Talk:Thomas B. Griffith

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

[edit] Utah Law License

Smashingworth: Nobody is trying to keep people from knowing that Griffith never joined the Utah Bar. The problem with your edits is to mislead people into thinking that Griffith did something wrong. He wasn't required to get a law license, as it's a common practice to associate with an in-state attorney in order to advise your in-state clients. The entire paragraph is not written neutrally but from a partisan point of view. There are scare quotes around "clerical oversight." The fact that Griffith did not need the Utah license is only the perspective of "Griffith's defenders." It's a little ridiculous. All I did was delete your redundant and argumentative sentence, which started out quite petulantly, with the words, "Still ..."

Don't pretend that because I'm trying to remove your argumentative way of stating the facts that I'm trying to "Keep the truth from the people!" That's not what this is about.

As of now, the compromise isn't bad, but I still think it could be re-worked. After all, the controversy is really no controversy at all, and the page should explain that, not try and stir the pot.--Smashingworth 21:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thattherepaul: On what planet is one allowed to practice law without a license? How can you say that Griffith "did nothing wrong" when he in fact broke the law? Did you even read the Washington Post article? It says, "Utah State Bar rules require all lawyers practicing law in the state to have a Utah law license. There is no general exception for general counsels or corporate counsels." What motive compels you to keep deleting the fact that Thomas B. Griffith practiced law in Utah for four years without a state license? If a successfully confirmed federal appeals court judge practiced law in Utah for four years without a state license to do so, shouldn't people be allowed to know that? Why do you repeatedly delete this fact? Thattherepaul 17:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

padillah (talk · contribs)As a third opinion: I think there are strong feelings on both sides and some down time might be what's needed here. It looks like the current incarnation is, if not NPOV at least it encompasses both points of view. We'll need to work on getting rid of the "Supporters say..." vs. "Detractors say..." but I think this is something we can clean-up. And we need some sort of topical reference to the legality of the situation. We have claims that general counsel didn't need to be state licensed and others saying they did. Not being a lawyer, I think that needs to be stated and cited unequivocally. Padillah 17:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)