Talk:Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom

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

Skadden's New York headquarters changed in March 2020 from 4 Times Square to One Manhattan West, New York, NY 10001-8602.^[1]

As of January 2020, Skadden has 349 partners.^[2]

Gregory B. Craig no longer works at Skadden and should be part of the Notable Alumni section ^[3] or ^[4]LakersFan5 (talk) 15:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@LakersFan5:  Done! GoingBatty (talk) 01:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Is ECP still required? Firm is not in the news quite so much any more. Awbfiend (talk) 01:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

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

The "Ukraine Work" section should be moved down to "Other Work", if not omitted entirely. It is disproportionately prominent on a Wikipedia page this short and currently displayed in the wrong section.

The description duplicates information that is noted in the second paragraph under “History.” While it’s important info about Skadden, it is not a description of the firm, like other law firm pages are (See, White & Case or Cravath, Swaine & Moore).

Shoule be removed from the first section: “Skadden has a history of representing clients with ties to the Vladimir Putin regime in Russia, such as Alfa Bank and Russian oligarch Roman Abramovich. The firm helped Viktor F. Yanukovych, the pro-Russian leader of Ukraine who was ousted in Euromaidan, produce a report justifying the imprisonment of his pro-European rival Yulia V. Tymoshenko. In 2020, the firm paid a $4.6 million settlement to the U.S. Department of Justice for lobbying in the U.S. on behalf of a Russia-aligned Ukrainian government without disclosing so.” Hikix25 (talk) 14:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia reflects what reliable sources say. It's irrelevant what WP:OTHER Wikipedia articles do. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

How many pages repeat the same information? Again, that info is listed two paragraphs down. Why have it on top and in the history? It’s not a description of the firm. It’s not being removed from the page altogether. Hikix25 (talk) 15:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Completely remove introductory paragraph reading: Skadden has a history of representing clients with ties to the Vladimir Putin regime in Russia, such as Alfa Bank and Russian oligarch Roman Abramovich. The firm helped Viktor F. Yanukovych, the pro-Russian leader of Ukraine who was ousted in Euromaidan, produce a report justifying the imprisonment of his pro-European rival Yulia V. Tymoshenko. In 2020, the firm paid a $4.6 million settlement to the U.S. Department of Justice for lobbying in the U.S. on behalf of a Russia-aligned Ukrainian government without disclosing so.

Current page editing restrictions intended to prevent vandalism are having the effect of protecting vandalism. This is clearly politicized propaganda and fake news. Skadden Arps disavowed the work of one rogue attorney a decade ago and has paid a hefty price for his misdeeds. Even Skadden partners disapproved of the work at the time. Skadden Arps recently effectively shut down its office in Moscow, one of the first U.S. firms to do so, and has contributed to helping Ukraine in a variety of ways. Standwithukraina (talk) 03:55, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:53, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

New to backend of wikipedia. Do not know what a consensus requires. It's obvious that this paragraph was inserted maliciously. No other law firms have something so specific in their introductions. See Cravath, Swaine & Moore page or Latham & Watkins page or Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz page or any other Big Law firm. This edit has been removed previously by other editors only to be re-added by one person. The severity of this bias amounts to a falsehood. Skadden Arps supports Ukraine and disavows any association with the events and people who instigated this unprovoked war. Standwithukraina (talk) 00:30, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@Standwithukraina: Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Lindenfall (talk) 23:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

The Russian clients look over-represented in the introduction, which does seem unbalanced. The aspect has a section for details, a briefer synopsis of which should be part of the introduction. Lindenfall (talk) 23:49, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Can someone fix this? Standwithukraina (talk) 04:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I trimmed the lead. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Still makes absolutely no sense for it to be in the lead at all. Snooganssnoogans is the culprit of the vandalism. He/She/They cannot be expected to provide an adequate remedy. Needs to be completely removed because it's already explained in the "History" section. And separately, it shouldn't even be in the history section. More appropriately placed in the "other work" section, or added to a new "controversies" section. It's redundant, unbalanced, and misleads readers. Standwithukraina (talk) 14:53, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, the "trimming" only made it MORE unbalanced by increasing ambiguity and replacing words with negative conclusory synonyms. The length of the lead was not the issue. The substance and its location was the issue, and still is. Inadequate revision. Just more vandalism. Analogous to covering up graffiti of a swear word with graffiti of a racial slur comprised of fewer letters and claiming it's fixed. Standwithukraina (talk) 14:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, the lead summarizes the body per WP:LEAD and this is the most substantive part of the body. Should we ignore Wikipedia policies just because it's now inconvenient for your company that it profited on helping individuals and institutions closely tied to Putin's regime in Russia and deceived U.S. authorities about its lobbying for these clients? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't work for the company. The lead "serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." The most important content is not the temporarily topical and controversial subject of its limited work in regarding Ukraine. If it was the most important part of the article, it would've been there before you vandalized the page and added it to the lead. Additionally, your edits don't summarize it; you detail it. The sole purpose of your changes are to damage the firm's reputation because of what you subjectively and incorrectly believe is their culpability in a current event. It is not your place to say that what you added is the most important part of the article. This compromises the integrity of all Wikipedia pages. Yes, the substance of this information belongs on the page, but obviously not in the lead. See previous comments. Still needs to be fixed. Standwithukraina (talk) 22:55, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. I'm yet again closing this as needs consensus, as it is under discussion. Suggest some alternate verbiage, come to some sort of compromise, accept where it's at, or start an RFC. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

For nearly three quarters of a century, Skadden has been involved in many of the most important legal matters in the world, but over the last 3 weeks, Snooganssnoogans has systematically vandalized this page to reduce mentions of its public interest and philanthropic work and make nearly the entire history section about the firm's extremely limited involvement with Russia and Ukraine. Snooganssnoogans makes speculative accusations like "Tymoshenko made plans to sue." That content is not encyclopedic and it makes no sense to frame the history of a global law firm in the context of a single decade-old matter that almost everyone at the firm disapproved of at the time. Every major law firm is involved in countless controversial matters every day. Controversy is often the reason parties hire law firms. All edits made by Snooganssnoogans should be undone and they should be prohibited from vandalizing any wikipedia pages in the future. Standwithukraina (talk) 22:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

As an aside, I have just issued a WP:ARBEE alert to the OP based off of the post above. @Standwithukraina: For someone who claims they have no dog in the ring you've got a monomania for this article to the point you're acting like a bog-standard partisan editor that has plagued the Eastern Europe topic area for well over a decade. I strongly suggest you retract the personal attacks. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 23:27, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I did not make any personal attacks. Standwithukraina (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Random accusations made in bad faith (especially of vandalism when the issue is a genuine, good-faith content dispute) without any sort of evidence are personal attacks. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 20:25, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

my statements were not random, they were not in bad faith, and they did contained evidence including @Snooganssnoogans's own words and edit history over time. I suspect you two are colluding with one another. This is not a good-faith content dispute because @Snooganssnoogansdid not edit the page in good faith. They deleted anything positive and wrote an essay about one negative thing to triple the size of the history section. This is obviously vandalism. Standwithukraina (talk) 23:05, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't even aware of this subject until you made a RFPP request and the edits in question are under sanctions; why the hell would I collude with a user I've hardly ever interacted with for edits I avoid like the plague in a topic area I stay out of specifically because of the virulent partisanship? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 23:18, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that I think the edits by User:Snooganssnoogans improved the article. I certainly support their trimming of the material about the foundation, because it was 1) WP:PUFFERY and 2) sourced only to the company itself. As for the Russia material, it could be trimmed (and in fact Snoogans did some trimming) but it needs to be there simply because that is what sources are writing about. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:45, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

add Eliot Spitzer (former Governor of New York) to notable alumni. Astigmatismsurvivor (talk) 14:32, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:36, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

It's on Eliot Spitzer's page already. Also: NYTimes: https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/03/10/nyregion/20080310_SPITZER_FEATURE.html?action=click&module=RelatedCoverage&pgtype=Article&region=Footer

WSJ: https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-LB-1294 Astigmatismsurvivor (talk) 15:28, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Much of the detail provided here about the firm's history references Skadden's own website as a source (see: https://www.skadden.com/about/overview). Given the notability of this firm and the abundance of high-quality references, I would respectfully suggest that a serious effort is made to overhaul this section using better citations. Volcom95 (talk) 18:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Skadden has done significant work for Purdue Pharma, makers of Oxycontin. This includes work on its bankruptcy, which was reversed by the Supreme Court in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P. and representing Purdue in opioid litigation around the country, as well as in its plea deal with the Department of Justice.^[1][2][3]

Should this be included in the "other work" section?

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add, under alumni ...

• Natasha Hausdorff (born 1989), British barrister, international news commentator, and Israel advocate^[1][2]

2603:7000:2101:AA00:719B:7D46:6233:5AE2 (talk) 01:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

•  Done without the birth year, as per existing formatting. NotAGenious (talk) 10:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Please add mdy tag 184.153.21.19 (talk) 05:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that the deal made with the Trump Administration belongs in this Introduction, as per other law firms where similar has been added and reverted (Paul, Weiss; Willkie Farr & Gallagher, and Milbank).Lindenfall (talk) 18:42, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree and I went ahead and made these edits. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:31, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

This edit request to Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add to the end of the first paragraph the following text:

Skadden is regularly regarded as one of the three most prestigious law firms in the United States, alongside Cravath, Swaine & Moore and Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz.

Source : https://vault.com/best-companies-to-work-for/law/top-100-law-firms-rankings RamK1997 (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Is vault.com a reliable source? It reads like a PR marketing site. It also doesn't support the claim of being "regularly regarded as one of the three most prestigious law firms in the United States". – macaddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)