I have contributed extensively to the Wikipedia article on the law
firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skadden%2C_Arps%2C_Slate%2C_Meagher_%26_Flom).
 Unfortunately, the article reads almost like a fluffy marketing
piece.  I would like to find some reliable sources of criticism
regarding Skadden, in order to make the article more neutral and
balanced.  Topics can include long associate work hours, greed,
huge-mega-law-firm syndrome, etc.  I need reliable sources, such as
legal press (American Lawyer Media publications should be good).  The
sources need to be freely reachable (although requiring free
registration is okay).

---

Request for Question Clarification by denco-ga on 08 Aug 2006 13:03 PDT

Howdy nelson-ga,

First, I think the Wikipedia article is well done.  Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Meagher & Flom (SASM&F) appears to be an exceptional company.

To "balance" things a bit, I think the lobbying efforts of SASM&F could
be covered.

LobbyWatch (The Center for Public Integrity) lobbying notes on SASM&F.
http://www.publicintegrity.org/lobby/profile.aspx?act=firms&lo=L002733

There is this article that talks about SASM&F attorney Mark R. Filip.
http://www.skolnicksreport.com/ootar79.html

A "fun" Snopes.com article on an email faux pas by a SASM&F employee.
http://www.snopes.com/computer/internet/skadden.htm

But, I was impressed by this Human Rights First article (pro-"SASM&F").
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/asylum/probono/success/success-01.htm

"Attorneys at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP win asylum for an
Afghan doctor who fled torture at the hand of the Taliban after helping a
woman deliver her baby."

Is the above sufficient or did you need more?  Thanks!

Looking Forward, denco-ga - Google Answers Researcher

---

Clarification of Question by nelson-ga on 08 Aug 2006 16:35 PDT

Please post as an answer, but if yuou find anything else, that would be appreciated.

---

Request for Question Clarification by denco-ga on 09 Aug 2006 00:10 PDT

I will see if I can dig up a few more, nelson-ga.

Looking Forward, denco-ga - Google Answers Researcher

Nelson,
I also read the article  - and can understand your feeling.  Maybe the
Wikipedia article just goes a bit too far for this type of subject,
i.e., the "fluff" should be condensed into a couple of general
statements, but I don't know if this is a realistic suggestion,
considering Wikipedia's system of authorship.  Maybe that is something
for the editorial board to try to set standards on, if it agreed.

You mention:
"Topics can include long associate work hours, greed,
huge-mega-law-firm syndrome, etc."

If any of these topics apply the Skadden, Arps, as they probably do,
unless they were unique to the firm, rather being common to most or
all major law firms, it would seem inappropriate to mention them in
such an article.
If they belonged anywhere, then in an article about
"huge-mega-law-firms", maybe one describing how they came into
existence, the whole story from local firms, then going nation-wide,
and the world-wide, etc.

Just one man's opinion.
Cheers, Myoarin

Myoarin, good points.  Anything that looks like praise that has an
outside reference was likely added by me.  Anything that looks like
praise that lacks a reference was likely added by someone else.