Accepting an Offer

[csloan999]

Writing is not required in this case.  The contract won't take more than a year to perform.  Of course accepting in the same way you received the offer is acceptable (section 65), but so is any reasonable method (section 30), unless of course they specify a particular method (section 60).

See, this is the problem with some people--you're probably a good STUDENT who's able to state the law verbatim, but you need to take off your 1L cap and think practically if you're ever going to succeed as a LAWYER.  A lot of people are never able to make that transition and end up sucking in the real world (or they become lifetime academics).

You need to think BEYOND the MINIMUM requirements and look at the big picture.  Yes, technically, a law firm COULD slide by with an oral acceptance and some argument in court if it came down to it.  BUT, do you think a firm, with vast legal knowledge of the consequences, would really want to leave the door open to any question of whether you accepted?  Of course not -- this is precisely what separates GOOD lawyers from TTT lawyers.  A TTT lawyer would tell you that allowing oral acceptants is fine (as you've done here), but a GOOD lawyer would tell you to make sure the motherf'er puts it in ironclad, unambiguous writing.  So as far as I'm concerned, yes, you MUST put your acceptance in writing of some type no matter what the law says--and if the law firm doesn't require it, then they're TTT and you should work somewhere else.  And PS: email DOES count as a "writing"--I did not say it had to be mailed.

[GA-fan]

Are you ACTUALLY concerned that a law firm would deny you ever accepted by phone? What kind of gunner/conspiracy theorist are you?
Accepting by phone is fine, if that's how the offer was extended to you. If you want to follow up with something in writing, so be it, but don't feel obligated to. For 1L (when I didn't know what I was doing) I asked the hiring partner if there was any paperwork/contract I needed to sign after I accepted with him on the phone. He said no, and basically said it's on your honor. You and the firms have way too much to lose by either of you not following through with the summer.

That said, 3L permanent jobs may require different protocol.

[1LMan]

I agree with the above poster that oral may be "sufficient," but it is definitely not recommended. Even NALP flat out says to make sure you accept your offer IN WRITING.  

Also, whoever is talking about UCC - Why? This isn't a contract for goods, it is for your service as an employee and will therefore likely fall under the common law.

[thorc954]

ahh!!! too much contract talk... i hate the UCC and the common law.

I think that we should all just agree that it is better to accept in writing through email or otherwise.  My impression is that email is the way to go, because you are more likely to get confirmation back that they received your acceptance if you email the thing in.

[GA-fan]

By the way, the UCC only applies to products, not services or employment contracts, if we want to get nitpicky about it.

[1LMan]

By the way, the UCC only applies to products, not services or employment contracts, if we want to get nitpicky about it.

Do I hear an echo in here?  Read above.....

[jacy85]

If the firm does not follow up a verbal or email offer w/ an offer letter which you can sign and photocopy before sending back, you should request one.

Bottom line: Regardless of how your initial offer is extended, it's always safest to ask for something in writing, IMO.

[yykm]

If the firm does not follow up a verbal or email offer w/ an offer letter which you can sign and photocopy before sending back, you should request one.

Bottom line: Regardless of how your initial offer is extended, it's always safest to ask for something in writing, IMO.

An offer via email is writing.  I agree you should request something in writing (even via email) if the offer only came orally.

[oscarsonthepond]

Writing is not required in this case.  The contract won't take more than a year to perform.  Of course accepting in the same way you received the offer is acceptable (section 65), but so is any reasonable method (section 30), unless of course they specify a particular method (section 60).

See, this is the problem with some people--you're probably a good STUDENT who's able to state the law verbatim, but you need to take off your 1L cap and think practically if you're ever going to succeed as a LAWYER.

My statement was in response to your initial post:

you have to accept in writing somehow (remember Contracts?).

My statement had nothing whatsoever to do with giving a law firm advice about what type of acceptance it should accept from its offerees in light of potential litigation in case the offeree claims they didn't accept (which seems to be what your response is directed at).  Instead, my post was aimed at correcting your incorrect statement that contract law would require a written acceptance.


Also, the sections I was referring to were from the restatement (2d) of contracts, not the UCC.