Talk:Jones Day

Blatant Advertisement?
Who wrote this self-aggrandizing ego tripe? Source? "Marvin Bower, McKinsey & Co. visionary; Bower reportedly based his approach to management consulting—now the dominant model in that profession—on his observations of the practice of law at Jones Day" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.235.7.33 (talk) 23:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Name
Who gave it its current name?RSido (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Merger history indicates they came in on the other side of the 1939 merger. http://jonesday.com/firm/history/ lists Thomas Jones as the Managing Partner at the time, so he's probably one. The other might be Luther Day (mentioned in connection with a famous case in 1952). Emurphy42 (talk) 04:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring
The two of you have been edit warring, reverting each other and arguing with each other in edit summaries. That’s not how it’s supposed to work. Edit warring can only end in people getting blocked. Come here to the talk page, and state your case and your reasoning. And remember to talk about the article, not the other user. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

unsourced
moving unsourced text here, should be returned to mainspace once its referenced Bangabandhu (talk) 00:45, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Mark McCormack, sports agent and IMG founder

International clientele
I moved the recently added Russian list to an International clientele section, but the first entry I checked on it does not belong, and I removed it. That list needs a close look. Lindenfall (talk) 18:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * you tagged me in your editing note, citing restoring content I'd deleted, but what you've added is "Russian mafia" with a new source. I don't see that I removed that phrase, or its reference, as the link you attached shows. Look again? This is my edit to that: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jones_Day&diff=1003158506&oldid=1003156367)Lindenfall (talk) 00:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit Requests
NOTE: I’m proposing the following edits for FleishmanHillard on behalf of Jones Day. I’m a paid editor and aware of the COI guidelines. I’m offering the following recommended additions to the “Notable alumni” section to account for several notable Jones Day attorneys and alumni missing from the list. Please let me know of any questions or comments as you review. Thanks for your consideration. Jon Gray (talk) 14:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposed additions

 * Please add the following alumni to the existing list:
 * Yvonne Brathwaite Burke, former U.S. congresswoman
 * David L. Carden, former U.S. ambassador to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)
 * Veronica Dragalin, Moldova’s chief prosecutor for corruption
 * Elwood G. Lui, Administrative Presiding Justice of the Second Appellate District, Division Two (Los Angeles); California's first Asian-American administrative presiding justice
 * Yvette McGee Brown, first African-American female justice on the Supreme Court of Ohio
 * Sundaresh Menon, Chief Justice of Singapore
 * Morgan E. O’Brien, former co-founder and chairman of Nextel Communications
 * Kevyn Orr, former emergency financial manager for Detroit, Michigan
 * Deborah Platt Majoras, former Procter & Gamble Chief Legal Officer; former Federal Trade Commission chair


 * I also propose an update to this section’s title, as the list contains both notable attorneys and firm alumni. As such, I propose that the new section title be “Notable attorneys and alumni,” as is common/similar in other law firms’ Wiki articles (see examples here and here).


 * I only included the people with Wikipedia pages. I also trimmed some quotations as they were excessive. Make sure you add Paid on your userpage for this contribution. Thank you. SWinxy (talk) 16:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC)


 * @SWinxy Will do. Thank you! Jon Gray (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Edit Requests
Note:I am making this edit request as an individual with a conflict of interest with the subject.

I work on the staff of Jones Day, the Contact Us page for Wikipedia says that subjects of articles who have complaints about bias should bring these issues to the attention of independent editors on the Talk Page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contact_us/Article_subjects Over the course of several years, the Wikipedia page for Jones Day has been edited so that it does not reflect the structure,nor neutrality of other law firms of its size. WP:5P2

The Lead
The lead: Please compare the lead of the Kirkland and Ellis page which contains neutral facts:  “Many attorneys from the firm have served as federal officials or judges, including United States Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh and former Attorney Generals William Barr and Robert Bork.“

vs. Jones Day’s lead: “''Since the 2000s, the firm has become increasingly active in aiding the Republican Party and American conservative movement. Jones Day was outside counsel for the Trump 2016 and Trump 2020 campaigns.''

In 2021, Jones Day hired a significant number of former Trump administration lawyers.”

We understand that it is not up to Jones Day to determine the content of the article, but request that facts are stated neutrally and do not contain emphasis on opinions. We request that the lead for the Jones Day page be edited to remove the opinions and subjective emphasis in the last two paragraphs: “Since the 2000s, the firm has become increasingly active in aiding the Republican Party '' and American conservative movement. Jones Day was outside counsel for the Trump 2016 and Trump 2020 campaigns. ''

'' In 2021, Jones Day hired a significant number of former Trump administration lawyers. '' ”

We request replacing those two paragraphs with: Many attorneys from the firm have served as federal officials or judges, including United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, former White House Counsel Donald McGahn and former Solicitor General Noel Francisco.

We request that representation of the 2016 and 2020 campaigns of Donald Trump be placed under the Notable Cases heading, which we request to be re-edited to: Notable Clients and Cases If editors compare the Jones Day page to other “big law” firms’ pages there is an exaggerated number of Headings and sections listed with subjective and non-neutral phrasing that does not conform with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout and appears to WP:COATRACK

Union-busting
If the editors deem a case where Jones Day represented a client adverse to a particular union or labor practice, then shouldn’t that case be added with neutral language under the Notable Clients and Cases heading?

We request the removal of the heading Union-busting as it is inherently non-neutral and for the removal of the subjective opinion: “Jones Day has a reputation for representing companies against labor unions.” https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MOS:WEASEL&redirect=no

Republican Party and conservative politics
Much of the language under this topic is either repetitive and further WP:COATRACK the article. If the editors deem particular cases and clients noteworthy, those cases and clients should be listed under the Notable Clients and Cases heading with appropriate citations.

Much of this entry was added with a single citation to a book that contains non-neutral, subjective opinions that are disputed. Some statements in the book that are repeated under this topic were directly contradicted by the author during publicity interviews for the book. For example the current language on the page is: “''The firm worked for Trump in trying to have courts toss out Pennsylvania mail votes. According to the New York Times, Jones Day "was giving voice — and legal backing — to the president’s unsubstantiated fear-mongering about the possibility of an election tainted by fraud." However, the firm said it "is not representing President Trump, his campaign, or any affiliated party in any litigation alleging voter fraud." Jones Day also said it "is not representing any entity in any litigation challenging or contesting the results of the 2020 general election" and that "media reports to the contrary are false." According to the New York Times, Jones Day's post-election justifications for its role in the 2020 election https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MOS:WEASEL&redirect=no "blurred a basic fact: Jones Day and its lawyers were trying to stop votes from being counted, all in an effort to serve the client."''” These sweeping opinions are counter to (WP:NOR Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources.

The New York Times reporter and author of the book is quoted on the same topic with a different opinion in this interview: https://freshairarchive.org/segments/how-lawyers-one-giant-dc-firm-influenced-trumps-supreme-court-picks

“GROSS: So when Jones Day was representing the 2020 Trump campaign, did they participate in efforts to overturn the election after Trump lost? ENRICH: I think the simplest way to answer that is to say no.”

Another citation regarding post-2020 election litigation that disputes the current language in this section:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/06/politics/trump-legal-team/index.html

“Republican sources say prominent conservative legal minds such as Noel Francisco, Trump’s former Solicitor General, whose firm, Jones Day, has done Trump campaign work; Emmet Flood, a Williams & Connolly partner who was Trump’s interim White House Counsel; and Cleta Mitchell, active in conservative causes including gun rights, would be among the names a GOP presidential campaign would turn to for a serious contested election legal fight. So far, they haven’t shown up in court cases. “The frustration that the President is expressing about the seeming unwillingness of his legal team to take certain positions is not unusual in that there are a lot of cases when clients want their lawyers to take action that the lawyers simply don’t see as viable,” said Ashley Taylor, an attorney who has represented Republican candidates in recounts and other election law issues.”

Another citation to dispute the topic’s subjective title and content is the following: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevoy/2020/10/21/lawyers-from-firm-used-by-trump-campaign-donated-50-to-him-and-90000-to-joe-biden/?sh=420237cc370c

“But among Jones Day’s over 2,500 lawyers, donations to the Trump campaign totaled just $50, the analysis of over 120,000 contributions filed through August 31 found. Donations from individuals at Jones Day to team Biden, on the other hand, reached nearly $90,000.”

We request the Republican Party and conservative politics topic be removed and if the editors deem particular cases and clients noteworthy, such cases and clients should be listed under the Notable Clients and Cases with neutral language and citations.

Another example: International clientele
Much of the language under this topic is either repetitive and further coatracks the article. Instead of repeating representations and adding non-neutral phrasing, if the editors deem particular cases and clients noteworthy enough, we request that they be listed under the Notable Clients and Cases. Also noting that the citation for this statement is a deadlink from a competitor law firm (further evidence of WP:COATRACK): In March 2017, the firm's Munich office was raided in order to obtain confidential client documents held by the firm in relation to its Munich-based Volkswagen emissions scandal internal investigation. The public prosecutor's office seized electronic data and "a large number of paper files" for use in the Brunswick, Germany-based investigation of Volkswagen Group subsidiary Audi AG. German courts upheld the legality of the raid, and no further charges resulted, as of March 2019.

The citations for the next paragraph (that lists companies-the majority of which are no longer clients) do not support the paragraph or list itself. Additionally, the notation at the end associating William Sessions is random as William Sessions has never been a lawyer at Jones Day.

As of 2018, Jones Day's client list includes individuals reported as notably close to Russian mafia, President of Russia Vladimir Putin, his inner circle, and the Kremlin:

We request the International clientele topic and its contents be removed and request the following corporate entities that are current clients be moved to  Notable Clients and Cases:
 * Access Industries of Len Blavatnik
 * Access-Renova Group of Len Blavatnik and Viktor Vekselberg
 * Alfa-Bank of Pyotr Aven and associated with Richard Burt
 * Alfa Group of Mikhail Fridman
 * Alfa-Access-Renova Group (AAR) of Len Blavatnik, Mikhail Fridman, and Viktor Vekselberg
 * Basic Element of Oleg Deripaska
 * Sapir Organization of Tamir Sapir and Alex Sapir and an in investor in the Bayrock Group
 * Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation of "the Trio" of Kazakh businessmen (Alexander Mashkevich, Patokh Chodiev, and Alijan Ibragimov)
 * LetterOne of Mikhail Fridman
 * National Rifle Association associated with Maria Butina and Alexander Torshin
 * Renova Group of Viktor Vekselberg
 * Rosneft of Igor Sechin
 * Russian Standard Group of Roustam Tariko
 * Sukhoi Civil Aircraft Corporation in which Semion Mogilevich is an investment

Access Industries

Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation

National Rifle Association

Two other examples of non-neutral headings:

Gender discrimination suit / Leak of files
These two headings are further evidence of coatracking the article. The majority of “big law” firms are at various times subject to allegations of some forms of discrimination. Currently DLA Piper is the subject of a gender discrimination suit https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/law-firm-dla-piper-faces-lawsuit-after-firing-pregnant-lawyer-2023-06-06/

And that firm was previously accused in a case allegedly involving rape: https://www.thedailybeast.com/dla-piper-junior-partner-at-top-firm-says-she-was-sexually-assaulted-by-boss-4-times-company-ignored-it

That firm was also subject to hacking:

https://www.rollonfriday.com/news-content/firm-negligent-security-practices-fined-ps100k-after-cyber-attack

However, there is not a separate heading on either of these topics on that firm’s page. Another firm, Covington & Burling was sued by the SEC regarding a hack https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/sec-sues-covington-law-firm-names-300-clients-caught-up-hack-2023-01-11/ but that case was not listed like a newspaper report on its Wikipedia page.

Wikipedia is not a newspaper WP:NOTNEWS the two topics and subject matter appear as further evidence of coatracking and we request their removal.

We request the following additions under the heading Notable Clients Notable Clients and Cases be added: Represented the campaign of Donald Trump as outside counsel for the 2016 and 2020 presidential campaigns citation: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/jones-day-lawyer-who-worked-bill-barr-jan-6-probe-switches-firms-2022-06-22/

Represented National Public Radio in a lawsuit challenging the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (“FEMA”) withholding of critical information. National Public Radio, Inc., et al. v. Federal Emergency Management Agency, et al., No. 1-17-cv-00091 (D.D.C.) citation https://foiaproject.org/2017/01/19/national-public-radio-inc-et-al-v-federal-emergency-management-agency-et-al-and-15-other-new-foia-lawsuits/

Represented the National Federation of Independent Business ("NFIB") and other private parties in the landmark legal challenge to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act National Federation of Independent Business, et al. v. Sebelius, et al.,132 S. Ct. 2566 (2012)    cite: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Federation_of_Independent_Business_v._Sebelius

Served as lead restructuring counsel to the City of Detroit in connection with its chapter 9 bankruptcy case filed in July 2013 In re City of Detroit, Michigan, No. 13-bk-53846 (Bankr. E.D. Mich.) citation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit_bankruptcy

We request the following additional headings and content be added to the Jones Day page to align with peer firms’ Wikipedia pages' structure and content, ie: Kirkland and Ellis, Ropes and Gray,Davis Polk

Pro bono work
Representing since 2014 migrants, primarily women and children, at the U.S.-Mexico border with staffed office in Laredo, Texas. citation: https://www.law360.com/articles/1049270/in-remote-immigrant-detention-centers-it-s-pro-bono-or-bust citation: https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2018/04/30/offering-help-and-hope-for-detained-centralamericans/

Launched Global Compendium of Laws on human trafficking- the first standardized collection of the relevant laws, on a country-by-country basis With the Rotary Action Group Against Slavery (RAGAS). citation: https://ragas.online/human-trafficking-laws/

With the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children wrote "The Attorney Manual: Guide to Representation of Children Victimized by the Online Distribution of Child Sexual Abuse Material," a more than 400-page document free to lawyers looking to help victims on a pro bono basis.

Citation: https://www.law360.com/articles/1453455/jones-day-crafts-guide-for-child-image-exploitation-cases

With the American Bar Association, created a national pro bono legal network aimed at helping Veterans called VetLex - a referral network to help veterans in need find volunteer attorneys providing free and low-cost legal services. Citation https://pili.org/pro-bono/pili-pro-bono-spotlight-vetlex-project-by-jones-day/

Rankings and awards
BTI has ranked Jones Day as the only firm to earn “Most Recommended Law Firm” for 20 consecutive years and also ranked it as “Fearsome Foursome” nine times since 2011, citations: https://bticonsulting.com/bti-most-recommended-law-firms and https://www.law360.com/articles/1537516/the-4-law-firms-that-gcs-most-hate-to-face-in-court

The American Lawyer named Jones Day winner of the Litigation Department of the Year in 2017, citation https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/2017/12/19/no-egos-allowed-jones-day-winner-of-the-litigation-department-of-the-year/

Law360 named Jones Day a “Ceiling Smasher” in 2022 as one of the top 10 firms having the highest representation of women in equity partnership and as M&A Group of the Year in 2015. Citations https://www.law360.com/articles/1517077 https://www.law360.com/articles/616815/m-a-group-of-the-year-jones-day

We would note that MelanieN and  Lindenfall are editors who have contributed to resolving issues regarding neutrality of some peer firm pages. We make these requests in the hopes of starting to achieve WP:BALASP on the page. Thank you. Chips&#38;Dip (talk) 17:28, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Comments about how to handle these requests and who should do it

 * I've removed the adminhelp template as you don't need administrator intervention. In the future, do not put templates in section headers.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:43, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the guidance, @Bbb23 It was my intention to comply with the guidance provided as an editor with a conflict of interest that is requesting attention to issues regarding neutrality. Would you suggest this request be changed to - and where would I put that? Again, thank you for your guidance. Chips&#38;Dip (talk) 18:47, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You can but, which I noticed you've used before, has a parameter (R) that is the same thing.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Chips&Dip, I did some cleanup on the lede in this diff, and updated size and revenue rankings with the latest information from the existing citation. I would be happy to add ...
 * Many attorneys from the firm have served as federal officials or judges, including United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, former White House Counsel Donald McGahn and former Solicitor General Noel Francisco.
 * ... to the lede section if you will provide supporting citations to reliable sources. If your firm has indeed significantly begun focusing on clients related to politics and elections, I think that information belongs in the lede section, with expansion in the body of the article. I would have to do more research to have a strong opinion. But let's begin with this one edit and see how things go. Xan747 (talk) 02:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure how my name came up. I don't think I have ever edited (or seen) the Jones Day article before. Some years ago I did work with Lindenfall on improving the Kirkland and Ellis article, but I don't make a specialty out of cleaning up attorney articles. If I can find time, I will look at some of the issues raised in this lengthy request, but at first glance I don't see myself rewording some of the material as requested by Chips&Dip. (Thank you for revealing your COI up front.) For instance, the links to Trump and the Republican Party seem well documented, as does the reputation for union-busting. "Neutrality" does not require that we remove well documented material, even if the subject would rather it wasn't there. But I will put this article and this request list on my to-do list to look at when I have time. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:09, 14 June 2023 (UTC)


 * @MelanieN In 2019 there was a brief edit war with this article, an edit war which only stopped after you stepped in to offer a gentle reminder about the need to bring disputes to the talk page. Now it might have been that assistance from you which ended that edit war, coupled with their need for a level-headed editor, that caused them to mention your name. It's either that, or your reputation just naturally precedes you. Spintendo  04:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting keep.svg Go ahead: I have reviewed these proposed changes and suggest that you go ahead and make the proposed changes to the page. Cherrell410 (talk) 23:38, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tweak, Cherrell410. I do have a little time today and will try to start on some of the items in this massive request. First I will break the request into subsections to make it easier to work on them one at a time. Note that I do NOT intend to make all the changes they requested - as I noted above. Some of them appear to be attempts to whitewash the article by removing well-documented material that they just prefer not to be known for. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I see that other users here have blanket-cleared all the requests and have told Chips&Dip to go ahead and make them. Chips&Dip has started that process. So I will simply review their changes, with particular attention to what outside Reliable Sources say about the firm. Depending on what I find, I might restore some of the stuff that the firm wanted to be removed. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Remove the "Compensation" section
I just noticed the "Compensation" section in this article. I think it should be removed in its entirety. Most law firms (and businesses generally) don't explain their compensation system. As for this paragraph, it is sourced almost entirely to Jones Day itself, except for the final sentence which is from a legal blog. What do others think? MelanieN (talk) 16:07, 8 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I think the compensation section is relevant because Jones Day is one of the few firms of its caliber operating with a low degree of salary transparency (black box system). Many articles from credible industry sources like Bloomberg Law support this 66.44.113.139 (talk) 06:51, 12 August 2023 (UTC)