Why involving lawyers first doesn’t work
Jobster/Rdc and RecruitingBlogs.com have mended ways and that’s good for both of them. You know what would have been better? If JG & JD had worked this out without the need for a threatening letter from an attorney. JG wished that this had stayed a private matter. Well, he should have also wished that he had never sent a threatening letter but that would admit that he actually had some hand in this “mini circus.” Lawyers bring out the worst in people, it throws up a defense mechanism, and it usually throws up barriers to coming to a (less expensive) resolution. That’s why threatening lawyer letters make good press because you essentially have little left to lose if they are going to take you (the little guy) to court or shut you down.
In my line of work, involving lawyers is the last step, not the first. They should have reversed this process with JG talking with JD openly about how he felt he was violating his non-compete and that he was hurting Jobster. In a week or so, if things didn’t go well, it would have at least looked a bit better and they could have had a press release prepared if JD went public. If JG could blog and say “Yeah, I called personally and tried to work it out. I gave him some time to resolve it. It didn’t work out.” Of course, best case scenario (and probably most likely) is that they resolve it before mini circus stage and Jobster gets no bad publicity and gets more visibility into RecruitingBlogs.com.
I imagine some will accuse me of Monday morning quarterbacking this whole and they might be right if this hadn’t played out in the media so often. No less than two weeks ago did Angelina Jolie send the press into circus mode over a hasty letter from her attorneys. And guess what, since Fox had nothing to lose (they had already been barred from interviewing her), they made a big fracas of it and the media as a whole picked it up. Sound familiar?
Comments
One Response to “Why involving lawyers first doesn’t work”
Leave a Reply









It’s very beautifully.
[Reply]