Talk:Big Six (law firms)

Requested move

Someone suggested in the AFD (linked in the box above) to rename this page to Big Six Australian law firms. I endorse this idea, but I would prefer that others make the decision. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 05:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with this. Potential to cause confusion elsewhere. They're only the big six in Australia. Murtoa (talk) 11:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

This article is about the term, so it should be named exactly as the term is used. To put the title in context, a better idea could be Big Six law firms (Australia). --Damiens.rf 14:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Damiens. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Mallesons and Blake Dawson post merger

I have amended the previous claims that King & Wood Mallesons and Ashurst Australia are "big 6" law firms. This claim is not supproted by any of the cited sources, since all the sources date from before 2012.

I think it would be reasonable to argue that K&WM and Ashurst have "inherited" the "big 6" status if MSJ had simply become K&WM, or Blake Dawson had simply become Ashurst Australia. The reality is more nuanced - the new K&WM is fully merged in Hong Kong and in China. Only K&WM Australia and UK are in any sense derived directly from the old MSJ -- but even then that is only part of the old MSJ, the other parts having merged into / with King & Wood. Likewise, Blake Dawson in Asia has fully merged into Ashurst, so Ashurst Australia consists only of the Australian part of Blake Dawson.

Are MSJ and Blake Dawson, shorn of their Asian practices, still "big 6"? Perhaps, but until reliable sources come out to support that contention, such claims should be left out of the article. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Move page

The name of the page should be changed from Big Six (law firms) to Top Tier (law firms). This is because of the outdated nature for the former term.

P.S Apologies if this is a double post as cannot see my initial post. Thanks AustralianLawMan (talk) 07:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

My understanding of the intention of this article is that should provide an historical perspective on law firms. An article giving an up-to-date run-down on the current situation is a different beast all together - although you have moved it closer to that! As someone who is ignorant of the field, I sought out this article purely to find out what big six referred to. I was reading a book which is set around corporate legal shenanigans in the 1990s-2000s. Luckily for me, I thought to look at the article history so I could still find the information I wanted in the previous versions, so now I know.

I can see the utility of providing modernised information, but historical details / archaic usage are important in any encyclopaedia. You clearly knew before looking what "big six" referred to, but I'd hazard a guess many (even most) outside your field would not!

I have a counter-suggestion, AustralianLawMan: Rather than move the article, by first transforming its subject matter [from account of recent history to summary of current events ], and then changing its name to match the new contents, how about incorporating both aspects into the article and giving it a title that encompasses the "then" and the "now"? (Don't know what - My first thought, "Big, wealthy, impressive law firms in Australia" is probably a bit too flippant. I'm sure you'd think of something suitable.)

In the interim, I propose restoring the information edited out of the article, while keeping your additions - that is, if you or others have no strong objections. Please let me know what you think. Then, if consensus is reached, we can have a section covering Top tier law firms, and another giving the old background in a separate Big six section. 49.177.64.138 (talk) 13:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

It still needs more work to bring it up to spec, but I have re-introduced the material removed from the article, for reasons discussed below. 49.177.64.138 (talk) 11:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Propose separate article for Top-tier law firms (Australia)

Upon reflection, I believe this Big Six article really needs to stay as an overview of the historical situation. An encyclopaedia is not a business directory, or a Fin Rev-style publication. (If WP had been around at the time, it would not have deleted everything in its Soviet Union article in order to transform it into the Russian Federation article: Editors would change the tenses in the wording and include links to an entirely new article! That is what needs to happen here.)

Suggest AustralianLawMan's text (below) be foundation for a separate article on the current legal scene, with a title something like Top-tier law firms. 49.177.64.138 (talk) 11:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC) Included clearer attribution below. 49.177.64.138 (talk) 10:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Attribution for following text: copied content from Big Six (law firms); see that page's history 18 Apr 2021 for attribution

As of 2020, the following firms are considered to be the top tier law firms in Australia (listed alphabetically):

• Allens
• Ashurst
• Clayton Utz
• Corrs Chambers Westgarth
• Herbert Smith Freehills
• Gilbert + Tobin
• King & Wood Mallesons
• MinterEllison

References

Reversion of restored article back to recently created version

Text below copied from user talk page

Hi AustralianLawMan (ALM) and AustralianLegalRankings(ALR). Do you mind if we discuss your proposed changes? I think ALM made some good points in his edits of 18 Apr 2021, and his preferred page may indeed be better. However, perhaps ALR's edit summary when reverting my restoration, saying "Restored version due to unverified user removing previous version without appropriate reason", [emphasis added] was a little unfair: After all, I wrote several paragraphs on my reasoning above, and gave an extensive edit summary, several, in fact. That I am an IP user is neither here-nor-there. Please take it to the talk page or try requests for comment as 3O now not appropriate. I do not think I have ever given anyone on WP a reason to think that I would not positively engage in discussions or consensus building on articles, even if I am "an unverified user". Look forward to hearing from you here. Thanks. 49.177.64.138 (talk) 04:06, 3 May 2021 (UTC) Update 49.177.64.138 (talk) 04:46, 3 May 2021 (UTC) update 49.177.64.138 (talk) 10:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Notes

I have a problem with the content under the heading 'The top tier law firms in Australia'. It appears to be wholly unsupported by sources. The TR reference describes 'big eight' firms (and doesn't seem to be the the best of sources). The AFR source appears to completely fail verification. And the 'Who's Who' source simply lists 'Most listings in WWL', and does not describe them as top tier firms. I am removing this list for now. Local Variable (talk) 16:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion of "top-tier"

Hello The term top tier is used to indicate the position in the market (and types of clients) which those firms operate. The term is not used as a peacock term; the term indicates the reflects of the Australian market. The term is not used in the media and industry as a peacock term, rather in accordance to the said division of the legal market. It is a term widespread by various and independent sources - from recruitment websites to newspapers to blogs. Firms also describe themselves as mid tier, which does not bring the implication of a lesser firm but instead a firm with mid level specialisation and clients. I think the change should be reverted. Thanks

I have reverted the change. I don’t think it should be changed again unless sufficient reason is provided. Hate to play the majority card, but two other people than I have a similar view. I also note that your change has not added recent citations (which was why the page should be changed and was changed in the first place, presumably).

I should also mention the name of the article itself, the Big Six, by the logic of the user would be a peacock term. I don’t think the user’s view against top tier is sound.

UPDATE: Local Variable removed “top tier” from numerous law firms but retained it on rival law firm Clayton Utz. Potential manipulation to boost Clayton Utz at the expense of other firms based on flawed claim of peacock term. User should be warned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AustralianLegalRankings (talk • contribs) 12:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@AustralianLegalRankings: First, your claim that Local Variable is attempting to manipulate Wikipedia to favor one Australian law firm over another fails to assume good faith on LV's part. Second, unless the term, "top tier" has a specific legal definition in Australia, its use by media and industry does not change the fact that it is a peacock term. Any firm may call itself a "top tier" firm, and any media may refer to any firm as a "top tier" firm; it is a vague and meaningless term that can only serve to promote the firm in question. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@AustralianLegalRankings: The retainment of the term on the Clayton Utz article was simply an inadvertent oversight on my part. I went through your contributions list to identify the changes, and there were many articles listed there. I have now removed it from that article as well. Local Variable (talk) 13:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi @AustralianLegalRankings:, this is getting all a bit muddled (for me anyway!). The main problem seems to be that use of the (newer) term "top-tier", the way first ALM, then you, then I, used it in this Big Six article is not really supported by the cites - well not fully, anyway. See @Local Variables:'s points about TR, AFR, and WWL sources, up page. Even if they support the listed law firms as top-tier, they say nothing about the term being standard usage in the field, nor that it displaced "Big Six". And that's really the crux of this article. It's about the term and its usage. So we're gonna need some refs for that. (I do not doubt that it is as you say; it seems like common sense, too, but the only argument that wins on WP are sources that back up what we want to put in.)

As for using "top-tier" term in all those law firm articles, well, again, the sources need to say it, (and do), but more importantly, we need to weigh up whether using it in the LEAD - the intro of the article - over-eggs it, i.e., gives an UNDUE weight. If I am recalling correctly, most of those articles talk about how big, global, and revenue-raking those firms are, in the first 1 or 2 paras, so we don't need to lard in extra descriptors that basically say the same: that's when it starts to look like a "peacock" term, you know "big-upping", even though that is not the intention. Might be better to include it in the body of the article, IF we get the sourcing right for it. 49.177.30.125 (talk) 11:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

BTW, I might add confusion, as my IP address seems to have changed slightly overnight. I am the same User who posted as 49.177.64.138, above. Also, I re-factored (tiny rearrangement - but nothing removed or added) ALR's comments and added a subsection heading, just for clarity (for me!). Of course, let me know if you'd prefer I change it back. Thanks, all. 49.177.30.125 (talk) 11:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@49.177.30.125: Thanks for your contributions. They are significant improvements. As you've probably seen across a few pages, I take issue with 'top-tier' in a few ways. Let me lay out my thoughts.

First, I am not opposed to referring to the concept in this article. What troubles me is how we identify what is 'in' and 'out'. Unlike 'big six' where it is apparently universally agreed, 'top-tier' seems a highly subjective measure. It would appear at first blush that reliable sources seem to differ on what is a top-tier firm. The simple solution is to adopt the kind of verbal formulae: According to [reliable source X], the top-tier firms are, but this risks placing all the eggs in one basket (source). Evaluative judgements based upon many conflicting sources would seem to me to risk engaging in impermissible original research or at least introduce undue weight.

Secondly, I fully agree with you that this article should not be fully rewritten in terms of 'top-tier'. 'Big six' existed at some point, and therefore we should have it in the encyclopedia for the reasons you have given. The proper way to reframe the concept would be to create a new article.

Thirdly (admittedly slightly outside the scope of this talk page, but I don't know where else to put it) - I think 'top-tier' is inappropriate in the lead section of individual articles of law firms, even if sourced, because of its peacocky nature. Placing it in the lead gives the concept undue weight, and lacks important context which the reader may not appreciate, conveying (incorrectly) that the firm is somehow better than others. Rather, it has simply been grouped into a category by people for several reasons. I'm not even sure if that grouping is sufficiently important to warrant inclusion in the lead. While I removed these changes from many of the articles, they have now (for the most part) been restored by @AustralianLegalRankings:. I have decided that, at present, I will not remove them again without establishing consensus, so as to conform to the bold, revert, discuss cycle. Local Variable (talk) 14:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I have pretty much the same view, Local Variable. Thank you for pointing out the lack of support in the page's new cites for the use of the term "top tier" as the preeminent one.

Once you realise that, it becomes not only about keeping this Big Six article intact - rather than turning it, piecemeal, into a completely new one - but also about being cautious in using 'top tier', and which firms are listed in that category. ALR appeared to contend it's an objective fact. From my brief researches, there is nowhere near universal agreement on the term. There is also some variation in who's on the list of the most prominent, or leading firms. And without that overwhelming use of it in reliable sources, it should have a brief mention, at best. If I, or ALR, or anyone, can find cites that say, 'such-and-such is a top-tier firm', it's probably fine to say something about it, in the way you described, in the body of any law firm article.

Also, for the the reasons you give, I think it's better to have Big Six (law firms)#The top tier law firms in Australia section use another title, and say something less definite in the text. (E.g Title: "Leading firms" - "Many industry publications (e.g. RS1, RS2, RS3 ) consider the following firms to be the leading law firms in Aus. Some use this criteria: A, B, C, while these ones use x, y, z. Various labels are used, including, top-tier, band 1, global elite law firms, or international business law firms for the category.")

In regard to the individual law firm articles, for those that ALR re-reverted, I went back and again took out "top-tier", put in 'leading' or similar, where a descriptor seemed needed. The sources would support that much, as a generic - but loose - categorisation, I think. Some of those law firm articles had mentioned the firms had been known as Big Six. ALR, in later conceding that 'top tier' should not be in those articles' leads atm, may have concluded that there should not be any term describing a firm's standing, including "Big Six". Accordingly, they have reverted my attempt at a NPOV mention of it here in Clayton Utz. I think it is okay to include Big Six, as that term is widely and consistently attested, long-accepted, and sourced. What do you think?

I take ALR's point that these law firm articles could do with some more up to date sourcing, so I will try to ferret some out when I can. Thank you for your thoughts on all this, LV. 49.177.30.125 (talk) 12:03, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

While I would favour removal of the section altogether, I have edited the article to entitle the section 'Alternative terminology', and rephrased the section a bit. I won't remove it since no one else has really backed that move. Anyone should, of course, feel free to rename it to anything else, or propose it here if you're unsure.

I note a key editor concerned in this debate has been blocked from editing for sockpuppetry on the basis of attempting to introduce a false consensus in relation to this article, and some of the changes proposed by @49.177.30.125: and I. There has, so far, been no other real opposition to the changes either of us have proposed. As the IP editor notes, it seems that 'top tier' has now effectively been removed from the lead of most of the subject articles, which I am in favour of. As for 'leading firms', while better than top-tier, it still (I think) gives rise to similar issues in relation to neutrality, or lack thereof - it still seems a bit peacocky without having some objective measure to back it. --Local Variable (talk) 10:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

"Top tier law firms", etc

I have reverted recent reverts by User:ChilledIntentions. There are multiple issues with this version. First, as the anon user pointed out, this version cites multiple sources allegedly supporting a sweeping claim that "the" term is now "top tier law firms" and it has a settled membership. This statement is not supported by three out of the four sources. Only one source (AFR) properly, but only partially, supports this assertion: it uses the term "top tier law firms" and names some of the firms list there, but it does not set out an exhaustive list. So there is improper synthesis. Some of the other sources use other terms, some of which are clearly context-specific, and some of them list a different list of firms - they don't even support the statement. The assertion in the lead that the "Big Six" was only based on head count is also incorrect synthesis of sources, as the sources mention other characteristics that distinguish them from their competitors.

There are also other issues with this version: for example, why does it have in-line external links to the firms' websites when they have articles?

I have reverted to a better version which has fairer basis in the sources cited. The fact is, there is no grouping that is as clear as the old "Big Six" group. There are many differences in views about, eg, where HWL Ebsworth fits into the picture, or whether there are two or three subgroups at the top (eg one scheme has Allens, KWM and HSF as the top group, then CU, Minters and Ashurst as a middle group, then G+T and Corrs as a third group, while another scheme has the second and third subgroups combined). It's really a matter of opinion, and it's questionable whether any of this is even encyclopaedic. Certainly this kind of industry gossip type information shouldn't be in the article without reliable sources. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, please refer to the multiple independent citations listed in the edits I have made. The citations span from leading Australian legal newspapers (Lawyers Weekly), leading Australian newspapers (Australian Financial Review), etc. All of these citations are quite clear as to the composition of top tier law firms. Please don’t make edits without addressing this or providing citations to the contrary. For these reasons, I cannot see how you have come to the conclusion of industry gossip. ChilledIntentions (talk) 11:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

The Fin Review source cited for this claim:

"Since the 2012 changes, the Australian legal landscape is increasingly characterised by the concept of top tier law firms"

says, in part, this [emphasis added]:

The big six firms were prevalent among the top firms for large ratios between fee earners and the partnership. More than 85 per cent of Allens' total legal headcount were non-partner fee earners, as were 82.4 per cent of Ashurst, 81.81 per cent of King & Wood Mallesons, and 79.24 per cent of Minters. (Clayton Utz was 85 per cent based on its July figure of 912 non-partner fee earners).

— naming five of the "historical" "pre-2012" big six, or their successor firms; and explicitly using the supposedly superseded term big six to describe the situation in 2019!

The second claim from our WP article of the demise of Big 6: "Following these major changes in the Australian legal scene, the Big Six term is less used, and top-tier law firms is now the descriptor more favoured for the largest, most profitable, law firms in Australia." is supported by the same Fin Review item and another from Beaton Consulting. The Beaton's source says, indeed, "the Big 6 moniker no long fits for this strategic group and the competitive dynamics of the market" and headlines itself as an "obituary" for the term. Nowhere does it state "top tier" will be the replacement. Instead it says:

As the Australian legal industry reaches its globalisation tipping point, the term 'Big 6' is longer an accurate way of categorising these major players in a landscape being shaped by the forces of globalisation. Increasingly, these firms will be better classified as part of the 'global elite' or the 'international business law firm' groupings.

1. Going by the sources used at present, it is not verifiable that: a) Big six is not current; or b) top tier is an industry-wide accepted replacement term
2. This WP article is about the term big six, whether current or historical, and there is no justification for including more than a passing mention of any successor term. That would belong in an article specific to that term, if it's considered notable enough to warrant one.

For those reasons, I made an adjustment to the lead, removing mention of the "top tier" firms to a footnote. On a separate but related note, the section headings are not in WP style, which should not be duplicative of the article title per MOS:NOBACKREF, as was "Big Six firms". Similarly, the section "Developments since 2012" belongs in another article, as does "Top tier law firms" section.

This article has been morphing into something it is not meant to be; it is suffering from sourcing which does not really support what the inserting editor intends it to support. I notice that pretty much this same argument has been ongoing for some time, but the inserter/s of the top tier information are not taking the other expressed views on board. I hope that will change and that consensus can be reached. In the meantime, I intend to make further changes. AukusRuckus (talk) 05:15, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

References