NOTE: Spellchecker not working...again.
Not to long ago I was chatting with a former client who happens to be an attorney. I asked him about his email habits. He responded that he didn't use email very much. At the time I thought he was so 20th Century. In reality, he was probably being a very wise lawyer.
And so, I share a cautionary tale.
Remember, before you send an email always ask yourself, 'can it pass the test of public scrutiny? 'Or, in other words, could my email jeopardise my chances of ever getting hired or even worse, could this email be the start of the dreaded email chain?
A bit of background.
Prior to any of the emails in the chain,a new lawyer was offered a job with a small firm.They agreed upon her salary and set a day for her to begin. Then, the firm contacted her and said ooops...we've decided your starting salary needs to be less than we agreed on because we are going to hire an additional associate.
That is the context for the emails heard round the world.
"Then Korman received an email from Abdala on the Friday evening before the Super Bowl. She had changed her mind. Abdala wrote: "Dear Attorney Korman: At this time, I am writing to inform you that I will not be accepting your offer. After careful consideration, I have come to the conclusion that the pay you are offering would neither fulfill me nor support the lifestyle I am living in light of the work I would be doing for you. I have decided instead to work for myself, and reap 100% of the benefits that I (sic) sew. Thank you for the interviews."
Korman called Abdala and left a message for her, asking if they could talk and work things out. He suggested she call him on his cell phone. Instead, Abdala called Korman's office and left a voice mail, again declining the offer.
That's when Korman wrote the following in an email to Abdala: "Dianna - Given that you had two interviews, were offered and accepted the job (indeed, you had a definite start date), I am surprised that you chose an e-mail and a 9:30 p.m. voicemail message to convey this information to me. It smacks of immaturity and is quite unprofessional. Indeed, I did rely upon your acceptance by ordering (sic) stationary and business cards with your name, reformatting a computer and setting up both internal and external e-mails for you here at the office. While I do not quarrel with your reasoning, I am extremely disappointed in the way this played out. I sincerely wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors."
Enough said, right? A young lawyer declines a job offer and some awkwardness ensues. Not the biggest deal in the world.
Well, here's where things go haywire.
Abdala countered with the following email: "A real lawyer would have put the contract into writing and not exercised any such reliance until he did so. Again, thank you."
Oh man. "
To read the entire chain, check out Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly. What's most upsetting about the article is that it seems to slam the woman attorney and not the guy who renigged on the salary.
Here's a quote from the male attorney.
"This has taken on a life of its own," Korman told me. "The legal community is tiny, and the criminal-defense bar even smaller. They are surprised by this attorney's responses to my simple queries. It's so early in her career to be attacking someone like this. I just wish it had played out better."
And they included emails from some of his supporters
"Though you don't know me, I wanted to extend to you my sincere apologies for your recent encounter with an extremely unprofessional young attorney. ... It is my hope that your opinion of young lawyers has not been too tarnished by your experience. ... I felt compelled to apologize to you on behalf of the community of young lawyers all across the country that are not sympathetic to Ms. Abdala's egoism."
Am I missing something here? Didn't he change the salary after hiring her? Didn't he hit the keystroke to share a private email converation with friends? Isn't he the scumbag? And doesn't he owe her several apologies?
He acted like a jerk. She responded in kind. Yet, somehow the article doesn't criticize him for forwarding personnel issues from his office. And even worse, changing an 'employment contract' after they had agreed to the terms.
No, the focus is on her bad behavior. How convenient. How myopic. How pathetic.Chalk one up for the boys club.
My StumbleUpon Page
