smaug wrote:How does severance work? Are there unemployment considerations?

If it was a probationary period, I'd bet there's no unemployment or severance available.

ETA: I'd write the resignation letter. It's still going to look sketchy on your resume, but at least you can say no when they asked if you were fired.

Resign.

Further, have a conversation and ask if it is possible that you could explain the three months as something was meant to be temporary from the outset. Perhaps she could offer you a decent reference so as to not stymy your career? Never hurts to ask.

^^^No, don't resign, they're trying to screw you out of unemployment insurance, which you need. That's why they want it in writing. Tell them you'll resign in exchange for severance. Either way, never put them on your resume. Problem solved.

It doesn't matter if they call it "probationary" what matters is the unemployment rules for the state you're in. None of us knows what those are. Find those regulations and read them to find out what you're looking at. But 99% sure they're not telling you this as a "favor" to you, they're telling you this because it helps them and they're terrible.

They are trying to screw you out of any unemployment.

As much as it may hurt to get fired, I'd just let them rather than resign at this point (unless you agree to resign for a negotiated severance of some kind). Any serious background check (or bar application) asked whether you've ever been fired or asked to resign in lieu of firing, so the situation will inevitably come up in the future either way. I don't think any employer is seriously going to have trouble believing they let you go to hire someone with more experience if you're 3 months into being a lawyer.

Sucks. Sorry.

Uhhh at least in my state a resignation in lieu of termination is a termination for unemployment purposes, so this is immaterial

The unemployment rules look like they vary quite a bit from state to state. Pretty tough to provide generalized advice here.

LeDique wrote:Uhhh at least in my state a resignation in lieu of termination is a termination for unemployment purposes, so this is immaterial

I used to work for unemployment in NJ determining who's eligible and this is indeed how it worked there. OP if you're in NJ by any chance, take that for what it's worth.

Does s/he even qualify for unemployment if s/he was there for only three months?

Edit: I've never heard of a state that wouldn't require at least two calendar quarters.

omar1 wrote:Does s/he even qualify for unemployment if s/he was there for only three months?

Edit: I've never heard of a state that wouldn't require at least two calendar quarters.

CO only requires you to have made $2500. I hope working as an attorney this person made more than $2500 in 3 months.

I think by now it is clear that what Mark said is precisely right: it depends what state you are in because these are a creature of state statute. Unemployment everywhere is designed to be accessible to the average person, so you honestly should have zero problem figuring out how it works in your state

If you get unemployment for this, I mean, it doesn't have to be the worst thing in the world. You'll get another job. In the meantime, I've heard Alaska is beautiful this time of year.

OP here.

I am eligible for unemployment so I think I will just let them fire me. I was worried about having a red flag on my resume but I guess voluntarily resigning after just 3 months isn't going to look good either.

Thanks all.

Just keep in mind that you apply for fed gov jobs, they will ask if you have ever been fired from a job and some of them run more extensive background checks by speaking with your former coworkers/employers. I don't know if you ever wanted to do fed gov, but that's something to keep in mind.

not op, but it's hard to believe an employer could be so calloused against their own (former) employee. sorry to hear this OP i think you should stick it to them and let them fire you. You are 3 months out of law school and I think this could be easily excusable. Just stay under the radar and don't give them anymore reasons to talk bad about you to any third party.

Hmmm do you really need to write a 3 month job on the resume? You were on a probation and it did not work out.

I don't think so unless interviewers ask you to write all the full-time jobs on the resume. You will need to tell it to interviewers, though if they ask you what you have been doing after graduation, but seriously... on the resume? To me, it even looks like showing poor judgement.

I'd like to get other thoughts on this.

the concept of a probationary period is literally meaningless in the US

El Pollito wrote:the concept of a probationary period is literally meaningless in the US

BLL: Employment at will is the general rule, except that there is literally nothing not covered by an exception.

MarkinKansasCity wrote:

El Pollito wrote:the concept of a probationary period is literally meaningless in the US

BLL: Employment at will is the general rule, except that there is literally nothing not covered by an exception.

but not really

El Pollito wrote:

MarkinKansasCity wrote:

El Pollito wrote:the concept of a probationary period is literally meaningless in the US

BLL: Employment at will is the general rule, except that there is literally nothing not covered by an exception.

but not really

Don't start trying to nuance me just because you know what you're talking about. I'll have none of it.

El Pollito wrote:

MarkinKansasCity wrote:

El Pollito wrote:the concept of a probationary period is literally meaningless in the US

BLL: Employment at will is the general rule, except that there is literally nothing not covered by an exception.

but not really

does it make a difference for unemployment if a firm specifically makes you go through an agency and get hired on as a contract worker for that probationary period?

I interviewed for an investment advisor that did this. And to be fair they seemed like a terrible place to work. One of the younger lawyers seemed like he was about to cry during the interview as he explained, "the founder will yell at you a lot, but it's to help you learn. He really does yell a lot..."

considering employment at will is the general rule, I just presume places that emphasize their probationary period might be really shitty places to work

JenDarby wrote:

El Pollito wrote:

MarkinKansasCity wrote:

El Pollito wrote:the concept of a probationary period is literally meaningless in the US

BLL: Employment at will is the general rule, except that there is literally nothing not covered by an exception.

but not really

does it make a difference for unemployment if a firm specifically makes you go through an agency and get hired on as a contract worker for that probationary period?

I interviewed for an investment advisor that did this. And to be fair they seemed like a terrible place to work. One of the younger lawyers seemed like he was about to cry during the interview as he explained, "the founder will yell at you a lot, but it's to help you learn. He really does yell a lot..."

considering employment at will is the general rule, I just presume places that emphasize their probationary period might be really shitty places to work

Speaking of awkward interviews, I just had an interview at a midsize firm where a 2nd year associate kept telling me "We work long hours here. Longer than any other firms nearby. We have a 10 hour billable requirement per day and work weekends. We also get paid far less than market average but the firm tries to make that up with bonus incentives." That associate said it in a really combative tone and locked eye contact with me for like a good minute without anyone saying a thing. It didn't occur to me that she meant 2400 hrs was the requirement. Why do firms do this? Defense firms are the worst.

Anonymous User wrote:

JenDarby wrote:

El Pollito wrote:

MarkinKansasCity wrote:

El Pollito wrote:the concept of a probationary period is literally meaningless in the US

BLL: Employment at will is the general rule, except that there is literally nothing not covered by an exception.

but not really

does it make a difference for unemployment if a firm specifically makes you go through an agency and get hired on as a contract worker for that probationary period?

I interviewed for an investment advisor that did this. And to be fair they seemed like a terrible place to work. One of the younger lawyers seemed like he was about to cry during the interview as he explained, "the founder will yell at you a lot, but it's to help you learn. He really does yell a lot..."

considering employment at will is the general rule, I just presume places that emphasize their probationary period might be really shitty places to work

Speaking of awkward interviews, I just had an interview at a midsize firm where a 2nd year associate kept telling me "We work long hours here. Longer than any other firms nearby. We have a 10 hour billable requirement per day and work weekends. We also get paid far less than market average but the firm tries to make that up with bonus incentives." That associate said it in a really combative tone and locked eye contact with me for like a good minute without anyone saying a thing. It didn't occur to me that she meant 2400 hrs was the requirement. Why do firms do this? Defense firms are the worst.

Seems like she would probably have to have that attitude just to keep from going crazy.

JenDarby wrote:

El Pollito wrote:

MarkinKansasCity wrote:

El Pollito wrote:the concept of a probationary period is literally meaningless in the US

BLL: Employment at will is the general rule, except that there is literally nothing not covered by an exception.

but not really

does it make a difference for unemployment if a firm specifically makes you go through an agency and get hired on as a contract worker for that probationary period?

I interviewed for an investment advisor that did this. And to be fair they seemed like a terrible place to work. One of the younger lawyers seemed like he was about to cry during the interview as he explained, "the founder will yell at you a lot, but it's to help you learn. He really does yell a lot..."

considering employment at will is the general rule, I just presume places that emphasize their probationary period might be really shitty places to work

that's beyond sketchy, although i don't think it would impact unemployment on the employee's end.

i've seen foreign companies innocently adopt a probationary period in the US because they're the norm in non-at will countries, but any company that advertises the probationary period to prospective employees has to be toxic.