Talk:Edelson

Information regarding the Curry v. AvMed, Inc. privacy case is inaccurate. Recommended revision to editor and provided reference to ^[1]

MelanieTrudeau (talk) 20:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Updated the Curry v. AvMed information and added citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.195.103.119 (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Edelson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100119060916/http://www.law.com:80/jsp/law/sfb/lawArticleSFB.jsp?id=1202438334583 to http://www.law.com/jsp/law/sfb/lawArticleSFB.jsp?id=1202438334583

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

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

I have a COI as an employee of Edelson PC, the subject of this article. I am requesting that independent editors review the following proposal with several important updates to the article.

REQUEST 1

In the lead, as the new second sentence, please add:

Edelson’s cases include class action settlements against Facebook for $650 million (2021),^[1][2] social casino apps for nearly $200 million (2021),^[3][4] and a $925 million verdict against ViSalus (2020.)^[5][6]

Why? The cases, and Edelson’s role, have been widely reported because of the size and notability of the cases.

Already done Heartmusic678 (talk) 13:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

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

REQUEST 2

In the section Practice Areas, subsection Mass Tort cases, please replace:

Edelson PC is co-lead counsel in the NCAA personal injury concussion litigation,^[7] where it is in charge of more than 100 putative class action lawsuits brought against the NCAA, its member institutions, and its conferences on behalf of college football players who allege they suffered repeated concussions. The case has been described as one of the largest actions pending in the country.^[8]

WITH

Edelson PC is co-lead counsel in the NCAA personal injury concussion litigation brought against the NCAA,^[9] its member institutions, and its conferences on behalf of college football players who allege the NCAA failed to protect them from concussions and brain damage, including CTE. There are more than 369 total lawsuits filed.^[10]

Why?: Removes out of date info (>100 lawsuits) and adds updated number of cases (>369) using figures published in a reliable secondary source. Removes one speculative sentence.

 Done Heartmusic678 (talk) 13:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

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

REQUEST 3

In the section ‘Practice history’, please create a new subsection and entry:

Plaintiffs’ Bar Reform

Jay Edelson and Edelson PC have regularly raised public concern regarding the conduct of plaintiffs’ attorneys and objected to a number of settlements.^[11][12] Edelson has objected to or intervened in settlements with TikTok,^[11] the NCAA,^[13][14] Neiman Marcus,^[15] and Equifax.^[16]

The firm also brought a RICO lawsuit against a “professional class-action objector” raising allegations of extortion, which resulted in a judgment entered against an attorney, Christopher Bandas, prohibiting him from practicing law in the state of Illinois and limiting his ability to object to class action settlements in federal or state court.^[17][18]

In December 2020, the firm filed a lawsuit against Tom Girardi, the law firm of Girardi & Keese, and Erika Girardi, among others, alleging that Girardi had misappropriated client funds. Following the filing of that lawsuit, numerous other allegations against Tom Girardi came to light and he and his law firm thereafter filed for bankruptcy.^[11][19]

Why?: Edelson’s prominent actions in attempting to reform the Plaintiffs’ Bar have been covered in the mainstream media and trade publications.

@NorthCenterChicago:  Done. This section doesn't explicitly discuss plaintiffs' bar reform, so I titled it Class Action Settlements for the time being. If you have suggestions for a more fitting title, feel free to ping me or contact me through my talk page. Thanks, Heartmusic678 (talk) 14:20, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

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

REQUEST 4

Please RENAME the section

Notable Cases

TO

Notable Cases and Clients

Why?: This section includes both cases and clients. By renaming the section, it better reflects what’s there now and allows for it to be revised accordingly.

REQUEST 5

Please correct the spelling of the following in Notable Cases section (or “Notable Cases and Clients” if renamed) from:

Spokeo v. Robbins

TO

Spokeo v. Robins

Why?: Corrects the misspelled name in the first case (from Robbins to Robins).

Thank youNorthCenterChicago (talk) 14:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

An impartial editor has reviewed the proposed edit(s) and asked the editor with a conflict of interest to go ahead and make the suggested changes.

I have a COI as an employee of Edelson PC, the subject of this article. I am requesting that independent editors review the following proposal with several important updates to the article.

1. In Notable Cases, after paragraph five, please add a new paragraph 6:

Edelson has litigated class action lawsuits related to online games known as “social casinos.” Three lawsuits settled in February 2021 for almost $200 million.^[1][2]

Why? Substantial $200 million case settlements supported by reliable secondary sources.

2. In section Notable Cases, please insert new paragraph after paragraph 6, paragraph 7:

In April 2019, Edelson PC achieved a $925 million jury verdict against nutritional supplement maker Visalus for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Edelson lawyers proved ViSalus made over 1.8 million unsolicited robocalls in violation of the TCPA, each garnering a $500 fine.^[3][4][5] The verdict was upheld by a federal judge in August 2020.^[6][7]

Why? This case is widely reported in major media outlets, supported by multiple WP: RS.

3. In the section Notable Cases, add paragraph seven, after paragraph six:

Edelson PC represented more than 1,000 wildfire victims against Pacific Gas & Electric following the 2018 Camp Fire (2018) in Paradise, California.^[8] The litigation was resolved in December 2019 through a $13.5 billion settlement.^[9]

4. In Notable Cases, please REMOVE the current final paragraph:

Edelson PC additionally represents governmental entities in a variety of privacy lawsuits. For example, Edelson PC brought a lawsuit on behalf of the City of Chicago and the Cook County State's Attorney's Office against Uber related to reports of a data breach.^[10] Additionally, Edelson PC filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Cook County State's Attorney's Office in the first filed government action against Facebook and Cambridge Analytica stemming from reports they allegedly shared and collected consumer data for purposes related to the 2016 US Presidential Election.^[11]

Why? The first sentence is not a case, but plaintiffs. Second sentence is pending litigation is too speculative, with only a small amount of media coverage, and no outcome yet.

5. In the section called “Firm Culture”, please delete the paragraph

Edelson PC has drawn attention in the legal community by cultivating the feel of a startup. The dress code is casual and the Chicago offices have an indoor volleyball court, golf simulator, a ping pong table, a pool table and a large mural of MCs in the midst of a rap battle.^[12] The firm has also adopted an unconventional training system of guided independence where everyone is expected to make their own decisions, take responsibility for moving cases forward, and contribute to case management and strategy.^[13] Even summer associates are given the respect and responsibility of an attorney.^[14] Edelson's prank culture has featured elaborate jokes such as hiring an actor to play an unruly law student^[15] employing a polar bear as an attorney,^[16] and commissioning a musical parody of Hamilton written by Edelson PC lawyers^[17]

And replace it with:

Edelson PC has drawn attention in the legal community by cultivating the feel of a startup. The firm has also adopted an unconventional training system of guided independence where everyone is expected to make their own decisions, take responsibility for moving cases forward, and contribute to case management and strategy.^[18]

Why? Excessive detail and non-NPOV.

Thank you for your consideration. Mtd6596 (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi! Thank your for your well-sourced and nicely formatted request. Suggestions 1-3 are appropriate, you can proceed with adding them to the article. Please ensure that you transfer the citations correctly.

I understand where you're coming from with suggestion 4, but the fact that Edelson regularly represents government entities is relevant, reported on, and well-sourced. I will instead change the section title to "Notable activities" to better reflect its contents.

Suggestion 5 is not sufficiently argued; the detail is not excessive given the volume of reporting that has focussed on firm culture. WP:NPOV states that Wikipedia should reflect what has been reported by reliable sources neutrally, it does not mean that articles must be balanced or entirely neutral. For example, reporting (and focussing on) praise or criticism of an activity is legitimate when this reflects what has been published by reliable sources. WP:Undue weight applies when an article gives more weight to a particular opinion or point of view than is given by reliable sources; that is not the case here. Actualcpscm (talk) 13:10, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

@Heartmusic678: You were nice enough to review the last round of request edits regarding this firm. Since you already have knowledge about the firm. I thought you might be interested in the next round.Mtd6596 (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2022 (UTC)