Talk:Locke Lord

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Locke Lord article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Chicago

	Chicago portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Business

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.

Elizabeth512 (talk · contribs) has been paid by Locke Lord on their behalf.

Request edit

Part of an edit requested by an editor with a conflict of interest has been implemented. The number of attorneys at the firm, and Ms. Clements' position as Chair appended to the infobox.

I work for Locke Lord, and I’d like to propose the following edits on behalf of the firm:

In the second sentence, I propose changing the word “voted” to “ranked” and updating the sentence to the below. The American Lawyer’s list of 100 law firms does not have a voting process, it is ranked based on revenue, so this sentence is misleading, and these links are updated for the latest rankings of each of these as well as the previous two years for review:

Locke Lord is consistently ranked as one of the top 100 most prestigious law firms in the world by American Lawyer and Vault.

2017 AmLaw and Vault 100 results: http://www.americanlawyer.com/id=1202755653526 https://www.law.com/texaslawyer/almID/1202785130809/ http://www.vault.com/company-rankings/law/vault-law-100?pg=9

2016 AmLaw and Vault results: https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/almID/1202755653526/ http://www.vault.com/company-rankings/law/vault-law-100/?sRankID=2&rYear=2017&pg=9

2015 AmLaw and Vault results: https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/almID/1202723447574/ http://www.vault.com/company-rankings/law/vault-law-100/?sRankID=2&rYear=2016&pg=9

Info box (update/add): The firm has approximately 800 lawyers. I propose deleting the current No. of attorneys at 1000+ and updating to 800+.

Info box (update/add): Add: Key people: Jerry Clements, Locke Lord Chair

See bio: https://www.lockelord.com/professionals/c/clements-jerry-k

Various articles noting Jerry’s position at the firm: https://biglawbusiness.com/the-ranks-of-female-firm-leaders-are-growing-and-so-are-their-dinner-parties/ https://www.law.com/almID/1202756376093/ https://www.law360.com/articles/918058/biglaw-s-10-biggest-revenue-winners-and-losers-of-2016 https://www.law.com/insidecounsel/2015/05/11/jerry-clements-first-woman-to-be-named-baylor-lawy/

Elizabeth512 (talk) 18:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Partially implemented Spintendo ᔦᔭ 00:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Updates/Additions for 2018

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

I work for Locke Lord, and I’d like to propose the following edits on behalf of the firm:

Info box (update/add):

UPDATE: "No. of attorneys" - Change to 650+

The firm recorded 664 attorneys for the beginning of FY 2018.

See recent results from the American Lawyer 100 where the firm submits headcounts, revenue, and more: https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/2018/04/24/the-2018-am-law-100/ See article from Texas Lawyer with chart noting 664 headcount: https://www.law.com/texaslawyer/sites/texaslawyer/2018/02/16/locke-lord-posts-decline-in-net-income-and-gross-revenue-in-2017/ See recent results from Law360 400 where the firm submits headcount information as of Dec. 31, 2017: https://www.law360.com/articles/1032583

In addition, the first sentence notes the number of attorneys is "approximately 800." I propose this is changed to 650+ to match the info box update based on the above sources.

Elizabeth512 (talk)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Thank you for the above update - I noticed that the headcount on our page was changed to 644 instead of 664 as cited above. Can we have this updated in both the text and info box? Can the sources also be added to the actual text? In the page's current form they are only referenced in the info box.

Reply 05-MAY-2018

Implemented spintendo 08:58, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply 07-MAY-2018

I need an updated reference in order to change the employee count. The referenced you provided no longer state the number of employees, and the company website does not list a number either. I have removed the employee count until we can find verification. Please advise. .spintendo⋅⋅) 18:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update to Lawyer Headcount

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

UPDATE (Info box and first paragraph in text): "No. of attorneys" - Change to 664

Below are references to the Firm's lawyer headcount:

Texas Lawyer (see in graphic that FY 2017 lists 664 as headcount): https://www.law.com/texaslawyer/sites/texaslawyer/2018/02/16/locke-lord-posts-decline-in-net-income-and-gross-revenue-in-2017/

The American Lawyer (see #69, click on green bar to reveal Locke Lord data including 664 listed as headcount): https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/2018/04/24/the-2018-am-law-100-ranked-by-revenue-per-lawyer/

The American Lawyer (see #68, click on green bar to reveal Locke Lord data including 664 listed as headcount): https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/2018/04/24/the-2018-am-law-100-ranked-by-profits-per-lawyer/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elizabeth512 (talk • contribs)

Reply 09-MAY-2018

Done Please remember to sign your posts using four tildes ~~~~ .spintendo⋅⋅) 22:49, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

11-MARCH-2019

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Edit request for FY 2018 headcounts based on the most recent AmLaw 100.

UPDATE [in side bar]: "No. of attorneys" - Change to 641

UPDATE [in text]: As of 11 February 2019 the firm employed 641 attorneys.

Below are references to the Firm's headcount:

<ref> Texas Lawyer/Law.com (see in graphic that FY 2018 lists 641 as headcount): https://www.law.com/texaslawyer/2019/02/11/locke-lord-grows-revenue-profits-in-turnaround-year/

Elizabeth512 (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply 11-MAR-2019

Edit request implemented

The attorney census was revised.

Additional changes made:

The claim "Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell LLP's gross revenues and size place it within The American Lawyer's "AmLaw 100" annual rankings of the top United States law firms" was omitted because the AmLaw 100 rankings are not independently notable in Wikipedia.^[a]

Regards, Spintendo 19:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

^ While the magazine American Lawyer is independently notable, its AmLaw 100 rankings are not. Additionally, the mention of the rankings in that article are only partially referenced (e.g., ref tag #2: "Citation partially supports content of line item").

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Information to be added/removed: Change 11 March 2019 in article text to December 2018 in the sentence "As of 11 March 2019 the firm employed 641 attorneys."

Explanation of issue: The Texas Lawyer article used as reference for total attorney headcount is based on AmLaw 100 submissions, which are headcounts and financial figures as of December 2018. The publication date of the article does not accurately reflect this headcount number. The article says "The firm had a 641 lawyers counted on a full-time equivalent basis in 2018."

Reference supporting change: <ref> https://www.law.com/texaslawyer/2019/02/11/locke-lord-grows-revenue-profits-in-turnaround-year/?slreturn=20190211153129 <ref> https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/2018/04/24/the-2018-am-law-100/

Information to be added/removed: Change 'employed' to 'has' in the sentence "As of ... the firm employed 641 attorneys."

Explanation of issue: The wording in the Texas Lawyer article used as reference uses this structure - "The firm had a 641 lawyers counted on a full-time equivalent basis in 2018"

Reference supporting change: <ref> https://www.law.com/texaslawyer/2019/02/11/locke-lord-grows-revenue-profits-in-turnaround-year/?slreturn=20190211153129 <ref> https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/2018/04/24/the-2018-am-law-100/

Elizabeth512 (talk)

The sentence was changed to "The firm employs 641 attorneys." Whether the firm prefers the term "has" vs "employed" as meaning some sort of difference between full time vs part time is not the purview of the article. Spintendo 22:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[1] While the magazine American Lawyer is independently notable, its AmLaw 100 rankings are not. Additionally, the mention of the rankings in that article are only partially referenced (e.g., ref tag #2: "Citation partially supports content of line item").

[a]