Talk:Latham & Watkins

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Latham & Watkins article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Dispute about page

What is disputable about the existing page? It is completely accurate.

  • Accuracy is one thing; the article must conform to Wikipedia style and standards also. It does not. It is not properly formatted to WikiStyle. It has information that does not need to be there. You can have links, but you don't need to go on about third party information in that article, it should be done in the appropriate article.

Also, don't remove notices, it is not up to you to remove a notice placed by another WikiUser against text that you have entered.

WikiDon 05:01, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


How about a source for that "largest" claim? Frankly, it reads like an ad. Al 14:03, September 8, 2005 (UTC)


  • I agree. This entry reads like an ad, by using terms such as "largest", "most respected law firms in the world", "a major business-law firm" and "author of the most widely recognized treatise Uniform Commercial Code" without citing sources.

In fact, it makes me even suspect as to if a lawyer wrote this entry... =P Tmblweed 20:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


  • Should remove AveryIndex cite, as it's just a derivative of the Law.com rankings.


If there are no objections, I would like to add an adendum to the "Notable Attorney's" section. My desire is to add Juli Marshall to said section, the reason being as to her founding chair in the technological modernization of the firm. --Xlionheartx 05:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Lw logo.gif

Image:Lw logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Church of Scientology involvement

My comments on this talk page were arbitrarily remove without discussion by another user - see history. The same editor has made revisions to the article page, and refused to discuss them on either this discussion page, or their personal talk page.

Please can other users contribute their thoughts on the CoS / LW involvement, and whether it is appropriate content. Note that several law blogs (eg: abovethelaw, and lawdragon, both of which are cited in other wikipedia articles) have decided this is noteworthy, and L&W involvement odd, and a couple of print magazines have commented, questioningly, on L&Ws actions.

I'd also like some advise on what to do if this contribution on the discussion page is simply arbitrarily censored again, with no rationalle forthcoming 121.72.164.185 (talk) 11:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


I think the cult as a client should be in Wikinews but am not sure if it's really important here. And if you do have it here, the references need some work, and POV can be cleaned up without whitewashing it. (I know the references are out there but was too lazy to add them myself.) Venus Copernicus (talk) 21:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not relevant at all to this page, it's simply one of their thousands of clients. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 22:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
They are an especially notable client - We could add a Notable Clients section - over time (which IS the basis of WP) this section would grow with other clients, and as always happens, the article would improve for anyone with any interest in L&W. Note that I've asked for experience editor help for your deletion of disussion on this page previosly, and refusal (STILL) to provide any rationalle that makes sense - the list of Notable Attourneys is just a handful of thousands of attourneys. In the context of what appears to be current CoS moves to censor Amazon reviews (ref Glosslip, no low star ratings for any LRH book), YouTube (ref account ToryMagoo44), and GoogleGroups (ref: no posts appearing in alt.religion.scientology) it is not unreasonable to think something might also be going on here. Your activities and reluctance to give any reason that (to me anyway) is in any way rational or consistent raises a caution flag - this is NOT an allegation - just my reason for keeping a close watch, wanting to make sure this gets sorted according to the rules. It's worth also pointing out that I had good reason (fair game) for making previous edits under IP address only, but this matters enough Jaymax (talk) 02:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the Church of Scientology is a notable client, it's Wikipedia page and Wikinews said it all. There has been a lot of media attention, often highly controversial. If not for a notable client session, we can add a "L&W on the news section" just as in the other top law firm pages. Currently I'm working on the Notable Attorney section, in particular David Schindler. I'm going to add back the fact that he sent letters to protesters on behalf of CoS. In the spirit of this section, I just wanted to mention some of his notable clients and notable cases. As above mentioned, we have enough source material to show that the letters are news worthy, especially seen from the reactions of the law community. But they don't fit in this short section. However, I included only two references and links that contain two images of his signed letters. As you can see, the hand signed letters contain generic but slightly information that the protesters are identified at the scene of the protest. And thus that they are associated with the Anonymous Group. The intention of the Church is clearly to sent them to as many protesters as they can identify. The content of the letter apply to any one attending any of the protests. This could be a historical move which is unheard of. There are thousands of masked protesters spread all over US alone. But I'll leave it at that for this section.
When editorial and journalist discretion is called for, please consider what Judge Leonie Brinkema has to say:
"the Court is now convinced that the primary motivation
of RTC in suing Lerma, DGS and The Post is to stifle
criticism of Scientology in general and to harass its critics."
It is particularly hard to find critical news articles for this notable client.
as a side note, I don't think just quoting a name and field of expertise can be qualify as notable attorney, and that who you are married to is irrelevant too to a successful attorney.222.187.126.158 (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Slogan

Does the slogan, "Get 'em for every cent" seem suspect to anyone? I looked on L&W's website and couldn't verify it. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TROGG (talk • contribs) 03:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] notable clients and transactions

(please add since it is protected)--Mediterraneo (talk) 23:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 02:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


Please add

  • Church of Scientology

as a notable client. And then can we please begin debate here to expand the entry - what is or isn't appropriate etc. Jaymax (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


I know that L&W has been retained by the Church of Scientology but I believe it is more for litigation matters rather than for a transaction. You'd have to add a whole new section on 'cases' or something to that effect. So I'm not really sure what is notable about that retainer. Mediterraneo (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how that's relevant - the section is called Notable cases and clients (ie: notable customers basically) - CoS are clearly covered. The relationship is notable, because the client is notable - very much in the media, especially right now - and undertook the biggest infiltration of the US government ever - etc etc. Jaymax (talk) 16:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


I'll concede that it certainly is notable and indeed possibly questionable for a firm to represent a religious group in the manner alleged, however, generally we do not include clients for 'ongoing' representations within Wikiproject Law, rather closed deals/cases won (or lost). Perhaps if and when the firm terminates its relationship or at least issues a press release indicating the end of the representation then we can include it? Mediterraneo (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not enough of a wikipedian to know how to related Wikiproject Law stuff to the wider context of what should be in an article on Wikipedia about this law company. To my mind, to leave out the CoS connection would be a pretty poor entry for an encyclopedia trying to be useful to someone who wants to learn about L&W. Is there WP:Policy or something so I can better understand? Do the project standards always trump, or is there room to consider appropriatness from other angles? Jaymax (talk) 17:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
How would one, relatively recent client, make L+W's article pretty poor? L+W has had tens of thousands of clients over the years. They're a Vault 100 top firm. Any one particular client of theirs, is no more notable than any other. The whole debacle over the Scientology vs. Anonymous belongs on the CoS page. It has nothing to do with L+W other than the fact that L+W is one of the CoS's external counsel. On top of that, there is very little verifiable information regarding L+W's relationship with Scientology, and what little there is, mostly comes from unreliable sources. Finally, because of the overwhelmingly hostile and critical nature surrounding the CoS vs. Anonymous debate, inclusion of that would unduly taint the L+W entry. So there you go, 3 policies: Verifiability, Reliable Sources, and NPOV(Undue Weight), as well as editing style and wikiproject guidelines that are in favor against it. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 17:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for FINALLY fronting up about this - this issue is not going away... And now we can start handling it the way the system is supposed to. So, ignoring for the moment the absurdity of your statement: "Any one particular client of theirs, is no more notable than any other." - you have set out five grounds; of those, two (verifyability and reliability of source) are easily shown to be nonsense - and were already so when you first removed the section. - so I will leave those for now. I will read up on the Wikiproject stuff - but I AGAIN question whether the project guidelines must always take precedence. You ambiguosly refer to 'editing style guidelines' - which is an irrelevance, as other editors can easily improve style over time - as was already occuring in the section you removed. And finally, NPOV(Undue Weight), from my perspective it is your POV on this that is somewhat undue - locking this article when you did was extreme - but there are standard approaches for resolving that, starting with discussion here, involving more contributors. I again recall that you attempted to avoid that by removing MY comments on this talk page previously. User:Mediterraneo bears repeating: "it certainly is notable and indeed possibly questionable for a firm to represent a religious group in the manner alleged" - if including this L&W action would 'taint' the L&W entry, it will only be because the action taken taints the corporate. You might regard it as trivial - but that decision is not for you alone to make. And certainly that is no basis for excluding it - quite the opposite - balance, in the context of the way this item currently reads (see others comments at top from before all this) is somewhat missing presently Jaymax (talk) 18:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Please be civil in your discussion. You've done nothing to show in anyway that WP:V and WP:RS are nonsense, nor have you shown that my statements are in any way "absurd". You appear, in fact, to be unfamiliar with our policies and guidelines. I'd ask that you'd review them before declaring them to be nonsense. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 20:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
(0) Thank you for providing the WP: references - references that I have previously asked for, without positive response. As I have acknowledged, both upthread and in comments since deleted, I am no expert in wikipedia policy. My limited understanding is that engaging in discussion on this page should be the normal first step when trying to resolve disagreement, rather than wholesale removal of article text along with cited sources, and then protecting the article while (previously) refusing to engage in discussion. Your request to me for civility in the context appears somewhat misdirected - please therefore apply the same courtesy, and understand my frustration at how long it has taken to get even this far towards resolution.
(1) I have been through WP:V and WP:RS again - the 'above the law' legal news site referenced previously seems to provide both [1] as does Radar Magazine [2]
(2) It is absurd to say that no client is more notable than any other, because some clients will inherently be more worthy of notice through their activities or standing, regard for the law and previous legal history etc. However, I read that WP:N doesn't apply to notability of content, only of article topic so this element of the discussion would appear moot.
(3) NPOV(undue weight) by my reading would appear to be a policy about contradictory viewpoints and/or beliefs - I struggle to apply what WP:NPOV says under undue weight to this matter - I don't see much of a connection between the intent of that policy section and this matter. Jaymax (talk) 02:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Above the law is a blog. Blogs inherently fail WP:RS. Radar Magazine has similar reliable sourcing issues. In regards to this page, no client is more notable than another, because the article is on Latham Watkins, not their client base. Extensive discussion regarding their clientele belongs on other pages than this one. As for WP:NPOV, read it again. We don't add every non-encyclopedic negative event that has ever happened in the timeline of the subject of an article, because they would provide undue negative weight. Information about scientology as L+W's client, in comparison to the article as a whole, provides undue weight on a controversial issue, that really has nothing much at all to do with Latham Watkins. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 04:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
(1) From WP:V ""Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs." - that does not equate to "Blogs inherently fail"; neither does it relate to abovethelaw. Please explain the sourcing issue re Radar? Also refer Kenji Yoshino where abovethelaw is cited with regards to the biography of a living person. There are plenty of other cites also - your argument re WP:V WP:RS is weak, and inconsistent with the evidence all over wikipedia, and to me not supported by a reading of the policy and guideline.
(2) You referring to 'extensive discussion' is another classic straw-man argument - I have at no point sugested that 'extensive discussion' of CoS here would be relevant, neither was that which you previously removed extensive. I think it's obtuse to think that a significant number of people with an interest in L&W would not also be interested in knowing that they (and specifically one of thier notable attourneys) has an ongoing relationship representing this particular organisation, and the recent nature of that representation. Anyone with an interest can follow the links through to the relevant articles.
(3) I have been through WP:NPOV, more than once of the last few days - I'm not seeing what you are, perhaps you could be more explicit - you pointed previously to the 'Undue Weight' paragraphs, but it is pretty obvious they are not relevant to this, and so perhaps you could point me to a specific paragraph or quote one that does reflect the matter here? Again - it is not for you, individually, to decide whether their representation of CoS is more or less encyclopedic than their advice to Beyer which you did add - and yet that appears to be where you have chosen to position yourself - this, mainly, is the thing that confuses me. It is soley YOUR contention that the decision by L&W to represent this client, and their decision on how to do so, has nothing to do with the firm. I contend that you are wrong, and that L&Ws handling of media queries regarding this (and that it triggered a media response) is demonstrable of that, and that providing the text itself is NPOV, excluding this content shows imbalance and makes the article poorer by excluding information that would be of interest to many who come to this page - perhaps you are underestimating that? Jaymax (talk) 14:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not citing WP:V in relation to blogs. I'm citing WP:RS. Above the law is a blog. It has always been a blog. It's David Lat's blog in which he publishes some news, but also speculates about other things. That kind of speculation is the reason that blogs are not allowed as reliable sources. It's not a fact-checked secondary source. As for the rest of your arguments, well, I can't help it if you don't understand WP:NPOV. Here's another one for you: WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a battleground. For what purpose do you want to include the scientology stuff? The scientology stuff is only notable in the context of this battle between the church of scientology and anonymous. Wikipedia is not the place to fight battlegrounds. If that's your intent, to use Wikipedia as your vehicle to "get the truth out", you're sorely mistaken about what Wikipedia is, what it does, and how it works. At this point in time, there are several policy based reasons to exclude that information, as well as legal issues at m:OTRS, that necessitate that the scientology issue stay out. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 17:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

(0) You asked me to be civil; here you make an ad hominem reference to my comprehension ability WP:NPOV, while pointing me at a policy which states "Do not insult"??? I will let my argument and my reference to the policy speak to that. You have so far deferred to policy, but strictly in generalities. I suggest that is because the policy text and supporting docs don't actually back you up.
(1) to quote WP:V "Because policies take precedence over guidelines, in the case of an inconsistency between [WP:V] and [WP:RS], [WP:V] has priority" There is an near identical statement at WP:RS. As WP:RS doesn't define a blog, but WP:V does, it becomes difficult to follow your statement that you are talking about blogs with regards WP:RS rather than WP:V. All this is getting very semantic, and that could be avoided if you would more precisely reference the specific area of policy or guideline that you believe supports your views here. I note your use of 'as for the rest of [my] argument' while choosing to not address the specific question as to why Radar should be disregarded.
(2) to quote a few bits from the NPOV tutorial (1) "Space and balance ... The remedy is to add to the article — not to subtract from it" (2) "Some examples of how editors may ... present a subject in an unfair way ... Entirely omitting significant citable information in support of a minority view, with the argument that it is claimed to be not credible."
(3) You question my purpose - my purpose is to ensure this article contains significant information for the broad audience who may have an interest in L&W. Is it coincidental that this happens at the same time as the Anon stuff - of course not. Is that particularly relevant to my motives re this article, not overly - I look on it from the perspective of what I would have wanted to find out, coming here to research L&W. I think you are to focussed on the Anon v CoS stuff, to be able to see that long before that people had an interest in CoS, specifically in their interactions with the legal system. Given their established (ie: in court) history, I find that a law firm would accept them as a client interesting, and relevant. In the same way I would find someone taking on any organisation with a documented history like theirs. I think you will discover you are wrong in your assumptions about my what drives me here.
(4) I seek to avoid speculating about the OTRS content, which is why I haven't raised it in a while - since you have, and mention that it involves 'legal issues' - without speculating I will note the parties involved here, and in one case their track record, and frequent use of 'legal issues' to suppress things they want suppressed. The potential irony is inescapable. Like you, I want to keep this about L&W not CoS. I hope you have however independently verified the 'legal issues' and carefully considered whether they are raised in good faith, or to achieve the specific goal of preventing simple established verifiable facts of general interest relating to L&W (but with a negative connotation) from appearing on this page. Jaymax (talk) 00:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I have, and the issues were in good faith. Should the situation between L+W and Scientology and Anonymous develop further into a much more newsworthy situation, it may be suitable for inclusion, but at the moment, there are several reasons why it is not. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 01:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Either there are 'legal issues' which prevent inclusion, or there are not, in which case we're back to policy. It's remarkably easy to get me to back down from any debate - providing there is a logical case. So far I'm utterly not seeing it. I do not accept the WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOT policies do anything other than be neutral, or argue FOR INCLUSION of this material. Perhaps I can be shown otherwise, but I have been being pretty thorough, and careful close-reading and interpretation of policy isn't foreign to me. So - currently, on the fronts you have been primarily pushing - I'm nowhere near about to accept that it's in any way right, or good for the article, or good for wikipedia, to let this go. Yes - of course that is because I think people who are interacting with L&W have a right to consider the CoS connection - but it's something I and many many others would want to know, if otherwise interested in L&W. Again, I'd ask you to reflect on Mediterraneo's comment above - he certainly wasn't involved in anything re CoS.
On the other hand - is the OTRS 'legal situation' is sufficient - because of the way this has gone, because I do not believe that you have been true to WP:NPOV, or fair regarding WP:V (again, with the acknowledgment that, while I might have been editing here pretty much since inception, it's been incredibly infrequent, normally technical, and done under IP - and I'm no expert on things wikipedian -- I can however, and do, read policy) perhaps you could get other OTRS authorised people to go through this thread, and back up here your contention that the OTRS material is sufficient to exclude, if that is your contention.
Basically - I can argue policy, I can ask for confirmation of the OTRS stuff - It is unreasonable to expect an acceptance that some mix of weak-policy + moderate-OTRS = strong-case, if neither by themselves would justify exclusion. Jaymax (talk) 02:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
There are both legal issues and policy based issues against inclusion. We typically try to use the policy based issues first before resorting to an OTRS legal based reasoning. However, my policy reasons stand. The information places excessive weight on a politically charged and controversial aspect, which is only tangentially related to L+W, and is not adequately sourced. It further is information that is often being used as a battleground, both on Wikipedia and across the net, and it, beyond all of that, fails to live up to the standards of the Wikiproject that this article falls under the scope of. Whether you choose to accept that as being the case or not, is largely irrelevant. The policy issues exist. The OTRS issues exist. You can "utterly not see it" all you'd like, but that does not prevent the problem from being there. As for having other review from OTRS, there are privacy restrictions that prevent us from publicly discussing the content of an OTRS ticket. Beyond those, there are certain specific restricted access queues, the legal queue being one of them, whose contents are restricted even within the body of OTRS volunteers. This is one of them. As I said, there may come some point in time where the scientology issue is important enough, notable enough, and relevant to L+W's article enough, to merit inclusion, provided that the inclusion is verifiable, reliably sourced, and neutral point of view. However, that is not the case at present, and those criteria are not yet met. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 04:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I think we've come to the end of this particular road, don't you? As a more experienced wikipedian, is it RfC next? I've posted a note on the NPOV noticeboard - so maybe leave it a few days and see what that brings?
You and I disagree about the angle of tangent that this has with regards to L&W - but the point that I keep trying to make - that THAT matter is for community consensus, and established procedures, and not for you as an individual, has been consistently ignored.
I invited you to make this (me) simply go away by having independent appropriately qualified review of your judgment of the OTRS issue; you chose not to fol;low that through - and again blended together policy issues subject to community interpretation and OTRS issues which are not, making it quite impossible for ANYBODY to objectively either accept or reject your stance.
I note you referenced Wikiproject Law - I may have failed entirely at looking in to this, but I could find nothing there that pertains. One person saying what somebody else said is so doesn't actually make it true. Did you check Wikiproject Law? I did. But then I'm a novice, so could easily have missed something. I invite you to provide a link to the 'standards' you again abstractly refer to. You're an admin, policy specifics should matter.
You again bring up 'notability' - and yet WP:N clearly states: "notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles". Which brings me finally to:
Right now, I'm far less perturbed by whether or not this page references CoS, that whether an admin is blocking changes to an article from their own firm POV, combined with ignorance as to what WP:POLICY actually says. I care about WP more than you might realise, and I'm concerned about this aspect right now more than anything - if an admin does something, says something is policy, it better be reflected in policy - and more often than not the view you've expressed has, by my reading, been pretty much counter to policy. [Note this para has NOTHING to do with OTRS].
Your intuition may have got you through in the past, but your knowledge of policy has been extremely lacking (to my mind and reading) in this debate. Feel free to prove me wrong though - you might be surprised that I quite enjoy being proven wrong, it means I learn something. But so far you've failed to show me that I am - which if it is the case, shouldn't be that hard. Where to from here?
Mostly civilly I hope, Jaymax (talk) 06:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I have to add my voice here and say that I think that some mention of the Church of Scientology as a firm client is proper and should be added. As an active member of Wikiproject Law, I will point out that inclusion of controversies associated with member law firms is fair game. If you notice the page on Baker & McKenzie it points out that the firm was sued by former employees on discrimination grounds. If you visit the page for Kelley Drye & Warren you will find that the firm was retained to represent Union Carbide after the Bhopal disaster. Yet another example: Kaye Scholer's page mentions a settlement that the firm paid for its involvement in the failure of the Lincoln Savings & Loan Association. All of these are controversial clients/incidents and may reflect poorly on what are otherwise outstanding and well known/prestigious law firms. The fact that Latham has been alleged/admits to be currently representing the CoS is a significant fact. It is routine for some firms to turn away clients and in fact, Baker & McKenzie dropped the CoS as a client after pressure from another long-standing client, Eli Lilly. What I suggest is an inclusion couched in the following way: In 2008, reports surfaced that alleged that Latham & Watkins was retained by the Church of Scientology in connection with lawsuits the church is pursuing against anonymous Internet critics. A L&W memo has surfaced which confirms that the CoS is indeed a firm client. Little information is pending as to the current status of that mandate. Then a footnote might include a link to a legitimate news organization (if one exists chronicling the story). The rest of the firm's accomplishments should speak for itself and I was the one who wrote the clients and transactions that appears on the page currently. Let the reader judge. --Mediterraneo (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to add that I believe the ethos of Wikipedia is not served by the current censorship that is being exercised here. User:Swatjester, your pronouncements are getting rather tiresome. I take issue with your inability to countenance other points of view. Wikipedia and Wikiproject Law is a collaborative enterprise and not an encyclopedia by fiat. Please reconsider and re-read your responses. --Mediterraneo (talk) 21:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not how Wikipedia works. Your inclusion hinges upon unreliable sources (internal L+W memo leak, with no verification source) and acknowledges that there is little information standing, and that you don't know if any legitimate news sources chronicle the story. If you can't see the problem with that, I don't know how to help you. As for mention of Scientology as a client, it's already mentioned under the David Schindler section for the Ponzi scheme litigation. There's no censorship going on here, there's enforcement of policy. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 02:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] incorrect external links

Editors,

Please check the external links at the bottom of this page. They have been tampered with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.36.250 (talk) 21:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] notable attorneys

Samuel Fishman should be removed - not particularly notable in the grand scheme of things and was likely added by someone with a bone to pick against the firm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveA3 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Over categorization

The following "Economy of ..." categories seem inappropriate: Economy of Chicago, Illinois | Economy of Hong Kong | Economy of London | Economy of Moscow | Economy of Paris | Economy of San Diego, California | Economy of San Francisco | Economy of Washington, D.C. | Orange County, California | Reston, Virginia | Silicon Valley | San Mateo County, California | Economy of Newark, New Jersey. OccamzRazor (talk) 02:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)