Top Law Schools

Jones Day had a rough year from a PR perspective. It wasn’t their first. I don’t know what is true and what is inertia or otherwise, but it seems that every time I look up they are getting bashed.

But they picked up 9 SCOTUS clerks?! Obviously some very sought-after candidates seem not to care about the press. What gives?

When it comes to white collar jobs, few people care about lay reputation.

edit: accidental anon, wldecisions

Don't they basically guarantee equity partnership to SCOTUS clerks?

BottomOfTotem wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 09, 2021 10:28 pm

Jones Day had a rough year from a PR perspective. It wasn’t their first. I don’t know what is true and what is inertia or otherwise, but it seems that every time I look up they are getting bashed.

But they picked up 9 SCOTUS clerks?! Obviously some very sought-after candidates seem not to care about the press. What gives?

First, part of their press they get is rooted in some of their conservative leaning representations. It is a prime landing spot for the conservative SCOTUS clerks who I don't imagine see that as a bad thing. Even without the conservative thing, JD has one of the biggest and best appellate/SCOTUS practices generally for people that really want to practice in that area.

Them recruiting a lot of SCOTUS clerks nowadays makes sense--there are a lot of conservative SCOTUS clerks, and there's a good case that Jones Day is the best appellate practice for conservative lawyers. There's also the fact that, in a liberal administration, conservatives would be less likely to work in federal government following their clerkships.

What is more surprising is that two of the clerks Jones Day recruited were RBG clerks.

Not sure any of this is surprising. Jones Day has been a landing spot for SCOTUS clerks for a while, and that in and of itself is a very self-reinforcing recruiting mechanism.

On top of that, SCOTUS clerks who want to cash out in Biglaw for a couple years are well served by doing so in a place that also bolsters their professional network amongst the post-SCOTUS clerkship clerk club. In that context, Jones Day seems like less of a politically or ideologically motivated landing spot and more of a pragmatic one.

4LTsPointingNorth wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 10, 2021 12:21 am

Not sure any of this is surprising. Jones Day has been a landing spot for SCOTUS clerks for a while, and that in and of itself is a very self-reinforcing recruiting mechanism.

On top of that, SCOTUS clerks who want to cash out in Biglaw for a couple years are well served by doing so in a place that also bolsters their professional network amongst the post-SCOTUS clerkship clerk club. In that context, Jones Day seems like less of a politically or ideologically motivated landing spot and more of a pragmatic one.

This. And working with your former colleagues/friends/mentors/fellow alumni clerks is always a plus.

My understanding is that they pay above-market SCOTUS clerkship bonuses, so they get a lot of clerks who only intend to stay for a year or two.

I am a litigation associate at Jones Day and it is a much less conservative place than you would think. Two of the new clerks were with RBG. Many other clerks from Sotomayor, Kagan, Breyer etc.

Keep in mind that what JD offers these SCOTUS clerks is a kind of flexibility other Big Law firms do not, at least not right off the bat. For example, some of these folks have no plans to stay in Big Law, they are there to collect paychecks, get a taste of practice, and then move into academia or government work. JD gives them that opportunity in exchange for the sustained SCOTUS practice/network effect. The trade-off is well-understood and a well-oiled machine at JD.

Even other Big Law firms that might also offer around $400,000 in bonuses don't have that understanding smoothened out in the way JD currently does. And some are just not interested. One of these recent SCOTUS clerks worked at WLRK before his clerkship, you can bet your bottom dollar neither he nor WLRK is interested in or willing to make that same tradeoff that JD offers.

namefromplace wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 09, 2021 11:33 pm

Them recruiting a lot of SCOTUS clerks nowadays makes sense--there are a lot of conservative SCOTUS clerks, and there's a good case that Jones Day is the best appellate practice for conservative lawyers. There's also the fact that, in a liberal administration, conservatives would be less likely to work in federal government following their clerkships.

What is more surprising is that two of the clerks Jones Day recruited were RBG clerks.

One of Jones Day's new Roberts clerks is also liberal. But that's not so surprising. Jones Day has something like 15 liberal SCOTUS clerks (from Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Breyer, Kagan, Stevens, Souter, and Blackmun), and it hires new liberal SCOTUS clerks nearly every year. Jones Day has a conservative reputation because of work done by a few prominent partners (Francisco, Carvin, formerly Dvoretsky), but it's more politically diverse than the headlines would suggest.

My impression is that the Issues & Appeals group's big appeal for liberal SCOTUS clerks is its low (maybe no?) billable hour requirement. It came out in the parental leave lawsuit that a Sotomayor clerk billed virtually all her time to pro bono projects for years on end while getting paid considerably above market. Not many firms would tolerate that behavior, no matter how much lip service they pay to "unlimited pro bono."

JD has been the #1 hirer of SCOTUS clerks for quite a while, it’s a marketing thing for them and I think they pay the highest SCOTUS clerk comp of any firm in addition to the other benefits people mentioned