BigLaw "guaranteed offer" meaning?

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
anon65000

New
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2019 10:46 am

BigLaw "guaranteed offer" meaning?

Post by anon65000 » Tue Apr 28, 2020 12:09 pm

A number of law firms have reduced the duration of SA programs, pro-rated pay, and guaranteed return offers to 2Ls. The state of the economy in 2021 is unpredictable, and I am sure the "guarantee" carries little weight if the economy continues to plunge.

I don't think any major law firm has rescinded offers to incoming associates (graduating 3Ls) just yet.

Is that a somewhat positive sign that current 2L SAs with guaranteed offers will *likely* be employed after graduation as well? Or is the state of the economy just too speculative at this point to make any predictions (i.e., maybe economic conditions will worsen in 2021)?

Should these SAs continue to be on the look-out for back-up employment just in case?

objctnyrhnr

Moderator
Posts: 1328
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2013 2:44 am

Re: BigLaw "guaranteed offer" meaning?

Post by objctnyrhnr » Tue Apr 28, 2020 12:18 pm

I think that you have no choice but to rely upon that promise and that such reliance would be reasonable...

(I have a theory I floated in another thread that you could sue for specific performance via promissory estoppel if a firm rescinds in this situation)

I also don’t know why this promise of employment to begin some time in the future would necessarily be more reliable than another firm’s offer you could theoretically procure (if that’s even possible ITE).

I think you probably have no choice but to ride it out. That said, I personally would feel even better in your shoes if I could line up a clerkship. I’d guess that the firm would jump at the chance to defer you for 1-2 years for the clerkship. I also don’t think there’s a comparable risk of the judge rescinding a clerkship offer.

ClubberLang

Bronze
Posts: 339
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 11:34 am

Re: BigLaw "guaranteed offer" meaning?

Post by ClubberLang » Tue Apr 28, 2020 1:25 pm

objctnyrhnr wrote:I think that you have no choice but to rely upon that promise and that such reliance would be reasonable...

(I have a theory I floated in another thread that you could sue for specific performance via promissory estoppel if a firm rescinds in this situation)

I also don’t know why this promise of employment to begin some time in the future would necessarily be more reliable than another firm’s offer you could theoretically procure (if that’s even possible ITE).

I think you probably have no choice but to ride it out. That said, I personally would feel even better in your shoes if I could line up a clerkship. I’d guess that the firm would jump at the chance to defer you for 1-2 years for the clerkship. I also don’t think there’s a comparable risk of the judge rescinding a clerkship offer.
If someone successfully sued for specific performance under this theory, couldn't the firm just hire you for a day and then fire you the next because it is employment at will?

OP - I would take firms at their word, but I would not assume that these "guarantees" create any kind of legal obligation.

proudgunner

New
Posts: 81
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2020 9:54 pm

Re: BigLaw "guaranteed offer" meaning?

Post by proudgunner » Tue Apr 28, 2020 1:47 pm

objctnyrhnr wrote:I think that you have no choice but to rely upon that promise and that such reliance would be reasonable...

(I have a theory I floated in another thread that you could sue for specific performance via promissory estoppel if a firm rescinds in this situation)

I also don’t know why this promise of employment to begin some time in the future would necessarily be more reliable than another firm’s offer you could theoretically procure (if that’s even possible ITE).

I think you probably have no choice but to ride it out. That said, I personally would feel even better in your shoes if I could line up a clerkship. I’d guess that the firm would jump at the chance to defer you for 1-2 years for the clerkship. I also don’t think there’s a comparable risk of the judge rescinding a clerkship offer.
Good luck getting specific performance in an employment K.
Last edited by QContinuum on Tue Apr 28, 2020 3:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Outed for anon abuse.

objctnyrhnr

Moderator
Posts: 1328
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2013 2:44 am

Re: BigLaw "guaranteed offer" meaning?

Post by objctnyrhnr » Tue Apr 28, 2020 3:17 pm

ClubberLang wrote:
objctnyrhnr wrote:I think that you have no choice but to rely upon that promise and that such reliance would be reasonable...

(I have a theory I floated in another thread that you could sue for specific performance via promissory estoppel if a firm rescinds in this situation)

I also don’t know why this promise of employment to begin some time in the future would necessarily be more reliable than another firm’s offer you could theoretically procure (if that’s even possible ITE).

I think you probably have no choice but to ride it out. That said, I personally would feel even better in your shoes if I could line up a clerkship. I’d guess that the firm would jump at the chance to defer you for 1-2 years for the clerkship. I also don’t think there’s a comparable risk of the judge rescinding a clerkship offer.
If someone successfully sued for specific performance under this theory, couldn't the firm just hire you for a day and then fire you the next because it is employment at will?

OP - I would take firms at their word, but I would not assume that these "guarantees" create any kind of legal obligation.
Yeah they probably could (although would there then be some retaliation claim in there somewhere?). But would they really want to be the firm that hires an associate and fires them a day later? In this hypo, my thinking is that the firm would want to keep the whole thing extremely hush hush and maybe stealth the associate with a runway and an NDA if they fire them at all.

Want to continue reading?

Register now to search topics and post comments!

Absolutely FREE!


QContinuum

Moderator
Posts: 3594
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2017 9:52 am

Re: BigLaw "guaranteed offer" meaning?

Post by QContinuum » Tue Apr 28, 2020 3:21 pm

objctnyrhnr wrote:I also don’t know why this promise of employment to begin some time in the future would necessarily be more reliable than another firm’s offer you could theoretically procure (if that’s even possible ITE).

I think you probably have no choice but to ride it out. That said, I personally would feel even better in your shoes if I could line up a clerkship. I’d guess that the firm would jump at the chance to defer you for 1-2 years for the clerkship. I also don’t think there’s a comparable risk of the judge rescinding a clerkship offer.
I agree with the above. Even if one were to obtain an offer from a different firm that hasn't announced cuts so far, there's no guarantee that other firm won't announce cuts in the future. Now if the new firm was much more highly ranked than the old firm, could be a different story - an offer from a V10 would likely be safer than an offer from a V70, say - but I doubt someone whose best choice at 2L OCI was a V70 offer would now be able to land a V10 offer as a rising 3L in this economy. Doesn't hurt to try, but I wouldn't bank too much on this working out.

Clerkship could also work, though it could have the effect of locking someone into litigation. (Obviously not a concern for someone already wanting to do litigation.) But doing a clerkship also represents a gamble that the market in mid-2022 will be much better than the market in mid-2021. While the coronavirus itself should be gone by mid-2022 certainly, there's no predicting what the economy will look like that far out.

ChickenSalad

New
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2020 2:08 pm

Re: BigLaw "guaranteed offer" meaning?

Post by ChickenSalad » Tue Apr 28, 2020 4:42 pm

anon65000 wrote:A number of law firms have reduced the duration of SA programs, pro-rated pay, and guaranteed return offers to 2Ls. The state of the economy in 2021 is unpredictable, and I am sure the "guarantee" carries little weight if the economy continues to plunge.

I don't think any major law firm has rescinded offers to incoming associates (graduating 3Ls) just yet.

Is that a somewhat positive sign that current 2L SAs with guaranteed offers will *likely* be employed after graduation as well? Or is the state of the economy just too speculative at this point to make any predictions (i.e., maybe economic conditions will worsen in 2021)?

Should these SAs continue to be on the look-out for back-up employment just in case?
No. They are guaranteeing an offer, not extending some employment guarantee. That is, it’s just a guarantee that they extend the same offer they extend to SAs at the end of the summer program. The reason is to assure you that you’ve already gotten it and they intend to hire the summer class.

That offer can be withdrawn or rescinded after it’s given. That would be a bad look for the firm but they haven’t incurred some other, legal obligation

The offer letter you’ll get will say it’s not a contract for employment and can be withdrawn at any time. So the reliance argument is not a good one

User avatar
Monochromatic Oeuvre

Gold
Posts: 2091
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: BigLaw "guaranteed offer" meaning?

Post by Monochromatic Oeuvre » Tue Apr 28, 2020 7:54 pm

anon65000 wrote:I don't think any major law firm has rescinded offers to incoming associates (graduating 3Ls) just yet.

Is that a somewhat positive sign that current 2L SAs with guaranteed offers will *likely* be employed after graduation as well?
You're asking if it's better for lawyers if law firms aren't laying off and rescinding offers en masse?

The shit that y'all ask sometimes, man...

Intro-gamer

New
Posts: 27
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 11:20 am

Re: BigLaw "guaranteed offer" meaning?

Post by Intro-gamer » Tue Apr 28, 2020 7:57 pm

Monochromatic Oeuvre wrote:
anon65000 wrote:I don't think any major law firm has rescinded offers to incoming associates (graduating 3Ls) just yet.

Is that a somewhat positive sign that current 2L SAs with guaranteed offers will *likely* be employed after graduation as well?
You're asking if it's better for lawyers if law firms aren't laying off and rescinding offers en masse?

The shit that y'all ask sometimes, man...
This made me laugh so hard. :lol:

Want to continue reading?

Register for access!

Did I mention it was FREE ?


malibustacy

Bronze
Posts: 236
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2014 3:34 am

Re: BigLaw "guaranteed offer" meaning?

Post by malibustacy » Wed Apr 29, 2020 7:25 pm

Don't know why you're overthinking this. This is the best you're going to get in these uncertain times.

Newbie2TLS

New
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2018 2:04 am

Re: BigLaw "guaranteed offer" meaning?

Post by Newbie2TLS » Sun May 03, 2020 3:51 am

What guaranteed offer means is that you’re guaranteed to get the offer, but the offer stays the same as always, subject to rescission. In other words, just like the case for summers years past without coronavirus, the firm is free to rescind your offer before you finish 3L year, take the bar, and start work there. The chances they’ll do that tho are unclear given that this coronavirus slowdown is uncertain. If we can get rid of this virus quickly and get back to normal, the economy can likely bounce back before you return to the firm as a first year. But if our opening up of the country is premature (which I think is likely) and the virus spread continues, requiring additional months and months of shutdown, then the economic slowdown could carry to late this year, maybe early next, potentially impacting your return to the firm.

No one is getting specific performance on a promissory estoppel theory lol . You’re a 2L. You can’t with a straight face tell me you’re detrimentally and reasonably relying on the offer. What’s the detriment? You’d still continue with law school, you’d still be in debt, you’d still be exactly where you will be in about a year regardless of the offer. Perhaps the only detriment you take on by relying on the offer is that you don’t look for another job in the meantime, but that’s not reasonable given we’re already in a recession so no offer is solid to begin with.

objctnyrhnr

Moderator
Posts: 1328
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2013 2:44 am

Re: BigLaw "guaranteed offer" meaning?

Post by objctnyrhnr » Sun May 03, 2020 9:36 am

Newbie2TLS wrote:What guaranteed offer means is that you’re guaranteed to get the offer, but the offer stays the same as always, subject to rescission. In other words, just like the case for summers years past without coronavirus, the firm is free to rescind your offer before you finish 3L year, take the bar, and start work there. The chances they’ll do that tho are unclear given that this coronavirus slowdown is uncertain. If we can get rid of this virus quickly and get back to normal, the economy can likely bounce back before you return to the firm as a first year. But if our opening up of the country is premature (which I think is likely) and the virus spread continues, requiring additional months and months of shutdown, then the economic slowdown could carry to late this year, maybe early next, potentially impacting your return to the firm.

No one is getting specific performance on a promissory estoppel theory lol . You’re a 2L. You can’t with a straight face tell me you’re detrimentally and reasonably relying on the offer. What’s the detriment? You’d still continue with law school, you’d still be in debt, you’d still be exactly where you will be in about a year regardless of the offer. Perhaps the only detriment you take on by relying on the offer is that you don’t look for another job in the meantime, but that’s not reasonable given we’re already in a recession so no offer is solid to begin with.
@QCont—thoughts on this point? Nobody had mentioned this in the other thread

Anonymous User
Posts: 350934
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: BigLaw "guaranteed offer" meaning?

Post by Anonymous User » Sun May 03, 2020 10:46 am

objctnyrhnr wrote:
Newbie2TLS wrote:What guaranteed offer means is that you’re guaranteed to get the offer, but the offer stays the same as always, subject to rescission. In other words, just like the case for summers years past without coronavirus, the firm is free to rescind your offer before you finish 3L year, take the bar, and start work there. The chances they’ll do that tho are unclear given that this coronavirus slowdown is uncertain. If we can get rid of this virus quickly and get back to normal, the economy can likely bounce back before you return to the firm as a first year. But if our opening up of the country is premature (which I think is likely) and the virus spread continues, requiring additional months and months of shutdown, then the economic slowdown could carry to late this year, maybe early next, potentially impacting your return to the firm.

No one is getting specific performance on a promissory estoppel theory lol . You’re a 2L. You can’t with a straight face tell me you’re detrimentally and reasonably relying on the offer. What’s the detriment? You’d still continue with law school, you’d still be in debt, you’d still be exactly where you will be in about a year regardless of the offer. Perhaps the only detriment you take on by relying on the offer is that you don’t look for another job in the meantime, but that’s not reasonable given we’re already in a recession so no offer is solid to begin with.
@QCont—thoughts on this point? Nobody had mentioned this in the other thread
I was curious about this as well. During the last recession (2008/2009), did any respectable biglaw firm actually rescind 3l full-time offers? I thought a lot of firms basically deferred their start dates, but never heard about them rescinding full-time offers.

Register now!

Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.

It's still FREE!


Anonymous User
Posts: 350934
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: BigLaw "guaranteed offer" meaning?

Post by Anonymous User » Sun May 03, 2020 2:33 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
objctnyrhnr wrote:
Newbie2TLS wrote:What guaranteed offer means is that you’re guaranteed to get the offer, but the offer stays the same as always, subject to rescission. In other words, just like the case for summers years past without coronavirus, the firm is free to rescind your offer before you finish 3L year, take the bar, and start work there. The chances they’ll do that tho are unclear given that this coronavirus slowdown is uncertain. If we can get rid of this virus quickly and get back to normal, the economy can likely bounce back before you return to the firm as a first year. But if our opening up of the country is premature (which I think is likely) and the virus spread continues, requiring additional months and months of shutdown, then the economic slowdown could carry to late this year, maybe early next, potentially impacting your return to the firm.

No one is getting specific performance on a promissory estoppel theory lol . You’re a 2L. You can’t with a straight face tell me you’re detrimentally and reasonably relying on the offer. What’s the detriment? You’d still continue with law school, you’d still be in debt, you’d still be exactly where you will be in about a year regardless of the offer. Perhaps the only detriment you take on by relying on the offer is that you don’t look for another job in the meantime, but that’s not reasonable given we’re already in a recession so no offer is solid to begin with.
@QCont—thoughts on this point? Nobody had mentioned this in the other thread
I was curious about this as well. During the last recession (2008/2009), did any respectable biglaw firm actually rescind 3l full-time offers? I thought a lot of firms basically deferred their start dates, but never heard about them rescinding full-time offers.

Yeah they did, some firms that deferred start dates never actually let those people join the firm:

Anonymous User
Posts: 350934
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: BigLaw "guaranteed offer" meaning?

Post by Anonymous User » Sun May 03, 2020 4:18 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
objctnyrhnr wrote:
Newbie2TLS wrote:What guaranteed offer means is that you’re guaranteed to get the offer, but the offer stays the same as always, subject to rescission. In other words, just like the case for summers years past without coronavirus, the firm is free to rescind your offer before you finish 3L year, take the bar, and start work there. The chances they’ll do that tho are unclear given that this coronavirus slowdown is uncertain. If we can get rid of this virus quickly and get back to normal, the economy can likely bounce back before you return to the firm as a first year. But if our opening up of the country is premature (which I think is likely) and the virus spread continues, requiring additional months and months of shutdown, then the economic slowdown could carry to late this year, maybe early next, potentially impacting your return to the firm.

No one is getting specific performance on a promissory estoppel theory lol . You’re a 2L. You can’t with a straight face tell me you’re detrimentally and reasonably relying on the offer. What’s the detriment? You’d still continue with law school, you’d still be in debt, you’d still be exactly where you will be in about a year regardless of the offer. Perhaps the only detriment you take on by relying on the offer is that you don’t look for another job in the meantime, but that’s not reasonable given we’re already in a recession so no offer is solid to begin with.
@QCont—thoughts on this point? Nobody had mentioned this in the other thread
I was curious about this as well. During the last recession (2008/2009), did any respectable biglaw firm actually rescind 3l full-time offers? I thought a lot of firms basically deferred their start dates, but never heard about them rescinding full-time offers.

Yeah they did, some firms that deferred start dates never actually let those people join the firm:
Other than Latham? Could you point me to any sources on this? I found a list of firms with deferred start dates, but couldn't find one for those rescinded offers.

QContinuum

Moderator
Posts: 3594
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2017 9:52 am

Re: BigLaw "guaranteed offer" meaning?

Post by QContinuum » Sun May 03, 2020 5:19 pm

objctnyrhnr wrote:
Newbie2TLS wrote:Perhaps the only detriment you take on by relying on the offer is that you don’t look for another job in the meantime, but that’s not reasonable given we’re already in a recession so no offer is solid to begin with.
@QCont—thoughts on this point? Nobody had mentioned this in the other thread
I don't think that's "the only detriment you take on". Say you had 2L SA offers from three peer firms, A, B and C. All three firms have historically had 100% offer rates. You accept the 2L SA offer from B and obtain a return offer. (A, B and C all continued to maintain a 100% offer rate.) Then, during your 3L year, B revokes, say, 33% of the offers it issued, including yours. In contrast, A and C don't revoke any offers. That's your detriment - you could've summered at A or C, but you turned down those offers because of B's offer.

(And it's fine if one or more of the firms don't have 100% offer rates - you simply weight the expected value of the offer by its offer rate.)

In addition, I don't buy Newbie's "not reasonable because we're in a recession" argument either. Being in a recession will hurt 3L hiring, sure, but unless 3L hiring completely shuts down, there's still some nonzero chance of securing a 3L offer, which you forwent in reliance on B's offer. If you had only a 20% chance at being a BigLaw associate for 2 years, that's still an expected value of $76k (20% * $190,000 * 2) you got screwed out of because you relied on B's offer.

User avatar
LHand1993

New
Posts: 43
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2018 11:50 am

Re: BigLaw "guaranteed offer" meaning?

Post by LHand1993 » Sun May 03, 2020 6:42 pm

Does anyone in their right mind really think suing their firm is a realistic option? Let's just put aside the costs for a second--good luck getting another biglaw job with that following you around for your career. Seems to me like everything is guaranteed until it isn't, and there's not much you can do about it. The firm's reputation will suffer, but that doesn't get you your job back.

Get unlimited access to all forums and topics

Register now!

I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...


QContinuum

Moderator
Posts: 3594
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2017 9:52 am

Re: BigLaw "guaranteed offer" meaning?

Post by QContinuum » Sun May 03, 2020 6:54 pm

LHand1993 wrote:Does anyone in their right mind really think suing their firm is a realistic option? Let's just put aside the costs for a second--good luck getting another biglaw job with that following you around for your career. Seems to me like everything is guaranteed until it isn't, and there's not much you can do about it. The firm's reputation will suffer, but that doesn't get you your job back.
No one is arguing suing a firm would necessarily be a good move, let alone the best move. That doesn't mean we should let bad logic get a free pass.

ClubberLang

Bronze
Posts: 339
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 11:34 am

Re: BigLaw "guaranteed offer" meaning?

Post by ClubberLang » Sun May 03, 2020 7:39 pm

QContinuum wrote:
LHand1993 wrote:Does anyone in their right mind really think suing their firm is a realistic option? Let's just put aside the costs for a second--good luck getting another biglaw job with that following you around for your career. Seems to me like everything is guaranteed until it isn't, and there's not much you can do about it. The firm's reputation will suffer, but that doesn't get you your job back.
No one is arguing suing a firm would necessarily be a good move, let alone the best move. That doesn't mean we should let bad logic get a free pass.
Nobody should rely on a revocable offer for at will employment. There is literally no legal recourse here.

objctnyrhnr

Moderator
Posts: 1328
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2013 2:44 am

Re: BigLaw "guaranteed offer" meaning?

Post by objctnyrhnr » Sun May 03, 2020 8:09 pm

ClubberLang wrote:
QContinuum wrote:
LHand1993 wrote:Does anyone in their right mind really think suing their firm is a realistic option? Let's just put aside the costs for a second--good luck getting another biglaw job with that following you around for your career. Seems to me like everything is guaranteed until it isn't, and there's not much you can do about it. The firm's reputation will suffer, but that doesn't get you your job back.
No one is arguing suing a firm would necessarily be a good move, let alone the best move. That doesn't mean we should let bad logic get a free pass.
Nobody should rely on a revocable offer for at will employment. There is literally no legal recourse here.
How do you know? Have you done a 50 state survey and found this theory being no diced by courts in a majority of jurisdictions?

If not, have you found it being no-diced in any jurisdictions?

If so, please provide the citation. You would be settling a debate that’s been going throughout the quarantine.

nixy

Gold
Posts: 2675
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2018 8:58 am

Re: BigLaw "guaranteed offer" meaning?

Post by nixy » Sun May 03, 2020 8:25 pm

Can you please just let this at-will employment debate go? The lawyers who actually do L&E have said your argument has no legs, it certainly doesn't have any relevance to anyone currently facing salary cuts/deferrals, and at this point it's become a pissing contest about hypotheticals.

Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.

Register now, it's still FREE!


ClubberLang

Bronze
Posts: 339
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 11:34 am

Re: BigLaw "guaranteed offer" meaning?

Post by ClubberLang » Sun May 03, 2020 8:35 pm

objctnyrhnr wrote:
ClubberLang wrote:
QContinuum wrote:
LHand1993 wrote:Does anyone in their right mind really think suing their firm is a realistic option? Let's just put aside the costs for a second--good luck getting another biglaw job with that following you around for your career. Seems to me like everything is guaranteed until it isn't, and there's not much you can do about it. The firm's reputation will suffer, but that doesn't get you your job back.
No one is arguing suing a firm would necessarily be a good move, let alone the best move. That doesn't mean we should let bad logic get a free pass.
Nobody should rely on a revocable offer for at will employment. There is literally no legal recourse here.
How do you know? Have you done a 50 state survey and found this theory being no diced by courts in a majority of jurisdictions?

If not, have you found it being no-diced in any jurisdictions?

If so, please provide the citation. You would be settling a debate that’s been going throughout the quarantine.
No, I have not surveyed the law of any state, much less 50. But, since you think that is a reasonable question, I'll ask you an easier one. Can you provide authority from any state (territory, whatever) where promissory estoppel has been applied in the context of a "guaranteed" offer? If so, happy to stand down.

objctnyrhnr

Moderator
Posts: 1328
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2013 2:44 am

Re: BigLaw "guaranteed offer" meaning?

Post by objctnyrhnr » Sun May 03, 2020 8:45 pm

ClubberLang wrote:
objctnyrhnr wrote:
ClubberLang wrote:
QContinuum wrote:
LHand1993 wrote:Does anyone in their right mind really think suing their firm is a realistic option? Let's just put aside the costs for a second--good luck getting another biglaw job with that following you around for your career. Seems to me like everything is guaranteed until it isn't, and there's not much you can do about it. The firm's reputation will suffer, but that doesn't get you your job back.
No one is arguing suing a firm would necessarily be a good move, let alone the best move. That doesn't mean we should let bad logic get a free pass.
Nobody should rely on a revocable offer for at will employment. There is literally no legal recourse here.
How do you know? Have you done a 50 state survey and found this theory being no diced by courts in a majority of jurisdictions?

If not, have you found it being no-diced in any jurisdictions?

If so, please provide the citation. You would be settling a debate that’s been going throughout the quarantine.
No, I have not surveyed the law of any state, much less 50. But, since you think that is a reasonable question, I'll ask you an easier one. Can you provide authority from any state (territory, whatever) where promissory estoppel has been applied in the context of a "guaranteed" offer? If so, happy to stand down.
Oh no definitely not. However I can point you to at least a few jurisdictions that have recognized a promissory estoppel exception to at will employment (albeit in other contexts).

But your counter-question is a false equivalency. I never said it’s a slam dunk idea that I am one-hundred percent confident would result in the relief sought. You, by contrast, said unequivocally that there is literally no recourse, which you can’t really know unless...you know...courts have said that before; that’s why I was asking.

And if you are under the impression that new theories can never fly simply because there’s no directly on point precedent demonstrating that they’ve flown before, then you evidently don’t really understand how the whole litigation thing works.

ClubberLang

Bronze
Posts: 339
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 11:34 am

Re: BigLaw "guaranteed offer" meaning?

Post by ClubberLang » Sun May 03, 2020 8:49 pm

objctnyrhnr wrote:
ClubberLang wrote:
objctnyrhnr wrote:
ClubberLang wrote:
QContinuum wrote:
LHand1993 wrote:Does anyone in their right mind really think suing their firm is a realistic option? Let's just put aside the costs for a second--good luck getting another biglaw job with that following you around for your career. Seems to me like everything is guaranteed until it isn't, and there's not much you can do about it. The firm's reputation will suffer, but that doesn't get you your job back.
No one is arguing suing a firm would necessarily be a good move, let alone the best move. That doesn't mean we should let bad logic get a free pass.
Nobody should rely on a revocable offer for at will employment. There is literally no legal recourse here.
How do you know? Have you done a 50 state survey and found this theory being no diced by courts in a majority of jurisdictions?

If not, have you found it being no-diced in any jurisdictions?

If so, please provide the citation. You would be settling a debate that’s been going throughout the quarantine.
No, I have not surveyed the law of any state, much less 50. But, since you think that is a reasonable question, I'll ask you an easier one. Can you provide authority from any state (territory, whatever) where promissory estoppel has been applied in the context of a "guaranteed" offer? If so, happy to stand down.
Oh no definitely not. However I can point you to at least a few jurisdictions that have recognized a promissory estoppel exception to at will employment (albeit in other contexts).

But your counter-question is a false equivalency. I never said it’s a slam dunk idea that I am one-hundred percent confident would result in the relief sought. You, by contrast, said unequivocally that there is literally no recourse, which you can’t really know unless...you know...courts have said that before; that’s why I was asking.

And if you are under the impression that new theories can never fly simply because there’s no directly on point precedent demonstrating that they’ve flown before, then you evidently don’t really understand how the whole litigation thing works.
Nice zinger. I look forward to future tips about how how the whole litigation thing works.

QContinuum

Moderator
Posts: 3594
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2017 9:52 am

Re: BigLaw "guaranteed offer" meaning?

Post by QContinuum » Sun May 03, 2020 10:39 pm

nixy wrote:Can you please just let this at-will employment debate go? The lawyers who actually do L&E have said your argument has no legs, it certainly doesn't have any relevance to anyone currently facing salary cuts/deferrals, and at this point it's become a pissing contest about hypotheticals.
Nice bit of objectivity there, nix. You aren't even doing objct and I the courtesy of "both-sidesing" the issue. objct and I aren't the ones making over-the-top (and frankly reckless) assertions. And I'm not aware Clubber's a L&E litigator. (If he is, I hope his posts here aren't representative of his actual legal acumen.)

Seriously? What are you waiting for?

Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!


Post Reply Post Anonymous Reply  

Return to “Legal Employment”