February 18, 2006

posted by Daniel J. Solove

*ha*!! i saw this earlier, but still get a kick out of it now ...

having been through the business, political, and now legal community, i have found the most unprofessional behavior can often coincide with greater education or job prestige (or rather, a person's self-assessed value of either). what passes as professional is often a "schmarmey" civility; shallow and unreliable if your own status is to change or alter to what is that particular community's sense of status.

if at the very least, we can appreciate that their last actions (as evidenced above) towards each other were probably the most honest.

In contrast with the MLW article, my sympathies are actually with the interviewee. She had the terms changed on her after accepting, and then the interviewer chided her for reneging on his changed offer. What she wrote then was not terribly polite, but how many people are polite when they're justifiably annoyed? I'm certainly not.

All that said, the warning here for annoyed people is: keep in mind that whatever you write in email may be read by people unaware of the context (i.e., distant in the social network). Explain the obvious in your e-mails. Try to take the "I'm being superhumanly reasonable" tack whenever possible. Works for job offer rejections, dealing with partners/fellow associates, and discovery disputes.

Bruce,

I agree with you. The interviewee's first email had touches of polite cordiality as well -- although there was one pointed dig. The interviewer was the first to "go nuclear." That being said, at that point they both raced to the bottom.

my sympathies are actually with the interviewee.



Really? She accepted the offer, learned later of the changed salary but still assented to the terms, only to change her mind at 9:30 the Friday evening prior to her Monday start date. Not only did she renege on her acceptance, she did so via an e-mail in which she addressed her would-be boss as "Attorney Korman." Furthermore, Korman conceded: "I do not quarrel with your reasoning." Again, why the sympathy?



What she wrote then was not terribly polite, but how many people are polite when they're justifiably annoyed?



Whether or not she was justifiably annoyed at the development of the situation, she had more than ample time to convey her annoyances before choosing this unprofessional route.



The interviewer was the first to "go nuclear."



I don't think Korman said a single thing that was regrettable. Moreover, I bet he's thankful that she revealed her true nature in this way rather than three months into her employment.

TRL, I don't agree with your reading of the facts, unless you have some better source than the Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly article. From the story:

Korman apparently thought Abdala had a bright future ahead of her so he offered her a job in their first meeting. They agreed upon a start date.

But Korman then called Abdala to his office to tell her that he had decided to hire two lawyers, not one. As such, he had crunched some numbers and decided he had to reduce the amount of salary they had discussed. Still, he said, he was excited about her working for him. Korman set up computer resources for his new hire and made the other usual arrangements. But Abdala did indicate to Korman that she may have to give the job some more thought.

Then Korman received an email from Abdala on the Friday evening before the Super Bowl. She had changed her mind.

That's when Korman sent his snarky e-mail calling her unprofessional and immature for rejecting his ex post facto reduced offer. My sympathies are still with her, although as I said, I don't think her e-mails were the wisest move ever.

Korman is apparently a small prac crim lawyer. Some law firm. Sorry pal, the bait and switch you pull in court wasn't swallowed by a prospective new lawyer. Kudos to Abdala. And yes, Korman you probably didn't ace contracts. Change the offer and no go.

Six degrees of separation, is discussed in another context on my blog. See, Six Degees of Freedom and 6 Degrees of Freedom -- the update.


The context in which I discuss Milgram's theory is in discerning the meaning of "terrorists and their affiliates" in King W's defense of the warrantless domestic surveillance program.


I would be honored if you would leave a comment.


" and tell 'em Big Mitch sent ya!"

If it weren't for email, we would never know of the children hiding in adult clothes.

I'm afraid the majority of adults are still children, only taller.

And these people run society.

"stationary" in Korman's e-mail is also a misspelling....

but of course not the type caught by spellcheck.

No matter what, you just don't do business that way. You don't wait until the last minute to inform your future employer that you have chnged your mind. Yes, they should have come to a better agreement about salary, but she should have had enough common decency to go temporarily and then worked out some sort of notice that she was leaving. He was right in warning other firms about this fickle wannabe.

I think the poster DeDe may be Korman in disguise. Note the spelling errors in this e-mail as well: "chnged".

In the overview it says "Shortly before she was to start, Korman told Abdala that he had also decided to hire another attorney" not the other way around. I concluded from this that she (Abdala) responded as soon as the terms had changed, and while her e-mail might not have been as polite as it should have been, she was well within the time limits required for such a response.

DeDe may very well be Korman in disguise--or on his payroll...

I don't think that she was being fickle. he was the first to change the terms that were agreed upon, by hiring another lawyer and lowering her salary. If he did this after she already had a definite start date, then he was doing things at the "last minute."

Though her e-mail was somewhat rude, I think going temporarily would have been going way overboard on the politeness; far beyond "common" decency; she probably needed to start looking for another job ASAP.

really, sending that e-mail out "smacked of immaturity" as far as I'm concerned. old people crack me up...

Every one has a standard but in human behavior every culture and all parts of society could care about jibber jibber and let the day go on with out any interuptions. For ever car there is a ass. For every job there is a ass. So whats the hang up she said he said IGF.

attorneys all walk with a loaf of bread up their ass. Shit it out and get on with reality. You went from professionalism into the dark smugness and rude behavior setting aside your education and cool collective reasoning by stepping out and letting everyone know that your beter than the rest, step aside because I am not getting humiliated and stepping down to a lower standard of life style because someone want`s to tell me how I must change my life style and live to a lower standard because they want to hire some one else and still keep me employed but at a cheaper wage, sorry but I set my standards and if I don`t who is? So take me or lose me, look at baseball contracts and you might understand how this hiring failed. You go girl. Besides men make more money than women ha ha. I don`t believe that either.