BigLaw "guaranteed offer" meaning? Forum
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2019 10:46 am
BigLaw "guaranteed offer" meaning?
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I don't think any major law firm has rescinded offers to incoming associates (graduating 3Ls) just yet.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?
I don't think any major law firm has rescinded offers to incoming associates (graduating 3Ls) just yet.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?
-
- Posts: 1521
- Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2013 2:44 am
Re: BigLaw "guaranteed offer" meaning?
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.
(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.
-
- Posts: 361
- Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 11:34 am
Re: BigLaw "guaranteed offer" meaning?
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?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.
OP - I would take firms at their word, but I would not assume that these "guarantees" create any kind of legal obligation.
-
- Posts: 181
- Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2020 9:54 pm
Re: BigLaw "guaranteed offer" meaning?
Good luck getting specific performance in an employment K.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.
Last edited by QContinuum on Tue Apr 28, 2020 3:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Outed for anon abuse.
Reason: Outed for anon abuse.
-
- Posts: 1521
- Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2013 2:44 am
Re: BigLaw "guaranteed offer" meaning?
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.ClubberLang wrote: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?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.
OP - I would take firms at their word, but I would not assume that these "guarantees" create any kind of legal obligation.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 3594
- Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2017 9:52 am
Re: BigLaw "guaranteed offer" meaning?
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.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.
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.
-
- Posts: 75
- Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2020 2:08 pm
Re: BigLaw "guaranteed offer" meaning?
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.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?
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
- Monochromatic Oeuvre
- Posts: 2479
- Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 9:40 pm
Re: BigLaw "guaranteed offer" meaning?
You're asking if it's better for lawyers if law firms aren't laying off and rescinding offers en masse?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?
The shit that y'all ask sometimes, man...
-
- Posts: 27
- Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 11:20 am
Re: BigLaw "guaranteed offer" meaning?
This made me laugh so hard.Monochromatic Oeuvre wrote:You're asking if it's better for lawyers if law firms aren't laying off and rescinding offers en masse?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?
The shit that y'all ask sometimes, man...
-
- Posts: 287
- Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2014 3:34 am
Re: BigLaw "guaranteed offer" meaning?
Don't know why you're overthinking this. This is the best you're going to get in these uncertain times.
-
- Posts: 20
- Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2018 2:04 am
Re: BigLaw "guaranteed offer" meaning?
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 1521
- Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2013 2:44 am
Re: BigLaw "guaranteed offer" meaning?
@QCont—thoughts on this point? Nobody had mentioned this in the other threadNewbie2TLS 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.
-
- Posts: 428105
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: BigLaw "guaranteed offer" meaning?
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.objctnyrhnr wrote:@QCont—thoughts on this point? Nobody had mentioned this in the other threadNewbie2TLS 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.
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 428105
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: BigLaw "guaranteed offer" meaning?
Anonymous User wrote: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.objctnyrhnr wrote:@QCont—thoughts on this point? Nobody had mentioned this in the other threadNewbie2TLS 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.
Yeah they did, some firms that deferred start dates never actually let those people join the firm:
-
- Posts: 428105
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: BigLaw "guaranteed offer" meaning?
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.Anonymous User wrote:Anonymous User wrote: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.objctnyrhnr wrote:@QCont—thoughts on this point? Nobody had mentioned this in the other threadNewbie2TLS 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.
Yeah they did, some firms that deferred start dates never actually let those people join the firm:
-
- Posts: 3594
- Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2017 9:52 am
Re: BigLaw "guaranteed offer" meaning?
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.objctnyrhnr wrote:@QCont—thoughts on this point? Nobody had mentioned this in the other threadNewbie2TLS 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.
(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.
- LHand1993
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2018 11:50 am
Re: BigLaw "guaranteed offer" meaning?
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...
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 3594
- Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2017 9:52 am
Re: BigLaw "guaranteed offer" meaning?
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.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.
-
- Posts: 361
- Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 11:34 am
Re: BigLaw "guaranteed offer" meaning?
Nobody should rely on a revocable offer for at will employment. There is literally no legal recourse here.QContinuum wrote: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.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.
-
- Posts: 1521
- Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2013 2:44 am
Re: BigLaw "guaranteed offer" meaning?
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?ClubberLang wrote:Nobody should rely on a revocable offer for at will employment. There is literally no legal recourse here.QContinuum wrote: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.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.
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.
-
- Posts: 4446
- Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2018 8:58 am
Re: BigLaw "guaranteed offer" meaning?
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!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 361
- Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 11:34 am
Re: BigLaw "guaranteed offer" meaning?
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 wrote: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?ClubberLang wrote:Nobody should rely on a revocable offer for at will employment. There is literally no legal recourse here.QContinuum wrote: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.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.
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.
-
- Posts: 1521
- Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2013 2:44 am
Re: BigLaw "guaranteed offer" meaning?
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).ClubberLang wrote: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 wrote: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?ClubberLang wrote:Nobody should rely on a revocable offer for at will employment. There is literally no legal recourse here.QContinuum wrote: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.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.
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 361
- Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 11:34 am
Re: BigLaw "guaranteed offer" meaning?
Nice zinger. I look forward to future tips about how how the whole litigation thing works.objctnyrhnr wrote: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).ClubberLang wrote: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 wrote: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?ClubberLang wrote:Nobody should rely on a revocable offer for at will employment. There is literally no legal recourse here.QContinuum wrote: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.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.
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 3594
- Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2017 9:52 am
Re: BigLaw "guaranteed offer" meaning?
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.)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.
Seriously? What are you waiting for?
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login