First to say ATL has no update on the LaTTTham story.

Wow that sucks, and I thought being laid off as a 1st year was bad....

As my dad always told my mom, a Luce Forward is better than a tight sideways.

I would jump off an overpass.

Didn't some kid who got rescinded at Heller start a blog? What's going on with Heller Highwater these days anyway?

4: terrible

Promissory estoppel might apply, both to 3Ls and first years who make both career and living commitments and then are quickly laid off without any responsible performance evaluation, bearing in mind that most firms are not failing but continuing to generate huge profits at levels exceeding $1 million pp. Which may be why most firms providing severance are requiring a release.

Could duress be a defense to an effort to enforce the releases?

This blog used to be an advocate for associates. Now a post about the single worst thing a firm could do to a young associate has no rage and almost no disdain. This post puts no pressure on firms to avoid this practice. And, in fact, it probably makes rescinding offers less stigmatic.

Elie, the tenor of this post is MUCH to accepting. ATL is valuable not just for collecting this information from the tipsters but also for leveraging that information to pressure firms into avoiding such practices.

Promissory estoppel is made up law school gobbeldygook. It is not really a claim out in reality, at least in many states.

If this happens this late in the game, there will be some 3Ls who commit suicide. Mark my words. (I feel bad writing it, but it will happen if there are.)

There is enormous opportunity for supervising LPO attorneys in Hyperbad. The rate is nine American dollars an hour.

This is enough to support at least three wives.

omg this is AWFUL!!!!!!!! ARE YOU KIDDING ME! Can they legally do this? My husband got an offer and accepted. Isn't that binding? He signed all this paperwork.

I love the fact that the URL to Workplace Prof Blog is "3ls-getting-hos.html"...

8 = U of Penn Stater

10 is right.

- not 10

Hey, what about Fish & Richardson dropping a client at 8:30 pm and then suing them on behalf of another client the next morning? How TTT is that ?

8 and 14:

Stop. You are embarrassing yourselves.

In fairness, the prof is writing about students from Northern Kentucky University...

14: Google "at will" employment and think about it for a few minutes.

Why would someone who didn't actually work, but was only asked to come to work on a future date expect severance? Nothing was done from which to be severed. Yeah, it sucks. But now those top students who thought they were such hot stuff know how the rest of the class feels. Time to develop some actual legal skills.

@18 - wouldn't that violate professional responsibility rules?

Thompson Hine FTL

14 = idiot

Have your 3L hubby explain the concept of "at will employment" to you.

omg this is AWFUL!!!!!!!! ARE YOU KIDDING ME! Can they legally do this? My husband got an offer and accepted. Isn't that binding? He signed all this paperwork.

12--anyone who does that has serious mental problems to begin with. Yeah, losing an offer would really suck, and you might have to move back in with your parents for a few years (until the recession/depression ends) and you can find another law job, but it is not life-ending. Get some perspective.

If this happens this late in the game, there will be some 3Ls who commit suicide. Mark my words. (I feel bad writing it, but it will happen if there are.)

8, even if 3L's sued their firms under a theory of promissory estoppel, I think it would be very hard for many of them to show damages. If the firm rescinds in September, after the 3L moves to a new city, etc..., maybe it would be different. But, if they did it now, it would seem that the only claim a 3L would have is that she refrained from interviewing elsewhere. How much is that worth? Would that 3L have to prove that she would've gotten a job somewhere else? Basically, I think a 3L would be fucked.

18, 23- there are rules against that. the "dropped" client will likely still be considered a client and F&R would then be suing an existing client. not good.

Fraud in the inducement may present a stronger cause of action, particularly if members of the Firm were at least considering the possibility of offer withdrawals or layoffs at the time the student accepted the offer and concealed that fact. Promissory estoppel also may apply, depending on the jurisdiction. Assuming the release issue is not present, or can be addressed, a complaint likely can be structured that would withstand a motion to dismiss.

The acceptance of the "offer" was for employment at will. The Firm can fire you at any time (or decide not to allow you to come to work). Sorry that is the way it works. Similarly, when greedy associates jumped ship to other firms for the last 10 years, the Firm had no form of redress.

Time for 3Ls to be proactive. Call the hiring partner and tell him you heard profits per partner were down. OFFER TO SLIP HIM OR HER A QUICK 5K. When it's time to rescind offers, you will be remembered unlike your colleagues.

From http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/laborprof_blog/2009/02/3ls-getting-hos.html:

In many jurisdictions, courts do not recognize the promissory estoppel doctrine in the context of at-will employment. So, it certainly would depend on the location of the 3L/firm. A recent case in New Jersey would seem to give some hope to a "hosed" 3L: Schley v. Microsoft, 2008 WL 5075266 (former NLRB attorney working at Bear Sterns accepted an offer from Microsoft; after moving to Redmond, Microsoft rescinded the offer based on a criminal background check; court held that he stated an estoppel claim).

Interviewing in the fall probably would not have helped students because they would have already turned down any offers they would received. It does suck, but there are other avenues aside from big law, whether government jobs, smaller firms, or even non-law jobs. Can't hurt to have a good GPA when applying to any of these. For those graduating at 25, this is a setback; for those graduating at 40, I feel for you more.

22 the letter rescinding your offer is in the mail, as is a letter offering your job to the guy in the top 10 who is actually worth a damn. Thanks for playing

this is so fucking shitty of firms, and ATL (you, elie, you) needs to act like it.

I'm sorry but this is a BS post, big firms haven't rescinded offers. Maybe a few smaller firms, but that kid doesn't know what he is talking about. At worst, firms are pushing start dates back. Especially since the economy is supposed to recover by 2010.

23 - Yes. That is why the story is newsworthy.

14 made me laugh.

Does anyone have any thoughts as to whether 3Ls who have their offers rescinded might commit suicide?

30 is right -- some jurisdictions call this the "hot potato doctrine" as in you can't drop your client like a hot potato in order to take on a more lucrative client who is adverse to the existing one.

A firm has to be damn desperate to do something like this. Very shortsighted. While it might help the bottom line in the short run, it will KILL recruiting at top schools when the economy picks back up. It is almost impossible for a firm to recover from a reputational hit like that.

I'm still waiting for someone to name a firm name who has done this.

31 also made me laugh.

41--I'm a 3L and I'm cocked, locked, and ready to rock if I get a letter in the mail....

Rescinding 3L offers may become widespread. Recall that when CWT and a few others stood alone in terms of terminating large numbers of associates - within a few months law firms understood that as long as their termination numbers were in a zone that did not draw too much attention - i.e., 5--7% of associate head count they could get away with ths without becoming the whipping boy/girl of the year.

Once one or two of the AmLaw 100 rescind large numbers of 3L offers (the entire arriving class not just a few sorry souls in Charlotte) - then others may be tempted to follow. All of this is likely to happen betweeen March 1 and April 15. If a firm sees associate utilization overall falling to 75-85% of budget firm wide and has collections and WIP fall below their already conservative forecasts for 2009 then any step is fair game. Slashing and burning the summer program does not save that much money. Rescinding 3L offers - net of severance - will start hitting the bottom line in the 4th quarter - plus it allows management to mollify partners who think that "something must be done" although they'd rather not have it done in their own back yard.

There will be many combinations of steps by many firms - it is a combination of what they think they must do and what they think they can tolerate in terms of a PR hit to the firm. And in the calculus of PPP driven large law firms the hit to recruiting is just a mosquito bite on the ass of an already itchy elephant.

I assume that none of this will impact 1L opportunities at Biglaw for this coming summer, but would be curious to know if anyone thinks otherwise.

BS 43, All the law students care about is the starting salaries posted by NALP. If the firms salary is at the top NY rate, law students will get in line for interviews.

Let's be honest -- this post is a shot in the dark in the face of an absolute dearth of worthy (and unworthy) material for ATL editors to work with.

10 is absolutely right! This is irresponsible.

14/25 -- a commendable trolling job. You took the words right out of my mouth. From a long-time troll, I offer the following tip: a little more realism would be appreciated.

this is ridiculously irresponsible. scaring the shit out of every 3L reader, with ZERO evidence of any V100 firm rescinding ANY 3L offers (save for Luce and Thompson which we knew about)

the only way to generate traffic is to scare the crap out of everyone, i get that, but at least wait until there is SOMEthing to report for chrissakes

I'm not sure why law students feel so entitled to jobs. Business school grads had accepted offers to Bear, Wamu, Wachovia, etc.

"It is almost impossible for a firm to recover from a reputational hit like that."

HA
HAHAHA
HAHAHAHA

This is not only absurdly false, but also obscenely ignorant. Firms quite simply don't give a damn... and the top law students will still suck dicks to go to the top firms after we treat them like shit. It's a wonderfully dysfunctional family. I hope you dumbasses weren't stupid enough to go into debt to go to law school.

THIS IS RETARDED!!! NO RATIONAL FIRM WOULD RESCIND 3L OFFERS. Why would they take the virtually unrecoverable hit to their reps, when they could just do the following (with a relatively minor hit to rep):

- defer start dates till January
- let the new associate work till june
- lay him off in june.

then, you just blend in with all the other layoffs and it's not categorized as "rescinding 3l offers".

Is Skadden, Arps the safest firm right now for a 3L starting in the fall? What about the 2Ls clerking this summer (especially in NY)?

No big firm has rescinded 3L offers. The blog writer quoted by ATL states that the writer heard that 3L's were getting indefinetly deferred. Where did the blog writer hear that info? From all the posts about it yesterday on ATL. Then, ATL sees this stroy in the new blog as confirming what the blog writer read in ATL. This is a news story generated out of nothing but blog posts being read by two blogs writers. Talk about a circle jerk.

Well, one has to wonder about the efficacy of pursuing a promissory estoppel action against one's former (?) employer as a 3L. Seems to me like it might be the sort of thing where a rescinded 3L might win the battle, via settlement or a miracle judgment, but still lose the war. After all, what firm is going to want to hire a 3L who sued his former firm, esp. when there's an ocean of other young attorneys out there who want work and *haven't* been similarly litigious.

It's not a firm, but the Philly DA's office rescinded all 3L offers. www.legalintelligencer.com
cue UPenn State trolls.

Guys at my high school used to commit suicide when firms rescinded their job offers all the time. It was no big deal.

@10, 51 - wow. You think any decision maker at a firm is somehow swayed by this legal rag from doing something that would save his or her job/salary? Deluded is an understatement for you freaks.

"I'm soliciting comments on: What firms are withdrawing offers to their 3Ls? There's a reputational cost to doing this, which I am more than happy to facilitate. I have heard about several large firms, but have only confirmed Thompson Hine and Luce Forward."

If I were a dean at a school that gets all of 10 or 11 NALP firms to even come to our OCI, I would definitely get to work on burning the few bridges we had.

49 - ask the firms that committed layoffs in the early 1990s in NY how they fared in recruiting over the next 10 years versus those that didn't. Pay is the same at most NY firms. If you are at a top law school and have options (which these students will when the economy recovers), are you going to choose the firm that rescinded offers from students a few years ago or the firm that didn't? Think about it.

14/25 - boohoo no more shopping for you!!! get use to shopping at walmart and payless!

46:
I think you meant to say that you are "facocta, locked, and ready to rock." That would be more accurate.

It happened to me.

I'm so glad I work in-house at a Fortune 500 company with enough cash to ride out the storm.

23, 30, 42 -- that's why Fish is being sued

ROFL @ 57.

Yeah, the one firm which has not implemented any major cost-cutting measures is going to be safe, lol. It's not like Skadden partners are known for being hard-asses or anything.

58 has a point. this is happening, why aren't 3Ls naming the firms in the comments?

Re: Philly DA:

"The 300-attorney office typically sees about 10 percent attrition each year, which enables it to bring in a class of up to 35 people, as it did last year. But in this latest fiscal year, only about two people left, McDonnell said."

Hmmm...sound familiar?

I'm really glad I didn't pursue the Philly DA's office now! I was going to be be moving up there this year AND forcing my SO to uproot with me. Whew dodged that bullet, now if I could just find a job...

Stop writing about promissory estoppel or responding to this post like it is a law school final. At will employment means they can lay you off whenever they want. It has happened in the past when firms have gone under (e.g. a firm that is about to collapse tells its incoming class to look into other options). It is up to the firm as to the type of signal it wants to send to the legal community, its clients, peer firms, etc. by rescinding offers but your threats based on what you learned in the first week of contracts class are simply vomit inducing.

You also know that it is not happening because there is no need for firms to rescind/delay 3L offers yet. There is plenty of time before the 3L's start in Sept. to see if the firm's situation improves. So why would a firm rescind now?

58

Sacramento DA Rescinded 3L offers. I realize this isn't entirely relevant to this blog, but some of you may have seen gov work as a safety net. No such luck.

Hate to break it to you kids but this happened when I graduated from law school in 91.

65- we already do shop at walmart. Why do you think a 3L and his wife actually have money? We've been living on loans and my 30k job for 3 years now DUMBASS

Actually, this has happened before. Some of the top of the class kids wound up with no where to go. The rest had jobs and wound up at firms getting real experience and later some of them found their way into BigLaw by dint of their experience.

Funny how some people can't seem to understand that there are enormous risks associated with setting the price for your services 3+ standard deviations to the right along the price distribution curve.

65- we already do shop at walmart. Why do you think a 3L and his wife actually have money? We've been living on loans and my 30k job for 3 years now DUMBASS

68 -- uh, "having enough cash to ride out the storm" doesn't mean the a company is not gonna brutally cut costs. And WHEN they do, the GC's office will be the first to be cut. But keep telling yourself that everything's cool.

The acceptance of the "offer" was for employment at will. The Firm can fire you at any time (or decide not to allow you to come to work).
__________________________________________

After you have actually begun employment. Does the employment at will relationship actually begin with employment, or is it contractual up until that point?

Not that we expect upscale reporting from ATL, but we do expect decent sleuthing. You "know" from sourcing a blog saying "we're starting to hear?" Starting to hear from ATL flamers, perhaps??

If there were rescinded offers floating around out there, you'd have heard by now. That news would spread like wildfire, and you'd have verifiable info flooding into ATL. No angry, verified info coming into ATL? Nothing happening.

This post is not just irresponsible—it's just bad. ATL: The Blog Who Cried Wolf. Enough already.

WE have 67 comments and not one corroboration of the 3L offer recission story. Instead a lot of B- noodling on "promissory estoppel." So lets call it a hoax. Lets get back to the Latham situation, please.

Other than the firms that dissolved, I haven't heard of this happening with any firms. At least not yet...

- T-20 2L

Other than the firms that dissolved, I haven't heard of this happening with any firms. At least not yet...

- T-20 2L

"Hate to break it to you kids but this happened when I graduated from law school in 91."

To you personally? What do you do now?

merchant and gould rescinded 3L offers

Stop talking about firms taking hits in their reputation and how it will forever negatively affect them in future recruiting.

You all know that any firm that has laid off their entire incoming 3L class would still get a pile of resumes from top schools for next years summer program (if there even is one).

Stop posturing. Stop thinking law students will band together to prevent this- or that ATL can help "expose" this. Its going to happen- just accept it.

Does it suck? Hell yes. Is it the end of the world? No. Law school grads have so many more options than other folks. Join the military and be an officer for a couple of years (most lawyers go in as Capt.). Put in an application for the FBI (lots of spots open since you can only join if you're an accountant, lawyer, linguist or prior military/law enforcement background). Get an LLM. Try to get into your school's joint JD/MBA program.

Nothing is ideal- but its time to start thinking outside the box.

This is a profession in significant distress and the ABA and NALP are absent from the discussion. The professional associations must be held accountable for contributing to this situation.

Stop talking about firms taking hits in their reputation and how it will forever negatively affect them in future recruiting.

You all know that any firm that has laid off their entire incoming 3L class would still get a pile of resumes from top schools for next years summer program (if there even is one).

Stop posturing. Stop thinking law students will band together to prevent this- or that ATL can help "expose" this. Its going to happen- just accept it.

Does it suck? Hell yes. Is it the end of the world? No. Law school grads have so many more options than other folks. Join the military and be an officer for a couple of years (most lawyers go in as Capt.). Put in an application for the FBI (lots of spots open since you can only join if you're an accountant, lawyer, linguist or prior military/law enforcement background). Get an LLM. Try to get into your school's joint JD/MBA program.

Nothing is ideal- but its time to start thinking outside the box.

The more interesting question is whether firms will "re-offer" to summers who decided to clerk.

Sorry to the law students, but of course 3L offers are going to be rescinded. Not at all places and not all offers, but of course they will. Let's see, firms are cutting attorneys who are highly skilled and in some cases were even profitable or breaking even still out of concern over 20-40% drop in profit projections. So of course the next logical step is to take on a bunch of law students who know nothing, won't be profitable for 3 years in the best of times to sit on their hands in offices doing nothing. The old saw about reputational hit amongst law students doesn't carry weight. Not when everyone is cutting and firms no darn well that your law student peers will be grateful for a job in a year's time and not care one iota that your offer was rescinded the year before. If you are a 3L and have an offer, count yourself lucky, but get your resume together and be prepared to look for new work.

SHAME ON YOU ATL!!!!!

How can you possibly post something like this without ANY PROOF! Now you're giving an open door to firms and they are thinking others are doing it. YOU SIT ON YOUR FAT ASS ALL DAY AND BLOG ABOUT LIES... Wow what a contribution to the world you make.

You have your "secure" job so you obviously dont care about making false accusations and stirring everything up.

The comments on here are pathetic. Did any of you even go to law school? At will employment means they can fire you ANYTIME they want. There's nothing illegal about it, unless there's some law on the books that says they can't do it (e.g., unlawful discrimination). You folks should have spent less time in your clinics saving the terrorists in Guantamo (thereby unrealistically boosting your level of self esteem and sense of entitlement) and taken a real law course like employment law.

Fun note about promissary estoppel:

PE requires reasonable reliance. So if you have an offer, but you spend your time fretting on ATL or looking for new work, you did not rely on anything (or at least not reasonably), and you lose.

I wouldn't start drafting those PE compliants just yet. Better to study for those second semester finals.

Good luck to everyone in these uncertain times. We'll all make it through.

94- SOLID WORK!

THIS SITE IS A FUCKING JOKE!

THE SOLUTION= STOP READING IT!

how will this affect SA's for next 2010? considering oci's usually start in august.

how will this affect NALP guidelines? wtf? why even bother with NALP at this point?

My thoughts on this post (in haiku):

Irresponsible.
Elie scares 3Ls, but why?
They still have their jobs.

This is ridiculous. Those of you who think that this has not/will not happen are seriously delusional. Wake up and smell the reality.

Good luck proving damages. 3L hiring did not exist this year.

This is a non-story. No major firm has rescinded offers, this is just fishing for traffic. Seriously, what are the odds that:

1) A major firm rescinded offers without paying any conditional stipend to the 3Ls
AND
2) That 3L is a reader of ATL and decided not to send a tip in about it until reading this blog post.

Seriously if this happened to me, and there was no reason for me to keep quiet (i.e., some kind of payout conditional on silence) the first thing I would do would be making sure everyone I knew learned how the firm screwed me over.

Will some people get fucked, probably...but I agree with several of the posters here that this is a non-story until people start naming names and more importantly until we see a trend. If I can get all LSAT on you: If "some" firms defer or recind, not news...if "most" firms defer or recind, news

Nice job though, you got the pageview and got me to comment on it, so I guess it worked out.

Beveridge & Diamond shortened it's SA 2009 tenure from 12 weeks to 8 and is delaying start dates for 1st yr associates for 6 months

Look fool at 95, the issue is not whether an at will employee can be fired at anytime; the issue is whether an accepted OFFER for at will employment can be withdrawn at anytime, PRIOR to the start of the actual employment relationship.

You should have spent less time in Fed Soc meetings fantasizing about Bobby Jindal aka Old Man Herbert from Family Guy, and concentrated a little more in Contracts and Employment Law--if you've even started law school.

31, fraud in the inducement? do you really think hiring partners have a duty to disclose that the partnership is "thinking about" "potentially" laying off associates at some point down the road? the only way a fraud claim has legs is if the hiring partner knew that the associate would be laid off and induced him or her to accept the position anyway. which obviously would be extraordinarily difficult to prove, to say nothing of the fact that it would not occur in real life.

How do stupid acronyms like ROFL and LMAO get started? No one actually says them in real life and its comes across as unbearably geeky.

orzo: pasta or rice?

100 plus comments, and has anyone named a firm yet?

69-

Eh, I don't think it's as cut and dry as you think

"As part of the engagement letter, Fish did have a prospective conflict waiver, stating, "In the past, when we have been retained for regulatory work only, we have made it an express condition of our representation that the firm not be conflicted from taking any intellectual property work that might otherwise be adverse to our clients."

Seems like they weighed their options and the prospect of losing a tiny client and a small amount of revenue was dwarfed by a potential for something much larger. I can't really blame them.

It doesn't look like they are being sued either.... just a motion for disqualification.

"We'll try to collect your tips, and figure out just how many firms are rescinding offers"

I appreciate the major structural improvements you've made in your writing Elie, but let's not forget the finer points. I'm going to let you off with a warning for this comma splice.

This post has yielded no firms because none have rescinded offers.

The ship be sinking...

Based on this blog post, clearly rescinding offers to 3Ls is now standard. Thus the Management Committee will be moving forward with this next step to prop up our PPP numbers.

I have an idea -- no one will like it.

We need to re-regulate lawyers in this country -- a major change, but simple, and not impacting state-by-state regulation. Here's my plan.

We need an entity (probably in each state) that doles out some sort of pass or permit that a graduated, bar passed, admitted lawyer needs to get to actually practice law. Without it, you cannot practice law -- EXCEPT "public interest" (e.g., public defender, prosecutor, legal aid, etc.)

To qualify to get a pass, you have to prove you're matriculated, you passed the bar, and you're admitted to a state's bar.

Once you seek to get a pass, you get in line -- or maybe into a pool (or fishbol of sorts) until your name gets drawn. Once you've gotten your pass, voila! Private practice, here you come!

Why do this plan of mine? Because of the very problem this economy is presenting to folks. Face it: too many law grads are getting pumped out of law schools and the marketplace is saturated.

Without my plan, things will get worse. With my plan, thngs will improve.

Some other time I'll share my ideas on how to get the mega-greedy law schools to have to charge folks less -- although I expect my above plan would lead market forces to convince some law schools to adjust their fares downward.

NOBAMA

I have an idea -- no one will like it.

We need to re-regulate lawyers in this country -- a major change, but simple, and not impacting state-by-state regulation. Here's my plan.

We need an entity (probably in each state) that doles out some sort of pass or permit that a graduated, bar passed, admitted lawyer needs to get to actually practice law. Without it, you cannot practice law -- EXCEPT "public interest" (e.g., public defender, prosecutor, legal aid, etc.)

To qualify to get a pass, you have to prove you're matriculated, you passed the bar, and you're admitted to a state's bar.

Once you seek to get a pass, you get in line -- or maybe into a pool (or fishbol of sorts) until your name gets drawn. Once you've gotten your pass, voila! Private practice, here you come!

Why do this plan of mine? Because of the very problem this economy is presenting to folks. Face it: too many law grads are getting pumped out of law schools and the marketplace is saturated.

Without my plan, things will get worse. With my plan, thngs will improve.

Some other time I'll share my ideas on how to get the mega-greedy law schools to have to charge folks less -- although I expect my above plan would lead market forces to convince some law schools to adjust their fares downward.

NOBAMA

Is it news that unnamed students at NORTHERN KENTUCKY UNIVERSITY might not have jobs?

FIRST to say wake me up when you actually have news, instead of speculation designed to scare people.

-3L with a biglaw offer (for now)

FIRST to say wake me up when you actually have news, instead of speculation designed to scare people.

-3L with a biglaw offer (for now)

Such a BS thread. Why do we come to this blog?

Luce Forward confirmed a couple weeks ago that they were rescinding 3Ls in the LA Daily Journal.

100 = genius

100 = genius

The contract between a 3L who has accepted offer and his future law firm is not an at-will employment contract but rather an executory contract to enter into one such employment relationship. After the offeree (the 3L) has accepted the offer, the contract becomes binding and can no longer be withdrawn by the offeror law firm.

After the 3L begins work, the executory contract would have been fully performed and an at-will employment contract takes its place. At that point the law firm may fire him at any time.

@109: Pasta

109: Neither.

@ 116/117: You're right about one thing in your inept double-post. No one is going to like that idea . . . because it is asinine.

116/117 failed antitrust in law school (and economics 101 in undergrad). shocking, he's a republican.

I think it's fairly safe to assume that a lot of firms will at least defer 3L start dates, at least until after the bar results come out. No need to bring on anyone who fails.

I think it's fairly safe to assume that a lot of firms will at least defer 3L start dates, at least until after the bar results come out. No need to bring on anyone who fails.

130+ post— no firm names. I'm a complete idiot for even looking at this blog anymore.

There, I admit it. Who else will join me?

“The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”
--Gandhi or Kermit the Frog

3L here at top5 law school with offer (and start date) for V20 firm in NY.

have not heard a thing to suggest i wont have a job in september.

so i echo 120. wake me up when, you know, something happens.

I work at a big corporate defense firm in Boston and the rumor is that maybe half of our summer associates will get offers this year. The 3Ls seem to be safe for the time being though.

117: jesus christ. You're an idiot.

Elie, here's my problem with this thread: it attracts more law students [and apparently, their non-JD spouses, parents, etc.] to this site. You, sir, are on a collision course with autoadmit. Why not post a law school admissions thread and see what happens...

p.s. this profession is in need of a serious overhaul. "A JD opens doors..." my ass.

this cannot be good news for UPenn State's satellite campus in Philly!

100 -

I like your haiku.

No promissory estoppel in NY in the at will employment context. So, for 3Ls impacted in NY - sorry.

As per allowing 3L's to "start" working and then letting them go - that's just silly. Why do that and invite different causes of action premised upon employment (i.e., discrimination, retaliation, breach of contract, etc.)?

From a reputation standpoint - maybe - but why spend $170k plus on a first year who doesn't know poop from apple butter when you could spend it on 3rd and 4th years who do?

Law students - Face it, the sky is falling and you are falling with it (at least as far as BigLaw is concerned). Do yourself a favor and get some solid experience - somehow - so that when the economy bounces back you have a decent resume and you do know the difference between poop and apple butter.

Count me as another T20 3L who has heard nothing about any offers being rescinded. Posting this under the guise of calling for tips is ridiculous and obviously designed to drum up traffic. I'm fairly certain that if/when it happens ATL will be the first person on that 3L's email list, and this "request for tips" post is just scaring people.

107, let's think for a moment like a litigator. If multiple members of a firm are considering offer withdrawals or layoffs, there likely be a paper trail with potentially damaging content. The key initially is to get beyond a motion to dismiss, which properly crafted allegations can achieve, and get into discovery. Then, interesting things can happen.

3L going to V10 firm with state date (in the fall) here. *knock on wood*

125, you're an idiot. Prove me wrong, though - cite one on-point precedent. Or sue, and email Elie your complaint. Then submit updates as to how your case pans out. When your claim is dismissed, none of us will laugh at you, I promise.

141, let's think like a judge. fraudulent inducement requires 9(b) pleading. tell me how you can satisfy that under the scenario presented.

I'm a 3L. My offer was rescinded. Things were going well until I mentioned back-door action, at which point she threw me out of her apartment.

Finally a thread about the inevitable. We need to face reality -- some 3L offers will be rescinded over the next few months. When firms realize that business is not picking up, and that they will have nowhere to place us, they will have no choice but to make some cuts.

I suspect that, when making their decision about who to cut, they will look at some combination of (a) summer associate reviews, and (b) the firm's relationship with a particular school. The firm will probably have a 'nice' partner call those on the chopping block, and will then send around an e-mail to those remaining explaining that the cuts were 'unavoidable' given the 'unprecedented economic conditions'.

Personally, I am applying for any government job I can find right now. I will not just sit down and wait for the slaughter. Even though I got good summer reviews, I am not taking any chances right now.

Good luck to all of us.

I stand by my assertion that rescinding offers to 3Ls is extremely shortsighted and will result in reputational damage to the firm that will take a long time to overcome, if the damage is ever overcome. Sure, students from schools such as Brooklyn Law School, St. John’s, and Seton Hall will continue to line up for jobs. But once the economy picks back up, if I am a 2L at a school such as Yale, Harvard, or Stanford, why in the world would I ever accept an offer from a firm that I know has destroyed the careers of past law students before they even began when I could instead accept an offer from a firm that is similar in all aspects except for the fact that it didn’t rescind 3L offers? Why would I join a firm knowing that if the economy takes a downturn in the two years before I start, the firm will choose to destroy my career to save money when I could instead go to a firm that didn’t engage in this practice? When the economy picks back up, students from top schools will have options and they will steer well clear of firms that rescinded offers to 3Ls.

144, check the cases already referenced in the Prof's blog but, more importantly, run the cites.

If 3L offers get revoked, there will be a lot of suicides. I wish I was joking. I, for one, have no other options (because I thought I had a job), and would be completely devastated if I got cut.

I'm a 3L with an offer and a start date. I've heard nothing to suggest that my offer is in trouble, but a reassuring email from my firm's hiring committee would be greatly appreciated.

Obviously the 3Ls who summered at Thelen, Heller and Thatcher Profitt don't have anywhere to go now. Same deal with the previous summer classes at those firms. A firm dissolving has the same effect as a rescinded offer for those people.

150 -
Don't hold your breath.

Can everyone who spent time on this comment page writing about "employment at will" be shot in the face please. If you are on this blog and don't understand this, then you are either (1) a retarded lawyer or (2) have no need to be on this blog. I'm sick on having to scroll through 30 comment posts because it's just a bunch of 1L's trying to sound smart by defining promissory estoppel. SHUT THE FUCK UP!

Okay, okay. NOW is it time to crack each others' heads open and feed on the goo inside?

149. If you would like to die, then do it, and decrease the surplus population.

Biglaw Partner

Well, well, well. 116/117 here again, checking to see if anyone offered any reasond feedback on my idea.

So far, the only feedback I've gotten is "it is asinine," "116/117 failed antitrust in law school (and economics 101 in undergrad). shocking, he's a republican," and, best of all, "you're an idiot."

*SIGH*

I suppose I feel better knowing only bitter losers looking to vent have shared their, um, feelings. Or is it that dump I just had?

In any event, seriously, back to the idea. I tstill think it is a good idea. And unless I read any reasoned explanation of why someone thinks it isn't, I will remain convinced it is a good one.

Come on, somebody with a real, working brain who cares about this lousy economy has some reasoned feedback?

Did ATL hire Karl Rove as a consultant? This is nothing but fear mongering and scare tactics.

3L BigLaw bound

I am a 3L with an offer and a start date too. I really like the firm and everyone has been very good to me so far. This summer my husband will be quitting his job and we will sell our house so we can move to my job. His job is not 100% secure now either so it is not like it is a sure thing to stay here, but at least he is employed. When do people think it is safe to sell the house and let the spouse quit based on an offer and a fall start date? If offers are rescinded when do we think it will happen? We really can not afford to get stuck with neither of us working.

BOOM!

147, if you believe that a rescinded offer will "destroy" your career, you'd better look for another line of work because you are too emotionally fragile to make it in this profession anyway.

if a firm were to rescind 3L offers, how do you think it would deal with 3Ls who are beginning a federal clerkship in the fall?

this thread was a complete waste of time.

Ok, 116/156, I'll bite. First, I believe most people ignored you because you don't explain how your plan will fix anything, nor is it intuitively obvious what your plan is supposed to do, exactly.

All your proposal does is add an extra layer of government bureaucracy to the job application process. It doesn't shrink law school class size, it doesn't eliminate unqualified applicants, it doesn't require better forecasting by firms, nor does it fix any other issue contributing to the current problem. It appears that all it does is grant a license to enter private practice.

So, here's my question for you:
1) The glutted job market is already full of people who have met your requirements (i.e., graduated and passed the bar). Presumably, that means they would all also qualify for your "private practice license." Therefore, what purpose does your plan serve if it doesn't shrink the existent job market?

160 - if you were going to start a Biglaw job only to have it taken away from you in this economy, don't you think it is going to have a pretty drastic impact on your career path? Where the hell is a law school graduate supposed to find a job in this economy that will ever provide anywhere near the experience and boost to the resume that a job in Biglaw would? While 3Ls that had their offers revoked will still obviously have careers ahead of them, for most affected their future careers will bear no semblance to the careers that they would have had if their offers had not been revoked.

Stop crying, 164. If you want to work in BigLaw, and you're qualified to work in BigLaw, you'll get there. Yes, you may detour into government, small law, non-law, academia, clerkships, etc. But 2 years outside BigLaw won't kill you. It might even make you more interesting than those dead-eyed drones billing 2000+ hours. So suck it up, act like an adult, take some responsibility for yourself, and find a job.

It took my grandpappy 6 months to find a job out of law school. He had a good career. You will too. Now buck up, little broncos, put on your shitjackets, and ride out the shitstorm with the rest of us. You'll be fine.

The above people are right, Elie. You are using this site as a stick to generate traffic, and that's only going to work for so long. Only when it becomes an advocate for associates will the site keep the same hit count in the uptimes as it does presently.

This isn't even a story, ATL. Fear mongering, plain and simple.

Come back with some real layoff posts. They are the only thing worthwhile on this petty, embarrassing rag of a site.

T-20 3L. Still have my offer, and haven't heard that anybody in my class has had an offer rescinded.

If you need ATL and/or Elie to advocate for you, you are FUBAR. And how does one use a website as a "stick"? Move along, 167. I'm embarrassed for you.

163, 116/117 here again. Thanks for taking the time.

To answer what you wrote, respectfully:

First, my friend, you ask "how does this idea fix anything"?

Well, my friend, it fixes the problem. Of course, the "problem" I speak of is, in part, this glut of well-educated, freshly minted, overly self-important yet terrifically unemployed law grads. Underscore the word "glut," there, my friend. Really. We need less of them clammoring for the $160k jobs, and more of them helping indigents. No? My approach to this problem staunches the bleeding by making sure that next year, there will be fewer of these people applying for the $160k jobs -- so that instead of 100 applicants for every such job available, hopefully the number will be less.

Second, my friend, you ask "what is this idea supposed to do, exactly"?

My friend, (OK, I'm smitten with this John McCain-ism), as I just explained, in the years ahead, my idea, if implemented today, would result in a variety of things. First, grads with passes would stand a better chance of actually getting a job. (Wow, whatta concept, right?) Second, those mulling over whether to go to law school in the first place would know that they can't hope top reap the $160k jobs until they've waited their turn or performed public legal services for indigents. So, conceivably, I think we'd see less people running to go to law school. And I also think we'd see law schools maybe having to work harder to get people to apply. Which might even have the effect of lower fees to attend (and, ergo, lower debts upon graduating). In other words, this will impact the market, and I can't see how it would do so negatively.

Third, my friend, you coplain that all this idea does "is add an extra layer of government bureaucracy to the job application process."

My friend, my friend, my friend.

Actually, my friend, this idea calls for little, if any, added bureaucracy. I suggest states might need to do it, and there are already states regulating who can and who cannot become a lawyer. The added cost might be as little as choosing a way to randomly select who to give passes to. Or do it chronologically, in terms of who applied first. That's it. Not a lot of "extra layer of government bureaucracy" there.

Nor does this idea add anything to "to the job application process." Presumably people without passes either won't waste potential employers' time without having passes, or they'll check first (I suposed top tier grads will always be highly sought after, pass or not.)

Fourth, my friend, you wrote "It doesn't shrink law school class size, it doesn't eliminate unqualified applicants, it doesn't require better forecasting by firms, nor does it fix any other issue contributing to the current problem. It appears that all it does is grant a license to enter private practice."

My friend, you were rolling. But let me set you straight.

This idea isn't a talisman. It will limit the number of people in the marketplace who may practice law and increase the number interested in serving the public. But I agree that you aren't out there in left field in your assessment of the symptoms of some of the difficulties in the legal marketplace. My idea definitely helps.

Fifth, my friend, you posed the question: "The glutted job market is already full of people who have met your requirements (i.e., graduated and passed the bar). Presumably, that means they would all also qualify for your "private practice license." Therefore, what purpose does your plan serve if it doesn't shrink the existent job market"?

Ah, my friend, that's a question I hope my earlier remarks have answered. My idea DOES shrink the existing job market, at least by decreasing the number of job applicants out there who would be immediately able to run out there and represent a client and practice law. And that will help solve the glut by reducing it.

You see, if the boatloads of way smart people anxious to enter the great brain drain that is law school know upfront that they'll need to not only graduate, pass the bar, gain admission to a state's bar BUT ALSO then and only then begin to wait around and get one of these passes (or do public service for somke minimum required period), we'll see only the most committed want to go through the whole process. We'll see people deciding to go to law school with a better sense of how likely it really is that they'll get that nice $160k job (notwithstanding all the nice materials published by law schools about how much money their grads are purportedly earning on average.)

163, 116/117 here again. Thanks for taking the time.

To answer what you wrote, respectfully:

First, my friend, you ask "how does this idea fix anything"?

Well, my friend, it fixes the problem. Of course, the "problem" I speak of is, in part, this glut of well-educated, freshly minted, overly self-important yet terrifically unemployed law grads. Underscore the word "glut," there, my friend. Really. We need less of them clammoring for the $160k jobs, and more of them helping indigents. No? My approach to this problem staunches the bleeding by making sure that next year, there will be fewer of these people applying for the $160k jobs -- so that instead of 100 applicants for every such job available, hopefully the number will be less.

Second, my friend, you ask "what is this idea supposed to do, exactly"?

My friend, (OK, I'm smitten with this John McCain-ism), as I just explained, in the years ahead, my idea, if implemented today, would result in a variety of things. First, grads with passes would stand a better chance of actually getting a job. (Wow, whatta concept, right?) Second, those mulling over whether to go to law school in the first place would know that they can't hope top reap the $160k jobs until they've waited their turn or performed public legal services for indigents. So, conceivably, I think we'd see less people running to go to law school. And I also think we'd see law schools maybe having to work harder to get people to apply. Which might even have the effect of lower fees to attend (and, ergo, lower debts upon graduating). In other words, this will impact the market, and I can't see how it would do so negatively.

Third, my friend, you coplain that all this idea does "is add an extra layer of government bureaucracy to the job application process."

My friend, my friend, my friend.

Actually, my friend, this idea calls for little, if any, added bureaucracy. I suggest states might need to do it, and there are already states regulating who can and who cannot become a lawyer. The added cost might be as little as choosing a way to randomly select who to give passes to. Or do it chronologically, in terms of who applied first. That's it. Not a lot of "extra layer of government bureaucracy" there.

Nor does this idea add anything to "to the job application process." Presumably people without passes either won't waste potential employers' time without having passes, or they'll check first (I suposed top tier grads will always be highly sought after, pass or not.)

Fourth, my friend, you wrote "It doesn't shrink law school class size, it doesn't eliminate unqualified applicants, it doesn't require better forecasting by firms, nor does it fix any other issue contributing to the current problem. It appears that all it does is grant a license to enter private practice."

My friend, you were rolling. But let me set you straight.

This idea isn't a talisman. It will limit the number of people in the marketplace who may practice law and increase the number interested in serving the public. But I agree that you aren't out there in left field in your assessment of the symptoms of some of the difficulties in the legal marketplace. My idea definitely helps.

Fifth, my friend, you posed the question: "The glutted job market is already full of people who have met your requirements (i.e., graduated and passed the bar). Presumably, that means they would all also qualify for your "private practice license." Therefore, what purpose does your plan serve if it doesn't shrink the existent job market"?

Ah, my friend, that's a question I hope my earlier remarks have answered. My idea DOES shrink the existing job market, at least by decreasing the number of job applicants out there who would be immediately able to run out there and represent a client and practice law. And that will help solve the glut by reducing it.

You see, if the boatloads of way smart people anxious to enter the great brain drain that is law school know upfront that they'll need to not only graduate, pass the bar, gain admission to a state's bar BUT ALSO then and only then begin to wait around and get one of these passes (or do public service for somke minimum required period), we'll see only the most committed want to go through the whole process. We'll see people deciding to go to law school with a better sense of how likely it really is that they'll get that nice $160k job (notwithstanding all the nice materials published by law schools about how much money their grads are purportedly earning on average.)

Now, my friend, thank you again.

wtf is my friend bs. Are you friggin felix lighter or something

wtf is my friend bs. Are you friggin felix lighter or something

171/172: Your post is one of the most annoying I've ever read here, and that says a lot. Aside from that, your idea blows.

171 = TOD (touch of downs)

Markets exist to enable purchase of the highest quality good or service at the lowest price. Glut of attorneys = good for consumer of legal services. It's true for every other category of labor, and it should be true for lawyers too.

As a republican you should know (or at least believe) that.

171/172 here again.

Not a republican, dewd. Ha-yehunh.

171/172: Your proposal is so fraught with problems I have trouble deciding where to begin. I'll just put the issues into questions, and you can try and explain your way out of them.

How do you qualify for a "pass"? Another bar exam?

No increase in bureaucracy? Who administers the program? Who sets qualifications? Who checks qualifications? Who determines how many passes to be given out from year to year? Who manages the "fishbowl" from which law firms may draw applicants?

How does the agency determine how many passes to give out? Will it be based on law firms' forecasts of how many associates they need? If so, that's the exact same thing we have now - law firms hiring based on their forecasted employment needs. Or will the agency dictate to law firms how many associates they will be allowed to hire? And how on earth will that work, and on what information will it be based?

This is a terrible idea, and it reeks of communism. We, the government, will determine who gets to enter private practice, and we, the government, will control the size of the industry, and we, the government, will set qualifications.

I have to remind myself that most of the people who post here are just law students and don't have real world experience practicing law, much less senior enough to have the insight into the actual financial operations of law firms.

Here's the reality, revenues at places were ok, slightly up, or slightly down for 2008. But profits are down anywhere from 15-40%. Collection rates have slowed and are getting troubling, so it isn't just that business is down but also not getting the cash for the business you did. Big firms have had quiet (and some not so quiet) capital calls, including some downright bizarre ones. Is any firm eager to cut 3L offers? Of course not. We are law firms and tend to be the most risk averse and fearful of reputational damage. But that used to also prevent the flood of highly talented attorneys you are seeing dumped on the market right now too. Again, think pragmatically for a moment here? Do you really think a law firm is going to bring 3Ls on if the economy stays like this or gets worse? Some of you will be invited to delay your start date 3-6 months. Others of you will be invited to be secunded to a pro-bono gig for a time. Some will have offers rescinded. Stop debating over how they can do that. If they think they have to they will. And it won't be an issue for them.

171/172 here again.

Look, 178, I bet if we really talked, we'd probably not disagree on a lot of issues riased in your comment -- but you are attributing far too much that my idea does not entail.

The way I would envision it working, the same regulatory body that issues licenses would issue the passes. And as to qualifications, they would merely be that (1) you must be an accreddited law school graduate, (2) you did you pass the state bar exam, and (3) you have already been granted your license from that same regulatory body. That's it. If you meet those three requirements -- and the same office will know with no needed additional bureaucracy -- then your name esssentially gets tossed in the fishbowl. Or added to the list. Whichever. I'm not sure at this point which is a better approach, but I'm kind of leaning toward a random selection process. I mean, every day court clerks across the country choose jurors randomly, so I think it can be a fine way to hand out passes here, too.

So look: all I'm suggesting is that passes get doled out randomly or depending on who asked for one first. But the only purpose is to limit the number of lawyers who can practice and reprepsent clients -- unless they want to go public sector. I mean, that's the idea. That's it.

Now, you did ask what I think is a crucial question -- how many passes get handed out. That's something that can be adjusted as needed. But perhaps the first year, 99% of qualified applicants would get passes. Then, if the market's still swamped, maybe bump it down five or ten percent. And I realize figuring out "how swamped the market is will require data of some sort. But the Fed raises and lowers rates on a lot less factual data. Look at unemployment numbers, vote on it, whatever. But the whole (and only) point of my idea is put a needed limit in place.

Right now, the fact that there's an endless gusher of grads weighted with debt is hurting everyone. Having no limit is causing serious societal problems -- just ask any nervous, debt-straddled 3L or a still unemployed grad from last year.

As to your "will the agency dictate to law firms how many associates they will be allowed to hire," come on. You know that's not what my idea entails -- or hopefully now you do. And look, I'd be right there with you at the front line bitching and screaming if anyone made such a suggestion. But that's not what I'm suggesting, so don't attribute it to me.

I think people who have yet to enter the law marketplace might not like this idea, for obvious reasons. The last thing they need now that they've already committed to their law school debt is to have yet some other impediment between them and that mystical, coveted $160k job that they went to law school to get in the first place. And as I've said, law schools aren't going to be keen on it either. But this needs to happen.

Perhaps implement it in three years to not get people in school now jammed up unfairly? Perhaps that's the best way to do it.

Look, I'm against communism too, bub. But my idea, I think it fair to say, has no such feature because it only sets numbers and doesn't make 'big brotherish' decisions like who gets to enter private practice, nor does it "control the size of the industry" or "dictate to law firms how many associates they will be allowed to hire" as you suggest. That's not what I'm suggesting. Under my idea I want to see firms grow and hire as they see fit, and if they need more applicants, they should be free to hire as many as they want. But my idea doesn't limit any of that. Under my idea, if too few people are getting passes, the private firms would be free to always pipe up and say they need more passes handed out; and then more passes probably should get handed out. That's my idea.

I still appreciate that you took the time to offer your thoughts. I was clearly provoked. Thank you.

180 - That has to be one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard. After people have already gone over $100k in debt, devoted three years of their lives, and passed the exam designed to test their competency, you suggest that we subject them to some lottery to see if they can practice law? I have news for you--if a state implemented this practice, they would soon have a severe shortage of young attorneys because no one in his or her right mind would subject to chance whether or not they get their law license after the sacrifices they have already made.

181, 180 here.

Ironically, your comment is one of the dumbest I've yet seen.

If your odds are 99% of winning the "lottery," as you call it, of course you're going to buy that lottery ticket. Yet, from that mistaken assumption you then jump to the prediction that "young attorneys" will somehow magically all decide to flock to some other state to pursue their career choice to practice law.

With all due respect, your "severe shortage" doomsday scenario is based on a full misunderstanding of my idea. Again, my idea contemplates adjusting the percentage of "lottery" 'winners' if you will as the market requires. You don't seem to get that. Nor do you understand that my idea requires both a license and a "pass" as I've termed it. Because you say "no one in his or her right mind would subject to chance whether or not they get their law license after the sacrifices they have already made" -- but my idea wouldn't subject whether they get their "law license" to chance. Moreover, nothing in my idea prevents them from entering the practice of law for the public service -- and in fact, my idea encourages it.

I appreciate your feedback all the same.

Anyone who believes that 3L offers for Vault 100, 50 20 or even 10 firms are safe is living in a dream world. There are scores of HYS grads with real big firm experience out on the street. Any law firm that is even considering adding attorneys in the next year (and that would include 3L's with "offers") must look reality in the face and consider hiring experienced attorneys off the street. Most of the recently laid off attorneys would be glad to take first year or second year pay for a year in a "prove it" type of a deal and most firms know this.

Why hire some 3L for $160K (or more), who has not even taken the bar, when you can have your pick of hundreds of attorneys with experience right off the street?

And get off the "it will damage their reputation forever" if they rescind 3L offers. Please......so you think law firms really give a crap about their reputation among law students? They care about one thing and one thing only PPP!

Any firm that rescinds offers to 3L's will have the same stack of resumes on their desk from law students 2, 5, 10 and 20 years from now so long as the firm is profitable. PPP rules! Reputation is....overrated.

183 = laid off assjack trying to convince himself he'll be rehired

Jesus Fucking Christ. Offer rescinded? Here's a wild idea: LOOK FOR ANOTHER JOB. That's what every other fucking unemployed person in this country is doing right now. Three years of masturbating to Posner doesn't grant you some special right to employment.

-signed, a BigLaw associate who is thankful to still have a job, but won't cry like a fucking baby if that changes

185, I thought I wouldn't cry like a baby either. But then it happened. And I cried. Like a baby. It's worse than you might think.

186, I get that losing your job really, really sucks. What I don't get is why any of these dickstains seem to think they are OWED a job simply because they went to law school. Every single one of these douchenozzles would laugh their asses off if they heard some guy whimpering about injustice and promissory estoppel because the manager at the local McDonalds offered him a job and then called back to say "oops, we can't afford to hire you right now."

182, so instead of the market limiting the number of private sector jobs based on supply and demand, you would prefer a bureaucrat limit the number of private sector jobs based on a random lottery?

If idiotic 0Ls are unfazed by market forces and go to TTT schools with $150k of debt right now, what makes you think they will be deterred by a lottery? In fact, you'll get more TTT students, since now employment is based less on merit but more on a random factor, which means the meritless graduates have a better chance.

Wow. Please learn about the command economy in Communist societies and how that has worked out.

3L here who has offer from V20 firm and has already cashed their bonus check.... At least that's moving in the right direction.

117 must be retarded. Instead of letting the market decide who gets hired, and where (which they would base on qualifications and merit) you are busted down to public interest hell until some civil servant calls your number? The strong survive and take good jobs, and the idiots take shitty jobs. Sorry 117, if you didn't want to be stuck at Legal Aid, you should have worked harder.

I think we'd be better off with a thread providing known v10 fall start dates than this thread.

13 - I am still laughing. thank you

The majority of people who post here make my stomach hurt for the future of our profession.

164 - Having an offer rescinded as a 3L is not going to have any impact on your career because you don't even have one. Hell, I quit a law job 6 days into my first year at a firm to take a job with another firm. Didn't impact my career one bit. I swear. And if you think anything will, then it would be that. But no.

You can get fired for sexual harassment and it won't impact your career. Why? If the firm fires you, you get severance and a signed confidentiality agreement saying neither the firm nor you will discuss the reasons for termination or that you were even fired. The firm is more than willing to sign such a letter just in case they got it wrong and it was a false accusation. So if even that won't ruin your career, then having an offer rescinded before you even have a career is nothing. I'm going to have to agree with 95. Take an employment law class. You'll get a feel for these things.

What will ruin your career? Being whiny and vocal at work. Keep your little mouths shut, show up to work early or on time every day (we're back in the time of face time being important people), produce work product that doesn't offend partners and senior associates, and you have a better chance to weather this mess. That, and make friends with the clients. Even if the client is fungible, if they like you and the partner knows they like you, you are in a better position to stay.

And no firm cares a bit about whether rescinding offers or laying off associates will impact whether they get 200 resumes a year from every law school on the planet. If none of you have jobs, then everyone is going to be applying everywhere. It actually will mean that the top firms will get to be even more discriminating among the best of the associates, not less.

Oh, and stop with the promissory estoppel/employment law nonsense. Poster 95 is actually correct. He's been a lawyer, obviously. 106, I doubt you are. An "offer" for at will employment is worth about as much as beach front property in Siberia. But good job in trying to find the tricks that might pop up in your law school exam or the Bar. Way to think ahead there. But it's best to not waste your energy splitting hairs that don't need splitting. There's no such thing as a claim that pre-exists a claim that doesn't exist. Any contract you sign is purely to protect the firm and keep you from looking for more work, and even then it's only so they can recoup your tech allowance and bar expenses, if they pay for them, before you start.

As a 3L hoping my offer is not rescinded, I can honestly say that I don't think the firms are laying off enough people. In fact, I hope that they lay off even more--first years, second years, or the very annoying mid to senior level associates with all of the "super" insightful comments on this blog.

The only chance that I am going to hang onto my job, is a shortage of lawyers. So please BigLaw let's pick it up.

194, and I hope you hang on to that offer so I, or my fellow mid- to senior-level associates can dump the work our secretaries are overqualified for onto you.

180. One or the other of us is very dumb. I'm not sure if it's you or me, so I'll explain where my confusion lies, and then you tell me what I missed.

Your proposal is designed to limit the number of people entering private practice, correct? Yet, you say, "Under my idea I want to see firms grow and hire as they see fit, and if they need more applicants, they should be free to hire as many as they want. But my idea doesn't limit any of that."

You go on to say that "private firms would be free to always pipe up and say they need more passes handed out; and then more passes probably should get handed out."

Let me get this straight - you have designed a system to limit private practitioners, but that imposes no additional limits on the number of private practitioners firms can hire. Nor does it limit the number of practitioners available because more passes can always be added.

How are those not mutually exclusive? It's like building a dam that doesn't stop any water.

Please explain, because I cannot wrap my head around this.

Life sucks right now for this once high-flying 3L. Back in October 2007, I had it all -- a sweet job offer with a six figure salary, a hot chick who would do anything for me, and friends who thought I was the shit.

Fast forward just over one year -- my girlfriend left me (she was sick of waiting for the payout that was never to be), my friends are scared to even talk to me because they know I will soon be unemployed with tons of debt, and my 'offer' is about to vanish.

I guess the silver lining is that things can't get much worse, right? I mean the economy needs to get better at some point, doesn't it?

197 = suicide

-180

The idea to limit the number of lawyers is not new.

Japan used to annually pre-determine the number of bar passers based on need until recently (and I think Korea is still doing it). Therefore, only the 500 candidates with the highest scores would pass for example. The average pass rate was about 3% and people would take the exam over and over again. The result was that candidates who passed the exam never had to worry about making money anymore. As attorneys were scarce, many jobs like in-house positions did not require candidates to be licensed attorneys which meant that even if you didn't pass the exam life would go on.

At least this model is based on merit and not some random lottery.

However, isn't it an "American" trait to let the market place decide? Access to the market is relatively easy (just look at the ridiculously high bar pass rates) and we trust that the market will regulate itself, meaning: the good ones prevail and the weak ones exit.

13 - Love your pug. ;)

197 - please tell me your post was a joke. Hot chick left you because you lost your big firm offer. Really? Does that really happen in real life. If this is true tell her I still have a job offer -- at least for the next few months. If she wants to dump me when I lose my offer and move in with my parents and work at Applebees thats OK. Id do anything for hot chicks.

Get some perspective . . .

201 - read through my post. My offer has not been revoked....yet. When my GF found out that I was at risk, she left me for some douche with a trust fund.

Wish I was kidding, bro.

Hi again, it's me, 180/182.

OK, in order:

As to 188's comments:

You seem to think my idea "would prefer a bureaucrat limit the number of private sector jobs based on a random lottery" -- but that's not what my idea entails. My idea wouldn't limit the "number of private sector jobs," it would limit the number of qualified people to fill those jobs. Hopefully you can understand now why my idea is nothing like one of the "command economy in Communist societies."

I disagree with the assessment that my idea entails a typical "lottery" -- where your chances of 'winning' the Big Prize on a Lotto or scratch ticket are normally slight to miniscule. My idea would allow qualified applicants to receive passes either (A) depending on when they applied, and they then wait their turn, or (B) by random selection. Again, I am leaning more toward (B), but I am leaving both options on the table.

But 188, I still found you raised a really good point. You pointed out the inherent inequity that would occur under an entirely random selection if a singularly well-qualified pass applicant got the snub over and over. I agree that wouldn't be a good result. So maybe if a random selection were to occur, maybe the rule ought a be that a person passed over three or whatever number) of times gets a pass.

Yet, I would disagree with you if you were to suggest that my idea would let "the meritless graduates have a better chance" of getting good high paying private sector jobs. I can say with certainty that the test of time has proven that what a "meritless graduate" is has always proven elusive. There is no litmus test. Some of the finest trial lawyers I've known graduated in the bottom of theiur class. Some took the bar more than once before passing. Only some were on law review or order of the coif. It is healthy in our competitive market to confidently believe you are a superior candidate for that coveted BigLaw gig because you've done so well in law school, etc., but if you know anything about the real world of practicing law, you know that what happened in law school quickly becomes irrelevant as you must prove yourself every Monday to survive.

So 188, if you are still in school, humble yourself, with confidence, and good luck as you enter the market. And thanks for your comments.

As to 190:

My friend, my friend, my friend. Calling someone "retarded" is indeed a truly compelling and difficult intellectual allegation to overcome. Yet, upon review of the rest of your deep thinking, I found it possible.

190, you asserted that my idea wouldn't let "the market decide who gets hired." Actually, my idea would let the market decide who gets hired. If BigLaw firm A didn't like the applicant pool, and complained it was too meek, they could ask for more people to get passes. But I think the market will work in a more effective way under my idea. By limiting the people who private firms can hire (and fire) to just those with passes and licenses, I think you'll see greater competition for the smartest and best out there, to the point that firms will retain those people to do things just short of "the practice of law," at least until they get their passes. Under my idea, the top tier law review types all get even MORE attention, money, and bidding. And the rest get a better chance and a more realistic assessment of what the market will offer for them when they get there.

However, 190, retarded and all I was still able to glean some merit in your remark "you are busted down to public interest hell until some civil servant calls your number." Good point, and something I forgot to mention. My idea's public service 'exemption,' if you will, would not last forever, but I hadn't mentioned that I had thought of that, so let me please elaborate slightly. I mentioned I had envisioned exempting public service lawyers, true. I didn't mention that I thought after some period of time -- say three years or so -- they'd get their coveted pass. But as to any whining that it would be "hell," I'm not entirely sympathetic. Today, many law schools give their grads loan repayment assistance if they do public service gigs -- see what they do at Harvard, for example. Moreover, many of the Ls out there have no idea what practicing law really entails. Or what litigating or trial work truly entails, either. These book smart, test smart people would benefit from real experience, and so would the public. (I've known more than a few laew review classmaters who've learned the hard way that all they accomplished at law school meant squat in the field.)

So, my friend 190, under my idea "the strong survive and take good jobs, and the idiots take shitty jobs." So one way or the other, my friend, under my idea there'll still be hope for you. (And no, I'm not a Legal Aid lawyer, nor dissatisfied in any way, but thank you.) And thank you for your comment.

As to 196:

First, I appreciate that at times we can all be dumb, perhaps not "very dumb," but not all of us are bright enough to know better. Now to your comment.

You seem to be saying that you are trying to simply understand my idea. First, let me please say that I thank you for taking the time to do so, as I think my idea has merit. So let me explain once more, with apologies for any lack of clarity my earlier remarks lacked.

Yes, the idea's system would result in some limitation on the number of available private practitioners, licensed attorneys authorized to practice law and represent clients.

You also wrote that this system "imposes no additional limits on the number of private practitioners firms can hire." You are correct again. Under my idea, BigLaw and other private firms could hire as many and as often as they want. My idea would limit the numbers out there, but I do not envisiosn that it would do so to the point that firms would be unable to hire as many or as often as they wish.

You also wrote "[n]or does it limit the number of practitioners available because more passes can always be added." Well, I think you've got that part a bit wrong. Again, to be legally authorized to practice law and represent clients under mny idea, one must have a license and a pass. Without both, you must practice public service law for a period of time until you get a pass, or you must wait until your number gets drawn. Yet, a third option is available too -- without the pass, nothing prevents you from working anywhere; you just can't represent clients or practice law until you get that pass. So without a pass, you can still get a BigLaw job where you do paralegal work, or something that doesn't ential the pratice of law or the representation of clients, but with the pass you get the $160k associate gig, you bill 2800 hours per year, and you get the big fatty bonuses.

True, more passes will always be added. But there needs to be a limit. I believe we've reached a critical mass where new grads -- even really bright, law review, top tier, nice people -- get out and get screwed all too often. It is time to limit the number of people in the pool, to some degree. My idea does just that. It doesn't entirely limit the number of passholders to the number of wanted ads, but it does reduce numbers slightly. It's an idea that's gotta help. I just know it.

Thank you for your comment, I hope what I've written helps.

Last but not least, 199.

I've heard that Canada and even some states (like Vermont) have internship requirements that add to the other requirements one needs to achieve before they can get their law license. But I am surprised to hear about what you write about Japan.

Under my idea, I would not limit pases to those who get the highest test scores. To repeat: there is no test that can predetermine who is going to make the best lawyer. Well, other than the test of time and experience. So if Japan ojly lets the highest test scorers get passes, that's something my idea would not do. Just as no written exam could predict which of us will make the best lawyer, no bureaucrat could do any better.

Yes, I agree that it's "an "American" trait to let the market place decide," and under my idea, the market would decide. Unlike the Japanese system, which presupposes that only the highest scoring test passers can get 'in,' my idea would allow anyone in, and once there, the market determines whether they sink or swim. Under my idea "the good ones [would still] prevail and the weak ones [would still] exit," there'd just be fewer of them.

Right now, without limitations, the market isn't working. New law schools are still arising. Tuition is only rising. More and more grads are entering the market each year. And that's all making the number of debt-straddled, desperate, unemployed grads grow to a proportion tjhat's bad for lenders, bad for the clients, bad for the economy. There has simply got to be a limit . Law schools are exercising ZERO restraint as to the number of grads they pump out. They care about what we all care about -- making money. But the difference is, the status quo is making too many victims and not satisfying the real need for legal representation. My idea will help.

Thank you all for your comments, thanks so much.