Talk:Baker McKenzie

Illinois Low‑importance

	Illinois portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois 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.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois
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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chicago Mid‑importance

	Chicago portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Introduction

Note the following:

As of 2006, Baker & McKenzie...is the fifth largest law firm in the world by revenue.[3]...Among U.S. firms, it was ranked... the sixth largest by revenue.

This is mathematically impossible, unless there's at least one top-ranking US firm that doesn't count in the rest of the world. A previous editor has called for a citation, but really, since the first line is cited and the second is not, the second really ought to be just scrapped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.173.189.73 (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the news / Chronology

Do we want to keep this section chonological or reverse chrono? I prefer forward. samwaltz 09:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there so much stuff about Baker & McKenzie in the news? Other law firms do seem to have an equivalent section.

In the News

Many of the items from the "In the News" section read to me like they're from a press release. Going back through the history I see that a number of the positive ones were added by anonymous editors. I suspect this page has been hit by the B&M marketing department. I'm not sure what to do about this section, but is it even encyclopedic? Elliotreed 03:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason why the Geoffrey F. Bowers job discrimination case against B&M isn't mentioned at all here? It inspired an Oscar winning movie.71.98.70.5 06:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be because someone (probably a B&M employee) deleted this information back in January. I have just reinstated it. -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 08:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the problems

Per the above two comments, I have moved the history items from the news/media section to the history section, and left only the global media items in the media section. Also, the media items are now chronological and must stay that way. Softlavender (talk) 05:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Why are the Mexican Cities listed as Latin America when they are part of North America?2601:C:9A01:23AB:C110:A5C8:6F32:BA22 (talk) 09:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)My source is the World Map[reply]

Largest law firm in the US ?

According to Lawyer.com, Skadden ARPS Slate Meagher & Flom was larger both in terms of profit and turnover.--2514 10:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Baker & McKenzie. 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:

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} 01:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Baker & McKenzie. 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/20050205235959/http://www.tpf1.com:80/htmls/questions3.html to http://www.tpf1.com/htmls/questions3.html

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} 18:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Baker & McKenzie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies

I changed this section's title, as "Reputational matters" is overly obscure. There, I noticed the 2005 Phillips dry-cleaning item, which I think ought be removed, as too trivial and not encyclopedic in scope. Lindenfall (talk) 20:19, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

deleted today, as too trivial. Lindenfall (talk) 19:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

COI Editing

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.

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

Article editing occurring from Baker McKenzie office.

Lead fails to summarize the body

For example, the lead no longer includes content about BM's key role in the modern tax avoidance system. It is the law firm most mentioned in the Pandora Papers and is described by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists as "an architect of the modern tax avoidance system."[2] BM does not just help to hide wealth from questionable sources and figures, but is actively involved in lobbying legislatures to get rid of regulations that clamp down on tax avoidance. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Notable matters and transactions"

Every case is positive, or a case the firm won. It sounds like an advertisement to clients. DenverCoder9 (talk) 02:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Continued work on the lead and ICIJ

@Thenightaway before changing your last edit i wanted to review the lead standards for a concise summary and neutral standpoint. Your three sentences about the ICIJ seem to outweigh that, no? To be clear I am all for the ICIJ to be included in the lead, and even expanded throughout the page if possible, but wanted to do so within policy, starting with the lead. Yachtahead (talk) 03:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]