User talk:Lockpen

Please stop editing DBRs page

Kramer Case on DBR
Hello Lockpen. I've had this page watchlisted for some time and have seen the back and forth on this issue. My feeling, after reading the sources that you provided for the addition of the Kramer section, is that its inclusion violates our position on Undue Weight. In this case specifically, the attorneys are mentioned tangentially as being the attorneys of record on the cases, but for inclusion in an article about the firm as a whole, that fact is more or less irrelevant. Articles on other firms do not list every notable case that they've won or lost; indeed for a case to be notable enough to mention in an article, it generally has to have its own article (e.g. Gideon v. Wainwright).

An article about the case itself could then conceivably tangentially mention DBR as an involved party, but not much more unless attorney activities were themselves notable beyond the mere fact of their involvement.

Lastly, speaking of involvement, your username Lockpen suggests an affiliation with Lockwood Pension who, if I'm reading correctly, was adverse to DBR in the Kramer case. As such you should probably not be the one to be making such additions. Please let me know if you have any questions, thanks. Crow  Caw 23:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)