Thousands of people of people have certainly breathed sighs of relief that it wasn’t THEIR name-calling, credential-bashing email “dialogue” that was forwarded around the world recently. I’m referring to the email exchange detailed in the Boston Globe and the WSJ (a complaint for the WSJ—you let us email subscription-based Online Journal articles, but we can’t link them to a blog post) about two lawyers – one who thought he’d hired the other, and the would-be employee who apparently thought they were merely in the consideration stages.
The job candidate ultimately characterized the employer’s offer as, “one that would neither fulfill me nor support the lifestyle I am living”, and told him how a “real lawyer” would have handled their misunderstanding. He matched her, characterizing her behavior as immature, and unprofessional, and asked her, “Do you really want to start pissing off more experienced lawyers at this early stage of your career?”.
Bravery and indignation at the keyboard feels amazingly good for a couple of minutes, but the fallout can be disastrous. In this case, both lawyers feel they weren’t hurt by this. Great bravado, but how will she, for instance be regarded 10 years from now if she’s being considered for a judgeship, and someone drags out the emails? Or will so many people have torqued up, testy email trails that it won’t even matter?
Comment Preview