Talk:Latham & Watkins/Archive 1

Dispute about page
What is disputable about the existing page? It is completely accurate.


 * Accuracy is one thing; the article must conform to Wikipedia style and standards also. It does not. It is not properly formatted to WikiStyle. It has information that does not need to be there. You can have links, but you don't need to go on about third party information in that article, it should be done in the appropriate article.

Also, don't remove notices, it is not up to you to remove a notice placed by another WikiUser against text that you have entered.

WikiDon 05:01, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * How about a source for that "largest" claim? Frankly, it reads like an ad. Al 14:03, September 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree. This entry reads like an ad, by using terms such as "largest", "most respected law firms in the world", "a major business-law firm" and "author of the most widely recognized treatise Uniform Commercial Code" without citing sources.

In fact, it makes me even suspect as to if a lawyer wrote this entry... =P Tmblweed 20:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Should remove AveryIndex cite, as it's just a derivative of the Law.com rankings.

If there are no objections, I would like to add an adendum to the "Notable Attorney's" section. My desire is to add Juli Marshall to said section, the reason being as to her founding chair in the technological modernization of the firm. --Xlionheartx 05:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lw logo.gif
Image:Lw logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Church of Scientology involvement
My comments on this talk page were arbitrarily remove without discussion by another user - see history. The same editor has made revisions to the article page, and refused to discuss them on either this discussion page, or their personal talk page.

Please can other users contribute their thoughts on the CoS / LW involvement, and whether it is appropriate content. Note that several law blogs (eg: abovethelaw, and lawdragon, both of which are cited in other wikipedia articles) have decided this is noteworthy, and L&W involvement odd, and a couple of print magazines have commented, questioningly, on L&Ws actions.

I'd also like some advise on what to do if this contribution on the discussion page is simply arbitrarily censored again, with no rationalle forthcoming 121.72.164.185 (talk) 11:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the cult as a client should be in Wikinews but am not sure if it's really important here. And if you do have it here, the references need some work, and POV can be cleaned up without whitewashing it. (I know the references are out there but was too lazy to add them myself.) Venus Copernicus (talk) 21:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not relevant at all to this page, it's simply one of their thousands of clients. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  22:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * They are an especially notable client - We could add a Notable Clients section - over time (which IS the basis of WP) this section would grow with other clients, and as always happens, the article would improve for anyone with any interest in L&W. Note that I've asked for experience editor help for your deletion of disussion on this page previosly, and refusal (STILL) to provide any rationalle that makes sense - the list of Notable Attourneys is just a handful of thousands of attourneys.  In the context of what appears to be current CoS moves to censor Amazon reviews (ref Glosslip, no low star ratings for any LRH book), YouTube (ref account ToryMagoo44), and GoogleGroups (ref: no posts appearing in alt.religion.scientology) it is not unreasonable to think something might also be going on here.  Your activities and reluctance to give any reason that (to me anyway) is in any way rational or consistent raises a caution flag - this is NOT an allegation - just my reason for keeping a close watch, wanting to make sure this gets sorted according to the rules. It's worth also pointing out that I had good reason (fair game) for making previous edits under IP address only, but this matters enough Jaymax (talk) 02:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that the Church of Scientology is a notable client, it's Wikipedia page and Wikinews said it all. There has been a lot of media attention, often highly controversial.  If not for a notable client session, we can add a "L&W on the news section" just as in the other top law firm pages.  Currently I'm working on the Notable Attorney section, in particular David Schindler.  I'm going to add back the fact that he sent letters to protesters on behalf of CoS.  In the spirit of this section, I just wanted to mention some of his notable clients and notable cases.  As above mentioned, we have enough source material to show that the letters are news worthy, especially seen from the reactions of the law community.  But they don't fit in this short section.  However, I included only two references and links that contain two images of his signed letters.  As you can see, the hand signed letters contain generic but slightly information that the protesters are identified at the scene of the protest.  And thus that they are associated with the Anonymous Group.  The intention of the Church is clearly to sent them to as many protesters as they can identify.  The content of the letter apply to any one attending any of the protests.  This could be a historical move which is unheard of.  There are thousands of masked protesters spread all over US alone.  But I'll leave it at that for this section.


 * When editorial and journalist discretion is called for, please consider what Judge Leonie Brinkema has to say:
 * "the Court is now convinced that the primary motivation
 * of RTC in suing Lerma, DGS and The Post is to stifle
 * criticism of Scientology in general and to harass its critics."
 * It is particularly hard to find critical news articles for this notable client.


 * as a side note, I don't think just quoting a name and field of expertise can be qualify as notable attorney, and that who you are married to is irrelevant too to a successful attorney.222.187.126.158 (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Can I just say I'm glad censorship has been removed and let this page develop organically. Mediterraneo (talk) 10:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * And what do you know, our favourite censor and guardian of L&Ws Wikipedia advertising Swatjester is back at it. 121.90.20.16 (talk) 00:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Slogan
Does the slogan, "Get 'em for every cent" seem suspect to anyone? I looked on L&W's website and couldn't verify it. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TROGG (talk • contribs) 03:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

notable clients and transactions
(please add since it is protected)--Mediterraneo (talk) 23:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Represented Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc. in its $4.84 billion sale to the Sony Corporation in cooperation with Providence Equity Partners Inc, Texas Pacific Group Inc, DLJ Merchant Banking Partners and Comcast Corporation (Sept. 2004).
 * Advised Bayer AG in its successful 2006 €16.4 billion takeover offer for Schering AG pharmaceuticals.
 * Legal counsel to bookrunners and arrangers Deutsche Bank Securities Inc, Goldman Sachs International and Merrill Lynch International in $2 billion Rule 144A/Regulation S notes offer for ICICI Bank Ltd, through its Bahrain branch (Oct. 2007).


 * Done. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  02:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Please add as a notable client. And then can we please begin debate here to expand the entry - what is or isn't appropriate etc. Jaymax (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Church of Scientology

I know that L&W has been retained by the Church of Scientology but I believe it is more for litigation matters rather than for a transaction. You'd have to add a whole new section on 'cases' or something to that effect. So I'm not really sure what is notable about that retainer. Mediterraneo (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that's relevant - the section is called Notable cases and clients (ie: notable customers basically) - CoS are clearly covered. The relationship is notable, because the client is notable - very much in the media, especially right now - and undertook the biggest infiltration of the US government ever - etc etc. Jaymax (talk) 16:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll concede that it certainly is notable and indeed possibly questionable for a firm to represent a religious group in the manner alleged, however, generally we do not include clients for 'ongoing' representations within Wikiproject Law, rather closed deals/cases won (or lost). Perhaps if and when the firm terminates its relationship or at least issues a press release indicating the end of the representation then we can include it? Mediterraneo (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not enough of a wikipedian to know how to related Wikiproject Law stuff to the wider context of what should be in an article on Wikipedia about this law company. To my mind, to leave out the CoS connection would be a pretty poor entry for an encyclopedia trying to be useful to someone who wants to learn about L&W.  Is there WP:Policy or something so I can better understand?  Do the project standards always trump, or is there room to consider appropriatness from other angles? Jaymax (talk) 17:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * How would one, relatively recent client, make L+W's article pretty poor? L+W has had tens of thousands of clients over the years. They're a Vault 100 top firm. Any one particular client of theirs, is no more notable than any other. The whole debacle over the Scientology vs. Anonymous belongs on the CoS page. It has nothing to do with L+W other than the fact that L+W is one of the CoS's external counsel. On top of that, there is very little verifiable information regarding L+W's relationship with Scientology, and what little there is, mostly comes from unreliable sources. Finally, because of the overwhelmingly hostile and critical nature surrounding the CoS vs. Anonymous debate, inclusion of that would unduly taint the L+W entry. So there you go, 3 policies: Verifiability, Reliable Sources, and NPOV(Undue Weight), as well as editing style and wikiproject guidelines that are in favor against it. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  17:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for FINALLY fronting up about this - this issue is not going away... And now we can start handling it the way the system is supposed to.  So, ignoring for the moment the absurdity of your statement: "Any one particular client of theirs, is no more notable than any other." - you have set out five grounds; of those, two (verifyability and reliability of source) are easily shown to be nonsense - and were already so when you first removed the section. - so I will leave those for now.  I will read up on the Wikiproject stuff - but I AGAIN question whether the project guidelines must always take precedence.  You ambiguosly refer to 'editing style guidelines' - which is an irrelevance, as other editors can easily improve style over time - as was already occuring in the section you removed. And finally, NPOV(Undue Weight), from my perspective it is your POV on this that is somewhat undue - locking this article when you did was extreme - but there are standard approaches for resolving that, starting with discussion here, involving more contributors.  I again recall that you attempted to avoid that by removing MY comments on this talk page previously.  User:Mediterraneo bears repeating: "it certainly is notable and indeed possibly questionable for a firm to represent a religious group in the manner alleged" - if including this L&W action would 'taint' the L&W entry, it will only be because the action taken taints the corporate. You might regard it as trivial - but that decision is not for you alone to make.   And certainly that is no basis for excluding it - quite the opposite - balance, in the context of the way this item currently reads (see others comments at top from before all this) is somewhat missing presently Jaymax (talk) 18:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please be civil in your discussion. You've done nothing to show in anyway that WP:V and WP:RS are nonsense, nor have you shown that my statements are in any way "absurd". You appear, in fact, to be unfamiliar with our policies and guidelines. I'd ask that you'd review them before declaring them to be nonsense. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  20:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (0) Thank you for providing the WP: references - references that I have previously asked for, without positive response. As I have acknowledged, both upthread and in comments since deleted, I am no expert in wikipedia policy. My limited understanding is that engaging in discussion on this page should be the normal first step when trying to resolve disagreement, rather than wholesale removal of article text along with cited sources, and then protecting the article while (previously) refusing to engage in discussion. Your request to me for civility in the context appears somewhat misdirected - please therefore apply the same courtesy, and understand my frustration at how long it has taken to get even this far towards resolution.
 * (1) I have been through WP:V and WP:RS again - the 'above the law' legal news site referenced previously seems to provide both as does Radar Magazine
 * (2) It is absurd to say that no client is more notable than any other, because some clients will inherently be more worthy of notice through their activities or standing, regard for the law and previous legal history etc. However, I read that WP:N doesn't apply to notability of content, only of article topic so this element of the discussion would appear moot.
 * (3) NPOV(undue weight) by my reading would appear to be a policy about contradictory viewpoints and/or beliefs - I struggle to apply what WP:NPOV says under undue weight to this matter - I don't see much of a connection between the intent of that policy section and this matter. Jaymax (talk) 02:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Above the law is a blog. Blogs inherently fail WP:RS. Radar Magazine has similar reliable sourcing issues. In regards to this page, no client is more notable than another, because the article is on Latham Watkins, not their client base. Extensive discussion regarding their clientele belongs on other pages than this one. As for WP:NPOV, read it again. We don't add every non-encyclopedic negative event that has ever happened in the timeline of the subject of an article, because they would provide undue negative weight. Information about scientology as L+W's client, in comparison to the article as a whole, provides undue weight on a controversial issue, that really has nothing much at all to do with Latham Watkins. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  04:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (1) From WP:V ""Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs." - that does not equate to "Blogs inherently fail"; neither does it relate to abovethelaw. Please explain the sourcing issue re Radar?  Also refer Kenji Yoshino where abovethelaw is cited with regards to the biography of a living person.  There are plenty of other cites also - your argument re WP:V WP:RS is weak, and inconsistent with the evidence all over wikipedia, and to me not supported by a reading of the policy and guideline.
 * (2) You referring to 'extensive discussion' is another classic straw-man argument - I have at no point sugested that 'extensive discussion' of CoS here would be relevant, neither was that which you previously removed extensive. I think it's obtuse to think that a significant number of people with an interest in L&W would not also be interested in knowing that they (and specifically one of thier notable attourneys) has an ongoing relationship representing this particular organisation, and the recent nature of that representation.   Anyone with an interest can follow the links through to the relevant articles.
 * (3) I have been through WP:NPOV, more than once of the last few days - I'm not seeing what you are, perhaps you could be more explicit - you pointed previously to the 'Undue Weight' paragraphs, but it is pretty obvious they are not relevant to this, and so perhaps you could point me to a specific paragraph or quote one that does reflect the matter here? Again - it is not for you, individually, to decide whether their representation of CoS is more or less encyclopedic than their advice to Beyer which you did add - and yet that appears to be where you have chosen to position yourself - this, mainly, is the thing that confuses me. It is soley YOUR contention that the decision by L&W to represent this client, and their decision on how to do so, has nothing to do with the firm.  I contend that you are wrong, and that L&Ws handling of media queries regarding this (and that it triggered a media response) is demonstrable of that, and that providing the text itself is NPOV, excluding this content shows imbalance and makes the article poorer by excluding information that would be of interest to many who come to this page - perhaps you are underestimating that? Jaymax (talk) 14:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not citing WP:V in relation to blogs. I'm citing WP:RS. Above the law is a blog. It has always been a blog. It's David Lat's blog in which he publishes some news, but also speculates about other things. That kind of speculation is the reason that blogs are not allowed as reliable sources. It's not a fact-checked secondary source. As for the rest of your arguments, well, I can't help it if you don't understand WP:NPOV. Here's another one for you: WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a battleground. For what purpose do you want to include the scientology stuff? The scientology stuff is only notable in the context of this battle between the church of scientology and anonymous. Wikipedia is not the place to fight battlegrounds. If that's your intent, to use Wikipedia as your vehicle to "get the truth out", you're sorely mistaken about what Wikipedia is, what it does, and how it works. At this point in time, there are several policy based reasons to exclude that information, as well as legal issues at OTRS, that necessitate that the scientology issue stay out. &rArr;  SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  17:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (0) You asked me to be civil; here you make an ad hominem reference to my comprehension ability WP:NPOV, while pointing me at a policy which states "Do not insult"??? I will let my argument and my reference to the policy speak to that.  You have so far deferred to policy, but strictly in generalities.  I suggest that is because the policy text and supporting docs don't actually back you up.
 * (1) to quote WP:V "Because policies take precedence over guidelines, in the case of an inconsistency between [WP:V] and [WP:RS], [WP:V] has priority" There is an near identical statement at WP:RS. As WP:RS doesn't define a blog, but WP:V does, it becomes difficult to follow your statement that you are talking about blogs with regards WP:RS rather than WP:V.   All this is getting very semantic, and that could be avoided if you would more precisely reference the specific area of policy or guideline that you believe supports your views here.  I note your use of 'as for the rest of [my] argument' while choosing to not address the specific question as to why Radar should be disregarded.
 * (2) to quote a few bits from the NPOV tutorial (1) "Space and balance ... The remedy is to add to the article — not to subtract from it" (2) "Some examples of how editors may ... present a subject in an unfair way ... Entirely omitting significant citable information in support of a minority view, with the argument that it is claimed to be not credible."
 * (3) You question my purpose - my purpose is to ensure this article contains significant information for the broad audience who may have an interest in L&W. Is it coincidental that this happens at the same time as the Anon stuff - of course not.  Is that particularly relevant to my motives re this article, not overly - I look on it from the perspective of what I would have wanted to find out, coming here to research L&W.  I think you are to focussed on the Anon v CoS stuff, to be able to see that long before that people had an interest in CoS, specifically in their interactions with the legal system.  Given their established (ie: in court) history, I find that a law firm would accept them as a client interesting, and relevant.  In the same way I would find someone taking on any organisation with a documented history like theirs.  I think you will discover you are wrong in your assumptions about my what drives me here.
 * (4) I seek to avoid speculating about the OTRS content, which is why I haven't raised it in a while - since you have, and mention that it involves 'legal issues' - without speculating I will note the parties involved here, and in one case their track record, and frequent use of 'legal issues' to suppress things they want suppressed. The potential irony is inescapable.  Like you, I want to keep this about L&W not CoS.  I hope you have however independently verified the 'legal issues' and carefully considered whether they are raised in good faith, or to achieve the specific goal of preventing simple established verifiable facts of general interest relating to L&W (but with a negative connotation) from appearing on this page. Jaymax (talk) 00:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have, and the issues were in good faith. Should the situation between L+W and Scientology and Anonymous develop further into a much more newsworthy situation, it may be suitable for inclusion, but at the moment, there are several reasons why it is not. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  01:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Either there are 'legal issues' which prevent inclusion, or there are not, in which case we're back to policy. It's remarkably easy to get me to back down from any debate - providing there is a logical case.  So far I'm utterly not seeing it. I do not accept the WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOT policies do anything other than be neutral, or argue FOR INCLUSION of this material.  Perhaps I can be shown otherwise, but I have been being pretty thorough, and careful close-reading and interpretation of policy isn't foreign to me.  So - currently, on the fronts you have been primarily pushing - I'm nowhere near about to accept that it's in any way right, or good for the article, or good for wikipedia, to let this go.  Yes - of course that is because I think people who are interacting with L&W have a right to consider the CoS connection - but it's something I and many many others would want to know, if otherwise interested in L&W.  Again, I'd ask you to reflect on Mediterraneo's comment above - he certainly wasn't involved in anything re CoS.
 * On the other hand - is the OTRS 'legal situation' is sufficient - because of the way this has gone, because I do not believe that you have been true to WP:NPOV, or fair regarding WP:V (again, with the acknowledgment that, while I might have been editing here pretty much since inception, it's been incredibly infrequent, normally technical, and done under IP - and I'm no expert on things wikipedian -- I can however, and do, read policy) perhaps you could get other OTRS authorised people to go through this thread, and back up here your contention that the OTRS material is sufficient to exclude, if that is your contention.
 * Basically - I can argue policy, I can ask for confirmation of the OTRS stuff - It is unreasonable to expect an acceptance that some mix of weak-policy + moderate-OTRS = strong-case, if neither by themselves would justify exclusion. Jaymax (talk) 02:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There are both legal issues and policy based issues against inclusion. We typically try to use the policy based issues first before resorting to an OTRS legal based reasoning. However, my policy reasons stand. The information places excessive weight on a politically charged and controversial aspect, which is only tangentially related to L+W, and is not adequately sourced. It further is information that is often being used as a battleground, both on Wikipedia and across the net, and it, beyond all of that, fails to live up to the standards of the Wikiproject that this article falls under the scope of. Whether you choose to accept that as being the case or not, is largely irrelevant. The policy issues exist. The OTRS issues exist. You can "utterly not see it" all you'd like, but that does not prevent the problem from being there. As for having other review from OTRS, there are privacy restrictions that prevent us from publicly discussing the content of an OTRS ticket. Beyond those, there are certain specific restricted access queues, the legal queue being one of them, whose contents are restricted even within the body of OTRS volunteers. This is one of them. As I said, there may come some point in time where the scientology issue is important enough, notable enough, and relevant to L+W's article enough, to merit inclusion, provided that the inclusion is verifiable, reliably sourced, and neutral point of view. However, that is not the case at present, and those criteria are not yet met.  &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  04:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we've come to the end of this particular road, don't you? As a more experienced wikipedian, is it RfC next? I've posted a note on the NPOV noticeboard - so maybe leave it a few days and see what that brings?
 * You and I disagree about the angle of tangent that this has with regards to L&W - but the point that I keep trying to make - that THAT matter is for community consensus, and established procedures, and not for you as an individual, has been consistently ignored.
 * I invited you to make this (me) simply go away by having independent appropriately qualified review of your judgment of the OTRS issue; you chose not to fol;low that through - and again blended together policy issues subject to community interpretation and OTRS issues which are not, making it quite impossible for ANYBODY to objectively either accept or reject your stance.
 * I note you referenced Wikiproject Law - I may have failed entirely at looking in to this, but I could find nothing there that pertains. One person saying what somebody else said is so doesn't actually make it true. Did you check Wikiproject Law? I did. But then I'm a novice, so could easily have missed something. I invite you to provide a link to the 'standards' you again abstractly refer to. You're an admin, policy specifics should matter.
 * You again bring up 'notability' - and yet WP:N clearly states: "notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles". Which brings me finally to:
 * Right now, I'm far less perturbed by whether or not this page references CoS, that whether an admin is blocking changes to an article from their own firm POV, combined with ignorance as to what WP:POLICY actually says. I care about WP more than you might realise, and I'm concerned about this aspect right now more than anything - if an admin does something, says something is policy, it better be reflected in policy - and more often than not the view you've expressed has, by my reading, been pretty much counter to policy. [Note this para has NOTHING to do with OTRS].
 * Your intuition may have got you through in the past, but your knowledge of policy has been extremely lacking (to my mind and reading) in this debate. Feel free to prove me wrong though - you might be surprised that I quite enjoy being proven wrong, it means I learn something. But so far you've failed to show me that I am - which if it is the case, shouldn't be that hard. Where to from here?
 * Mostly civilly I hope, Jaymax (talk) 06:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to add my voice here and say that I think that some mention of the Church of Scientology as a firm client is proper and should be added. As an active member of Wikiproject Law, I will point out that inclusion of controversies associated with member law firms is fair game. If you notice the page on Baker & McKenzie it points out that the firm was sued by former employees on discrimination grounds. If you visit the page for Kelley Drye & Warren you will find that the firm was retained to represent Union Carbide after the Bhopal disaster. Yet another example: Kaye Scholer's page mentions a settlement that the firm paid for its involvement in the failure of the Lincoln Savings & Loan Association. All of these are controversial clients/incidents and may reflect poorly on what are otherwise outstanding and well known/prestigious law firms. The fact that Latham has been alleged/admits to be currently representing the CoS is a significant fact. It is routine for some firms to turn away clients and in fact, Baker & McKenzie dropped the CoS as a client after pressure from another long-standing client, Eli Lilly. What I suggest is an inclusion couched in the following way: In 2008, reports surfaced that alleged that Latham & Watkins was retained by the Church of Scientology in connection with lawsuits the church is pursuing against anonymous Internet critics. A L&W memo has surfaced which confirms that the CoS is indeed a firm client. Little information is pending as to the current status of that mandate. Then a footnote might include a link to a legitimate news organization (if one exists chronicling the story). The rest of the firm's accomplishments should speak for itself and I was the one who wrote the clients and transactions that appears on the page currently. Let the reader judge. --Mediterraneo (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to add that I believe the ethos of Wikipedia is not served by the current censorship that is being exercised here. User:Swatjester, your pronouncements are getting rather tiresome. I take issue with your inability to countenance other points of view. Wikipedia and Wikiproject Law is a collaborative enterprise and not an encyclopedia by fiat. Please reconsider and re-read your responses. --Mediterraneo (talk) 21:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, that's not how Wikipedia works. Your inclusion hinges upon unreliable sources (internal L+W memo leak, with no verification source) and acknowledges that there is little information standing, and that you don't know if any legitimate news sources chronicle the story. If you can't see the problem with that, I don't know how to help you. As for mention of Scientology as a client, it's already mentioned under the David Schindler section for the Ponzi scheme litigation. There's no censorship going on here, there's enforcement of policy.  &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  02:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedians reading this thread may want to look at the above admins suppression through removal of discussion by other contributors ON THIS TALK PAGE, directly contrary to WP:POLICY, around early April 2008 - before coming to an opinion on whether this is a question of policy or censorship. 130.216.93.250 (talk) 23:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

incorrect external links
Editors,

Please check the external links at the bottom of this page. They have been tampered with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.36.250 (talk) 21:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

notable attorneys
Samuel Fishman should be removed - not particularly notable in the grand scheme of things and was likely added by someone with a bone to pick against the firm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveA3 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't add the Fishman entry - But I'm not about to pretend I started contributing to the L&W page with a 'positive' regard - more an interest in ensuring the page was reasonably complete and balanced in the light of the CoS involvement. However, a few quick non-authoritative google searches rapidly suggests that Fishman is WAY WAY more notable wrt L&W than most of the other listed 'notable attourneys'
 * I could equally suggest that, given the evidence, anyone suggesting the entry should be removed likely comes from someone with an interest in maintaining the pages advertisement like qualities... but I'll assume good faith instead... The Fishman reference should stay as he is easily among the most notable.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaymax (talk • contribs) 00:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Over categorization
The following "Economy of ..." categories seem inappropriate: Economy of Chicago, Illinois | Economy of Hong Kong | Economy of London | Economy of Moscow | Economy of Paris | Economy of San Diego, California | Economy of San Francisco | Economy of Washington, D.C. | Orange County, California | Reston, Virginia | Silicon Valley | San Mateo County, California | Economy of Newark, New Jersey. OccamzRazor (talk) 02:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Reads like advertisement
This article reads like an advertisement, and is not written per WP:NPOV. Cirt (talk) 02:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Vanadlism on both sides
Why did ThreeAfterThree remove the section on layoffs? We discussed reordering (see below) and no one objected to moving the layoffs ahead of the recognition section. In the large law firm industry layoffs, especially first year associate layoffs, are quite notable. Please add the section back in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masslayoffs (talk • contribs) 00:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Lathaminfo, please cite references for your inserted claims - if factual and supported by usable references (see WP:RS there's no reason why your alleged facts, if expressed more neutrally, could not form a permanent part of the article. but without citations they should not be here, and I will start reverting your edits if you can't provide some.

User:EdelJamie You appear to be vandalising, but WP:AGF applies. I will be reverting pretty much all of your edits when I have time to go through them - you have destroyed this article, and reverted it to the pure advertising state it was in some time ago.

Basically, you've obviously both got strong POV around L&W - fine - that can sometimes make for a good article, but small steps and gradual improvement, rather than wholesale POV changes to the entire article.--Jaymax (talk) 17:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Jaymax, What are you talking about? I have done no such thing. I made accurate and balanced edits, with full citations. They accurately show the layoffs Latham engaged in and the criticism it's received, while still noting its achievements and recognition. Lathaminfo, on the other hand, completely butchered this article. He truned it into a smear campaign and removed all content aside from layoff information.--EdelJamie
 * I haven't bothered looking through the edit summaries to see who did what, but the current article compared to the April 20th article is a disaster. I would support a wholesale reversion to that earlier version. Shadowjams (talk) 04:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, all I did was add citations to the layoff section, and highlight some of the criticsm. Lathaminfo deleted essentially all the rest of the information except for notable attorneys and clients. Which by the way, I added almost ALL the citations to. There were previously none. My suggestion would be to leave the current layoff section (looks like he left the sites), notable attorneys and clients, and restore the remainder of the old article--EdelJamie —Preceding undated comment added 04:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC).
 * Apologies if while looking through the damage I mis-attributed stuff to you EdelJamie. Yet to go through it properly.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaymax (talk • contribs) 04:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The wholesale deletion of all the prior notable attourneys, offices, alumni was you (you acknowledge some of that) - you cannot make those sorts of sweeping decisions without consensus here first. I have substituted the old parts back.

EdelJamie, you should seek to add fact tags where you think citations are required - not just remove bulk quantities of content others have developed over time because there are insufficient citations. Or better yet, if you are knowledgeable about the firm, dig out and provide citations for the existing data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaymax (talk • contribs) 05:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The deletion of attorneys was mostly a result of technical glitches and issues in how they were displaying on the page. For some reason, editing that section was causing problem. Sorry about that! Feel free to add them back. If you do, you should provide a cite in support of their notable achievements, as I did. Even if it's just a link to their bio on the Latham webpage. But an external source would be ideal. Generally, I think this page looks good now that the recognition and intro section has been reintroduced. Fair, balanced, and accurate. Adding back some notable attorneys would be fine too.--EdelJamie

Ok, now someone (I think LathamInfo) just REMOVED all of my citations in the notable clients and case section for no apparent reason. Only to place a tag that it needs reference! Ridiculous. I can't spend any more of my time on this only to have people butcher proper edits. Whatever people want to do to this page is fine with me. I'm done. (But LathamInfo should really be banned)--EdelJamie

LathamInfo, I will not continue to waste my time editing this page. But if you continue with your vandalism, I will report you to an administrator and seek to have both your username and computer IP address banned.--EdelJamie —Preceding undated comment added 14:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC).

Lathaminfo, I have reported your vandalism, after repeated warnings, and asked an adminstrator to block you. Expect to be blocked soon and have your home PC monitored. Congratulations. Is there a way to message this user in case he doesn't check this discussion log? EdelJamie (talk) 17:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)EdelJamie

Ta Ra
I'm de-watching this article - I got involved with it to try and balance out the attempts to cleanse the article from mentioning the truth re activities surrounding the highly notable Church of Scientology client. But with the subsequent layoffs, there are editors (eg: Mediterraneo) way more qualified than me to provide guidance and oversight to the extreme contributors that, naturally, and validly, arise from the L&W downturn layoffs. I hope the legal types that will stay involved will prevent (as was the case pre-layoffs) the article being nothing more than an advertisment for L&W, and likewise prevent those impacted by the layoffs from skewing te article unduely away from L&Ws successes.

Please keep an eye out for user:swatjester or others cleansing the artcle of references to significant representation (particularly by Schindler) of the scientology cult - I don't know what the agenda was there - but that there WAS an agenda is more than apparent.

Also, there are regular non-registered IP address marketing cleanups of this article attempted - so please watch the article if you're a legal type who cares about such.

Regards, and best hopes for both the article, and a multi-national law firm that lost it's ethics somewhere along the way. (NB: hopefully these comments get archived soon, they don't need to linger) --Jaymax (talk) 11:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Notably attourneys
I have edited this section a bit.

I suggest that the following entries be removed in a week or so if no evidence of their notability is forthcoming. ''
 * Kirk Davenport II - High-yield debt attorney.
 * David Gordon - Managing partner of the New York office - refer layoffs
 * Bill Voge - project finance attorney.
 * Margaret Zwisler- One of the leading anti-trust lawyers in the United States.''

--Jaymax (talk) 05:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

If I have time, I will go back and (re)add the citations I had for Davenport, Zwisler, Notable clients, etc...          EdelJamie (talk) 14:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)EdelJamie


 * Cool. It need to be something that justifies their notability however - eg: a link back to L&W sites wouldn't justify retention.  Notable Clients/Cases could prob do with some expansion - I'm sure they must've had a few spectacular wins AND losses.  Our friend LathamInfo seems to still be absent, which is a shame - as I think LI had useful info and perspective if only s/he could be constrained to WP:RS and WP:V and WP:VAND--Jaymax (talk) 11:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted these for now - can go back in whenever / if ever notability evidence is forthcoming --Jaymax (talk) 04:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Dave Gordon manages the New York office. That office has laid off about 45% of its associates. Again, that's almost unheard off for any top law firm. Dave Gordon is therefore notable by reason of the fact that he is the managing partner of an office that has completely decimated its associate ranks.


 * To be Notable, the Attorney would have to be significant in regards something largely independent of L&W, or be sufficiently notable to qualify for their own article per WP:NOTE. (Also, please sign your comments on talk pages, cheers)--Jaymax (talk) 21:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Layoffs Changes

 * Sorry for in-editing your comments here, [it's not considered good form at all on Wiki talk pages to do so] but you make a host of different points that need addressing separately. I've split them up so we can all debate them, get some consensus, and get the encyclopaedic content through into the article.--Jaymax (talk) 21:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

NB: Generally, not regarded as great to have loads of cites from te same source (eg:ATL) - so where they're quoting someone (eg:Vault) a quick google often gets back to the 'source article' - which can be more authoritative. Although it depends somewhat on the nature of the quote - for example, an opinion is normally only worthy of consideration once some other source else has commented on the opinion itself. --Jaymax (talk) 03:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Ordering
The section on Latham's very public financial difficulties and mass layoffs should appear before the recognition section because this information is more timely.


 * This sounds reasonable. Let's run it for comment for a week or so here and see if anyone has anything else to say.--Jaymax (talk) 21:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It's been more than a week. Can I put the layoffs section before the recognition section? Latham just ranked among the bottom 20 firms (out of over 100) in terms of summer associate satisfaction. I think it's clear that the negative news is more timely. What's behind all this is the fact that Latham utilized very high leverage ratios (3.5 associates for each partner), much higher than other law firms. During the boom times, this earned Latham a lot of money. When the downturn came, they were hit harder than most other firms, and now are taking a long, hard fall that other firms are not experiencing. If this is original research and you don't want it on the page, fine, but the ordering regarding Lathams well documented financial difficulties and mass layoffs, and outdated recognitionsnshould reflect what is happening to the firm.

To put a section about outdated recognitions before a more timely financial difficulties and mass layoffs section is to distort the truth. It's pretty clear from EdelJamie's repeated attempts to turn this page into an advertisement that he or she is a Latham PR person who is not interested in presenting this firm in a neutral fashion.


 * Actually, no - If you check back on his talk page you'll find that some of his actions were entirely accidental, and the admin who blocked him removed the block once that was established. Please see WP:AGF and consider how much good faith YOU are getting right now, despite your agenda - it would be courteous for you to show the same to other editors in return.  That said, there are clear attempts to cleanse this article by unregistered users from time to time - but their edits are quickly reverted.--Jaymax (talk) 21:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * 90% chance that person works in Latham's PR department. Latham's PR group has actually been nominated for an award.   I am someone with knowledge about the firm who wants to see the wiki page become more neutral.  It was at one point entirely an advertisement.


 * And I recognise that and hope I can help. But understanding what edits are more likely to survive (and more importantly, why) will help you achieve that.  There are a few WP:Policies etc in the box at the top of this page that might be useful to flick through as well.--Jaymax (talk) 03:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Timing of awards / recognition
Latham earned it's awards pre-salary freeze, pre-mass layoffs, pre-meltdown.


 * Source please (aware it was prob once in the article, the I'm trying to get you to tightly tie sources to allegations). Also, if the timing was somewhat co-incidental, I don't see how it's relevant.  IF however there is a source criticising them for this, that might be worth including.--Jaymax (talk) 21:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Just look at the sources in the recognitions and layoffs section and you'll see that all the awards are dated pre-mass layoffs. The only exception is Latham's recent inclusion on the A list.  HOWEVER, the author for The American Lawyer has explained that the surveys used for creating the A list were turned in pre-layoffs and that associate satisfaction has since declined.  "We should note that the associate survey we use to compute satisfaction was sent out in the spring of 2008, before the waves of layoffs, deferments, and salary cuts hit The Am Law 200... Latham and MoFo, however, have taken hits in associate satisfaction this year."


 * The author of The American Lawyer has even said on Above The Law that Latham earned its place on the A-list prior to the morale devastating salary freezes and mass layoffs, and that associate satisfaction has since declined.


 * Okay, while that reference makes it clear that Latham was not alone in the practice, something like "L&W made layoffs only after annual satisfaction surveys were returned" would be fair. with http://www.law.com/jsp/tal/PubArticleTAL.jsp?id=1202431721884&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1 and a similar quality reference for VAULT? The criticism from Above The Law is primary source, and therefore not really usable - you need a source that talks about such criticism to include it, rather than a source criticising.--Jaymax (talk) 03:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, that's all fairly obvious - although a para that summarises the fallout from the layoffs would be reasonable. --Jaymax (talk) 21:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * See directly above.

Reasons L&W badly hit / business model
The recession has exposed the serious flaws in the firm's business model; mainly the fact that the firm failed to adequately develop its countercyclical practice groups.


 * Says who - you would need an expert in legal business models, being quoted in a WP:RS to include that 'fact' - this sounds like your own opinion, and as such, regardless of whether it is correct or not, it would have no place in an encyclopedia --Jaymax (talk) 21:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There have been plenty


 * Good, pick the best and most authoritative one to use as a source.--Jaymax (talk) 03:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed this section and I thought the links I posted below would be helpful. Latham has received criticism in the legal press for its layoffs. The cause, per some law firm consultants, was a misforecasting of demand and a poorly balanced practice group mix.

http://www.thelawyer.com/the-transatlantic-elite-2009-the-sweet-sixteen/1000698.article

One year on Latham stunned the market again, this time reporting a 21 per cent drop in average profit per equity partner to $1.8m (£1.23m) followed by the announcement it was laying off 440 employees across its global network, including 12 per cent of its associates.

“It’s a very, very serious management mistake which has to affect them adversely,” argues one legal market consultant of the layoffs, particularly those affecting first-year associates. “They’re taking the cynical view that culturally it doesn’t matter. But if you are one of the top law students at Oxbridge or Harvard now and you have offers from Latham and Slaughter and May, you’d be nuts to take Latham’s offer.”

Latham has also come in for criticism in some sections of the market for failing to hedge the practice well enough.

“Why didn’t Latham hire a major bankruptcy player over the past few years when times were good?” asks one consultant. “My guess is that it was delusional about how long this market would last. Okay, that delusion was shared by millions, but it wasn’t shared by everybody.”

“Latham has fallen off a cliff, along with Orrick and a few others,” says the consultant. “I think this reflects the reduced volume of upper end work. It tends to stay with the top group and dry up more in the next tier down.”

In particular, Latham - and Dell - have come in for criticism that the firm expanded too rapidly when times were good, without much thought for a potential and ­inevitable downturn.

As one comment on TheLawyer. com put it, in response to Dell ­admitting Latham was “in a ­position of over-capacity”: “In other words, things were going well so they expanded as rapidly as ­possible to capitalise on that ­without considering long term staffing requirements and ­workloads.”

http://www.thelawyer.com/latham-salary-thaw-meets-with-hot-and-cold-reception/1003081.article

But although the move will have been welcomed by the US firm’s associates, the word in New York is that the pay rise is less of a signal that market conditions are improving and more a ­necessary step to stem a ­rising tide of junior lawyer exits.

“Latham is doing it because they’re desperate,” said one Manhattan recruitment consultant. “They’ve lost a whole bunch of good associates and, to the extent that there are jobs out there, Latham people are looking. Latham figures it’s the best way to show good faith with their associates, but it’s too little too late. They’re no longer drinking the Kool Aid.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by HenryX999 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by HenryX999 (talk • contribs)

First years in particular / subsequent rankings
Plus, firms rarely resort to laying off first years, except out of complete desperation.


 * Again, sounds like original research (and again, it makes no difference whether this is true, only what the source for the statement is) --Jaymax (talk) 21:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Latham laid-off half a first year class in one office, and a lot of first years in other offices.


 * But that is not worthy of inclusion unless you can find a WP:RS that talks SPECIFICALLY about both laying off first years being unusual AND L&W laying off first years.--Jaymax (talk) 03:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * See above - however, a brief mention of this fact, if from a reliable source, would be appropriate.--Jaymax (talk) 21:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

This is completely unheard of among the top law firm, and I challenge anyone to name a top 20 law firm other than Latham that has done this. In short, the firm won't be earning any awards anytime soon. It sank like a stone in the 2010 vault rankings.
 * Regardless, none of these constitute encyclopaedic content as is - what might be is a short quote taken from a WP:RS editorial about it being unheard of.--Jaymax (talk) 21:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The editor's of Vault have noted that a drop like Latham's is completely unprecedented.


 * Great - WP:RS and WP:V source for that, and lets agree a quote to include.--Jaymax (talk) 21:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Here it is:


 * "That said, the rankings are not quite as stable as they have been in the past. In most years, there is some sort of shuffle among numbers 8 through 11. This year, however, Latham fell an unprecedented 10 spots down to #17."


 * Excellent. Here's a better source for the quote. http://www.vault.com/wps/portal/usa/!ut/p/c4/04_SB8K8xLLM9MSSzPy8xBz9CP0os3gzQ0u_YHMPIwMDH0dXA09_d1cv8wBfDydXM_2CbEdFAB0wdnE!/?blog_id=1260&entry_id=9721


 * Something like "After the layoffs, Latham fell 10 places in the Vault survey, to 17th. Vault describe the drop as 'unprecedented'"?--Jaymax (talk) 03:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Layoffs
Regardless of the past edit warring, the layoffs at Latham are both significant, and well sourced. The layoffs were not only the first mass layoffs from a Vault 10 firm, but also the largest layoffs by a law firm in US history. The layoffs were important enough to be picked up not just by AboveTheLaw.com, but also AMLaw Daily, and The Wall Street Journal (via Law Blog). The layoffs had such a big impact on the legal industry that "Latham" is now synonymous with layoffs, usually in the form of "I just got Lathamed."

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/02/27/law-firm-layoff-watch-latham-cuts-190-lawyers-250-staff/ http://abovethelaw.com/2009/02/nationwide-layoff-watch-latham-cuts-440-190-associates-250-staff/ http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdaily/2009/02/official-latham-to-cut-190-associates-250-staff-.html

Unless someone has a good argument for why the largest layoff in a major industry is not relevant, I'm planning to put this section back into the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nycbl1y (talk • contribs) 19:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for forgetting to sign comments Nycbl1y (talk) 19:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is protected for the next 3 days. Are you saying that that one event should be a major focus of the article? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I would call my changes a "major focus." They were near the bottom of the article, and shorter than the notable clients, and notable attorneys sections.  Are you suggesting that the largest layoff in the history of a major industry is not noteworthy?  Also, it seems like if it's okay for the article to mention the firm getting into the Vault 10 rankings, it would be acceptable to mention it losing that rank.  What's good for the goose ought to be good for the gander.Nycbl1y (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I should also add that the layoffs were picked up by the American Bar Association Journal, which called the incident "stunning," (http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/march_mayhem_law_firm_layoffs_top_500_today_over_1200_since_friday/) and "record-setting" (http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/latham_watkins_lays_off_190_associates_250_staffers/).Nycbl1y (talk) 19:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

In the interest of fairness and transparency, it would be inappropriate for the information regarding the layoffs and drop in rankings to be removed. We should remember that this is a community resource and not a PR tool for Latham & Watkins. Both the layoff and rankings drop are public knowledge, supported by reliable sources and therefore should be included in the article. For better or for worse, these things did happen and Latham & Watkins have to live with the repercussions of their decisions. Thanks to the internet and resources like wikipedia which are community moderated, powerful parties can no longer control the flow of information and put a lid on newsworthy items. Now that reliable sources such as the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/27/AR2009022702751.html) have been presented to support that these layoffs actually occurred, I would imagine that this edit war will be settled. Prospero-of-Milan (talk) 21:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't appear that Basebal Bugs is an employee of Latham, and I think he's actually acting in good faith. But, it is worth pointing out that some of the edits to the page have IPs that track back to Latham, and I have to imagine a lot of the stuff about awards and notable alumni were added by the PR department.  But, I agree with the point in general that there is no reason the Latham page should be limited to cheer leading.  If Latham had acquired a 190 attorney firm, this would almost certainly be included in information about the firm's history (190 is bigger than many "big law" firms), so it stands to reason that losing that many attorneys should also be included.Nycbl1y (talk) 22:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the way to proceed would be for someone to write a proposed paragraph covering the layoffs and post it in a new section here on the talk page, where it can be discussed. -- Nuujinn (talk) 23:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is what I had written that was removed:

On February 27, 2009, several news sources reported mass layoffs at Latham, including 190 lawyers and 250 staff members. The layoffs were described by the Wall Street Journal affiliated blog, Legal Blog Watch as "the largest to date by a U.S.-based firm," and were the first Vault 10 firm to conduct major layoffs, and in the subsequent Vault rankings, Latham dropped from #7 to #17.

The size of the layoffs at Latham and media coverage of the events caused the term "Lathamed" to be coined, referring to losing ones job at a law firm as a result of large scale layoffs. The term "Lathamed" can also imply that first year associates and people with good reviews were let go.

Note that this is much smaller than the "Recognition" section that appears at the top of the article.Nycbl1y (talk) 23:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In the spirit of keeping everything open and honest, I'll admit that in the above comments...I altered two grammatical errors that were in the original.Nycbl1y (talk) 23:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not necessarily opposed to including this somewhere in the article if it can be added in a NPOV manner and is thoroughly sourced. Does Legal Bog Watch, even though associated with WSJ, satisfy the reliable source guideline? Someone may want to ask at the pertinent noticeboard, or else look for other sources. The more the better. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree LBW is not the greatest source. They described me as "generally pretty damned funny," and that's simply not true.  But, the Latham stuff is actually on WSJ Law Blog (http://blogs.wsj.com/law/), which is different from Legal Blog Watch (http://legalblogwatch.typepad.com/).  It was also reported on AbovetheLaw.com, AmLaw Daily, and the ABA Journal.  Combined, that's pretty darn reliable, especially since no sources seem to say anything different.Nycbl1y (talk) 01:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, in terms of the proposed text, I agree that information about the layoffs should be included, but that information must adhere to a neutral point of view. I don't know about the vault rankings, I can't get to that url right now. As far as I can see, the WSJ's blog does not claim that Latham is "the first Vault 10 firm to conduct major layoffs", so I removed that. And I'd suggest this is more neutral, since it includes positive information in the two main news sources as well as the negative. Note that I also changed the citation format:


 * On February 27, 2009, news sources reported layoffs at Latham, including 190 lawyers and 250 staff members.  The layoffs were described by the Wall Street Journal affiliated blog, Legal Blog Watch, as "the largest to date by a U.S.-based firm." As part of the layoffs, Latham offered a comprehensive severance package including six months pay up to $100,000 and six months medical coverage,  characterized as the "most generous" package ever offered by a major law firm. Latham also deferred the start dates for new hires from the class of 2009 to the middle of December, and offered a payment of $75,000 to new hires who voluntarily deferred their start date until October of 2010.


 * Please take a look and comment. Also, I think the sourcing is pretty good, but Nycbl1y, can you get access to the ABA article? I see you already have, so that will be easy to incorporate. -- Nuujinn (talk) 01:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I still think the Vault ranking is relevant. Though, perhaps it should be included in the recognition section (after the other information about Latham's Vault rank).  It could be misleading to say they were ranked #7 in 2009 without including the 2010 rank of #17.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nycbl1y (talk • contribs) 13:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that a neutral addition on the layoffs is relevant and should be included, however some of the previous additions were not so. I'm sure once protection has lifted such a section can be added non-controversially. SGGH ping! 07:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's a few other articles I found on the topic: Law.com discussing Latham as the largest layoff in absolute numbers (but not by percentage). http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202428800862 Vault.com describing the layoffs as the first by a Vault 10 firm. This article also references rumors of "stealth layoffs," which the firm denies, and the March 2008 State of the Firm address in which the firm chairman said there would be no layoffs. http://www.vault.com/wps/portal/usa/blogs/entry-detail/?blog_id=1260&entry_id=8926 WSJ Law Blog article discussing an interview with the firm chairman in April 2010. The chairman said things at Latham are now "Pretty darn good," and also claimed that the firm was over-staffed despite the layoffs (ie: after losing 11% of their attorneys, their head count has still too high). http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/04/07/a-sit-down-with-latham-chairman-bob-dell/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nycbl1y (talk • contribs) 14:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems that there is consensus to add something neutral. Taking from an earlier edit, I tried to add something.  Please feel free to make necessary changes.LedRush (talk) 19:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi LedRush, I reverted you. Can you hold off until there is consensus? There's also a discussion at WP:ANI about the right and wrong versions of the article. Cheers, TFOWRpropaganda 19:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Everyone here minus baseball seems to agree that *something* is appropriate, right? Why not try to get it right?LedRush (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I think you need to re-read WP:CON - consensus is not a majority vote.
 * Secondly, I think you need to respect that there is also a discussion about this issue at WP:ANI.
 * Thirdly, Everyone here minus baseball?
 * Cheers, TFOWRpropaganda 19:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The ANI is just baseball saying that there is an edit war. There seems to be no substantive discussion there.  Also, I understand what consensus is...but if people state one opinion and no longer engage, does that mean consensus can never be reached?  Of course not.LedRush (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "No longer engage"? It's not clear what you're getting at.
 * There is an ongoing discussion both here and at WP:ANI. The fact I'm discussing it with you at both venues should indicate that there's more than just "Baseball" involved. Regardless, ANI is being read by a huge number of administrators, dealing with a large number of issues. Be patient. Cheers, TFOWRpropaganda 19:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I meant baseball, not you. Though he seems to have re-engaged.LedRush (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I assumed you didn't mean me ;-) Regardless, we're all busy, we're all editing other articles (I'm 'sposed to be focussed on Afghanistan and Oceania, right now...!) so perceived disengagement doesn't mean an editor has necessarily disengaged. Believe me when I say - Baseball Bugs rarely, if ever, disengages until prodded by an admin ;-) Anyway, we seem to be making progress further down the thread... TFOWRpropaganda 19:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Rush accused me of edit warring, which is silly. If consensus can be reached on the wording (if any) for this layoff stuff, that would be fine. Personally, I don't think it merits more than one sentence in the article. Companies do layoffs all the time, there's nothing special about this one. But the editors who have the most personal interest in this article should decide that point. And it's not decided yet. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As has been stated above and cited in the article, this is an unprecedented layoff both in size and the fact that it happened at a top law firm. It garnered huge press coverage.  It obviously deserves some mention in the article, as you even seem to concede now.
 * I am not sure what you mean by "Companies do layoffs all the time, there's nothing special about this one. But the editors who have the most personal interest in this article should decide that point." Shouldn't editors with the most personal interest in this say that they have a potential conflict of interest?  Or do you mean "interest" as "intellectual curiousity"?LedRush (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Layoffs in law firms are actually very rare, especially compared to other industries. It's the "we're a profession, not just a business" mentality.  But, that aside, how is the biggest lay off in US legal history not special?Nycbl1y (talk) 19:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

At this point several credible news sources have been presented that document not only the layoffs but also their significance. No argument, other than "we haven't agreed yet" has been put forward to show why it should not be included. I'm fine with waiting until the discussion has concluded to add it, but right now there appears to be no reason why it should not make it in.Nycbl1y (talk) 19:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether it's "significant" or not is up to reliable sources to claim, not us. The other concern I have is that at least some past editors apparently were pushing that info as a way to slam the company. My assumption a year ago was that the original pusher on this point was one of the targeted employees. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * For what its worth, I'd like to see something included, but I'd naturally want to avoid the non-neutral stuff that was added in the past. What were you thinking of adding, and which sources were you intending to use? TFOWRpropaganda 19:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be the thing. They need to post some exact wording and get consensus on it. The crucial issue is to demonstrate, via sources rather than editor opinions, that it's a significant event. But with only a few hundred employees affected, it's not significant economically, as compared with laying off untold thousands at the car companies, which has contributed to leaving the state of Michigan economically devastated. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the numbers of the layoffs and the fact that they are the largest layoffs in US law firm history definitely have to go in, and I think there's nothing non-neutral about that, especially considering how much of the article is dedicated to praising the firm. The sources for this (you can find links above) are AboveTheLaw.com, AmLaw Daily, Wall Street Journal Law Blog, and American Bar Association Journal.  The things that I think we can still have a legitimate discussion about are Latham's drop in Vault rankings (#7->#17), and the term "Lathamed" being used widely in among lawyers to describe being laid off.  I think the Vault data can be added very neutrally after the existing Vault rank at the top of the article.  The term "lathamed" would be better to indicate the impact Latham's layoffs had on the legal industry.  Or, would it be appropriate to have a "Latham in Popular Culture" section?Nycbl1y (talk) 19:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * (ECXN) My opinion. It happened, it's real, it's neutral, it's sourced, and it is a major event in the firm's history so it should be included.  At the same time, an entire paragraph about this is WP:UNDUE, particularly in an article that gives scant mention to any other aspect of this large firm's history.  This is a common problem, when someone wants to add a well-sourced but somewhat negative fact to a very brief article.  Wikipedia has no deadline, it won't kill anyone to wait a few days or a week until we all agree and have more news sources.  I think the "x reported that" and the arithmetic about how large it is are just excess verbiage.  It may be the largest layoff in a single round in history, but other firms have  imploded completely, or laid off more people on an absolute basis in several rounds, or in proportion to their size.  The sizing down and demise of large firms in the 2001-2010 economy is a fairly new phenomenon, but it says more about law firm economics than any particular firm.  In a full article about the subject I think this would get a single sentence, maybe two.  So why don't we compromise and do that - one sentence that simply says the layoffs occurred, and maybe explains the context of why and how rather than wonking over how we know it or how it's the biggest.  And then whoever wants to include it should as an act of goodwill find four other sentences to add about other unrelated parts of the firm's history so at least we have some substance to that part of the article.  - Wikidemon (talk) 19:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, undue weight and arguably "coatracking". If this law firm is really all that important, surely they've done more in their history than just lay a few people off. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is a coatracking risk. There is information about significant clients and cases in the article already.  That's the information about the other things they've done in their history than just lay people off.Nycbl1y (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There are 21 lines of information about positive things the firm has done, and 19 lines about significant attorneys or alumni of the firm. How can 3-4 lines about layoffs be considered coatracking?  We're talking <10% of the article.  And again, it's not just "a few people" who got laid off, it's the largest number of people laid off by an industry that historically avoids layoffs, by a firm that a few months prior said they wouldn't be laying anybody off.Nycbl1y (talk) 19:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The imbalance is specifically in the section (or lack thereof) of the firm's history: founding, growth, milestones, etc. It's not that one coat is too many for the rack, it's that we also need some trousers, shirts, belts, and ties before we call it a wardrobe.  - Wikidemon (talk) 20:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see why we can't put in a small mention of perhaps most significant news to come out of the law firm merely because the article hasn't been fully developed yet. If people are worried about that, then they should expand the article, not act to obstruct information which will be helpful to readers.  We are forgetting that this article should provide information to readers.LedRush (talk) 20:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * [Moved my misplaced comment to the section below.]Nycbl1y (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)