Is It Bad to Renege on a Job Offer Acceptance?
Depending which drivers and state of mind are at play, the path to "I do" can be either be smooth sailing or fraught with predicament.
October 23, 2019 at 12:00 PM
4 minute read
Q: I have accepted a written offer, but my current employer has come back again and offered me more enticing money. Would it be bad if I reneged on my acceptance and stayed?
A: There are always two sides to every hiring coin.
Candidates seek to join companies/law firms that provide career opportunity, good pay, nice culture and interesting work. And different factors can influence their decision to explore the market. Some enter the process with resolve, while others are more hesitant about the prospects of pulling the trigger. Depending which drivers and state of mind are at play, the path to "I do" can be either be smooth sailing or fraught with predicament.
On the flip side, employers seek to hire great lawyers who are affordable, possess the best substantive background and fit in well with the culture. Quickly and easily. But the speed and ease with which a process can move is typically compromised by a variety of factors. Making an employer's quest for a good hire time consuming, nerve-wracking … and at times frustrating. When the finish line is finally crossed with a written acceptance, it is usually accompanied by a sigh of relief and sense of accomplishment … from both parties.
In your situation, you have completed an interview process and have accepted a written offer. Done deal. But now, your current employer has encouraged you to stay by offering you more money. And it's an "enticing" number. So much so that you're contemplating reneging on your commitment to your new employer. So would this be a bad decision?
Yes.
But it's important to examine and understand the reasons why the decision would be unwise. As doing so will give you better perspective on and comfort with keeping your word:
A Sole Focus on Money Is a Losing Mentality
Money can be an important factor in a career decision. But it should never be the sole focus. When it is, it can compromise judgment as well as professional reputations. And create a career filled with malcontent. Furthermore, if you dig deep enough, you will inevitably discover that there's more to your dissatisfaction than meets the currency eye. So the comp bump will not result in lasting fulfillment. You'll be unhappy and on the market again in 12-18 months.
Re-Examine Your Motivations for Leaving Your Current Company
There were reasons prompting you to explore other opportunities. Sit down and revisit what they were … and why. These issues won't be solved by a higher paycheck. Even if money is a primary driver, making more now won't alleviate the underlying reasons you did not receive the salary you sought. It's a temporary fix that will not outweigh the career and integrity risks associated with reneging at this stage of the process.
List the Reasons This Opportunity Appealed to You
Remember why you accepted this position in the first place. What appealed to you about the opportunity? The role? The people? How do these elements satisfy what was missing in your current position? How does the prospect of this new chapter make you feel? Don't lose sight of these important virtues.
Integrity. Integrity. Integrity.
There are times during an interview and offer stage that a candidate has a change of heart or receives a counter-offer from his employer. This typically occurs when the candidate has notified the employer of an offer that has not yet been accepted in writing or of his general desire to move on. It is during this window that an employer might invoke the Hail Mary. And it is during this window that a candidate may decide to stay put. But reneging for more money…after the deal is signed, sealed and delivered is not a move rooted in integrity. It will taint your reputation and come back to haunt you. Don't forget that the world sits on the head of a pin.
When it comes to a job search, predicaments can come with the territory. And when they do, a methodical approach can often clarify matters and make choices easier. So stick by your decision and put your money into this next chapter of your career … instead of the last.
Julie Q. Brush is the founder and author of The Lawyer Whisperer (www.thelawyerwhisperer.com), a career advice column for legal professionals, also found on LinkedIn. She is co-founder of Solutus Legal Search, a legal search/consulting boutique firm, serving as a strategic adviser to lawyers, law firms and corporations.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllBuild It and They Will Come: Tips to Market Your Practice as a Junior Attorney
6 minute readYelp Sues Google for Alleged Antitrust Violations, Citing Previous 'Watershed' Government Ruling
There's Something in the Water: San Diego Is Once Again a Hot Market for National Law Firms
6 minute readWhat Happens When You Go Viral? How a Law Firm Associate Manages Her Social Media Success
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Plaintiff Argues Jury's $22M Punitive Damages Finding Undermines J&J's Talc Trial Win
- 2Bannon's Fraud Trial Delayed One Week as New, 'More Aggressive,' Defense Attorneys Get Ready
- 3'AI-Generated' Case References? This African Law Firm Is Under Investigation
- 4John Deere Annual Meeting Offers Peek Into DEI Strife That Looms for Companies Nationwide
- 5Why Associates in This Growing Legal Market Are Leaving Their Firms
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250