typical jones day fool

Snooze.

It is indeed silly to expect that underperformers would get paid the same as the good associates, and that should be the case at every firm (save maybe Wachtell, where everyone is an overachiever). But if this guy didn't even bill over 2100, he sure is not an overperformer; at best he is an average associate.

What is "jones day material"? Must be some toilet tier standard.

First memo excerpt, third paragraph, fourth line, next to last word: "better" should be "more." The point is about quality rather than quantity, as the writer takes great pains to point out. There are other edits one could make but this one should be the easiest for the writer to understand. Quality work at Jones Day must be oral.

my mistake - "more" should be "better" Now I can get a job at Jones Day

I think the writer means they are paid MORE than "most 4th year lawyers billing 2000-2100 hours at big firms in NY."

Are the Jones Day paralegals paid for the quality of their work? If so, they must not be very good if they're drinking Bud Light bottles and Miller Lite cans.

Come on! Can't they do better than that?

ny to 190

i still dont understand the "beauty" of this confidential system. who are they, the CIA? who cares if people are blogging about your salary? and so called underperformers can still get the "hint" whether your salary is a secret or not. in fact, seems like that hint would be even more clear if that associate knew what you were making.

Awfully arrogant for a Jones Day cog.

I am a former Jones Day attorney, and can attest that your tipster appears to be drinking every last drop of the JD Kool-Aid. I, too, enjoyed my time at Jones Day, and got great. substantive experience. That said, when I was there, the lack of salary and bonus transparency was a big problem among associates. This spilled over to create problems among the partners, too. I recall one "envelope day" in particular where the partners in charge of delivering the envelopes believed, up to the night before the delivery, that Jones Day would be matching bonuses then being paid in New York. I heard consistent stories from other associates (which matched my own experience) about profuse apologies from those partners, who insisted that they had been kept in the dark about the compensation issues. This is, I think, emblematic of how Jones Day operates as an intensely political place where the power emanates from Cleveland, despite the "One Firm" mantra. Another example of this is the experience of a good friend of mine, a senior securities associate in NY who had terrific client relationships. In one instance, a client specifically requested that my friend work on a particular matter. Surprisingly, the powers that be basically ignored that request, instead staffing the matter out of Cleveland. I am sure there are two sides to that story, but that sure sounds like they were trying to bolster the Cleveland lawyers' reputations at the expense of my friend and his NY colleagues. My friend since moved on to greener pastures (in-house at a large financial institution making more than he did at Jones Day), but with a really bad taste in his mouth.

I truly hope that things have changed there - and all signs indicate that they are moving in the right direction - because I genuinely like the people I worked with at Jones Day.

"Why shouldn't a firm pay associates what it thinks they're worth on an individual basis, and if the associates don't like it, they can leave? This is effectively what investment banks do with their personnel."

Because law firm partners are notoriously terrible managers who often make assessments of junior associates based on a smattering of interactions. The only measure of your worth at a large law firm (aside from the number of hours you've billed) is how you're perceived. That's it. There is no other measure of performance. I've been rebuked for not completing an assignment I was never given while on a huge, hectic case. Is it really possible for me to change that extremely busy partner's perception of me? Not really. Will that same partner be a major determiner of my comp? Yes.

9:48 - agreed, that's what he/she means to say, but the "which turns out to be . . ." clause modifies "quality of my work," not "paid."

i find it hard to believe that the "quality" of work varies all that much among first and second years. this system seems ripe for encouraging an old boys network

I don't know whether to be more apalled by the fact that you referenced Clueless, or the fact that I picked up on it.

I did not work at JD, but I have worked with some excellent JD alumns who left because they felt that there were limited opportunities for growth and that the salaries/bonus sucked (they especially complained about the lack of transparency).

The poster above seems to think that hard work and talent are all that you need to succeed at JD and that the "underpaid" attorneys are basically slugs. Well, you may work for a great boss who is king in his island of tranquility and be the next modern Clarence Darrow. However, no firm is a perfect free market economy where each salary is solely based upon the person's contributions to the firm. I've found through observation that one's success in big law is one part talent/hard work, one part politics, one part firm culture and one part luck. Once you are at a firm, you only have control of one of those 4 factors - so have some empathy for your JD brethern!

paying associate bonuses based on performance is sensible and in any other industry would be a given. good hard working associates oftentimes resent seeing incompetent and/or non-productive associates receiving the same bonus amount. firms would be better off having career placement counselors assist thos associates who are good people and even good lawyers (not lazy or stupid) but just not "biglaw material" find more suitable positions - keeping the relationship positive and at the end potentially getting business from these former associates in the future.
the alternative (exercised currently by most firms) of paying them but stopping to give them work, hoping they leave and eventually pushing them out helps noone.

Regardless of whether an associate receives an annual salary increase, most large law firms (and I'm guessing JD too) will still bill out that associate with his/her class year. Thus, a 2005 grad will be billed to clients as if they are a 2005 grad, but in non-lockstep firms, that associate may only being compensated as a 2007 grad. The only justifications for this would be an assumption that the associate's realization rate is lower than his peers, and/or that his hours are less. A minimum hours requirement eliminates the latter.

A firm who somehow always gets it right is Fried Frank. They are often overlooked, but they always do good by associates. Fried Frank rules.

This thread is now about Fried Frank.

Have you ever eaten a fried frank? Maybe it's like a fried oreo and is damn good.

"Regardless of whether an associate receives an annual salary increase, most large law firms (and I'm guessing JD too) will still bill out that associate with his/her class year."

That's quite an assumption, don't you think? It is a valid criticism if it is true, but what makes you think JD necessarily ties billing rates to class year. Think about it: in a lock-step firm, salary is rigidly tied to class year. Thus, billing rates are proportional to BOTH class year and salary. Is there any evidence that when JD decouples class year and salary, the billing rates end up tied to class year, and not to salary?

Anytime a business of any kind tries to keep compensation informtaion secret, they are trying to screw you--period. Rationalize however you like.

10:15 you are absolutely right. Fried Frank is an outstanding place that sometimes gets overlooked by other firms. Fried Frank truly cares about it's associates and their development, not only professionally, but also personally. I would highly recommend Fried Frank to any top tier law student out there looking for a top tier firm that provides a rewarding and exciting practice.

10:06- welcome to what people in every other industry have to face. life is not fair. the sooner you whiny bitches learn that, the happier you'll be with what you do get.

Any truth to the rumor that Fried Frank ties bonuses to positive comments on ATL? Just asking.

Fried Frank ties its bonuses to mustard and ketchup consumption.

Does JD bill out the "underperforming" 3rd year associate who is getting paid 1st year salary at a 3rd year rate or a 1st year rate? Because if they are billing them out at a 3rd year rate then this system is nothing more than a way for JD to eke out extra dough at the expense of both clients and associates.

10:38 - You, sir, are correct. There is a reason that the best firms in the country (using whatever metric you want) have lock-step schemes: those schemes attract the best recruits. Whether or not those recruits make the best attorneys or not is debatable, but it more than serves the interests of those firms.

10:34 - You, sir, are an idiot. I have sat in on meetings where associates were told that salaries were not coupled to billing rates at all. In fact, at most major firms, you are billed out as a second year on the first anniversary of your passing the bar, which is usually while you are still being paid as a first year. So each year there is substantial lag between when your rates go up and when your salary increases. Every firm I've ever been at bills young associates out at their class year level, regardless of what they pay them. This makes perfect business sentence. At higher levels, clients are able to negotiate rates, but associates are billed based on class year. Maybe JD is different, but I doubt it. They are a money-making enterprise after all.

JT's bonus memo from Jones Day contained but a single word: "hadouken." That was because JT's bonus was down-right fierce.

It is interesting how the two JD cheerleaders that Lat quotes used (generally) proper punctuation, spelling, grammar and capitalization. The naysayer, on the other hand, did not capitalize, used abbreviations, and made some errors.

Interpret this contrast as you will.

The guy on the far right is HAWT!!

"paying associate bonuses based on performance is sensible and in any other industry would be a given."

That was exactly Lat's point. His first thread was dedicated to the idea that this firm does *not* pay based on performance. More than 100 commenters agreed. Good attempt at historical revisionism though.

People often ignore the main reason law firms don't compensate associates based on individual performance: it's because these law firms operate in a competitive marketplace, where their peer firms (or at least the top firms they aspire to compete/be compared with) pay "market" salary and bonus to *all* associates by class year, regardless of hours.

That may not be fair, but in terms of recruiting the top talent from law schools, that is a more attractive system than one that pays based on performance. Why? Because it provides some sort of safety net in the eyes of law students, in that if they are a bit uneasy that they may not perform at or above their peers it will not hurt them financially, at least not for the first 5-7 years of practice.

In a vacuum, it may indeed sound retarded to not pay people based on performance, but the legal market functions this way, at least in New York. Firms keep their "market" systems in place so that they have more parity when they are compared against other law firms by prospective law students contemplating offers from their firm (and others).

For the JD cheerleaders: it would be lovely for one of you to pipe up from the DC office. No one has suggested than ANY associate has EVER been paid a bonus in JD DC.

i think jones day is probably a fine place to work but re: compensation, while it might be very FAIR to compensate the way it does, given that 95% of comprable options pay lockstep and equally as well, why would anyone choose that system over the other options?

i didnt and i liked the jonesday people alot

I work at Jones Day New York and I have no particular axe to grind as far as one system of compensation versus another.

What I do know is that I do interesting work, with people I actually like, and get very well paid for doing so. I imagine I'll be here for a while because, although it's unfashionable to admit it, I like my job. I have since my first day here. I like being a lawyer, and I think that's in large part due to my decision to come to this firm. I'm not saying it's the right place for everyone, but I'm more than happy. Rightly or wrongly I view my compensation as an issue that's between me and my employer, and it's no business of the associate down the hall or at another firm. I look at my own paycheck - nobody else's - to decide if I'm getting a fair deal. And in my case, I am.

what's with the paralegals all having their sleeves rolled up? is that their "it's time to party down look." are those the type of tools I'll find at my v50 firm?

kill me, kill me now.

JD isn't the only biglaw firm that pays based on merit. My firm does this as well and when I lateralled they paid me more than market because of what they thought I was worth. I think it will become more prevalent outside of the top white-shoe firms. Why wouldn't an associate leave a lockstep firm for a firm that will pay them more in salary because of their resume or work experience?

Others, like 9:58 and 10:06 have it right about the reasons that Jones Day's system sucks. The system rewards the partners' incompetence (if they mess up evaluations and screw an associate) or intentional actions (screwing associates for whatever political or financial reason).

I find it interesting that, under this system, every Jones Day associate is either awesome, and gets paid above market, or terrible, and gets virtually no bonus. (Except for those in DC, who are apparently all terrible lawyers.) That's not how things actually are, and just because Jones Day is putting people in two different categories (or a few different categories, with significantly different treatment) doesn't make it so.

Their system breeds resentment, backstabbing and mis-categorization for political or financial purposes. Their are reasons that major law firms generally pay bonuses and set salaries on a lockstep, hours-based or Kirkland/Latham-style merit/hours approach. It's because such systems work well, are good for recruiting and result in satisfied associates. Obviously, other firms have figured out how to give generous bonuses, reward hard work and keep their associates happy. How come Latham and Kirkland manage to get all the good associates who work hard and get large bonuses, and Jones Day ends up with people who will stick around if they don't get a bonus? Well, Jones Day, when I was applying to law firms, got the gunners from my law school class who thought that they were going to excel there, and it also got the douchebags who couldn't get a job anywhere else. I am sure that there are some crappy associates at Jones Day, which is exactly what they deserve with a generally crappy comp system and crappy reputation. The fact that they have to keep this comp system (making many mistakes along the way) just establishes that it's a lame firm, a shitty place to work and that they are probably stuck with the comp system they have. But it doesn't excuse it or make the place a good choice for smart people. It makes it a good choice for pricks and idiots.

Jones Day material? Don't they do insurance defense work?

Performance in law is subjective in many respects. Politics matter. That is one reason why lock step works well.

It seems to me that if you start from the assumption that all firms will unblinkingly try and screw their associates and clients out of money at every opportunity (regardless of whether that is a more profitable way to operate in the long run), then it is not a remarkable conclusion to assert that a particular firm is trying to screw its associates and clients out of money.

Lat, why not do a poll concerning associates' preference: Lock-step compensation or individual-based compensation?

Wah, wah, wah, everyone on this board assumes they are entitled to make gobs of money even if they are a poor performer, have a bad attitude, or don't put in the time. Obviously poor performers are going to prefer lockstep, think the fact that they are not a good associate is "subjective," and whine about "politics."

"JD isn't the only biglaw firm that pays based on merit."

More revisionism. The whole complaint was because they *do not* pay based on merit.

1:04, if you want a poll that applies to this case, Lat needs 3 categories: lock-step, merit-based, and nonexistent.

Middle Guy's tie is way too long.

What a douche. I wonder how many Jones Day (or other non-lockstep) associates make above-level. The reality is that law firms are big enough and impersonal enough that those who succeed tend to be those who have a politically powerful partner looking out for them. That is often a factor of chance and shouldn't be rewarded. Not everyone gets the opportunity to get out of the document-review grind. ANd that isn't for lack of interest. The good news is that the market is fluid enough that no one need stay stuck in a job that isn't giving you growth opportunities and isn't compensatig you at lockstep level. When you know it's wrong, get out!

Firms are funny places with bad communication and bizarre individual personalities. Jones Day especially.

I imagine Nixon Peabody, on the other hand, has incentive to stay on lockstep. With so many winners they'd have to promote everyone above their level.

"Wah, wah, wah, everyone on this board assumes they are entitled to make gobs of money even if they are a poor performer, have a bad attitude, or don't put in the time."

That would be a very good point if we knew that every single person in the entire D.C. office is a poor performer with a bad attitude. Somehow I doubt that is true.

The impression I get from JD is less that they're cheap or trying to screw you over (though either might be true) and more that they're trying to keep out people who are only in this for the prestige. No one I met there seemed to give a shit about how much everyone else was getting paid, or what they were ranked in some publication or other, or whether they were doing better than everyone else at the firm or other firms or in life. Everyone just seemed pretty much focused on their own lives. What a concept.

Why doesn't anyone who posts on these JD threads understand the bigger picture? Do I have to spell it out for you?! Two words - TIM MELTON. JD Chicago has it, no one else does. That, my friends, is all one needs to know. The man is a legal GOD.

LOVING the clueless ref

Your tipster claims to be a third-year JonesDay associate who has been paid "more than most 4th year lawyers billing 2000-2100 hours at big firms in NY."

I call SHENANIGANS!

In 2007, a 4th year at BigLaw NY made $210k in base salary, plus bonuses totaling $80k. Are we supposed to believe that JonesDay paid this then-2nd-year associate in 2007, MORE than $290k. Baloney!

Outside biglaw, the only employers that pay "lockstep" are government and heavily-unionized declining industries. I wonder why those companies tend to be TTT.

One might think that the best lawyers in lockstep firms would climb out of their risk-averse pothole and realize that they would make above average pay if they jumped ship to a non-lockstep firm, but nobody ever said that lawyers make good businessmen.

3:16 is simply amazing. Everyone else is stuck in a "risk-averse pothole." All those lawyers making mid-200s plus large bonuses should jump ship to a firm whose associates and partners make much less (DC with no bonus is 100k less). This illogical decision will make them "good businessmen."

Sure pal. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

I was an associate in the Dallas office a while ago. I generally liked the people and the work and received good reviews. The firm is very well run.

The "white envelope" thing was very odd and did not engender teamwork or loyalty. In fact, all of the young associates were always looking behind their backs to see whether the other guy got screwed. Transparency has never been embraced at JD.

The firm, however, works. It makes money and is financially strong.

I parted with JD when I realized that even the partners, leaders in the Dallas office, harborered paranoia and didn't really behave like they were owners of the firm. They behaved like nervous middle managers.

I left JD for another firm and made partner. I now probably make more than my JD peers and have a much better life.

If you want a corporation, go to JD. If you want s/thing closer to a firm, where you're an owner, don't go to JD.

Haha 3:31, wake up and look at the real world. Some nonlockstep firms can pay more than average (K&E). Some pay less. This is like the real world where not all employers pay the same. Nice strawman argument pretending that JD is the only nonlockstep firm around.

Above average lawyers in lockstep firms are in effect subsidizing the bottom lawyers at the same firm who are making the same salaries. In any other industry those top lawyers would realize that they're underpaid compared to their peers.

I'm guessing that you're a below average attorney who takes comfort in being paid at the flat average rate.

1:53 - I think making 160k+ in DC at 25 years old is making "gobs" of money. Most 25 year olds in DC make 50k or less.

I can't believe anyone making the kind of money we do cares that much about 10% one way or the other. Wouldn't you rather just be somewhere you like? Can't we all just get along?

"I'm guessing that you're a below average attorney who takes comfort in being paid at the flat average rate."

Or perhaps he's working for a weak partner who has no freakin' clue how to fight for his people and often loses his people to firm's that are willing to go lock-step. There is no doubt that being lock-step protects associates who work for junior partners trying to build their practices.

I like transparency. I like knowing what my bonus will be if I bill so many hours. I like knowing what my salary will be next year (at least as a minimum). I like knowing what a junior partners makes and how much those partners who get the golden key will actually make. If you are working for a firm that hides the ball, and you think that's great, dude, you are drinking the KoolAid!

Jones Day is killing the competition. Every firm in NY is dying to poach this third year who bills less than 2000 hours and won't do document review, but Jones Day shrewdly hangs onto this keeper by paying him well (darn well) above market. No one can touch this kid.

The Paralegal Picture: I'm pretty sure that is from the DC Office Holiday Party. Which brings up a couple points: It was in the office. On a Thursday. Yes, that was the beer being served. This is the reward that hard working employees (everyone, support staff and attorneys) at Jones Day DC receive. No bonuses and light beer.

Please join Jones Day DC. We pay below the DC market, don't pay bonuses, and have kickin' holiday parties that include, by way of example and by limitation, blue solo cups, bud light bottles, and miller light cans. Oh, and additionally, we try to hire associates that like these things. So, great co-workers as well!

Show you how much JD outside US pays.
My buddy got an offer from JD China.
It's like USD 11k/year for 1st year associate.
So lucky I'm in the states.

I hate this new site.