Reasons for picking Jones Day - NY? Forum

[Anonymous User]

I'm the anon who made The Comment, and I beg you all to touch grass and chill out. It's not the end of the world if I get outed but sure if you wanna call me a coward, who cares? Of course I'm a coward. We all are. What's the shame in that? I do find it funny that ppl bravely called me a coward from behind anon, like at least be consistent. (TBF original fainting couch used a username.)

I appreciate your candid response. People always get upset whenever anon abuse is brought up (it inevitably falls into a battle of who was a hypocrite first), so no surprises here.

I do stand by my point, though. I use anon all the time and probably in ways that violate TLS's policies. But that's when I'm speaking generally about my experiences, opinion, etc. Mostly harmless stuff that, though it might offend some, isn't directed at any particular person and can't do much harm to anybody's reputation. Nobody cares what Cornerstone thinks about the latest salary news. But I think if you're going to drag in an actual person (who isn't even on this thread, mind you) and accuse them of getting some sweet kickbacks without any evidence, then you should be open about it. FWIW I think that's different from speaking anonymously about bad personal experiences with partners, firms, etc.

Anyway, up to you (or the mods) whether saying those things anonymously truly sits right with you.

Appreciate your good faith response (well, except for the whole calling for me to be outed, that was a bit unfriendly).

I never said anything about kickbacks. How do you imagine that would even work? "hi we will pay you more and in exchange...." what exactly? She will help them get clients? That's not a kickback that's just eat what you kill. Usually associates can't tap into that bc of lockstep, but it makes sense that JD would reward that earlier. There's nothing nefarious about it.

I think you're trying to move the goalpost here - I never said nefarious. I see your point about how that might work, but the point stands that neither of us know anything about that. Maybe "kickbacks" was the wrong term to use, but you certainly didn't clearly state your point either until the last post.

I didn't know who she was before this post (though I had heard of her parents). I know a little about who her parents know, but I certainly don't know anything about who she knows (do you?). I don't know what practice area she's going into, or whether or not she can/will bring in business to that group (if she does, fantastic - I just don't know). Nobody said anything about whether the firm even knows who her parents are (I have a close friend who is the child of someone famous and didn't even recognize that connection for months). I also don't know why she picked JD. And I don't know how much JD is going to pay her. But you seemed to imply that at least some of those are connected without any apparent knowledge about those topics. If I were her, I wouldn't want someone gossiping behind an (even more) anonymous keyboard on a public forum trying to connect those dots about who I know, where I'm working, and how much I'll make - whether those dots are nefarious or not. Maybe I'm a softie, but when we're talking about actual people the calculus changes for me.

[Anonymous User]

delete

[cornerstone]

I think you're trying to move the goalpost here - I never said nefarious. I see your point about how that might work, but the point stands that neither of us know anything about that. Maybe "kickbacks" was the wrong term to use, but you certainly didn't clearly state your point either until the last post.

I didn't know who she was before this post (though I had heard of her parents). I know a little about who her parents know, but I certainly don't know anything about who she knows (do you?). I don't know what practice area she's going into, or whether or not she can/will bring in business to that group (if she does, fantastic - I just don't know). Nobody said anything about whether the firm even knows who her parents are (I have a close friend who is the child of someone famous and didn't even recognize that connection for months). I also don't know why she picked JD. And I don't know how much JD is going to pay her. But you seemed to imply that at least some of those are connected without any apparent knowledge about those topics. If I were her, I wouldn't want someone gossiping behind an (even more) anonymous keyboard on a public forum trying to connect those dots about who I know, where I'm working, and how much I'll make - whether those dots are nefarious or not. Maybe I'm a softie, but when we're talking about actual people the calculus changes for me.

Accidental anon - that was me.

[Anonymous User]

This is not specific to NYC, but I do have a few thoughts based from what I've heard from some DC JD associates.

First, though it would shock the conscience of some here, there are some who are not pure profit maximizers. In that sense, they may be willing forgo some pay for something else - be it culture (Fed Soc or otherwise), a particular practice group, or anything else listed below. I've heard at least one JD associate say we're all overcompensated and fixating on a few thousand dollars or massive bonuses in the height of the pandemic is petty, undeserved, and unbecoming. Maybe it's a justification for receiving less comp.

Second, as corollary, I think either JD didn't underpay as much in the past, or their underpayments for more senior associates have become more public of late. A few people I know there weren't particularly upset with their comp until the more recent salary/bonus wars. They also had serious midlevel retention issues (many felt duped by black box) before the pandemic made that a thing everywhere, likely due to unpublished compression.

Third, apart from a few relatively selective NYC firms, most other firms have hard hours requirements somewhere between 1900-2000. For someone who can't land one of those firms, JD poses an alternative where you could theoretically scoot by with lower hours for years and still make some good money (even if slightly less than you would make elsewhere).

Fourth, JD does beat market for some hardworking associates. My guess is that more people think ex ante that they'll fall into this category, especially given my next point.

Fifth, JD often times hires a good deal of scrappy non-T14 attorneys at the top of their class. I think JD recruits them harder than the other NYC firms, which are more focused on T14 and think the non-T14 students should be grateful for their offer.

Sixth, for mathematically illiterate law students, the idea of getting paid a higher salary without a bonus sounds attractive, especially if they don't realize they end up undercompensated in the end.

Seventh, for law students who know nothing of the world, the idea of NLG (no practice group commitment for 1 year) probably sounds pretty attractive. We can quibble about whether it's a good thing or not (just like CSM's system), but it's bound to catch the eye of at least a few law students.

Eight, this may be less true now as the Lathams and K&E's of the world continue to grow, but JD's massive footprint combined with the "one firm" policy is probably another selling point. They have work in literally every practice area imaginable in almost any city in the world. Compensation aside, I'd prefer JD to other shops like DLA, NRF, K&L, GT, etc. Maybe even MLB if I'm being honest. J&D is far better ranked than these firms, which is probably another selling point (again, quibble whether that matters).

Ninth, partnership prospects, etc. as others have noted.

Through NLG, do Jones Day associates have meaningful choice in which practice group they'd like? I heard some firms pretend they have a rotational option for first years, but a lot of people get slotted into corporate groups even if the associate wants litigation

Bumping this question from earlier wrt NLG & practice group placement - if anyone could elaborate, please do!

To get this thread back on topic - yes, NLGs have substantial choice in practice group placement. Some groups are pickier than others (you're not getting I&A without at least a COA clerkship, or more realistically a SCOTUS clerkship), but by and large most NLGs I know are happy with their placement. And there's some flexibility for assertive associates to move around and/or cross-specialize between groups.

[Anonymous User]

This question might be too specific, but how do Jones Day - NY litigators fare when trying to exit into NY government jobs? Such as NY AG's or DA's offices