Help! How do you know when a job is certain?

[legallynotblondee]

Hi everyone, 

So, after many, many emails sent, I finally accepted a job offer for an articling student position that I am really excited about. We have not signed anything or discussed salary, but we plan to do so in the next few weeks. I have already applied to the Law Society for student-at-law status etc. I have a few interview opportunities for the end of the month that I arranged a while ago before getting offered this job--I'm wondering what the proper etiquette is. Should I cancel these interviews now or wait until I have signed an employment contract?

I've never been in this position before, so I am seeking advice to make sure I proceed appropriately. If anyone has any insight on how this process typically goes, I would appreciate it!

[LMP]

If you haven't received and signed an offer letter, I'd keep the other intevriews. Look, if this was during the recruit or with a notable firm than it'd be different. But by the sounds of it you really don't have any indication the job will actually materialize. 

Now, once you have signed the letter definitely cancel the other intevriews. But I don't feel you owe a duty to this possible employer until they've taken steps to cement things. 

[legallynotblondee]

Thank you for your thoughts, it is very helpful to get an outside perspective.

Okay--maybe dumb question now, but I am genuinely confused about a lot of this process and have not gotten helpful assistance from my career services office. Was I not supposed to submit an application to article with this firm until I have signed something? I wanted to get that application moving so that it would line up with my start date, but now I have no clue. 

 

[chaboywb]

Do you graduate this year? I could be misremembering, but I’m pretty sure I didn’t apply to anything with the LSO until right before I started articling in August.

[legallynotblondee]

I will be graduating in June of this year! I think I may be confused about the timelines for submitting all of the applications stuff.

Edited April 4 by legallynotblondee
Clarity

[Whist]

Congratulations on finding an articling position!

Ditto on waiting until you get a signed offer before cancelling other interviews. Just in case. 

If this articling position is in a province that uses CPLED/the PREP program, I personally waited for a written offer before applying to be a student at law or sending the articling agreement portion that your principal has to fill out. IIRC you just need to submit things at least 30 days in advance of your start date. I believe your university will send transcripts for you provided you don't start prior to June. You should discuss with your potential/future principal if the firm will be covering your PREP fees or articling application fees if not done already, otherwise you might want to wait and see about those other interviews. 

[LMP]

4 hours ago, legallynotblondee said:

Thank you for your thoughts, it is very helpful to get an outside perspective.

Okay--maybe dumb question now, but I am genuinely confused about a lot of this process and have not gotten helpful assistance from my career services office. Was I not supposed to submit an application to article with this firm until I have signed something? I wanted to get that application moving so that it would line up with my start date, but now I have no clue. 

 

I probably would have held off until I had a signed offer. But having said that I don't think it'll be a problem. It might be a hassle to update the law society with a new employer, but it probably won't be the first time they've had to do it. I wouldn't worry.

[legallynotblondee]

Thank you all for your help! Good to know, I think I may have jumped the gun a bit but I appreciate everyone's thoughts 😊

[Dinsdale]

Depends what, exactly, those e-mails said.  I assume you were paying attention in first year Contracts.

[legallynotblondee]

23 minutes ago, Dinsdale said:

Depends what, exactly, those e-mails said.  I assume you were paying attention in first year Contracts.

Yes this was my confusion. I did say in the email I would like to accept the offer for the articling student position. I wasn’t sure if common protocol was to continue interviewing until a contract had been signed, but wanted some outside thoughts!

[BeRightBack]

Congrats! It seems to me that they have already given you a verbal/written offer and that you have accepted it in writing. Have you agreed on your salary? If yes (was it via email?), then your contract is already complete. Am I wrong here, my fellow contract law students?

I also believe that law is a noble profession where the value of your word is very important. If both parties have agreed to the hiring verbally, it would be extremely unethical for a party to continue looking for other options (an Articling Student or a Law Firm). I don't think any reputable lawyer will risk their reputation and rescind an offer for the minor convenience of having an extra articling student.

So I would go against the grain here and say that you cannot accept any other articling offer now. Also, what is stopping you from communicating your concerns directly with the law firm? Perhaps you don't want to seem desperate, but any law firm that has shown interest in you values your capabilities, and they are likely to respond to your query in a positive manner. Do not hesitate to ask them regarding your genuine concerns. 

[BlockedQuebecois]

1 hour ago, BeRightBack said:

Am I wrong here, my fellow contract law students?

Yes. Based on the original post, OP and the firm have not agreed any terms of the employment contract at all.

OP, you don’t need to wait until you have a signed offer letter setting out the terms of your employment (although it may be preferable to do so), but you do need to make sure you and the firm have come to an agreement (oral or otherwise) on the key terms. 

Whether you cancel your upcoming interviews is probably a personal decision. I personally would, because I would not want to waste the interviewers’ time or put myself in a position where I want to renege on my initial acceptance of an offer. But until you actually have an agreement with the other firm, it’s probably not unethical to attend other interviews. 

Edited April 4 by BlockedQuebecois

[leafs_law]

Nothing is ever entirely certain, but it sounds like you have a job. 

You can throw out 1L contracts. It was perhaps my favourite class in law school, but there is a reason employment law and legal ethics are their own courses (spoiler: it is because 1L contract law is not sufficient in these types of circumstances). 

No reason not to be honest with your (likely) future employer. You can thank them for the opportunity and ask them what they intend to pay you and whether they want you to sign a contract. You can also confirm with them that everything is good to go and that you can feel secure canceling your other interviews. 

Much of this depends on context and how you read the ongoing interactions.

[loonie]

1 hour ago, leafs_law said:

Nothing is ever entirely certain, but it sounds like you have a job. 

You can throw out 1L contracts. It was perhaps my favourite class in law school, but there is a reason employment law and legal ethics are their own courses (spoiler: it is because 1L contract law is not sufficient in these types of circumstances). 

I'm not sure what you mean here. The reason these subjects are taught as courses is because they encompass a broader scope of law beyond mere contractual matters.

OP's question at hand specifically concerns a contractual issue—namely, whether a valid, legally binding contract exists. Foundational contract law principles still apply whether it's an employment contract or any other type. Based on the information provided, it doesn't appear that a valid employment contract exists. Key employment terms, particularly consideration, were not discussed. Whether these terms are communicated verbally or in writing is irrelevant, but their absence likely means that there is no employment contract at this point. 

[leafs_law]

20 minutes ago, loonie said:

I'm not sure what you mean here. The reason these subjects are taught as courses is because they encompass a broader scope of law beyond mere contractual matters.

OP's question at hand specifically concerns a contractual issue—namely, whether a valid, legally binding contract exists. Foundational contract law principles still apply whether it's an employment contract or any other type. Based on the information provided, it doesn't appear that a valid employment contract exists. Key employment terms, particularly consideration, were not discussed. Whether these terms are communicated verbally or in writing is irrelevant, but their absence likely means that there is no employment contract at this point. 

What I mean is that we have basic contract law, applicable in most circumstances.

Then we have employment law (with its own unique statutes, common law interpretations, and the assumption of unequal bargaining power [which often result in an entirely different result than the application of basic contract law]). Employment law exists, in part, because it is somewhat of an exception to the general application of contract law.

Then we have professional responsibility law, which is another world unto itself, placing far greater obligations upon regulated professionals. This includes the application of "undertakings" (essentially promises), which are not only enforceable regardless of basic contractual principles but also often more onerous. Just like with employment law, much of the application of professional regulation is not consistent with basic contract law.

This is a very basic explanation, so ask any questions you have.

[loonie]

2 hours ago, leafs_law said:

What I mean is that we have basic contract law, applicable in most circumstances.

Then we have employment law (with its own unique statutes, common law interpretations, and the assumption of unequal bargaining power [which often result in an entirely different result than the application of basic contract law]). Employment law exists, in part, because it is somewhat of an exception to the general application of contract law.

Then we have professional responsibility law, which is another world unto itself, placing far greater obligations upon regulated professionals. This includes the application of "undertakings" (essentially promises), which are not only enforceable regardless of basic contractual principles but also often more onerous. Just like with employment law, much of the application of professional regulation is not consistent with basic contract law.

This is a very basic explanation, so ask any questions you have.

Employment Law exists to regulate the relationship between employers and employees. It does not even come into play if that employment contract/relationship does not exist, which is why I am still struggling to understand why you brought it up in your first post. Even if you were trying to argue that there is a valid contract here - it would have nothing to do with Employment Law per se. Sure, I understand bringing it up if OP was asking about whether an employer could contract out of statutory reasonable notice. But that's not the nature what is being discussed here. The question was if there is an enforceable contract and, in order to satisfy such, basic contract law principles must still be present. There is "no exception" or "different application" because it involves employment at this stage.

Similarly, while an undertaking or promise to employ may exist, its legal enforceability will still depend on whether essential terms and elements required for a valid contract are present. Ambiguity, uncertainty, and failure to meet legal standards in the case at hand will likely undermine the enforceability of such agreements.

Anyways, not trying to argue or come off as condescending (Leafs fan, so I already respect you) -- I just disagree with what you originally said. I'm sure OP will be fine and likely will have a job offer, assuming that their potential employer was vague with the intention of officially making a valid offer and working out the details later on. My advice would be to follow up and inquire further on the key employment terms and, echoing what was previously said by some on this thread, I see no issue with participating in further interviews until that offer is confirmed. 

EDIT: Was weirdly looking through your post history and just noticed you are a partner in this area of law -- so, please accept my apologies as I am the one who is probably very wrong here lol. 

Edited April 12 by loonie

[leafs_law]

1 hour ago, loonie said:

Employment Law exists to regulate the relationship between employers and employees. It does not even come into play if that employment contract/relationship does not exist, which is why I am still struggling to understand why you brought it up in your first post. Even if you were trying to argue that there is a valid contract here - it would have nothing to do with Employment Law per se. Sure, I understand bringing it up if OP was asking about whether an employer could contract out of statutory reasonable notice. But that's not the nature what is being discussed here. The question was if there is an enforceable contract and, in order to satisfy such, basic contract law principles must still be present. There is "no exception" or "different application" because it involves employment at this stage.

Similarly, while an undertaking or promise to employ may exist, its legal enforceability will still depend on whether essential terms and elements required for a valid contract are present. Ambiguity, uncertainty, and failure to meet legal standards in the case at hand will likely undermine the enforceability of such agreements.

Anyways, not trying to argue or come off as condescending (Leafs fan, so I already respect you) -- I just disagree with what you originally said. I'm sure OP will be fine and likely will have a job offer, assuming that their potential employer was vague with the intention of officially making a valid offer and working out the details later on. My advice would be to follow up and inquire further on the key employment terms and, echoing what was previously said by some on this thread, I see no issue with participating in further interviews until that offer is confirmed. 

EDIT: Was weirdly looking through your post history and just noticed you are a partner in this area of law -- so, please accept my apologies as I am the one who is probably very wrong here lol. 

Ok, I was switching between preparing an urgent motion and responding to your post and somehow I lost the (admittedly short) reply I was typing out. So, I will have to keep this even more brief (and really it is a scenario that deserves quite a lengthy discussion/debate).

Anyway - no worries - fresh perspectives keep me on my toes. You are right that there are still generally no agreements to later agree on fundamental terms. That would be the lawyer/firm's argument if they wished to get out of the contract.

For OP, I would argue if they in fact "accepted a job offer" then there is likely some confirmation in writing to purportedly seal the deal. If they are in a vulnerable position (for example, needing an articling placement to become licensed) then remuneration might not be as fundamental term as otherwise. Or, perhaps, I would argue that to offer an articling position and then resile from it would be a breach of professional duties.

If there is a mutual expectation they show up to work, there should be some reasonable terms agreed to or implied (though it might be easier to get rid of the contract if either party then raises unreasonable terms that should have been brought up in negotiations).

This is a small part of the analysis I would undertake if representing either party if this became a dispute (there are many more factors and arguments to consider).

However, from experience in practice, I can essentially guarantee the lawyer/law firm is screwed if they try to revoke what it seems they represented as a placement offer to a prospective licensee in a regulated profession.

 

[CleanHands]

2 hours ago, loonie said:

EDIT: Was weirdly looking through your post history and just noticed you are a partner in this area of law -- so, please accept my apologies as I am the one who is probably very wrong here lol. 

lol

[BHC1]

4 hours ago, loonie said:

EDIT: Was weirdly looking through your post history and just noticed you are a partner in this area of law -- so, please accept my apologies as I am the one who is probably very wrong here lol. 

You have a bright future ahead of you Loonie. I can think of at least a half dozen lawyers who would love you as their junior. 

[Cool_name]

All of this contract talk is great, but whoever recommended just reaching out is correct. 
 

Lawyers and law firms are notorious for not following the advice they’d give to clients with respect to putting things in writing.

I know of a well established boutique where the partners do not even have a partnership agreement. 
 

The fact that nothing is signed isn’t a big deal. Just reach out and confirm. In particular, I’d ask to negotiate salary earlier as you have other interviews you want to cancel but want to make sure you are both on the same page re pay first. 
 

Worst case here isn’t the firm reneging the offer, it’s cancelling the interviews and then finding out the firm is going to pay you peanuts.