Jump to content

Talk:Kasowitz Benson Torres

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk:Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman/DRAFT

Additions

[edit]

@Keithbob: - Wanted to get your thoughts on adding a bit about office openings in the history section, placing each in chronological context. Please note I have a declared COI with the subject of this page.

After 1st paragraph in "1993 to 1998":

In July 2001, Kasowitz expanded to Atlanta, opening its fourth office in eight years since the firm was founded. [1]

After 1st sentence in "2009 to present":

In January 2010, the firm hired 13 insurance recovery litigators to launch an insurance recovery litigation practice. [2].

After 1st paragraph in "2009 to present":

In November 2011, Kasowitz opened an office in Silicon Valley to increase its practice in intellectual property. [3]

After "Meanwhile, a September report..." sentence in "2009 to present":

In October 2013, NBCUniversal senior litigation attorneys John Berlinski and Mansi Shah joined the firm as partners in its Los Angeles office to launch its entertainment litigation practice. [4]

NinaSpezz (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nina, I'm busy now but hope I can get to this later this week. Feel free to ping me again if I forget.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty busy so if you want to add those items to the article yourself that is fine with me. Just ping me on my talk page after you've made the additions and then I'll come and tweak them. I have not looked at the sources so I'm not endorsing the content you've listed above. But I trust your sense of professionalism and judgement and see no reason you can't add the material yourself.
One side point though is please try to make proper citations rather than adding bare URLs with brackets. You can use the WP citation tool to get correct formatting. Just go to Preferences/Gadgets/Editing and check the box RefToolbar and SAVE. This will create a CITE button on the top of your edit window when you are adding content. Just click the button and fill in the required info. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done All items cited above have been added (more or less).-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Keithbob: Looks like there's an issue though with the American Lawyer ref. Do you mind looking into that? NinaSpezz (talk) 17:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

[edit]

A WP volunteer was kind enough to give a peer review of the article and I'd like to see his/her recommendations put to good use. Please take a look and make appropriate revisions to the article based on this feedback. The reviewer's comments can be seen here.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Keithbob: Incorporating the peer reviewer's recommendations, here is a suggested revision. Again, because of my declared COI, would appreciate if someone could review and provide feedback. NinaSpezz (talk) 16:33, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nina, I've put your draft into a 'sandbox' page which is more appropriate.Talk:Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman/DRAFT-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm too busy today to look at your draft but ping me in a few days and I'll spend some time looking at the article and your proposed changes. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Keithbob:: Friendly reminder to review my proposed changes. Thanks! NinaSpezz (talk) 16:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nina, Sorry, but I have a problem. I don't like complete article drafts created by other people regardless of their COI or lack thereof. I know you made the draft for maximum convenience for me or another editor but for me instead of convenient, it's problematic. One, I have to go back and forth between the old and the new and try and see what has changed. That gives me a headache (literally). Second, I like to put my name on my own work. I don't like 'approving' or wholesale rubber stamping the work of others. Third, this approach of inserting reviewed content created by a company employee has been strongly criticized by the WP community and in the press (ie the BP article). So for these reasons I'm going decline your proposal. Not because of the draft content (I've hardly looked at it) but because of the procedure. So you have two choices (or more). One, look for another editor at this page to help you. Two, make suggestions for changes here on the talk page one sentence at a time. I will then review the proposed change, make modifications as needed and update the article. I think we can do one sentence every day and move along fairly quickly. Sorry to be so persnickety about this but it is the only way I'm comfortable moving forward. I'm happy to work with you if you can adjust to my process. Likewise if you wish to court another editor to make changes I will not be offended. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Keithbob: Thank you for your thoughtful response. I appreciate your feedback. Let's start with some of the concrete suggestions made in the peer review. What do you think about cutting the history sub-headings (“1993 – 2008” & “2009-present”) as well as the hiring of Jimenez and the Missy Lapine suit? The Jimenez sentence will need to be reworded to simply say, “In 2009 the firm opened its Miami, Florida office[3] and added insurance recovery litigation to its practice.[19]" NinaSpezz (talk) 14:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll start going through the peer review and making change we can discuss below as we go along. Thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Implementation of Peer Review recommendations

[edit]

Peer Reviewer says:

  • The first sentence of the lede is almost promotional. It's not lede-relevant to list each and every city where the firm has offices; it's something that belongs in a later section.
    • Removed cities.  Done
  • I would argue the best structure for the first lede sentence is "Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman is an American (or New York) law firm founded in 1993."
    •  Done
  • A list of prominent clients is also not relevant for the lede and gives the impression of being advertising copy.
    • Moved to Administration section.  Done
  • Why is the history broken up into subsections in such an odd way? What's so different about the firm prior to 2008 when compared with the history since? There should be some clear reason for that sectioning other than convenience.

Peer Reviewer wrote:

"In December the firm was defrauded by a private investigator whom they had paid $6,000." This sentence is not neutrally worded and makes a serious criminal accusation. While I see from the sources that it evidently resulted in an indictment if not conviction, it should be phrased to address this.
I'll look at the sources and see what changes can be made for more neutral wording.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the entire sentence and am posting it here in case other editors disagree.
In December the firm was defrauded by a private investigator whom they had paid $6,000.
I've removed this sentence per WP:UNDUE. Although there are three citations none of the articles are about KBTF. Instead they about a con man and his many alleged crimes of which KBTF was one of many victims. I don't consider this to be notable for the article. Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Reviewer wrote:

  • More to the point, a lot of these historical things are little tidbits strung together. I've had that problem before when writing articles about businesses... it's hard to get past that with articles about companies, and I'm really not sure how to approach it. I think a lot of these detail items, like the hiring of Marcos Daniel Jimenez or the lawsuit of Missy Lapine, ought to be cut entirely.
    • Missy Lapine -- KBTF is not even mentioned in the first source and the second citation is a court document and WP frowns on using court documents as sources as they are primary, subjective sources. Since there is not media coverage of KBTFs involvement in the Missy Lapine issue it is also non-notable. For these reasons I've removed the text about Missy Lapine. Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Reviewer wrote:

  • I mean, the motion in the Fairfax lawsuit... while serious in the lawsuit is unbelievably minor in the history of a major litigation firm.

Peer Review Recommendations (cont)

[edit]

Peer Reviewer wrote:

  • When writing an article like this, I think the goal should be, much like with making an opening statement, to present a coherent story that the factfinder can follow, where factual tidbits flow from one to another (and unlike a closing argument, not drawing conclusions, which would be OR). Give the facts that the sources do, but in a way that a factfinder can connect understand why you juxtaposed them. For instance, why talk about Joe Liebmann, then talk about the Above the Law fake offer story, then talk about layoffs, then talk about the firm being ranked as large? I get it's chronological, but there's no connection other than it all being roughly about the same law firm.

Peer Reviewer wrote:

  • The citations should be revamped. Try using standard citation templates, and where (for instance) you lack an author, just leave the field blank. "Unknown author" is not so great, and your newspaper citations (e.g., NYLJ) should have date information.
    • A good recommendation but I don't have time to do it. This is normally something that an editor does in preparation for submission to a Good Article reviewer. So I'll leave this task for someone else. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Private investigator content removed

[edit]

The Bloomberg article may be valuable as a source for summarizing a rather complex case that KBTF was involved in but its wrong to include this cherry picked text about KBTF in the WP article. For this reason I've removed it and placed it here.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've also removed the above text as it was cherry picked from a complex article about KBTF's case with ICP. Hiring private investigators is nothing new in the litigation business however it maybe be included in this article if it was done in the context of the entire case as reported by the source(s) and given notable coverage in those sources. In this case neither of those thresholds for inclusion was met and instead the text gave undue weight to a minor mention thereby creating POV which violated WP:NPOV.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of 'cold offers' removed

[edit]

I fail to see the notability of this allegation made by the author of a legal blog.

Request for review by other editors

[edit]

Hi User:Mendaliv and User:MusikAnimal, I've made quite a few changes to the article, mostly in response to the peer review. I'd be very happy if either or both of you would take a look at the article in its current form and give feedback. As always feel free to make changes to improve the article and please leave comments here as you see fit. Many thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Updates

[edit]

@Keithbob: Thank you for all of the time and effort you've put in to improving the page. Wanted to share a few items and comments:

There is a typo in the lead section - "judgement" in the very last sentence should be "judgment".

More current stats on diversity:

  • Kasowitz was ranked 59th in the nation in the 2014 Corporate Counsel Diversity Scorecard, placing the firm in the top 26% of most diverse law firms in the country [5]
  • Additionally, the firm received The Law Firm Diversity Award from The Puerto Rican Bar Association in 2013 - (see page 12 of the program, which is on page 7 of the PDF) [6]-
  • This NALP profile also contains current diversity information: [7]

Regarding the following in the lead section: "The company has been accused of wrong doing by former employees and partners however those lawsuits were dismissed without any judgement against the firm" – this seems to be a characterization which is unnecessary and possibly misleading. Since the lawsuits were dismissed, why mention them in the lead? Especially since the cases are mentioned (and better explained) in the Controversy section. Here are a few additional references for consideration when mentioning those cases: [8] [9]

Administration section: Shuster and Lewis are no longer with the firm. Here are references about their departures:

I look forward to your feedback. NinaSpezz (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nina, Thanks for the info. I've changed the spelling even though both versions are acceptable. The lead is supposed to be a summary and that is why the court cases are mentioned. Regarding the other points, I'm short on time today but I'll look at your post again, sometime next week, and see if I can incorporate some of your other suggestions. Best,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Keithbob: Just wanted to follow up on the above comments. NinaSpezz (talk) 15:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no time again today but feel free to remind me in a day or two.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Added the bit about diversity. Will try to come back again soon.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think I've taken care of everything. If there is more, let me know. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Attempt to remove Donald Trump's name as a client

[edit]
There has been an attempt to remove Mr. Trump's name as a client. An article on Gizmodo has investigated this. Should the page be locked temporarily? thanks. --Smghz (talk) 21:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I support locking this page. This is a clear attempt to scrub a verified, and notable, fact from a page when that fact may be damaging to a political figure. That sort of thing can't be allowed. -- Anthony S. Castanza (talk) 04:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I support locking the page temporarily.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 14:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One IP involved, no? In WP terms, that's a cakewalk. Still, semi protect and the problem is solved. Or ban the IP: it's not contributed anything to WP. Bromley86 (talk) 03:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trump scrub

[edit]

Is this really a notable event? Certainly, that the firm has represented Trump is notable, and should also be mentioned in the Lead, but I hardly think 1 IP editing the page is a notable controversy for the firm. Bromley86 (talk) 03:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(1) There was also a screenshot showing that the firm had also changed its own page to scrub the information. That said, the screenshot was small enough that I can't personally verify it wasn't just an accident of retrieving the page two different ways.
(2) Hiring politically connected people seems to be an important part of the business model; that does make it more newsworthy when this backfires. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimJJewett (talk • contribs) 14:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The removal got mentioned on Gizmodo, [12]. I am unconvinced that there is enough weight to mention it in the article; just a datapoint. VQuakr (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. For inclusion, I'd like to see multi-day coverage in mainstream press, or significant mention in industry-specific press.
Regarding JJJ's (2), that's only the case if RS make it so, otherwise it's OR. Bromley86 (talk) 21:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request

[edit]

David Friedman has stepped down after having been confirmed as ambassador to Israel. The firm's current name is Kasowitz Benson Torres LLC. --Heath 184.170.93.196 (talk) 21:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"the request must be of the form "please change X to Y"." Fine. Please change "Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman" to "Kasowitz Benson Torres LLC". --Heath
About to do the move, but I'm uncertain whether the correct name is what they call themselves ("Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP")[13], or whether WP drops the "LLP" (as it used to be called "Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman LLP",[14] but WP called it "Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman"). If I don't hear anything, or if someone doesn't move it, I'll move it to KBT LLP, and set up a redirect for KBT. Bromley86 (talk) 09:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We generally seem to drop the Inc, LLP, LLC, etc unless needed per WP:PRECISE. VQuakr (talk) 16:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, shall do. Bromley86 (talk) 21:21, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kasowitz Benson Torres. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kasowitz_Benson_Torres&oldid=1203213222"