Talk:Kirkland & Ellis

Political contributions
The inclusion of this section seems really weird, and it's also out of date. I suggest either its removal, or somebody update the information to include data about the 2012 election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.193.21.126 (talk) 18:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Diversity award
One user keeps deleting relevant, factual and verifiable information about this organization -- a large portion of which comes directly from the organization's website. These changes make the article less interesting, insightful and relevant.

What is the possible objection to information about the firm's Diversity Fellowship Program, which comes directly from the firm's website? This article is only highlighting what the firm itself brags about on its website.

With respect to the deleted paragraph about the American Lawyer Magazine's reporting on the firm's generally low associate satisfaction (highly relevant information for law students and potential lateral hires) this information only rounds out what would otherwise be a glowing profile of the firm. There are two sides to the story -- how the firm is perceived from the outside and how's its perceived by its associates. Moreover, this information is factual and verifiable. This is not one user's opinion.

Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean you should delete it. Add context if you feel it's appropriate.

NOT NPOV posting - Someone deleted a simple sentence explaining that white people are not eligible to apply to Kirkland's Diversity Fellowship Program and suggested this sentence was a violation of NPOV in the history page. This person needs to review the Wikipedia NPOV policy. The fact that white people are not eligable for the program is not an opinion; it is a fact, verifiable by the link to Kirkland's website. It's not even a close case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.23.177.58 (talk)
 * While I haven't been removing it, it definitely seems NPOV to indicate that "whites may not apply," casting the program in a negative light. If the program explicitly sets itself forth in that manner, it may be one thing (is there a citation to that?); but if that's merely a by-product of having the program, then it seems to cast undue weight or draw attention to the program in a negative light, regardless of one's perspective on diversity. Zz414 15:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The posting is completely POV, or alternatively, it is duplicative of the previous sentence. I agree with Zz414 - if you can cite to language on the website or other K&E source directly stating the restriction, then cite that source. #68.49.218.127 16:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I invite you two to reread the Wikipedia NPOV policy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NPOV It does not require that articles be devoid of "negative inferences" as Zz414 wrongly asserts.  According to the policy, "Facts (as defined in the A simple formulation section above) are not Points Of View." The NPOV policy explains: "We sometimes give an alternative formulation of the non-bias policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert opinions themselves. There is a difference between facts and opinions. By 'fact' we mean 'a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute.'"  That white people are not eligible for these fellowships is undeniably a fact.  They either are eligible; or they are not.  I do not assert whether this is a bad thing or a good thing.  You assume this casts the firm in a negative light, but that is your assumption based on your experience or reasoning.  The article does not draw any inferences, as it was written.  However, note that it would not be a violation of the policy to state that some legal bloggers believe this is a violation of federal law.  That is also a fact. You also claim that single sentence violates the "undue weight" prong of the NPOV policy.  But that prong is aimed at curtailing the assertion of fringe theories on a given matter.  The policy explains: "In other words, views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all."  This prong of the NPOV policy allies to views and is not applicable to the fact that whites are not eligible for these fellowships.  To avoid any accusations of bias, I'm content to exclude views (vs. facts) from the subsection on the diversity fellowship program.   But I note that the NPOV policy does not even prohibit the expression of views; it only "requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. . . . As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject."  In other words, the goal is to present both sides, not to witewash articles to remove all negative inferences, as you believe.  Accordingly, it would be entirely appropriate to write in the article, as I did in an earlier version, "the legality of the program has been questioned by legal bloggers."  That is a fact, not an opinion.  (The policy states what should be obvious to students of English: "Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone.")  The other side of the argument, which is already reflected in the article, is that Kirkland is being generous with its money by awarding fellowships to racial and ethnic minorities at numerous law schools. 68.23.177.58 04:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There are a series of elements of NPOV that are at play here--Fairness of Tone and "Let the facts speak for themselves." The fact is that there's a scholarship for minorities.  If you can find a statement that sais "Whites may not apply," then I've admitted that it's probably acceptable, given that's how Kirkland & Ellis has presented the program.  If that's merely an implication, then it would be (a) a concern of the "fairness of tone," which, while perhaps "accurate," is meant to excite people to oppose the scholarship (e.g., elicit a reaction of "I can't believe they're discriminating against whites!"); and (b) let the facts speak for themselves (e.g., you don't need to say that Saddam Hussein was evil).  If, however, there's a citation of someone criticizing the scholarship as "whites need not apply," that would probably be acceptable, with a proper source for that criticism. Zz414 15:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * One more thoughts--it's not entirely clear that someone who's not at least partially white may not apply; that is, the scholarship details suggest that someone who's biracial may in fact be eligible. That's what makes a citation extremely important for this statement. Zz414 15:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It's hard to take your narrow criticisms seriously when you can't even be troubled to proofread and spell check your posts. Nevertheless, I will revise the article as you suggested to simply cite those criticizing the scholarship for excepting whites.  You say that would "probably" be acceptable.  You don't seem very sure of yourself when it comes to these rules.  I sincerely hope you don't raise an objection ex post to this edit after sanctioning it ex ante.  On your last point, one who is biracial, is not white.  I would have thought that was obvious. --68.23.177.58 16:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry that I don't have the abundant time that you apparently have. I said "probably" because it would depend upon the source of the citation (e.g., random blog v. New York Times op/ed). Someone who is biracial would probably still qualify as "African-American" and "white" under the same scheme of classifications, so it's not "obvious." Zz414 17:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Please apologize below for your ad hominem attack on me. I was critical of the quality of your writing in the interest of upholding Wikipedia's high standards.  Your suggestion that I have too much free time is not relevant or appropriate and is an uncivil ad hominem attack.  IF the program considers biracial people to be "diverse" (which is anyone's guess absent further information), that STILL excludes 75% of the U.S. population who are 100% white (not bi or multi racial) (according to the 2000 census). --68.23.177.58 17:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Whatever one thinks about the diversity fellowship, is it really one of the most important facts about this organization deserving of the prominence it gets in this article? --68.23.96.248 14:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Dorothy Roberts
It's not POV to mention factual information about Professor Roberts' scholarship. The information that was deleted came directly from her webpage and publisher. This factual, unbiased information may be of interest to prospective or current Kirkland attorneys. Is there something wrong with her work? Should the firm try to distance itself from her work? Whoever deleted this factual information apparently think so. 24.13.159.219 (talk) 01:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it has nothing to do with distancing the firm from this professor. But, it seems that this information is not relevant to an encyclopedic article about this firm. This type of information would be relevant to an article about Dorothy Roberts. Not an article concerning this firm.Lawcurious (talk) 06:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * So, you delete all information from an article that in your opinion is not relevant or interesting? Who are you to make that judgment?  The more information on Wikipedia, the better -- as long as it's factual and conforms to Wikipedia's standards and polices, which this information is and does.  Isn't the goal here is to expand articles, not pare them down to bare bones?  Maybe someone should delete all this information and just provide the firm's address and a link to its webpage. 24.13.159.219 (talk) 00:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't find support for the proposition that she is a "self-described radical thinker" in any of the linked citations. This claim is at best a bad faith stretch of the information cited for support. But, since you feel so passionately about linking the information here, let it be, I guess.... Wikipedia is losing credibility here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.23.180 (talk) 18:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The support for the proposition is the publisher's description of the book (see link in main article) which states "the author [Professor Roberts] is able to combine the most innovative and radical thinking on several fronts." If this cannot be taken as a legitimate expression of her self-image, I don't know what can.  You seem to think "radical" has a negative connotation.  Many would not agree.  I suspect Professor Roberts is among them.  --Anon6414 (talk) 01:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that this statement supports the proposition that someone describes her as being "innovative and radical on several fronts." It does not support the proposition that she describes herself that way. Thus, the statement in the article is unsupported, at least as written.69.143.23.180 (talk) 04:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That someone is her publisher; this statement comes from the publisher's description of the book. It is a perfectly reasonable and safe assumption that either (a) Professor Roberts wrote this summary of her book herself, or (b) edited (or was offered the opportunity to edit) this description herself, and therefore is a self-described "radical", i.e. one who engages in radical thinking. --Anon6414 (talk) 04:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * An assumption is not a statement of fact supported by a proposition. This type of leap from one proposition to another would never be acceptable in a law review or other respectable, peer-reviewed journal. You insistence and commitment to this wording and description in this article vastly decreases your, and more importantly, wikipedia's credibility. This is not a place to state "reasonable and safe assumptions;" it is a place to relay accurate, factual encyclopedic material.69.143.23.180 (talk) 06:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've removed the "self-described" adjective. Then you deleted the whole sentence without explanation.  Apparently you now object to the adjective "radical" as well? Previously you admitted that "this statement supports the proposition that someone describes her as being 'innovative and radical on several fronts.'" --Anon6414 (talk) 02:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

What is the objection to mentioning Dorothy Roberts's book? If the other professors had authored interesting books, let's mention them as well. In the dust jacket of her book (see link in prior version of article) she describes herself as a radical black feminist. That was not my characterization; I am merely reporting facts. --68.23.177.58 16:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Need more on historical lawyers
This is a suprisingly good article, but focus is too much on the recent past. It would round out the article to have more information on some of the other significant lawyers and cases that the firm has handled.

Layoffs
I don't think that the statement about layoffs being reported (citation 15) is accurate. Abovethelaw reported impending layoffs, but these reports were entirely unsubstantiated. There was no follow-up to say that they actually happened or evidence that they did. The rest of that section is accurate and established fact. I'm going to remove proposition 15.

(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC).

Rather than removing, I edited for accuracry stating that Above The Law has reported IMPENDING layoffs and that it is unclear that these layoffs occured.--User:EdelJamie

I strongly disagree with your characterization of the Above The Law (ATL) article and your related edits. The ATL article did NOT report impending layoffs (impending means "about to occur"). The article clearly states that its journalistic sources "say that: (1) layoffs are happening in the firm's New York office...A source says the firm started conducting layoffs of mid-levels in its New York office on Wednesday, and that they are still going on [the article appeared on Friday]....The firm spokesperson has not responded to our inquiries." "Are happening" and "still going on" are in the present tense, not the future tense; neither phrase can possibly be understood as meaning that layoffs are impending or about to occur, as you believe. True, the firm spokesperson did not responded to ATL's inquiries, but that proves nothing. Moreover, companies, and especially law firms, often engage in stealth layoffs. Your first explanation above of your wholesale deletion of the entry was also inaccurate. You asserted "Abovethelaw reported impending layoffs, but these reports were entirely unsubstantiated. There was no follow-up to say that they actually happened or evidence that they did." The reports were not unsubstantiated. ATL reported that sources -- note the plural -- told it that layoffs had "started" and "are still going on." So the reports of layoffs were substantiated by multiple sources, which constitutes evidence. That may not rise to the level of a certainty, but what "proof" do you want or think you're going to get? Kirkland did not confirm the January partner layoffs, and didn't respond to ATL's inquires about these associate layoffs. You seem to believe that reports of layoffs on prominent legal news websites, such as ATL, should not be mentioned unless and until the firm confirms them. That's unrealistic. The summary of the ATL article was entirely accurate before you edited it. Leave the entry as it was and allow Wikipedia readers to link to the original ATL story and weigh the believability of the its multiple sources against the firm's nonresponse. --Anon6414 (talk) 04:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Unlike essentially every other firm where layoffs where reported on by ATL where there was unoffical confirmation if not official confirmation by the firm, all of the KE NY people who actually worked there--in the comments and otherwise--denied the existence of layoffs and in fact demanded a retraction from ATL. I edited this again. If you want to put this back the way you had it, fine. But I will note the fundamental lack of substantiation and dispute with ATL, unlike virtually every other ATL layoff post. It also bears noting that even ATL phrased the post "rumors of layoffs" unlike other most other layoff posts which were better sourced and/or subsequently confirmed. You are painting a false picture. And it's obnoxious and does a disservice to both the firm and wikipedia readers. I also edited the information about benefit cuts. They weren't just "reported". The memo describing health insurance cuts was produced in the entirety. There is a difference between substantiated, partially substantiated, and entirely unsubstantiated information. The benefit cuts are substantiated. The other information about non-equity partner and staff layoffs is also largely substantiated and not disputed depsite lack of official firm comment. The information about associate layoffs is no more than entirely unsubstantiated rumor that has been denied by all but the one tipster who sent that in to ATL. The distinctions should not go unnoted. --User:EdelJamie

I strongly object to your above ad hominem attack on me or my edit as "obnoxious." The talk page is not a forum for vituperation. Stick to arguing the facts and evidence, or your account might be frozen by an admin was it was previously. I also object to your accusation that I am painting a false picture, as you figuratively put it. I merely cited reports of layoffs on the prominent legal website ATL. I ask that you revise your latest edit for clarity and style. Your contribution "Follow-ups confirming these layoffs have not been forthcoming" is ambiguous at best, and sloppy at worst. What do you mean by "follow-up"? What do you expect to follow the original story? Official firm confirmation? A second ATL story confirming the original? If you feel compelled to write about something that didn't happen, then be clear and write "as of August 16, 2009, ATL has not run a subsequent story confirming the original story." Should we just assume that they wanted to but didn't because they had no additional corroborating sources? I would have thought it sufficient to say that ATL has reported layoffs and leave it to the reader to link to the ATL story and evaluate the merits. --Anon6414 (talk) 03:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I will edit for clarification when I have time later in the week. My apologies if you viewed anything as a personal attack. But ATL has reported on layoff rumors with resepct to Kirkland as its own post attests. Several times, ATL reported on supposedly looming layoffs which did not occur. In the post to which you cite, ATL posted on layoff "rumors". The post is really in stark contrast to other layoff posts which ATL stated as fact, have been confirmed by firm employees (whether or not the firm has made an official statment), and are not disputed. And, indeed, in stark contrast to other ATL posts on Kirkland. And that one-day administrative freeze was a misunderstanding for which the adminstrator apologized and offered to unfreeze the account early. A disgruntled former Latham employee kept editing the Latham page to eliminate all positive information on Latham and make it a diatribe on Latham's mass layoffs. I was undoing those edits. In this case, something along the lines of "There have been rumors of associate layoffs, reported on by the popular legal tabloid Above the Law" would probably fit the bill. Then, readers could link to story and see that ATL was reporting information based on one tipster, not characterizing it as fact, and see all of the denials in the comments. Actually, to really be accurate, all of the various Kirkland layoff posts shold be referenced. I will dig them up when I have a minute.--User:EdelJamie —Preceding undated comment added 12:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC).

Emphasis Problems in the Article
I understand that, particularly in 2011, the following topics are important (note, I didn't say why -- views may differ!): politics, diversity, the employment outlook. However, I am concerned that the article--an article that is supposed to be about a major LAW FIRM--gives undue weight to each of those topics. A quick calculation shows that slightly over 50% of the article's text is devoted to:

1. Layoffs 2. Diversity (ethnic / gender) 3. Political Contributions

The diversity component seems particularly over-represented -- it constitutes ~1/3rd of the article.

At the same time, the article is critically under-representative on a number of topics. To give a few examples:

- there is scant discussion of the firm's role in what may be the biggest set of litigation activities in the history of the world -- it sounds hyperbolic, but it's true (i.e., the Deepwater incident) - the firm's 100-year history is relegated to a two sentence intro scrawl - many well known / prominent practice groups either are cursorily mentioned (e.g., litigation--a source of ~50% of the firm's revenue and a winner of the AmLaw litigation department of the year award a few years ago) or not mentioned at all (e.g., its venture capital group, which was a leader in developing the field, especially in the Midwest -- they were doing VC at a time that most people didn't know it existed). - The firm's historic and current ties to the City of Chicago -- the start of the article doesn't even explicitly mention that the firm was founded in the City; there is no coverage of its charitable role in civics

and so on.

More generally: this is an article about a major national / international law firm, with a strong history and reputation in the legal and business communities of many countries. The way the article is currently presented, it reads more like a primer on: 1. the effect of the financial crisis on law firm hiring, 2. diversity programs in law firms, and, 3. political giving. I.e., topics which may be salient to various interested groups who tend to have an outsized voice at Wikipedia, but do not lend themselves to providing a thoughtful overview of the article's central subject.

In short, the article comes across as mistargeted and wrongly emphasized (hence the tags). Here's hoping we can build it into something better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.95.199 (talk) 05:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Compensation
The salaries at big law firms are generally lockstep. this is known and not controversial at all to anybody who actually works in the field. it is verifiable in that every lawyer reading this website never indicated it was wrong. please justify constantly deleting that section, rangoon11.

see eg http://www.laterallink.com/career_center/2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.112.19.2 (talk) 00:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Study on its conservative bent
The study on KE'c conservative bent belongs in the lede. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:04, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you have an opinion on this, MelanieN? I think a peer-reviewed study on the firm's conservative bent should be in the lede. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think its current location in the text is enough. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Semiprotection
I have semiprotected this article for 3 months. It would be prudent if everyone edits from a named account on this page for attribution purposes. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:25, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Sarah Fabian removed - item relocated to other page
To Whom It May Concern - I removed Sarah Fabian from this page's notable attorneys list, as not having her own page. I later relocated the coat rack attached to her, with more accuracy, to where it belongs: Immigration detention in the United States. Lindenfall (talk) 00:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems pertinent to note that she is an alum of this law firm. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * One could add that to the item where it is now posted. Separately, regarding your subsequent editing note, the lead, as well, is meant to be about the firm, and not specifically about its clients. (A notable exception would be if a firm had but one primary or singular client.) Lindenfall (talk) 02:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If a firm is notable for the clients it serves, it's due to mention those clients in the lede. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree — generally, not by name in the lead. Those clients have their own WP pages, where details are included. Otherwise, each law firm lead section would, at some point, devolve into a competition of naming names. (Ditto many types of firms.) Also, many firms may gain transient notoriety for its clientele, and that is included elsewhere on the page; its notability rests more with the cases it handles and presents... the actual work the firm does, including any precedents thus set and its win-to-loss ratio. Lindenfall (talk) 02:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Should clients be mentioned in lede
Kirkland, the largest law firm in the US, has represented a number of prominent and controversial clients, including Toys R Us, Bain Capital, British Petroleum (in connection with the 2010 oil spoil), Kraft Foods (in connection with its merger with Heinz), and Jeffrey Epstein. I submit that representation of such clients is relevant enough to include a brief mention of a few of the prominent clients in the lede, based on the amount of media coverage Kirkland has gotten in reliable sources for representing Epstein, etc. GergisBaki (talk) 12:11, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I am new to the encyclopedia but I agree with Mr. Baki that hte clients are relevant. I am a lawyer and here to edit the encyclopedia on legal articles primarily — Preceding unsigned comment added by PlainLawSam08 (talk • contribs) 13:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I do not support lists in leads, which, then, every professional firm page would be entitled to include, merely creating repetitious information in the same article. The article is not an advertisement for the firm's roster of clients. It is sufficient to refer to high-profile clients, which are further detailed in the appropriate section. Please consult Manual of Style/Lead section. Further, including clients not even mentioned in the body of the article is not to form, (ie: China Fishery; Toys R Us - I'd added the latter after deleting from lead; China Fishery lacked a page... now, there's a real project that could use attention by those concerned to include China Fishery). Including a dated case regarding "alleged child-sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein" in the lead is prejudicial, lacking a WP:NPOV, and is also WP:coatracking; he appears appropriately in the Notability section.,
 * On another note, and also, your uses of "lede" (which we actually are not here discussing), leads me to ask whether either of you are a professional editor, or, possibly, one and the same editor? Lindenfall (talk) 20:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the inclusion from the lead, Epstein's for lacking WP:NPOV, and China Fishery as lacking notability on WP (which, though, could certainly be referenced in the body of the article). Giving undue weight to these two clients in the lead is mere sensationalism, as neither client had any significant impact on the firm's notability. I welcome citations of WP policy to refute the position I have taken, should any disagree. Otherwise, further inclusions will result in formal WP:EDITWAR complaints. Lindenfall (talk) 21:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That's ridiculous. No we are not the same person because we use the term lede which is used all the time on Wikipedia to describe the text before the body.
 * I've answered your question. Now can you answer mine? ARe you personally connected to Kirkland? Do you work there? GergisBaki (talk) 04:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Sensationalism on WP is what's ridiculous,, which is, again, reflected in your apparent impatience for my return (a mere 14 hours later), which seems to have driven you to double-post this. (Hence, I'll keep the discussion here and singular, where it began and ought remain, for continuity.) Since you both used it, I realized it wasn't a typo, so looked up "lede", which is a specific term used in publishing, as it happens, and not what the lead paragraphs on WP are at all, however often you may have seen it misused by... past or present writing or publishing students or professionals, one would logically speculate. It was the connection of that and your rather determined parroting activities of adding high-profile clients to that lead in a manner devoid of WP:NPOV that begged the obvious questions. And, no, I've never worked for any law firm ever. Quite the opposite, in fact.


 * I simply disdain, as is demonstrably clear, sensationalism, or the adding of any tabloid style to WP, as is being repetitively done with Kirkland & Ellis, along with WP:coatracking both the current China Fishery tempest and Jeffrey Epstein's past crimes. As I now see, you've been reversed over similar edits before, as well as being repeatedly warned for other WP:3RR. As forewarned, your continued edit war leads to yet another such complaint.


 * Claiming that any consensus exists on this matter is also ridiculous; the discussion only began two days ago and you have not allowed time for other editors to weigh in) You may consider doing something useful, instead, like making a proper page for China Fishery Group Limited; unless they are the firm's primary client, they still won't belong the lead. Lindenfall (talk) 18:45, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * WP:LEDE is a very common term on Wikipedia, and casting aspersions is not acceptable behavior. Editing with a conflict of interest is a specific and important issue. What is "the opposite" of having worked for a law firm? Nevermind. Questions over WP:COI are valid for improving the article, especially judging by the promotional nature of your recent edits. Specifically, if you are compensated for editing any article, regardless of whether or not you are an employee of a law firm or some other agency, you must disclose this, per WP:PAID. This is not optional, and explaining this is perfectly reasonable.
 * The article should reflect reliable sources in proportion with due weight. If many sources mention the firms controversial clients, which certainly seems likely, the article will also mention this accordingly. Describing this as sensationalism doesn't necessarily make this inappropriate by itself. What, precisely, is the problem with these sources? Grayfell (talk) 23:37, 21 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Your link, WP:LEDE, redirects to MOS:LEAD, which clearly states that "It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph." That doesn't seem like "a very common term on Wikipedia"... maybe a very commonly misused term. I had seen both editors adding or restoring the same information, then both using that term, lede in their notes regarding (which I'd looked up because of that redundancy). Merriam-Webster informed: "the introductory section of a news story that is intended to entice the reader to read the full story" and so I'd asked a logical question. Casting aspersions appears more your domain. I took the question back about me as a sophomoric version of best-defense-is-offense, frankly, and this rather smacks of the same since, clearly, you are more interested in trying to assess me than the matter at hand. That's odd. I don't work for any of them, or anyone at all, having long retired. Since you appeared immediately following my filing of the edit warring complaint forewarned in this debacle, and not before, are you an Administrator now looking into the matter? Doubtful, with such biased comments and no apparent concern for the specifics of the issue at hand, or its impact, and which you then distilled to: "What, precisely, is the problem with these sources?", demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of the issue at hand, of the content being reversed, or why. (Additionally, I see that the self-declared lawyer, above, for whom you've kindly added the name, supports "Mr. Baki"'s inclusions to the lead, as well.)


 * Is your opinion that adding a recently infamous past client as "billionaire and alleged child-sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein... and a group of major investors in production of fishmeal, used to feed pigs and chickens in the world's factory farms", (current, and there have been other versions), to the leading paragraphs is not a journalistic "lede" and is not sensationalizing the page? I believe it is both, and WP:COATRACKing, which promotes a non-WP:NPOV. That is my interest, and it's not promotional. The sources (when they finally appeared) were not checked by me, being not the issue at hand, the placement in the page, mainly, and some of the phrasing, was the issue, all along. The problem was not the content per se, though it needed to be edited for more of a WP:NPOV, it was always sticking it in the lead section that was the problem for me, because it's prejudicial, as can be seen by my past notations. Lists, as well, appear below in the article, and don't bear such repetition. Lindenfall (talk) 01:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Read WP:NPA. The term lede is common enough to have a redirect, and to be used on thousands of talk pages, regardless of whether it is "correct" or not. The term's use or misuse is not justification for insinuating that someone is a sock puppet. I do not care about "the best offense", and if you assume that's what everyone else is doing, that poisons the well for discussing how to improve the article. You don't have to like other editors, but you do have to be civil towards us.
 * You're right, I am not an admin. Posting on a noticeboard attracts attention. You will still need consensus for your proposals, and this is formed through discussion. Jumping down the throat of other editors is not helping your case.
 * If you haven't checked the sources, how can you say this is undue? What, other than your personal opinion, is your basis for saying this doesn't belong? You've said this is sensationalizing, but if this is a significant, defining trait, it belongs in the article. If this is a significant part of the article, it belongs in the lede, per MOS:LEDE, however you want to spell it. Grayfell (talk) 02:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Read MOS:LEAD: "It should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view." As stated, a WP:NPOV was lacking. "As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." China Fishery was not (and is not) mentioned in the body of the article. No attempt was made to integrate it, only getting it into the lead seemed important to either "lede"-generating editor, but you overlook both that commonality and this policy regarding the content. As you state: "If this is a significant part of the article, it belongs in the lede, per MOS:LEDE" yet, two of the three items being added to the lead appeared nowhere on the page; I added one to the page (Toy R Us); none were, in any way, "a significant part of the article," and yet, you continually overlook this, and the repetitive additions against this, in favor of a more personal attack. To conclude this never on-topic discussion, I don't assume anything; ironically, you wrote that in a sentence that, in itself, makes an unfounded assumption, and not uniquely. As for jumping down throats, that, like casting aspersions, also seems your domain. I have been civil, but I cannot say likewise for yourself. In all of your haranguing here, you still do not appear to have actually looked at the history, the material, or the specific situation. Lindenfall (talk) 15:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've read MOS:LEDE before, thanks. Your initial comment about "lede" was to imply that this was a sign of sock puppetry, or of some other problem similar to a conflict of interest. My response was to explain that the term is very common on Wikipedia, and it's not appropriate to insinuate that other editors are behaving inappropriately without a good reason. This is often simplified as Comment on content, not on the contributor. This does not mean, however, that an editor's behavior can never be discussed at all. As an extension of this, briefly explaining how WP:COI work is often necessary. In turn, you have called me "biased" and repeatedly insulted my basic competence. Please notice that I have not actually said I disagree with your changes... but why would I want to build consensus with someone who openly insults me and demonstrates clear contempt? I am trying to add an outside perspective on this, because, in my experience, that's what's needed to improve the article in situations like this one. I did't come here looking for a fight, but if you want to keep insulting us, I think WP:ANI would be the next step.
 * All articles should reflect reliable sources. If a large quantity of sources discuss the controversial client list of this firm, the article will naturally reflect that. Almost all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are open to interpretation. Per WP:CON, this is by design. This is especially true with NPOV. It may be blindingly obvious to you that this isn't NPOV, but you have to assume that we don't see it for whatever reason.
 * Start with sources. Do sources consistently treat these clients as defining traits of the firm? Grayfell (talk) 20:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "Lede" was the third commonality I'd noticed (and it caught my eye, because it looks like a typo) between one editor who was quickly followed by another; the first commonality being the adding and restoring of the same sensationalizing edit which looked like coatracking from the start. Looking here alone, i can see how it might seem that "lede" was the whole reason I wondered. I'll give you that, but I'd found your response to be over-reacting and one-dimensional (leaving out the point of the discussion), and so simply answered to the points you had made, despite the issue at hand being ignored, which is, admittedly, frustrating. (You didn't ask whether that was all I'd based the question on, and made assumptions, as well.) There was already a history in edit History before this discussion, which was initiated by my notation to take it to TALK. (They'd reversed, then added the note.) It seemed to me that you were insulting and personally attacking me over it (while never bothering to examine the history or content). I also don't see why you keep defending the question of COI since there's been no protest at all over it to begin with. You may not have come here seeking a fight, but you did deliver an offensive, nonetheless. Start with History. Lindenfall (talk) 00:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, so where were those reliable sources showing primary notability with this firm? If such were included, none of this would have ensued, because the bottom line information was not the issue... the tabloid-esque lines stuck into the lead was. That's been my complaint, all along. Lindenfall (talk) 00:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * First: no, sources do not treat these clients as defining traits of the firm, consistently or otherwise, (which should have already been assessed by the editor adding the information who is not I). Second, that was simply never the topic, sticking it in the lead was. Why add layers when Thing 1 is an issue? Of course I looked up sources myself, because when I first saw "China Fishery", none at all were added (until later), to see if it was legitimate at all, due to the sensationalism of adding Epstein in the manner done... a somewhat significant, though settled, case, but far from a defining one for the firm. I'd probably would have let Epstein in the lead slide, if it was just his name, but the repetition of "billionaire and alleged child-sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein", which parrots the totality of what's in the body of the article, is just coat-racking and sensationalizes by prefacing the article with it — that's prejudicial. I didn't assess any sources because it was never the point. Now that all of two have appeared, there is still no mention of China Fishery in the body of the article... so, sources remain a moot point. These things do seem obvious to me, were any to look. Write a sourced entry, then add a mention in the lead, when due... seems simple, and still seems like standard procedure. Keeping the style of a tabloid out of WP was and is my aim. Lindenfall (talk) 00:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Please do no refactor other people's comments. I could point to the guideline which discourages this, but instead, think of it as a parallel to interrupting in a conversation. Wikipedia talk pages are not well-equipped to handle multiple different threads within a conversation, and if, as you indicate in your edit summary, you find this tedious, then it would be even more tedious for me to respond individually to each of your different responses. I would especially caution you to never add someone else's signature to a comment, even if done in good faith. My comments were my own, and I added my signature to what I had written, not to what you had rearranged. Does this seem pedantic? I can live with that. Regardless, don't do it again.
 * So as for the issue, I agree that the article is poorly organized. Let me repeat that: the article is a hot mess. This is why I am asking about sources, because this is the starting point for fixing it. In my experience, sources are pretty much always the point. While no article should intentionally sensationalize, we should also avoid whitewashing to downplay relevant information just because it might also be unflattering. The article should reflect sources. If it does that, the lede should summarize the body. To put it another way, how the article is organized will depend on sources, and sensationalizm cannot be judged in a vacuum.
 * Context is vitally important, and just listing people's names without any context would read like name-dropping. Eggleston deserves this context, and so does Epstein. The point is not to shock readers, it's to provide context.
 * So when I look for news sources (which are perfectly usable on Wikipedia, but not always ideal), I find a lot of trivial recent events and press releases, which is common for businesses and especially for law firms. There are also a lot of passing mentions, like this one, which are usable, but not for defining the entire firm. The first national, non-niche story I found was this, which is a partisan spin on this AP story, which is specifically about the law firm's handling of the Epstein case and Kamalla Harris' campaign contributions.
 * I am aware this approach is not ideal. Using news searches is inviting recentism. Regardless, as it stands, this indicates that these controversial clients are a defining trait of the firm. Older sources, more comprehensive sources, and academic sources would all be useful. Grayfell (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I was asked to weigh in on this question. I took at look at our list of biggest law firms. I took at look at the top 20. Most of them have notable clients, attorneys, and alumni. The only one that mentions any clients or cases in the lead is Morgan, Lewis & Bockius - and that’s because the client is President Trump. None of them name their notable attorneys or alumni. My conclusion is that this is something we don’t do at articles about large law firms. We certainly do at articles about small law firms notable only for one high-profile case or client, but that is not the case here. I recommend leaving them out of the lead. Of course, they should be and are mentioned in the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * First off,, all I did with your three comments posted at once as three paragraphs was answer them individually, being careful to copy your own dated signature to each of the three comments you'd posted so as not to confuse any reader, because when I had answered your assorted, individual paragraphs all in one section, you did not seem to see that I was, point-by-point, directly answering to your own comments, and became insulting over it. Either choice was, not surprisingly, a losing proposition. Yes, "Context is vitally important" and "The point is not to shock readers" — how about applying that thinking to the lead? That was, after all, the issue, all along. Sure, there are lots of sources about Epstein, but, not only is there no discussion in the body of the article, only a mere mention, but he's still not a defining client for the firm, and likely never will be, and there is no discussion of China Fishery outside of the lead. Despite your assertion that "this indicates that these controversial clients are a defining trait of the firm", there is not a supporting set of WP:RS that states or shows that. Epstein simply is not a primary or firm-defining client, and China Fishery is unsourced as such, so may or may not be... I have no idea about their true significance, I merely went by what was added where, and by whom, as we all do. However, logic seems lost here. ie: "This is why I am asking about sources, because this is the starting point for fixing it." All along, it seems, you mistake me for someone who was here to "fix" the article, whereas I had it on my watchlist due to a spate of weird law article activity that included section and page blanking, a couple of months ago, and when I saw the new update, I saw it for what it was: sensationalism, (and also being out of WP:LEAD form), so I reversed it, which has been met by, largely, much ado about nothing. Lindenfall (talk) 23:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As I said, feel free to call me pedantic over this, breaking-up someone else's comments to respond is a form of refactoring. I know you did this with good faith, and I get that it was a point-by-point rebuttal. (Why else would you have done that?) You don't have to agree with me, and you clearly don't, but those weren't your words you were rearranging. Regardless, from past experience I know I'm not alone in finding that extremely distracting and unintentional disruptive. Unless you want to have this conversation again with other "insulting" people like me, do not do that again.
 * As for your watchlist, and sensationalism and all that, the purpose of this talk page is to discuss how to fix the article. I looked for sources and the first significant one I found discussed Epstein. As I said, that's not a great starting point, but it's a starting point. Grayfell (talk) 04:02, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Sensationalism: see WP:NOTCLICKBAIT and, quoting WP:BLP: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." I believe that these principals apply throughout WP. Lindenfall (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2019 (UTC)


 * , you falsely claimed that "no one agrees with" me, as your editing note when last re-adding the questionable information (06:42, 26 July 2019‎ GergisBaki talk contribs‎); factually, the one Administrator who had weighed in, on July 24, does support removal of the content from the lead, despite which, you then, again, restored the information on July 26, which then still reflected zero information regarding China Fishery in the body of the article, as it happened, though I see that, you since added one sentence regarding to the list in the article; it still does not belong in the lead. Lindenfall (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC: keep or remove lists and specific details from lead

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the lead paragraph(s) mention clients by name, and include lists, or statistics?'''
 * China Fishery: not shown as noteworthy to the firm (though it may be, unknown); development of the item started in the lead (several versions); name first added to a list in body of the article 7-26-19
 * Jeffrey Epstein: like China Fishery, subject is noted in one sentence in the body of the article and that content is mimicked in the lead; not shown as a primary client of firm
 * Lists: specific revenue, profits, numbers of lawyers, and other statistics, as listed in body of article. Lindenfall (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2019 (UTC) Please note:, , , , , . Lindenfall (talk) 23:27, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Survey

 * Support mention of clients by name, lists, and various statistics in lead
 * Oppose mention of clients by name, lists, and various statistics in lead


 * I oppose mention of clients in the lead, because we don't do that in any of the other very large law firms whose articles I checked. (See List of largest law firms by revenue. Most of them have minimal lead sections.) Also, although it isn't mentioned specifically in the RfC, I oppose listing the names of notable attorneys/alumni in the lead, because we don't do that in any of the other very large law firms that I checked; there is a whole paragraph of them and IMO it should be removed in its entirety. I support including some information about the size of the firm, such number of attorneys, number of offices, and possibly some general financial information, because our articles about very large law firms do often include that kind of information; it establishes basic information about the firm itself. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:02, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Law firms and lawyers represent people and/or corporations, big or small, accused of breaking the law. These are, then, by definition, "controversial" figures. Naming people who have been or are represented by the subject legal entity (a law firm or a lawyer), especially in the present tense, is in violation of the principle of the presumption of innocence as well as of Wikipedia policies, e.g. WP:BLP. We should tread very carefully in these waters. We should consider including in the article names of defendants only if the law firm has  aquired popularity in the media (generally, in Wikipedia-acceptable sources) because of the specific case; which is what happened, for example, with the members of the defense team in the O.J. Simpson trial. -The Gnome (talk) 07:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose in part I disagree with 's general check of other large law firm articles. I would suggest we check other WP:FA law firm articles. If we only check whether other low quality articles exhibit a feature, we will steer this article toward low quality presentation. If no FA articles exist, consider WP:GA law firm articles. Failing that, I would suggest that landmark (SCOTUS) case representation be included in the LEAD. Also, other major issues of representation for which the subject has a distinct wikipedia article. I think clients should only be mentioned in the case of bilateral importance. I.e., A company's very largest client could be listed if it is a situation where Law firm A's largest client is Company B and Company B's has had law firm A as its main lawyer for the bulk of its existence and it has been law firm A's biggest client for the bulk of its existence. A law firm that claims heads of state and Supreme Court Justices as its alumni should include a count of such individuals and if any are currently serving they may be in the LEAD. If I were going to take a Law firm article to FA status, I think it would have these LEAD elements. Basic stats about the firm are a must.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting idea, Tony. WikiProject Law has some listings of law articles by quality. Here is a collection of FA articles - Category:FA-Class law articles - but I don't see any about law firms. There are about 350 GA articles - Category:GA-Class law articles, do you find anything helpful there? My main criteria for comparison is that very large law firms are treated differently from smaller ones. The largest law firms tend to be notable in themselves, while smaller ones are often notable primarily for one high-profile case. And their lead sections reflect the difference. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If any of those are law firms we can start there, but there seem to be no examples in which our editors have figured out how to present a law firm in a high quality manner. Thus, looking at law firm articles might not lead us where we want to go.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Forgot to -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:18, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Support as Kirkland's prominent clients are core to its notability. GergisBaki (talk) 05:02, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Evaluation
My opinion stands. But let’s take stock of where we are now after several weeks of discussion. Taking the poorly attended RFC together with the previous discussion:

1. Whether to list clients in the lead:
 * Support: GergisBaki, brief mention of a few of the prominent clients based on amount of media coverage
 * Support: PlainLawSam08, “relevant”
 * Oppose: Lindenfall, arguing clients do not impact notability unless there is one primary or singular client
 * Partial support: Snooganssnoogans, include if the clients are responsible for the firm’s notability
 * Partial support: Grayfell, include only if mentioned by many sources
 * Oppose: MelanieN citing how similar articles are handled, and arguing that this firm’s notability does not depend on any client
 * Oppose: The Gnome, citing BLP
 * Partial support: TonyTheTiger: include clients if bilaterally important, or SCOTUS case, or if there is a separate WP article for the case.

2. Whether to include attorneys and alumni in the lead:
 * Don’t include: Lindenfall
 * Don’t include: MelanieN
 * Include if currently serving SCOTUS or heads of state: TonyTheTiger
 * Include if they are part of the firm's notability: Snoogans

3. Whether to include firm statistics like number of lawyers, number of offices, revenue and profits, etc. in the lead:
 * Don’t include: Lindenfall, generally opposes “lists” in lead
 * Include: MelanieN, basic information about the firm and responsible for its notability
 * Include: TonyTheTiger, basic stats are a must
 * Include: Snoogans.

Does the above strike you as a fair summary of the discussion? If so let’s decide what to do. My proposal: What do you think? -- MelanieN (talk) 16:04, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It looks to me as if mentioning clients in the lead is either not supported, or does not meet the criteria mentioned by people who gave qualified support - with the possible exception of Epstein whose representation by K&E is mentioned by many sources. I propose to remove all clients from the lead. We should add a little more information to the Epstein listing in the text.
 * It looks as if we should either list no attorneys in the lead, or list only Brett Kavanaugh (and possibly William Barr?)
 * It looks as if we should add basic firm statistics to the lead.


 * I support "Include" on #3. On #2, I support "Include, if these alumni and attorneys are part of the firm's notability" (e.g. if RS regularly say "the law firm with attorney such as so and so, and where XYZ used to practice"). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll add your opinions to the summary. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * has captured the situation well. Typically, I don't think a one-time client (however increasingly infamous) belongs in the lead... I doubt I'd put it in the lead of Epstein's current counsel, either, since law firms defend criminals, as a matter of practice. (On another note, I await the outcome of the current investigation of that "sweetheart deal", which may yet implicate KE partner Jay Lefkowitz.) I think the lead is meant to reflect the body as a whole, not instigate topics by giving undue weight to a single client. As well, I think the entire paragraph, "Prominent attorneys of the firm have included ... Azar" should also be removed from the lead and placed in the appropriate section. (Just looks like name-dropping — the firm did not rise to prominence because of the Epstein case or because of Barr's appointment, for instance.) Lindenfall (talk) 17:49, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , Your summary is representative of the sentiment of the discussants. I agree with your assessment of what to do. I could support Kavanaugh and Barr.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I've done these changes. I didn't see a consensus to list Kavanaugh and/or Barr in the lead so I left them out. I updated the figures for revenue and number of attorneys and left them in the lead. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:11, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring over the lead
you have twice now restored all the original clients and attorneys to the article, with the edit summary "There is no such consensus. Only two users agreed with your proposla." That is incorrect. With regard to including clients, two people including you were in favor of including the full list of clients, three suggested including some clients with qualifications which are not met (only if the clients are responsible for the firm’s notability, or only if mentioned by many sources, or only if SCOTUS case or case with a Wikipedia article), and three opposed any clients. Your version is supported by only two people and opposed by six.

With regard to listing attorneys in the lead, two people said don’t include any attorneys and two said include if they are part of the firm’s notability (not the case), or if they are currently serving SCOTUS (Kavanaugh). That’s two people opposing any attorneys, and two open to the possibility of including Kavanaugh and possibly Barr but no others. Nobody, not even you, spoke in favor of the current list of attorneys.

I am not going to edit war with you, just point out that your edit is against consensus, and I believe you should self-revert to the consensus version. Or someone else should revert. And I would caution you against edit warring it back in. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The RfC you made was confusing as it focused on too many issues at once. Can you create a new RfC specifically focusing on clients? That way we can have more focused discussion.
 * I know this process is slow but if the consensus is what you say it is you will get what you want. I have an opinion but I will subordinate it to policy and consensus. GergisBaki (talk) 22:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't actually make the RfC. I agree it did cover several issues, but most people seemed to be able to deal with that. The "client" question was the best responded to - eight people - and the consensus result was quite clear. As for a "new" RfC: the discussion here, which you initiated, has been going on for more than a month now - at first informally, and then as an RfC which was opened 25 days ago. I don't really see what a new RfC is going to accomplish. I am glad to hear you say you will subordinate your opinion to policy and consensus, so I assume that means you will self-revert, for now and until consensus here changes. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, so much for that expectation. I will restore the consensus version. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

about the "COI" and "advert" tags at the top of the page
I think the time has come to remove those tags - don't you? -- MelanieN (talk) 18:44, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. Lindenfall (talk) 20:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

List of notable attorneys and alumni
Does this need some kind of organization? Is it arranged by rank of position after leaving the firm?Parkwells (talk) 18:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I would put them alphabetically by last name. We could separate current attorneys from alumni, or we could lump them all together so we don't have to keep updating the list. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:44, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Relationship to DOJ under Trump
https://news.littlesis.org/2020/10/30/kirkland-ellis-the-law-firm-behind-the-trump-barr-power-grab-at-the-doj/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.194.4.183 (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Admin Help Requested to Enforce RfC Consensus Decision
I work on the staff of Kirkland and Ellis, The Contact Us page for Wikipedia says that subjects of articles who have complaints about bias should bring these issues to the attention of independent editors on the Talk Page. 

On July 27,2019, an editor created an RfC about whether clients and attorneys should be listed in the lead of this article. Talk:Kirkland & Ellis After a lengthy discussion, on September 22, 2019, a consensus decision was reached and implemented by User: Cunard. In short, the consensus was that this article should not have a list of clients or cases in the lead. A couple of possible exceptions for Supreme Court Justices were mentioned by Cunard who went on to say there was no consensus even about these two, so they removed all attorneys and clients.

Even before the consensus, there was edit warring over this content, as Talk:Kirkland & Ellis. On December 4, 2019, the User: 185.193.178.189 appears to have added back the paragraph with this information -- the entry for the date is blocked because they also added in copyrighted content that another editor removed. On December 8, 2019, [User: 185.193.178.189 seems to have added back the content or if it was left intact during the copyright removal process, this was the first date in History where the material re-occurs. Various editors in the intervening 26 months have made edits to this paragraph, which is currently the second paragraph of the lead. (See below). I would request that an admin please enforce the RfC by again removing this content. I Kirkland has represented many prominent and controversial clients, such as BP (in relation to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill), Jeffrey Epstein, and Bain Capital. Prominent attorneys of the firm have included numerous conservatives and Republican administration officials, including United States Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh; former appellate court judge Robert Bork; Clinton-era Special Counsel Ken Starr; and various Trump administration officials, including former National Security Adviser John R. Bolton, former Attorney General William Barr, former Secretary of Labor Alexander Acosta, and Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar. I would suggest the admin monitor the page in case another edit war results. Thank you. Como12345 (talk) 21:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi . Thank you for addressing this issue on the article talk page. Wikipedia's Manual of Style for article lead sections states that a lead should: "stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." The 2019 RfC established a rather weak consensus at the time that clients should probably not be included in he lede, no real consensus around whether notable attorneys such as Brett Kavanaugh or William Barr might warrant mention in the lede depending on the broader context of the article, and no consensus at all—that I can see, at least—regarding the inclusion of notable cases, with one editor suggesting that cases appearing before the Supreme Court might warrant mention. Given that, I have condensed the paragraph in general accordance with the 2019 RfC. However, consensus can change, and two years later particularly given the notability of many relevant figures, it seems fair to revisit the subject particularly if secondary source coverage has evolved. Specifically, there was no consensus in 2019 as to whether to include Kirkland's representation of Jeffrey Epstein, so as near as I can tell, that issue too remains open to further discussion. I am going to ping, who was involved in the 2019 conversation, to see if she would like to weigh in, but this seems the most appropriate course of action at this time. Respectfully,  Go  Phightins  !  23:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Phightins. I think your edit accurately reflects the consensus from the previous discussion. Consensus can change, but there has not been any attempt to change it up to now. Apparently the re-adding of the material was done without discussion and just slipped by.
 * Como12345, thank you for following WP policies to the letter, including posting on the talk page and disclosing your conflict of interest. And thank you for a very accurate and neutral summary of the history here. Does the current content of the lead, as modified by Phightins, meet your concerns? (I'm sure you understand that it is not up to Kirkland to determine the content of the article; I am merely trying to make sure I understand what you were asking for, since your comments here were so very neutral.)
 * As for your request that an admin monitor the page: actually we admins have no more power or influence over the content than any other editor - although we can step in when there are situations like vandalism or edit warring. But content is determined by consensus at the talk page. And when an admin takes part in the discussion, as I did in the 2019 discussion, we can express an opinion, and we can try to moderate or summarize the discussion if we do it fairly, but our opinion carries no more weight than anyone else's. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Melanie, for weighing in. Just to affirm Melanie's point, I, too, am an administrator, but my reading of the consensus here also bears no "special" weight and, unless an edit war of some kind emerges that would necessitate page protection, an editor's status as an administrator matters little in resolving this issue. Thanks again to you both!  Go  Phightins  !  00:37, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your attention to this matter. I’m sorry for the delayed response. Initially, avoided addressing the substance of the issue because the procedural flaw in overriding and RfC seemed sufficient. But since a short paragraph has been added in, I must now go to the substance: it is very inaccurate to characterize the entire 2,900 lawyers of K&E (the largest law firm in the U.S.) as Republican and conservative. This statement is unsourced and does not appear in the body of the article,  There are and have been both prominent Democrats and liberals (who have served in Democratic administrations) as well as prominent Republicans and conservatives at the firm.  The firm itself is non-partisan, even though some lawyers may be partisan. The firm’s attorneys have been the lawyers in many prominent cases that are identified as both liberal and conservative.
 * When you see this list below, I think you will agree that to satisfy WP:BALASP  we would have to characterize the firm as having both prominent Democrats and Republicans, and supporting both liberal and conservative causes. There is no sourcing I know of for any description of the entire firm's overall political leanings, so this new paragraph two in the lead is WP: SYNTH and inaccurate. Here are examples of cases that might be characterized as liberal of Democrat-supported where K&E lawyers served as counsel (I will proposed adding some of these to the body of the article, with appropriate sourcing]:
 * Obergefell v. Hodges (states must grant same-sex marriage licenses under 14th amendment, upheld by U.S. Supreme Court);
 * Trump administration family separation policy (In opposition to Trump administration, Kirkland lawyers provided legal services to separated families, asylum seekers and other immigrants; separately, Kirkland lawyers represents a nationwide class of immigrant teens held in ICE detention centers);
 * Presidential Memorandum on Military Service by Transgender Individuals (2017)(Nationwide team of Kirkland lawyers represents transgender members and prospective members of the military to help strike down Trump’s 2017 ban on transgender military service);
 * Buffalo Police Department(Kirkland lawyers represent black Buffalo, New York police officer who was fired after she intervened in an arrest where a fellow white officer used a chokehold on a handcuffed black suspect);
 * Robin Lovitt(One of many cases in which Kirkland lawyers provided pro bon death penalty representation, winning clemency for death row inmate Lovitt after a clerk improperly destroyed DNA evidence);
 * Maryland Historically Black College & Universities civil rights case (Kirkland lawyers help settle long-running legal case involving four Maryland HCBUs, ending with legislation signed by Governor Larry Hogan allocating $577 million in additional funding to boost academic programs at the universities) ;
 * Taylor Dumpson case harassment/civil rights case (Kirkland lawyers represent Taylor Dumpson, first black woman to serve as American University’s student government president, in case against neo-Nazi and white supremacist receiving a precedent-setting judgment against online hate speech, bigotry, and harassment.)
 * And here are examples of just a few past and present firm attorneys who are Democrats:
 * Neil Eggleston(President Barack Obama’s White House counsel from 2014 through the end of the administration);
 * Lisa Madigan (Democrat: Former Illinois Attorney General 2003-2019);
 * Ali Zaidi (lawyer)(First deputy White House National Climate Advisor under Joe Biden, also held several climate policy positions in Obama administration);
 * Raja Krishnamoorthi(Democrat: U.S. Representative from Illinois’s 8th Congressional District);
 * Sean Patrick Maloney(Democrat: U.S. Representative from New York’s 18th Congressional District);
 * Mikie Sherrill (Democrat: U.S. Representative from New Jersey’s 11th Congressional District);
 * Jon Henes (Kamala Harris’ presidential campaign national finance chair);
 * Erica Williams (special assistant and associate counsel to Obama);
 * Steve Patton (City of Chicago’s Corporation Counsel from 2011 through February 2017);
 * Ivan Schlager (former Democratic chief counsel and staff director to the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation);


 * Thank you. Como12345 (talk) 21:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I have reworded the sentence. Clearly somebody has stacked the list of prominent alumni by stacking it with "under the administration of Donald Trump" or occasionally George W. Bush. The list should be trimmed (say just cabinet secretaries or governors and equivalent), and some of the people you have listed above should be added. Not all; we wouldn't add "first deputy" anything, or anyone who doesn't have their own article. I am not online much currently and can't make these changes, but maybe someone else can do it. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:20, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I think removing the qualifier that these notable figures are prominent Bush and Trump administration people is ill-advised. The purported Democratic figures of any note are not in any comparable to the cabinet secretaries and prominent conservative figures that this law firm is associated with. The conservatives in question are or were all old, seasoned prominent conservatives when they worked at Kirkland, whereas the Democrats are not only minor figures but appear to have worked at Kirkland when they were young and before they became prominent Democrats. To highlight the conservative ties is is consistent with peer-reviewed research that finds that Kirkland is among the most conservative law firms in the country, and RS that characterize the law firm as "one of the top law firms feeding legal talent into the Trump administration." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , I would tend to agree that the Sen et al. journal article's conclusion is worth highlighting (probably in the lede, frankly), but at minimum as the basis to illustrate that with examples such as those in the lede now and in the full list of attorneys. A PR campaign to try to play up the firm's bipartisan bona fides can't trump the peer-reviewed research. That said, the list above does include a couple of notable figures, including members of Congress, probably worth including (though I note many/most are already in the list). Thoughts?  Go  Phightins  !  21:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Request Edits June 2021
I work for Kirkland & Ellis, the subject of this article. I’d request that independent editors please review these suggested edits, which I believe improve the article and are consistent with Wikipedia Policy such as NPOV, RS and Verify. The Wikipedia Contact Us page says to submit requests for updates here. I will not edit the article myself because of my conflict of interest. REQUEST 1 In the Info Box, please CORRECT the revenue figure from: WITH REASON: The source has been updated to cover revenue figures for 2020 from the 2021 report. The existing number is actually from 2019, even though the previous report was issued in 2020, so it incorrectly states 2020 revenue. The citation format has been converted to a full reference instead of just a URL.
 * revenue    	=  US$4.154 billion (2020)
 * revenue    	=  US$4.83 billion (2020)

✅ Simple and non-controversial. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:49, 18 June 2021 (UTC) REQUEST 2 In the Lead (first paragraph), please change the FIFTH sentence from: Kirkland also ranks second-highest globally in profits per equity partner, and is the highest among firms with a global presence. TO: Kirkland also ranks third on Am Law’s 2021 list of profits per equity partner.

REASON: Am Law updated its rankings for 2021, and Kirkland fell to third. More accurately reflects the current status of the firm’s position, using the same source, ( reporting on the more credible source, American Lawyer, behind a paywall.) Reasonable and timely update, though I didn't use the exact phrasing. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

REQUEST 3 In the section ‘History’, please DELETE the third paragraph According to a 2016 study, which evaluated the political ideology of the top 20 American law firms, Kirkland & Ellis was among the most conservative. REASON: This is false. The article in the Journal of Legal Analysis about the political ideology of law firms does not say that Kirkland & Ellis is one of the country’s most conservative law firms. That list is on their Table 4. and Kirkland does not appear on it. Nor is it mentioned in the paragraph in the article discussing the most conservative law firms. Kirkland & Ellis appears in Table 1, “The Twenty Most Prestigious Law Firms” and Table 2, the “Twenty Largest Law Firms”. In both tables, Kirkland ranks a “–0.363” (negative 0.363) and the article rank the ideology of a politically conservative firm is a “1” and a politically liberal firm as “-1.” (negative one.)  To call Kirkland & Ellis among the “most conservative” is once again, false -- it doesn’t even rank above “0”. With the accurate info, the use of this one study from 2016 for this Wikipedia article is unjustified. This survey does not appear on the articles about the other 30 or so law firms ranked because it is not recognized as an important perennial list, the same way, for example, as U.S. News & World Report.

✅, but not for the reason given above. The wikivoice statement appears to be a reasonably accurate reading of table 2, where the firm is one of the most conservative among the top 20 (by my count of the list it's the ~5th most conservative among the top 20). But presenting it in the article would be WP:OR, since the authors don't actually make that point. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC) REQUEST 4 In the ‘History’ sentence, please ELIMINATE the final two sentences: The firm earned $5 billion in revenue in 2020. The increase came from heightened demand, induced by the COVID-19 pandemic. REASON: Revenue information is already in the information box; this is a ballpark figure which is inconsistent with the proposed figure in Request #1. It is confusing to find different revenue figures for the same year throughout the article.

❌. I've added "just under" to the first sentence, which resolves the issue without removing the reason for the increase that is cited to a reliable news source. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:06, 18 June 2021 (UTC) REQUEST 5 In the section ‘Rankings’, please ELIMINATE the third sentence: As of 2020, Kirkland is the largest law firm in the U.S. by gross revenue, with US$4.16 billion in revenue, and an estimated profit per equity partner of US$5.20 million. REASON: Revenue information is already in the information box. It will be easier to keep it up to date annually if it is in just one location, similar to how revenue figures for public companies are generally handled. This number is already out of date - the proposed figure in Request #1 for 2020 is accurate;  this figure is the 2019 number, appearing in a 2020 story. Info about the firm being largest in the world (not the U.S., as stated here, contrary to the source) by revenue is already in the lead. . Information in the lead should be reflected in the body in some capacity, per our manual of style. The sentence was removed and replaced with the information from the lead. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:15, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

REQUEST 6 In the section “Notable clients and cases”, please add the following cases and descriptions :
 * Represented five couples arguing the state of Indiana's ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional; these cases became part of Obergefell v. Hodges, in which the Supreme Court held that states must grant same-sex marriage licenses under 14th Amendment.


 * Represented separated families, asylum seekers and other migrants, and nationwide class of immigrant teens held in ICE detention centers, in opposition to Trump administration family separation policy.

Reason The clients and cases were widely covered in the mainstream press.
 * Represented four Maryland historically Black colleges and universities in civil rights case alleging discrimination and underfunding by the state. The case was settled by legislation signed by Governor Larry Hogan allocating $577 million in additional funding to boost academic programs at the universities

for now. The section is enormous and probably should be trimmed, but these should be incorporated before a pruning discussion takes place. I also can't verify the Obergefell case stuff, so I have ommitted it for now. "Settled by legislation" didn't quite seem to reflect the source, either (it said that a settlement still needed to be reached). — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:26, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

REQUEST 7 In the section “Notable attorneys and alumni”, please add the following names and descriptions :

Reason Adding attorneys notable enough to have their own Wikipedia pages. ✅ No objection here. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:28, 18 June 2021 (UTC) Thank you for your consideration. Como12345 (talk) 18:02, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Rubén Castillo (judge)- former United States District Judge for United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
 * Lisa Madigan- former Illinois Attorney General from 2003 to 2019
 * Raja Krishnamoorthi- U.S. Representative from Illinois's 8th congressional district
 * Sean Patrick Maloney- U.S. Representative from New York's 18th congressional district

I've taken a look at the requests above and made some edits. Not all were implemented (some due to sourcing, others due to a difference in judgement on how to remedy certain items in light of the manual of style and other guidelines). — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:30, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Study
I see that you've restored the peer-reviewed study. I agree that we can conclude from a sound analysis of the data that the firm is among the more conservative firms in the top 20, but I had removed it yesterday due to a WP:OR concern, which is that the study doesn't actually attempt to make use of that data to classify it as among the "most conservative" of the top 20. It's the fifth-most conservative in that group, by my going through the table, but it feels a little weird to me to extrapolate from the data in order to make the wikivoice statement (especially if we don't clarify that the ideology score itself appears to place the firm as center-left). I'm wondering if you'd be willing to let me know your thoughts on this. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:54, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No, this is the kind of content WP needs more of. It's a peer-reviewed study that estimates that the firm is among the most conservative of the largest firms and among the most prestigious firms. It's a relative ranking and the wording is relational (law is a liberal profession). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 08:36, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * But isn't it a bit weird to use a primary source to reflect "among the most conservative", when the source doesn't explicitly say that? I'm looking at the charts, and though the authors list the score of Kirkland and Ellis (-0.363), they don't appear to actually make a point of pointing out the firm's grouping. It seems a bit like a judgement call to say that the fifth most conservative top 20 firms by size is "among the most" conservative in that group, doesn't it? If we're following WP:PRIMARY closely, shouldn't we avoid doing this analysis ourselves if the authors also don't group them that way? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Any thoughts? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Use of study
Does the use of this study to support the current paragraph [a]ccording to a 2016 study, which evaluated the political ideology of the top 20 American law firms, Kirkland & Ellis was among the most conservative conform with Wikipedia's policies on both neutral point of view and on no original research? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:42, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Survey: Use of study

 * No to both. While it appears that we can pull some data out of tables to support this claim, the statement that "Ellis was among the most conservative" seems to be a stretch too far that veers into novel interpretation of data territory. There are two tables to which this could be referring: table 1 and table 2. Each of these tables lists ideology scores of different firms—a negative value indicates a more liberal firm, whilst a positive value indicates that a firm is more conservative. The ideology score for Kirkland & Ellis is –0.363, which indicates a that the firm leans left of center.
 * When we read the Kirkland & Ellis Wikipedia article, however, we don't actually get that information. Rather, we're given only that that the firm is "among the most conservative" of the top 20 firms. The paper doesn't actually try to make this point; it doesn't single Kirkland & Ellis out by name in an analysis on partisanship, nor does it attempt to show a ranking of the top 20 firms sorted by ideology, nor does it attempt to include the firm in a category of "most conservative" among a subset of firms. The sentence currently in the article, in my reading, constitutes novel analysis and interpretation of data, which is prohibited by the no original research policy. I understand the desire to parse through the data, and I think the personally would think it's fine to group it that way if I were writing a research paper using this data. However, any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation, no such source is provided here, and a search through google scholar was unsuccessful in finding any sources that provided the interpretation that is currently in the article into thinking that the firm is of a conservative political orientation when it is not.
 * What's more, there's no mention of the source's actual partisan position measured in the study; rather than additionally informing the reader that the study rated the firm at what can only reasonably be called either moderate or center-left, the section doesn't even attempt to present this, which leads to the section being misleading to the readers in a way that makes the article rather tilted in its description. While has argued above that the wording is relational and reflects a relative ranking, the absence of a more general contextualization of the study's results seems to be a case of selective data use from the study that, notwithstanding WP:NOR considerations, may mislead a reader who is unfamiliar with the general political leanings of lawyers in the United States.
 * In my view, the article contains not only novel analysis and interpretation of data, but also a misleadingly incomplete one that results in this aspect of the article being rendered non-neutral. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:42, 25 June 2021 (UTC)


 * No. Per nom, plus it doesn't conform to WP:RS: it's an interpretation of a WP:PRIMARY source, since the JLA article is a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author (section 2 of the source article makes it clear that the authors have created a new set of data). Interpretation of data is WP:OR, unless the interpretation is explicitly stated by the article's authors. JBchrch   talk  08:50, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. Per Wikipedia's RS guidelines, peer-reviewed studies "are usually the most reliable sources," and Wikipedia desperately needs more high-quality academic content. There's no disputing that the study did in fact evaluate Kirkland and Ellis as among the most conservative prominent law firms in the US. The only criticism of the content appears to be that the authors of the study did not specifically dedicate their article to talking about Kirkland and Ellis (it's a study on the ideology of law firms, not a study about KE's ideology), but that's not how peer-reviewed studies in top journals look like (why would they dedicate paragraphs to one law firm when the tables already communicate what they want to say?). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:02, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem is that Kirkland and Ellis leans left of center politically, Kirkland and Ellis's political ideology is close to Joe Manchin's (see figure 1), and Kirkland and Ellis is one of the most conservative prominent law firms in the US are three valid interpretations of the data. We need a secondary source to decide for us. JBchrch   talk  09:25, 25 June 2021 (UTC)


 * No That's incredibly misleading and pure statistical manipulation. The study indicates that Kirkland & Ellis is a liberal law firm--just like every other top 20 law firm in the nation. However, the current text is implying that Kirkland & Ellis is the Liberty University of law firms. A half-decent analogy would be basically placing Bernie Sanders on a list of the 20 most well-known left-wing politicians--next to guys like Stalin, Castro, Mao, Pol Pot--and declaring him the most capitalistic. If you're trying to fudge the table data to fit your POV, then at least an honest interpretation of the data would be something like: "relative to the other top 20 law firms, Kirkland & Ellis ranks the 3rd least liberal." However, obviously, this is not how the table is structured and we would need a secondary source to make such an analysis. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 10:22, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * What an absurd analogy. The point of the study is that the chosen law firms are alike units, whereas totalitarian socialist dictators from different national contexts are not in any way comparable units to a member of the U.S. Senate. The relevant analogy would be to say Joe Manchin is among his Democratic Senate peers the most conservative Democratic Senator, but apparently such wording would be "dishonest", "incredibly misleading" and "pure statistical manipulation", and readers would somehow think Manchin is to the right of Ted Cruz, if I understood your logic. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:50, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You're right, I like your analogy better. But the only issue is that it contains the qualifier "Democratic": the readers would understand that Manchin is still (generally) on the left, though not nearly as much as his colleagues. But the current text lacks any such qualifier--it puts Kirkland & Ellis in a vacuum. You would have to say something like "Kirkland & Ellis, a liberal law firm, is more conservative than other leading liberal law firms" or "Kirkland & Ellis is one of most conservative, liberal law firms in the country." Yes, the wording is very awkward and clunky but it's more accurate than the current text. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 11:33, 25 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes on both, prima facie - reporting that there was a study and the results are facts, plain and simple. Reporting facts, on their face can't violate NPOV. And using a published study as a source isn't OR. OR would be conducting a study yourself and using the WP article to publish the results. Firejuggler86 (talk) 11:44, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The question is not whether academic articles are reliable sources in the abstract. The question is whether this specific statement can be sourced to this specific study. JBchrch   talk  13:34, 26 June 2021 (UTC)


 * No. Note that I have a COI as someone who works for Kirkland & Ellis.
 * There are four tables in the paper: Table One says it measures the most prestigious law firms’ ideology; Table Two the largest firms’ ideology; Table Three the top 20 liberal law firms; Table Four the top 20 conservative law firms. Kirkland appears on Table One and Two. It is not on Tables Three and Four.  Therefore, according to this paper’s conclusions, K&E is large and prestigious, but it is neither among the 20 most liberal firms nor the 20 most conservative law firms.
 * In fact, based on the raw score I will explain below, according to the authors’ scoring, Kirkland & Ellis, as a whole, on the liberal side of their scale. The authors have  created something called the “CFscore.”  (short for “Campaign Finance” score) A CFscore of -1 is considered very liberal (Hillary Clinton is -1.16) and a CF score of 1 is considered very conservative.(Michele Bachmann is +1.3). Zero (0) is the middle. K&E’s CFscore is -0.363, so K&E as an organization is considered by these authors to be liberal. Wikipedia editors can’t do their own interpretation of raw data to reach conclusions not stated in a study or, as here, to distort raw data to mislead readers. WP:OR. Thank you. Minnie53590 (talk) 21:18, 28 June 2021 (UTC) — Minnie53590 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * No, doesn't conform with WP:RS as pointed out by JBchrch. Idealigic (talk) 19:39, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No, Doesn't conform to WP:RS as mentioned by User:JBchrch. BristolTreeHouse (talk) 12:07, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: I am puzzled by comments that cite WP:RS here. What, exactly, are we stating is not a reliable source? The Journal of Legal Analysis article written by three of the top researchers in this field and then peer-reviewed? It's preposterous suggest that isn't a reliable source. Also, I really fail to see what is problematic about stating that relative to the other top 20 most prestigious firms—an external benchmark, not one that Wikipedia made up—Kirkland Ellis was found to be more conservative when researchers looked at lawyers' campaign contributions. It is hardly original research to read a table and tell readers what it said ... that is not interpretation of any sort, it is simply reporting in words what a table conveyed through numbers. The specific claims in the Wikipedia article right now probably do not stand up to scrutiny or, at minimum, could be phrased more clearly, but it strikes me as fairly silly to couch this argument in terms of WP:NOR and WP:RS when we are simply dealing with how to report the results of what is clearly a gold standard reliable source.  Go  Phightins  !  03:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * To put a finer point on it, it strikes me that there is no problem with NOR or RS to say something like: "A 2016 study found that based on attorneys' campaign contributions, Kirkland Ellis ranked towards the center-left generally but was to the right of other prestigious firms." That's not original research; that's just reading a journal article and reporting what it says based on the definitions it provides.  Go  Phightins  !  03:36, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that gets at my point regarding WP:NPOV, it's not currently reflecting the data neutrally, even though it (in my view) correctly reflects part of the data. I'm a little finicky with the grouping among the most conservative, though I'd be more fine if we were to say that it were ranked as the Xth most conservative among the relevant set of firms for the comparison. It's certainly a highly reliable source; I think that the objection to WP:RS is specifically directed at noncompliance with WP:PRIMARY, which is a part of the same guideline. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:02, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , Fair enough, though when I put my former research library employee hat on, I'm not sure I buy that this is a primary source, per se. The researchers did some calculations based on existing secondary data that was collected in prior studies/in prior databases. The way they then chose to present it—chiefly in tables—is merely descriptive in the context we are discussing using it here, and all we are talking about (or should be talking about, IMO) is describing what they have in a table in words. I see no problems with WP:PRIMARY or WP:NOR/SYNTH. The bottom line is they took a benchmark of the 20 most prestigious firms (it might be worth briefly describing how they chose them) and then applied this index that already exists (the Bonica CF scores are pretty much the standard measure of ideology in the political science literature these days) and presented the results in a table that shows that, of the 20 most prestigious firms, KE is the Xth most conservative (even if relative to the theoretical median of 0, they are still left of center). No reason we can't say that, in my view. (FWIW, I think this is mostly what you were saying; I just thought I would spell it out for the benefit of others coming onto this discussion or an eventual closer.)  Go  Phightins  !  12:25, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, the authors have generated a new dataset based on an attempt to "deanonymize" the Database on Ideology, Money in Politics, and Elections in order identify the lawyers listed and their employers. While this is certainly a valid endeavor, I expressed the view that it's analog to a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author per WP:PRIMARY. This of course does not make the study an unreliable source, but we have to use it with care and avoid bold interpretations. If the RfC had included 2 options, with Option 1 being with the current proposition and Option 2 being A 2016 study found that based on attorneys' campaign contributions, Kirkland Ellis ranked towards the center-left generally but was to the right of other prestigious firms, I would have voted Option 2 with no problem (noting that this is certainly not a criticism of Mikehawk's RfC). JBchrch   talk  13:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , Fair enough. I suppose that procedurally I am jumping the gun a bit to get to where I think we ultimately ought to head which is something like the second option you mention here (or that I mentioned above). Not to say the formal RfC isn't warranted, but I don't see a compelling reason it needs to be "the current way or no way at all because it's not a reliable source."  Go  Phightins  !  13:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No - (1), it was a 2015 study, not 2016, and (2) it is dated, and doesn't reflect Kirkland & Ellis' lawyers campaign contributions in subsequent election cycles, like 2020 where the firms campaign contributions were 71% to Democrats, and based on this graph, their campaign contributions have consistently leaned Democrat except in 2012 and 2014 ( Opensecrets.org data is extracted from the Federal Election Commission). And while Bloomberg Law acknowledges the 2015 study, they reported in 2019 that contributions from the firm’s lawyers and employees have swung sharply toward all Democratic candidates. The firm’s employees have contributed four times more money to Democrats than Republicans. I do agree that the 2015 study is a reliable source, but in my opinion, it was cherry-picked in order to label them conservative and is dated. And on a personal note, this idea that we must label every person, place or thing on WP in relation to their political ideology is absurd. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Request Edit October 2021
Hi, I work for Kirkland & Ellis and I’ve noticed that some of the basic information in this article’s Infobox is out of date. Below is a proposed update with secondary source citation. I can’t edit it myself since I have a conflict of interest, so could an independent editor please review these proposed changes?


 * num_offices    = 17 (2021)


 * num_attorneys  = 2,725 (2021)


 * num_employees  = 5,585 (2021)

Thank you for your consideration. Minnie53590 (talk) 21:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi @ I did the second change, and the third change but with data from todays access date. The source you linked for change one still lists 16 offices, so I did not update it. I closed your edit request but if you can provide a source for 17 offices, please don't hesitate to open a new one.


 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: Signed, I Am Chaos (talk) 23:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for your help with this. I’ve found a new Reuters source that provides the correct number of offices for 2021. In the Infobox, the text with the new source should read:

Thanks. Minnie53590 (talk) 12:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * num_offices 	= 18 (2021)
 * That's ✅. JBchrch   talk  19:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I would like to know if you have a lawyer named Alexander Hamilton working with you 2601:18E:8201:5BE0:BC40:75DE:2C9C:8D9B (talk) 15:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC)