Talk:Law firm

message: Removed this from the header:
:Some law firms are organized as professional corporations, but that arrangement is increasingly rare now that limited liability partnerships (LLPs) are available in many jurisdictions. In the United States, the LLP form is popular because law firms organized as corporations are commonly treated as personal service corporations which are subject to significant tax penalties.
This statement is an over-generalization. P.C.'s are still very common business structures in many U.S. jurisdictions. I put in a new paragraph for "organization". Ellsworth 14:59, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: 2004 comment

message: The following should absolutely redirect to this article: 
Law company, Legal firm, Legal company. 
These would make it FAR easier to locate his article and to make links to it.
Personally, when I have need legal advice, I visited a legal company. 
98.81.23.222 (talk) 20:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirects needed to this article 

message: There is currently an interesting VfD going on in relation to a 60-lawyer law firm. What is at stake is whether this law firm is notable. Your opinion is welcome, here. Thanks. --Edcolins 09:16, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
Are we certain that law firms exist?  I was told that they do not.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.74.8.130 (talk) 16:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable law firm? 

message: The claim to oldest law firm is a matter of dispute.  For example, from the Wikipedia Article on the Judge Advocate General's Corps of the United States Army: "General George Washington founded the U.S. Army JAG Corps on 29 July 1775, with the appointment of William Tudor as the Judge Advocate General. The Army Judge Advocate General's Corps is the oldest of the judge advocate communities in the U.S. armed forces – as well as the oldest law firm in the United States."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.138.26.242 (talk) 00:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The associates don't leave all pissed off that they wasted 7 or 8 years at the firm and got nothing. --Nelson Ricardo 00:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Partnership 

message: Funny, I was just reading the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 and Section 66 explicitly overturns Section 39 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (barring solicitors from entering into partnerships with non-solicitors).  Unless there's some informal Law Society rule still in place I don't know about.  Is the article correct?  --Coolcaesar 23:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The U.K. has a similar rule about keeping non-lawyers out of ownership of law firms? 

message: The title is often seen among former associates who do not make partner, or who are laterally recruited to other firms, or who work as in-house counsel and then return to the big firm environment.
I am not sure of the meaning of this sentence.
:The sentence is describing various categories of attorneys who hold the title "of counsel" or "special counsel" which is described in the immediately preceding sentence! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coolcaesar (talk • contribs) 17:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense to me. -Elvey
Is this English? "...may lead upon profitable results to partnership."  If not I can't understand it enough to see how to fix it.  Perhaps it means that an attorney of counsel to a law firm may be offered a partnership if his work brings it large profits.  But then 'may' is a vague term.--Elvey (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small grammar error. 

message: In one section, it compares the world's largest law firm to Wal Mart in terms of revenue and employment. Is it me, or is this a bit of a silly comparison to make, since a multinational retail company is always going to be larger than a law firm. A-Nottingham | Talk 14:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Walmart comparison 

message: The information regarding markets outside of New York City "usually" matching New York's bonuses is simply wrong.  The reference provided does not even support this proposition.  Every market has a different bonus each year; few narkets, if any regularly match New York's.  Occasionally, an individual firm will announce it is matching for another city (such ad Washington, DC), but that will generally put that firm as the high end of the spectrum for bonuses in that market. 15 April 2008  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.1.110 (talk) 04:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with your criticism.  Also, the salary section smells suspiciously of original research.  It's also very U.S.-centric.  But it raises an interesting issue that I will have to look into when researching Attorney-at-law (my ongoing revision as usual is stalled because I am too busy). --Coolcaesar (talk) 11:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I concur with your confusion.  I'm going to purge the overly-specific U.S. material on salaries and layoffs within a week unless someone provides sources for the U.S. data as well as comparative data from other major countries to balance it out.  The entire section is original research, POV, and undue weight in violation of WP:UNDUE.  Notably, the editor who inserted that section has never defended it on the talk page.  --Coolcaesar (talk) 00:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Salary 

message: Is there an NPOV issue here: "Most notably, the report ranked the percentages of women, African-Americans, Hispanics, Asian-Americans, and gays & lesbians at America's top law firms."  It seems like the author's opinion is that this was the most notable aspect of the rankings.  Perhaps this is unusual in that other rankings did not pay attention to such an issue, but if so then those rankings should be covered here as well.  Vault.com comes to mind, for example.  Poludamas (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rankings 

message: I noticed that parts of this article appear here under copyright:-
http://www.lupton-fawcett.co.uk/Home/tabid/684/Default.aspx
Which came first ???
Mahutchinson (talk) 15:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright ? 

message: Is "David Feldman's Crisis Post Blog including commentary on the legal industry" relevant enough to this article to include it in the external links section? -Noosentaal·talk· 17:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is "David Feldman's Crisis Post Blog including commentary on the legal industry" relevant? 

message: Attorney-Client Matching for clients to find the right law firms are done through:
GoodSharks.com
Or Legal Directories:
Findlaw
LegalMatch  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.75.46 (talk) 00:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Find Law Firms 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Law firm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080110033727/http://www.nalp.org/content/index.php?pid=520 to http://www.nalp.org/content/index.php?pid=520
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:37, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:52, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion