Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 26, 2021
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	NOTE 7 – CONTINGENCIES In the normal course of its business, the Partnership is involved, from time to time, in various legal and regulatory matters, including arbitrations, class actions, other litigation, and examinations, investigations and proceedings by governmental authorities, self-regulatory organizations and other regulators, which may result in losses. These matters include: Retirement Plan Litigation. On August 19, 2016, JFC, Edward Jones and certain other defendants were named in a putative class action lawsuit (McDonald v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al.) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, by a participant in the Edward D. Jones & Co. Profit Sharing and 401(k) Plan (the "Retirement Plan"). The lawsuit alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Retirement Plan participants and seeks declaratory and equitable relief and monetary damages on behalf of the Retirement Plan. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the McDonald lawsuit which was granted in part dismissing the claim against JFC and denied in part as to all other defendants on January 26, 2017. On November 11, 2016, a substantially similar lawsuit (Schultz, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al.) was filed in the same court. The plaintiffs consolidated the two lawsuits by adding the Schultz plaintiffs to the McDonald case, and the Schultz action was dismissed. The plaintiffs filed their first amended consolidated complaint on April 28, 2017. On December 13, 2018, the court entered a preliminary order approving a class action settlement agreement reached among the parties. Following a fairness hearing held on April 18, 2019, the court entered judgment on April 22, 2019 in which it granted final approval of the settlement, effected a full release of claims by the settlement class in favor of the defendants, and dismissed the consolidated lawsuit with prejudice. On June 14, 2019, the lone objector filed an appeal to the judgment approving the settlement. On January 31, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied the objector's appeal and affirmed the district court's approval of the class action settlement. On February 6, 2020, the objector petitioned the Court of Appeals for a rehearing, which was denied on March 3, 2020. On October 5, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari the objector filed on May 11, 2020 seeking review of the Court of Appeals' decision. Administration of the settlement has been completed. Wage-and-Hour Class Action. On March 13, 2018, JFC and Edward Jones were named as defendants in a purported collective and class action lawsuit (Bland, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P, et al.) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by four former financial advisors. The lawsuit was brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) as well as Missouri and Illinois law and alleges that the defendants unlawfully attempted to recoup training costs from departing financial advisors and failed to pay all overtime owed to financial advisor trainees among other claims. The lawsuit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory and liquidated damages. On March 19, 2019, the court entered an order granting the defendants' motion to dismiss all claims, but permitting the plaintiffs to amend and re-file certain of their claims. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 3, 2019. On March 30, 2020, the court partially granted the defendants' renewed motion to dismiss the amended complaint and dismissed seven of the ten causes of action it purported to state. The court's order eliminated from the case any claims that rely upon the firm's contractual right to recoup training costs as well as related claims for declaratory relief. It also dismissed various state law claims. JFC and Edward Jones deny the allegations in the remaining counts and intend to vigorously defend against the allegations in this lawsuit. Securities Class Action. On March 30, 2018, Edward Jones and its affiliated entities and individuals were named as defendants in a putative class action (Anderson, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al.) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. The lawsuit was brought under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), and the Exchange Act, as well as Missouri and California law and alleges that the defendants inappropriately transitioned client assets from commission-based accounts to fee-based programs. The plaintiffs requested declaratory, equitable, and exemplary relief, and compensatory damages. On July 9, 2019, the district court entered an order dismissing the lawsuit in its entirety without prejudice. On July 29, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, which eliminated certain affiliated entities and individuals as defendants, withdrew the claims under the Securities Act, added claims under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended (the "Investment Advisers Act"), and certain additional state law claims, and reasserted the remaining claims with modified allegations. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs subsequently withdrew their Investment Advisers Act claims, and on November 12, 2019, the district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs appealed the district court's dismissal of certain of their state law claims but did not appeal the dismissal of the remaining claims. On March 4, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's decision, holding the district court has jurisdiction over the state law claims that were the subject of the plaintiffs' appeal, and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings on those claims. On April 19, 2021, defendants filed a petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc, seeking a review of the Ninth Circuit panel's decision. Edward Jones and its affiliated entities and individuals deny the plaintiffs' allegations and intend to continue to vigorously defend this lawsuit. Discrimination Class Action. On May 24, 2018, Edward Jones and JFC were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit (Bland v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al.) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by a former financial advisor under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, alleging that the defendants discriminated against the former financial advisor and other financial advisors and financial advisor trainees on the basis of race. On July 27, 2018, two named plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding allegations of discrimination and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Three named plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on November 26, 2018 and a third amended complaint on December 30, 2020. The plaintiffs sought equitable and injunctive relief, as well as compensatory and punitive damages. On May 4, 2021, the district court granted a motion plaintiffs filed on March 19, 2021 seeking preliminary approval of a settlement agreement reached by the parties. The court’s order authorizes administration of the settlement to begin. Reimbursement Class Action. On April 25, 2019, Edward Jones and JFC were named as defendants in a putative class action (Watson, et al. v. The Jones Financial Companies L.L.L.P., et al.) filed by two former financial advisors in the Superior Court of the State of California, Sacramento County. Plaintiffs allege that defendants did not reimburse financial advisors and financial advisor trainees in California for certain categories of business expenses, which plaintiffs allege violates the California Labor Code and California Unfair Competition Law. The lawsuit seeks damages and restitution as well as attorneys' fees and costs and equitable and injunctive relief. On February 19, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking the court's approval of a proposed class action settlement reached by the parties. On November 16, 2020, the court granted final approval of the settlement. Administration of the settlement is substantially complete. In addition to these matters, the Partnership provides for potential losses that may arise related to other contingencies. The Partnership assesses its liabilities and contingencies utilizing available information. The Partnership accrues for potential losses for those matters where it is probable that the Partnership will incur a potential loss to the extent that the amount of such potential loss can be reasonably estimated, in accordance with FASB Accounting Standards Codification No. 450, Contingencies. This liability represents the Partnership’s estimate of the probable loss at March 26, 2021, after considering, among other factors, the progress of each case, the Partnership's experience with other legal and regulatory matters and discussion with legal counsel, and is believed to be sufficient. The aggregate accrued liability is within the accounts payable, accrued expenses and other line of the Consolidated Statements of Financial Condition and may be adjusted from time to time to reflect any relevant developments. For such matters where an accrued liability has not been established and the Partnership believes a loss is both reasonably possible and estimable, as well as for matters where an accrued liability has been recorded but for which an exposure to loss in excess of the amount accrued is both reasonably possible and estimable, the current estimated aggregated range of additional possible loss is up to $12 as of March 26, 2021. This range of reasonably possible loss does not necessarily represent the Partnership's maximum loss exposure as the Partnership was not able to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss for all matters. Further, the matters underlying any disclosed estimated range will change from time to time, and actual results may vary significantly. While the outcome of these matters is inherently uncertain, based on information currently available, the Partnership believes that its established liabilities at March 26, 2021 are adequate, and the liabilities arising from such matters will not have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows of the Partnership. However, based on future developments and the potential unfavorable resolution of these matters, the outcome could be material to the Partnership’s future consolidated operating results for a particular period or periods.

Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 26, 2021

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

NOTE 7 – CONTINGENCIES

In the normal course of its business, the Partnership is involved, from time to time, in various legal and regulatory matters, including arbitrations, class actions, other litigation, and examinations, investigations and proceedings by governmental authorities, self-regulatory organizations and other regulators, which may result in losses. These matters include:

Retirement Plan Litigation. On August 19, 2016, JFC, Edward Jones and certain other defendants were named in a putative class action lawsuit (McDonald v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al.) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, by a participant in the Edward D. Jones & Co. Profit Sharing and 401(k) Plan (the "Retirement Plan"). The lawsuit alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Retirement Plan participants and seeks declaratory and equitable relief and monetary damages on behalf of the Retirement Plan. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the McDonald lawsuit which was granted in part dismissing the claim against JFC and denied in part as to all other defendants on January 26, 2017.

On November 11, 2016, a substantially similar lawsuit (Schultz, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al.) was filed in the same court. The plaintiffs consolidated the two lawsuits by adding the Schultz plaintiffs to the McDonald case, and the Schultz action was dismissed. The plaintiffs filed their first amended consolidated complaint on April 28, 2017. On December 13, 2018, the court entered a preliminary order approving a class action settlement agreement reached among the parties. Following a fairness hearing held on April 18, 2019, the court entered judgment on April 22, 2019 in which it granted final approval of the settlement, effected a full release of claims by the settlement class in favor of the defendants, and dismissed the consolidated lawsuit with prejudice. On June 14, 2019, the lone objector filed an appeal to the judgment approving the settlement. On January 31, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied the objector's appeal and affirmed the district court's approval of the class action settlement. On February 6, 2020, the objector petitioned the Court of Appeals for a rehearing, which was denied on March 3, 2020. On October 5, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari the objector filed on May 11, 2020 seeking review of the Court of Appeals' decision. Administration of the settlement has been completed.

Wage-and-Hour Class Action. On March 13, 2018, JFC and Edward Jones were named as defendants in a purported collective and class action lawsuit (Bland, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P, et al.) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by four former financial advisors. The lawsuit was brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) as well as Missouri and Illinois law and alleges that the defendants unlawfully attempted to recoup training costs from departing financial advisors and failed to pay all overtime owed to financial advisor trainees among other claims. The lawsuit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory and liquidated damages. On March 19, 2019, the court entered an order granting the defendants' motion to dismiss all claims, but permitting the plaintiffs to amend and re-file certain of their claims. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 3, 2019. On March 30, 2020, the court partially granted the defendants' renewed motion to dismiss the amended complaint and dismissed seven of the ten causes of action it purported to state. The court's order eliminated from the case any claims that rely upon the firm's contractual right to recoup training costs as well as related claims for declaratory relief. It also dismissed various state law claims. JFC and Edward Jones deny the allegations in the remaining counts and intend to vigorously defend against the allegations in this lawsuit.

Securities Class Action. On March 30, 2018, Edward Jones and its affiliated entities and individuals were named as defendants in a putative class action (Anderson, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al.) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. The lawsuit was brought under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), and the Exchange Act, as well as Missouri and California law and alleges that the defendants inappropriately transitioned client assets from commission-based accounts to fee-based programs. The plaintiffs requested declaratory, equitable, and exemplary relief, and compensatory damages. On July 9, 2019, the district court entered an order dismissing the lawsuit in its entirety without prejudice. On July 29, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, which eliminated certain affiliated entities and individuals as defendants, withdrew the claims under the Securities Act, added claims under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended (the "Investment Advisers Act"), and certain additional state law claims, and reasserted the remaining claims with modified allegations. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs subsequently withdrew their Investment Advisers Act claims, and on November 12, 2019, the district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs appealed the district court's dismissal of certain of their state law claims but did not appeal the dismissal of the remaining claims. On March 4, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's decision, holding the district court has jurisdiction over the state law claims that were the subject of the plaintiffs' appeal, and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings on those claims. On April 19, 2021, defendants filed a petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc, seeking a review of the Ninth Circuit panel's decision. Edward Jones and its affiliated entities and individuals deny the plaintiffs' allegations and intend to continue to vigorously defend this lawsuit.

Discrimination Class Action. On May 24, 2018, Edward Jones and JFC were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit (Bland v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al.) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by a former financial advisor under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, alleging that the defendants discriminated against the former financial advisor and other financial advisors and financial advisor trainees on the basis of race. On July 27, 2018, two named plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding allegations of discrimination and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Three named plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on November 26, 2018 and a third amended complaint on December 30, 2020. The plaintiffs sought equitable and injunctive relief, as well as compensatory and punitive damages. On May 4, 2021, the district court granted a motion plaintiffs filed on March 19, 2021 seeking preliminary approval of a settlement agreement reached by the parties. The court’s order authorizes administration of the settlement to begin.

Reimbursement Class Action. On April 25, 2019, Edward Jones and JFC were named as defendants in a putative class action (Watson, et al. v. The Jones Financial Companies L.L.L.P., et al.) filed by two former financial advisors in the Superior Court of the State of California, Sacramento County. Plaintiffs allege that defendants did not reimburse financial advisors and financial advisor trainees in California for certain categories of business expenses, which plaintiffs allege violates the California Labor Code and California Unfair Competition Law. The lawsuit seeks damages and restitution as well as attorneys' fees and costs and equitable and injunctive relief. On February 19, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking the court's approval of a proposed class action settlement reached by the parties. On November 16, 2020, the court granted final approval of the settlement. Administration of the settlement is substantially complete.

In addition to these matters, the Partnership provides for potential losses that may arise related to other contingencies. The Partnership assesses its liabilities and contingencies utilizing available information. The Partnership accrues for potential losses for those matters where it is probable that the Partnership will incur a potential loss to the extent that the amount of such potential loss can be reasonably estimated, in accordance with FASB Accounting Standards Codification No. 450, Contingencies. This liability represents the Partnership’s estimate of the probable loss at March 26, 2021, after considering, among other factors, the progress of each case, the Partnership's experience with other legal and regulatory matters and discussion with legal counsel, and is believed to be sufficient. The aggregate accrued liability is within the accounts payable, accrued expenses and other line of the Consolidated Statements of Financial Condition and may be adjusted from time to time to reflect any relevant developments.

For such matters where an accrued liability has not been established and the Partnership believes a loss is both reasonably possible and estimable, as well as for matters where an accrued liability has been recorded but for which an exposure to loss in excess of the amount accrued is both reasonably possible and estimable, the current estimated aggregated range of additional possible loss is up to $12 as of March 26, 2021. This range of reasonably possible loss does not necessarily represent the Partnership's maximum loss exposure as the Partnership was not able to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss for all matters.

Further, the matters underlying any disclosed estimated range will change from time to time, and actual results may vary significantly. While the outcome of these matters is inherently uncertain, based on information currently available, the Partnership believes that its established liabilities at March 26, 2021 are adequate, and the liabilities arising from such matters will not have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows of the Partnership. However, based on future developments and the potential unfavorable resolution of these matters, the outcome could be material to the Partnership’s future consolidated operating results for a particular period or periods.