Talk:Morgan & Morgan

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Companies Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

Lawsuits[edit]

Hello, @Marquardtika.

I am partially returning the information about lawsuits that you have cut, with the addition of new sources, to make it clear why Morgan & Morgan is significant at all. After all, the notability of law firms is due to the fact that they are involved in notable cases. Evilfreethinker (talk) 17:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you added here are a press release published by Morgan & Morgan and other law firms in the case and a website owned and operated by the law firms. The language is also promotional ("substantial role", "substantial settlement") and the source is...themselves. That's not an acceptable use of WP:SPS. Marquardtika (talk) 17:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear...the "Porter Ranch Lawsuit" website that you added literally says "THIS IS AN ATTORNEY ADVERTISEMENT" at the bottom of the page. This Wikipedia article should not be. Marquardtika (talk) 17:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you consider this source to be a press release, too? [1] Evilfreethinker (talk) 21:25, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. It just doesn't provide substantive coverage of Morgan & Morgan and didn't verify any of the info in the article. It's a list of people in Nashville and includes "Kathryn Barnett — Nashville Managing Partner, Morgan & Morgan: Runs the Nashville office of the nationwide plaintiffs firm while maintaining a practice of her own. A record littered with multimillion-dollar victories includes a major win against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. in 2018." It's about Kathryn Barnett, and it's not even clear if the lawsuit against R.J. Reynolds was undertaken in her role at Morgan & Morgan or under the purview of own legal practice. Marquardtika (talk) 01:52, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How about these sources then?

[2]

[3]

[4] Evilfreethinker (talk) 02:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It really depends on what content you'd be using them to verify. Marquardtika (talk) 03:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The wording then is:

"Morgan & Morgan was among the law firms acting on behalf of the plaintiffs in the 2015 California gas leak case".

and

"The law firm represented the plaintiffs in a lawsuit against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, which resulted in a $6.4 million settlement".

Evilfreethinker (talk) 03:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you provided about R.J. Reynolds would verify that "In 2016, jurors awarded $6.4 million to the family of a Florida smoker who died of emphysema, but handed down a $0 punitive verdict. Morgan & Morgan, who represented the smoker's family, had requested $10 million in compensatory damages. The verdict was tossed in 2019 due to an error in jury instructions, and a new trial was ordered." As for the gas leak case, the only mention of Morgan & Morgan in the article is "Morgan & Morgan, who represented plaintiffs in the BP case..." Marquardtika (talk) 15:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]