Talk:William Lerach

Poop article
While well sourced and cited, this unorganized mess is unusable as an academic resource due to its wholly incomprehensible nature. This needs to be written. Not re-written; written. --184.77.222.27 (talk) 15:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Every salient fact is well-resourced. If anyone wishes to cite statements or facts from this piece, they are all there. It should be read and digested in toto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.98.193 (talk) 20:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Lerach
I was on the ABA and NYSBA house of delegates, and I've never heard of this guy. Bearian 00:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * He's been profiled in the New Yorker and Fortune, and the PSLRA was passed in response to his shenanigans. WP:N is objective, not subjective.  The article needed a POV cleanup so that it wasn't an advertisement, but he's notable.  (Disclosure: I've written about Lerach, also, and testified about his law firm before Congress.)  THF 02:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It still needs cleanup and some other sources. Bearian 01:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need cleanup; it needs de-stubbing. There are plenty of sources; these two sites (for which I write) have compiled dozens of mainstream-press articles on Lerach..  THF 08:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Bearian, I don't believe that you've never heard of this guy. I'm not a lawyer and I know exactly who this guy is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.131.246 (talk) 05:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Bearian; your ignorance is not the yardstick of notoriety. --184.77.222.27 (talk) 15:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No it isn't, Congress' ignorance is... SChalice  18:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Meyerson article
If we're going to include Harold Meyerson's one-sided lionization of Lerach, which gets numerous facts wrong, is there any objection if we also include criticism of Lerach's role in the same case per NPOV? Reprint of 31 May Wall Street Journal op-ed. THF 11:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Four (Fortune, law.com, NYT, L.A. Times) of the other five references do balance the Meyerson article, which Khoo added solely to make Lerach look good. The only hook I could find to hang it on was as a citation for counsel, which is obvious from other citations.  It's clearly not needed.  — Athaenara ✉ 00:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, no, those other articles are about the indictment for stealing clients' money, not criticism of how the lawsuits Lerach brings are bad for the investors he purports to represent. THF 13:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Lerach Article
NPOV dispute: This article screams of one-sidedness. While William Lerach was struck down by the double-edged sword which he used to slay many giants, it might be mentioned that he did win a lot of money for a lot of small-time shareholders. Additionally, he sat on the boards of the the U.S. Holocaust Museum and the Clinton Library. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 42WallabyWay (talk • contribs) 13:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think this article has any one-sidedness to it. The thing is, Lerach wasn't entitled to those monies.  He got to be lead plaintiff lawyer because he was bribing a stable of bogus in-house clients.  Those lawsuits would probably have been filed anyway, but by other plaintiffs' counsel.  Basically, Lerach stole his fees from other plaintiffs' lawyers.  I think if you talk to other plaintiffs' lawyers who were NOT paying bribes, you will find that they do not have very good things to say about Mr Lerach because he pocketed money that would have been spread around to other attorneys.  It's not just bribery - it's theft.  I might not have so much of a problem with what he did if he had divided up the legal fees amongst other lawfirms, but he didn't do that.  He was doing what he was doing because he had figured out that he could line his pockets by doing so, at the expense of other plaintiffs' counsel.  And, of course, once he found out that the gov't was on to him, he blatantly continued the practice - that's why the gov't went after him.  Maybe the two above points should be incorporated into this article/bio on William Lerach???  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.131.246 (talk) 20:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Plantiff's cases were exactly that. Lerach got all the money!!! SChalice  18:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

NPOV dispute: Also, nothing has been mentioned about Lerach spearheading the largest-ever class-action securities recovery, Enron. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.210.90.2 (talk) 08:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

There should be a reference to the new book by Patrick Dillon and Carl M. Cannon. (press release) --Christofurio (talk) 14:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Request to remove blacklisted alert
The blacklisted "examiner"source has been removed....will the corresponding bot notice at the top of the article also be deleted ?

An automated process has detected links on this page on the local or global blacklist. If the links are appropriate you may request whitelisting; otherwise consider removing or replacing them with more appropriate links. List of blacklisted links:[hide] http://www.examiner Dot com/assets/national/promo/ilep/story6.html Triggered by (?<=[/@.])examiner\ dot com(?:[:/?\x{23}]|$) on the local blacklist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.191.42 (talk) 17:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://www.examiner.com/assets/national/promo/ilep/story6.html
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 18:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

✅ This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 06:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)