Talk:Latham & Watkins

Request Edit Mar. 2022

I work for Latham & Watkins, the subject of this article. I’d like to request an independent editor review various issues with the second paragraph of the History section. The paragraph is about a self-published 2020 report created by a law student climate advocacy group. It reads:

“The company is known for lobbying and litigating against actions to mitigate climate change. According to one scorecard of law firms, "Latham & Watkins is the only firm to be in the Top 5 Worst Firms for both transactions and litigation exacerbating climate change."

The first sentence of this paragraph is grossly inaccurate and not verifiable. The Law.com source, concerning a self-published study by law students, does not say Latham & Watkins is “known” for any activities related to climate change. This phrasing is pure WP:Weasel, based on nothing other than L&W’s name appearing in one sentence mentioning multiple law firms named in the law-student report. “Latham & Watkins” are the only words about the firm in this Law.com article. There is no characterization of what the law firm is “known for.” The article also does not say L&W engages in lobbying (in fact, the firm does no lobbying at all.)

The article does say L&W was one of the firms listed in the law student report. This would be an accurate replacement:

A coalition of law students issued a scorecard saying that in 2020 Latham & Watkins was one of the firms with the worst record litigating cases that exacerbate climate change.  

The second sentence of the same paragraph shown above is solely sourced to the self-published rankings report, failing the criteria for WP:PRIMARY and WP:NPOV. It also contains a direct quotation with analysis, excerpted and sourced entirely from the self-published report, in complete violation of use of primary sources WP:PRIMARY WP:NOR. Because this information and quote is not found in the Law.com article, the sentence should be entirely removed.

Finally, whatever language is included should be placed in chronological order, which would make it the last paragraph of the History section as it stands right now. History sections are laid out in chronological order as a matter of course. The structure here should resemble that of similar articles. WP:MOS

Thank you for your consideration. DigitalMedia11 (talk) 18:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans any comment? I am considering decling this request. Quetstar (talk) 22:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't see a reason for removing the RS content (law.com) and an attributed POV from the group that maintains the climate change scorecard. I'd keep the current version unless other non-COI editors have problems with the text. 22:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Denied per Snooganssnoogans. Quetstar (talk) 01:15, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Disruptive Auto-archiving is Terminating Ongoing Discussions, Part 2

I have removed the time limit on auto-archive

As noted here, a bot was automatically removing active Request Edit templates from the official queue by archiving them after 20 days – a timeframe which, given that the official queue is months long and an RfC lasts 30 days, essentially making a Request Edit or a RfC impossible. I have a COI, which I disclosed above, so I must use Request Edits to address Wikipedia violations on this page.

Previously, User:Quetstar reverted my change of the bot to 365 days, to allow for a RE to proceed, back to 20 days. After a complaint on Talk, Questar allowed the bot to go back to several months without further reversals. beyond twenty days.

However, following the posting of a new Request Edit in March 2022, Questar [diff|reverted] the auto-archiving bot timeframe to twenty days again. They then began their own response to the RE - a response which will be beyond discussion in about a week because of the 20-day bot.

Unless there was an actual consensus to “set it up” reached on the Talk page, this bot must be removed as per WP:AUTOARCHIVE. (Need consensus to set up an auto-archive bot.) I have looked through every Talk page discussion in the archives and none discuss an auto-archive bot. All I can find was the unilateral imposition of the bot by a now-retired user Balph Eubank on May 19, 2010, as you can see here.

Since Balph Eubank unilaterally imposed it on the page without getting a consensus in the first place, I brought back the auto-archive back to what is Default (i.e., blank). Anyone who wishes to change this would be required to get a consensus first, as per WP:AUTOARCHIVE. DigitalMedia11 (talk) 00:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

The bot was placed on this page 12 years ago, and Wikipedia's policies have long evolved since then. Also, you do not make changes to a bot without the necessary consensus, so i have restored the time limit. Furthermore, this is now moot since your request has been declined. Quetstar (talk) 01:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• @DigitalMedia11: Declaring your COI does not excuse you from being disruptive. You were told a long time ago that the archiving on this page does not work the way you describe. The 20-day period is from the last post to a thread, so in the example of an RfC, it would only be archived if the RfC had no comments for 20 days. Additionally, the only requests you've made on this page have been for edits; those are not RfCs. You have no business touching the archival parameters on this page. If you do so again or otherwise disrupt this page, you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:11, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

  You have no business touching the archival parameters on this page No policy or guideline prevents COI editors from doing that, subject to consensus. Technically, they are not even prohibited from making edits on the articles related to their COI. JBchrch talk 03:05, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Auto-archive Bot RfC

Should an auto-archive bot, which archives Talk discussions after there has been no comment for 20-days at Talk:Latham & Watkins be kept, removed or changed? DigitalMedia11 (talk) 12:39, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• Keep
• Remove
• Change

Discussion

Remove. This bot is disrupting normal discussions on this Talk page about Latham & Watkins, a law firm where I work. The page has very little activity – 7 posts in the last 10 years and two of these are me asking an editor to stop changing the bot back to 20 days. There’s no reason for such an aggressive auto-archive. A “Request Edit” I posted to the official queue in November 2020 was auto-archived, and thus closed, before it could be answered. [1] Once posted, a Request Edit can take 3 or more months to be answered, with no comments whatsoever until the review takes place. See COI Requested Edits, where as of today, 126 out of 161 pending requests have been sitting without comment for more than 20 days. As for RfCs, a 20-day bot might preclude informal or formal closure, as there are often no comments after a closure request is made. See Wikipedia:Closure requests, where 11 out of 11 current requests for closure of RfCs go back more than 20 days. This 20-day auto-archive bot was unilaterally added May 19, 2010, by a now-retired user Balph Eubank as can be seen here. I have read the two archived Talk pages [2] [3] and there was no discussion to add this bot, so it violates the current policy WP:AUTOARCHIVE. DigitalMedia11 (talk) 12:39, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• Changed to minthreadsleft=5 and algo=old(90d) from minthreadsleft=1 and algo=old(20d) [4], which means that the last 5 sections will always remain on the talk page and, subject to the foregoing, that sections will be archived after 90 days of inactivity. See User:MiszaBot/config § Parameters explained for more info. JBchrch talk 13:10, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
• @DigitalMedia11: Why have you started a s full-blown thirty-day formal WP:RFC? This should be a simple discussion involving only the regulars of this page. RfC pulls in all of these people, many of whom simply do not care about this talk page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Redrose64 Seems to me that the section above shows a genuine dispute, and that an RfC was a valid way to get broader feedback. JBchrch talk 02:50, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

This is overblown, I am going to remove this from the RfC lists because this is totally unnecessary right now. Quetstar (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

RfC: History section regarding Russian clients

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Does the fifth and final paragraph of the History section concerning Russian clients of this law firm need to be revised or removed?

• The paragraph should be revised.
• The paragraph should remain unchanged.
• The paragraph should be removed.

DigitalMedia11 (talk) 00:22, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

• Revise. COI disclosed above. The paragraph is bloated with excessive details about L&W’s former Russian clients. WP:UNDUE. Until this paragraph was added, this short article did not name a single other client in the 88-year history of the law firm, one of the largest in the world, with almost 3,000 attorneys. Given the brevity of the article, the personal reference mentioned in 2011 is not relevant, nor is their former representation of two state-owned Russian companies. The many thousands of attorneys who have worked for L&W have represented countless prominent companies and individuals that could be documented with tens of thousands of WP:RS over almost 90 years. But the format of this article does not allow for this level of detail.

The unspoken justification is 20/20 hindsight based on the Ukraine War. It’s a form of WP: Recentism. But L&W began to wind down working with all Russian companies in March 2022, according to [5], immediately following the Russian invasion of Ukraine. There are also instances of coatracking in the paragraph. The fourth sentence, for example, barely mentions the firm before pivoting to the questionable activities of a possible client “linked to” a sanctioned Russian oligarch.WP:NOTNEWS).

Given this is a short article, the possibly relevant info from this paragraph is a mention that L&W opened a Moscow office in 1992 and that in March 2022, it began winding down operations with Russians, immediately following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, condemning the invasion. The last sentence is inaccurate by the way. The law.com source actually reports L&W said in March 2022 it would begin an “orderly transition to wind down” Russian operations following Russia's invasion of Ukraine and that the firm condemned the invasion. DigitalMedia11 (talk) 00:22, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• You should make your edits and be WP:BOLD. I don't see if anyone has disputed your proposed edits so far. Agletarang (talk) 05:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  I agree that that information is WP:UNDUE and also WP:TOOMUCH, but I don't understand why opening an RfC as there's seem to be no genuine dispute. This should be closed. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

• The content should obviously remain unchanged. Wikipedia reflects what reliable sources say. There's no reason why the article should specifically exclude RS content just because it relates to controversies. Thenightaway (talk) 19:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. I'd like to understand why this information is relevant and deserves to be included. Russian companies are entitled to legal counsel, and having Russian clients in itself is neither immoral nor notable. However, also with regard to verifiability I'm having some issues here. Latham provided a personal reference for Russian billionaire Alexander Ponomarenko in 2011 should be supported by ICIJ, but I cannot find any refernce to Letham & Watkins. Latham represented a company linked to Russian oligarch Viktor Vekselberg should be supported by Radio Free Europe, but again I see no mention of L&W. WSJ, FT and Law.com are firewalled: could anybody please provide some quotations so as to assess whether the information is relevant and verifiable? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  The representation is notable enough to merit reporting by numerous RS. Wikipedia articles for law firms do cover notable clients that law firms have represented – it would be a brazen violation of NPOV to specifically remove notable clients that L&W have represented just because those clients have become a PR controversy for the company. The ICIJ source clearly supports the quoted statement. The RFE source does not explicitly mention L&W but the WSJ source for that sentence does. The other sources also cover L&W's representation of various Russian clients. WP:PAYWALL is not a justification for removing content. Thenightaway (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  The ICIJ source clearly supports the quoted statement. Sorry, I don't see how. They are never mentioned. Moreover, as you have access to the sources, it would kind if you could copy and paste the sentences mentioning L&W. That is necessary because we need to assess the relevance of the information: is L&W and their Russian clients the subject of the articles? That would make a strong case for inclusion. Or is it L&W simply mentioned in passing, without being the subject of the article? Then we would be approaching WP:SYNTH and the argument about notability would be much weaker. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:55, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  The ICIJ source 100% supports the statement. I'm not going to waste more of my time on this discussion. Thenightaway (talk) 21:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  I read the article on the Financial Times. It deals with a London law firm Linklaters, that attracted criticism over its work for Russian clients. L&W is mentioned in passing

  Linklaters’ rivals for Russian business include the US firm Cleary Gottlieb, which advised Rosneft, Gazprom and Mail.ru on their London flotations, among various others, and the US firm Latham & Watkins, which did work for VTB and Novatek, the natural gas producer

  I also read the New York Times piece:

  Russian companies like Rosneft, VTB, Alfa Bank, Gazprom and Sberbank, which are now under sanctions, have been represented by leading U.S. law firms including White & Case, DLA Piper, Dechert, Latham & Watkins and Baker Botts.

  All this is utterly irrelevant. Latham & Watkins is not the subject of these articles. Note that there are dozens of articles whose subject is Latham & Watkins, e.g. on the New York Times alone, [6] [7][8]. Someone made an original research by googling “Latham & Watkins + Russia”, but that’s not worth of inclusion. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:41, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

• Revise - it's fine to mention their Moscow office, some of their major clients, etc., but the sentence on Viktor Vekselberg looks particularly out-of-place. He's apparently only notable because of some shady business dealings, so to list him as a client here is not just recentism but also irrelevant, given that lawyers are supposed to represent clients regardless of those clients' moral virtues. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:22, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
• Revise - Mentioning former Russian clients ahead of their closing their Russian operations seems reasonable but the sentence on Viktor Vekselberg seems strange. Gusfriend (talk) 08:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
• Remove - it's WP:UNDUE, given the scarce/barely existing coverage in sources, as I argued here above.Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:58, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
• Question. Were their Russian clients responsible for a large % of this firm's coverage in press sources? If so, it seems like they would warrant a mention. If not, on the other hand, this is a firm that has a bajillion clients so mentioning the former Russian ones would seem odd from a WP:BALASP perspective. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

  These contents about L&W and the Russians are based on a couple of passing references on the Financial Times and the New York Times, where L&W is mentioned alongside other law firms. There's never been significant public debate about L&W and the Russians. On the other hand, the amount of press sources dealing with L&W is significant. I quoted three pieces from the New York Times alone here above; there's also this one from the Washington Post: [9]. The amount of sources simply mentioning L&W, however, is enormous and overweeningly superior to the coverage given by the press to their Russian clients. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:07, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.