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
NihlusBOT (talk | contribs)
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}}.
 
(19 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Business|class=Start|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Business|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Law|class=Start|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Law|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject United States|class=Start|importance=Low|MA=yes|MA-importance=|Boston=yes|Boston-importance=}}
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Low|MA=yes|MA-importance=|Boston=yes|Boston-importance=}}
{{WikiProject New York|class=Start|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject New York (state)|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Fashion|class=Start|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Fashion|importance=Low}}
}}
}}
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis|archiveprefix=Talk:White shoe firm/Archives/|format=Y|age=26297|index=yes|archivebox=yes|box-advert=yes}}
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis|archiveprefix=Talk:White-shoe firm/Archives/|format=Y|age=26297|archivebox=yes|box-advert=yes}}


== "New" White shoe firms ==
== 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. ==
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)


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.''
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.


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


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


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)
::@{{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)


== Inaccurate page name ==
::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)


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.
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-->


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)
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)

Isn't Mayer Brown a white shoe firm? <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/62.235.68.202|62.235.68.202]] ([[User talk:62.235.68.202|talk]]) 18:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== 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.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wholenewlevelofcool (talk • contribs) 14:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


Would dividing up the law firms by city (e.g. New York, Boston, Washington, etc.) and then by specific groupings (e.g. the Charmed Circle mentioned above) not provide more distilled information. As the other contributors have noted, each of the cities had specific hierarchies and cultures. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/70.26.57.220|70.26.57.220]] ([[User talk:70.26.57.220|talk]]) 03:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on [[White shoe firm]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=699487005 my edit]. If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.abc.net.au/news/indepth/featureitems/s1348134.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}

Cheers.—[[User:Cyberbot II|<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II</sup>]]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">[[User talk:Cyberbot II|<span style="color:green">Talk to my owner</span>]]:Online</sub></small> 17:05, 12 January 2016 (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]