Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
At some point, virtually every legal employer will be asked to provide a reference for a former employee. As departed associates, former summer clerks, and office staff move through the employment world, their prospective employers will often make contact with former managers or supervisors, in the hope of gaining information about the potential hire. These requests can present a dilemma for the reference provider, particularly in those cases where the candidate's performance during his or her employment was less than stellar. In those circumstances, the former employer faces competing considerations: Should one risk the repercussions of arguably damaging the former employee's reputation, or, out of an abundance of caution, fail to provide relevant information to a fellow employer?
The standard advice for employers faced with this dilemma historically has been to say very little of substance about former employees in order to minimize the risk of potential liability. For better or for worse, that approach also allows the former employee considerable flexibility in characterizing the reasons for his or her job movement. Following that approach, the vast majority of law firms have adopted neutral reference, or 'name, rank, and serial number' policies. An employer response under such a policy provides a confirmation that the employee worked at the firm for a specific time period in specific capacities, but declines to comment on the quality of work by the prospective hire, his or her job performance, or the circumstances surrounding his or her departure. This 'say nothing' regime, while avoiding liability for firms, has the negative consequence of restricting the flow of information in the employment market. Candid information about an employee's performance and qualifications, both positive and negative, is unavailable to a prospective employer. Thus, excellent candidates may lose the benefit of what would otherwise be strongly positive references, while the limitations of poor candidates may not be fully conveyed to the market.
The artificial constraint of information available to the labor market creates more than merely theoretical economic inefficiencies for law firms and those they employ. Many firms incur high transaction costs to recruit and hire lateral talent, but the long-term success rates of such hires can be relatively low. More transparency in the reference process could help firms do a better job of selecting candidates who are a good fit with the positions they are attempting to fill. At the same time, better fit is more likely to lead to stability and long-term success for the individual candidate. Particularly within close legal communities where qualified staff and attorneys move among a relatively small number of firms, each firm has an interest in hiring those who best fit its culture and profile. The open availability of hiring references serves this interest, making hiring in a given legal market more efficient.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?