Got fired, have some questions. Forum

[BeeTeeZ]

You shouldn't lie to prospective employers.

Word Count: [5]

This (and similar posts) isn't helpful. Nobody is encouraging OP to lie. To be clear, OP, if you are asked if you were fired or let go, be honest. . .

Don't tell people you were fired, say you left and make up a reason. That avoids this whole issue. . . .
As a general rule, never admit to being fired for exactly this reason.

You're right, nobody was encouraging OP to lie. . .
And then you ultimately draw the same conclusion in 17 words that I concluded in 5. Interesting.

[rcharter1978]

Thanks for the additional advice rcharter1978 and AVBucks4239. So if I keep it vague to "I don't work at [FIRM] anymore, it just wasn't a good fit" that would be sufficient? They're not going to just ask any follow-up questions or expect me to elaborate?

Here are my thoughts on that

1. If someone is taking the time to interview you, it's because they are somewhat inclined to hire you, or at least that's been my experience, so they aren't looking for reasons to disqualify you. Volunteering that you were fired gives someone a reason to disqualify you.

2. I think it's generally accepted that "it wasn't a good fit" is a judicious way of saying that someone was untenable at your last job. I think it's kind of a classy way to say it. I guess someone could ask you to elaborate, and you should have a judicious follow up handy. You shouldn't lie, but maybe something like you didn't like the geographic location, you wanted to try something new, something about xyz firm or what they do really felt like more of a natural fit for your interests. Whatever you say should be true and could be true because a place could not be a good fit for a lot of reasons. And honestly, it would seem weird if someone kept pushing you beyond that, but if they do just tell the truth and go onto the next one.

3. Maybe they ask more and maybe they don't. But you better your chances that they don't ask if you give a brief, judicious answer. People know, adults who have lives should know that sometimes people have personality conflicts at a job, it doesn't make either person a bad person, it's literally just not a good fit. Doesn't mean that person won't fit in somewhere else, just means that they didn't fit in there. Saying it simply wasn't a good fit isn't trashing your former employer, but it's kinda saying that it wasn't a good personality fit.

IMO, of course

[nixy]

You shouldn't lie to prospective employers.

Word Count: [5]

This (and similar posts) isn't helpful. Nobody is encouraging OP to lie. To be clear, OP, if you are asked if you were fired or let go, be honest. . .

Don't tell people you were fired, say you left and make up a reason. That avoids this whole issue. . . .
As a general rule, never admit to being fired for exactly this reason.

You're right, nobody was encouraging OP to lie. . .
And then you ultimately draw the same conclusion in 17 words that I concluded in 5. Interesting.

Except he went on to add additional advice about what the OP actually could do instead.

[minnbills]

This really isn't complicated. OP got let go by a screamer. All s/he has to do is say there was an issue with fit.

Don't lie, but no reason to get into a big fact pattern about this. Sounds like OP did nothing wrong. Just had the bad luck of running into a shitty boss.

[Clytemnestra3]

I think your general rule should be: try to move the conversation away from why you don’t work there anymore. So if they ask you about your old job don’t say anything that would make them suspicious. Talk enthusiastically about the things you enjoyed there and then shift to talking about what types of things you are looking to do next which your old job couldn’t provide.

Also, try to run out the clock by asking lots of questions about the new potential job.

It’s unlikely anyone will ask you point blank if you were fired. If they do, I agree with everyone else who said just to reply “poor fit”. Even if that torpedos your chances in the interview, you’ll have other interviews where they won’t ask you that.

It’s important to start the interview without any sense of shame or embarrassment. You are a great associate who did well at his/her old job and will do well at the next job. That’s the mentality you want to go in with. Otherwise, the interviewer may get suspicious. Good luck!

[beeoBoop]

You shouldn't lie to prospective employers.

Word Count: [5]

This (and similar posts) isn't helpful. Nobody is encouraging OP to lie. To be clear, OP, if you are asked if you were fired or let go, be honest. . .

Don't tell people you were fired, say you left and make up a reason. That avoids this whole issue. . . .
As a general rule, never admit to being fired for exactly this reason.

You're right, nobody was encouraging OP to lie. . .
And then you ultimately draw the same conclusion in 17 words that I concluded in 5. Interesting.

Except he went on to add additional advice about what the OP actually could do instead.

You should chill out. By make up a reason I'm saying spin it as not a good fit, a broad practice when you'd prefer to specialize, etc. OP isn't obligated to say the words "I was fired" when asked why he's leaving.

This thread has gone off the rails with suggestions of bar discipline/being disbarred.

[nixy]

I don't have any problem with your advice, just your pointless snark about another poster who used more words than you did.

[BeeTeeZ]

I don't have any problem with your advice, just your pointless snark about another poster who used more words than you did.

First, you can't even keep straight who you're criticizing. The "advice" you're responding to here was given by beeoBoop, but the "pointless snark" you (presumably) were upset by was given by me. Try to be a little more deliberate with your posts so the rest of us can follow along more easily.

Second, my "snark" was not pointless. The point I was making was that the poster who criticized me for giving advice that wasn't helpful (i.e., don't lie to prospective employers) arrived at the same conclusion. I value concise writing, hence my mention of word count.

Third, your (earlier) observation that the poster who criticized me "add[ed] additional advice" shows you have a keen grasp of the obvious. But the additional advice came in the form of not-on-point hypotheticals, didn't speak to OP's specific situation, and ate up yet another 140 words.

So in sum, my "not helpful" advice conveyed the same message as the (less efficient) advice given by the very poster who criticized me. I think some degree of snark was appropriate here, and it certainly wasn't pointless: if you attack someone's advice for being "not helpful," don't follow by offering the same advice in 31x more words.

[nixy]

You’re right, I mixed up BeeTeeZ and beeoBoop, my apologies for getting the Bs and Es confused.

I still don’t think saying “I said the same thing as you in fewer words” adds anything to the conversation.

[ghostoftraynor]

I don't have any problem with your advice, just your pointless snark about another poster who used more words than you did.

First, you can't even keep straight who you're criticizing. The "advice" you're responding to here was given by beeoBoop, but the "pointless snark" you (presumably) were upset by was given by me. Try to be a little more deliberate with your posts so the rest of us can follow along more easily.

Second, my "snark" was not pointless. The point I was making was that the poster who criticized me for giving advice that wasn't helpful (i.e., don't lie to prospective employers) arrived at the same conclusion. I value concise writing, hence my mention of word count.

Third, your (earlier) observation that the poster who criticized me "add[ed] additional advice" shows you have a keen grasp of the obvious. But the additional advice came in the form of not-on-point hypotheticals, didn't speak to OP's specific situation, and ate up yet another 140 words.

So in sum, my "not helpful" advice conveyed the same message as the (less efficient) advice given by the very poster who criticized me. I think some degree of snark was appropriate here, and it certainly wasn't pointless: if you attack someone's advice for being "not helpful," don't follow by offering the same advice in 31x more words.

This was a lot of words. Still not helpful.

[LaLiLuLeLo]

Why waste time say lot word when few word do trick?

[BeeTeeZ]

I don't have any problem with your advice, just your pointless snark about another poster who used more words than you did.

First, you can't even keep straight who you're criticizing. The "advice" you're responding to here was given by beeoBoop, but the "pointless snark" you (presumably) were upset by was given by me. Try to be a little more deliberate with your posts so the rest of us can follow along more easily.

Second, my "snark" was not pointless. The point I was making was that the poster who criticized me for giving advice that wasn't helpful (i.e., don't lie to prospective employers) arrived at the same conclusion. I value concise writing, hence my mention of word count.

Third, your (earlier) observation that the poster who criticized me "add[ed] additional advice" shows you have a keen grasp of the obvious. But the additional advice came in the form of not-on-point hypotheticals, didn't speak to OP's specific situation, and ate up yet another 140 words.

So in sum, my "not helpful" advice conveyed the same message as the (less efficient) advice given by the very poster who criticized me. I think some degree of snark was appropriate here, and it certainly wasn't pointless: if you attack someone's advice for being "not helpful," don't follow by offering the same advice in 31x more words.

This was a lot of words. Still not helpful.

You got pwned and have nothing to say, but using/wasting only 9 words is still progress. I'm glad to see you learned your lesson.

[BeeTeeZ]

You’re right, I mixed up BeeTeeZ and beeoBoop, my apologies for getting the Bs and Es confused.

I still don’t think saying “I said the same thing as you in fewer words” adds anything to the conversation.

You also got the T, O's, Z, and P confused.

Thanks for sharing, you've added a lot to the conversation.

[Tenzen]

That poster is wrong, who said it is a violation of the rules of professional conduct to fail to disclose you were fired.

I hesitated before replying here, because this is clearly no longer relevant to the OP. I decided to follow up, since it's downright scary how many lawyers posting here think that lying to get a job isn't proscribed by their state's PR rules. But you're definitely hot shit for knowing that the MRPC are just model rules. I don't know how anyone would know that without reading the title.

As far as I know, every jurisdiction has adopted some form of MRPC 8.4, which explicitly forbids "conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, or misrepresentation." For those of you playing along at home, actively lying about why you left a job is dishonest. Again, this isn't what the OP is talking about, so this is more for the people who kept insisting that employers can't talk about you getting fired and that you can make up any story you like to make yourself look good. Neither of those things is true, even if some firms (usually big ones) have a policy of keeping quiet in this area.

TLDR: don't lie.

You have yet to identify the state OP lives in and prove that it is a violation of that state's ethical laws.

I'm not asking you to actually find that information out. I'm saying you can't know whether OP is violating his state's rules unless you know which states she practices in.

[AVBucks4239]

Why waste time say lot word when few word do trick?

Kevin from The Office, right?

[objctnyrhnr]

You know sometimes you read some really rambly borderline incoherent posts on this forum. Usually original posts from fairly new posters. That, certainly, is not ideal.

That said, I’m just feeling like the sudden focus on this thread on who can say what in fewer words or more words or whatever is a little unwarranted. We come to this thread to read people’s opinions on shit. The idea that 3 short coherent paragraphs (in response to a question) are inherently bad when like 1 sentence is better just seems a bit absurd to me. The former (referring now to the post discussed above) is absolutely a very reasonable way of the above poster’s making his/her point.

If the other poster somewhere above “likes things more concise” or whatever, it is completely within that person’s prerogative to skim or not read posts above a certain length...or to just not be on tls at all. But again to criticize completely sensical, reasonable posts for their length here is ridiculous.

[BeeTeeZ]

You know sometimes you read some really rambly borderline incoherent posts on this forum. Usually original posts from fairly new posters. That, certainly, is not ideal.

That said, I’m just feeling like the sudden focus on this thread on who can say what in fewer words or more words or whatever is a little unwarranted. We come to this thread to read people’s opinions on shit. The idea that 3 short coherent paragraphs (in response to a question) are inherently bad when like 1 sentence is better just seems a bit absurd to me. The former (referring now to the post discussed above) is absolutely a very reasonable way of the above poster’s making his/her point.

If the other poster somewhere above “likes things more concise” or whatever, it is completely within that person’s prerogative to skim or not read posts above a certain length...or to just not be on tls at all. But again to criticize completely sensical, reasonable posts for their length here is ridiculous.

I didn't initiate criticism against anyone for anything. I gave a short answer to OP's question, and my post was criticized for being "not helpful." I then noted that the person criticizing me said the same thing in more words.

Pointing out the inconsistencies of someone criticizing you does not a word police make. The issue was the validity of my answer to OP's question: word count was coincidental.

[ghostoftraynor]

Bear with me, this will take more than five words.

There seems to be two general views here. The first is do not lie, you must disclose that you were fired. I was taught in Sunday school that failure to tell a material fact is a lie. And, indeed, there are scenarios where failure to disclose material facts opens you up to legal liability. As my examples were meant to illustrate, however, a job interview is not one of those scenarios.

The other view is don't lie, but don't disclose (unless asked directly).

Reading your initial post, I definitely thought you were in the first camp. Now it appears you are in the second, but how was anyone supposed to know that? That's why your post wasn't helpful. Especially in a situation where OP is undoubtedly stressed, and some posters are spitting out model rules.

Finally, no, word count was not coincidental. You weirdly counted the words in your own post (and mine). I'm also like concision, but your post wasn't concise (i.e., nothing about your post was comprehensive).

[BeeTeeZ]

. . . Finally, no, word count was not coincidental. You weirdly counted the words in your own post (and mine). I'm also like concision, but your post wasn't concise (i.e., nothing about your post was comprehensive).

Thanks for fleshing out what "don't lie" means. And yes, word count was coincidental. Had your post been equally concise your criticism would have been equally inconsistent: you said my post wasn't helpful and then drew the same conclusion--word count notwithstanding.

Happy Easter.

[Sprinkler]

I know that at my firm (and my previous one) when they terminated someone the dismissed person stayed on the payroll for 60-90 days and their presence on the firm’s net site also stayed intact. Is there any particular reason why your firm did not offer this courtesy?

[QContinuum]

I know that at my firm (and my previous one) when they terminated someone the dismissed person stayed on the payroll for 60-90 days and their presence on the firm’s net site also stayed intact. Is there any particular reason why your firm did not offer this courtesy?

• OP's previous firm was a tiny one, so may not follow the same practices as the giants we're more accustomed to here on TLS.
• OP may actually have stayed up on the site, unless I'm forgetting something OP didn't say either way.
• The issue was with OP freely volunteering, unprompted, the information that he was "fired," which understandably raised a red flag to prospective employers.