Firm insists that I stay longer Forum

[Anonymous User]

V100 in overseas market. I gave three weeks' notice at the end of August, after which the firm tried to persuade me to stay and made me a (pretty decent) counteroffer which I rejected. I told them from the beginning that I am not going to change my mind so we did not "negotiate" anything. They have not pushed back on the departure date until one day after I rejected their counteroffer (I rejected it one day after they made it), which was two weeks after I gave notice.

Now the office management (which is a completely crazy person that everyone hates) is claiming that there is a three months notice period but that they would agree on six weeks (i.e. mid October). The contract is not entirely clear so that does not really help either side. The main problem is that after I gave notice and since there was no reaction from the old firm I confirmed to the new firm that I would start in the beginning of October.

I was a very well-liked associate and I would have preferred not to burn bridges. However, I am moving markets (and not planning to ever go back) so it would not be the end of the world either. What should I do? I have told office management that I don't think they can force me to stay according to the contract and that I only confirmed the new start date because they have not reacted. I have told the partner I mainly work with that I would stay until end of September but not beyond that and if the firm wants to sue me then so be it (they don't like the office management either so this is way less out of line than it might sound like).

If the office management continues to insist on mid October what do I do? Escalate to the practice group leader (I am on good terms with them but I am not sure they want to interfere with non-US offices management issues)? Firm HR? Just clean out my office and don't answer any e-mails and calls? Get a medical certificate and stop working?

[LittleRedCorvette]

V100 in overseas market. I gave three weeks' notice at the end of August, after which the firm tried to persuade me to stay and made me a (pretty decent) counteroffer which I rejected. I told them from the beginning that I am not going to change my mind so we did not "negotiate" anything. They have not pushed back on the departure date until one day after I rejected their counteroffer (I rejected it one day after they made it), which was two weeks after I gave notice.

Now the office management (which is a completely crazy person that everyone hates) is claiming that there is a three months notice period but that they would agree on six weeks (i.e. mid October). The contract is not entirely clear so that does not really help either side. The main problem is that after I gave notice and since there was no reaction from the old firm I confirmed to the new firm that I would start in the beginning of October.

I was a very well-liked associate and I would have preferred not to burn bridges. However, I am moving markets (and not planning to ever go back) so it would not be the end of the world either. What should I do? I have told office management that I don't think they can force me to stay according to the contract and that I only confirmed the new start date because they have not reacted. I have told the partner I mainly work with that I would stay until end of September but not beyond that and if the firm wants to sue me then so be it (they don't like the office management either so this is way less out of line than it might sound like).

If the office management continues to insist on mid October what do I do? Escalate to the practice group leader (I am on good terms with them but I am not sure they want to interfere with non-US offices management issues)? Firm HR? Just clean out my office and don't answer any e-mails and calls? Get a medical certificate and stop working?

Since you aren't a slave or prisoner you can and should just leave. They aren't suing anybody.

[Anonymous User]

Overseas can be weird so idk check the local regs or something.

[Anonymous User]

We’d need more information about the market in which you operate. If it’s England and Wales, for example, you can technically be sued for damages beyond wages for the dates you didn’t work, if you fail to complete the prescribed notice period. In other countries such as Australia, there’s effectively no legal remedy for the firm if they were to sue, so you’d be ok.

I’m not an employment lawyer (and I don’t know which jurisdiction you’re in), but if your employment contract does not specify the minimum notice period, then you’d likely need to look at the statutory minimum period for that jurisdiction. If your employment contract purports to incorporate the firm policies into its terms, and those policies set out the minimum notice period, then the situation is murkier and you’d need to do more research on this point in your jurisdiction.

Practically speaking, it sounds as though this HR person is trying to exercise his or her last grips of power over you. As you’ve correctly surmised, in all likelihood there is no one backing them up. If it were me, so long as my supervising partner understood the situation and was on my side (and I had clarified the legal position myself as per the above), I would just continue with my original plans and return my IT equipment at the end of September. If they refuse to accept it, then I’d begin my new job and courier the equipment into the office after the mid October date (and let them decide whether to pay you for those two weeks). If your supervising partner has been less clear with you to date, then I’d give them the courtesy of another polite, calm but firm conversation about your plans as per the above, infused of course with appreciation for all the opportunities they have given you until this point. They can then deal with the HR person when they decide to throw their inevitable tantrum. Do your utmost to not engage with any dramatic emails or phone calls from that HR person unless absolutely necessary; let the supervising partner deal with it.

[Anonymous User]

We’d need more information about the market in which you operate. If it’s England and Wales, for example, you can technically be sued for damages beyond wages for the dates you didn’t work, if you fail to complete the prescribed notice period. In other countries such as Australia, there’s effectively no legal remedy for the firm if they were to sue, so you’d be ok.

I’m not an employment lawyer (and I don’t know which jurisdiction you’re in), but if your employment contract does not specify the minimum notice period, then you’d likely need to look at the statutory minimum period for that jurisdiction. If your employment contract purports to incorporate the firm policies into its terms, and those policies set out the minimum notice period, then the situation is murkier and you’d need to do more research on this point in your jurisdiction.

Practically speaking, it sounds as though this HR person is trying to exercise his or her last grips of power over you. As you’ve correctly surmised, in all likelihood there is no one backing them up. If it were me, so long as my supervising partner understood the situation and was on my side (and I had clarified the legal position myself as per the above), I would just continue with my original plans and return my IT equipment at the end of September. If they refuse to accept it, then I’d begin my new job and courier the equipment into the office after the mid October date (and let them decide whether to pay you for those two weeks). If your supervising partner has been less clear with you to date, then I’d give them the courtesy of another polite, calm but firm conversation about your plans as per the above, infused of course with appreciation for all the opportunities they have given you until this point. They can then deal with the HR person when they decide to throw their inevitable tantrum. Do your utmost to not engage with any dramatic emails or phone calls from that HR person unless absolutely necessary; let the supervising partner deal with it.

Thanks. My contract refers to "three months or any other notice period that is usual for attorneys in that market". All lawyers that I have seen leaving the office over the years have left within a couple of days, maybe 2 weeks max. This seems to be usual at other offices as well. On top of that they have waited two weeks to complain about the notice period..

My supervising partner has tried to convince me to stay until mid October but they said that if I don't want to then they (and the firm) won't do anything about it.

In any event, this is not an independent entity but a branch of the firm's US entity. So would a US law firm ever sue some guy because they left two weeks earlier than they wanted him to? And all that on very shaky legal grounds?

Btw. unfortunately the crazy person is the office managing partner and not some HR person.

[Anonymous User]

Ok, thanks for the additional context.

That’s a more difficult situation, given it seems as though your employment contract does, prima facie, require you to work for that additional period. I hear you about usual practice in your firm, and your managing partner may be acting in a difficult manner, but going forward I would seek to clarify these points in advance (as you’d typically do for a client on any given matter) before confirming your start date with the next firm.

It’s highly unlikely they’ll sue you. But it may affect your references from the firm going forward, and the legal community is often a smaller place than you’d imagine. So, I would do my best to keep things cordial, even if you have to cop it on the chin to some extent (at the end of the day, you’re asking to be released from contractual obligations that you previously agreed to). But your ultimate responsibility is now to your future firm, so my advice stands and I would leave as per your earlier plans…unless you think there’s any possibility that your future firm could accommodate those extra two weeks (obviously be judicious as to how much you share if you go down that track).

[2013]

Is your new firm in another non-US jurisdiction? I think some countries have certain laws regarding notice periods and how they impact people who are hired by a new employer.

[mvp99]

V100 in overseas market. I gave three weeks' notice at the end of August, after which the firm tried to persuade me to stay and made me a (pretty decent) counteroffer which I rejected. I told them from the beginning that I am not going to change my mind so we did not "negotiate" anything. They have not pushed back on the departure date until one day after I rejected their counteroffer (I rejected it one day after they made it), which was two weeks after I gave notice.

Now the office management (which is a completely crazy person that everyone hates) is claiming that there is a three months notice period but that they would agree on six weeks (i.e. mid October). The contract is not entirely clear so that does not really help either side. The main problem is that after I gave notice and since there was no reaction from the old firm I confirmed to the new firm that I would start in the beginning of October.

I was a very well-liked associate and I would have preferred not to burn bridges. However, I am moving markets (and not planning to ever go back) so it would not be the end of the world either. What should I do? I have told office management that I don't think they can force me to stay according to the contract and that I only confirmed the new start date because they have not reacted. I have told the partner I mainly work with that I would stay until end of September but not beyond that and if the firm wants to sue me then so be it (they don't like the office management either so this is way less out of line than it might sound like).

If the office management continues to insist on mid October what do I do? Escalate to the practice group leader (I am on good terms with them but I am not sure they want to interfere with non-US offices management issues)? Firm HR? Just clean out my office and don't answer any e-mails and calls? Get a medical certificate and stop working?

Since you aren't a slave or prisoner you can and should just leave. They aren't suing anybody.

Same thought I mean wtf would check what’s absolutely required and jump ship asap

[Anonymous User]

Ok, thanks for the additional context.

That’s a more difficult situation, given it seems as though your employment contract does, prima facie, require you to work for that additional period. I hear you about usual practice in your firm, and your managing partner may be acting in a difficult manner, but going forward I would seek to clarify these points in advance (as you’d typically do for a client on any given matter) before confirming your start date with the next firm.

It’s highly unlikely they’ll sue you. But it may affect your references from the firm going forward, and the legal community is often a smaller place than you’d imagine. So, I would do my best to keep things cordial, even if you have to cop it on the chin to some extent (at the end of the day, you’re asking to be released from contractual obligations that you previously agreed to). But your ultimate responsibility is now to your future firm, so my advice stands and I would leave as per your earlier plans…unless you think there’s any possibility that your future firm could accommodate those extra two weeks (obviously be judicious as to how much you share if you go down that track).

I don't understand the conclusion that the contract "does, prima facie, require you to work for that additional period." It explicitly states that it's 3 months OR any other notice period that is usual for the market. Who knows what's usual for the market, and good luck suing someone on that.

[Anonymous User]

Ok, thanks for the additional context.

That’s a more difficult situation, given it seems as though your employment contract does, prima facie, require you to work for that additional period. I hear you about usual practice in your firm, and your managing partner may be acting in a difficult manner, but going forward I would seek to clarify these points in advance (as you’d typically do for a client on any given matter) before confirming your start date with the next firm.

It’s highly unlikely they’ll sue you. But it may affect your references from the firm going forward, and the legal community is often a smaller place than you’d imagine. So, I would do my best to keep things cordial, even if you have to cop it on the chin to some extent (at the end of the day, you’re asking to be released from contractual obligations that you previously agreed to). But your ultimate responsibility is now to your future firm, so my advice stands and I would leave as per your earlier plans…unless you think there’s any possibility that your future firm could accommodate those extra two weeks (obviously be judicious as to how much you share if you go down that track).

I don't understand the conclusion that the contract "does, prima facie, require you to work for that additional period." It explicitly states that it's 3 months OR any other notice period that is usual for the market. Who knows what's usual for the market, and good luck suing someone on that.

Agreed, especially since OP says that other lawyers in the office have left with 2 weeks notice max. The caveat is that those lawyers might have told management earlier than the news of their leaving hit the rest of the office? But if no one else has been held to this notice period I don't think the contract binds the OP to do so (obviously this is not legal advice, consult a lawyer in that jurisdiction etc).

It sounds like there's only one person who's trying to insist on this notice period so I would just tell them you can't accommodate that and use others at the firm for references in future.

[RedNewJersey]

I'd think of it this way--suppose your contract said that if you were fired you'd get 3 months notice or a period that is reasonable in the market. The firm lays you off, saying you should plan to leave in 3 weeks because that's reasonable and it's happened before. You do nothing for 2 weeks. Then, you demand that they keep you for a few extra months.

What would they do? If they said "nah," what would you do? Post about it on TLS maybe? It's purely a question of whether you want to help them out. I don't think there's any basis to say you're obligated to stay longer, and they certainly would lose if they sued (and they won't sue).