JD v. K&S (both DC) Forum

[Anonymous User]

Interested in lit. Would like to go AUSA in the DC metro area 2-3 years after grad. I liked the lawyers I met from both firms.

My concern with K&S is the higher billable goal (2050) and fewer exit options there.

I am well aware of the black box and don’t really care that much. If I make $5-10k less a year and get my dream prosecution job faster that’s fine with me. Is JD’s reputation that much better than K&S in DC?

[Anonymous User]

Got offers at both.

Jones Day is probably better for your goals, especially if you are conservative. However, I will say that you shouldn't underestimate how much the blackbox compensation can screw you over. Like, more than 10k. Also, you should consider cultural fit and specialization at Jones Day v. generalist model at K&S.

[Anonymous User]

JD is a great lit firm - no doubt about it. Some seriously brilliant people there.

That said, you will lose a LOT of money from their compensation. Like, after two to three years you would make about 50-100k less than some other market or above firms such as lockstep + bonus firms like Cravath or generally above market like Kirkland - K&S is market-rate I think.

[Anonymous User]

Got offers at both.

Jones Day is probably better for your goals, especially if you are conservative. However, I will say that you shouldn't underestimate how much the blackbox compensation can screw you over. Like, more than 10k. Also, you should consider cultural fit and specialization at Jones Day v. generalist model at K&S.

My politics are pretty far left but I grew up in a very conservative state so I don’t mind being around people with different views. I think K&S is also fairly conservative. But would working at JD hurt me if I’m applying to a Democratic-appointed USA or DOJ down the line?

[Anonymous User]

JD is a great lit firm - no doubt about it. Some seriously brilliant people there.

That said, you will lose a LOT of money from their compensation. Like, after two to three years you would make about 50-100k less than some other market or above firms such as lockstep + bonus firms like Cravath or generally above market like Kirkland - K&S is market-rate I think.

This has not been my experience as a 4th year associate at a major city JD office.

[Anonymous User]

Got offers at both.

Jones Day is probably better for your goals, especially if you are conservative. However, I will say that you shouldn't underestimate how much the blackbox compensation can screw you over. Like, more than 10k. Also, you should consider cultural fit and specialization at Jones Day v. generalist model at K&S.

My politics are pretty far left but I grew up in a very conservative state so I don’t mind being around people with different views. I think K&S is also fairly conservative. But would working at JD hurt me if I’m applying to a Democratic-appointed USA or DOJ down the line?

JD also represents the Obama foundation, so it's not all right-leaning, though that's what it's usually publicized as. I doubt JD would hurt you in that respect.

[Anonymous User]

Trump's FBI director is also a former K&S partner, for whatever that's worth.

[anonymouskm]

I took a JD SA job for similar reasons as you. I want to do lit, not just lit, but trials and am considering ASUA, etc. as exit options down the road. If the comp was truly $50k+ below Cravath market, they'd have trouble retaining top talent and they know it, so that isn't a concern for me.

I'm pretty far left leaning. Like most major firms, JD represents people/orgs on both sides of the spectrum. They do a lot of fairly liberal immigration work, Obama foundation, etc., but also have a rep for being conservative. I think this is something common with big law.

[Anonymous User]

I took a JD SA job for similar reasons as you. I want to do lit, not just lit, but trials and am considering ASUA, etc. as exit options down the road. If the comp was truly $50k+ below Cravath market, they'd have trouble retaining top talent and they know it, so that isn't a concern for me.

I'm pretty far left leaning. Like most major firms, JD represents people/orgs on BOTH SIDES of the spectrum. They do a lot of fairly liberal immigration work, Obama foundation, etc., but also have a rep for being conservative. I think this is something common with big law.

Not that hard to see how the math works out though. 180k vs. 190k = 10k lost. Then factor in a 20-30k bonus and a JD associate is now 30-40k behind a Kirkland associate. Raises at JD are blackbox too - are we sure that the 4th year JD is making the same 250k salary as the Kirkland person (Disclaimer: not sure if that's actually the lockstep number didn't look it up).

JD's blackbox system has been thoroughly discussed and most of the evidence gathered indicates they pay below market.

[Anonymous User]

If the comp was truly $50k+ below Cravath market, they'd have trouble retaining top talent and they know it, so that isn't a concern for me.

That's exactly why they have their black box system. If they were openly $50k+ below Cravath market, just about no one with any market-paying option would go there. So they hide their comp behind a veil of secrecy and ban employees from discussing their pay (even internally).

[Anonymous User]

Trump's FBI director is also a former K&S partner, for whatever that's worth.

Ditto: Sally Yates
(not certain if she was a partner at K&S)

[Anonymous User]

If the comp was truly $50k+ below Cravath market, they'd have trouble retaining top talent and they know it, so that isn't a concern for me.

That's exactly why they have their black box system. If they were openly $50k+ below Cravath market, just about no one with any market-paying option would go there. So they hide their comp behind a veil of secrecy and ban employees from discussing their pay (even internally).

Sure, if they were openly paying $50k below Cravath market then no one would go, but the actual statement was they'd have trouble retaining top talent. So either all the top talent actually does leave or maybe the pay is not as low as people anonymously speculate it to be. That being said, why would it matter what any JD associate is being paid relative to their JD peers? They can always know what their actual pay is relative to the market and make a decision based off that.

[Anonymous User]

Sure, if they were openly paying $50k below Cravath market then no one would go, but the actual statement was they'd have trouble retaining top talent. So either all the top talent actually does leave or maybe the pay is not as low as people anonymously speculate it to be.

Or maybe, thanks to the veil of secrecy, those making below market conclude, on the basis of their below-market pay, that they aren't "top talent" and thus are lucky to even have a job at a relatively prestigious firm.

Another consideration is that it's generally frowned upon to job hop. So folks who go to JD will likely try to stay at least 1-2 years - however pissed they are at being underpaid - before lateraling.

FWIW, I believe per ATL, "top talent" at JD generally make market. ("Top talent" at JD could probably make more at other non-lockstep firms, so in fact even they are arguably still underpaid.) But the majority of associates are not "top talent", just like the majority of law students aren't in the top 10%.

That being said, why would it matter what any JD associate is being paid relative to their JD peers? They can always know what their actual pay is relative to the market and make a decision based off that.

It matters because JD asserts that on average, they pay market. Banning JDers from sharing info prevents associates from testing the accuracy of that claim.

[Anonymous User]

Sure, if they were openly paying $50k below Cravath market then no one would go, but the actual statement was they'd have trouble retaining top talent. So either all the top talent actually does leave or maybe the pay is not as low as people anonymously speculate it to be.

Or maybe, thanks to the veil of secrecy, those making below market conclude, on the basis of their below-market pay, that they aren't "top talent" and thus are lucky to even have a job at a relatively prestigious firm.

Another consideration is that it's generally frowned upon to job hop. So folks who go to JD will likely try to stay at least 1-2 years - however pissed they are at being underpaid - before lateraling.

FWIW, I believe per ATL, "top talent" at JD generally make market. ("Top talent" at JD could probably make more at other non-lockstep firms, so in fact even they are arguably still underpaid.) But the majority of associates are not "top talent", just like the majority of law students aren't in the top 10%.

So the assumption is that most associates at JD fit into either one of these categories: top performers (paid at/above market), underpaid & resentful, or underpaid & thankful to at least have a big law job?

I've summered at JD and that did not seem to be my experience. I had a couple of people express how it would be nice to have a bonus when they are especially busy, but overall compensation seemed to be a non-factor. (FWIW, I was told I couldn't directly ask someone their pay, but I could ask them if they were satisfied with their pay.)

That being said, why would it matter what any JD associate is being paid relative to their JD peers? They can always know what their actual pay is relative to the market and make a decision based off that.

It matters because JD asserts that on average, they pay market. Banning JDers from sharing info prevents associates from testing the accuracy of that claim.

Not saying that they don't pay a number of associates below market, but it's 2018 and outside of that ATL article and the generally anonymous posts on this site, I don't see much evidence of that being a firm wide trend. You would think there would either be a mass exodus of associates from the firm (distinguishable from the general lateral moves) or a similar reduction in recruiting, yet I am unaware of either happening.

That being said, I think those that choose to go to JD are a likely a self-selecting bunch, so maybe compensation isn't the most important thing to them in the first place.

[Anonymous User]

Sure, if they were openly paying $50k below Cravath market then no one would go, but the actual statement was they'd have trouble retaining top talent. So either all the top talent actually does leave or maybe the pay is not as low as people anonymously speculate it to be.

Or maybe, thanks to the veil of secrecy, those making below market conclude, on the basis of their below-market pay, that they aren't "top talent" and thus are lucky to even have a job at a relatively prestigious firm.

Another consideration is that it's generally frowned upon to job hop. So folks who go to JD will likely try to stay at least 1-2 years - however pissed they are at being underpaid - before lateraling.

FWIW, I believe per ATL, "top talent" at JD generally make market. ("Top talent" at JD could probably make more at other non-lockstep firms, so in fact even they are arguably still underpaid.) But the majority of associates are not "top talent", just like the majority of law students aren't in the top 10%.

So the assumption is that most associates at JD fit into either one of these categories: top performers (paid at/above market), underpaid & resentful, or underpaid & thankful to at least have a big law job?

I've summered at JD and that did not seem to be my experience. I had a couple of people express how it would be nice to have a bonus when they are especially busy, but overall compensation seemed to be a non-factor. (FWIW, I was told I couldn't directly ask someone their pay, but I could ask them if they were satisfied with their pay.)

That being said, why would it matter what any JD associate is being paid relative to their JD peers? They can always know what their actual pay is relative to the market and make a decision based off that.

It matters because JD asserts that on average, they pay market. Banning JDers from sharing info prevents associates from testing the accuracy of that claim.

Not saying that they don't pay a number of associates below market, but it's 2018 and outside of that ATL article and the generally anonymous posts on this site, I don't see much evidence of that being a firm wide trend. You would think there would either be a mass exodus of associates from the firm (distinguishable from the general lateral moves) or a similar reduction in recruiting, yet I am unaware of either happening.

That being said, I think those that choose to go to JD are a likely a self-selecting bunch, so maybe compensation isn't the most important thing to them in the first place.

Well JD is also in a ton of smaller markets and they generally pay the highest in those cities (e.g., cleveland). I'm a JD associate in one of the smaller cities but if I wanted to practice in NYC or DC I would have gone to a different firm. The no bonus thing is stupid.

[Anonymous User]

So the assumption is that most associates at JD fit into either one of these categories: top performers (paid at/above market), underpaid & resentful, or underpaid & thankful to at least have a big law job?

Admittedly I've never worked at JD, but I used to work at a firm that operated on a somewhat similar model (minus the official ban on discussing compensation, but the U.S. being the U.S., very few people were willing to widely share their compensation). Most of the associates did seem to fall into those three categories. There were the former clerks, who were paid handsomely and happy to be there. There were the grateful associates from sub-T2 law schools who never expected to land biglaw. And there were the resentful associates, willing to jump at any opportunity to lateral. My office had a pretty high exit rate.

I've summered at JD and that did not seem to be my experience.

Yea no one I knew of ever shared any of their frustrations with our summers. That's just not the done thing. Actively sabotaging the firm's summer recruitment efforts would've brought management down like a load of bricks.

That being said, I think those that choose to go to JD are a likely a self-selecting bunch, so maybe compensation isn't the most important thing to them in the first place.

Law students also aren't the most well-informed bunch, surprisingly enough. Many of my classmates had never heard of the Lathamings.

[Anonymous User]

Trump's FBI director is also a former K&S partner, for whatever that's worth.

Ditto: Sally Yates
(not certain if she was a partner at K&S)

Christopher Wray was a former K&S partner; Sally Yates recently joined K&S. I think for government/investigations work, K&S DC is a solid choice.

[alawyer2018]

I've never understood why someone would choose JD in a major market if they have other options. The no bonus thing is silly, as is the black box compensation system. Any firm that actively promotes a lack of transparency regarding compensation is doing so to the detriment of its associates, and I would have serious concerns about what that means in terms of how such a firm views and treats its associates. Again, if you have other reasonable options, it's beyond me why anyone would even consider JD.