Offer contingent upon background check Forum

[PKSebben]

offers to work at a law firm isn't a contract. hth.

Detrimental reliance.

good luck with that.

[Anonymous User]

offers to work at a law firm isn't a contract. hth.

Detrimental reliance.

good luck with that.

The issue is dead. Not trying to get blacklisted.

But the information and reality remains.

[NYAssociate]

.

[CanadianWolf]

Yes, but you can't be fired if you weren't hired.

[Anonymous User]

Sorry folks. It's at-will employment. Didn't you all read that case in Ks?

That and many others.

Several law school professors have said the case is absolutely compensable, shockingly common, and not worth pursuing if ever want to work biglaw.

Welcome to the real world. Not all cases get brought to court.

[Anonymous User]

Out the firm. Nobody cares about 1L Ks class.

[NYAssociate]

.

[Anonymous User]

Out the firm. Nobody cares about 1L Ks class.

No chance. Note all the personal information and desire to remain off the blacklist.

[CanadianWolf]

"At Will Employment" is not relevant in this discussion regarding withdrawal of an employment offer. Conditional offer of employment is probably more on point as is detrimental reliance. But we don't know all the "facts" so anything reasonably related can be argued, but at too high of a cost for most.

[Anonymous User]

"At Will Employment" is not relevant in this discussion regarding withdrawal of an employment offer. Conditional offer of employment is probably more on point as is detrimental reliance.

Thing with "conditional offer" is conditions must be placed when the offer is made.

Detrimental reliance; TITCR.

[CanadianWolf]

Not in the real world. You'll quickly learn that there are at least three sides to every story. If you truly believe that all parties to legal matters stick to the absolute truth, testify truthfully or even that there is an "absolute truth", then you are in for a rude awakening or need to pursue a career in academia. You'll be amazed how many will be willing to state that a "conditional offer" was made; and, if it needs to be in writing, a writing stating the condition will be "found", or the prospective employee will be accused of lying in response to a direct question about this area or ....

[Anonymous User]

Not in the real world. You'll quickly learn that there are at least three sides to every story. If you truly believe that all parties to legal matters stick to the absolute truth, testify truthfully or even that there is an "absolute truth", then you are in for a rude awakening or need to pursue a career in academia.

Actually, this factor is precisely one of the reasons the case is not worth litigating. Much of it will come to what I was told verbally by the hiring partner. What do you want to bet he doesn't say "Absolutely, we made a firm offer, induced him to give up his job hunt, and then backpedaled."

But thanks for thinking you've got the market cornered on good sense. It will make it easier to sandbag you in court.

[CanadianWolf]

No need to be impolite. Lots of issues remain including were there writings &, if so, what was in the writing & were all terms unambiguous, etc. If you believe that you're going to "sandbag" another in court, then....
P.S. I never suggested that this type of matter was worth litigating; in fact, my posted responses suggest just the opposite.

[Anonymous User]

No need to be impolite. Lots of issues remain including were there writings &, if so, what was in the writing & were all terms unambiguous, etc. If you believe that you're going to "sandbag" another in court, then....

I believe that those who assume they are seeing all the angles that others must have failed to perceive just because they didn't spell it out are easier to defeat (at anything) based on that assumption than those who are more modest in their self conception.

So, yeah.

As to the rest, I'm sure there's a thousand evidentiary issues that can be litigated under such circumstances. Just another reason the issue was let go.

The simple fact, because I am, should we say, intimately familiar with the facts of the case, is that when the actual facts are considered and not the potentially distorted set of facts that would actually make it into a courtroom, this is a clear case of detrimental reliance. That is the opinion of professors of law with vastly more experience than any of us. Everyone recognizes that the objective reality and what might be the result of litigation rarely if ever coincide.

That you think this is news, see statement(s) above.

[CanadianWolf]

What ? Try to calm down. I'm sorry that you are in this situation.
P.S. Not sure why you are trying to start an argument. And I'm not sure why you are directing your anger toward me.

[Kohinoor]

Sorry folks. It's at-will employment. Didn't you all read that case in Ks?

I remember reading a case where, despite it being at will employment, the plaintiff was entitled to damages based on an income valuation that looked at the average length of employment.

[CanadianWolf]

Yes, and at-will-employment is not relevant based on the discussion so far. At-will-employment assumes that one was employed & discharged. This seems to be a issue involving contract negotiation or pre-contract issues or whether there was ever a "meeting-of-the-minds", etc.
P.S. If anything I wrote in this thread offended anyone, I apologize. It was not intended to do so.

[Kohinoor]

Yes, and at-will-employment is not relevant based on the discussion so far. At-will-employment assumes that one was employed & discharged. This seems to be a issue involving contract negotiation or pre-contract issues or whether there was ever a "meeting-of-the-minds", etc.
P.S. If anything I wrote in this thread offended anyone, I apologize. It was not intended to do so.

Wouldn't the argument be that, even if he proves a violation of the contract, the expected value of the contract was zero because his employment was terminable at will?

he chief argument which defendants make is that, had the contract been fully performed, the value of the performance would have been zero, and that reliance damages must not exceed the value of the contract had it been fully performed. L. Albert & Son v. Armstrong Rubber Co., 178 F.2d 182 (2d Cir. 1949). In support of this defendants cite a number of cases involving employment contracts, in which courts have held that where employment is terminable at will there is no breach of contract, and therefore no damages.

[CanadianWolf]

Depends upon what damages are claimed under the facts of the case. Detrimental reliance was mentioned. We don't know what, if anything, was lost &, therefore, possibly compensable as damages. Damages could be zero, a dollar or a much larger amount based on what is alleged & subsequently proven.
My best guess is that it is not worth pursuing, but I don't know the "facts" & circumstances involved.
Regardless, this just shows that in a one lawyer town the lawyer will starve, but in a two lawyer town both will thrive.

[Anonymous User]

how do you account for leaving a previous job ( with less than 4 months remaining on a 2 year contract) due to medical issues? Simply state that you left for medical reasons, or explain them?

[seespotrun]

ITT: CanadianWolf continues to overestimate his lawyering skills, and when people call him out, he attempts to deflect by asking them why they got upset, backpedals, and then apologizes.

[NYAssociate]

.

[Anonymous User]

Can we get back to talking about background checks, criminal convictions, and law firm hiring? Anyone else have any experience with this or know anything?

[Anonymous User]

I won't out the firm that is being discussed as the V5 the rescinded out of respect for the poster. But I know that Boies does, from personal experience.

[Anonymous User]

i'm not trying to simply plain the old man card but haven't any of you held a corporate job before? of the jobs i have held, 2/3 have conducted background checks. i can see why you all think that this is an elevated check given the legal nature of your potential job, but it's really just not all that big of a deal, and definitely not exclusive to jobs at elite law firms.