Talk:LegalMatch

Untitled
The CEO and founder of LegalMatch plead guilty in 2004 to the felony of illegally accessing into the voicemail system of a competitor. This event was reported in several new articles and blogs. The latest news article to reference this was in the San Francisco Business Times from the January 20, 2006 edition. Please see http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2006/01/23/newscolumn7.html?from_rss=1.

"Stealing trade secrets"?
What is the source for the "stealing trade secrets" allegation? I've removed it temporarily. Note that I can't access the Forbes source. AndyJones 09:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It's in the Forbes article (which can be read with a free account, like New York Times articles). It states '“theft and use of trade secrets,”'; my guess is that LegalMatch alleges mr. Wells took the trade secrets with him to CasePost and started recruiting their personnel. AFAIK in the US the court records containing their complaints are public, so perhaps they will pop up in google later. I was kind of tired when editing this, I guess that's why I typed CasePoint instead of CasePost a number of times. I restored the link to the joint press release on the CasePost site, that link is there is to 'prove' it was a joint press release. If it's too expansive, consider linking both versions on the same line. Tinus 20:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Editing by 67.119.122.102
If people are monitoring this article, they might want to keep a close eye towards, who has been removing references, adding POV, and adding (alleged) linkspam on other articles. Tinus 17:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

News
This interesting press release was added, kind of a bad reference but still informational Tinus 01:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

http://www.emailwire.com/cgi-bin/news/db.cgi?db=ads&uid=default&ID=5606&C1=Legal&view_records=1&full_view=1

Article is not neutral
The majority of this article looks like self-promotion. Despite the newsworthiness of the company due to negative press, the article needs to be edited to comply with neutrality guidelines or deleted. Stanley, 19 June 2006.
 * It's not likely to be deleted. I proposed it for deletion and it got kept. I'd approve of a substantial rewrite, though, if you want to start on one. AndyJones 17:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Deleted several unsupported sentences that looked more like advertising as opposed to having an objective tone. Stanley, 24 October 2006

Somebody is deleting the news articles that made this article relevant in the first place. Reinstated articles. If the news related to this article is deleted so should the article. Stanley 11:31, 26 October 2006

This article is clearly not neutral. A user is continuously deleting any references to news that portrays the company in a negative light. If this article does not include the news that made this company notable in the first place, this article should be deleted. Stanley 13:56, 14 November 2006

My edits today -discussion

 * Wikipedia is not censored:
 * Someone deleted large chunks of material not flattering to LegalMatch. That's against the rules -- such changes need to be discussed on the talk page first, assuming the material is factual, which it was.


 * Boalt Hall/Randy Wells:
 * I temporarily deleted the following pending discussion on the talk page and editor consensus:
 * ”LegalMatch was started in a two-bedroom apartment in the outer Richmond section of San Francisco, California, by a legal graduate of Boalt Hall, the (University of California, Berkeley School of Law).”
 * ”Randy Wells in turn has twice accepted disciplinary actions from the NASD in 2001 and 2002 where he lost his license, was prevented from having contact with other brokers and was fined a total of $30,000.”
 * I did not see the relevance of having this unnamed founder living in an apartment and having graduated from a top law school. I'm guessing it was Wells, but I don't know.
 * Likewise, unless Wells was associated with LegalMatch at the time, I don't see how his prior problems with the NASD belong in the article if he's no longer with the company. (If he was with the company at the time, I think that information should stay and it should be spelled out that he was working at LegalMatch at the time.


 * Redundant links:
 * Unless they were to a specific archived news article, I removed most of the legalmatch.com links per WP:EL The typical approach is to use just one link to a company's home page.


 * Other edit:
 * I did some formatting and rewriting mostly to read more like Wikipedia's style. I don't think these edits should be controversial (other than maybe my grammar -- I'm no Boalt Hall graduate!) --A. B. 20:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Making this article neutral
As previously suggested and as partially edited recently, I suggest this article be made neutral and that the "non-neutral" article header be removed upon the completion of the rewrite. This article seems to have been originally created as a self promotion by the company. However upon researching LegalMatch online, the company seems worthy of being written about in a neutral way. Since this article's inception, there have been numerous edits that have been clearly biased for or against the company. Clearly there are people with strong opinions and interests in making this article sound good and bad. Given the history of LegalMatch, this is not surprising. I suggest that both biases be removed. A.B. has removed some biases that were written in favor of the company. I suggest removing biases against the company as well.

For example: The section about LegalMatch vs. Pine Tree Legal should be removed. This section seems to be referring to a nominal lawsuit that never went anywhere. This settled lawsuit is not news worthy. Most companies listed have numerous such lawsuits. This section has clearly been added as a bias against LegalMatch. I propose that it be removed. Fastdriving 07:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

— Fastdriving (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * First of all, I deleted negative stuff as well -- see my comment above.


 * Second, I disagree about deleting Pine Tree Legal; the issue of running Google ads triggered by competitor names is a topical legal issue.


 * Third, welcome to Wikipedia! --A. B. 12:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the topic of running Google ads triggered by competitor names is a topical legal issue. There should be an article about it. However, the Pine Tree lawsuit was immediately dismissed and so does not address the legality of this issue. I'm sure a search of other lawsuits will reveal many more relevant lawsuits on this topic. Specifically, lawsuits against the major search engines. And Pine Tree has little to do with LegalMatch as a company or what they do. Fastdriving 21:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

— Fastdriving (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I agree with FastDriving - the article is not neutral. The sections on LegalMatch vs. Pine Tree Legal and LegalMatch vs Casepost should be removed / stay removed.PlayNice 01:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC) Neutral means neutral. This page is not neutral. I know people enjoy talking trash instead of really being neutral and using excuses to justify continuing negativity. I'd rather see the negativity edited out completely and give people a truely neutral look at what the company does, instead of focused on old biases.PlayNice 01:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

— PlayNice (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * I read the guidelines here on Wikepedia. They say content exists by concensus and everyone is an editor, including me. My screen name pretty much describes my philosophy: play nice. Items that are not flattering and not relevent are not neutral / should not be in a place that is intended to be objective. It is within the guidelines of Wikepedia to edit articles to be useful to readers.
 * The he said, she said crap was edited out / should stay edited out / just leave the focus on what the company does
 * P.S. Sorry to have stepped on your toes, but I really would prefer to see things be relevant to today's users / get past the biases / towards an edit that can truely be neutral.

Thanks,PlayNice 01:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

— PlayNice (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Editing out large chunks of material that is not relevent is not against Wikepedia rules, especially when they are done with the intent of creating more neutral and relevent user experience.PlayNice 01:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * — PlayNice (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Thanks for the reminder about policies and guidelines. Here are the relevant ones here as I see it:
 * Editing policy, in particular ”Major changes” (excerpts):
 * "So, whatever you do, try to preserve information. Reasons for removing bits of an article include:"
 * "* irrelevancy"
 * "* inaccuracy (attempt to correct the misinformation or discuss the problems first before deletion)"
 * What Wikipedia is not, esepcially the section “Wikipedia is not a soapbox” (excerpts):
 * "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not:"
 * "Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. "
 * "Self-promotion. "
 * "Advertising. "
 * Neutral point of view, especially the section ”Let the facts speak for themselves”
 * Conflict of interest
 * As I see it now, the rub is probably the Editing Policy. You made the point that the Pine Tree case was irrelevant and while I disagree, I backed off for now. I also am waiting to find out about whether Wells was the founder and whether he was there when he got in legal trouble with the NASD; if so, it's relevant. But for now, I'm not worrying about it until I find out about Wells' status. In the meantime, that leaves the Casepost litigation, which is clearly central and relevant to the company's history. I'm sorry if it's not flattering to your company, but companies can't expect Wikipedia to only publish the happy stuff. --A. B. 02:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing to back off on the Pine Tree case. I really don’t understand the reasons to include that case. I think the Casepost litigation is debatable. It is an interesting side note to the company history; however I don't think it is relevant when describing LegalMatch and what they do. Negative, sure. Gossipy, you bet! Relevant... well, let's see what PlayNice and others have to say about that. Fastdriving 08:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

— Fastdriving (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Fastdriving, in digging into this talk page's history to try to restore the previously censored out comments, I noticed that various anonymous, single purpose accounts had also censored out various pieces of the article itself in the past. I will dig into this as time allows and start adding that stuff back, provided it meets these Wikipedia policies and guidelines:
 * No original research
 * Verifiability
 * What Wikipedia is not
 * Companies, corporations and economic information
 * Citing sources
 * Reliable sources
 * Biographies of living persons (for present and former company officers)
 * If the former edits that were censored out meet the above but are not neutrally worded, I'll be sure to re-write them in conformance with the editing policy to meet the neutral point of view policy. --A. B. 11:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * A. B., I see you continue to add or restore links regarding various litigation about LegalMatch. Again, I question the value and neutrality of doing so.  I see you are beginning to question this as well by your comments when you reintroduced the press release about the AbdulJaami litigation.  Upon researching this case (unfortunately I only know how to do this on paid research sites so I can't link to it), I see that the case was dismissed, apparently as a frivolous claim.  So what's the value of adding a press release about it, let alone a press release obviously slanted because it's put out by one side?  If it's an article put out by a reputable news source, there is an argument that it is neutral.  Press releases are put out by one side or another and are clearly biased.  And all this litigation news is designed to be inflammatory and one sided because, well, it's litigation.  I can find negative, inflammatory litigation on almost every company listed in Wikipedia.  Yet I don't see them being listed or linked to in company descriptions.


 * Why not stick to what the company does and who they are, not what people with biased interests accuse them of being. This is what I mean by asking for this article to be 'neutral'.  If you want to write an article about corporate infighting, write that and list LegalMatch as one of many examples.  Don't single them out.  That's unfair. Fastdriving 01:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * — Fastdriving (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Fastdriving, I do not appreciate the tone of your criticism and I disagree with much of its substance:
 * I restored a Justice Dept. that had been deleted without any edit summary or any consensus. I do not see how that link was inappropriate or unencyclopedic.
 * I did not add or endorse the Abdul Jaami link -- I only edited the label for neutrality. I also explained my action and thinking in the edit summary so others could discuss and consider the link's suitability. The link was added an anonymous editor without an edit summary or discussion.
 * I did not take either of these steps in order to pick a fight or to solicit your criticism of my intentions -- I did it just to produce an encyclopedia.


 * If LegalMatch has a troubled history, so be it. I am not out to pillory this or any other company, however attempts to censor or put a spin on the company's history will just motivate me to dig and research deeper to find out what, if any, verifiable and important information folks are trying to keep out of Wikipedia. If it's notable and verifiable, I will add it to the article, whether it's positive or negative about the company. I think a perusal of my last month or two's worth of edits will confirm this trait.


 * By all means, remove the Abdul Jaami link. I agree it's dubious.


 * I also encourage you to consider contributing to Wikipedia beyond this one article and the defense of this one company. We're covering a big world and with 1.5 million articles, I'll bet there are others you'd enjoy working on without putting aside your work on this one. You'd enjoy it. --A. B. (talk) 09:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi everyone who is watching this page. I've just been catching myself up on the history of this article. It looks like it still needs someone to make it neutral and cleaning it up. And it looks like no one is stepping up, even though it seems everyone understands it needs to be revised. I don't mind giving it a shot, but only if I get some buy in from A. B. or some other more frequent Wikipedia contributor that my changes will not be summarily reversed. I don't want to waste my time on something that will just be deleted without substantive comment or conversation. I promise to document in detail all my changes, and I don't even mind proposing revised language in the talk section. Just let me know if this is what I need to do to get buy in. Or someone else can step up and make this article more neutral. Or we can leave this article as is, notated as not neutral, but not allowing any new changes unless those changes are documented as relevant and new. Whatever you like... I just don't have the time to research deeply and end up without the satisfaction of seeing my work product having a full review. -- Fastdriving (talk) 8 September 2008 (UTC)

— Fastdriving (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Why don't you just post the proposed text here on the talkpage?


 * Oh, and thanks for catching the redundant material! -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey everyone. I'm going to work on this article during the holidays as I'll have some time to do the appropriate research. I welcome any feedback if you think my language is biased one way or another. If you think a change goes too far one way or another, please move it to the discussion page so that it can be discussed and resolved instead of just removed. I hope that when I'm finished, we can use my edits as a neutral base and consider this article basically finished and remove the editor warnings.

I notice that there have been a number of revisions done in the last few months that are not supported and arguably biased. I'll do my best to clean them up. I'm going to be editing in the article since it looks like it's been changed significantly since the last time I reviewed it, and not all for the best. -- Fastdriving (talk) 26 December 2008 (UTC)

— Fastdriving (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Well, it took me longer to get to this then I had hoped. However, I think I've cleaned up and provided citations for most of the article. Please let me know if I'm doing this correctly, and provide any relevant feedback. There are some more things to be done, but I want to see if anyone has any feedback on my latest revisions / citations before I do more. Fastdriving (talk) 19 April 2009 (UTC)

— Fastdriving (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I'm commenting on my removal of the LegalMatch v. Casepost section. This section was originally posted by Casepost during the heat of the litigation, and is intended to slander LegalMatch (which I think it does successfully).

However, the lawsuit was eventually settled amicably by both sides almost 4 years ago, and Casepost has since gone out of business. I'm confused why this post is still relevant in any way to what LegalMatch does as a business. That's why I removed it. K.L July 1 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenlamance (talk • contribs) 23:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC) — Kenlamance (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Kenlamance brings up a good point. If we allow the removal of the LegalMatch vs. Casepost section, we will effectively leave this article pretty neutral in its content and can consider this article 'cleaned'.  Does anyone else have an opinion on this?  -- Fastdriving (talk) 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * — Fastdriving (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Do not delete or move around comments on this talk page
It's against the rules to move or delete article talk page comments as has been done several times here. ,, , See the following:
 * Talk page guidelines
 * Vandalism, especially the "Talk page vandalism" part of the "Types of vandalism" section:
 * "Deleting the comments of other users from Talk pages other than your own, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc. is generally considered vandalism. Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long Talk page to a separate file and then remove the text from the main Talk page. The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where this policy does not itself prohibit the removal and archival of comments at the user's discretion."

--A. B. 03:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Another censorship attempt; time to resurrect past deletions?
67.119.122.102 (talk • contribs) removed a link to the Dept. of Justice press relase announcing Shubov's indictment.

I see there have been extensive unilateral deletions made by pro-LegalMatch editors in the past; this reminds me that we need to go back through the article history (as was done with the talk page here) and resurrect undiscussed deletions. I had put this off, then the latest deletion reminded me this was needed.

I will try to get to this after Christmas (if I don't forget again -- fortunately today's deletion on my watchlist reminded me). --A. B. (talk) 22:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Merger w/ CasePost?
Much of the discussion here seems to focus on LegalMatch's relationship with CasePost. If you go to CasePost.com now, though, it seems to be a sockpuppet for LegalMatch -- you are directed to fill out some of the same forms as you would be on LM, and then you are actually forwarded to the LM website. Not sure what to make of that. Invisible Flying Mangoes (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC).

Ad?
Is this some ad? Well, it isn't NPOV! --MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 22:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)