Jump to content

Talk:White-shoe firm: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Cewbot (talk | contribs)
m Maintain {{WPBS}}: 5 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "Start" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 5 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Business}}, {{WikiProject Law}}, {{WikiProject United States}}, {{WikiProject New York (state)}}, {{WikiProject Fashion}}.
 
(42 intermediate revisions by 22 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject Business & Economics|class=|importance=}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|1=
{{WikiProject Business|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Law|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Low|MA=yes|MA-importance=|Boston=yes|Boston-importance=}}
{{WikiProject New York (state)|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Fashion|importance=Low}}
}}
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis|archiveprefix=Talk:White-shoe firm/Archives/|format=Y|age=26297|archivebox=yes|box-advert=yes}}


== Untitled ==
The remark about elites being “white Anglo Saxon Protestants” is inflammatory and impertinent. The generic socioeconomic identity of “the elite” in America is a matter of common knowledge, and emphasizing it in this article accomplished little. What is the purpose of the remark? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/98.29.35.178|98.29.35.178]] ([[User talk:98.29.35.178#top|talk]]) 09:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== Irish American =/= Roman Catholic. ==


In the usage section it says, ''"Most white-shoe firms also excluded Roman Catholics, such as Irish Americans..,"'' which implies either that all "Irish Americans" are Catholics or that "Irish Americans" were specifically excluded from these firms. Both interpretations are ''factually incorrect.''


Regarding religious identity, it's been known for decades that most Americans who identify themselves as "Irish American" are Protestant rather than Catholic.[https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/rac.2006.16.1.25].
== Merriam-Webster Definition of White-Shoe ==


Secondly and more importantly, this phraseology is particularly awkward in light of the fact that several of these white-shoe firms were founded by Irish Americans, and also hired Irish Americans. For example, [[Alex. Brown & Sons|Brown Brothers Harriman & Co.]] was started by an Irish linen merchant and his sons. Sullivan & Cromwell was co-founded by [[Algernon Sydney Sullivan]], the great-grandson of an Irish barrister from Cork. [[Hogan Lovells|Hogan & Hartson]] was founded by Frank J. Hogan, while [[Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP]] was co-founded by James Byrne - both so-called Irish Americans (Harold J. Gallagher, another Irish-American who also got his name on the firm, was a partner). Willkie Farr & Gallagher was also one of the first major law firms to hire a female associate in 1939, namely Mary MacDonough, who also had an Irish background (see firm history).
Here's the definition from m-w.com: "of, associated with, or characteristic of the privileged moneyed upper class." They use as a synonym "upper-crust." The term dates to 1957 according to Merriam-Webster. Also note the correct spelling includes a hyphen between white and shoe, i.e., "white-shoe" is correct spelling. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/76.108.211.131|76.108.211.131]] ([[User talk:76.108.211.131|talk]]) 03:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


I recommend changing this phrase to something like ''"excluded Irish Catholics"'' or ''"Irish American Catholics"'' rather than just ''"Irish Americans"''. Since this line was sourced mostly to dilettante journalists writing in publications like the "Washington Examiner" rather than professional scholarship, this shouldn't be that big of a deal. Or you could simply not single out specific ancestry groups at all, which really serves no encyclopedic purpose. I would just write that these firms had a habit of excluding Roman Catholics and leave it at that - a simple and self-explanatory statement.[[User:Jonathan f1|Jonathan f1]] ([[User talk:Jonathan f1|talk]]) 04:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
added paul weiss...founded in the late 19th century...top grads...among the top law firms in the country (#1 litigation firm)
::@{{user|Jonathan f1}} This is a sensible suggestion. I've implemented the change. Why didn't you [[WP:BOLD]]ly do it yourself? [[User:XavierItzm|XavierItzm]] ([[User talk:XavierItzm|talk]]) 00:04, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
:::Unfortunately the last time I decided to get bold on here it resulted in an article space edit block, so I can't edit articles at the moment. I'm supposed to be learning a lesson by practicing the collaboration process with other editors on talk pages.[[User:Jonathan f1|Jonathan f1]] ([[User talk:Jonathan f1|talk]]) 19:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
::::@{{user|Jonathan f1}} Looks like soon it will be one year since your last unblock request was denied. Maybe you'd like to try again following the anniversary. In the meantime, if you have other constructive recommendations such as the one you placed on this page, let me know on my talk page. [[User:XavierItzm|XavierItzm]] ([[User talk:XavierItzm|talk]]) 15:02, 19 April 2022 (UTC)


== paul weiss ==
== Inaccurate page name ==


Wikipedia references “white shoe law firms” in relation for what is known popularly as biglaw or big law. The term biglaw is used almost exclusively within the industry and by the media outlets that cover it. “White shoe” is not a part of the conversation, because it’s an outdated historical term that used to encapsulate the leading American law firms in New York City. Many non-white shoe firms that were founded by their competitors in the 20th century are now equal in terms of profitability and reputation. In addition, white shoe firms no longer discriminate against Jews and other minority groups in hiring, so in contemporary times it’s largely an archaic descriptor.
While an excellent firm, the criteria for a "white shoe" firm is not simply 'founded in the 19th C.' or that it attracts top graduates from the top law schools. By this logic, a firm such as Wachtell or Skadden would qualify. Put simply, "white shoe" is, for better or worse, an historical artifact. When the term "white shoe" carried any currency (i.e, 1890-1945) the criteria included institutional or familial pedigree. The entire impetus behind the quality and reputation of firms such as Wachtell or Skadden is that they recruited and developed non-WASPs. They realized, before many firms, that the success of a firm was defined more by its profit per partner and business/legal acumen than with the criteria of old. Those posting on this site should be less obsessed with prestige and more sensitive to an honest historical perspective. 'White Shoe" does not necessarily equal 'superior' or 'prestigious.' I am sure that the founding partners of many of the legal/financial institutions erroneously added to this topic would be horrified to be lumped together with those who held them back for so long.


I understand to those not familiar with biglaw this might seem like a nitpick, but virtually zero large firms or industry-adjacent media outlets use this term. If you ask attorneys working at the places mentioned on this page what it’s like to practice at a white shoe firm, it’s entirely possible they won’t know what you mean. This article’s title is misplaced and should be changed to biglaw. [[Special:Contributions/166.205.222.54|166.205.222.54]] ([[User talk:166.205.222.54|talk]]) 01:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)



Ditto for Weil <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/141.211.81.236|141.211.81.236]] ([[User talk:141.211.81.236|talk]]) 09:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== who determines? ==
Is there an external source we can all agree upon? [[User:Chivista|Chivista]] 16:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

==JP Morgan?==
I don't dispute their in-house legal team is excellent, but they are a bank, not a law firm!? Or am I complete missing something? [[User:Legis|Legis]] 07:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

:Sorry; I had thought White Shoe only related to law firms. I now see that they have also listed the banks as well. My bad. [[User:Legis|Legis]] 07:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

::Is it the old JP Morgan because it then became Morgan Stanley b/c the commercial bank JP Morgan was a plain old bank bank, not until the Gramm-Leach-Bliley repeal of Glass-Steagall was reconsolidation allowed :( [[User:Chivista|Chivista]] 13:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

== Weil, Gotshal Manges ==

I removed Weil, Gotshal Manges from the examples list. With regards to law firms the white shoe brigade were overtly WASP institutions that until at least the Second World War had anti-semitic hiring policies. "Jewish firms" like Weil, Gotshal and Skadden Arps were set up in opposition to the White Shoe firms, so while their current success rivals or exceeds many of the old WASP firms they are non the less not white shoe firms. [[Special:Contributions/129.67.157.172|129.67.157.172]] ([[User talk:129.67.157.172|talk]]) 01:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Just because two news reports refer to Weil as a white shoe firm, this does not make it one. White shoe is a historic and social construct which is probably best defined by a those within the legal profession. No one would tell you that Weil is white shoe. I believe it was founded as late as 1931 and perhaps not even on Wall Street. Which bank was it connected to anyway? None strikes in my mind, its big in BANKRUPTCY which was traditionally what white shoe firms shunned. It should be removed, any thoughts? Take a vote? --[[User:Mediterraneo|Mediterraneo]] ([[User talk:Mediterraneo|talk]]) 18:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


FYI, Skadden wasn't a "Jewish firm". While it was formed as an alternative to the white shoe firms, it was formed by three white shoe renegades, not by jews. In addition to Weil, the other historically great jewish firm was Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison. [[Special:Contributions/141.211.81.236|141.211.81.236]] ([[User talk:141.211.81.236|talk]]) 04:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


I suppose the reputation of Skadden as a "Jewish firm" stems from the fame of Joseph Flom, the longest-lived of the named partners and probably the most renowned. And its precisely because the firm was an anti-white-shoe-establishment-type that it was open to hiring non-WASPs elites, and therefore earned its "Jewish" association. [[Special:Contributions/220.255.2.25|220.255.2.25]] ([[User talk:220.255.2.25|talk]]) 06:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

== Bear Stearns ==
From the New York Times
"Bear Stearns was never considered a white-shoe Wall Street firm and often operated on the edge of the industry."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/business/16cnd-bear.html?_r=1&ref=business&oref=slogin
I have thus removed it from the list.
[[User:Billhpike|Billhpike]] ([[User talk:Billhpike|talk]]) 00:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

== "New" White shoe firms ==

I added the section called "New" white shoe firms in hopes of resolving the ongoing discussion here. I think the most productive thing is to get some of these comments on the actually page so that readers can understand the distinction between the historical origins and use of the term versus the current, more laissez-faire, use the term. The fact is that the NY Times and other respected publications use the term to apply to Skadden, Weil and others, so it would be silly for the page not to address that. I think it can be done while fully explaining the history of the original select group and also paying respect to the obstacles that the founders of the newer firms often faced on their paths to success.
[[User:Epeesi|Epeesi]] ([[User talk:Epeesi|talk]]) 01:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This seems sensible. Though we should say that isn't white-shoe associated with those firms that have strong relationships with an old-line bank? or am I imagining this association?, e.g. Shearman with Citibank, Milbank with Chase.

Next question, isn't White & Case white shoe? It should be added.

--[[User:Mediterraneo|Mediterraneo]] ([[User talk:Mediterraneo|talk]]) 02:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


::I think the section qualifies as original research. --[[Special:Contributions/70.23.131.232|70.23.131.232]] ([[User talk:70.23.131.232|talk]]) 02:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

How on earth is Alston and Bird a "New" White shoe firm? They are based in Atlanta, consistently ranked in the 80s for the top 100 law firms, and don't do work for any of the top Wall Street clients. At least the other "New" White shoe firms can argue that they are as elite as the old white shoe firms. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/160.39.212.65|160.39.212.65]] ([[User talk:160.39.212.65|talk]]) 18:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Is Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP an old or a new white show firm, because it is in both list. --[[Special:Contributions/89.204.139.74|89.204.139.74]] ([[User talk:89.204.139.74|talk]]) 07:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

==Defunct White Shoe firms==

A number of defunct firms were white shoe and have either gone bust or merged. Should I include them? I'm thinking of Donovan, Leisure, Newton & Irvine and Lord, Day & Lord?? --[[User:Mediterraneo|Mediterraneo]] ([[User talk:Mediterraneo|talk]]) 00:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

==Covington & Burling==

I know someone added Cov and even had a cite for it, but officially speaking, isn't the term white shoe limited to New York based law firms founded on Wall Street with a strong connection to a major banking family/banking empire? Covington does not fit that definition and is a Washington D.C. firm with a small corporate practice better known for its products liability, regulatory, litigation and lobbying work. Or am I wrong? --[[User:Mediterraneo|Mediterraneo]] ([[User talk:Mediterraneo|talk]]) 04:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

==Jones Day==

No way that Jones Day is a white shoe firm in any meaningful sense. It is based in Ohio. --[[User:Mediterraneo|Mediterraneo]] ([[User talk:Mediterraneo|talk]]) 01:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

== Management Consulting ==

I'm not sure whether Bain is a white shoe company. BCG and Booz are listed although they both are no white shoe firms.
I'm pretty sure I have often read about McK as a white shoe firm.

None of the consulting firms are technically classified as WSFs in literature and historical - not even MBB. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.140.5.249|69.140.5.249]] ([[User talk:69.140.5.249|talk]]) 04:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Management consulting firms, even the MBBs, were never labelled as "white shoe". This is because as a profession or industry sector, management consulting only arose at the earliest in the 1920s (AT Kearney, McKinsey) and only started taking off post-WWII. The term white-shoe had always only applied to the traditional banks and law firms that provided professional services to the NY-centric financial sector. In fact if you notice, most of the prestigious (by today's reckoning) consulting firms were/are founded and headquartered outside of NYC. [[User:AlphaBet678|AlphaBet678]] ([[User talk:AlphaBet678|talk]]) 06:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

== Charmed Circle ==

As I understood it, the "White Shoe" term was synonymous with the Charmed Circle of Wall Street old genteel firms. This group was generally considered as including the following 7 firms:

Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft; Cravath Swaine & Moore; Davis Polk & Wardwell; Millbank Tweed Hadley & McCloy; Shearman & Sterling; Simpson Thacher & Bartlett; and Sullivan & Cromwell.

White & Case was often included in the group in the same way that Herbert Smith is often regarded as a member of the Magic Circle. However White & Case is considerably younger in its origins then the other Charmed Circle firms. Perhaps it might be worth including a paragraph noting the historical Charmed Circle firms?

Perhaps Choate Hall & Stewart should be added to this list?

I would also suggest adding Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr to the list of new firms.

<small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Wholenewlevelofcool|Wholenewlevelofcool]] ([[User talk:Wholenewlevelofcool|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Wholenewlevelofcool|contribs]]) 14:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== What about top insurers? ==

Like [[AIG]]?



[[User:Huffandpuff|Huffandpuff]] ([[User talk:Huffandpuff|talk]]) 11:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

*Is that a joke? Hahahahaha. --[[User:Mediterraneo|Mediterraneo]] ([[User talk:Mediterraneo|talk]]) 16:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

No. It was once a standard destination for those from elite backgrounds and historically excluded Jews. So why shouldn't it be classified somewhere? [[User:Huffandpuff|Huffandpuff]] ([[User talk:Huffandpuff|talk]]) 19:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

== What about Brown Brothers Harriman & Co.? ==

Brown Brothers for many decades has been a pillar of the WASPish investment houses on Wall Street. In fact, once it was only second to JP Morgan & Co. in terms of its prestige. So I will add it to the list unless it is argued otherwise. --[[User:And Rew | <span style="font-family: courier new; color: rgb(102, 102, 0);">A<span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">n</span>d R<span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">e</span>w</span>]] 14:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
== Listing ==
One editor wants to delete all the hard work on the basis that wikipedia is not a business directory. This listing is not a business directory--few users will come here in order to do business. It is a cultural/historical listing, in which business needs of somebody in 2012 are not considered but the cultural history of Wall Street in 1950 is considered. That's history. [[User:Rjensen|Rjensen]] ([[User talk:Rjensen|talk]]) 02:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 03:46, 29 February 2024

Untitled

[edit]

The remark about elites being “white Anglo Saxon Protestants” is inflammatory and impertinent. The generic socioeconomic identity of “the elite” in America is a matter of common knowledge, and emphasizing it in this article accomplished little. What is the purpose of the remark? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.29.35.178 (talk) 09:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Irish American =/= Roman Catholic.

[edit]

In the usage section it says, "Most white-shoe firms also excluded Roman Catholics, such as Irish Americans..," which implies either that all "Irish Americans" are Catholics or that "Irish Americans" were specifically excluded from these firms. Both interpretations are factually incorrect.

Regarding religious identity, it's been known for decades that most Americans who identify themselves as "Irish American" are Protestant rather than Catholic.[1].

Secondly and more importantly, this phraseology is particularly awkward in light of the fact that several of these white-shoe firms were founded by Irish Americans, and also hired Irish Americans. For example, Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. was started by an Irish linen merchant and his sons. Sullivan & Cromwell was co-founded by Algernon Sydney Sullivan, the great-grandson of an Irish barrister from Cork. Hogan & Hartson was founded by Frank J. Hogan, while Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP was co-founded by James Byrne - both so-called Irish Americans (Harold J. Gallagher, another Irish-American who also got his name on the firm, was a partner). Willkie Farr & Gallagher was also one of the first major law firms to hire a female associate in 1939, namely Mary MacDonough, who also had an Irish background (see firm history).

I recommend changing this phrase to something like "excluded Irish Catholics" or "Irish American Catholics" rather than just "Irish Americans". Since this line was sourced mostly to dilettante journalists writing in publications like the "Washington Examiner" rather than professional scholarship, this shouldn't be that big of a deal. Or you could simply not single out specific ancestry groups at all, which really serves no encyclopedic purpose. I would just write that these firms had a habit of excluding Roman Catholics and leave it at that - a simple and self-explanatory statement.Jonathan f1 (talk) 04:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonathan f1 (talk · contribs) This is a sensible suggestion. I've implemented the change. Why didn't you WP:BOLDly do it yourself? XavierItzm (talk) 00:04, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the last time I decided to get bold on here it resulted in an article space edit block, so I can't edit articles at the moment. I'm supposed to be learning a lesson by practicing the collaboration process with other editors on talk pages.Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonathan f1 (talk · contribs) Looks like soon it will be one year since your last unblock request was denied. Maybe you'd like to try again following the anniversary. In the meantime, if you have other constructive recommendations such as the one you placed on this page, let me know on my talk page. XavierItzm (talk) 15:02, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate page name

[edit]

Wikipedia references “white shoe law firms” in relation for what is known popularly as biglaw or big law. The term biglaw is used almost exclusively within the industry and by the media outlets that cover it. “White shoe” is not a part of the conversation, because it’s an outdated historical term that used to encapsulate the leading American law firms in New York City. Many non-white shoe firms that were founded by their competitors in the 20th century are now equal in terms of profitability and reputation. In addition, white shoe firms no longer discriminate against Jews and other minority groups in hiring, so in contemporary times it’s largely an archaic descriptor.

I understand to those not familiar with biglaw this might seem like a nitpick, but virtually zero large firms or industry-adjacent media outlets use this term. If you ask attorneys working at the places mentioned on this page what it’s like to practice at a white shoe firm, it’s entirely possible they won’t know what you mean. This article’s title is misplaced and should be changed to biglaw. 166.205.222.54 (talk) 01:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]