Talk:King & Spalding

message: I have just reverted to remove substantial edits which appeared to violate the conflict of interest policy.  I am sure this is a case of a new user being unfamiliar with such policies, and as such the edits were very likely done in good faith.  While such material probably should not be kept verbatim, there was substantial factual material which might be useful for other editors to consider.  --TeaDrinker 16:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits with a conflict of interest

message: No matter how I try to interpret this article another way, this is nothing more than an advertisement for a law firm which is of insufficient note in itself to deserve an entry any more than my favourite Indian restaurant, my dry cleaner, or my local cinema.
Peter S Strempel  Page | Talk  09:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove this article 

message: It's been a couple of weeks since the template for deleting this article was removed, with no signs of any article improvements having been made.  At the end of this working week (GMT Friday, 8 March) I will place a second template asking for deletion if no improvements have been made.  Regards — Peter S Strempel | Talk  02:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Second request for removing article coming soon

message: There is no question that a robust debate exists in the legal community about the way King & Spalding handled the refusal to represent the House of Reps in the DOMA matter.  I have provided a long set of citations from the Washington Post, the National Law Journal, and prominent legal-political blogs that discuss this controversy.  It's absolutely germane to the professionalism of the law firm in question.  If, as the above editor suggests, this article should be removed, that's fine by me, but this issue has reached the US Attorney General and his immediate predecessor and shouldn't be ignored if this page is to exist at all. HenryBrooksAdams (talk) 04:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, and your new edit was an improvement, though it added several (unnecessary) non-reliable sources that I've removed. Please also take note of correct citation style, thanks.  AV3000 (talk) 14:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no need to fix it here b/c the sources were so plentiful, but you are wrong to conclude that lawyers' and law professors' written, signed opinions published on legal blogs are not reliable.  The link you so helpfully provide demonstrates that the only question is reliability, not whether something is a blog or not.  And given the subject matter -- did a controversy exist? -- they are perfect sources.  So, please take note as well.  HenryBrooksAdams (talk) 21:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Demonstration of Controversy Over DOMA/Gitmo Comparison

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on King & Spalding. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110522022643/http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/04/virginia-ag-cancels-king-spalding-work-after-obsequious-act-weakn to http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/04/virginia-ag-cancels-king-spalding-work-after-obsequious-act-weakn
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Might be a bit noteworthy.  http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/20/politics/kfile-fbi-nominee-law-firm-bio/index.html
and interesting connection to Yates.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/07/politics/wray-recommendation-yates/index.html
--Wikipietime (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Donald Trump's nominee to be the director of the FBI, [[Christopher A. Wray]] purged Russian client from Bio