Jones Day Does Not Have A Sense Of Humor

The firm sends a stern rebuke to ALM objecting to their coverage. And it's hilarious.

Biglaw certainly isn’t known for being a bunch of free-wheeling jokesters. That said, most of the firms we deal with at Above the Law have a certain sense of humor. They get it. They may not like it, but they get it.

And then there’s Jones Day. There may be equally stuffy firms out there, but Jones Day seems to be the answer every time an entity won’t return our requests for comment or publicly overreacts to criticism. We’re only a few months removed from Jones Day sending one of the most laughably overblown cease and desist threats we’ve seen, prompting a thoughtful and devastating response from Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Once again, Jones Day (or at least someone managing its PR) has overreacted and shown the world its inability to take even the most gentle of ribbing. If you want to see butthurt ooze off a page, check this out….

A couple weeks ago, The Careerist posted a quick blurb about Jones Day’s hiring of seven outgoing SCOTUS clerks. It’s pretty harmless stuff, with a little tongue-in-cheek commentary:

Jones Day buys more expensive pets. Some law firms like to show off their posh offices or their collection of fine art. Jones Day, however, likes to trot out their U.S. Supreme Court clerks. And, my goodness, don’t they look perfect?

In fact, when I saw the picture (above) of Jones Day’s latest acquisition—seven former Supreme Court law clerks—I thought it was an image purchased from one of those photo stock houses. Not only do they look trim, perky and adorable, they’re even a diverse bunch!

Most firms would read that and just move on (or bask in Lat’s adulatory coverage of the same news). Jones Day is not most firms. Firmwide recruiting chair Sharyl Reisman decided to “keep it real” and wrote a response letter to The Careerist, Vivia Chen, and ALM editor-in-chief Aric Press:

Sponsored

Dear Ms. Chen and Mr. Press,

Although we expect gossip and little news or factual information when we pick up a tabloid magazine, we expect more when we read articles sponsored by the American Lawyer. According to your website, ALM considers “quality” and “integrity” to be “Core Values” in its reporting and coverage of legal news and events. ALM similarly promises that its publications will be of “the best quality . . . with the highest standards of accuracy, independence and integrity” (http://www.alm.com/about/core-values). We imagine that Vivia Chen strives to meet those same standards. The November 6, 2014 American Lawyer article “News and Gossip Roundup” (attached) fails even to approach those standards; it lacked quality, integrity, professionalism and judgment.

Holy disproportionate response, Batman! As a reminder, characterizing fresh-from-clerkship lawyers as “young” and “cute” is a betrayal of “quality, integrity, professionalism and judgment.”

Reisman stumbles toward what could be a valid complaint, but botches that as well:

The American Lawyer takes its insensitivity further by making light of the group’s diversity. Deriding the name that a parent gave a child or the name she grew up with is not reporting; it is insulting and falls well below the standards you espouse.

Mocking racial diversity would be bad. Except that’s not really what happens here. Reisman is referring to this line from the original Chen piece:

Sponsored

Sparkle Sooknanan (is that name made for a reality show or what?)

She’s not attacking any ethnicity or even an ethnically particular name. The woman is actually named “Sparkle Sooknanan.” Alliteratively. That’s a reality-show name. It’s no more mean-spirited than saying someone named, say, “Arch Steele” has an action-movie-star name.

Chen responds to the criticism with her own letter pleading for a teaspoon of frigging perspective:

You mentioned that I demeaned and insulted these hires by calling them “trim, perky and adorable” “pets.” Well, what can I say? Believe me, there are far worst things to be called in the world. If any group can withstand a little ribbing and not be traumatized for life, I would put my money on this esteemed bunch.

Vegas has already taken that bet off the board.

To me, treating everything with solemn respect would be indeed glum. I think the legal profession takes itself seriously enough, don’t you?

No. Jones Day does not at all think that. At least Reisman doesn’t.

Check out Jones Day’s whole letter on the next page. If you want to read Chen’s entire response, click here.