Talk:Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft

Suggested draft for article overhaul

Hello to editors watching this page. I am posting an updated and expanded version of this article and I hope editors will be able to review it. I was paid to prepare this draft as part of my work at Beutler Ink, by Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft. Being that I prepared this draft on their behalf, I will not edit this article myself and prefer to have others look at my proposal for issues with promotional language and neutrality. If everything seems OK, would someone be able to move this draft into the live article?

The largest section of this live article is the History section, which is four paragraphs long and contains a single inline citation. The Recent activity is not cohesive, as it discusses layoffs from 2008, followed by a single-sentence paragraph about the firm's 2013 Vault ranking. Lastly, the Names of the firm is an entirely unsourced list.

Here's what you'll see in my proposed draft:

• The Infobox has been updated to include the recent name for 200 Liberty Street (formerly One World Financial Center); updated revenue figure; updated number of attorneys; key people and the firm's founder.
• The Introduction has been rewritten to update essential information on the firm.
• I added an Overview section to give an overview of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft.
• The History section has been expanded and is thoroughly sourced throughout. Being as the firm is more than 200 years old, I broke this section into two parts: Early history, covering 1792 to 1914, and As Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, covering 1914 to present.
• This draft also adds sections for Areas of practice, Recent recognition and Pro bono work that are properly sourced.

If any editors have time to review the draft, it can be found in my userspace here:

• User:Heatherer/Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft

I'm happy to address any questions or feedback on the draft. Please make edits or ask me to make changes to make it ready to take live. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 16:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Heatherer, I want to thank you for writing this draft and for following proper procedures regarding conflicts of interest. It looks like you have put a lot of hard work into writing this draft, and I hope that through the collaborative process we can improve this article. However, I would like to call your attention to three issues that I think should be addressed before moving the draft to mainspace:

1. Reliance on Unreliable, Self-Published Material: Most of the "History" section relies upon Cadwalader's self-published bicentennial history. Wikipedia policy specifies that assertions must be substantiated by reliable sources, and articles generally may not rely upon self-published material. Per WP:USERGENERATED, "self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable". Self published sources may, however, be used as information about the individual/group that published the material in some limited circumstances (per WP:SELFSOURCE), as long as the material is not "unduly self-serving" and "[t]he article is not based primarily on such sources". Unfortunately, the History section is based primarily on this source and it is self serving to the extent that it focuses solely on the firm's accomplishments. The real problem with self-published materials is that anyone can publish a book about themselves, and there is really no way to verify the accuracy of statements made in the material. These concerns are reflected in Wikipedia policies that limits the use of such sources. Per WP:SELFPUBLISH, "Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so."
2. Promotional Tone/Appearance: As it is written now, the article sounds extremely promotional and looks more like a brochure for potential clients than an encyclopedia article. For example, there is undue WP:WEIGHT placed on the "Recent Recognition" and "Pro Bono" sections. Wikipedia policies state that "[i]nformation about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery" (see WP:NOTADVERTISING). You have done an excellent job identifying third-party sources that discuss the firm's activities, but I think this information can be presented in a manner that is more neutral and less promotional. I also want to call your attention to the sentence that says, "Following the September 11, 2001, terror attacks, Cadwalader assisted families of those killed, including immigrant families." The sentence suggests that the firm helped immigrant families affected by 9-11, but the source at the end of the sentence does not state that the firm's work with immigrant families was related to the events of 9-11.
3. Omission of Negative Coverage: This also touches on issues of WP:WEIGHT and avoiding promotional tone, but the article needs to report on coverage from all sources and not choose selectively among those sources that portray the firm in a positive manner. For example, there is no mention of Jim Woolery's departure in 2015 (Law360 called his departure a "Warning for Biglaw" and Above the Law said his departure came after the firm conducted "stealth layoffs"). Nor does the article mention Robert Ughetta's arrest for disorderly conduct (coverage here and here). Nor does the article mention a recent high-profile malpractice claim brought against the firm (coverage here).

I think the best next-step for this draft would be to (1) re-write the history section so that it relies primarily upon neutral, third party sources, (2) change promotional tone/structure to make the article sound more neutral/encyclopedic, and (3) incorporate a range of coverage, including negative coverage (per WP:WEIGHT). If you have any other questions, please let me know. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@Notecardforfree: Thank you so much for taking time to review and give such thorough feedback. I'd like to spend a little more time going through your points before I address them, but I did want to ask if you had any specific suggestions about the language, content, or organization of the Pro bono or Recent recognition sections. Thanks again! Heatherer (talk) 19:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Heatherer, here are a few thoughts I have about the "Pro bono" section:

• As a practical matter, Featured Articles of other companies/organizations do not usually discuss the charitable work of the company/organization. I think this is in part because undue WP:WEIGHT on charitable work likely violates WP:NOTADVERTISING. I understand that most other articles for major law firms include a section about Pro Bono work, but I also think 90% of law firm articles on Wikipedia violate policy in one way or another. If you open up Encyclopædia Britannica, I don't think you would find much coverage of the charitable work of companies included in the that encyclopedia. Of course, Wikipedia's notability guidelines (see WP:GNG) state that coverage in reliable sources can, in fact, demonstrate that events are notable enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Here, it looks like Cadwalader's pro bono work has received coverage from reliable sources. Therefore, I would recommend doing one of two things with the coverage of the firm's pro-bono activities: (1) Integrate the coverage into the history section, or (2) keep a standalone section about pro-bono activities, but juxtapose this coverage with coverage of the firm's non-pro bono work (which you cover in the "Areas of practice" section). You may also want to consider creating an umbrella section about "Professional activities," under which you can have separate subsections for their practice areas and their pro bono work. You may also want to follow the model of the article for Cracker Barrel, which has a subsection for "community involvement" under the section titled "corporate overview."
• Some of the activities described in the pro bono section may fall into the category of "routine news," which is generally excluded per WP:NOTNEWS. For example, establishing a website or providing attorney services for KIND may not have the "enduring notability" necessary for inclusion in the encyclopedia (see WP:N).
• If you do keep the section about pro bono work, please address the problematic sentence that begins with "Following the September 11, 2001, terror attacks ...." As I mentioned above, the sentence suggests that the firm helped immigrant families affected by 9-11, but the source at the end of the sentence does not state that the firm's work with immigrant families was related to the events of 9-11.
• Also, you cite to the Chambers profile of the firm to support assertions about the firm establishing the Malala fund and the "VS." website, but the Chambers profile mentions neither of these things. I should also mention that Chambers is regarded by many in the legal world as a Michelin Guide of sorts, which usually only describes positive qualities of firms while saying nothing of their negative qualities.

As for the "Recent recognition" section, here are a few thoughts:

• When editing this section, you need to be mindful of Wikipedia policies that prohibit self-promotion and advertising (see WP:PROMOTION). Furthermore, "[t]he tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view" (see WP:IMPARTIAL). Therefore, I would also consider integrating this material into a larger "corporate affairs and culture" section, where you can also include coverage that has been critical of the firm. Good examples of how to integrate these kinds of materials can be found in the articles for Google, British Airways, and Yelp.
• I think many of the concerns about self promotion and advertising would be assuaged if you place equal weight on sources that criticize the firm's practices. Some of those sources are listed above in my previous comments, and I am sure you are well aware of other negative coverage. See, for example, this article from the Washington and Lee Law Review and this article from the Wall Street Journal.

It is clear from your work that you are a very skilled writer, and I truly appreciate your efforts to improve this article. I can understand, however, that your client is paying you to deliver a product that portrays them in a positive manner. Therefore, it is imperative for COI editors to be mindful of policies that require a fair and balanced summary of the topic. I think your open-minded and collaborative approach is an excellent first step in this process. Please let me know if you have any questions about any of my comments, and please feel free to reach out to me if you would like me to take another look at any other draft materials. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 08:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

@Notecardforfree: Thanks again for your detailed notes here, it's great to have someone reviewing who looks at everything thoroughly and provides such clear feedback. I've revisited my draft and made some updates based on what you've outlined above:

• Removing the stand alone section for Pro bono and placing the most noteworthy work into the History, while including a short overview of the firm's pro bono focus in the Areas of practice section.
• Trimming down and renaming the Recent recognition section. I've pared this back to focus on the more noteworthy items, particularly those that are more neutral, such as the firm's rankings. To reflect the content a bit better, I've adjusted the section heading to Rankings and recognition, which I think also helps with neutrality.
• The new draft also includes Jim Woolery's departure from the firm and Cadwalader's Project Rightsize, a 1990s initiative by younger partners to remove less productive partners, and ensuing lawsuits; based on your feedback about being sure to include noteworthy criticism and less positive aspects of company history

There are some parts of your feedback that I'd like to discuss a bit more:

• You're correct that the Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft: A Bicentennial History 1792-1992 book was published by the firm itself, but it was created by The Winthrop Group, which provides history and archival sources for their clients. They rely on other original secondary sources, so I'm working with someone at CWT to see if we can find those original sources. In the meantime, I would like to revisit keeping this source. I used the book to give interesting detail about this law firm's two centuries in practice; I don't think any of the details that it supports are contentious at all such that this book would be a problematic source for them. For now, the updated draft in my user space still uses the book, but if you feel it must be removed, I have prepared a version of this article that does not use it at all.
• I looked closed at adding in details of the malpractice suit you mentioned above. However, ultimately, this seemed like it would be adding something just for the sake of adding a negative, it simply isn't a noteworthy part of the company's history. Like you mentioned above, when you consider "enduring notability", I don't think this should be included. Malpractice suits happen all the time for major law firms: this isn't the only one CWT has faced and it hasn't had a major impact on the firm, it's just that there's been some press about it recently due to interest in Nomura. Instead, as mentioned above, I've added in details of a 1990s initiative that received coverage and criticism, and did have a significant impact on the firm.
• Regarding the arrest of one of the firm's partners, my strong feeling is that adding this would violate WP:BLPCRIME. The arrest is not related to the firm, just one partner who works there, and had no impact on the firm.
• For the two points where you felt that the citations didn't include the details mentioned, would you mind looking again, as I was very careful to ensure every detail is supported? "[I]ncluding immigrant families" is supported by the citation to the New York Times source "For Illegal Workers' Kin, No Paper Trail and Less 9/11 Aid". The key quote is: ...Debra Brown Steinberg, a partner with Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft and one of the lawyers working free for immigrant families affected by the terrorist attack. For the comment on the Chambers profile source, the details are there, you just have to click on the Bonus Features tab.

I'm eager to hear your thoughts on the above and what you think of the updated draft. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 21:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Section break for convenience

Hi Heatherer, thank you very much for taking the time to incorporate my previous suggestions in your draft. Your hard work has really paid off! The article looks much improved from the previous version, and I think it is very close to being ready. You have done an excellent toning down the promotional language and appearance of the previous version. I especially like how you have incorporated recent events in the "History" section and that you created a unified "Areas of practice" section. And now, to turn to the remaining issues:

1. Self published material: The real problem with self-published material is that it is not verifiable (see also WP:SPS). If the "Bicentennial History" included citations to the original secondary sources, then it would be easy to check the accuracy of the claims made in the book, but this book does not support its assertions with citations to sources. Nor does it matter that the claims are not contentious. If material is unverifiable information, then it should not be on Wikipedia. I know that you have put a ton of hard work into creating this section, and many of the details of the History section are very interesting, but Wikipedia's policies are clear: with a few exceptions, self-published material is not, on its own, a reliable or verifiable source. Therefore, unless you include citations to the original source material, I think you will need to leave it out.
2. Information about malpractice suits and arrest of a partner: After reflecting upon this further, I think it was a very wise decision to leave these out of the article. Your points about WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP issues are especially relevant. My initial motive for citing these stories was to give examples of negative press coverage, but I agree that it is best to leave them out of the article.
3. Assisting immigrant families after 9/11: Mea culpa -- I'm not sure how I missed this one, but thanks for helping me find the answer!
4. Linking to articles behing paywalls: The sources in footnotes 8, 9, 12, 13, and 17 are hidden behind a Nexis paywall. If possible, can you link these sources to a version that is not behind the Nexis paywall? For example, the Mireya Navarro N.Y. Times article is available here, and the FULJ article is available here.

Please let me know if you have any questions about these comments. Again, I think you have done excellent work to prepare this article for Wikipedia, and I look forward to seeing the finished product! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Notecardforfree! Sorry for the delay in responding. I spent the past few days looking for alternate sources to replace the "Bicentennial History". I was able to substitute the book in several places and I removed any information where I've not yet been able to find new sources (although I hope to eventually be able to come back with sources to re-add this). Additionally, I replaced the paywall links to publicly accessible ones. You can see all the differences here and the updated draft is here.

I appreciate your patience and help working through this (not to mention all the encouragement). Let me know if there is anything else I can do to get this ready! Thanks, Heatherer (talk) 17:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Heatherer, really the thanks should go to you for your willingness to be accommodating, professional, and courteous through this process. The new version of the draft looked fantastic, so I replaced the existing article with your draft. I know you put a lot of work into the previous version, and I hope you can track down sources for some of the very interesting facts that were in earlier versions of the history section. If you need anything else or if you want to make any other changes to the article, feel free to ping me. Best of luck with future editing! -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@Notecardforfree: Thank you! It was a pleasure working with you on this. I agree the article is much improved. I have just one minor fix to request: the categories at the bottom are still disabled. Would you mind removing the colons before "Category"? That should fix them. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 17:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Is there any place in this article where I can mention that my grandfather, the lawyer, used to make fun of the name of this firm and set it to music? Or would that be considered original research?

Ok, I guess I can't do that. Carlo (talk) 20:56, 27 October 2021 (UTC)