Infamous Emails Don't Always Kill Careers

Carl Bialik from the WSJ writes "Those oft-forwarded email gaffes don't always lead to career meltdowns for the ashamed senders, Jared Sandberg writes in the Wall Street Journal. In some corners of the business world, preserving a reputation can be less important than acquiring one in the first place. For instance, the 2003 legal summer associate who accidentally emailed 40 colleagues to announce he was 'busy doing jack' ended up getting a job at the firm. More recently, the young woman who told off a lawyer offering her a job -- and saw her email forwarded worldwide -- is quite confident that the notoriety can't hurt, and might even help, her career."

Comments

It's the old adage...

[fak3r]

there's no such thing as bad publicity.

(1st?)

They do more often than they don't

[winkydink]

You can't extrapolate from one intern who was hired despite having sent out a stupid email. TFA implies he spent the rest of the summer kissing ass and working his butt off.

As for Abadala, she's a trust-fund baby. I suspect she'll learn the hard way that professional networking is extremely important in a services career.

Many people have been passed over for hire for something stupid they posted to Usenet or an Internet forum. Googling a person before hire to learn as much about them as possible is standard practice these days.

Re:They do more often than they don't

[dal20402]

Lawyers are not paid to "give the smack down." They're paid to achieve the best possible result for clients. Once in a while, that may involve being forceful. But, more often, that involves succeeding in negotiations and working with the opposition to achieve a resolution that works for both parties. Even in litigation, things go more smoothly for everyone when opposing counsel have a good working relationship.

If I were a client, I wouldn't touch Abdala with a ten-foot pole; I wouldn't trust her to have the good judgment and professional collegiality necessary to get me a good result. If I were a lawyer, I'd dread any situation where I had to work with her, and I certainly wouldn't hire her to work in my firm.

Re:They do more often than they don't

[cluedweasel]

"Googling a person before hire to learn as much about them as possible is standard practice these days." Well that explains a lot. Googling myself (don't do that in public) the other day I found someone convicted of supplying heroin with not only the same name as me but the same age and living in the same town as I worked in at the time of his conviction. I wonder how many HR folks put 2+2 together and got 5 on that one?

Must be nice

[MrNougat]

From TFA:

As for Ms. Abdala, she says a mea culpa "will never happen." She's living on funds provided by her father and has rented office space for her own practice. "I've never been the type to work under someone," she says.

I won't work under someone, earning my own way, but I'll shamelessly nurse from the teat. That doesn't work for people whose parents don't have the funds to be venture capitalists for their children.