Edge Rewrite
pun Source code View original
Jump to content

Talk:Jones Day

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Blatant Advertisement?

[edit]
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)Reply

Name

[edit]
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Who gave it its current name?RSido (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

Edit warring

[edit]
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

@Histnewbie and Wikimogul666: 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)Reply

unsourced

[edit]
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

moving unsourced text here, should be returned to mainspace once its referenced

Bangabandhu (talk) 00:45, 13 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

International clientele

[edit]
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

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)Reply

@67.53.214.86: 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)Reply

Edit Requests

[edit]
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion


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)Reply


Proposed additions

[edit]
  • 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).
Partly done 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)Reply
@SWinxy Will do. Thank you! Jon Gray (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

References

  1. ↑ "LOS ANGELES COUNTY". Los Angeles Times. August 20, 1987. Retrieved April 12, 2023. Former California Congresswoman Yvonne Brathwaite Burke has been named a partner in the Los Angeles office of the law firm Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue.
  2. ↑ Brennan, Tom (February 12, 2014). "Former Partner Rejoins Jones Day as Asia Head". The American Lawyer. Retrieved April 12, 2023. A former partner who left to become U.S. ambassador is rejoining Jones Day as the firm's Asia head. Former Jones Day New York partner David Carden served for two years as the United States' first ambassador to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.
  3. ↑ Anderfuren, Marian (March 2, 2023). "Moldova's Hopes To Join EU Rest on Alumna's Shoulders". University of Virginia School of Law. Retrieved April 12, 2023. Dragalin's path from Moldova to UVA and back to Moldova was circuitous and not always intentional…An internship with Jones Day led to a job offer after graduation. In Jones Day's Los Angeles office, she worked with several former assistant U.S. attorneys who talked positively about their careers there, and they encouraged her to apply for positions with the U.S. Attorney's Office in Los Angeles.
  4. ↑ "Division Two: Administrative Presiding Justice Elwood Lui". Courts of California. Retrieved April 13, 2023. Justice Lui was in private practice with Jones Day from 1987 until his appointment to Division One. At Jones Day, he was a member of the senior management committees, the first partner in charge of the San Francisco Office, the practice coordinator of the Greater China Offices, and the lead appellate lawyer for the California Region.
  5. ↑ "Yvette McGee Brown". Supreme Court of Ohio. Retrieved April 13, 2023. After leaving the Supreme Court, Justice McGee Brown joined the Columbus office of Jones, Day, Reavis and Pogue as a partner practicing business and tort litigation.
  6. ↑ "Power & Purpose Asia's Most Influential SG Sundaresh Menon". Tatler Asia. Retrieved April 13, 2023. Menon left to co-found WongPartnership in 1992, and also worked at Rajah & Tann and Jones Day in subsequent roles. His areas of focus included insolvency law, construction law, and commercial litigation and arbitration.
  7. ↑ "Morgan E. O'Brien" (PDF). Federal Communications Commission. Retrieved April 13, 2023. Mr. O'Brien had been with the firm of Jones, Day, Reavis and Pogue, an international law firm, from January 1986 to January 1990, where he served as partner-in-charge of the firm's telecommunications section.
  8. ↑ "Who is Kevyn Orr?". WJBK. March 14, 2013. Retrieved April 13, 2023. Gov. Rick Snyder announced Thursday that he had chosen Kevyn Orr, a partner in the law and restructuring Jones Day firm, as Detroit's emergency manager.
  9. ↑ Castro Wyatt, Melissa (September 27, 2022). "Plotting Her 'Rewirement'". University of Virginia School of Law. Retrieved April 13, 2023. As Deborah Platt Majoras '89, Procter & Gamble's outgoing chief legal officer, was getting ready to retire this month, she had the rare experience of being invited — multiple times — to surprise gatherings feting her as she departs from the legal profession and celebrating the mark she is leaving on the current generation of lawyers. That passion for leadership and mentorship shows through in conversations with Majoras. She remains close to one of her earliest professional mentors, Joe Sims, who ran the antitrust practice group at Jones Day when Majoras joined the firm two years after graduating from law school. Majoras had joined the firm's Chicago office as a litigation associate after a clerkship at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
  10. ↑ "Deborah Platt Majoras, Former Chairman". Federal Trade Commission. Retrieved April 13, 2023. Prior to her government service, Majoras was a partner in Jones Day's antitrust section. While at Jones Day, she represented clients on civil and criminal antitrust litigation matters, including mergers and acquisitions, monopolization, price-fixing, distribution issues, and governmental investigations. She also was a member of the firm's technology issues practice.

Edit Requests

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 year ago11 comments7 people in discussion

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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  

Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation

National Rifle Association


Two other examples of non-neutral headings:

Gender discrimination suit / Leak of files

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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&Dip (talk) 17:28, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

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

[edit]
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)Reply
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 {{request edit/significant}} - and where would I put that? Again, thank you for your guidance. Chips&Dip (talk) 18:47, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
You can but {{request edit}}, which I noticed you've used before, has a parameter (R) that is the same thing.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
@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)Reply

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)Reply

@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)Reply
@MelanieN: 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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
The proposed changes are not an improvement. Content sourced to RS and by all accounts accurate should not be scrubbed from the article because the firm wants to portray itself in a different way. Thenightaway (talk) 13:06, 4 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Remove the "Compensation" section

[edit]
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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)Reply

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)Reply

WFB coverage

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This page was part of an Harvard Law School edit-a-ton on 2 April, meant to add content re major cases which this firm might wish were not so widely known . HLS student and Wikipedian Avachat (Lawschooltoker) made the actual edits (instead of each individual making the edits themselves), contrary to WP policy it seems (?), and further removed language describing the Gaza war protests in the United States (those at law schools eg HLS) as anti-Semitic (but they claim to have kept language noting that the firm deemed them so - have not checked). The inclusion of unsavoury major cases, and clarification re who claimed the protests were anti-Semitic, seem like sound edits that should stand.

On 14 April, the edit-a-ton was covered by Washington Free Beacon as an instance of 'anti-Semitism' . There now may be/seem to be accounts/IPs reverting those edits, possibly due to the WFB coverage alone. On 17 April, Avachat made a TikTok in response, noting this trend after the WFB article . (This note added on coming across Avachat's TikTok.) - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 07:43, 18 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Edit Request – Republican Party and conservative politics

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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. Thanks for your consideration. Jon Gray (talk) 22:58, 1 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Republican Party and conservative politics

  • Sentence: “In the 21st century, the firm has increasingly taken on ideologically charged cases and causes.”
  • Issue / Rationale: This sentence is a redundancy that needs to be removed as the sentences that precede and follow it convey the same information.
  • Requested edit: Please remove the sentence in question.
  • Sentence: “During the first Donald Trump administration, Jones Day helped the administration to dismantle the administrative state, combat early voting, and place a citizenship question on the census.”
  • Issue / Rationale: The claim that the firm “helped the administration to dismantle the administrative state” is false and poorly sourced. The claim stems from the article “How a Corporate Law Firm Led a Political Revolution,” which in actuality is an excerpt from a book by David Enrich that was reprinted in the New York Times. The cited portion states “Chief among those aims was dismantling what Don McGahn — the Jones Day partner who helped run Trump’s campaign and then became his White House counsel — disparagingly referred to as the “administrative state.” However, that very article crosslinks to another New York Times piece (also written by Enrich) where the phrase “the administrative state” is attributed to Leonard Leo and Steve Bannon,[1] neither of whom are, nor have ever been employees of Jones Day. The Enrich article erroneously attributes the quote to Don McGahn, which falsely connects that phrase/position to the firm. Furthermore, Jones Day did not represent the first Trump administration – it represented the 2016 and 2020 Trump campaigns.[2]

Regarding the claim that the firm helped “combat early voting during the first Trump administration,” this is also false as the firm represented the 2016 and 2020 Trump campaigns, not either administration[3]. In addition, what’s referenced here is an amicus brief filed on behalf of the Buckeye Institute in July 2016, before the first Trump administration began in January 2017.[4] The position advocated was that Ohio’s lengthy 29-day early voting period was constitutional. The plaintiffs in the case were arguing that 29 days was insufficient, and that the court should order more early voting days than Ohio law permitted. The Sixth Circuit agreed with the Buckeye Institute’s position and upheld the Ohio law.[5]

The claim that the firm helped the Trump administration “place a citizenship question on the census,” is also false on multiple grounds. Again, the firm did not represent the first Trump administration, but the 2016 (and, later, the 2020) campaign, making it impossible for the claim as written to be factual.[6]

Further, a cursory review of the docket shows that Jones Day did not represent any party in that case.[7]Beyond that, the effort to place a citizenship question on the census failed – so ultimately no one “helped the administration . . . place a citizenship question on the census.” [Supreme Court blocked that effort.][8]

  • Requested edit: Considering the facts outlined above, this sentence needs to be removed from the article as well.
  • Sentences: “In 2020, Jones Day was hired by Trump in his legal fight to challenge the results of the 2020 presidential election, which he lost to President Joe Biden. The firm worked for Trump in trying to have courts toss out Pennsylvania mail votes.”
  • Issue / Rationale: The claim that Jones Day was hired by Trump (or anyone) to challenge the results of the 2020 presidential election is unequivocally false. The claims – sourced back to Enrich – is undermined by Enrich himself in a 2022 interview with The New Republic: “I labored over that line in the book because Jones Day was not representing Trump or his campaign or the Republican Party in any of the frivolous and reckless lawsuits that were filed after the election that were just spreading lies about fraud and things like that.”[9]

In actuality, Jones Day was hired by the Pennsylvania GOP to seek review in the United States Supreme Court on the ground that the order is unconstitutional because it usurped the Pennsylvania General Assembly’s plenary authority to determine election procedures including the deadline for absentee ballots.[10] This is further backed by additional reporting from the American Bar Association and the Global Legal Post:

  • American Bar Association: “Jones Day isn’t representing Trump or the GOP in any election fraud litigation, but it is contesting an extended ballot deadline in Pennsylvania in a cert petition pending with the U.S. Supreme Court.”[11]
  • Global Legal Post: “US law firm Jones Day has hit back at media claims that it is representing President Trump in his attempts to contest the results of last week’s US election by filing baseless allegations of fraud... In its statement, Jones Day clarified that it represented the Pennsylvania GOP in its efforts to overturn the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision to extend the deadline for returning mail-in ballots that had previously been established by the Pennsylvania General Assembly. Through Jones Day, the Republican Party of Pennsylvania has sought review from the US Supreme Court that the order to extend the deadline was unconstitutional because it usurped the PGA’s authority to determine election procedures, including deadlines for absentee ballots.”[12]
  • Requested edit: Given this erroneous information, please remove the two sentences in question.
  • Sentences: “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 ‘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.”
  • Issue / Rationale: This passage is rooted in reporting that the author himself has refuted. The New York Times Sunday Magazine article is excerpted from a portion of a book by David Enrich for publicity purposes.[13]On multiple occasions, Enrich himself has walked back his claim that Jones Day “was giving voice — and legal backing — to the president’s unsubstantiated fear-mongering about the possibility of an election tainted by fraud.”[14] [15]Further, the firm was not hired to represent Trump nor any other entity alleging voter fraud.[16]
  • Requested edit: Given these facts, the sentences in question should be removed as their foundational premise is demonstrably false and has been walked back by the person to whom these quotes/claims are attributed.

References

  1. ↑ Peters, Jeremy (March 26, 2018). "Trump's New Judicial Litmus Test: Shrinking 'the Administrative State'". The New York Times. Retrieved July 1, 2026. That the concept of "the administrative state" has become so central to politics today shows how successful the Trump administration has been in elevating to the mainstream ideas that once thrived mainly on the edges of conservative and libertarian thought. A year ago it was a term known mostly among academics to describe the vast array of federal departments and the unelected functionaries who run them. It entered the mainstream political lexicon last year after the president's former chief strategist, Stephen K. Bannon, pledged a 'deconstruction of the administrative state' under Mr. Trump.
  2. ↑ Wise, Justin (February 1, 2023). "Jones Day Won't Advise Trump in 2024 White House Campaign". Bloomberg Law. Retrieved July 1, 2026. Jones Day advised Trump on both of his previous presidential campaigns...The law firm is not working on Trump's 2024 campaign and does not plan to provide legal services related to the run, according to a source familiar with the situation. Jones Day lawyers are winding down "legacy matters" for committees affiliated with Trump's previous campaigns, the person said.
  3. ↑ Wise, Justin (February 1, 2023). "Jones Day Won't Advise Trump in 2024 White House Campaign". Bloomberg Law. Retrieved July 1, 2026. Jones Day advised Trump on both of his previous presidential campaigns...The law firm is not working on Trump's 2024 campaign and does not plan to provide legal services related to the run, according to a source familiar with the situation. Jones Day lawyers are winding down "legacy matters" for committees affiliated with Trump's previous campaigns, the person said.
  4. ↑ "The Buckeye Institute Files Brief Defending Ohio's Early Voting Law". Buckeye Institute. July 1, 2016. Retrieved July 1, 2026. The Buckeye Institute's Legal Center submitted a brief today to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit defending Ohio's generous and nation-leading early voting law. The filing supports Secretary of State Jon Husted's defense of Ohio's absentee voting period...On May 24, a federal judge overturned an Ohio General Assembly law, which set the state's early voting at 29 days. Challengers alleged that federal law requires Ohio to offer even more days of early voting. Secretary Husted noted that Ohio's 29-day period for casting absentee ballots puts the state in the top 10 nationwide for early voting. Representing The Buckeye Institute in the case is Michael Carvin, an election and appellate law expert with the global Jones Day law firm.
  5. ↑ "OH Democratic Party v. Husted, No. 16-3561 (6th Cir. 2016)". Justia. August 23, 2016. Retrieved July 1, 2026. The Ohio election regulation at issue, Senate Bill 238, amends Ohio Revised Code section 3509.01, to allow early in-person voting for 29 days before Election Day. The law previously allowed 35 days for early voting, including six days during which a person could both register and vote. In one of many pending challenges to the state's election laws, the district court found the provision invalid. The Sixth Circuit reversed, calling Ohio "a national leader when it comes to early voting opportunities." The law is facially neutral; it offers early voting to everyone.
  6. ↑ Wise, Justin (February 1, 2023). "Jones Day Won't Advise Trump in 2024 White House Campaign". Bloomberg Law. Retrieved July 1, 2026. Jones Day advised Trump on both of his previous presidential campaigns...The law firm is not working on Trump's 2024 campaign and does not plan to provide legal services related to the run, according to a source familiar with the situation. Jones Day lawyers are winding down "legacy matters" for committees affiliated with Trump's previous campaigns, the person said.
  7. ↑ "Department of Commerce, et al., Petitioners v.New York, et al". Supreme Court of the United States. January 25, 2019. Retrieved July 1, 2026.
  8. ↑ "DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ET AL. v. NEW YOR ET AL. CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT" (PDF). Supreme Court of the United States. June 27, 2019. Retrieved July 1, 2026.
  9. ↑ McCordick, Jack (September 20, 2022). "Trump's Lawyers Have Some Explaining to Do". The New Republic. Retrieved July 1, 2026.
  10. ↑ Carey, Tyler (November 10, 2020). "Cleveland-based law firm denies it is representing Trump campaign 'in any litigation alleging voter fraud'". WKYC. Retrieved July 1, 2026. However, Jones Day calls those reports 'false,' and says it is currently only representing the Pennsylvania GOP in an effort to obtain a U.S. Supreme Court review of the legality of certain ballots in that commonwealth. The Court originally ruled Pennsylvania officials could accept any ballots delivered to them three days after Election day, provided they were postmarked by Nov. 3.
  11. ↑ Weiss, Debra (November 10, 2020). "Jones Day and Porter Wright file election suits for Trump to the dismay of some of their lawyers". American Bar Association. Retrieved July 1, 2026.
  12. ↑ Edwards, Ben (November 11, 2020). "Jones Day not representing Trump in election fraud claims, firm says". Global Legal Post. Retrieved July 1, 2026.
  13. ↑ Enrich, David (August 25, 2022). "How a Corporate Law Firm Led a Political Revolution". The New York Times. Retrieved July 1, 2026. David Enrich is the business investigations editor at The Times. He is the author of the forthcoming book "Servants of the Damned: Giant Law Firms, Donald Trump and the Corruption of Justice," from which this article is adapted.
  14. ↑ McCordick, Jack (September 20, 2022). "Trump's Lawyers Have Some Explaining to Do". The New Republic. Retrieved July 1, 2026. I labored over that line in the book because Jones Day was not representing Trump or his campaign or the Republican Party in any of the frivolous and reckless lawsuits that were filed after the election that were just spreading lies about fraud and things like that.
  15. ↑ Domnarski, William (September 21, 2022). "Servants of the Damned Giant Law Firms, Donald Trump, and the Corruption of Justice". New Books Network. Retrieved July 1, 2026. At 46:03: Interviewer: "Were there any Jones Day lawyers who were part of this cadre of, I guess you could call almost call them unhinged lawyers who were making these grant conspiracy arguments after the election ran into disciplinary problems, for instance?" At 46:18: Mr. Enrich: "Yeah, I'm glad you're asking that. And the answer is no, there were not, and Jones Day didn't have anything to do with any of those." Mr. Enrich continues: "And frankly, I probably have some responsibility for that because my colleagues and I at the Times wrote a story that it didn't conflate what was going on, but it lumped them in it lumped Jones Day in with some of the other law firms that were being a bit less discriminating, you could say about the cases they took on."
  16. ↑ Weiss, Debra (November 10, 2020). "Jones Day and Porter Wright file election suits for Trump to the dismay of some of their lawyers". American Bar Association. Retrieved July 1, 2026. Jones Day isn't representing Trump or the GOP in any election fraud litigation, but it is contesting an extended ballot deadline in Pennsylvania in a cert petition pending with the U.S. Supreme Court.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jones_Day&oldid=1362101925"