Talk:Herbert Smith

Reads like promotional material

This page reads like promotional material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.134.175 (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Tone of article

This article reads like promotional material, particularly following recent edits. It needs to be changed to be more neutral. BunnyDust (talk) 00:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Who keeps changing this article and why? Is it someone at Herbert smith who does not want a balanced discussion . Please stop trying to shovel this corporate rubbish down our throats

All of the independent and balanced views are gone! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.234.16 (talk) 15:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This article is very biased, particularly because the edits basically insert promotional material at the expense of neutral comment. And I am, essentially biased towards the firm, but I still feel that Wikipedia entries should be as unbiased as possible. This article is trash. BunnyDust (talk) 13:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

THANKS - I have changed this article back to the more balanced one on the site a few days ago. Please use this version for any changes. Herbert Smith - Please dont just replace this, again, with your brochure - it doesnt look very good on you!

26/11/08 - its happened again... The brochure is back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yobabyyo (talk • contribs) 17:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

This page is now in dispute. Editors - please make your cases on the discussion pages. Both profiles are now included on the main page. --Yobabyyo (talk) 19:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC) o

3/1/09 Im still waiting (almost 3 months on) for the person who keeps publishing the herbert smith brochure (deleting all of the balanced views) to make a representation on this page.

Please do so by the end of January or I shall re-instate the first profile as the sole profile. --90.196.203.143 (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC) --Yobabyyo (talk)

I agree that the second profile is too positive (see my comments above). But the first profile goes too far the other way. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and should contain neutral facts rather than rhetoric or opinion. Comments such as "Women may wish to explore other opportunities before heading to Herbies" and "2009 should prove to be interesting......." are inappropriate. I'm going to work on something in between and post a link here soon. Please don't remove the second profile yet as the first one needs a lot or work itself. BunnyDust (talk) 09:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I have now produced what I feel is a neutral draft. My idea is to use this as a basis, take comments on it to produce a final draft, and then move it onto the Herbert Smith page to replace both current profiles. Please see User:BunnyDust/Herbert_Smith and leave comments there. BunnyDust (talk) 10:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that the revised entry is very good, in terms of neutrality. I am starting at the firm next year and decided to have a look at the Wiki entry out of interest. I was quite shocked when just viewing the present page. Glad to see the final paragraph about women toned down; this site is not meant to offer career advice based on subjective criticisms about sexism. Silenceuk (talk) 14:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm also in agreement that your revised version is more suitable than either of the other two. I think it may need less work than you fear. Good work. --Yobabyyo (talk) 19:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The only thing I would change is the tone of the paragraph on the firm's standing as a litigation firm. Although the Lawyer did rank the firm 35th by revenue, this reflects only one year's turnover and profits, and comes from what is essentially a legal magazine (no more authoritative than Roll on Friday, the website which is regarded across the legal industry as its own form of 'Private Eye' magazine). The Chambers Guide for 2009 notes that "[Herbert Smith] has consistently been ranked as the leading UK and Asian firm for commercial litigation." (afraid I only have the paper copy here (it's on page 1335), but an online copy of this entry may be available somewhere). Given that Chambers speaks with considerably more authority, it seems only fair to change the tone of that paragraph to note that Herbert Smith is very widely regarded as the leading litigation firm, though with some publications suggesting that it may be losing this lead. Other sources of lesser standing (Roll on Friday, Legal Week, The Times Legal Guide) agree with this view. Otherwise the article all seems factual and balanced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.158.177.18 (talk) 13:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Afraid I don't agree with the unsigned comment above. The figures from The Lawyer are objective. Chambers commentary is subjective and therefore should be treated with a degree of scepticism. In addition, 'Commercial Litigation' is only one field of litigation - Banking litigation, etc, are equally as important, and it would be very difficult to argue that Herbert Smith is ahead of rival such as A&O either in that one specialism, or for litigation/dispute resolution more generally. The figures published by the Lawyer offer a good objective view.

--90.192.188.202 (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I've now updated the page after we created a new, neutral profile on User:BunnyDust/Herbert_Smith (which I'm keeping for reference). I've also added a warning box at the top of the article referring to Wikipedia's editing policies which I think should be there for at least two weeks.BunnyDust (talk) 09:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggested changes

Hi - I work at HS and wrote the original profile but am not responsible for undoing any changes/edits others may have made. I have not in fact checked the profile in months so was unaware of the debate going on.

Really not sure why the original profile was any more corporate/brochure-esque than the Wikipedia profiles of firms such as Freshfields, Ashurst or Slaughter and May, to name but three. Our profile appears to have been singled out for negative treatment.

I am biased but have a few comments and am minded to edit the article to reflect them.

"None of these alliances represent a formal "one firm approach", as championed by the likes of Linklaters, Freshfields, Allen and Overy, and Clifford Chance."

Would prefer to say: "The approach of forming alliances is a fundamentally different approach to the "one-firm" route to internationalisation taken by Linklaters, Freshfields, Allen & Overy and Clifford Chance."

The firm has previously been considered the UK's leading litigation practice[6][7]. In 2007 The Lawyer named it 'Litigation Team of the Year'[8]. It is now considered by some to have been matched or overtaken by others, such as Clifford Chance and Freshfields[9]. In November 2008, The Lawyer reported that Herbert Smith was 35th in the top 50 transatlantic litigation firms, beaten by rivals such as DLA, Clifford Chance, and Freshfields (based on revenue)[10]. Other commentators maintain that, in terms of quality, Herbert Smith remains one of the most reputable litigation firms[11].

More suitable to be changed to "The firm has one of the UK's leading litigation practices". Also, the referenced article says nothing about being overtaken, so that word should be removed as it carries overly negative connotations. The Lawyer survey referred to was purely quantitative so based on revenues alone you could say that the other firms "beat" Herbert Smith but it should also be pointed out that the firm was the only one out of the top 50 to have no US office.

Not sure how the Legal Week par got mangled. Legal Business magazine is in fact the magazine that considers HS part of the magic circle, and has done since 2001. I would delete this entire paragraph.

The mixed fortunes par is not accurate and just refers to a number of negative articles about the firm from the past year or two. The FT's coverage of the Talco case would be a much better reference than the article used. The half-year target figure is not contextualised against other firms and we would deny that there was any back track regarding the tax scheme.

Am minded to insert lines regarding the employment tribunal and racism references to reflect actions the firm took to address issues raised.

I will check back in a few days to see if any comments on this have been made and then subject to comments go ahead and make some edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.189.127.13 (talk) 16:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your comments. Here are my thoughts:

1. I don't think it's right to compare the profile to other similar firms. If they are written in the same way then they should also be changed. In fact now you've highlighted this I'll have a look at them as well. It should be remembered that Wikipedia should contain neutral articles which present facts fairly.

2. The "one firm approach": I agree with your suggestion. The current wording does appear to suggest that the approach of other firms is better in some way.

3. Litigation reputation: I agree that "or overtaken" should be removed as the article does indeed make no mention of this. However I think that otherwise the current wording is good: it makes adequate reference to the fact that The Lawyer survey was based only on revenues (though perhaps this might be better: "The Lawyer reported that, based on revenue, Herbert Smith was 35th in the top 50 transatlantic litigation firms, beaten by rivals such as DLA, Clifford Chance, and Freshfields (all of which, unlike Herbert Smith, have a US office)"), and includes a reference to Herbert Smith's continuing reputation as offering quality advice.:

4. Magic Circle: personally I think that any reference to the Magic Circle should be deleted. It is clear that most commentators do not view Herbert Smith as a Magic Circle firm, but I don't think that this needs to be mentioned at all.

5: Mixed fortunes. I agree that most of this is perhaps not notable enough to be included. While I disagree on the tax point (given The Lawyer's article), the tone of the paragraph is perhaps too negative and non-contextual, and I would be happy for it to be removed.

6. Employment tribunal and racism: obviously it is appropriate to include something on the steps the firms took, to ensure the article is not too negative. However, bear in mind: 1) all material added must be supported by an appropriate source (first-hand experience of the steps taken is not sufficient) and 2) this paragraph should be kept brief.

What do you think? It might be better to write on my talk page rather than clogging up this page. BunnyDust (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

No, please have discussions here. This is the 'encyclopedia that anyone can edit'. The editing process must be done along the way by as many people as possible. 'Constructing' private articles is against the very principles of Wikipedia. Do not be surprised if others do not like the articles that you have built as a result. Bastin 22:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok. The page I made before to produce a suitable version was clearly linked here, and the only person who has edited this page who didn't say anything during the 2-3 weeks we used it was the anonymous user who keeps reverting back to the version which merely advertises the firm (someone who clearly doesn't want to get involved in the editorial process at all but is only interested in promoting the firm). But from now on we'll use this page.BunnyDust (talk) 10:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Mtking attempting to impose changes through edit warring

User:Mtking is attempting to impose changes to this article through edit warring, stating a point blank refusal to follow BRD on my talk page (User talk:Rangoon11#Talk:Linklaters#Offices_Section) and demanding in their edit summaries that I come here to seek a consensus for the reversion of their removal of long-standing content.

Mtking wishes to impose the deletion of the locations of the offices of Herbert Smith. They claim that a discussion on the talk page of another law firm, Linklaters, established a consensus for this. It did no such thing. That discussion concerned a list of over 25 offices presented in a separate section with flag icons. Comments made there cannot be used to justify the crude deletion of all office locations from all law firm articles (and comments in that discussion were in any case far from unanimous).

No policy exists which justifies the deletion of this relevant and completely factual content. I should add that, in my view, this article is of a very poor quality and requires an almost complete re-write, the addition of content in the History section, updating etc. However that does not mean that one of the few factual and relevant pieces of information in the article should be deleted.Rangoon11 (talk) 22:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that if Rangoon11 rereads WP:BRD he will see that it is an essay and not a policy and not even a guideline, he is using it as shield to enforce his version on this article. The only reason any firm includes it's locations on letterhead or corporate copy is to puff it's self out. So it is up to Rangoon11 to show why it should be included here; his only reasons to date are it is ture and it is long-standing content neither of which are policy based reasons for inclusion.

I agree with Rangoon11 that the article is very poor, and needs a rewrite but that is again no reason to keep the list off office cities. Mtking ^(edits) 22:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)