Talk:Kirkland & Ellis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Chicago (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Law (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Political contributions[edit]

The inclusion of this section seems really weird, and it's also out of date. I suggest either its removal, or somebody update the information to include data about the 2012 election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.193.21.126 (talk) 18:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Diversity award[edit]

One user keeps deleting relevant, factual and verifiable information about this organization -- a large portion of which comes directly from the organization's website. These changes make the article less interesting, insightful and relevant.

What is the possible objection to information about the firm's Diversity Fellowship Program, which comes directly from the firm's website? This article is only highlighting what the firm itself brags about on its website.

With respect to the deleted paragraph about the American Lawyer Magazine's reporting on the firm's generally low associate satisfaction (highly relevant information for law students and potential lateral hires) this information only rounds out what would otherwise be a glowing profile of the firm. There are two sides to the story -- how the firm is perceived from the outside and how's its perceived by its associates. Moreover, this information is factual and verifiable. This is not one user's opinion.

Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean you should delete it. Add context if you feel it's appropriate.

NOT NPOV posting - Someone deleted a simple sentence explaining that white people are not eligible to apply to Kirkland's Diversity Fellowship Program and suggested this sentence was a violation of NPOV in the history page. This person needs to review the Wikipedia NPOV policy. The fact that white people are not eligable for the program is not an opinion; it is a fact, verifiable by the link to Kirkland's website. It's not even a close case.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.23.177.58 (talk)

While I haven't been removing it, it definitely seems NPOV to indicate that "whites may not apply," casting the program in a negative light. If the program explicitly sets itself forth in that manner, it may be one thing (is there a citation to that?); but if that's merely a by-product of having the program, then it seems to cast undue weight or draw attention to the program in a negative light, regardless of one's perspective on diversity. Zz414 15:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
The posting is completely POV, or alternatively, it is duplicative of the previous sentence. I agree with Zz414 - if you can cite to language on the website or other K&E source directly stating the restriction, then cite that source. #68.49.218.127 16:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I invite you two to reread the Wikipedia NPOV policy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NPOV It does not require that articles be devoid of "negative inferences" as Zz414 wrongly asserts. According to the policy, "Facts (as defined in the A simple formulation section above) are not Points Of View." The NPOV policy explains: "We sometimes give an alternative formulation of the non-bias policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert opinions themselves. There is a difference between facts and opinions. By 'fact' we mean 'a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute.'" That white people are not eligible for these fellowships is undeniably a fact. They either are eligible; or they are not. I do not assert whether this is a bad thing or a good thing. You assume this casts the firm in a negative light, but that is your assumption based on your experience or reasoning. The article does not draw any inferences, as it was written. However, note that it would not be a violation of the policy to state that some legal bloggers believe this is a violation of federal law. That is also a fact. You also claim that single sentence violates the "undue weight" prong of the NPOV policy. But that prong is aimed at curtailing the assertion of fringe theories on a given matter. The policy explains: "In other words, views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all." This prong of the NPOV policy allies to views and is not applicable to the fact that whites are not eligible for these fellowships. To avoid any accusations of bias, I'm content to exclude views (vs. facts) from the subsection on the diversity fellowship program. But I note that the NPOV policy does not even prohibit the expression of views; it only "requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. . . . As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject." In other words, the goal is to present both sides, not to witewash articles to remove all negative inferences, as you believe. Accordingly, it would be entirely appropriate to write in the article, as I did in an earlier version, "the legality of the program has been questioned by legal bloggers." That is a fact, not an opinion. (The policy states what should be obvious to students of English: "Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone.") The other side of the argument, which is already reflected in the article, is that Kirkland is being generous with its money by awarding fellowships to racial and ethnic minorities at numerous law schools. 68.23.177.58 04:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
There are a series of elements of NPOV that are at play here--Fairness of Tone and "Let the facts speak for themselves." The fact is that there's a scholarship for minorities. If you can find a statement that sais "Whites may not apply," then I've admitted that it's probably acceptable, given that's how Kirkland & Ellis has presented the program. If that's merely an implication, then it would be (a) a concern of the "fairness of tone," which, while perhaps "accurate," is meant to excite people to oppose the scholarship (e.g., elicit a reaction of "I can't believe they're discriminating against whites!"); and (b) let the facts speak for themselves (e.g., you don't need to say that Saddam Hussein was evil). If, however, there's a citation of someone criticizing the scholarship as "whites need not apply," that would probably be acceptable, with a proper source for that criticism. Zz414 15:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
One more thoughts--it's not entirely clear that someone who's not at least partially white may not apply; that is, the scholarship details suggest that someone who's biracial may in fact be eligible. That's what makes a citation extremely important for this statement. Zz414 15:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
It's hard to take your narrow criticisms seriously when you can't even be troubled to proofread and spell check your posts. Nevertheless, I will revise the article as you suggested to simply cite those criticizing the scholarship for excepting whites. You say that would "probably" be acceptable. You don't seem very sure of yourself when it comes to these rules. I sincerely hope you don't raise an objection ex post to this edit after sanctioning it ex ante. On your last point, one who is biracial, is not white. I would have thought that was obvious. --68.23.177.58 16:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry that I don't have the abundant time that you apparently have. I said "probably" because it would depend upon the source of the citation (e.g., random blog v. New York Times op/ed). Someone who is biracial would probably still qualify as "African-American" and "white" under the same scheme of classifications, so it's not "obvious." Zz414 17:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Please apologize below for your ad hominem attack on me. I was critical of the quality of your writing in the interest of upholding Wikipedia's high standards. Your suggestion that I have too much free time is not relevant or appropriate and is an uncivil ad hominem attack. IF the program considers biracial people to be "diverse" (which is anyone's guess absent further information), that STILL excludes 75% of the U.S. population who are 100% white (not bi or multi racial) (according to the 2000 census). --68.23.177.58 17:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Whatever one thinks about the diversity fellowship, is it really one of the most important facts about this organization deserving of the prominence it gets in this article? --68.23.96.248 14:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Dorothy Roberts[edit]

It's not POV to mention factual information about Professor Roberts' scholarship. The information that was deleted came directly from her webpage and publisher. This factual, unbiased information may be of interest to prospective or current Kirkland attorneys. Is there something wrong with her work? Should the firm try to distance itself from her work? Whoever deleted this factual information apparently think so. 24.13.159.219 (talk) 01:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

  • No, it has nothing to do with distancing the firm from this professor. But, it seems that this information is not relevant to an encyclopedic article about this firm. This type of information would be relevant to an article about Dorothy Roberts. Not an article concerning this firm.Lawcurious (talk) 06:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    • So, you delete all information from an article that in your opinion is not relevant or interesting? Who are you to make that judgment? The more information on Wikipedia, the better -- as long as it's factual and conforms to Wikipedia's standards and polices, which this information is and does. Isn't the goal here is to expand articles, not pare them down to bare bones? Maybe someone should delete all this information and just provide the firm's address and a link to its webpage. 24.13.159.219 (talk) 00:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I can't find support for the proposition that she is a "self-described radical thinker" in any of the linked citations. This claim is at best a bad faith stretch of the information cited for support. But, since you feel so passionately about linking the information here, let it be, I guess.... Wikipedia is losing credibility here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.23.180 (talk) 18:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
      • The support for the proposition is the publisher's description of the book (see link in main article) which states "the author [Professor Roberts] is able to combine the most innovative and radical thinking on several fronts." If this cannot be taken as a legitimate expression of her self-image, I don't know what can. You seem to think "radical" has a negative connotation. Many would not agree. I suspect Professor Roberts is among them. --Anon6414 (talk) 01:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
        • I agree that this statement supports the proposition that someone describes her as being "innovative and radical on several fronts." It does not support the proposition that she describes herself that way. Thus, the statement in the article is unsupported, at least as written.69.143.23.180 (talk) 04:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
          • That someone is her publisher; this statement comes from the publisher's description of the book. It is a perfectly reasonable and safe assumption that either (a) Professor Roberts wrote this summary of her book herself, or (b) edited (or was offered the opportunity to edit) this description herself, and therefore is a self-described "radical", i.e. one who engages in radical thinking. --Anon6414 (talk) 04:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
            • An assumption is not a statement of fact supported by a proposition. This type of leap from one proposition to another would never be acceptable in a law review or other respectable, peer-reviewed journal. You insistence and commitment to this wording and description in this article vastly decreases your, and more importantly, wikipedia's credibility. This is not a place to state "reasonable and safe assumptions;" it is a place to relay accurate, factual encyclopedic material.69.143.23.180 (talk) 06:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
              • I've removed the "self-described" adjective. Then you deleted the whole sentence without explanation. Apparently you now object to the adjective "radical" as well? Previously you admitted that "this statement supports the proposition that someone describes her as being 'innovative and radical on several fronts.'" --Anon6414 (talk) 02:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

What is the objection to mentioning Dorothy Roberts's book? If the other professors had authored interesting books, let's mention them as well. In the dust jacket of her book (see link in prior version of article) she describes herself as a radical black feminist. That was not my characterization; I am merely reporting facts. --68.23.177.58 16:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Need more on historical lawyers[edit]

This is a suprisingly good article, but focus is too much on the recent past. It would round out the article to have more information on some of the other significant lawyers and cases that the firm has handled.

Fair use rationale for Image:K&elogo.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:K&elogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Layoffs[edit]

I don't think that the statement about layoffs being reported (citation 15) is accurate. Abovethelaw reported impending layoffs, but these reports were entirely unsubstantiated. There was no follow-up to say that they actually happened or evidence that they did. The rest of that section is accurate and established fact. I'm going to remove proposition 15.

(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC).

Rather than removing, I edited for accuracry stating that Above The Law has reported IMPENDING layoffs and that it is unclear that these layoffs occured.--User:EdelJamie

I strongly disagree with your characterization of the Above The Law (ATL) article and your related edits. The ATL article did NOT report impending layoffs (impending means "about to occur"). The article clearly states that its journalistic sources "say that: (1) layoffs are happening in the firm's New York office...A source says the firm started conducting layoffs of mid-levels in its New York office on Wednesday, and that they are still going on [the article appeared on Friday]....The firm spokesperson has not responded to our inquiries." "Are happening" and "still going on" are in the present tense, not the future tense; neither phrase can possibly be understood as meaning that layoffs are impending or about to occur, as you believe. True, the firm spokesperson did not responded to ATL's inquiries, but that proves nothing. Moreover, companies, and especially law firms, often engage in stealth layoffs. Your first explanation above of your wholesale deletion of the entry was also inaccurate. You asserted "Abovethelaw reported impending layoffs, but these reports were entirely unsubstantiated. There was no follow-up to say that they actually happened or evidence that they did." The reports were not unsubstantiated. ATL reported that sources -- note the plural -- told it that layoffs had "started" and "are still going on." So the reports of layoffs were substantiated by multiple sources, which constitutes evidence. That may not rise to the level of a certainty, but what "proof" do you want or think you're going to get? Kirkland did not confirm the January partner layoffs, and didn't respond to ATL's inquires about these associate layoffs. You seem to believe that reports of layoffs on prominent legal news websites, such as ATL, should not be mentioned unless and until the firm confirms them. That's unrealistic. The summary of the ATL article was entirely accurate before you edited it. Leave the entry as it was and allow Wikipedia readers to link to the original ATL story and weigh the believability of the its multiple sources against the firm's nonresponse. --Anon6414 (talk) 04:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Unlike essentially every other firm where layoffs where reported on by ATL where there was unoffical confirmation if not official confirmation by the firm, all of the KE NY people who actually worked there--in the comments and otherwise--denied the existence of layoffs and in fact demanded a retraction from ATL. I edited this again. If you want to put this back the way you had it, fine. But I will note the fundamental lack of substantiation and dispute with ATL, unlike virtually every other ATL layoff post. It also bears noting that even ATL phrased the post "rumors of layoffs" unlike other most other layoff posts which were better sourced and/or subsequently confirmed. You are painting a false picture. And it's obnoxious and does a disservice to both the firm and wikipedia readers. I also edited the information about benefit cuts. They weren't just "reported". The memo describing health insurance cuts was produced in the entirety. There is a difference between substantiated, partially substantiated, and entirely unsubstantiated information. The benefit cuts are substantiated. The other information about non-equity partner and staff layoffs is also largely substantiated and not disputed depsite lack of official firm comment. The information about associate layoffs is no more than entirely unsubstantiated rumor that has been denied by all but the one tipster who sent that in to ATL. The distinctions should not go unnoted. --User:EdelJamie

I strongly object to your above ad hominem attack on me or my edit as "obnoxious." The talk page is not a forum for vituperation. Stick to arguing the facts and evidence, or your account might be frozen by an admin was it was previously.[1] I also object to your accusation that I am painting a false picture, as you figuratively put it. I merely cited reports of layoffs on the prominent legal website ATL. I ask that you revise your latest edit for clarity and style. Your contribution "Follow-ups confirming these layoffs have not been forthcoming" is ambiguous at best, and sloppy at worst. What do you mean by "follow-up"? What do you expect to follow the original story? Official firm confirmation? A second ATL story confirming the original? If you feel compelled to write about something that didn't happen, then be clear and write "as of August 16, 2009, ATL has not run a subsequent story confirming the original story." Should we just assume that they wanted to but didn't because they had no additional corroborating sources? I would have thought it sufficient to say that ATL has reported layoffs and leave it to the reader to link to the ATL story and evaluate the merits. --Anon6414 (talk) 03:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I will edit for clarification when I have time later in the week. My apologies if you viewed anything as a personal attack. But ATL has reported on layoff rumors with resepct to Kirkland as its own post attests. Several times, ATL reported on supposedly looming layoffs which did not occur. In the post to which you cite, ATL posted on layoff "rumors". The post is really in stark contrast to other layoff posts which ATL stated as fact, have been confirmed by firm employees (whether or not the firm has made an official statment), and are not disputed. And, indeed, in stark contrast to other ATL posts on Kirkland. And that one-day administrative freeze was a misunderstanding for which the adminstrator apologized and offered to unfreeze the account early. A disgruntled former Latham employee kept editing the Latham page to eliminate all positive information on Latham and make it a diatribe on Latham's mass layoffs. I was undoing those edits. In this case, something along the lines of "There have been rumors of associate layoffs, reported on by the popular legal tabloid Above the Law" would probably fit the bill. Then, readers could link to story and see that ATL was reporting information based on one tipster, not characterizing it as fact, and see all of the denials in the comments. Actually, to really be accurate, all of the various Kirkland layoff posts shold be referenced. I will dig them up when I have a minute.--User:EdelJamie —Preceding undated comment added 12:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC).

Emphasis Problems in the Article[edit]

I understand that, particularly in 2011, the following topics are important (note, I didn't say why -- views may differ!): politics, diversity, the employment outlook. However, I am concerned that the article--an article that is supposed to be about a major LAW FIRM--gives undue weight to each of those topics. A quick calculation shows that slightly over 50% of the article's text is devoted to:

1. Layoffs 2. Diversity (ethnic / gender) 3. Political Contributions

The diversity component seems particularly over-represented -- it constitutes ~1/3rd of the article.

At the same time, the article is critically under-representative on a number of topics. To give a few examples:

- there is scant discussion of the firm's role in what may be the biggest set of litigation activities in the history of the world -- it sounds hyperbolic, but it's true (i.e., the Deepwater incident) - the firm's 100-year history is relegated to a two sentence intro scrawl - many well known / prominent practice groups either are cursorily mentioned (e.g., litigation--a source of ~50% of the firm's revenue and a winner of the AmLaw litigation department of the year award a few years ago) or not mentioned at all (e.g., its venture capital group, which was a leader in developing the field, especially in the Midwest -- they were doing VC at a time that most people didn't know it existed). - The firm's historic and current ties to the City of Chicago -- the start of the article doesn't even explicitly mention that the firm was founded in the City; there is no coverage of its charitable role in civics

and so on.

More generally: this is an article about a major national / international law firm, with a strong history and reputation in the legal and business communities of many countries. The way the article is currently presented, it reads more like a primer on: 1. the effect of the financial crisis on law firm hiring, 2. diversity programs in law firms, and, 3. political giving. I.e., topics which may be salient to various interested groups who tend to have an outsized voice at Wikipedia, but do not lend themselves to providing a thoughtful overview of the article's central subject.

In short, the article comes across as mistargeted and wrongly emphasized (hence the tags). Here's hoping we can build it into something better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.95.199 (talk) 05:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Compensation[edit]

The salaries at big law firms are generally lockstep. this is known and not controversial at all to anybody who actually works in the field. it is verifiable in that every lawyer reading this website never indicated it was wrong. please justify constantly deleting that section, rangoon11.

see eg http://www.laterallink.com/career_center/2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.112.19.2 (talk) 00:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EdelJamie