How NOT to apply for a job

[ShoogarBear]

I'd let her play with my gavel.

I'd like to help her with her briefs.

There'd be no need for plea agreements, because I'd enter her courtroom.

No objections, but plenty of sustainments.

Is there a motion for continuance?

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

No objections, but plenty of sustainments.

Is there a motion for continuance?

Oh, there'll be a lot of continuance.

[Mixability]

Oh, there'll be a lot of continuance.

[Marklar MM]

What if the motion for continuance is denied?

[ShoogarBear]

That would be contempt of court!

[ObiwanGinobili]

But, since you're really asking about red hair, the answer is yes. :p

Then don't leave a girl hanging at the Omni!

[ShoogarBear]

Then don't leave a girl hanging at the Omni!

Okay, I have to admit you've outcooled me on that one.

[ShoogarBear]

More on this story in the Wall Street Journal.

Link

Apparently,
1. The law firm changed their original offer to her; the second offer was at a lower salary.
2. There's some discussion as to whether a law was violated by forwarding somebody's e-mail without their permission. (This has come up before, I know for paper letters the letter writer has copyrights. I don't know if there are similar rights for e-mail.)

Interesting discussion in the blog.

[Peter]

1. To me that changes everything if she didn't agree to the reduced salary. It's not clear when that reduction was made. If she agreed to it and then changed her mind, I could see why the guy was pissed, but would you feel like you had to be that courteous if you accepted a job at a given salary and then they called you up and said you'd have to take less? If she hadn't agreed to the salary reduction and was simply informing him of her decision to not take the job at the lower salary then this guy is going to go from Mr. Hardass Attorney who had to deal with a snotty little to overnight.

2. This, I'm not too sure about. I operate on the assumption that whatever I email may be forwarded on.

[MannyIsGod]

She's started up her own practice. I think the tenacity she's shown is going to prove useful in her practice.

[Spurminator]

I think it's somewhat unprofessional of Korman to forward a private email exchange to all of his lawyer buddies out of spite, and I really question the necessity of sending it to the Boston Globe.

I'm a little more forgiving of a dumb 24 year old.

[Peter]

I think it's somewhat unprofessional of Korman to forward a private email exchange to all of his lawyer buddies out of spite. I'm a little more forgiving of a dumb 24 year old.

Even moreso when it is learned that he changed the terms of the deal. He had the 'dealing with a snot nosed fresh law grad' thing going for him before then.

At least in the court of public opinion this guy is going to get dumped on.

[Spurminator]

Yeah, we'll see how that plays out, but even if he didn't lowball her on the second offer, I still think blacklisting over a snotty email exchange is pretty low...

[Peter]

Yeah, we'll see how that plays out, but even if he didn't lowball her on the second offer, I still think blacklisting over a snotty email exchange is pretty low...

I agree. Even if she agreed to the lower offer, he did set the precedent of changing his mind during their negotiations. Him flaming her over that was pretty ridiculous.

[ShoogarBear]

So it seems the hottie has already won her first case in the court of public opinion.

[Spurminator]

Meh, she's probably a ... I wouldn't lose a lot of sleep if she ended up a failure on her own. I just don't think a momentary lapse of judgment in one's email communication should be grounds for public humiliation.

[FromWayDowntown]

So it seems the hottie has already won her first case in the court of public opinion.

I doubt that. She gave an interview to the Boston Globe in which she expressly described herself as "a trust fund baby," and said that she hadn't worked at all since taking the bar examination because she had worked hard in school.

Curiously, despite her opportunity to explain that Korman may have lowballed with a secondary offer, the trust fund baby doesn't ever suggest that was the case. There may be more than what I've read, but I would have thought that she would have disclosed that fact to the Globe and that the Globe would have reported that fact.

2 e-mailers get testy, and hundreds read every word
By Sacha Pfeiffer, Globe Staff | February 16, 2006

Once again, a friendly reminder: The next time you're tempted to send a nasty, exasperated, or snippy e-mail, pause, take a deep breath, and think again. Then consider the tale of local lawyers William A. Korman and Dianna L. Abdala.

Korman was miffed that Abdala notified him by e-mail this month that, after tentatively agreeing to work at his law firm, she changed her mind. Her reason: ''The pay you are offering would neither fulfill me nor support the lifestyle I am living."

In his e-mail reply, Korman told Abdala that her decision not to have told him in person ''smacks of immaturity and is quite unprofessional," and noted that in anticipation of her arrival, he had ordered stationery and business cards for her, reformatted a computer, and set up an e-mail account. Nevertheless, he wrote, ''I sincerely wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors."

Her curt retort: ''A real lawyer would have put the contract into writing and not exercised any such reliance until he did so."

His: ''Thank you for the refresher course on contracts. This is not a bar exam question. You need to realize that this is a very small legal community, especially the criminal defense bar. Do you really want to start pissing off more experienced lawyers at this early stage of your career?"

Abdala's final three-word response: ''bla bla bla."

That's when the exchange, confirmed as authentic yesterday by Korman and Abdala, began whipping through cyberspace, landing in e-mail in-boxes around the city and country, and, eventually, across the Atlantic.

In short order, it has become yet another cautionary tale that you should definitely not put in an e-mail anything you wouldn't want the rest of the world to read.

Think former FEMA chief Michael Brown (''Can I quit now?"), indicted Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff (''we need to get some $ from those monkeys!!!!"), and assorted Enron employees (''This week is not good. I have too large a pile of do ents to shred").

''It almost sounds too obvious, but I'll say it: You should never write an e-mail that you are not willing to see preserved forever in history," said Boston Bar Association president-elect Jack Cinquegrana, who frequently handles cases that use e-mail as evidence. ''The dangers created by this new world we live in, where everything is recorded for history, are not only that you could be second-guessed at every stage in the context of a civil dispute or government investigation, but that your reputation can be affected by words you don't think you're preserving for posterity -- but really are."

The e-mail exchange between Korman, 36, a former Suffolk County prosecutor, and Abdala, 24, a 2004 graduate of Suffolk University Law School, has circulated so widely that each of them said they have received several hundred inquiries about it from as far away as Europe. Among the questions Korman has fielded are whether the back-and-forth is real (it is) and whether the job is still available (it is not). He received an e-mail from a young lawyer in Kansas apologizing on behalf of young lawyers nationwide.

The exchange became public when Korman sent it to a colleague, who asked if he could forward it elsewhere. ''You can e-mail this to whomever you want," Korman responded. From there, it took flight.

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."

''I take no issue with why she chose not to work here," said Korman, a 1995 Boston University School of Law graduate. ''But to then insult me by saying I'm not a real lawyer -- that's offensive. ... Here's a woman who's just starting her career, and that she had the unmitigated gall to send an e-mail like that blew me away."

Abdala, who described herself as a ''trust fund baby," was admitted to the Massachusetts bar last year and said that since then she has ''just been taking it easy" because ''I worked hard in school." She decided to respond to Korman's job posting because ''I wanted to establish somewhat of a career for myself," she said. ''No one wants to be living off daddy." Abdala's father, George S. Abdala, is a Springfield lawyer.

Abdala said she is now working for herself by renting space from a lawyer on Franklin Street in Boston, where she will take court-appointed cases and do private criminal defense work.

Abdala said she has no regrets about the e-mail exchange. She said she has reported Korman to the Board of Bar Overseers for ''unprofessional and unethical" conduct for forwarding her e-mail to an outside party. She also said she believes that Korman's remark about Boston's ''small legal community" was tantamount to ''threatening my legal career," and that he circulated the e-mails as a ''cheap ploy to bring more business to his firm."

Threatening Abdala ''certainly wasn't my intention," Korman said. ''My goal wasn't to put her on the defensive, but simply to say there's a strong likelihood, given the small size of the criminal defense bar, that our paths would cross again." Korman acknowledges he sent the e-mail to a colleague, and said he did so because ''it was so shocking and unbelievable."

''All I did," he added, ''was forward a non-privileged, non-client communication to somebody who then chose to forward it along. I really don't see where the ethical breach is."

[FromWayDowntown]

It's also curious to me that the disciplinary body for Massachusetts is the Board of Overseers. Is the group of attorneys in that commonwealth known as The Plantation, rather than the Bar?

[ChumpDumper]

A trust fund baby could only make it into Suffolk?

[ShoogarBear]

I doubt that.

I was only kidding. (Sort of. I'd have to see more pictures of her.)

A trust fund baby could only make it into Suffolk?

Yeah, somewhere (maybe the WSJ blog) there was extensive discussion over this. Reportedly she had a 3.5-4.0 average at BU. Having lived in Boston for 17 years, I know that Suffolk isn't a great law school, however, if your goal is to be a litigator in the Boston area, it's got an extensive local alumni network.

Amazing how a relatively insignificant and dumb e-mail spat can resonate with so many.

[Peter]

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."

Whatever her financial situation, the guy changed the salary he quoted her in the first interview which she originally accepted. There apparently is a disagreement between the two on whether she accepted the reduction in salary. I don't have much of a problem with her withdrawing her acceptance after he changed the salary. She informed him of that via email and voice mail. I know that if someone pulled that on me I wouldn't feel inclined to have to take the job at the new lower salary.

If she accepted the salary reduction and then changed her mind, it muddies the picture, but it's not like he hadn't said one thing and then changed his mind.

[Peter]

Amazing how a relatively insignificant and dumb e-mail spat can resonate with so many.

Such is the internets.

[ShoogarBear]

Fascinating how readily she implicity admits she's materialistic and shallow.

I mean, how many people would self-describe themselves (especially to the media) as:
-"trust fund baby"
-likes the finer things in life
-needs more money than other people

Spurminator is right; she is almost unquestionably a , and a bit of an airhead.

(. . . which, for a short time, could be sexy, too.)

[1Parker1]

Fascinating how readily she implicity admits she's materialistic and shallow.

I mean, how many people would self-describe themselves (especially to the media) as:
-"trust fund baby"
-likes the finer things in life
-needs more money than other people

***cough* Paris Hilton *cough***

[Peter]

Fascinating how readily she implicity admits she's materialistic and shallow.

I mean, how many people would self-describe themselves (especially to the media) as:
-"trust fund baby"
-likes the finer things in life
-needs more money than other people

Spurminator is right; she is almost unquestionably a , and a bit of an airhead.

(. . . which, for a short time, could be sexy, too.)

The court of public opinion finds that she is indeed a spoiled rotten . It also finds that she was a spoiled rotten who was dealing with an asshole who tried to get her to take less than they agreed to for the job and who then proceeded to smear her when she declined to go along with his .