Talk:Gibson Dunn

"Notable attorneys" section

The "notable attorneys" section had redlinks for the less notable ones. I removed the linking brackets where appropriate.

It's amusing to read the linked articles. There are several whose career was "Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, appointed by Bush to something, returned to Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher".

Lead

Restructured lead section to clarify the mentioned vault.com ranking as branche-internal survey (the source is under discussion at WP:RSN), and to address WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT issues. On a sidenote, several of the "notable xyz" entries are unsourced. The article would be a lot better, if those sections would focus on some of the well-sourced, more notable entries. GermanJoe (talk) 21:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Removed the unsouced entries. There are still more than enough examples in the current version to provide a succinct overview of the firm's notable activities. GermanJoe (talk) 22:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Removed the Vault source for good. It is promotional garbage based on a trivial branche-internal popularity poll. Of course such a source will be popular with COI editors, who are only here to pad their company's resume and prestige. But it includes no credible and relevant information to enhance an encyclopedic presentation of this topic. Please feel free to add reviews and in-depth analysis from uninvolved industry experts, who provide an unbiased critical and professional view to describe the company. GermanJoe (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

February 2024 Requested Edits

Hello, Wikipedia. I have some suggestions for improvements to this page and would like to solicit the help of interested editors. I’m an employee of the firm so would appreciate unbiased feedback in bringing a more neutral tone to the article, as well as making some updates. Cheers.

1. What I think should be changed: Please replace the following lines in the infobox:

| num_attorneys = Approximately 1,400

| practice_areas = General practice

| revenue = US$2.0 billion (2019)

Please replace with:

| num_attorneys = Approximately 1,688

| practice_areas = Litigation

| revenue = US$$2.7 billion (2023)

Why I think it should be changed: The items in the infobox are out of date. The information I’ve provided is based on the most recent data available as reported in reliable sources.

2. What I think should be changed:

Please move the second, third and fourth paragraphs of the History section to the ‘Notable Cases section: In 2009, Theodore B. Olson, a partner of the firm, successfully argued the case Citizens United v. FEC (2010) in its favor. The verdict sanctioned businesses' limitless campaign spending, which promoted corruption and black money.

Gibson Dunn is also actively involved in homeless encampments-related cases. In 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the firm represented West Side Community Organization (Westco), an organization that advocated for the relocation of homeless persons from Upper West Side to a downtown hotel in the wake of the COVID-19 outbreak. Randy Mastro, a partner of the firm who represented it, was criticized for taking up the lawsuit and his home was vandalized in protest in October 2020.

Gibson Dunn has also defended Chevron in court against Steven Donziger, the attorney who won the $8.6 billion judgement against Chevron in Aguinda v. Texaco, Inc. for the company's dumping of toxic oil waste in Ecuador. To counter Donziger, the firm has employed private investigators to follow him, publishing a periodical to defame him, and use of hundreds of lawyers to fight against him. As a result Donziger has faced fines and increased legal costs.

Here’s how it would appear in Notable Cases::

• In 2009, Theodore B. Olson, a partner of the firm, successfully argued the case Citizens United v. FEC (2010) in its favor. The verdict sanctioned businesses' limitless campaign spending, which promoted corruption and black money.

• Gibson Dunn is actively involved in homeless encampments-related cases. In 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the firm represented West Side Community Organization (Westco), an organization that advocated for the relocation of homeless persons from Upper West Side to a downtown hotel in the wake of the COVID-19 outbreak. Randy Mastro, a partner of the firm who represented it, was criticized for taking up the lawsuit and his home was vandalized in protest in October 2020.

• Gibson Dunn has defended Chevron in court against Steven Donziger, the attorney who won the $8.6 billion judgement against Chevron in Aguinda v. Texaco, Inc. for the company's dumping of toxic oil waste in Ecuador. To counter Donziger, the firm has employed private investigators to follow him, publishing a periodical to defame him, and use of hundreds of lawyers to fight against him. As a result Donziger has faced fines and increased legal costs.

Why it should be changed: Paragraphs 2-4 describe particular cases that are not about the firm itself or milestones in its History. These belong in the Notable cases section, if they are to be included. The firm has handled many dozens of important cases like these, with substantial media coverage, over the past 133 years. Please note that I am just requesting a move at present for structural reasons. I have not reviewed this content for substantive issues. I will do this at a later time.
3. Please add the following sentence to become the last bullet point in the Notable cases section:

• In 2023 Gibson Dunn represented Deon Jones in a lawsuit against Los Angeles Police Department officer Peter Bueno; Jones was awarded $375,000 by a federal jury that found his civil rights had been violated when he was shot in the face with a rubber projectile fired by Jones during a protest following the 2020 murder of George Floyd.

Why it should be changed: The suggested sentence summarizes a case that received extensive coverage in highly-prominent news sources. Other sources about the case include the Los Angeles Times and CBS News.

4. Please add the following sentence to become the last bullet point in the Notable transactions section:

• The firm represented VMware in a $61 billion agreement to sell the company to Broadcom, one of the largest corporate transactions in 2022.

Why it should be changed: The suggested sentence provides information about a multi-billion dollar transaction that was the second largest of the year it was reported in May 2022. Wachtell, Gibson, Cleary, Simpson and O’Melveny Usher in $61B Deal, Year’s Second Largest

5. What I think should be changed:

Please remove the first and second paragraph of the Controversies section: In an article published by the Amazon Defense Coalition FDA, on August 15, 2018, on the digital media platform Corporate Social Responsibility where it stated: "The law firm engaged in practices based on the Gibson Dunn marketing playbook which involves what the firm calls the “kill step” to defeat the enforcement in the U.S. of civil money judgements obtained from foreign courts. The article states: The “kill step” usually involves accusing opposing counsel of “fraud” and other misconduct to try to intimidate them into withdrawing, thereby leaving the corporation's victims defenseless and unable to continue with their cases."

Why I think it should be changed: Both paragraphs are based on a press release, which is an unreliable source and a violation of WP:RS. The link to the citation is also dead.

6. Please replace the current third paragraph in the Controversies section: In 2007, the Montana Supreme Court found that Gibson Dunn "acted with actual malice" in suing an art expert Steve Seltzer, who said that a painting signed by Charles Marion Russell was actually created by his grandfather Olaf Carl Seltzer, thus reducing its value. The Supreme Court said "GDC's use of the judicial system amounts to legal thuggery" and found that Gibson Dunn "blatantly and maliciously tried to intimidate Seltzer with the apparent power, prestige, and resources of a large, nationally prominent law firm coupled with an ominous lawsuit that they knew threatened to ruin and devastate him professionally, personally, and financially".

Please replace with:

In 2007, the Montana Supreme Court found that the firm acted “with a high level of misconduct” in suing Steve Seltzer, an art expert and painter. The court upheld a $9.9 punitive damage award against Gibson Dunn, finding that the firm had used the judicial process as a means of intimidating Seltzer.

Why I think it should be changed: The current paragraph violates WP:PRIMARY in using a court transcript to describe the details of a case - this is not the use of a Primary to support a straightforward, descriptive statement of facts that any educated person with access to the primary source could verify. Furthermore, in citing the sentence "blatantly and maliciously tried to intimidate Seltzer with the apparent power, prestige, and resources of a large, nationally prominent law firm coupled with an ominous lawsuit that they knew threatened to ruin and devastate him professionally, personally, and financially" does not appear anywhere in the Wall Street Journal article although the placement of the citation after the sentence would make it appear as if it does. The replacement I’ve suggested accurately provides details about the case as reported in the Wall Street Journal.

7. Please replace the current fourth paragraph of the Controversies section:

Gibson Dunn has been accused of unethical litigation tactics, and has been covered in the legal press for facing nearly one-million dollars in punitive sanction fees for facilitating discovery misconduct by Facebook. Gibson Dunn, defending Facebook for its illegal disclosure of data to Cambridge Analytica, engaged in objective "bad faith" and continued to do so notwithstanding federal judge Vincent Chhabria's discussion that Gibson Dunn should behave more ethically.

Please replace with:

In 2023, the firm and its client, Meta were sanctioned in a data privacy lawsuit involving Cambridge Analytica. A U.S. District Judge in San Francisco ordered GIbson Dunn and Meta to pay around $925,000 after finding that the frim sought to delay proceedings to make the case unnecessarily difficult for the plaintiff.

Why I think it should be changed:

The existing paragraph appears to cite two sources but in fact draws from only a single Reuters article that was reprinted by a different outlet. Nowhere in the source does it say that the firm has been covered in the legal press for unethical litigation.That’s a conclusion drawn by the author of the statement and violates WP:OR. The suggestion I’ve provided adheres to MOS:TENSE by using past-facing language to describe the results of the proceedings as reported by a prominent news source.

8. Please replace the fifth paragraph of the Controversies section:

Gibson Dunn's pro bono efforts in the Brackeen v. Haaland case have been questioned. Gibson Dunn is attempting to repeal a landmark law supported by Native Americans. Matthew McGill, a partner at the firm, has argued that the Indian Child Welfare Act discriminates against non-Native People who wish to adopt Native children. Gibson Dunn lost the case on June 15, 2023 when the United States Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of upholding the law.

Please replace with:

Gibson Dunn represented the plaintiffs in Brackeen v. Haaland, a case that sought to overturn the Indian Child Welfare Act, a law that gives priority to tribal governments in deciding custody agreements involving Native children. In 2023, the United States Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of upholding the law.

Why I think it should be changed:

The existing sentence “Gibson Dunn's pro bono efforts in the Brackeen v. Haaland case have been questioned” is a violation of WP:OR. The claim that the efforts “have been questioned” is not supported by the sources, but rather an independent conclusion reached after evaluating the content of the sources. The sentence “Gibson Dunn is attempting to repeal a landmark law supported by Native Americans” is a WP:WEASEL; it’s an overgeneralization that makes it sound as if all Native Americans are of the same opinion. It is also written in the present tense, a violation of MOS:TENSE .The suggestion I’ve provided preserves the facts of the case as reported by prominent news sources.

9. What I think should be changed:

Please add the following to the section Notable former and present attorneys and staff:

• Gregg Costa, former United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
• Stuart Delery, former White House Counsel
• Charlie Falconer, former Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice under Prime Minister Tony Blair
• Róbert Ragnar Spanó, former president of the European Court of Human Rights.

Why I think it should be changed: The people listed above are Notable in their own right and are each the subject of a Wikipedia article that includes their employment at Gibson Dunn with the attendant Wikilink. Gregg Costa’s page has not yet been updated to reflect his recent move to the firm. I have provided press coverage from a high quality source to verify his position at Gibson Dunn. Thanks for your time in reviewing these suggestions. CaseyatLeicesterStreet (talk) 15:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

References

1.  Done.
2.  Done.
3.  Done.
4.  Done.
5.  Done.
6.  Not done. The citations are to the decision, not to transcripts. They are direct quotes from the decision, which are easily verifiable, and do not include any interpretation of those quotes. That is consistent with WP:PRIMARY. Since the Wall Street Journal article doesn't quote the portion of the opinion you noted, I have moved the WSJ reference to go after only the other quotations.
7.  Partly done. I have removed the second source in that paragraph as a duplicate of the first. Considering further edits...
8.  Partly done. I have made some changes to the paragraph, but the three sources do show criticism of Gibson Dunn for taking the case, so I'm declining to remove that portion.
9.  Done.

SilverLocust 💬 19:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks very much to the editor who has reviewed these requests. In regards to item 6, I have a different read of WP:PRIMARY. The policy states “Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.”

• The primary source in question here is a 105-page decision, meaning that the editor who cited it chose which quotes to include and used those quotes to summarize the judgment. Using only a single primary source gives the editor the power to cherry-pick the most negative quotes and present the facts according to their own interpretation. Without reporting in an independent secondary source, there’s no way to know if this is a balanced and unbiased presentation of facts.

WP:PRIMARY also states “Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.”

• The passage in question is unnecessarily large due to relying on several quotations from the primary source instead of summarizing reporting in a reliable secondary source.

I would appreciate it if editors could review my suggested replacement which is based on, and entirely supported by, reporting in a highly respected media source and presents the facts of the case in a succinct, neutral point of view instead of a long passage based on a primary source.

In 2007, the Montana Supreme Court found that the firm acted “with a high level of misconduct” in suing Steve Seltzer, an art expert and painter. The court upheld a $9.9 punitive damage award against Gibson Dunn, finding that the firm had used the judicial process as a means of intimidating Seltzer.

Thanks very much for looking this over. CaseyatLeicesterStreet (talk) 14:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@CaseyatLeicesterStreet: As the trial section now has a secondary source to supplement the primary source, I believe it is fine as it is. Are there any changes that remain unanswered? If not, please mark this edit request as closed or ping me. Thanks! ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 21:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

@ARandomName123: Thanks for your message. Yes, I would appreciate it if you could take a look before closing the request edit as this issue hasn’t been addressed yet. In the first paragraph of the Controversies section, only some of the information is supported by a secondary source. The last half of the paragraph only cites a primary source, a 105-page ruling written by the judge. That means the editor who cited it chose which quotes to include and used them to summarize the judgment. Per WP:PRIMARY. Editors are not supposed to “analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.”

The secondary source cited in that paragraph can’t support all of the information. That’s why I’ve proposed rewriting the paragraph to this:

In 2007, the Montana Supreme Court found that the firm acted “with a high level of misconduct” in suing Steve Seltzer, an art expert and painter. The court upheld a $9.9 punitive damage award against Gibson Dunn, finding that the firm had used the judicial process as a means of intimidating Seltzer.

I believe this suggested change preserves the pertinent information about the judgment while eliminating the analysis and interpretation of a primary source. What do you think?

Thanks for your time on this.CaseyatLeicesterStreet (talk) 10:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)