Talk:King & Spalding

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

Updating and reorganizing page to bring into alignment with similar law firm entries[edit]

{{request edit}} Not done for now:

  • Per notes left below. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 22:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I have revised and restructured this article to update it and bring the structure and information provided into line with the entries of other law firms of similar size and scope.

A draft of the revised article appears at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nikki38p. However, since I work at King & Spalding and have a conflict of interest, I am asking for the community’s help to review the updated draft, offer suggestions and edits, and, once completed, substitute the draft for the article that currently appears.

I undertook this revision after reviewing the pages of nearly 20 law firm of similar size and scope. My research showed that all of the firms present similar information in roughly the same order and format, and I used this as a guideline in developing the suggested draft. The new draft offers a more expansive history of the firm and updates such things as offices, alumni and notable work. I have cited third-party sources wherever possible. Note that I have not made any changes to the section on the Defense of Marriage Act, in deference to the COI guideline of avoiding controversial edits.

Thank you. -- Nikki38p (talk) 20:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Nikki. I can help out a little. The best way to start would be to simply provide a list of "reliable sources." Meaning third-party sources - typically the media or books - that contain facts about the firm. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 19:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't realize this post was newer than the massive revert in March. A few comments on the draft:
  • Take out the sentence with a "wide range of industries"
  • Some of the unsourced content is opinionated. For example "high stakes" and "an engine of major growth"
  • Awards are rarely encyclopedic, unless it's a truly notable award such as an olympic medal. I would suggest removing this entire section, unless some of them have been covered in genuine media articles.
  • From a pure editorial perspective, take out all the bullets.
  • I suppose I wouldn't care much that the History is uncited. Someone else could be more stringent about it, but a volunteer could easily contribute as much uncited content, however this huge section on Notable matters definitely need citations. This section could probably be cut way back to truly notable events of historical significance, rather than a list of client work.
Hope this helps. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 00:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edits with a conflict of interest[edit]

I have just reverted to remove substantial edits which appeared to violate the conflict of interest policy. I am sure this is a case of a new user being unfamiliar with such policies, and as such the edits were very likely done in good faith. While such material probably should not be kept verbatim, there was substantial factual material which might be useful for other editors to consider. --TeaDrinker 16:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Removing these edits is favoring form over substance. The edits were substantially helpful to the article. If they are factual (which they appear to be), then keep them. Just remove the parts that you feel read like advertisements. --BWD (talk) 15:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove this article[edit]

No matter how I try to interpret this article another way, this is nothing more than an advertisement for a law firm which is of insufficient note in itself to deserve an entry any more than my favourite Indian restaurant, my dry cleaner, or my local cinema.

Peter S Strempel  Page | Talk  09:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second request for removing article coming soon[edit]

It's been a couple of weeks since the template for deleting this article was removed, with no signs of any article improvements having been made. At the end of this working week (GMT Friday, 8 March) I will place a second template asking for deletion if no improvements have been made. Regards — Peter S Strempel | Talk 02:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Demonstration of Controversy Over DOMA/Gitmo Comparison[edit]

There is no question that a robust debate exists in the legal community about the way King & Spalding handled the refusal to represent the House of Reps in the DOMA matter. I have provided a long set of citations from the Washington Post, the National Law Journal, and prominent legal-political blogs that discuss this controversy. It's absolutely germane to the professionalism of the law firm in question. If, as the above editor suggests, this article should be removed, that's fine by me, but this issue has reached the US Attorney General and his immediate predecessor and shouldn't be ignored if this page is to exist at all. HenryBrooksAdams (talk) 04:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and your new edit was an improvement, though it added several (unnecessary) non-reliable sources that I've removed. Please also take note of correct citation style, thanks. AV3000 (talk) 14:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to fix it here b/c the sources were so plentiful, but you are wrong to conclude that lawyers' and law professors' written, signed opinions published on legal blogs are not reliable. The link you so helpfully provide demonstrates that the only question is reliability, not whether something is a blog or not. And given the subject matter -- did a controversy exist? -- they are perfect sources. So, please take note as well. HenryBrooksAdams (talk) 21:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability of Sources[edit]

It wasn't my edit, but I reverted yet another abusive deletion by AV3000 of a well-sourced article. The idea that a Washington Post writer, be it Jen Rubin or Ezra Klein, is not a reliable source is absurd. It fits neatly into the guidelines for reliable sources for Wikipedia. And, as with the nonsense yesterday that AV3000 eventually had to back down on, all that is going on here is a POV-motivated effort to wear down others by pretending it's about reliability of sources. HenryBrooksAdams (talk) 03:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NEWSORG: "When using news sources, care should be taken to distinguish opinion columns from news reporting. ...Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should include information verified by reliable sources. Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors." And from the cited blogger herself: "I want to be very clear: This is a very, very serious allegation and before reporting on this, any journalist should try to confirm whether the accusation is true."
I've therefore removed it again, and will take the case to WP:RSN if necessary.
(It's unfortunate that you've also chosen to ignore WP:AGF and WP:BATTLE. My edits support the removal of POV and non-verifiable/non-reliable sources wherever they are; I wasn't the only person reverting your previous addition, I disputed not its point but rather its attribution, and supported its inclusion when properly written and cited.) AV3000 (talk) 13:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guantanamo Bay attorneys[edit]

The Guantanamo Bay attorneys article lists John A. Chandler representing several detainees at one time. I only listed one on this article because I don't yet know if the others remain clients after he moved to King & Spalding.

If anyone knows of other GTMO attorneys at K&S, or other detainees represented, please list them here and in the Guantanamo Bay attorneys article. Thanks!
-- Randy2063 (talk) 03:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference: K&S website has an article on Chandler's arrival in 2008 here. His bio is here.
A site search for "Guantanamo" turns up nothing.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 04:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Searched the K&S website using Bing.com and found Guantanamo listed in their "Pro Bono Matters" page. It includes other detainees.
My cite includes a link to an archive just in case they dump it. There are a lot of other issues in that link, too, so others may wish to use the reference as well.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on King & Spalding. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump's nominee to be the director of the FBI, Christopher A. Wray purged Russian client from Bio[edit]

Might be a bit noteworthy. http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/20/politics/kfile-fbi-nominee-law-firm-bio/index.html and interesting connection to Yates. http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/07/politics/wray-recommendation-yates/index.html

--Wikipietime (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Someone might want to incorporate https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/biglaw-firm-withdraws-request-for-legal-fees-after-judge-says-it-cant-shield-its-billing-rates into the artilce. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.224.207 (talk) 19:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:King_%26_Spalding&oldid=1203295277"