Talk:White-shoe firm: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:11, 27 May 2014

Business Unassessed

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Merriam-Webster Definition of White-Shoe

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.108.211.131 (talk) 03:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

added paul weiss...founded in the late 19th century...top grads...among the top law firms in the country (#1 litigation firm)

paul weiss

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.

Ditto for Weil —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.211.81.236 (talk) 09:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

who determines?

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

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? Legis 07:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. Legis 07:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 :( Chivista 13:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. 129.67.157.172 (talk) 01:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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? --Mediterraneo (talk) 18:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   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. 141.211.81.236 (talk) 04:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. 220.255.2.25 (talk) 06:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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. Billhpike (talk) 00:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"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. Epeesi (talk) 01:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

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

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.212.65 (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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?? --Mediterraneo (talk) 00:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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? --Mediterraneo (talk) 04:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jones Day

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

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.5.249 (talk) 04:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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. AlphaBet678 (talk) 06:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

What about top insurers?

Like AIG?

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

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

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

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. -- And Rew 14:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. Rjensen (talk) 02:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DLA Piper

Does anyone really think DLA Piper, a verein firm with low productivity per lawyer is a white shoe firm? I am going to take it out. Feedback welcome of course. JustinReilly (talk) 20:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 118: / Line 118: @@
 == 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)
+== DLA Piper ==
+Does anyone really think DLA Piper, a verein firm with low productivity per lawyer is a white shoe firm?  I am going to take it out.  Feedback welcome of course.  [[User:Justito|JustinReilly]] ([[User talk:Justito|talk]]) 20:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)