Mystal, you are an evil genius.

I love, love, LOVE this idea!!!

When firms have acted unprofessionally with respect to offers they have justified their actions as being economically sensible. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. It's in a law students economic interest to accept numerous offers when some may be yanked so I say it's fair game.

Ellie, you should write about this CNBC article (though it's been talked about here a lot): http://www.cnbc.com/id/32566554

Awesome post. But is it satire?

Elie:

I must admit that I liked the rejection letter. Did you think this up all by yourself?

This article assumes that the reader will receive an offer--an unlikely outcome for many of the schlubs who frequent this site.

Incidentally, I am secure at my father's preeminent peer law firm.

Great post, dead on.

7 - I agree, the letter is AWESOME. Congrats Elie, job well done.

How do you like them apples, Biglaw???

Bob Dell dropped his pants, squatted, and took a hot steamy Latham allover my career.

I was only there four months and they gave me no work.

Thanks for the Latham Bob!

Luckily I am not in law school now. If I were a student, I would, without a doubt, accept any and every offer. You can always reject them later. What are they going to do?

I would have assumed this is satire, but you never know with Elie. Anyone who follows this advice deserves everything that happens to them.

@8 -- Until some junior partner dequitizes your father....

14 - What is the downside of following this advice?

1. It's not like ATL is going to publicize / shame individual law students who pull this stunt.

2. Do you think Biglaw partners are going to waste their time - or risk the antitrust problems - talking to each other (in order to blackball) specific students who follow this strategy?

Elie, have you ever misspelled your own name? Oh, and excellent post.

BRILLIANT.

14 = Hiring partner scared s**tless.

Elie thinks like Ellie. I like it. But, we're not the same. Congratulations on winning idea.

The one downside is that I think firms have already adjusted their needs to their work, so if you receive an offer this fall, it is more likely to be a "real" offer rather an aspirational one. So, you're more likely this year than last to actually have to turn down one of the offers, and you have screwed at least one other student out of a summer position.

Still, very clever.

16: Burning bridges. It's a long career, you know.

I agree. Given that firms are willing to revoke offers without any concern for what they are doing, there is no reason for a 2L to have to spend their whole year unheged.

12 - was it a Cleveland Latham, a Los Angeles Latham, or the dreaded New York Latham?

Love the idea.
Risky for individual students. I have to think it will get back to law schools though. Will the law schools tell the firm where student did accept employment?

Elie, are you aware that "all delibarate speed" means slow? Look it up.

This is terrible advice. NALP may not be able to enforce its rules, but law firms sure can. If you accept with multiple peer firms in the same market, there's a very real chance that the firms will find out what you did -- especially after you start declining offers. Piss off the right people and your multiple offers could become zero. Supply of new associates is at an all-time high, and it's in every firm's interest to send out signals that these kinds of shenanigans will not be tolerated. Why keep on a spoiled law student who thinks it's a good idea to play games with your bottom line?

I remember this post! It was one of my better ATL momets, before Lat fires me from the blog and I became homeless. Just wait till 2010. I have an excellent post that year explaining why the economy, whihc suddenly blasts full speed ahead in the second quarter of that year, is the result of Obama's policies. Everyone critizizes me for it, but it's a briliant analysis. And this was a briliant post.

Keep up the good work Present Elie, and try not to get me fired in the future. We can change the future together.

That works until you do it, people remember it, and you end up paying for a jackass move in the end. It won't help you and will just screw your classmates.

Yeah it sucks that firms have all the power now, but kicking those in power in the nuts isn't going to help the situation.

14:
If you think that ATL won't run a story on it and that no partner at either firm will make a stink about it, I have a bridge to sell you. ATL may not out you directly, but you can be sure the commenters will. And you may be able to dodge the wrath of the old boy's network, but do you really want to take that gamble at a time in your career that you have zero experience and six figure debt?

19:
Yep, I'm a terrified hiring partner. The last thing we need is fewer first years.

Elie,
This is the first post you have written that complies with the rules of economics. It is a rational decision that economically rational people should be making if not for "NALP Rules". I applaud your efforts since NALP is nothing more than an antitrust violation waiting to happen. This is the best trust-busting idea you will ever come up with.

Sincerely,
Adam Smith's Invisible Hand

I am Future Elie is Legend. Down to the grammar

I wish I had never gone to law school. I will be $150 k in debt when I graduate in May. I have no job lined up. I dont even know that I want to be a lawyer and deal with this shit anymore. This is easily the biggest mistake of my life. With all this debt, there is no way to back out now. It is depressing as hell.

Here's where it would backfire:

1) Rejected employer contacts the student's law school to let them know what the student did. In the letter they make veiled threats about future hiring at that school.

2) Law school must decide whether or not to take disciplinary actions against the student. They need the firms for recruiting, so if they take a lax stance on this issue, firms will start reconsidering the school for OCI.

3) Law students may have to disclose any disciplinary action on bar applications. The fear of a C&F rejection is probably enough to prevent many people from going this route.

Face it. Law students have very little power to ignore the rules. Law firms have a great deal of power at the moment. They can pick and choose what rules to ignore with no real consequences.

I Am Future Elie = Best new commenter since Lady Soto.

14 is "scared s**tless"? No, 14 is sitting pretty. Nevermind students and grads - it's not like there are hundreds of very talented, very qualified, well-pedigreed attorneys on the market right now, right?

So would pulling this stunt tank your career? Almost certainly not in the short term, and possibly never. But, unless my experience is horribly anomalous, fairly remote connections have a way of fortuitously resurfacing down the road. It's possible some individuals could walk away unscathed, but if this practice became systemic, you would see a lot of people undermining themselves in the long run. It's a smaller industry than you think. The spoiled kid act isn't going to cut it in the future.

6 - Clearly satire - but, like the best satire, has about a 10 percent edge of truth to it.

arggghh... damn boxer briefs... son! get yer ass over here. oh bring the can of lard with ya'. NO! it's by the stove, right where it's always been. damn kids. hey sonny there you are. ok, put some of that there lard on the spatula. NOT the metal one damn it! that plastic flexy one that your momma uses. now, rub that there lard over my balls. make sure to get the right one extra good: it ain't 3 times as large as the left for nuthin'! hahaha. stop grinning and rub son! ok, now get them there boxer briefs and NOW we'll see if they fit over my BIG BALLS!

are they supposed to mail you an offer?

16 - They don't have to "blackball" anyone. What will happen is that partners, and law firm recruiters, will talk to one another (guess what, they already do) and the names of those playing the game will come out.

Nothing immediate, overt, or covert will be done. Much more passive - that when the name comes up for future employment, it will be "Hey, I remember when they jerked so and so around. That's not who we want working here." Voila - your short-term "strategery" pays its long term dividend.

Take it one step further:

1)Accept multiple offers and don't revoke any of them.

2)Show up on the first day at each firm, since many have different start dates.

3)Sit back and let the paychecks roll in. It's not like they have any work for summers to do anyway.

That's how I roll!

Is this how the self-entitled strike back?

Related question: is the advice any different for 3Ls? It used to be (maybe even up until last year) that 3Ls who were considering clerking and/or government work had a lot of flexibility. If you went to your firm and said "Hey, I'm applying to the DoJ Honors program and I may not know whether I've been accepted for a while," the firm said "Fine."

Has this changed? I assume that it is still in firms' interest to have associates who have clerkship or DoJ experience, but will that lead them to give 3Ls the flexibility they sometimes need?

Elie - I hope this is satire because (i) your advice is horrible and (ii) you can't be serious. However, it is not funny, clever or bighting (one of which any good satire should be) so I don't know if it would even qualify as satire.

As a number of postersw have pointed out, pulling a stunt like this would be very foolish, and certainly not risk averse. You do this at your peril.

On thing about this economy - the laid-off have more time to craft witty avatars and to post humorous comments.

This is truly beautiful. I say do it.

QUINN REMAINS enjoyed this post

In fact, there are drawbacks to Elie's plan.

A better tactic would have been for schools and firms to delay OCI until next semester. Over winter break, students could figure out which firms are floundering. They'd also have an additional semester's worth of classes, and might have a better sense of what kind of work they want to do. Meanwhile, firms could figure out their hiring needs, and they'd also have an additional semester's worth of grades to look at.

40: F-ing hilarious. But seriously, any law firm that had its offer accepted then revoked would probably contact your law school. I don't know what they could do to you, other than just get mad and out you to the firm, but even that wouldn't look good long term.

This blog has taken on an amazing sense of entitlement.

32 -- nobody forced you to take $150k in debt. don't have a job either, but with minimal debt at graduation have a lot more options.

Here are some words of wisdom from yours truly regarding this subject (as posted earlier in the week):

I am in a generous mood today so I will offer some wisdom that your career services office will not care to share with you. If you received an offer from your summer stint and you feel the firm will defer or terminate you within months of employment, reject the offer. You have a better chance of obtaining employment later on by telling other firms that you were the one that rejected the firm and not the other way around. Let's face it, if you received a no-offer this summer, you are damaged goods. No peer firm will hire someone else's rejects. On the other hand, if you were the one that rejected the offer, you have a redeeming quality in your favor. That is all.

Sounds like a great way to absolutely fuck all of your classmates whose resumes firms are sitting on and flout a sort agreed upon ethical standard. I'm sure this strategy will be pursued by many.

The NALP guideline doesn't just exist for the student - employer relationship, it also exists to provide some degree of regulation in the student - student realm.

"Take a good look my dear. It's an historic moment you can tell your grandchildren about - how you watched the Old NALP guidelines fall one night."

ATL Survey - Which would you rather have?

1. A summer job with a firm that will give 60% offers

2. A summer job with a firm that will give 90% offers, but also knows that you lied to another firm, broke the NALP rules and ignored the impact that might have on your classmates.

Funny, and sad, when a school's career counselor needs to warn law students against having a "sense of entitlement" this fall. But in good economic times, let the pomposity resume?

Accept those offers all the way through the first year of employment. Tell the ones you don't immediately start with that you're doing a clerkship for the year.

This will protect you from the dreaded first year associate layoff. Case in point, Latham laid off half the first years after only 4 months. Latham even picked up a large number of people at 3L OCI who had offers from their summer employers. Latham started them, gave them no work, then laid them off four months later. Accepting every permanent offer they'd received would have protected these people from the dreaded Lathaming.

In this economy, the partners are only looking out for number one. I recommend law students do the same.

Law schools demanding 40k a year in tuition in this economy have an incredible sense of entitlement.

Any law school urging students to violate NALP guidelines risks losing its ABA accreditation and may cease to be a member in good standing of the American Association of Law Schools.

43 - It's satire. And it's funny. The letter is comic gold.

I give Elie a hard time about lots of stuff, but give credit where credit is due.

you guys aren't thinking aggressively enough. here;'s what i plan to do:

- accept each of my 3 offers
- pretend that you're gonna start work on-time, as planned at each of the 3 firms.,
- just show up to one of the firms in May/June for the summer.
- don't even contact the other two firms. they'll just assume you forgot or died or couldn't find the office or whatever. who cares? they're not gonna "track you down."
- if/when OCS inquires about why you never showed up at the other two firms, remind them that they work for YOU and that YOU"LL be the one asking the questions, thank you very much.

do firms let you take a year off to work in DOJ Honors??

59 - You are easily amused.

43.

your mom accepted all her offers

ELIE,
I normally have your back, but you're being an outright idiot right now.

1. There are no NALP police per se, but there are consequences should facts be made known. IF the firm suspects what you did and contacts your school, your law school will almost certainly put you before a DISCIPLINARY BOARD. IF you are not expelled, you will, at the least, have a permanent letter of censure placed into your permanent law school file. This letter will be shown to all future employers and the BAR. The Bar might recommend a delayed admission if you blatantly fraudulently like you are suggesting in accepting 2 offers.

2. You should ask law schools deans, ethics professors, etc before you recommend illegal (illegal for our profession at least) activities. There was almost zero research put into this article other than reaching out to the NALP guy. Please don't be so lazy. It seriously takes 10 minutes to call a few law school deans or ethics professors.

-Elie supporter, but I do not endorse you recommending law students break the ethics rules (and yes, they are rules if your law school has adopted them, notwithstanding that there are no NALP police per se).

rofl 8, rofl 51. Thank you for making this site enjoyable.

60

If you do that you have no insurance against mass first year layoffs or your firm simply going under.

Tell the firsms you don't start with immediately that you're clerking for the year, so you have the option of starting with them your second year if necessary.

60

If you do that you have no insurance against mass first year layoffs or your firm simply going under.

Tell the firms you don't start with immediately that you're clerking for the year, so you have the option of starting with them your second year if necessary.

Hey 64, was your sense of humor excised in law school or at the firm?

[insert Intnetional SpelliNg mistake to provide easier flame(back)]

64 -- How come law firms don't have to adhere to these "ethics rules"??????

64 - it was a joke.

To clarify:
The satire was not lost on me. However, I think the overall message this article (headline, body, lack of counter argument) will lead people (who are already under pressure) to make the wrong decision. It provides justification in their minds, kind of like "everyone steals music illegally, so I think I can get away with it."
Also, while satire has its place, perhaps a PART of the article could do that, but not all of it since that's misleading. Moreover, there is no discussion of the repercussions of doing what is, perhaps satirically, suggested. At least disclose how this will get you kicked out of law school for a year or delay your bar admission.

-64

Anyone who thinks that an *attorney* at a firm whose offer is later rejected has nothing better to do than talk about the law student who rejected them is out of their mind. Now the recruiting staff may be pissed, but no hiring partner, and no associate, counsel, etc. will be bringing up to their colleagues at other firms about how little johnny screwed them over by dropping out in January or Feb. All the people who are claiming that word gets around too overestimate how widespread any such impact would be anyway.

First, you only screw yourself if people complain, AND you want to lateral to another biglaw firm. If you want to go to govt, or in house, then who cares. Also, how many different law firms are a slighted hiring partner/recruiter going to complain to? All of them? Plain silly.

If I were a 2L again, I would absolutely hold multiple offers with the possible exception being that I might try not to screw an especially small office. If a shop only hires 5 summers or something, and you keep that offer, then that's an especially dick move. If you're talking about a Skadden NY with 3000 summers then fire away!

Bravo. Love the letter. Bad idea, though. As others have pointed out, it just fucks over your classmates.

Since when does a law student agree to abide by the NALP rules?

I don't recall doing that back in the day.

Elie, I rag on you a lot, but this was an awesome post. Great, now I have to think twice before ragging on you again.

And could we get another Summer Offer Rate Open Thread tonight for the weekend? There's actually been good info in the comments occasionally.

40: that actually happened. but that was in the good 'ol days (late 90's)

am I the only one who notices that Elie seems to be confusing "holding open more than 2 offers" and "accepting two or more offers?"

"social compact" u mean social contract??

69
They do have to, they pledge to, but law schools don't enforce "rules" against those who have power. Firms have money, prestige, and pull. Those are cold hard facts. Not to mention the personal connections that might prevent full enforcement.
You can argue law schools have power, and they do. Look at the school that banned that one firm for 5 years because it pulled out at the last minute. This is the exception, not the rule.
I wish they followed the rules, but they don't always.

-64

74
Perhaps you didn't, but you likely did. I went to Duke Law, and when you sign that dotted line, there's a catch all clause that reads something like "and I agree to abide by all rules and policies the law school adopts with the utmost good faith...." (obviously a paraphrase, but I do remembering noting it. Thus, most ABA attendees ARE bound by NALP rules under the auspices of the Dean/Law School's general admissions rules.

Again, you are not LEGALLY bound, but you are ETHICALLY bound. And the bad part is that our profession requires ETHICAL certification.

HTH
-64

64: 74 has a good point. I don't remember signing anything about following all NALP guidelines. If firms are not following them -- and oh by the way, I know my OWN is not following the guidelines -- then who exactly is going to do so? Who's going to get pissed? The same firms that are flouting the guidelines anyway?

What would be your basis for bringing a student before a "disciplinary board" for holding multiple offers? If I'm wrong, then please inform me, but I don't remember agreeing to that crap years ago.

Wait a minute here. There are plenty of firms that work very hard to honor their commitments and have, in fact, taken a hit to honor their offers. So, for those who think about taking Elie's post seriously, think twice about this idea. Now, on the other hand, if the firm makes an offer that is likely to be retracted based on previous experience, I see less of a problem.

64/71

-Let's all say it together: "Any SA dumb enough to take career advice from ATL (or worse, commenters) gets just desserts."

Thinking about it a bit more--anybody dumb enough to do anything to f*** themselves over, no matter how remote the chance that the "f*** over" actually occurs, in this market, probably either can't get a SA position in the first place or at least certainly doesn't deserve to keep one. I know I'd be watching with a little bit of schadenfreude if I were competing for a job next summer with someone who had done this.

-68

81,
Like I posted in 79, I suppose it's possible that you are NOT bound ethically by the NALP guidelines. Duke Law students are, and I would venture to guess all ABA students are. You sign a general statement of compliance before attending law school, before day one, when you accept and mail in that letter and your 250 dollar deposit.

I actually know about this issue because I used to work on paper and I was researching an article where this was a secondary issue. So while it's not an absolute rule, it holds for Duke Law students, and I'd guess for all ABA students.

Furthermore, though not directly related, you might be interested to know that most law school policies (private schools, at least) include a clause that says the Dean has ABSOLUTE authority, with no option for appeal, should push come to shove. So while we'd like to imagine due process exists, it does NOT in private institutions.

-64

Like other folks have pointed out, this only works if administrative folks aren't talking to each other (the idea that partners in large offices have any idea who accepted SA offers is silly), and they are talking to each other, to some extent. So I'd caution against this move unless you're applying to multiple cities. If you haven't made up your mind between NY and LA, definitely accept one of each -- there is zero chance administrators are having inter-firm conversations across the coasts.

That said, the idea that you'd go before a disciplinary board at your law school for doing this is equally silly. You've got a straightforward argument that you were playing the at-will employment game to the best of your ability and there's nothing morally wrong with that. You just need to be sure you're in the first wave of doing this, before your law school circulates a memo establishing a disciplinary policy.

Good luck and godspeed.

(By the way, Future Elie is the only good commenter-character I've ever seen on this website.)

The author of the article, Bill Chamberlin, used to be at UNC Law in the Career Services Office. Let's just say he was less then unimpressive. Very glad when he left. He was worthless.

85,
Risky advice, very risky. I'm guessing either a 1L with no experience, or a jaded 3rd year associate who forgot law school's lessons and doesn't have the responsibility of being a partner and enforcing ethics rules independently.

while I don't contest your saying it's unlikely that firms are inter-office talking, I do contest your dismissing the issue.

First, firms do not need to inter-office talk. All they have to do is adopt a policy of phoning the law school of the people who accept then decline an offer. Honestly, how often does that happen? Probably very rarely, thus it's a huge red flag to ETHICAL WRONGDOING and requires almost no administrative resources to enforce (a 2 minute phone call by the hiring department of the firm to the law school). Once the law school gets a hold of this, you're screwed. At least at my school, you MUST say where you were given an offer, whether you accepted, etc. At this point, you're caught.

Second, you say it's NOT immoral. I agree. But it is UNETHICAL per NALP rules that, again I'm guessing, most law students are bound by.

In sum, risky advice, very risky.

-64

JFC 64, you're making us all look bad. Just STFU.

--Devil in Disguise

I enjoyed an unofficial "split-summer" between Skadden and Cravath. M-W-F one firm, T-Th the other, then switch on a weekly basis. Vigilant use of the Blackberry completes the charade on off-days. This method comes highly recommended.

82

What about firms like Latham that have not honored their offers? I'd say it's perfectly ethical to screw them over.

And no, firing half your first years 4 months after they start is not honoring your offer, severance or no severance. Your career is fucked whether or not you get the severance.

Elie- one of your best posts. good stuff!

#27 - you are superb.

Elie, this was your best work ever. And I hope that everyone else does it (sorry, I'm weak that way).

There will definitely be some more offer gamesmanship this year, if not the full "taking two offers" model offered by Elie.

Hey guys -- serious question here from a 2L. I'm currently sitting on two offers and want to take my time to explore the firms a little more before making up my mind. But if one of the firms rescinds their offer, might I have a Restatement 90 claim -- ie, promissory estoppel -- against the firm? Why wouldn't that work?

I told those fudge-packers I liked Michael Bolton's music.

Maybe it is wrong to take Elie's specific advice seriously but the general point that it is unfair to expect law students to abide by a system that is intended to work when BOTH sides abide by it when the employers are openly disregarding their commitments and ruining the careers and finances of young lawyers.

We should also remember this point every time some idiot posts about why should law firms pay lockstep when no other industry does it. Which other industry exposes the employees to the ethical constraints that lawyers have to work under? Law students give up a lot under the NALP rules and it is completely reasonable to expect some benefit for the constraints that are forced on them. Law is supposed to be a higher profession, not just another business.

Elie I've knocked you before but this was a solid post. Earned your pay today.

If employers are going to be permitted to rescind offers even after they are accepted and defer start dates and fire first and second years it is absolutely necessary to change the NALP rules so that students have more freedom to accept multiple offers, etc. The system is designed for an environment where employers uphold their commitments if the sudents abide by the rules.

96: What's the connection to lockstep here? It's a crazy industry, so we should pay top performers the same as bottom performers because medicore workers are entitled to an equal slice? Okay, comrade.

Lockstep makes sense for new associates with no track record; it makes no sense for associates who have been at a firm for 2 years or more. None.

96 - This is the real world. Better get used to it and learn to live in it, or you will not survive.

72: "Anyone who thinks that an *attorney* at a firm whose offer is later rejected has nothing better to do than talk about the law student who rejected them is out of their mind."

You are dead wrong. First of all it sounds like you're an *attorney* yet you had plenty of time to write your long post, so people have time on their hands. Second, it is unheard of to accept an offer than then back out; there's a very high chance that somebody would take a few minutes to make a phonecall.

Also, the benefit of holding multiple offers is very minor compared to the possible consequences. There has been a sort of "correction" in the market and it is unlikely that firms will continue to back out on promises as they have in the last year. So taking that kind of risk is stupid as hell.

87,

This is the funniest thing I've read on ATL in a long tiem: "who forgot law school's lessons and doesn't have the responsibility of being a partner and enforcing ethics rules independently." I'm not sure what you do for a living, but I really hope your time is not lost on the law. Too funny.

Back to the matter at hand, plenty of people never turn in the "mandatory" survey from career services, whether because they have no job and are embarrassed, because they are lazy, because they feel that career services did not help them, etc. Even if non-return of such survey operated as a bar on graduation or enrollment in a subsequent semester at some law school, that timeline provides a significant amount of deliberative time for our double-taker.

Obviously there's a risk involved, but the idea that a 2 minute phone call is all it would take is incorrect, unless the student is a moron. Assuming no survey has been returned, maybe career services launches an investigation into the student's acceptance practices. More likely career services follows up with the student to non-intrusively ask why the student dropped the firm and ask if the student needs help finding another job. Even more likely career services takes no action. Even more likely, the firm never follows up with career services.

-85 (neither a law student nor jaded)

57, Right on. Except I wish my school would give a discount and charge only 40k.

Real question: would the rules of professional responsibility allow this? You couldn't actually work at two law firms at the same time without disclosure and conflicts clearance. I suppose the theory would be you aren't employed yet once you accept, but it might end up being trickier than that. Any ideas?

investment bankers do this. its smart

85/102 - what are you basing all your probabilities on? Past experience? As 87 pointed out, there is very little history of this.

99% of the people claiming to support Elie would never be brave enough to actually accept two offers in real life anyway. So go ahead, keep talking shit, you'll never have to back it up.

This is your only good post, ever, Elie. Put it in your portfolio. You still suck, but deserves credit for this.

One way of doing this is to accept multiple offers over the phone but never send an acceptance or rejection letter or email. Wait until you've narrowed down to one firm then claim you never accepted the offer from the other firms when they report to your school or whatever.

When the firm X later contacts you to provide information about the summer program, just apologize and explain that there must have been a mistake because you rejected the offer back when you made the call. This is definitely unethical, but at least then you won't have left a document trail proving your violation. Of course, you can probably only accept two offers this way, because multiple "mistakes" will reveal what you did, but two is better than one.

Question for those advocating lying to firms that you are clerking for a year, in case the firm you choose doesn't work out - If your first form doesn't work out, and you start at the firms you lied to, what are you going to put on your resume when they ask you to update it?

Do you think maybe fabricating a job with a judge on your resume will get you in a spot of bother with C&F? Of course, no one will ever find out . . .

There is one good reason to accept or reject early. In this economy many firms are limiting the number of offers so if you hold forever someone else may not get that offer. Many firms will be quite happy to have a smaller 2L class figuring that with the weak economy they can always add 3L's later. But one of your classmates might get the offer you turn down.

Who the fuck cares if you accept an offer of employment and then decline it? What is fraudulent about that? You aren't employed. It's going to be at will employment on both sides anyways, when you become a summer. What is wrong about accepting an offer and then, down the road, rejecting it?

If I accept an offer knowing that I'm just going to blow them off and spend a summer in Cancun -- what claim does Big Law have that I did anything wrong to them? Ridiculous.

I guess you could say "detrimental reliance," but really -- what detriment, exactly? And how is the detrimental reliance angle anywhere near as bad as what the law firms have been doing to summers?

Completely ethical in my book, and zero consequences to be had. Law School Disciplinary Board ... lolzors.

Except that many of the "offers" that people are receiving aren't themselves actually offers. For example, you get an SA offer for a program that is hiring less than half the SAs. Or you keep getting deferred endlessly. Those aren't offers, those are predictions of future intent.

So if they really didn' t make an offer, what, exactly, are you accepting?

No one, and I mean no one, will ever find out what you did. Hiring partners, in house recruiters etc. do not talk to each other about this, or frankly about most things - witness their inability to manage their own staffing needs.

Hi, yeah, I am not going to be able to show up next summer, my mother is dying of cancer and living with me, I got a job offer for the summer in the Obama administration, my father has taken ill and I have to help out in his multi-hundreds of millions of dollars family owned business which by the way will be a big client wherever I do go to work, etc etc etc.

Trust me, the firms really really really don't give a shit about you. You will have to wait a few years before you can lateral to that firm, as there may still be someone there who remembers you, and you will have to remember your story if there is, but that's it. But trust me, they are whores. If they need you, if they don't, they don't.

Call the law school and complain about you? child pleeeeeze. They're in meetings about whether the firm is going to collapse, and you think some future SA who didn't show up is going to be agenda?

Unless things are drastically different in the spring of 2010 than they were in the spring of 2009, I think firms would be happy if the size of their classes shrink.

A lot of firms are continuing with their summer programs next year simply because they don't want to damage their reputations - they have no need for more associates. They would be secretly happy if this happened.

Let's get serious. It's not like you would be screwing the firms over. They already have more associates than they need. It's not like they have tons of worked lined up for summer associates that nobody else would be able to do.

Firms have made very clear that if they don't need you, you're gone. If you don't need them, eff them! Gotta look out for #1

Sign me up to the ACCEPT ALL OFFERS movement. Every man for himself.

Best post ever

"wait to make a decision on which firm to keep after the first of the year"

Ahh, Dechert...

111 - you sound like 85/102. Maybe you're the same person, maybe you arent. In any case, you're similar in that you can't back up anything you say. Law students accepting offers and then talking to other firms is pretty unchartered territory. How can you support the claim that the firms "don't talk to each other about this"?

ALL YOUR OFFER ARE BELONG TO US!

99% of the people claiming to support Elie would never be brave enough to actually accept two offers in real life anyway. So go ahead, keep talking shit, you'll never have to back it up.
______________________________________________

Are you honestly stating that this proposal constitutes "bravery" in your mind? A strategy employed by at-will job applicants in a variety of industries, for a variety of reasons, all the time?

What happened to all the people complaining about "entitled" associates whining about their job offers disappearing? Isn't this simply the flipside of "we don't owe you anything"? Why would a firm expect associates whose offers they can pull at any moment without notice to NOT feel free to do the same thing--to walk away at any moment, "for any reason or no reason"? Isn't that what "at-will" means for BOTH parties?

The bigger question is what will the consequences be of NOT accepting all available offers, and then choosing the best and declining the rest? What will such "loyalty" earn you in this market? Clearly, the fact that this question must be asked exposes the bulk of lawyers and law students as not merely cowardly, but stupid.

Are you people really that stupid? Why would you sacrifice your reputation just to go to a firm that you *perceive* to be safer? How do you even know which one is safer, by looking at 2009 offer rates? LOL. Yes, very typical year.

The dumbest of the dumb are people like 107 who think the lack of a paper trail matters. What matters is the possibility that someone at your summer firm finds out that you probably lied . . they never like no-offering people and you'll be the easiest one for them to pick.

I don't see how doing what Elie recommends is any different from what law firms lately have been doing to new associates. Law firms have given out offers to more associates than they now need, and they are now rescinding some of those offers even after the offers have been accepted. True, the firms may not have known at the time that they were giving out more offers than they could accept, but neither does the law student. That's the whole point.

Let's say a law student has three offers. For all he knows, two of the firms will rescind their offers or defer him indefinitely as a result of the difficult economic climate. If that happens, then the right number of offers to accept based on the information the law student has at the time is all three. That way he'll still have one left when the other two firms defer him. Now if it turns out that economic conditions change for the better and none of the firms defer or rescind their offers, then the student has to make a painful decision and disappoint two of the firms. I do not see how that is any different from what a firm does when it disappoints law students and rescinds/defers offers based on changed economic circumstances that it did not know about when the offers were made or accepted.

Also, in response to #64, there is nothing fraudulent or unethical about this. As law firms are fond of reminding us, the relationship between the firm and the associate is at will: either party can terminate the relationship at any time for any reason or for no reason. An associate who does what Elie recommends has every right to stagger his start dates and show up at each of the three firms at 8:30 a.m. on his first day of work. At the one at which he intends to work, he stays. At the other two, he announces his departure and leaves (and, if he's already started at his chosen firm, he can probably still make it there by 9 am and work a full day).

Personally, I think it's easier on everyone if the associate tells the other two firms in advance in advance of his start date that he's withdrawing his acceptance. But if you think this is somehow fraudulent or unethical, then the associate can show up at work and quit as described above. That can't possibly be fraudulent or unethical conduct, since law firms know that the associate has the right to do that and in fact would not want to change the at-will nature of the employment.

Whether law firms would collude and retaliate against law students who do this is another story. I think it's highly likely they would. But as an ethical/legal matter (as between the law student and the firm, perhaps not the law student and other law students), I don't see how there's anything wrong with it. The law student is simply playing by the rules the law firms wrote.

118 - it isn't about loyalty, its about your reputation. There's a small but plausible chance someone finds out about this (you do, after all, have to lie to at least two firms in order to pull it off) and its pretty bad if they find out, especially if its before your summer ends.

You seem to think firms can pull offers with impunity. Not really. Their reputation suffers consequences, as will the reputation of students who do the same. Is it really worth it? All you guys questioning the policy are talking big about how street smart you are, acting like you see through the system, but I see nobody comparing the value of the "safer" firm to the value of their reputation. That's what's stupid. And speaking of cowardly, going through all this just to be at the "safer" place is cowardly.

I can't believe the number of people on here who think that law firms will be UPSET if their class size is SMALLER than they anticipate!

Wake up, it's not 3 years ago! Firms have more attorneys than they know what do with!

2Ls- look out for number one. Firms clearly have no loyalty to their associates and you shouldn't feel obligated to have loyalty to them - not at the expense of your career, at least.

Good luck.

120 and 122 - did you ever consider that firms will adjust their hiring this year to account for the downturn? Or do you actually think they plan to make offers to another big class and rescind/defer those offers later? Lawyers, stay away from math please.

116 - because they are competitors with the other firms, because every time someone suggests sharing information with competitors, someone else says "anti-trust" and that ends the discussion, because I have been on my firm's hiring committee, because they are too busy trying to bill, because they wouldn't know who to call (dear prospective SA who never showed up, did you accept any offers with any other firms?) and because, as I said, they don't give a shit about you anyway. And remember, we are talking about a prospective SA or even prospective 3Ls who never showed up for a single day. Even if you dinged my firm and popped up at another firm we actually know something about, we wouldn't know how you got there (accepted two offers?, turned us down, sent out your resume later, got the job at the other firm?) Oh, and did I mention we are talking about 2Ls and 3Ls and and we don't give a shit? We don't even know you. Hell, B&B just laid off an associate on her honeymoon. She worked there and I'll warrant the fellow who decided to lay her off could not have picked her out of a police line up with the firm's web site in one window and a Smoking Gun mug shot in the other. Who are we talking about?

Other partner: Hey, [me], do you remember so and so.
[me]: not ringing a bell
OP: we offered them an SA position 18 months ago.
[me]: er
OP: they never showed up
[me]: I hope this story ends with a 5 state man-hunt and a dismembered body identified by her implant serial numbers...
OP: somehow, we found out he accepted two SA offers simultaneously
[me]: I was actually walking down the hallway to pee
OP: then they turned us down in march and went for the summer to X,Y and Z
[me]: smart guy, girl, transgendered individual, whatever, is this going some where? Did they show up with a gun and shoot up X,Y and Z?
OP: no
[me]: er, what did they do?
OP: they went to another firm after accepting our offer
[me]: Can I pee now?

121 - It's also about solidarity with other law students. Suppose everybody did this, and law firms didn't catch on. They'd end up next summer with 10% or 20% fewer students than they thought they'd get. They won't care, they've got too many lawyers as it is. (If it turns out that they need more, they'll just hire more 3Ls next year.) But a bunch of law students who would have summer jobs if the law firms filled those rejected offers will instead be flipping burgers next summer to try to manage their loans. I couldn't sleep at night after doing that to a classmate.

122 - its amazing that you would use "not at the expense of your career" in a post SUPPORTING Elie's foolish idea.

If there's one way to fuck up your career in all of this, its (i) lying to one firm by accepting their offer and then backing out and (ii) lying to another firm by saying you haven't accepted an offer yet when you already have. I'll admit there's a decent chance you get away with it. But there's some chance you don't, and then you're fucked.

I love the theory that firms make offers and then don't care if you jerk them around. Here's the more sensible theory: they will make very few offers this year because their expecations are down, they will expect ethical behavior regarding those offers, and will be all the less patient with those who go back on their word.

@123 I did consider that, and I never said that law students should expect to receive offers from multiple firms. I simply argued that it would not be wrong in any moral or ethical sense, if such an opportunity arose, to accept all of the offers and then withdraw acceptances for any offers that were no longer needed when the start date arrived. (And even there I hedged and said that it might be wrongful if other law students were impacted as a result.)

--120

120/127 - fair enough. I guess what I disagree with a little is that you seem to imply offers would be rescinded with some reasonable probability. I think its extremely unlikely, with summer recruiting already so battered, that you will see offers rescinded. It was an adjustment. For someone to approach this year's recruiting with that in mind is misguided I think.

126 - If you have an offer from the following two firms, where do you think your career would be safer?

Firm A: Your first choice during fall recruiting in August. The following February, the firm lays off 200 associates in pushes back start dates a year and half.

Firm B: Another firm you like in August. Come February, they haven't done any layoffs and their new associates will be starting on time in the fall.

You're arguing that a 2L who accepted Firm A's offer in August while turning down an offer from Firm B would have better protected their career.

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree and say that a person who accepted both offers and later rescinds their acceptance from Firm A has better protected their career.

Who gives a shit if you lie? If I had to choose between (a) not lying and going to firm where I know I may never start, and (b) lying and actually beginning my career on time, I'll choose (b) any day.

-122

In the real world, when you interview someone, you assume that they are interviewing somewhere else as well. If you make them an offer, it's to start immediately, and even then, you don't know whether another firm also made them an offer. So they day they actually show up is the day you know they accepted your offer of at will employment.

Have people quit in a week because they concluded they made a mistake? Yes. Have they quit in a month because the other places they were interviewing at finally got around to making an offer and it was a much better one. Yes.

The weird thing about law schools is firm's make offers for employment sometimes years out into the future, and some of you believe an offer of at will employment to take effect a year or more in the future actually constitutes something concrete.

A lot of people on this board seem to be under the delusion that law firms go into high alert if a summer rescinds their acceptance of an offer.

News flash: It's your right to rescind an acceptance, and nobody gives a damn about summer associates anyways -- they rank slightly above lizards and temps. If you hadn't caught on to that part of Big Law yet, it's probably time.

"You seem to think firms can pull offers with impunity."

Yes. I also think water is wet and grass is green. I'm not sure what this "reputation" you speak of is, but it appears to have gone out the window in the context of the vast majority of large firms laying people off, pulling offers, cancelling summer programs, or some combination thereof. Somehow, in such an environment, I do not think the reputation of an individual law student who accepts a job, and then later declines it, will somehow be irreperably harmed by that fact and that fact standing alone. This may come as a shock to you, but this actually happens rather frequently. You seem to be rather . . . shall we say . . . "delusional" about just how powerful a shadow your typical GULC 3L casts across the legal profession. No one is paying close attention to your comings and goings.

I thank G-d everyday that I actually--gasp!--WORKED before attending law school. Nothing like having real world experience to put things in perspective.

132 - actually, I was once a delusional law student who felt the way you did. Four years in the real world have taught me a lot of things. Its a shame that your real world experience hasn't done the same for you.

I'll move away from your generalizations about God and the world, and keep it specific. If a student accepts at Firm A, and then tells Firm B he's still on the market, and then accepts at Firm B and backs out on Firm A, he's (i) blatantly lied to two firms (ii) violated his school's rules and NALP rules and (iii) likely cost a classmate a spot. That fact that you don't think its unethical doesn't mean shit; what matters is that people don't like this behavior and if the wrong people find out, it will cost him his full-time offer.

Think of the recruiter with a class of 30 who can only give 20 offers. 5 summers sucked, but you have to cut 5 more and its really hard. Guess where you start?

And what was the benefit of this scheme again?

- 126
"they will expect ethical behavior regarding those offers, and will be all the less patient with those who go back on their word."

Given that they will never see "those" who rescinded their acceptance ever, nor will they ever know about the circumstances surrounding the recision, how will this firm act on their lack of patience?

"Blatantly lied"? Why? I fail to see why accepting a job offer means you aren't on the market for another. When Big Law tells you that they want to hire you, does that somehow mean that if they change their minds and desire to hire somebody else, they "blatantly lied" to you?

Nobody cares if you accepted one offer, then got another, and decided to go with it instead. It's perfectly fine. It happens all day long. The idea that it's some grandiose crime that people care about and which will follow you the rest of your days is just bonkers.

Plus what kind of TTT firm has a recruiter that "gives offers" in a sense beyond licking stamps and mailing the envelopes out. And even if they did, Oh Noes, so this law student accepted at another firm first, and then decided to accept ours instead, the drama ... maybe SAs and first years care, nobody else gives a damn.

Future Ellie is amazing, right down to the tpyos. More. Now.

94--

You say you're serious, but are you really? This is like, the 1st week of Contracts. One of the easiest ways for an offering party to get out of a contract is to rescind the offer before it's accepted. As long as the firm does that, it's scot free. Just ask Akin Gump.

And promissory estoppel? What kind of detrimental reliance are you talking about? How can you be relying on an offer that you never accepted? And how exactly would you prove you were hurt by a firm rescinding its offer, if you've got a second offer that you haven't really acted on?

If you're weighing two offers right now, then there's hope for everyone this season.

135: "I fail to see why accepting a job offer means you aren't on the market for another."

Well most people see it. Whether we are talking about a summer offer or full-time, 100% of firms will take your acceptance to also mean that you are off the market.

I see your point about the somewhat illusory nature of these commitments (you're right, you can quit on day 1 so what's the difference?). But that's the difference between common sense and how the world works. I can assure you that firms don't think its cool, and best case scenario is that Firm X hates you. Worst case scenario is that it somehow spreads and the firm you accepted thinks you're a liar and remembers that come offer time.

This is a good idea, Elie.

I would go one step further: Instead of e-mailing the other firms that your are declining their offers (after you have already accepted them), just never show up for the summer associate positions that you don't want.

They will assume you are a flake and that will be the end of it. If they call you and ask you some questions about why you didn't show up, just tell them you got drunk the night before and slept in. Again, they will think you are a flake and that will be the end of it.

124 for the win.

1. Law firms conspiring with other law firms to restrict SA or 3L employment certainly should (and would) raise anti-trust alarm bells. They simply don't do this.
2. A law firm calling up an SA's or 3L's current employer to piss and moan about the prior acceptance of an offer of at will employment is an intentional tort. They are doing this intentionally for the sole purpose of injuring this person. Over at will employment? This isn't a reference check prompted by a prospective employer (and with the at least implied consent of the prospective employee), this is an petulant attempt by a party who was never this person's employer to destroy this person's income. This is a real tort, not section 90 or a good samaritan phoney tort. And if they tried to interfere with the student's graduation from law school, same deal. Past employers don't call up future employers just to screw with people, in fact these days, past employers won't say anything about ex-employees even when asked precisely because they are afraid they will get sued.
3. Why would they do this? To discourage other SAs from accepting more than one offer of at will employment. So, while not forgetting anti-trust's treble damages, add defamation, because they will have to publicize their ridiculous behavior, or the whole "in terrorem" thingy won't work.
4. And the entire scenario is nuts, because the rescinded law firm will never find out what happened anyway (unless the dumbass law student brags about it, which is quite likely).
5. And all this over people they care not one whit about?

wft?

Accept every offer you get. Keep your trap shut, particularly from your fellow law students. In feb 2010, make a guess as to which of these dinosaurs will still have a pulse in 2011. Call up the rest, and tell them you are rescinding your acceptance because a family emergency prevents you from working for them next summer. Sorry.

What's the family emergency? Your family needs you to get a job so you can pay back your student loans.

I generally agree with 124 if you do it quietly. I cannot say that you would definitely get away with it in a town like DC where law firms are clustered together in a few spots and where the recruiters are fairly tight because people move around a lot. You might get spotted at any number of events that are joined by many firms (Battle of the bands). If you laid low, picked firms in different neighborhoods, and did not let on to what you were up to with a big FU letter, you might be able to pull it off.

The problem from my perspective is a moral one related to other law students. The firm isn't really hurt, but the student that really wanted a slot and did not get one lost an opportunity.

One other thing is that your some firms send their lists of summers to other summers and career services. If you show up on two lists, someone is going to notice -- probably a classmate or the schools recruiting.

For example, at my firm, it would not be unusual to call a summer to invite them to the holiday party. It would not be odd at all to say to one student that we look forward to seeing him and his classmate. The schools also ask who we offered and who accepted so they know who is going where,

124 & 141 = the best advice on this thread.

Ignore every other post. In this economy, you need every advantage you can get.

143 - something like that would simply cause you to accelerate you decision. Pick one right then, tell the rest it was a clerical error, you actually turned down their offer.

As for being "found out" during the summer, it won't matter, because your current firm won't care (they made you an offer, you showed up) and the other firms won't know for sure what happened. Nor will they care much. And they certainly won't call up your current firm to complain.

This is one of the most useful pieces on ATL in a while. In reality, students have nothing to lose in accepting all offers.

I'd say this goes for this year's summers who split between two firms and got two offers (or interviewed as a 3L and got lucky), as well. You can always call the recruitment coordinator down the line and have a 2-minute, awkward but polite conversation about how you've decided to revoke your acceptance. They'll MAYBE be disappointed for a few minutes then promptly forget you ever existed.

I look forward to the posts next year involving the students that tried this and got caught and from those who did not. Only then will be know for sure. In light of these posts, firms will watch for the kinds of behaviors. You might find a few pissed off recruiters taking some scalps in retribution. It will be entertaining.

147, nobody will really try this unless he is a fool. Both Elie and commentors are just making fun.

Hilarious (and appropriate) that Gen-Y is being called out by a dean of NW.

Realty-check 1: Law Students - you are a dime-a-dozen. You need the firms more than they need you. There are plenty of laterals that can take your place and do a better job than you will do.

The whining and complaining ad nauseum is rediculous. Are you the only people who get a graduate degree and have student loans? Of course not, but you are the only ones complaining that everyone owes you and the only way you will ever be able to survive is to make $165k upon graduating from law school.

Realty-check 2: The median salary for new grads with PhDs (they have loans too) is $68k. These people are generally smarter than you, have worked harder than you, for longer than you, and had to make a significant contribution to society in their respective fields in order to get their degree.

The medium salary for a PhD with 20 years of experience is $108k. Somehow these people were able to survive, raise families, and live productive lives without ever earning the high salaries that you think you are entitled to.

See: http://www.payscale.com/research/US/People_with_Doctorate_(Ph.D.)_Degrees/Salary/by_Years_Experience

Accept a firm's offer and then turn around and un-accept? What if you want to reapply to that firm later someday? I'd say this post is a great way to burn bridges.

Accept a firm's offer and then turn around and un-accept? What if you want to reapply to that firm later someday? I'd say this post is a great way to burn bridges.

Accept a firm's offer and then turn around and un-accept? What if you want to reapply to that firm later someday? I'd say this post is a great way to burn bridges.

Hey, what do you all think might happen were one to accept a firm's offer and then turn around and un-accept? Do you think that might burn some bridges?

149

For starters, shut the fuck up. PhDs in the sciences typically go for free with a living stipend.

They also get to do work they love, rather than the sould crushing bullshit lawyers do.

Additionally, do not compare median salaries to those of top law firms. If you want to do a comparison, look at the salaries of people from the top PhD programs. It'll be much higher than that median bullshit you linked to. The median salary of a starting law grad is 60k.

I would like to reiterate that you are a stupid piece of shit.

Northwestern Law School feels entitled to more than 40k a year in tuition from its students, then talks to them about entitlement. What a stupid pice of shit this dean is. I hope he gets aids.

Northwestern Law School feels entitled to more than 40k a year in tuition from its students, then talks to them about entitlement. What a stupid pice of shit this dean is. I hope he gets aids.

154, you say "They also get to do work they love, rather than the sould crushing bullshit lawyers do."

You seem to be arguing that you are entitled to big law money because the job sucks. No one is making you stay in the job. You picked it and you can leave any time.

Hey 116, since it's such uncharted territory (I believe you meant charted, not chartered), how can you support that firms DO "talk to each other about this"?

I am not 116, but in my experience recruiters talk, usually because they are friends. It is not like there is some network for all the recruiters to talk, but in DC, it is a small circle and people tend to know each other.

Don't you talk to your friends about lawyers that are jerks/do jerky things? Don't you check with others when you see something odd and you are not sure how to handle it? I know a lot about the attorneys at my friends' firms just from the normal venting we all do.

As someone involved in hiring at my firm, I clearly know about this post. Don't you think that if some summer accepts and later rejects that I am going to think about these posts? Depending on my mood, maybe I do a little digging to figure out where the person went. Not too hard to do with things like on campus recruiting, facebook, summers at my firm that might be at the same school, etc.

Would I bother with all this? Who knows. But students need to keep in mind that I could and depending on what I thought about the specific situation, I might very well pick up the phone and let someone know what I discovered.

159, relax. Elie is trying to make a story to attract eye-balls. We commentors are trying to make fun in this economy.

Elie, why haven't we heard anything about Dorsey in Minneapolis. I thought a 30% offer rate would warrant at least some attention, even if it isn't NY.

159, I refer you back to 141. Why break balls when it could have such a deleterious effect on your position?

Because, like Restatement guy, 141's position is flawed.

150-152 -- In a world where there are only two law firms, your response makes sense.

Screw promissory estoppel, Let's talk tortious interference with contracts.

Can anyone make the case that Elie jumped the line here? I'm curious to hear your thoughts.

Hands down the best post Elie has ever come up with!