Talk:Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton

Business Low‑importance

	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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.

Office in Buenos Aires

As far as I know, CGSH does not have an office in Buenos Aires. It is not listed on its website. If anyone has information to the contrary, please provide a citation. Thanks, --Mediterraneo (talk) 16:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does have an office in Buenos Aires. Check out the Website https://www.clearygottlieb.com/ under "Locations". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.159.181.86 (talk) 13:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

False Coverage

There are specific falsehoods in the Cleary wiki that I can detail but I'll give you two examples: The statements about BNPP are not correct. The DOJ did not name Cleary, only two unnamed people did. The 9/11 pro bono section cites Jihadwatch, hardly a source we can trust. I can detail mistakes like this for hours. I think the best thing we can do is to make the Cleary page look like that of other law firms and, in addition, to remain neutral and to keep the controversial coverage, we can add the criticism in to specific articles about those issues. For example, if we want to keep controversial coverage over the Argentina case, then we should add that into an article on the Argentina case, not the Cleary main page. Similarly, we can add the BNPP controversial information to the BNPP website. Does that make sense? Charliepickny (talk) 15:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unable to verify the allegations of false information brought up by @Charliepickny:, because the source for the BNPP allegations are behind a paywall. The information about the 9/11 suspect who received asylum with the help of Cleary Gottlieb attorneys may well be sourced to Jihad Watch, a source of questionable reliability, but the JW story is directly sourced to this story by Fox News, so I don't think we can argue about unreliable sources here.

I will grant that the controversies section of this article is overly burdened and appears to have been written by someone with an axe to grind against Cleary Gottlieb. The material isn't false, but it is given undue weight. I would recommend a rewrite, reducing the entire section (with all its subsections) down to a single paragraph with perhaps a list of the more well-documented controversies. I would not recommend removing the material altogether, as this would be a whitewashing in violation of neutrality. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

COI

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
Their edits to this article were last checked for neutrality on 04-02-2019 by Histnewbie.

38.96.141.195 (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. ([1])

White shoe firm

I'm not sure that the white shoe belongs in the article, let alone the opening paragraph, since it's not a phrase that is in common usage, and has some controversy attached.Lindenfall (talk) 00:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Buchheit section

The Buchheit section relies too heavily on quotes, so needs a rewrite. Lindenfall (talk) 20:59, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]