Top Law Schools

Before you mock, know that I already feel pretty stupid even asking this, but just want to make sure I'm not missing anything...

I agreed to lateral to a firm mid-summer (i.e., would not start for a couple more months) at a certain salary and with a moderate signing bonus (~$10K) to be paid out over my first several paychecks, but just got a call for an interview at a firm I had applied to ages ago. I would somewhat strongly prefer the work I would do at that firm and would expect an approximately equivalent salary, so I'm pretty sure I would renege on my first agreement if they offered me the job. However, the agreement I signed with the first firm could be read to imply that I could have to pay them the amount of the bonus if I do so; the specific language is to the effect of "if for any reason I do not become an employee of [firm] on [start date], I agree to repay the amount specified under this agreement...". Obviously I have not and will not have received anything yet, so I can't be made to "repay" anything, but could they demand $10K out of my own pocket for their trouble? Or is that just boilerplate language that doesn't apply in my case?

Again, I already feel stupid asking this, so you can keep those comments to yourselves, but having never gotten a signing bonus before (I was too happy at just getting my first job out of law school to bother trying to ask for one), I'm wondering if anyone has heard of anything this cutthroat ever happening...

I mean, the word "repay" implies that you'll give back what you've already received. If you haven't received anything, there will be nothing to repay.

SFSpartan wrote:I mean, the word "repay" implies that you'll give back what you've already received. If you haven't received anything, there will be nothing to repay.

Totally agree. You can't repay something you never received. It looks like they've used signing bonus language in the agreement when in fact you were getting an on-boarding bonus, only payable when you start.

With no payment to you, would there even be consideration to bind you? Was the employment offer binding on them or was it still "at will"?

albanach wrote:

SFSpartan wrote:I mean, the word "repay" implies that you'll give back what you've already received. If you haven't received anything, there will be nothing to repay.

Totally agree. You can't repay something you never received. It looks like they've used signing bonus language in the agreement when in fact you were getting an on-boarding bonus, only payable when you start.

With no payment to you, would there even be consideration to bind you? Was the employment offer binding on them or was it still "at will"?

OP here; this is my assumption as well. Presumably the firm just uses the same template agreement for bonuses paid at signing and bonuses paid on arrival with clawback language for each situation (there's also the standard one-year 100%, two-year 50% clawback for after I would start). It would certainly be at-will employment, like everything these days, but I could see an argument for some kind of reliance interest in my agreeing to take the job and incurring overhead costs for the firm, lost productivity while they have to find a replacement, etc. I'm sure I'm just being too much of a lawyer about it.

Anonymous User wrote:

albanach wrote:

SFSpartan wrote:I mean, the word "repay" implies that you'll give back what you've already received. If you haven't received anything, there will be nothing to repay.

Totally agree. You can't repay something you never received. It looks like they've used signing bonus language in the agreement when in fact you were getting an on-boarding bonus, only payable when you start.

With no payment to you, would there even be consideration to bind you? Was the employment offer binding on them or was it still "at will"?

OP here; this is my assumption as well. Presumably the firm just uses the same template agreement for bonuses paid at signing and bonuses paid on arrival with clawback language for each situation (there's also the standard one-year 100%, two-year 50% clawback for after I would start). It would certainly be at-will employment, like everything these days, but I could see an argument for some kind of reliance interest in my agreeing to take the job and incurring overhead costs for the firm, lost productivity while they have to find a replacement, etc. I'm sure I'm just being too much of a lawyer about it.

This language seems pretty clear...

They'd have to sue you to collect this. Do you really think they are going to do that? This would be on Above the Law in a millisecond.