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
© 2024 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
- 1Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 2Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 3Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 4X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
- 5Monsanto Wins Latest Philadelphia Roundup Trial
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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