Talk:Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman/Archive 1

Discussion

It appears that one of the primary editors for this article User:NinaSpezz has a conflict of interest, specifically a violation of WP:NOPR. On her user page, she discloses she is employed by Rubenstein Communications. However, it is not disclosed or clear to readers that the subject of this article, Kasowitz Benson Torres & Friedman, employs Rubenstein Associates for public relations work; and that Rubenstein Associates and Rubenstein Communications are affiliates.

For evidence of the connection between Rubenstein Communications and Rubenstein Associates, see e.g. http://www.rubenstein.com: "Strategic, results-oriented publicity and media relations are the specialty of affiliated companies Rubenstein Associates, Inc. and Rubenstein Communications...."

For evidence of the customer relationship between KBTF and Rubenstein Associates, observe e.g. the Rubeinstein contact information at the end of these press releases:

• http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/02/ca-kasowitz-benson-idUSnBw026202a+100+BSW20131002
• http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20130520005807/en/Kasowitz-Opens-Los-Angeles-Office-Leading-Insurance
• http://finance.yahoo.com/news/kasowitz-insurance-recovery-group-shortlisted-163000132.html

Furthermore, User:NinaSpezz's specific edits to this article, while adding a few useful facts, are mostly promotional and contribute to an advertising tone.

Omaharodeo (talk) 14:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Omaharodeo - I apologize. I mistakenly did not post a notice to the talk page prior to making the edits as was my intention. I do hope you'll review the text and citations I added back in March 2013 and edit as you see fit. NinaSpezz (talk) 14:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for administrators

I would like to ask for third-party admin arbitration on this article.

More than a year ago, I made supported additions to this page as a representative for Kasowitz (see above). My user page clearly identifies me as working for the public relations firm that represents Kasowitz, and as is our policy, my edits were straightforward and supported by established third-party sources including US News and World Report’s Best Law Firms, The Legal 500, and Chambers USA. Moreover, the edits were limited – a total of 3,392 bytes of additions. I have made no edits to the article since March of 2013.

On April 28, 2014, nearly 14 months after my edits were implemented, they were challenged by another editor. The challenge was based on WP:NOPR, but again, I have been upfront about my professional affiliation, and responded as such, inviting the user to review my edits for accuracy and appropriateness.

Recently a net addition of more than 15,000 bytes were added to the page by the editor who challenged mine. Many of these edits are negatively slanted. While they are linked to credible sources, often the edits are cherry-picked pieces of the citations that are inconsistent within their complete context. Some of the edits contain original research, a violation of WP:NOR.

Because of obvious conflict of interest issues among both parties in this dispute, I ask that an impartial administrator carefully review the entirety of all edits made to this page.

NinaSpezz (talk) 19:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

 Working I am reviewing the questioned material and will report back here shortly. — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Please keep in mind I have not carefully reviewed every source. This is not a WP:GAN review. I just thought I'd lend a helping hand regarding the disputed content. Reliable sources are as always a must for contentious material.

My concerns with the initial additions by NinaSpezz:

• In the first sentence, "decribed by "Chambers USA" as "renowned for its..."" – this isn't really necessary to put in the lead. Sounds promotional and does not add to the overall understanding of the subject. The significance of Chambers USA's critique may also be questioned.
• In the History section, "Having grown ... the firm is now ... one of the best" – I would never say something is the "best". Rather, attribute the claim to the source, such as "so and so considers the firm as one of the best".
• Recognitions and Rankins section – may sound promotional, sure, but as long as it's well sourced I don't see anything inherently wrong. Don't overdo it, however. The organizations issuing the awards or recognitions should themselves be somewhat notable.

New content from Omaharodeo:

• History section could be kept. It is relevant and as long as the "the firm is now ... one of the best" sentence is removed I don't consider it overly promotional.
• "Reputation and rankings" section looks good.
• NYPost is not the best source, perhaps try to find a better one. You can use the {{rs}} template to dispute the reliability of a source inline with text.
• "Sexual allegations to intimidate and embarrass" – removed per WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPNAME, with opinions expressed that the allegations were used solely to "embarrass an opponent".
• More sections removed containing contentious material about living persons known for that single event, and do not add significant value to the article or understanding of the subject. Leave the names out.

Remember WP:NOPR, while highly discouraged, represents only a behavioral guideline, and was a failed proposal to promote to policy. The user is free to edit even if paid to do so. Per WP:NPOV all viewpoints should be considered when writing. As long as it is well-sourced, relevant, and not a violation of policy, it is welcomed. Use the {{cn}} template to question any particular claim inline with the text. Meanwhile any WP:BLP violation represents policy and must be removed, as there are legal concerns here. If you see any negative material about a living person that is not attributed with a reliable source, remove it. Do not wait for an admin or another editor to come along and do it for you.

In general, it is up to you, the primary contributors, to work together to find a consensus about editing disputes. I see an effort has been made to do this, but there has not been much for discussion. Talk things through, and although I for one was happy to do so, you should not ask for administrative help when it is not needed. — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Without getting into a back-and-forth, the following is a brief summary of NinaSpezz's inaccurate statements for posterity (quotes refer to the root post):

• NinaSpezz was not "upfront" about her affiliation with the subject of this article, the law firm Kasowitz, Benson, Torres and Friedman. She did not disclose it on the talk page, and a typical reader would have no way of knowing that "Rubenstein Communications" is a public relations firm employed by KBTF.
• Edits made by NinaSpezz were not "straightforward." Her edits were effectively search engine-optimized ad copy, with long lists of practice area keywords, office locations and dubious "awards" given by organizations which sell paid profiles to law firms and so are discouraged from providing balanced critiques of them. In several cases, her edits were also factually inaccurate.
• In the subsequent COIN discussion, NinaSpezz was warned by Beyond_My_Ken for inappropriate canvassing.
• NinaSpezz has a conflict-of-interest. As far as can be determined, no other "parties" to these discussions have a conflict of interest.
• NinaSpezz refers to a "dispute" but, as MusikAnimal noted, she raised no objection to any edits prior to requesting an administrator. Similarly, her request for administrator contained no specific objections, only vague concerns.

Moving forward, let's focus on working together to improve the article and using the Talk page to hash out disagreements. — Omaharodeo (talk) 12:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

NinaSpezz has been open about her COI. She has shown a willingness to collaborate and cooperate with other editors. Please 'drop the stick' and limit your posts to discussion of content per WP:TALK.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Reactions and Thoughts

MusikAnimal thanks for the edits. Regardless of NinaSpezz's motives, your input improved the article and increased my understanding of some of the issues. I wanted to share my thoughts on the points you raised.

• New York Post: I share skepticism of The New York Post as a source. In this instance, journalist Roddy Boyd seems to have done the primary original reporting. The article in question was re-reported by the Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg and the New York Times, and I do not find it to be sensationalized. If others disagree, can you please chime in explaining?

• History Section: I agree a History section would be good. The content in the previous History section did not seem to provide a useful or accurate summary of the firm's history. Concretely:

1. Sentence 1 ('Kasowitiz, Benson, Torres & Friedman was founded...') is substantially inaccurate. The firm was not founded with that name, Mr. Kasowitz cannot have been the sole catalyst, and the focus on "complex litigation" does not seem to have specific support.
2. Sentence 2 ('By 2004, the firm became one of New York City's largest.') seems unsubstantiated puffery. What does it mean to be "one of New York's largest" law firms? What in the linked source supports that claim?
3. Sentence 3 ('Having grown from 18 lawyers, the firm is now the 121st largest in the United States and one of the best in the U.S., locally and nationally, in the areas of...') seems inaccurate. The linked source for 121st largest has been removed. The current edition of U.S. News does not name that litany of practice areas as among 'the best.' Also, to nitpick, the firm could never have had only 18 lawyers if it was founded with 19, unless there was immediate attrition (was there?).
4. Sentence 4 ('third office in... Los Angeles... hired from Jenner & Block') seems like a non sequitir. Why are we talking about the third office when we don't mention the second? I am suspicious that this paragraph was driven by @NinaSpezz's client's desire to highlight poaching from a rival firm. Nonetheless, I like that it provides new information. It just seems misplaced. I moved it into the personnel section. Maybe it would be better in the offices section?

• Rescinded Offers: It seems from the sources that this was not a mere accusation, and that the firm acknowledged it was occurring but sought to explain it by citing higher than expected yields. Because industry ethics guidelines do not accept this explanation as a mitigant, the firm's response does not seem to lessen the incident's significance.

• Sexual allegations: This section covered two significant incidents. Maybe there is a reformulation that would address the concerns you raised. I'll have a think on it.

• Thanks for removing names where you felt it unhelpful. There was a tension in seeming to unnecessarily highlight an individual vs sentences that read as vague or over-broad insinuations.

NinaSpezz, I think you might be able to help improve the firm history section. Do you have / would you be able to find sources for these topics:

• Catalyst for Kasowitz, et al leaving Mayer Brown - was it just belief they could take two large cases? Were all of the founding attorneys involved in those two cases? What was Mayer Brown's reaction to losing those lucrative clients?
• Why did Bruce Hoff leave so early on?
• What was the initial breakdown between Chicago and New York? I had read Houston was the third office; are we sure that Los Angeles was the third? Years would help.
• What is the New Jersey office? Just an outpost? No attorneys are listed as based there.
• Has Marc Kasowitz ever been the subject of a bar complaint in New York or New Jersey?
• Are any of Marc's family members employed by the firm? If so, in what capacities?
• How has KBTF structured its relationship with Intelligence Options aka KBTF Group aka KBTF Consulting to avoid running afoul of the Rules of Professional Conduct?

Also, do you think it'd be useful to have a separate article on Marc Kasowitz?

Omaharodeo (talk) 05:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

---

Thank you for the input, MusikAnimal & Omaharodeo. Here are my initial suggestions for continued improvement of the page's content.

Info Box

Office Count should be 9 offices, per the Kasowitz website’s list of offices. [1]

History

Based on the specific feedback with regard to the original text, I have rewritten this portion. This revised text includes citations to sources which substantiate the firm’s size in the New York market and the national market.

The firm was founded in 1993 as Kasowitz, Hoff, Benson & Torres when Marc Kasowitz left Mayer Brown, taking 18 lawyers and two clients: chemical maker Celanese and real estate developer Jack Parker Corporation. [2] David M. Friedman was added as a named partner in May 1995.[3]

The firm is the 21st largest firm in New York [4] and the 119th largest in the United States, by number of lawyers. [5]

In May 2013, the firm opened a Los Angeles office, its third in the state of California, run by Jerold Oshinsky and Linda Kornfeld, who were hired from Jenner & Block. [6]

Recognitions & rankings

In the first sentence - "while others note it sometimes inflates legal achievements" is in no way supported by the citation ([7] ) used here, a violation of WP:V. That text should therefore be removed.

Offices

This section was removed without explanation, but contributes to an understanding of the subject. Perhaps this section can be reinstated or incorporated into the History section.

• New York City
• Houston, Texas
• Atlanta, Georgia
• San Francisco, California
• Redwood Shores, California
• Miami, Florida
• Washington, D.C.
• Los Angeles
• Newark, New Jersey

Lawsuits as PR Tools and Whistleblower Targeting

No whistleblower targeting is referenced in the supporting citations. [8][9][10] It would be more accurate to title this section, "Lawsuits as PR Tools."

The following text should be modified because, as is indicated by the citation, one article written by one reporter raised this concern, not a group of "commentators."

"Commentators have raised concerns about the impact of these practices on speech." [11]

There is no citation to support the claim, "In each instance, the firm has asserted timing was coincidental and that it has not targeted speech alone but broader conspiracies." This is a violation of WP:V The text should therefore be removed.

Intelligence Options LLC

Not sure why this is under the controversies section. It’s perhaps more appropriate under its own section.

Greg Berry

I recommend adding for context:

It was noted in the press that an email he distributed within the firm before his termination proclaimed his right to more advanced work because of his "superior legal mind." [12][13]

Attrition

This section contains original research, a violation of WP:NOR. Two of the three citations ([14][15]) used do not even mention the subject of this Wikipedia article. In other words, this section includes analysis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources and should be considered for deletion.

In the alternative, although I feel the entire section is irrelevant and unsupportable, the quote from Marc Kasowitz is particularly so given that it relies upon a logical fallacy. Specifically, Omaharodeo's edit suggests that Mr. Kasowitz was not accurate in his June 2010 interview because there was attrition between 2010 and 2014. But Mr. Kasowitz said in June 2010, "We have virtually no attrition." He did not say, "We have virtually no attrition and never will." Had the addition compared the attorney headcount between, say 2006 and 2010 to show an inconsistency in Mr. Kasowitz's statement, that would make sense.

High-profile cases

Suggested additions:

Federal Housing Finance Agency, as conservator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, in several actions in federal and state courts against numerous financial institutions and individuals. The lawsuits seek rescission or damages from the defendants for, among other things, defendants’ misrepresentations concerning pools of mortgage loans that underlie residential mortgage-backed securities issued and securitized by the defendants and sold to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [16]

MBIA, one of the world’s largest monoline insurers, in litigation brought by 18 of the world’s largest banks seeking to overturn MBIA’s 2009 corporate restructuring which, with the approval of the New York Department of Insurance (now the Department of Financial Services), established a separate company for MBIA’s municipal bond insurance business. In March 2013, after a several week trial, the New York Supreme Court ruled in favor of MBIA, upholding MBIA’s restructuring. Kasowitz thereafter obtained a settlement, which also covered put-back litigation, whereby the remaining banks agreed to drop their challenge to MBIA’s restructuring, and MBIA received $1.7 billion in cash and a $500 million line of credit for its municipal bond insurance business. [17] [18] [19]

Comcast Corporation in three antitrust class actions brought by a putative class of two million subscribers in each case. These are test cases for the entire cable industry. [20] The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Comcast in a landmark 5-4 decision. [21] [22]

Liggett Group LLC, a cigarette manufacturer, as national and trial counsel in smoking and health litigation in state and federal courts. For 17 years, Kasowitz defended Liggett in class actions, consolidated actions, third-party payor and governmental actions, and individual personal injury lawsuits concerning claims arising from cigarette use. The firm currently manages and represents Liggett in thousands of individual personal injury actions arising from a decertified class action in Florida. In 2011, the firm won three defense verdicts on behalf of Liggett. The firm has also defended Liggett in civil RICO, conspiracy, class actions, and consumer fraud actions brought around the country. [23]

Headcount by Office and Title

This section, which is also referenced in the "Attrition" section, contains original research, a violation of WP:NOR. Do these charts with the accompanying text noting comparisons add significant value to the article or understanding of the subject? This comparison is evidence of presenting published material with analysis serving to advance a position not advanced by the sources. Also, the citation used, an archived version of 2010 attorney search results, is not searchable. It’s unclear how these statistics were obtained. For these reasons, this should be considered for deletion.

NinaSpezz (talk) 15:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

---

NinaSpezz thanks for the input. Setting aside your COI (i.e. that you receive money from the subject of this article to enhance their image) for the moment, here are reactions:

Info Box

Your client's website only lists 7 offices which have attorneys. What are the two others? Could your client rent a mailbox somewhere and claim to have an additional office? Since this is a law firm, it seems most helpful to define an office as a place where attorneys work.

History

What is the significance of the third office? We are not mentioning the second office for instance. Is the motivation to highlight poaching from a competing firm? Also, are you sure Los Angeles was the third office? The first two offices seem to have been New York and Chicago, and articles mention Houston as the third (opened because of its proximity to a key client).

Also, so that we can enhance this section and others, do you have sources for these topics:

• Catalyst for Kasowitz, et al leaving Mayer Brown - was it just belief they could take two large cases? Were all of the founding attorneys involved in those two cases? What was Mayer Brown's reaction to losing those lucrative clients?
• Why did Bruce Hoff leave so early on?
• What was the initial breakdown between Chicago and New York?
• Has Marc Kasowitz's brother Stephen worked for Intelligence Options? Have any of Mr. Kasowitz's other family members been employed by the firm? If so, when did they join / leave and what were their roles?
• How has KBTF structured its relationship with Intelligence Options aka KBTF Group aka KBTF Consulting to avoid running afoul of the Rules of Professional Conduct?

Reputation & Rankings

The "inflates legal achievements" statement should reference [24] - thanks for catching. Also, listing awards and positive rankings seems intrinsically unbalanced witihout also including any sanctions your client has received. Has your client or its employees ever been received a formal warning or reprimand? If so, what were the circumstances?

Offices

This section was subsumed by the more extensive 'headcount by office & title' section and no information was lost in the transition. The previous office list you are asking be restored appears to be search-engine optimization. Perhaps the new section should be renamed 'Offices'?

Intelligence Options

I do not feel strongly about placement and will move to its own section as you suggest.

Greg Berry

Your suggestion seems an attempt to mock this individual, Mr. Berry, with an out-of-context statement. Marc Kasowitz has reportedly made similar statements about himself so I see no merit to this edit.

Attrition / Headcount by Title

This is a summary of public statements and information published by Kasowitz. It is no more original research than the table of specifications by model in the iPhone article. Regarding the contrast of a 2010 quote vs 2010-2014 data, that's a good catch but the earlier data is actually more extreme. Indeed the 'practically no attrition' statement is self-evidently false; your client had to change its name due to attrition. I will edit to use the pre-2010 data as you suggest and consider alternate phrasing.

High-profile Cases

Thanks for this - I will research these. Would you consider any of these cases 'high revenue' as opposed to 'high profile'? Maybe that would be a helpful division as it seems there are some obscure cases with large business significance. What do you think?

Omaharodeo (talk) 14:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

---

Omaharodeo -

Info Box

It doesn't seem we can come to an agreement on the number of offices. Perhaps we can get a third party editor opinion on this.

History

The "third office" refers to the third office in the state of California, which is explicitly stated and supported in the language I've proposed for the History section above.

With regard to your questions, you are welcome to find reputable citations on your own, but Wikipedia is not a forum for interviews or original research.

Reputation & Rankings

This alternative reference [25] still does not support the language supplied.

Again, you are welcome to find reputable citations on your own, but Wikipedia is not a forum for interviews or original research.

Intelligence Options

Sounds good.

Lawsuits as PR Tools and Whistleblower Targeting

Any feedback on the comments I've given above?

Attrition / Headcount by Title

You'll need to provide earlier data via a reputable source in order to support these claims. But as it stands, this section, as it's currently presented, is inaccurate and misleading. See comments above.

High-profile Cases

The proposed additions are high-profile and meant to add to what you've already supplied. Keep in mind, before your edits to the page there was no reference to the firm's cases. Our edits are just intended to balance out your selection. Would be glad to drop the section in its entirety.

Greg Berry

You added the reference to Mr. Berry. In doing so, you presented the case in an unfair light given the public reporting on the case. Referencing that case without mentioning the "superior legal mind" email that was the subject of much public comment concerning the case is incomplete. Again, would be glad to drop the Berry reference in its entirety as I don't think that that issue is of significant historical import to include in a page about the firm.

NinaSpezz (talk) 23:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

---

Arbitrary break

Thank you for your comments, NinaSpezz (talk · contribs). A few brief thoughts:

Important Context for Others

NinaSpezz (talk · contribs) is receiving money from the subject of this article to enhance their public image on Wikipedia. The user did not disclose COI initially, then sought to manipulate the COI noticeboard via canvassing.

Info Box

Rather than rushing to escalate again, do you have feedback on the straightforward questions above? Do you propose an alternate definition of "law firm office" than "place where lawyers work"? It would be wonderful if you could simply explain your perspective.

History

Would you be willing to share your reasons for considering the "third office in California" particularly significant? No one is attempting to "interview" you; this is the talk page, and one had hoped you might be willing to contribute legitimate content to the article.

Reputations & Rankings

You say "this alternate reference still does not support the language supplied." Here's what the reference says:

Shadowing Kasowitz, Benson’s identity as aggressive, independent litigators, though, is the suggestion by lawyers—both in the plaintiffs and defense bar—that the firm inflates its victories.

Here is the language you objected to:

Many peers describe the firm as "aggressive" while others note it sometimes inflates legal achievements

The only part of "sometimes inflates legal achievements" not supported by the source is the word "sometimes." It is beginning to appear you are just griefing.

High-profile Cases

Again, do you have any comments on the straightforward question above? Attempts to single-mindedly direct discussion toward content removal are not helpful.

Whistleblower Targeting

Whistleblowers are mentioned in both of the Forbes and CNN articles. Same for Kasowitz asserting that it was targeting broader conspiracies -- which was the very reason they leaned on the RICO laws in their claims. You seem to have concluded these statements are at odds with your client's commercial interests, yet they are actually quite benign.

Attrition

Supplemental data is pending. Your characterization seems again driven by a desire to delete information.

To reiterate, it would be really great if you would consider contributing positively to the entry rather than using any means necessary to sanitize it. You seem a wonderful writer and must certainly have access to enriching information. Omaharodeo, (talk) 05:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Dear Omaharodeo, NinaSpezz has been open about her COI. She has shown a willingness to collaborate and cooperate with other editors. Please 'drop the stick' and limit your posts to discussion of content only per WP:TALK, WP:COI and WP:HARASS. Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Keithbob, can you help me understand what constituted harassment here? In your comment on NinaSpezz's talk page ("A bowl of strawberries for you!" from Keithbob), you seem to indicate it is because of my mentioning her "self proclaimed COI." Yet this is inaccurate: NinaSpezz's COI was not self-proclaimed; rather it was acknowledged only after being pointed out on this page. Subsequent discussion on the COIN noticeboard confirmed the inappropriateness of the 'ticking timebomb' tactic this editor has repeatedly engaged in.

Indeed, the reason I continued to note this editor's COI was because NinaSpezz, in the course of what looked to me like forum shopping, continued to passively suggest that the COI was 'self proclaimed', and I believe the implications of this misleading statement were material to the discussion.

If there is something I'm missing, I'm all ears and would be glad to improve my understanding of Wikipedia guidelines. However, based on some previous incidents I've come across, I am concerned spurious accusations of "harassment" may be a pattern. For instance, in a prior WP:AE proceeding, the presiding admin noted:

There is a lot of casting of aspersions here. One excellent example is the listing [by @keithbob] as an example of "harassment" that... an article [was nominated] for GA delisting, without mentioning that the article was in fact found not to meet GA standards and delisted. That doesn't indicate harassment, it indicates apparently good judgment.

— Seraphimblade, WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive139#Littleolive_oil

Thank you. Omaharodeo (talk) 15:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, this is not an appropriate place for this discussion. So I"ll respond on your talk page when I have time. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Bold edits and clean up

• I've revamped this article to bring it into compliance with WP policies and guidelines. The article had numerous items that were non-compliant with WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:UNDUE, WP:LEAD etc. I also brought it into compliance with the essay WP:CRITICISM which eschews dedicated controversy sections and prefers instead for events to be mixed into the body of the article (the history section in this case) rather than creating POV and undue emphasis by have a dedicated section. Also keep in mind that just because an editorial or industry journal criticizes KBTF this does not qualify as a controversy. I've also upgraded many of the citations and improved their formatting.
• Though there was undue emphasis on both sides of the fence (complementary content and critical content) I was alarmed at the volume of critical content which had been cherry picked and was being used to unduly emphasize minor events and criticism in some cases by using sources that did not mention KBTF at all. This is called POV pushing and original research and has no place on WP. Please read WP:OR and WP:NPOV before adding further material to the article. Meanwhile please let me know if there are any changes anyone would like to discuss or collaborate on. Best wishes, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:23, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
• A note on court documents. They are considered to be WP:PRIMARY sources and should not be used as the sole source for controversial information in the article.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Response to Keithbob Edits

This has begun to feel a little like a Kafka story.

Keithbob, thanks for taking an interest in the article and spending so much time. I agree with some of your edits and indeed intended on making a few of them myself, as previously discussed - so thank you for that. At the same time, I want to be open about some fundamental concerns I have here:

• You are currently the coordinator of the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, where @NinaSpezz submitted a request regarding this article. Rather than maintaining your important role as a neutral party, you have become quickly and directly involved in the purported dispute, without discussion, to an extent that is a little alarming.
• Several of your edit summaries make characterizations that seem inconsistent with their substance. For instance:
  • 16:15, 28 June 2014 (diff): Simply says "add text and ref" when the edit actually inserted a over-broad claim about "the firm" winning an "award"
  • 19:24, 27 June 2014 (diff): Deleted an entire section on the history of Intelligence Options, sourced to public government databases, claiming it as original research, when you were aware @NinaSpezz's request to the appropriate noticeboard had been unsuccessful.
  • 19:01, 27 June 2014 (diff): Delete an entire section containing a detailed and content-rich chart, asserting that it gave "undue weight to unsourced and non-notable information" when in fact it was sourced to an archived version of the company's website, the contemporary version of which you use as a source elsewhere
  • 18:30, 27 June 2014 (diff): Notes only "move and ce" yet in the process another reference to Intelligence Options was deleted
• Your comment above asserts non-compliance with a long list of policies, yet provides no specifics about which sections violate which policies or why. Nor does it address any of the specific questions and discussion points I had raised and pleaded with @NinaSpezz to discuss.
• In several cases, you unilaterally deleted content that had already been reviewed by an editor in response to one of @NinaSpezz's prior requests.
• Your repeated accusations of "harassment" -- which I discuss in more detail elsewhere on this page -- seem plainly spurious and are reminiscent of a seemingly similar incident for which you were admonished.
• Cumulatively, these edits have, in my view, turned the article into a litany of perhaps chronological but otherwise unrelated factoids which I believe has made it harder to read.
• The end result, in my view, is an article indistinguishable from one written with the COI editor's goals in mind while attempting to maintain a faint patina of objectivity.

Regards, Omaharodeo (talk)

Again, I'm asking you to stop making personalized comments and attacks on editors making good faith improvements to the article. Admin, MusikAnimal, who was involved in prior discussions and changes here has reviewed the current state of the article says it "is looking much better now".[26]. I've also listed it at the New York City project and requested a peer review [27] for additional feedback from uninvolved editors on the current state of the article and suggestions for changes and improvements. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Error in Lead Section

@Keithbob: Wanted to alert you about error in the lead section of the article. The lead states the firm has "350 employees," but further inspection of the citation indicates the firm has 350 lawyers. Would you consider making that update? Please note I have a declared COI with the subject of this page. NinaSpezz (talk) 22:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I've corrected it. Good catch! :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)