Talk:List of largest law firms by revenue

message: Hey!  Where did this article go?  Did the big, bad deletionists kill it?  --Nelson Ricardo 21:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes they did.  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of law firms  --Legis (talk - contributions) 20:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Legis.  I see there was no consensus, which by Wikipedia guidelines mean the article stays.  Unfortunately some deletionist admin with an itchy trigger finger has ignored the will of the people.  --Nelson Ricardo 20:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, my error in posting the link.  It was listed twice - first time was "no conensus", result of second discussion was "delete", see - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of law firms (2nd nomination).  But I think that the decision was a judgment on the development of the page as much as anything (although there was also concern with overlap with :Category:Law firms.  I think if the new page is kept under control nobody would object too much to it being recreated (see List of largest UK law firms which survived a AfD nomination).  Last time the page just got overwhelmed by lawyers posting spam links, and every tiny firm of Sue, Grabbit & Runne trying to post an article about themselves.  --Legis (talk - contributions) 16:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  Those were some very weak arguements for deletion on that page.  --Nelson Ricardo 20:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hey, in 2006

message: This is not the same article that was previously deleted (in bad faith and for specious reasons, I might add).  The firms listed in this article are from a reputable source.  They are listed because they meet certain criteria.  The deleted article was a mish mosh that included advertising links and firms at random.  --Nélson Ricardo 11:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As an admin, I reviewed the article and I don't think it fits the  (CSD G4) as designed. No prejudice against a new AfD. Duja► 11:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't Delete 

message: The DLA Piper result looks wrong - this appears to be the USA only results as opposed to their world-wide revenues. If some firms are being taken only in their US context and others in the context of their worldwide operations, then this list is completely inaccurate and misleading. Thom2002 23:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: DLA Piper is listed at both positions 14 and 28.  They are apparently separate entities or treated as such for the Am Law Global 100 survey. —Nricardo 05:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

text: A disclaimer at the bottom  of http://www.dlapiper.com/ says, "DLA Piper is a global legal services organisation, the members of which are separate and distinct legal entities." —Nricardo 05:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Also of interest is http://www.dlapiper.com/global/termsconditions/structure/.  While many law firms have multiple partnerships due to local law or tax benefits, they usually are fairly cohesive.  DLA Piper seems to strive to keep the entities separate.  —Nricardo 05:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems so, but Baker & McKenzie is also a series of separate entities, but they seem to consolidate its revenues. That may be because it doesn't divide up quite so neatly. --Legis (talk - contribs) 14:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think almost all international legal firms are separate legal entities (eg Skadden are "Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (UK) LLP" in Britain), the difference being how they report and share revenues. I'm not sure that this is a strong basis for a "List of 100 largest law firms". Would number of lawyers make more sense? I don't have the base data for that though.Thom2002 18:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely true, but how many of these firms make such a strident effort to display a public face of separation rather than of "one firm" mentality?  I'm sure there are few such firms beyond DLA Piper. —Nricardo 18:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Here's a source of # of attorneys: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1163066718029 (free reg. req.).  The numbers appear to be worldwide, but only for U.S.-based firms.  I'm sure there's a global list somewhere. —Nricardo 18:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: DLA Piper

message: The American Lawyer has managed to make a mockery of these rankings.  The Baker & McKenzie figures are for the year ended June 30, 2008.  Everyone else is through December 31, 2007.  There is no reason they should not have used the same figure as in the AmLaw 100 (http://www.law.com/jsp/tal/PubArticleTAL.jsp?&id=1208947716661).  Clearly, someone wants to screw over Skadden and Latham.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.187.183 (talk) 12:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Or they can only get figures from a company when its fiscal year ends. I'm pretty sure that The Lawyer isn't specifically trying to screw over Skadden and Latham. (Morethan3words | talk) 16:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor methodology/bullshit 

message: I find it highly suspicious that the revenue of the 99th ranked firm, is $349.0m, while the 100th ranked firm "Maher Milad Iskander" is $6.3m. Are there no other law firm in the world with revenues falling within the range of $350m and $7m?? Obviously some joker was trying to be sneaky here.
And what the hell is "American Law Corp"? Sounds like a fifth-grader's fictitious law firm.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.2.45 (talk) 15:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Number 99 and 100

message: Where's Sullivan and Cromwell? They brought in well over a billion in 2010.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.108.125.200 (talk) 23:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bullshit Statistics 

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
No consensus for the proposed moves. bd2412 T 16:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
=== Post-RM discussion ===
While the opposers above are correct that using title style for, um, titles is not "ungrammatical", and we have WP:CONCISE policy for a reason, the claim that "these mass proposals are borderline disruptive" is patently false.  has features for mass listings, also for a reason. WP:RM recommends consolidating moves of the same sort, that do not raise unique issues, into multi-page RMs; it is standard operating procedure to do so. They're the exact opposite of disruptive, neatly resolving in a single discussion a matter that might have wasted inordinate amounts of editorial time (in this case, about 40 pointless duplicate discussions, and some mass RMs, like mass WP:CFDs, affect hundreds of instances of the same thing).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 22 April 2015 

message: While the opposers above are correct that using title style for, um, titles is not "ungrammatical", and we have WP:CONCISE policy for a reason, the claim that "these mass proposals are borderline disruptive" is patently false.  has features for mass listings, also for a reason. WP:RM recommends consolidating moves of the same sort, that do not raise unique issues, into multi-page RMs; it is standard operating procedure to do so. They're the exact opposite of disruptive, neatly resolving in a single discussion a matter that might have wasted inordinate amounts of editorial time (in this case, about 40 pointless duplicate discussions, and some mass RMs, like mass WP:CFDs, affect hundreds of instances of the same thing).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-RM discussion 

message: The list only features 14 firms, not 100!
:Not sure who left the above comment, or when, but I agree with it as of today. Seems like we need to go through and list the remaining 84 or so firms.jlcoving (talk) 08:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There have not been 100 in a long time, and no one appears inspired to rebuild such a long list, so I've moved this to a name that is not blatantly incorrect, then retargeted most of its redirects (the ones that did not specifically include "by revenue") to the longer and more useful list at List of law firms by profits per partner.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs a new name 

message: There's an error when sorting by "Revenue". For example, the table treats $2.01b as less than $900.5m as it's not making the distinction between billions and millions. I'm not sure about the best way to solve this issue, though. Thefataone (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table Sorting Problem 

message: This is basically two years outdated now. Is global 100 public online anywhere? Awbfiend (talk) 00:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I add list sort by profit per partner, same/similar but sorted differently, latest data. List of largest law firms by profits per partner Ppep wing (talk) 21:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I've updated it with the latest rankings, which were released in late September. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 05:21, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update 

message: I need compent representation on an issue pro bono 174.250.210.112 (talk) 09:00, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal help