Talk:Motley Rice

message: :Delete Me
: This is simply free advertising for a law firm with no citations. Delete ASAP or else let every other law firm in America get a free page.
However, I don't think the article actually falls under any deletion criteria. The firm is fairly notable for pursuing big tobacco cases. 
-- phoebe/(talk)  06:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not just notable for pursuing big tobacco cases, phoebe.  In the article Will Plaintiffs' Lawyers Find New Ways to Sue? They Bet Their Boat They Will, Lisa A. Rickard points out that the company's multi-billion dollar lawsuit against companies that had ceased the manufacture and sale of lead-based paint 30 years ago or more seems to be flopping. At least in Rhode Island. "The court agreed with the defendants who had been correctly arguing for nearly a decade that the plaintiffs’ twisted use of the public nuisance legal theory in the case was bogus." Why bring a suit when your chances of winning are slim? "It turns out that if Motley Rice had won their Rhode Island case, it stood to pocket more than $400 million in legal fees. In its very public criticisms of the Supreme Court in connection with this case, it has conspicuously failed to acknowledge this very considerable financial interest in the outcome of the case." Lisa A. Rickard has more on the real ultimate endgame for Ron Motley and his firm: "to open the public nuisance can of worms so that plaintiffs’ firms would be positioned to rake in billions of more dollars by leveraging the case to extract settlements across the nation from any number of manufacturers or distributors of any number of products allegedly causing harm to claimants represented by Motley Rice." Asteriks (talk) 15:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: was posted in the article

message: I would like to expand this article with more historical information about this firm, specifically landmark cases and general company history. What is the best, and most proper, way to go about this? Should I post changes here for review, or just make the changes and hope they stick? Thank you for the help. --Chuckiles (talk) 19:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making Edits 

message: If you check the editing history you will see that Motley Rice is editing from their own headquarters. Wootwootmaster1776 (talk) 19:22, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: COI

message: A few more notable attorneys could be included with this firm:
*Linda Singer, Former Washington, D.C. Attorney General
*Marlon Kimpson, South Carolina State Senator
There are also two categories this page fits well:
*Law firms 
*Law firms specializing in personal injury
40.140.144.4 (talk) 19:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Request denied. These are not based on reliable sources. Wootwootmaster1776 (talk) 14:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you expand on your reasoning? What makes them unreliable? 40.140.144.4 (talk) 14:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, including questionable and self-published sources and biographies of living persons. It should be possible to find solid sources for the type of credentials you describe. Arllaw (talk) 22:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Some proposed changes