Talk:Baron & Budd, P.C.

Untitled
Shouldn't these two pages be merged or otherwise linked back to each other?Gofigure41 18:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that they should be more carefully linked; I'll add the 'main' template onto the relevant section on Baron & Budd, P.C.. Klbrain (talk) 21:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Baron & Budd, P.C.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150408121053/http://www.ncwb.uscourts.gov/1151302/GST-Final_Post-Trial_Exhibit_List.pdf to http://www.ncwb.uscourts.gov/1151302/GST-Final_Post-Trial_Exhibit_List.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150408115844/http://www.ncwb.uscourts.gov/1151302/01-Estimation%20Trial%20Exhibits/GST%20Redacted%20Exhibits/GST-0969_redacted.pdf to http://www.ncwb.uscourts.gov/1151302/01-Estimation%20Trial%20Exhibits/GST%20Redacted%20Exhibits/GST-0969_redacted.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:02, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Merger of Baron and Budd memo with Baron & Budd, PC
It seems pretty suspicious that these two articles were merged, then any reference to the memo was later removed from the Baron and Budd, PC page as well. What's the reasoning behind this? Was anyone from B&B involved in these edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.150.222.54 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 25 January 2018‎ (UTC)
 * That is incorrect. The articles were not merged. The article on the memo was determined to be non-notable and unencyclopedic, and a likely product of sockpuppetry, and was deleted by consensus in an open and public discussion at Articles for deletion/Baron & Budd asbestos memo. A further investigation revealed that a likely sockpuppet farm has been trying to insert this material into the encyclopedia for promotional purposes, conduct that is frowned upon here to say the least. bd2412  T 17:45, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree (with the original consensus) that the memo was undeserving of its own page, but the memo and its ramifications have gained national attention. Are the lawsuits surrounding the memo's leaking and subsequent attempts to unseal court documents irrelevant to the firm’s history? As of now the page reads like an advertisement for the firm more than an unbiased informational page.Manwok (talk) 17:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Firstly, as a brand new editor, you might not have the big picture of how our policies work to productively weigh in at this time. Perhaps after editing for a few years you will gain a better grasp of what makes a useful addition to an encyclopedia article. To directly answer your question, it has become clear that attempts to introduce material about the memo are part of a promotional effort connected with a documentary on the subject, which was also deleted on Wikipedia for lack of notability. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UnSettled: Inside The Strange World of Asbestos Lawsuits. We then discovered that material on this subject was being pushed by prohibited sockpuppet accounts. We make a concerted effort to deny such efforts. In any case, the memo itself did not organically gain national attention. It was blogged about and otherwise promoted by some people pushing the same POV as the documentary promoters, which again suggests a concerted paid marketing effort rather than inherent encyclopedic importance. It is no more notable than these kinds of memos in thousands of other cases by thousands of other law firms, rendering inclusion UNDUE. Bear in mind that civil law is an adversarial process; opposing sides will often seek to inflate the importance of trivial matters to gain some perceived advantage with the finders of fact. The bar journals say more about these kinds of things than we could reasonably begin to put in an encyclopedia. The materials actually covered in the article, however, are substantially more notable and more indicative of the basis for long-term importance of the subject as a topic for encyclopedic coverage, including work on the Deep Water Horizon case and involvement of firm members in U.S. presidential campaigns. bd2412  T 19:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. An issue with claiming the memo issue is unnotable is that the article itself cites a law review article which is solely about the memo issue, though it is not referenced as such. The cited article is used for the claim that a complaint of B&Bs “opponents” is their “zealousness” in representing their clients, which seems a little non-POV neutral (not to mention those 2 sentences read like B&B’s critics dislike them because they care too much). I understand the worry about pushing promotional material. However, given the memo’s notoriety in the legal field (deserved or not), litigation surrounding it, and references to it in various publications, from the 1999 law review article used here to the Garlock bankruptcy order from a couple years ago, it seems notable. Maybe the better location would be Asbestos and the law (United States). Also, shoot me information on the thousands of firms using similar coaching manuals. I know plenty of people who would be interested in seeing those. Manwok (talk) 20:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Law review articles can easily focus on unimportant matters, and reflect the POV of the author. A bankruptcy order is a primary source. Every bankruptcy case has orders, so they are not useful for determining the notability of anything. The memo itself is not notable as per my comment at Articles for deletion/Baron & Budd asbestos memo. In addition, there seems to be a freelance journalist/filmmaker who is pushing the matter on blogs. Wikipedia is not a place to air grievances, promote documentaries, or reward POV pushing. It isn't necessary to add the memo, and considering the previous bad acts by editors introducing it, it's better not to reward that kind of behavior, or create that kind of target for mischief. Given the history of sockpuppetry and POV pushing for this asbestos documentary, can you enlighten us as to your connection to Baron & Budd, the documentary, the filmmaker, or anyone else that could be seen as having a conflict of interest here? --CNMall41 (talk) 03:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't have a connection to B&B or the stupid documentary. Anyone who know a thing about asbestos litigation knows about the chicanery involved on all sides. I work in litigation and a colleague referenced the recent Texas litigation to unseal Budd's (or Baron's?) deposition from the original litigation surrounding the memo in the 1990s, and the judge's subsequent refusal. In trying to find information on the memo I found articles on the recent deletion of the wikipedia article on Huffpo, which I know doesn't mean anything, so I came here to ask about it (this topic is the first hit when googling "baron and budd asbestos memo", including wp's deletion). If the article wants to reference B&B's "zealousness" in defending clients but make no indication about why that is at issue, then why not delete that reference altogether? My original post literally states this memo has gained national attention so I was curious why it was deemed unnotable. If WSJ can reference the memo but it's still deemed unworthy of inclusion, then why include the offhand reference to the controversy but not include the reason for the controversy? So, can you "enlighten" me what's your connection to Baron & Budd, the documentary, the filmmaker, or anyone else connected here? By the way, are all wikipedia editors so snide? Manwok (talk) 16:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * My connection is with Wikipedia as someone who doesn't like to see people using Wikipedia for WP:ADVOCACY which is exactly what has happened with this topic (not saying you are, but others have). I have no connection to any of the people you referenced. I have been here for many years and know based on my experience that new accounts coming to a talk page to discuss something after numerous sockpuppets were banned for violating guidelines related to the same topic is suspicious and worth asking the questions I did. If you are looking for information about the memo, I am not sure Wikipedia is the best place. As a litigator you should know that Wikipedia is likely not the best resource to research a law related topic. I also just looked at the Huffington Post article you referenced and it is written by a freelance writer - not the same person, but doing the same advocacy that the documentary creator is, and even mentions here in the article - and not considered reliable for Wikipedia. The other references seem to be pushed " blogged about and otherwise promoted by some people pushing the same POV as the documentary promoters" per 's comments above. As far as the entry of the information, that has already been discussed. Sorry you feel that I am snide, but Wikipedia is my first concern and others such as myself will protect it from advocacy. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I would like to add that with respect to "chicanery involved on all sides", that is a phenomenon that occurs in almost every area of law, and is inherent to the adversarial process. We could easily find some instance for every major law firm in the world where some accusation of impropriety is made in the course of some lawsuit with a party represented by that firm. A comparable phenomenon occurs with judges. I have worked for four different United States federal judges at various levels, and I have met many other judges (and their clerks) through that work. Every single one of those judges has been accused at some time or other of some kind of impropriety by some party that lost in their court. To read some of the complaints that are filed, you would think these judges were terrible people, clueless about the law, and secretly conspiring with the government, or against the government, or with the corporations, or against the corporations, or with the opposing party. I have seen disgruntled parties try to add this sort of information to Wikipedia articles on these judges, and they are almost always undue to include. There are rare instances where such a complaint is notable: where it results in the judge getting removed from office, as with Edward Nottingham. The equivalent for a law firm would be disbarment of a partner over an impropriety, or a ruling of impropriety being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and upheld there. Standards of this sort help us avoid having this encyclopedia become a gripe site. bd2412  T 18:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, my "chicanery" comment was flippant, as I'm sure any documentary that's anti-mass tort will follow the same USCOC arguments that've been around since the beginning of time, just as any pro-mass torts follow the same plaintiff's bar arguments. I literally created a wikiprofile (as opposed to my typical anon minor edits) because I thought having a real profile as opposed to being anon would be more responsive to a discussion on the talk page. The original argument to delete the memo article (which as stated I agree with) was because it was both unworthy of an article page by itself and it was duplicative of information on B&B's page. After that page's deletion any information about the memo on the B&B page was deleted. I added my 2 cents on the topic here on the talk page because, as stated, the issue here is nationally known though fair minds can disagree whether such info is relevant (clearly I'm in the minority opinion here...oh well). I didn't think anything about my first few comments were off-point or pushing anything new, though the tone of responses has been less than respectful. I don't know what y'all have to deal with re sockpuppetting, so I'll assume it's normally a little more chill. Anyway, I'll just die on my hill about the relevance of noting criticism of B&B at all with no explanation of the criticism's basis. And, just to note, I don't use wikipedia for legal research. I was literally looking for general information about the sealing of records related to the memo, which, through google, immediately led me here.Manwok (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)