Jones Day Compensation Data Points Forum

[objctnyrhnr]

This may be an unpopular take, but isn’t the whole concept of everybody getting paid pretty much the same regardless of merit just a little bit weird?

Isn’t the way that JD does Comp (let’s assume it averages out to approximately market which is a big assumption I suppose): where nobody really knows how much anybody else makes and there’s an intensive back room individual calculation much more similar to the way comp gets done across most if not all other industries?

Put another way, arent we in the v30 or whatever just a little bit spoiled by the whole “market”/“lockstep” rate as a concept? When I step back and think about it, it does seem just a little bit weird, no?

[The Lsat Airbender]

Lockstep is weird but it works, especially for juniors who are basically on paid training anyway.

Changing people's salaries too much based on how much they bill would lead to weird intra-office competition, to everyone's detriment. And that's just one issue.

[M458]

This may be an unpopular take, but isn’t the whole concept of everybody getting paid pretty much the same regardless of merit just a little bit weird?

Isn’t the way that JD does Comp (let’s assume it averages out to approximately market which is a big assumption I suppose): where nobody really knows how much anybody else makes and there’s an intensive back room individual calculation much more similar to the way comp gets done across most if not all other industries?

Put another way, arent we in the v30 or whatever just a little bit spoiled by the whole “market”/“lockstep” rate as a concept? When I step back and think about it, it does seem just a little bit weird, no?

There’s two reasons these assumptions fall apart: (a) we’ve learned that their comp system results in a large majority of their associates making substantially below market and (b) it has disproportionately resulted in minorities and women making less than their white male colleagues (see the lawsuit against them as well as the threads on here/ATL article).

[objctnyrhnr]

This may be an unpopular take, but isn’t the whole concept of everybody getting paid pretty much the same regardless of merit just a little bit weird?

Isn’t the way that JD does Comp (let’s assume it averages out to approximately market which is a big assumption I suppose): where nobody really knows how much anybody else makes and there’s an intensive back room individual calculation much more similar to the way comp gets done across most if not all other industries?

Put another way, arent we in the v30 or whatever just a little bit spoiled by the whole “market”/“lockstep” rate as a concept? When I step back and think about it, it does seem just a little bit weird, no?

There’s two reasons these assumptions fall apart: (a) we’ve learned that their comp system results in a large majority of their associates making substantially below market and (b) it has disproportionately resulted in minorities and women making less than their white male colleagues (see the lawsuit against them as well as the threads on here/ATL article).

So it sounds like your issue isn’t so much black box as a concept, it’s how you perceive it to be implemented at JD, which i suppose is fair.

But I’m just saying that I don’t think black box as a concept (when not used for evil) is that insane. That’s all I’m saying. I think paying everybody exactly the same regardless of their value is a little bit nuts. If you have one midlevel litigator who writes case winning briefs and another midlevel litigator who people only trust with doc review, provided they have similar total hours, isn’t it strange to pay them the same?

(And I say all of this as somebody at a market/lockstep firm that provides a relatively very small bonus increase for high evals)

[Sackboy]

So it sounds like your issue isn’t so much black box as a concept, it’s how you perceive it to be implemented at JD, which i suppose is fair.

But I’m just saying that I don’t think black box as a concept (when not used for evil) is that insane. That’s all I’m saying. I think paying everybody exactly the same regardless of their value is a little bit nuts. If you have one midlevel litigator who writes case winning briefs and another midlevel litigator who people only trust with doc review, provided they have similar total hours, isn’t it strange to pay them the same?

(And I say all of this as somebody at a market/lockstep firm that provides a relatively very small bonus increase for high evals)

One of the major benefits of lockstep is that it's transparent, and transparency always seems to be one of the absolute best ways to avoid gender-based pay discrimination. See Jones Day gender discrimination litigation. For that alone, I rather be paid in a class year structure.

As for your example, it's biglaw. You don't have a midlevel litigator writing amazing briefs. You also don't have a midlevel who can only do doc review. The former isn't going to get that experience until they're a senior, and the latter will have been fired or is going to get fired shortly. At best, the discrepancy is a midlevel that you trust to do a solid first draft and a midlevel that you think will do a mediocre or bad first draft that needs a lot more editing. There is certainly a value differential there, but it's a lot less than writing winning briefs vs can only do doc review.

[Anon-non-anon]

So it sounds like your issue isn’t so much black box as a concept, it’s how you perceive it to be implemented at JD, which i suppose is fair.

But I’m just saying that I don’t think black box as a concept (when not used for evil) is that insane. That’s all I’m saying. I think paying everybody exactly the same regardless of their value is a little bit nuts. If you have one midlevel litigator who writes case winning briefs and another midlevel litigator who people only trust with doc review, provided they have similar total hours, isn’t it strange to pay them the same?

(And I say all of this as somebody at a market/lockstep firm that provides a relatively very small bonus increase for high evals)

One of the major benefits of lockstep is that it's transparent, and transparency always seems to be one of the absolute best ways to avoid gender-based pay discrimination. See Jones Day gender discrimination litigation. For that alone, I rather be paid in a class year structure.

As for your example, it's biglaw. You don't have a midlevel litigator writing amazing briefs. You also don't have a midlevel who can only do doc review. The former isn't going to get that experience until they're a senior, and the latter will have been fired or is going to get fired shortly. At best, the discrepancy is a midlevel that you trust to do a solid first draft and a midlevel that you think will do a mediocre or bad first draft that needs a lot more editing. There is certainly a value differential there, but it's a lot less than writing winning briefs vs can only do doc review.

Hourly billing also means a mediocre associate can add a lot of "value" by billing a lot. So who do you pay more, the associate who made the firm more money by billing a bunch but annoyed you bc you had to edit their briefs or the clearly better associate? Answer: the white male associate bc you play golf with his dad and feel comfortable around him talking about sports.

[nixy]

It’s true that lockstep is unusual in other industries...but this isn’t other industries.

Lockstep makes sense in the context of up or out. Instead of getting higher raises along the way/every year, the reward for doing good work is making partner after 7 (or however many) years (or otherwise being assisted to advance, if that ends up being elsewhere).

Currently, in practice, it does seem like there are fewer partnership opportunities than there are associates who do good work, but I’d imagine that’s where the practice of lockstep came from.

Also, minimum hours for bonuses plays some role in differentiating the good from the bad (again, in practice, there may be a lot of pressure not to ding people on bonuses, but conceptually, that’s how it works).

Most other industries don’t have up-or-out as a model, and lots don’t do significant bonuses, so comparing law to other industries with merit raises doesn’t quite work.

I do agree that black box compensation generally screws over deserving people rather than properly rewarding the excellent. There’s a reason it’s illegal to prevent your employees from talking about their compensation - opaque compensation always helps the employer, not the employee.

In any case, I don’t think there’s a problem that abandoning lockstep would really solve. People who are bad enough at their jobs that they don’t add value already get fired. While your colleagues aren’t going to all be equally excellent at everything, that’s also the case in other industries where you have two people paid the same.

[Anonymous User]

NLGs in my office got a 5k bump, which I was happy about. Haven't talked to anyone more senior though.

Isn't that way off market (includes yearly pay raise + bonus increase, no)?

I think first years at lockstep firms are still getting paid 190k, so not as of now. We didn't get a stub bonus but we got a 10k stipend prior to starting. The problem is that we'll be 6 months behind next year, so if comp doesn't increase to make up for the lag + bonus, then we'll be off market.

But honestly, I've barely billed anything this year and was not expecting any sort of bump right now. I have no complaints.

[Anonymous User]

How do the NLGs know that they got a 5k bump? Are people going around comparing, or do all NLGs get the same increase, and it's not individualized until you pick a practice group? (Perhaps unsurprisingly, they haven't discussed the comp much at all this summer.)

[M458]

NLGs in my office got a 5k bump, which I was happy about. Haven't talked to anyone more senior though.

Isn't that way off market (includes yearly pay raise + bonus increase, no)?

I think first years at lockstep firms are still getting paid 190k, so not as of now. We didn't get a stub bonus but we got a 10k stipend prior to starting. The problem is that we'll be 6 months behind next year, so if comp doesn't increase to make up for the lag + bonus, then we'll be off market.

But honestly, I've barely billed anything this year and was not expecting any sort of bump right now. I have no complaints.

That's the issue, right? That the increases don't ever seem to make up for the lag + bonus at JD for a bulk of the associates.

See: https://abovethelaw.com/2016/06/the-jig ... black-box/

[Anonymous User]

JD associate here that bumped the thread. I’m in one of the smaller market offices, so it made sense to go to JD because they pay the most in the city. I would never go to a large market office, where I understand the vast majority of associates are hugely underpaid.

That said, black box comp sucks. Peers with seemingly similar reviews often have different pay, with no obvious reason why. It clearly is an environment where women and minorities can be routinely underpaid... And it can create a weird environment where associates compete for certain work to try and increase their comp. It also can breed resentment.

Finally, it provides a cover for JD to purportedly not cut salaries during this crisis, and yet, I know of at least a few folks that had their salaries reduced. Almost everyone else I know had their salaries stay the same. I haven’t heard of anyone getting more than a 5k raise this year.

[ksm6969]

Isn’t the way that JD does Comp (let’s assume it averages out to approximately market which is a big assumption I suppose): where nobody really knows how much anybody else makes and there’s an intensive back room individual calculation much more similar to the way comp gets done across most if not all other industries?

Its probably right to say most, but definitely not to say 'all' other industries -- a number of industries besides law are 'lockstep' (or at least have pretty well defined, public salary ranges), including most government positions, (public) schoolteachers, etc. Also, in private industries that dont publicize/have lockstep salaries, there tends to be a pretty significant wage gap against women, and in general people seem to dislike it there too. (Just saying, even if it is done elsewhere, it generally has the same problems elsewhere... so it doesnt 'make it better,' if you know what i mean, it just makes law worse).

[JusticeSquee]

JD associate here that bumped the thread. I’m in one of the smaller market offices, so it made sense to go to JD because they pay the most in the city. I would never go to a large market office, where I understand the vast majority of associates are hugely underpaid.

That said, black box comp sucks. Peers with seemingly similar reviews often have different pay, with no obvious reason why. It clearly is an environment where women and minorities can be routinely underpaid... And it can create a weird environment where associates compete for certain work to try and increase their comp. It also can breed resentment.

Finally, it provides a cover for JD to purportedly not cut salaries during this crisis, and yet, I know of at least a few folks that had their salaries reduced. Almost everyone else I know had their salaries stay the same. I haven’t heard of anyone getting more than a 5k raise this year.

Thanks for weighing in. The bolded is really important. There is nothing wrong with JD and I'm sure it's filled with plenty of talented attorneys, but its compensation structure is truly terrible. Firms that actively work against compensation transparency should be shamed. ESPECIALLY when the market overwhelmingly supports transparent compensation. Biglaw sucks for so many reasons, but transparent compensation is one of the few things that it has going for it.

I hope rising 2Ls heed the words in this thread. If you are considering a JD office in a major market, be prepared to get paid less than your peers. And be prepared not to get any reason as to why.

[Anonymous User]

I hope rising 2Ls heed the words in this thread. If you are considering a JD office in a major market, be prepared to get paid less than your peers. And be prepared not to get any reason as to why.

I'm prepared for it. It kinda bums me out, but it's better than not having an offer, or only having an offer from a mid-sized firm. And I like the people I've worked with this summer. So I'll live.

[Anonymous User]

Is the no raise firmwide also true of bankruptcy associates and other countercyclical practice groups? They should be busy and the firm needs to retain those people.

[Anonymous User]

Is the no raise firmwide also true of bankruptcy associates and other countercyclical practice groups? They should be busy and the firm needs to retain those people.

Earlier JD associate here. I can’t say, but this year’s salary decisions are based entirely on last year’s performance/hours. Since BK didn’t go nuts till after the pandemic started, I really doubt it.

Also, to be clear, there have been some raises firmwide, but I’ve only heard of nominal raises, like 5k. I’ve even heard of raises in the 1k-3k range.

I’m sure some folks got decent raises, but it’s no one I know. The bigger takeaway, and the reason I posted at all, is tell prospective students that JD will very likely NOT pay market, or even close to it, for many or most associates.

One grain of salt to take with my experience is that I’m in a small market and most of the folks I know are in smaller markets. So I’d be curious how the associates in NYC/DC/CA/TX fared.

[Anonymous User]

The discovery order in the pay discrimination lawsuit is quite broad. Will be interesting to see what that actually yields, and what actually gets leaked.

[RaceJudicata]

Damn, sorry to hear this JD folks. Absolutely brutal. Not to pile on, but law students interested in JD, remember their comp is supposed to have a bonus baked in... no raise (or nominal raise) could set you back tens of thousands per year. Not to mention you have work the full year to earn whatever “bonus” is supposedly baked in to comp.

Just my opinion, but shocking that strong candidates (with other options) continue to seek out Jd, particularly in major markets.

[The Lsat Airbender]

I have as much contempt for JD as the next guy, but another reason they are able to snag a lot of strong candidates is their presence in DC lit, which is competitive enough that even top T14 grads might not have alternatives after OCI.

[Sackboy]

I have as much contempt for JD as the next guy, but another reason they are able to snag a lot of strong candidates is their presence in DC lit, which is competitive enough that even top T14 grads might not have alternatives after OCI.

Yep. I also know that JD is a preference for some very strong conservative students. I had a woman who graduated magna cum laude from my T14 turn down multiple better firms to start her career there in a major market. She's still there and probably being undercompensated, but maybe that's worth it to her for that more conservative culture.

[ChairmanKaga]

Not wishing to move discussion away from the potential discrimination issues (which are serious and ought to be fully explored), but on the flip side are there associates who earn more under the JD black box than what they would under the Cravath/Milbank (whatever it is now called) scale?

I recall an article some years ago about a federal official whose disclosure indicated he pulled 800k (or a similarly unusual figure) as a JD associate.

[Anonymous User]

My friend works for Jones Day in a Midwest secondary city and he says, "no raises even after firm boasted about having cash on hand before covid hit." And, that morale is very much down.

[Anonymous User]

.

[Spectator]

It’s true that lockstep is unusual in other industries...but this isn’t other industries.

Lockstep makes sense in the context of up or out. Instead of getting higher raises along the way/every year, the reward for doing good work is making partner after 7 (or however many) years (or otherwise being assisted to advance, if that ends up being elsewhere) ...

I do agree that black box compensation generally screws over deserving people rather than properly rewarding the excellent...

In any case, I don’t think there’s a problem that abandoning lockstep would really solve. People who are bad enough at their jobs that they don’t add value already get fired...

Spot-on. Because most of biglaw is up and out, for the sake of fairness, lockstep should be defended vigorously. Slackers won't last long under lockstep, but the alternative of black box leaves much to be desired.

[ellipses above indicate omissions from quoted post]

[Anonymous User]

Not wishing to move discussion away from the potential discrimination issues (which are serious and ought to be fully explored), but on the flip side are there associates who earn more under the JD black box than what they would under the Cravath/Milbank (whatever it is now called) scale?

I recall an article some years ago about a federal official whose disclosure indicated he pulled 800k (or a similarly unusual figure) as a JD associate.

Lol the guy making 800k was not getting that as a base salary. He was paid a one-time departure bonus of something like 300k when he left to work for the Trump administration. This is disclosed somewhere in the gender discrimination lawsuit papers, but I can’t remember which filing (something by Jones Day, because they were rebutting that his base salary was that high by saying he got a one-time bonus). Super sketchy that the only bonuses going out at Jones Day are to attorneys heading to the Trump administration.

Also - I’m a current JD mid level in major market that did not get a raise this year. This means we didn’t get 2019 bonuses either because those should have been “baked in” to this new salary. Feeling very under appreciated.