Talk:Kirkland & Ellis

message: The inclusion of this section seems really weird, and it's also out of date.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)
thread_title: Political contributions

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Diversity award

message: 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)
thread_title: Dorothy Roberts

message: 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)
thread_title: Layoffs

message: 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)
thread_title:  Emphasis Problems in the Article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Compensation 

message: The study on KE'c conservative bent belongs in the lede. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:04, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have an opinion on this, MelanieN? I think a peer-reviewed study on the firm's conservative bent should be in the lede. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think its current location in the text is enough. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Study on its conservative bent 

message: I have semiprotected this article for 3 months. It would be prudent if everyone edits from a named account on this page for attribution purposes. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:25, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semiprotection 

message: To Whom It May Concern - I removed Sarah Fabian from this page's notable attorneys list, as not having her own page. I later relocated the coat rack attached to her, with more accuracy, to where it belongs: Immigration detention in the United States#Conditions. Lindenfall (talk) 00:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems pertinent to note that she is an alum of this law firm. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: One could add that to the item where it is now posted. Separately, regarding your subsequent editing note, the lead, as well, is meant to be about the firm, and not specifically about its clients. (A notable exception would be if a firm had but one primary or singular client.) Lindenfall (talk) 02:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  If a firm is notable for the clients it serves, it's due to mention those clients in the lede. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

text:  I disagree — generally, not by name in the lead. Those clients have their own WP pages, where details are included. Otherwise, each law firm lead section would, at some point, devolve into a competition of naming names. (Ditto many types of firms.) Also, many firms may gain transient notoriety for its clientele, and that is included elsewhere on the page; its notability rests more with the cases it handles and presents... the actual work the firm does, including any precedents thus set and its win-to-loss ratio. Lindenfall (talk) 02:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sarah Fabian removed - item relocated to other page 

message: * Support mention of clients by name, lists, and various statistics in lead
* Oppose  mention of clients by name, lists, and various statistics in lead
* I oppose mention of clients in the lead, because we don't do that in any of the other very large law firms whose articles I checked. (See List of largest law firms by revenue. Most of them have minimal lead sections.) Also, although it isn't mentioned specifically in the RfC, I oppose listing the names of notable attorneys/alumni in the lead, because we don't do that in any of the other very large law firms that I checked; there is a whole paragraph of them and IMO it should be removed in its entirety. I support including some information about the size of the firm, such number of attorneys, number of offices, and possibly some general financial information, because our articles about very large law firms do often include that kind of information; it establishes basic information about the firm itself. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:02, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an interesting idea, Tony. WikiProject Law has some listings of law articles by quality. Here is a collection of FA articles - :Category:FA-Class law articles - but I don't see any about law firms. There are about 350 GA articles - :Category:GA-Class law articles, do you find anything helpful there? My main criteria for comparison is that very large law firms are treated differently from smaller ones. The largest law firms tend to be notable in themselves, while smaller ones are often notable primarily for one high-profile case. And their lead sections reflect the difference. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: If any of those are law firms we can start there, but there seem to be no examples in which our editors have figured out how to present a law firm in a high quality manner.  Thus, looking at law firm articles might not lead us where we want to go.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Forgot to -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:18, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: My opinion stands. But let’s take stock of where we are now after several weeks of discussion. Taking the poorly attended RFC together with the previous discussion:
1. Whether to list clients in the lead: 
*Support: GergisBaki, brief mention of a few of the prominent clients based on amount of media coverage
*Support: PlainLawSam08, “relevant”
*Oppose: Lindenfall, arguing clients do not impact notability unless there is one primary or singular client 
*Partial support: Snooganssnoogans, include if the clients are responsible for the firm’s notability
*Partial support: Grayfell, include only if mentioned by many sources
*Oppose: MelanieN citing how similar articles are handled, and arguing that this firm’s notability does not depend on any client
*Oppose: The Gnome, citing BLP
*Partial support: TonyTheTiger: include clients if bilaterally important, or SCOTUS case, or if there is a separate WP article for the case. 
2. Whether to include attorneys and alumni in the lead:
*Don’t include: Lindenfall
*Don’t include: MelanieN
*Include if currently serving SCOTUS or heads of state: TonyTheTiger
*Include if they are part of the firm's notability: Snoogans
3. Whether to include firm statistics like number of lawyers, number of offices, revenue and profits, etc. in the lead:
*Don’t include: Lindenfall, generally opposes “lists” in lead
*Include: MelanieN, basic information about the firm and responsible for its notability
*Include: TonyTheTiger, basic stats are a must
*Include: Snoogans.
 Does the above strike you as a fair summary of the discussion? If so let’s decide what to do. My proposal: 
* It looks to me as if mentioning clients in the lead is either not supported, or does not meet the criteria mentioned by people who gave qualified support - with the possible exception of Epstein whose representation by K&E is mentioned by many sources. I propose to remove all clients from the lead. We should add a little more information to the Epstein listing in the text.
*It looks as if we should either list no attorneys in the lead, or list only Brett Kavanaugh (and possibly William Barr?)
*It looks as if we should add basic firm statistics to the lead.
What do you think? -- MelanieN (talk) 16:04, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I support "Include" on #3. On #2, I support "Include, if these alumni and attorneys are part of the firm's notability" (e.g. if RS regularly say "the law firm with attorney such as so and so, and where XYZ used to practice"). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I'll add your opinions to the summary. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  has captured the situation well. Typically, I don't think a one-time client (however increasingly infamous) belongs in the lead... I doubt I'd put it in the lead of Epstein's current counsel, either, since law firms defend criminals, as a matter of practice. (On another note, I await the outcome of the current investigation of that "sweetheart deal", which may yet implicate KE partner Jay Lefkowitz.) I think the lead is meant to reflect the body as a whole, not instigate topics by giving undue weight to a single client. As well, I think the entire paragraph, "Prominent attorneys of the firm have included ... Azar" should also be removed from the lead and placed in the appropriate section. (Just looks like name-dropping — the firm did not rise to prominence because of the Epstein case or because of Barr's appointment, for instance.) Lindenfall (talk) 17:49, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

text: , Your summary is representative of the sentiment of the discussants. I agree with your assessment of what to do. I could support Kavanaugh and Barr.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Evaluation

message: I think the time has come to remove those tags - don't you? -- MelanieN (talk) 18:44, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree. Lindenfall (talk) 20:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  about the "COI" and "advert" tags at the top of the page 

message: Does this need some kind of organization? Is it arranged by rank of position after leaving the firm?Parkwells (talk) 18:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I would put them alphabetically by last name. We could separate current attorneys from alumni, or we could lump them all together so we don't have to keep updating the list. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:44, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: List of notable attorneys and alumni

message: https://news.littlesis.org/2020/10/30/kirkland-ellis-the-law-firm-behind-the-trump-barr-power-grab-at-the-doj/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.194.4.183 (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Relationship to DOJ under Trump

message: I work for Kirkland & Ellis, the subject of this article. I’d request that independent editors please review these suggested edits, which I believe improve the article and are consistent with Wikipedia Policy such as NPOV, RS and Verify. The Wikipedia Contact Us page says to submit requests for updates here.  I will not edit the article myself because of my conflict of interest.
 
REQUEST 1
 
In the Info Box, please CORRECT the revenue figure from: 
 
| revenue     	=  US$4.154 billion (2020)  https://www.law.com/law-firm-profile/?id=173&name=Kirkland-Ellis&slreturn=20210224192601 
 
WITH
 
| revenue     	=  US$4.83 billion (2020) 
 
REASON: The source has been updated to cover revenue figures for 2020 from the 2021 report. The existing number is actually from 2019, even though the previous report was issued in 2020, so it incorrectly states 2020 revenue.  The citation format has been converted to a full reference instead of just a URL. 
 Simple and non-controversial. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:49, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request Edits June 2021