Talk:White-shoe firm/Archives/2016

"New" White shoe firms
I added the section called "New" white shoe firms in hopes of resolving the ongoing discussion here. I think the most productive thing is to get some of these comments on the actually page so that readers can understand the distinction between the historical origins and use of the term versus the current, more laissez-faire, use the term. The fact is that the NY Times and other respected publications use the term to apply to Skadden, Weil and others, so it would be silly for the page not to address that. I think it can be done while fully explaining the history of the original select group and also paying respect to the obstacles that the founders of the newer firms often faced on their paths to success. Epeesi (talk) 01:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This seems sensible. Though we should say that isn't white-shoe associated with those firms that have strong relationships with an old-line bank? or am I imagining this association?, e.g. Shearman with Citibank, Milbank with Chase.

Next question, isn't White & Case white shoe? It should be added.

--Mediterraneo (talk) 02:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the section qualifies as original research. --70.23.131.232 (talk) 02:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

How on earth is Alston and Bird a "New" White shoe firm? They are based in Atlanta, consistently ranked in the 80s for the top 100 law firms, and don't do work for any of the top Wall Street clients. At least the other "New" White shoe firms can argue that they are as elite as the old white shoe firms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.212.65 (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Is Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP an old or a new white show firm, because it is in both list. --89.204.139.74 (talk) 07:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Isn't Mayer Brown a white shoe firm? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.235.68.202 (talk) 18:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC)