Out of my league firm Forum

[A. Nony Mouse]

The anon in question has said they don't want to give any more identifying information, so people need to stop asking.

(I'm also not sure how one fuck-up, which is admittedly awful for the person involved, says much about working at this firm that people need to know to make decisions about employment, but feel free to enlighten me.)

Yes, exactly. This sounds like a clerical error of sorts. Would suck to be on the receiving end of it... but I sorta doubt there were bad motives at play.

I'm not an "out the firm!" fan, but here's the thing: if there was indeed a clerical error, then the firm sucks for putting the cost of that error on the applicant instead of on itself. Basically, once that offer went out, the firm should have sucked it up and stood by its offer, even if the offer was the result of a mistake.

Do you think this is the only firm that would put the cost on the applicant rather than suck it up and stand by the offer?

[rpupkin]

The anon in question has said they don't want to give any more identifying information, so people need to stop asking.

(I'm also not sure how one fuck-up, which is admittedly awful for the person involved, says much about working at this firm that people need to know to make decisions about employment, but feel free to enlighten me.)

Yes, exactly. This sounds like a clerical error of sorts. Would suck to be on the receiving end of it... but I sorta doubt there were bad motives at play.

I'm not an "out the firm!" fan, but here's the thing: if there was indeed a clerical error, then the firm sucks for putting the cost of that error on the applicant instead of on itself. Basically, once that offer went out, the firm should have sucked it up and stood by its offer, even if the offer was the result of a mistake.

Do you think this is the only firm that would put the cost on the applicant rather than suck it up and stand by the offer?

Probably not. But I think the vast majority of big law firms would.

[Anonymous User]

The anon in question has said they don't want to give any more identifying information, so people need to stop asking.

(I'm also not sure how one fuck-up, which is admittedly awful for the person involved, says much about working at this firm that people need to know to make decisions about employment, but feel free to enlighten me.)

Yes, exactly. This sounds like a clerical error of sorts. Would suck to be on the receiving end of it... but I sorta doubt there were bad motives at play.

I'm not an "out the firm!" fan, but here's the thing: if there was indeed a clerical error, then the firm sucks for putting the cost of that error on the applicant instead of on itself. Basically, once that offer went out, the firm should have sucked it up and stood by its offer, even if the offer was the result of a mistake.

Do you think this is the only firm that would put the cost on the applicant rather than suck it up and stand by the offer?

Probably not. But I think the vast majority of big law firms would.

I have had similar things happened to be but that was with the CB invitation. Definitely not as serious as what happened to anon but still I felt pretty bad. I think firms have no reason to care because 1) candidates who would receive offers would unlikely reject them for stories about how the firm has made a mistake with one of their previous competitors; 2) candidates who would not receive offers...well I guess the firm wouldn't care about their opinions anyway. It sucks but students do not have the same bargaining power as law firms have, even with those stellar ones; it's not anything like a phd student with an important patent bargaining with a pharmaceutical company. If you have to do anything about it, you work really hard for twenty years and be very successful as a GC or an entrepreneur and give all business to their competitor firms - or you probably won't care about them either at that time.

[gortega86]

The anon in question has said they don't want to give any more identifying information, so people need to stop asking.

(I'm also not sure how one fuck-up, which is admittedly awful for the person involved, says much about working at this firm that people need to know to make decisions about employment, but feel free to enlighten me.)

Yes, exactly. This sounds like a clerical error of sorts. Would suck to be on the receiving end of it... but I sorta doubt there were bad motives at play.

I'm not an "out the firm!" fan, but here's the thing: if there was indeed a clerical error, then the firm sucks for putting the cost of that error on the applicant instead of on itself. Basically, once that offer went out, the firm should have sucked it up and stood by its offer, even if the offer was the result of a mistake.

Not if that offer had never been accepted.

It is a terrible mistake, but OP nvr said they accepted then firm attempted to revoke. I am sure if an acceptance had been made it would be pretty hard for firm to revoke after.

They are under no obligation to keep offer open after realizing an error.

[rpupkin]

I'm not an "out the firm!" fan, but here's the thing: if there was indeed a clerical error, then the firm sucks for putting the cost of that error on the applicant instead of on itself. Basically, once that offer went out, the firm should have sucked it up and stood by its offer, even if the offer was the result of a mistake.

Not if that offer had never been accepted.

It is a terrible mistake, but OP nvr said they accepted then firm attempted to revoke. I am sure if an acceptance had been made it would be pretty hard for firm to revoke after.

They are under no obligation to keep offer open after realizing an error.

(Master of Contract Law)

[frisb213]

.

[cron1834]

Jesus people, it's at will employment. The behavior is terrible and should be shamed, but your 1L issue spotting is not helpful here.

[1styearlateral]

Jesus people, it's at will employment.