Career Clinic: Can I quit before my contract starts?

I am amazed that you have managed to obtain a role at your existing firm, let alone a much better role at another firm. It is clear the terms of the contract cannot be in force until the term commencement date, which would presumably defined in the contract. As such, the notice provisions in the contract are irrelevant. You should inform your exisiting firm that you have received a better offer from another firm and will not be taking up their offer. Although technically speaking, your existing firm will then have a claim against you for breach of contract, it is also under a legal duty to mitigate its loss. Arguably, it should be able to fill its vacancy between now and September.

Male solicitor -23 May 2008 | 17:42

Prepare to get a lecture on "resiling from your commitments"! You should think carefully however about your "much better offer". In these times, and unless you're qualifying into a team which does recession-proof work, it would be far better to stick with the firm who know you best, rather than move and risk being made redundant if it doesn't work out at the new shop.

City Woman -23 May 2008 | 18:11

I find it hard to believe that, as a lawyer, you are having to ask this question. If you cannot work this simple legal problem out for yourself I would advise you to change careers before you get in too deep.

Lawyer -23 May 2008 | 18:18

My question was not a legal one - obviously I know that answer, and if I did not, I would ask an employment lawyer! My question relates to the wider issues involved as the previous comments have helpfully identified.

poster -23 May 2008 | 18:33

There appears to be two contracts here: one is ended by the other. The other does not become valid until acceptance. If you're not going to accept , where is the problem. Just serve notice as per the current contract, thereby repudiating the contract as you have initially agreed to do. - no big deal there as there is an express clause terminating the contract - you just go through the process. However, check noticeboards or manuals to see if there is anything new in the contract like for instance the 3 months notice is done as "garden leave". Just because you trigger the get out of the company clause you should still get paid. Employers have a "duty" to remunerate and Employees have a "duty" to be WILLING to work, whether that means ACTUAL work is another thing - but hey the law may have moved on from when I studied employment law at university - also be aware some HR and Senior Partners use "retrospective" rules in order to terminate a contact - you know who you are. You may be looking for a non-existent hidden agenda or being OTT in the drama department. Ending a contract as per the contractual determination is no big deal. Might be worth taking a delve into the library for a book on "interpretation of a contract". As your contract is private law, you are unlikely to have to assess how the land lies concerning ultra vires doctrine - but there is a wee bod in the Ministry of Justice who has not yet got to grips with that premise!!!! Incidentally, I know this and I haven't even done a traineeship, nor am I likely to get the chance of one.

ANON -24 May 2008 | 10:23

Do you know whether you'll be treated as having continuous service if you stay with your current employer? If so, in the current climate, it's much better to stay - if redundancies do happen you'll get more money and as someone the firm knows you'll be arguably less likely to be made redundant anyway. It also looks better on your CV to stay with the firm you trained with at least for a year or so, as it shows they were sufficiently impressed with you to take you on - if someone moves on qualification the thought is always whether they weren't actually offered a job!

Another high street solicitor -25 May 2008 | 10:06

ANON would be terrific company for Investment Banker (who seems to have gone AWOL come back all is forgiven)

City Assistant -27 May 2008 | 11:29

Maybe ANON is IB's weaker alter ego - the caring, fluffy, side of the master of the universe.

City Woman -27 May 2008 | 12:27

I know quite a few people who did this - hedged their bets effectively. Although that was in a different market. It's nothing new and you're probably not the first person to do it at your firm. Just be honest with them as soon as possible. It's better for the firm the sooner they find out. Expect some initial kick-back but it will blow over pretty quick.

US Firm Associate -27 May 2008 | 16:17

Bear in mind that future recruiters will assume that you were not kept on (rather than that you opted to leave). It will look much better on your CV if you stay with your current firm, unless you're leaving for a much better firm, as opposed to much better terms.

Ex-MC Lawyer -27 May 2008 | 17:20

I agree with US firm associate. I would just add this - be prepared to get an even better offer from firm 1. When I called firm 1 after firm 2 gave me a better offer and i had accepted it, firm 1 said: 'why didn't you tell us earlier?' They said they would have matched the pay. Pay was not the only issue for me and in any event I didn't like that attitude; if they were prepared to pay a higher salary why didn't they offer it on day one? I am sure all will turn out OK. You won't be sued for breach of contract, like the first poster said, don't worry. But be courteous and apologetic, you never know if you might come across them in later life, either at firm 1 or when your contact at firm 1 moves laterally to firm 2 in a senior role, or some other firm e.g. one that you might apply to in future and he/she remembers you as that smart but polite guy who escaped our net, or that arrogant sod that let us down at the last minute without a hint of remorse.

May -27 May 2008 | 17:31

The short answer is yes - to be honest, regardless of whether you can contractually get out of it, practically speaking the firm is unlikely force you to do your three months because (a) you wouldn't do any work and they know it and (b) they are not going to invest in giving you the training that you would traditionally do in your first three months of qualification if they know you are leaving. They are bound to get snotty with you for changing your mind but it happens to firms all the time - I think that loyalty to the firm you train with is often misplaced - they wouldn't think twice about leaving you jobless on qualification if that was what suited them at the time! Go and speak to the relevant partners and try to leave on good terms. Obviously you do need to consider whether your other offer is actually better than staying at your current firm, but I suspect you've already put a lot of thought in to that. Frankly - well done, I bet it's not that easy to get another offer in the current market. Good luck to you. Also, I would not agree that it looks bad if you move on qualification - if there is a better job out there, you get more respect for taking that than staying at your current firm which is frankly the easier option.

Moved on qualification for Yankee Dollar -27 May 2008 | 17:46

Oh for goodness' sake, don't be so bloody precious! Believe it or not, your current firm will manage to fill your shoes and struggle on somehow. Even in a tiny firm you'll be forgotten a few weeks after you leave. If it's any bigger, they've forgotten you already. The chances of them resenting you for years afterwards are frankly pretty non-existent (although as someone said above, be prepared for a couple of awkward moments by the coffee machine).

Associate -28 May 2008 | 21:16

In the current climate I would stay with your current firm. Not just because of redundancy, which you only get after 2 years' service but also because you have only very limited employment protection until you have a year's service with your new employer. A year is a long time in a dodgy economic situation and an employer can get rid of you with no reason, just having to pay your notice pay. Consider very carefully whether you need more money or more stability. I know which I would choose, but I am naturally risk-averse and have suffered redundancy in my time.

Helen -02 Jun 2008 | 11:13