Law School Discussion

Off-Topic Area => Politics and Law-Related News => Topic started by: pandamafia on February 22, 2006, 02:27:32 PM

Title: "Lawyers' hostile e-mail exchange hits Internet"
Post by: pandamafia on February 22, 2006, 02:27:32 PM
Did you guys see this on CNN? I'm not sure if anyone posted this story on here but it's really interesting. Here's a link that shows some of the e-mail convo:

http://tortyum.blogspot.com/2006/02/clichclicheforward-forward.html
Title: Re: "Lawyers' hostile e-mail exchange hits Internet"
Post by: SkullTatt on February 22, 2006, 02:57:38 PM
I thought it was funny but kind of weak. It was kind of a bitchy exchange but not worthy of all the media attention. I think the email from the Skadden intern a while ago was funnier, mainly because he was intern and you know he would get reamed for it. (Tho incidentally, he not fired and is still working at Skadden.)
Title: Re: "Lawyers' hostile e-mail exchange hits Internet"
Post by: Freak on March 08, 2006, 03:43:34 PM
Personally I think the lawyer had it coming. He reduced her offer and tried to make her feel guilty for turning it down. She said no and he couldn't handle it. (btw a Dean at my law school sent this to us weeks ago).
Title: Re: "Lawyers' hostile e-mail exchange hits Internet"
Post by: colombiandude1 on March 08, 2006, 05:56:26 PM
please post the link for the skadden exchange thanks
Title: Re: "Lawyers' hostile e-mail exchange hits Internet"
Post by: J D on March 08, 2006, 05:59:25 PM
Personally I think the lawyer had it coming. He reduced her offer and tried to make her feel guilty for turning it down. She said no and he couldn't handle it. (btw a Dean at my law school sent this to us weeks ago).

Had what coming?  I don't think it made him look bad.

Concur.  It's disputed whether she accepted the offer or not.  If she accepted, then at that moment both parties are bound; you can't just walk out on a contract when you have second thoughts about it the next morning.  Even if she didn't accept it, she could be liable for damages anyway: even though she might not have explicitly accepted, if she made statements or behaved in a manner suggesting that she was going to accept, and the employer reasonably relied on those statements to his detriment, the law will impose on her liability sufficient to put the employer back in the position he started in.  I don't know all the details (that will be for the jury if this goes to court), but considering the amount of reliance that occurred here, it's not crazy to think that maybe she made some representation which made the reliance reasonable.
Title: Re: "Lawyers' hostile e-mail exchange hits Internet"
Post by: Freak on March 08, 2006, 06:23:41 PM
She accepted and then he lowered the offer....and he got miffed that she refused. She had every right to be a little put-out.
Title: Re: "Lawyers' hostile e-mail exchange hits Internet"
Post by: J D on March 08, 2006, 07:54:56 PM
She accepted and then he lowered the offer....and he got miffed that she refused. She had every right to be a little put-out.

Not according to the Boston Globe's account of the story.  He told her during the second interview that he would be unable to pay her as much as he had led her to believe originally.  The alleged acceptance, if any, came after the second interview. 

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2006/02/16/2_e_mailers_get_testy_and_hundreds_readevery_word?mode=PF

In relevant part:

Korman, reached yesterday at his Park Plaza law office, and Abdala, reached at her Watertown home, agree on the basic facts of their short-lived association. Both said Abdala responded to a job advertisement that Korman posted on the online service Craig's List for a criminal defense associate at his year-old firm, Korman & Associates, which consisted of two lawyers. Both said that after a first interview, Abdala said she would accept the job if it were offered to her. Both said that during a second interview, Korman told Abdala he would not be able to pay her as much as he had told her in the first interview; neither would disclose dollar amounts.

They differ on whether, at the end of the second meeting, Abdala accepted the job.
Korman said he believes Abdala did, and that they even set a start date, which would have been yesterday. Abdala said there was ''no clear contract or agreement" and she still wanted to ponder the offer. She said she ultimately decided not to take the job because the reduced salary ''might have been realistic for other people to survive on, but I like nicer things. I like the finer things in life."
Title: Re: "Lawyers' hostile e-mail exchange hits Internet"
Post by: Freak on March 09, 2006, 11:04:32 AM
Still this established lawyer went out of his way to ruin her reputation...by sending this exchange to other lawyers...like I stated a Dean at our law school sent this out weeks ago.

IMO lawyers like him give law a bad name.
Title: Re: "Lawyers' hostile e-mail exchange hits Internet"
Post by: Freak on March 09, 2006, 11:16:00 AM
So we all know about it now how? That one person sent it to another etc. and he had no idea this would happen right? He totally trusted this one person right? To do what?
Title: Re: "Lawyers' hostile e-mail exchange hits Internet"
Post by: disgruntledLA on March 09, 2006, 11:49:16 AM
From what I read (on LSD I think) the person he sent it to asked if he could send it to some people and the guy said okay, and then those people sent it to people, and on and on.  again though that's just what I've read
Title: Re: "Lawyers' hostile e-mail exchange hits Internet"
Post by: J D on March 09, 2006, 09:22:02 PM
The moral of the story is that you should think twice before hitting the "send" button.  Once you send an email, you can't take it back; it's irrevocable.  So you should make sure it doesn't contain anything that reflects poorly on you (like insulting or overly hostile language) or that might embarass you later if it becomes public.

As for the ethics of the thing, I haven't taken professional responsibility yet.  But from what I can tell, the communication wasn't privileged or anything like that; I'm not sure there's any ethical breach here on his part.  It might be a rather harsh thing to do, but the way I see it, by acting in such an unprofessional and rude manner, Abdala made her bed (she ruined her own reputation), and now she has to sleep in it.
Title: Re: "Lawyers' hostile e-mail exchange hits Internet"
Post by: J D on March 09, 2006, 09:28:19 PM
In the end, all he did was quote her.

Which is why discretion is the better part of email.  In the study of law, you should always take Holmes' advice, and think about "what the bad man might do" (basically, plan around the potential for abuse of the system).  If you're afraid this might happen to you, the easy thing to do is to exercise a little restraint and not send anything you wouldn't mind being shared with large numbers of people.  Don't give them anything to quote which shows you in an unflattering light.
Title: Re: "Lawyers' hostile e-mail exchange hits Internet"
Post by: Freak on March 10, 2006, 12:31:06 PM
Yep gotta be careful some lawyer might screw you over.