Talk:O'Melveny & Myers

Strong ties to Democratic party

The firm has strong ties to the Democratic party, perhaps stronger than any other big corporate law firm.[1] Ron Klain, Al Gore's attorney, was there for several years; several attorneys participated in the 2000 election controversy; Bill Clinton's solicitor general, Walter Dellinger is there; Rocky Delgadillo came from O'Melveny[2]; and they regularly hire clerks from Justice Breyer and Justice Ginsburg's chambers. Larrabee needs to stop editing posts randomly. FRCP11 01:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Merge

This should be merged with O'Melveny & Myers page.

There's only one page. O'Melveny & Myers redirects to O'Melveny & Myers LLP. -- FRCP11 20:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Omm logo.gif

Image:Omm logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Trump Era

Before He Was AT&T’s Lawyer, He Was Trump’s Lawyer

The president’s shadow looms over Mr. Petrocelli’s latest case. AT&T Chief Executive Randall Stephenson on Monday said Mr. Trump’s dislike of CNN and the question of its role in the antitrust case was the “elephant in the room.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/before-he-was-at-ts-lawyer-he-was-trumps-lawyer-1511346601

--Wikipietime (talk) 14:21, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 July 2019

Remove the entire "Support for the Trump administration" section. This is misleading. O'Melveny & Myers LLP did not publicly support any one candidate during the presidential campaign, and instead, employees supported many different candidates. Furthermore, O'Melveny & Myers LLP was not involved in vetting President Trump's nominees. Instead, an ex-partner at O'Melveny was responsible for the vetting independent of his relationship to O'Melveny. To claim that O'Melveny & Myers LLP has shown "Support for the Trum administration" is subjective, false and misleading, and should be removed. 151.194.81.124 (talk) 16:56, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

 Partly done Removed the section as there was no source and moved the content in it to the history section. As for "O'Melveny & Myers LLP was not involved in vetting President Trump's nominees" - this is sourced so I didn't alter/remove it. Alduin2000 (talk) 22:44, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Contrary to what 151.194.81.124 wrote (from an O'Melveny & Myers IP address), Arthur Culvahouse was not an "ex-partner" at the time he and other attorneys from O'Melveny & Myers vetted the President's nominees. Here is a third source, in addition to the two used in the article. "Trump Looks to O’Melveny Partner for VP Vetting" https://biglawbusiness.com/trump-looks-to-omelveny-partner-for-vp-vetting. Other O'Melveny attorneys were also involved. "The Trump transition team’s vetting process is being led by election lawyer Donald McGahn, who served as Trump’s campaign lawyer and who is first pick for White House counsel, with the help of lawyers at O’Melveny & Myers" https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/donald-trump-transition-vetting-231786

 Not done it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Melmann 14:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

No further edits requested. Freshair154 (talk) 20:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on Aug 6 2019

On September 24, 2018, an O'Melveny & Myers IP address deleted an entry critical of their work. The O'Melveny & Myers editor claimed to be "Add[ing] a new high profile representation for the firm" but if you look at their edit, you'll see that they also needlessly deleted a tweet by Kate Upton, in which she says she will not participate in a sexual harassment investigation if it is conducted by O'Melveny. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=O%27Melveny_%26_Myers&type=revision&diff=880845644&oldid=860950230 Later, the entire section was removed. If appropriate, you can add the section back to the article under "History." The section is below.Freshair154 (talk) 20:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

In 2018, the firm was hired by the board of directors of Wynn Resorts to assist it in conducting an independent investigation into sexual harassment allegations against Steve Wynn. Ten days later, the firm was replaced by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. The firm was hired by Guess for a similar investigation into sexual harassment allegations against Paul Marciano. However, Kate Upton refused to participate until O'Melveny was replaced. Shortly thereafter, O'Melveny was removed as investigator.

 Not done The extended-confirmation-protection was put in place due to persistent WP:COI edits. This request looks like it falls into this criteria. To this end, I evaluated the objective materiality of the suggested edit, and it would seem that one case for a firm that has been around for over 100 years does not warrant a whole paragraph in a relatively small history section. Maranello10 (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

That's fine. Freshair154 (talk) 20:48, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 May 2022

Change “$190,000” to “$215,000.” This is the update first year associate salary.

Source: https://abovethelaw.com/2022/01/biglaw-raise-tracker-2022/?amp=1 2603:8000:4A44:44C:0:0:0:100F (talk) 09:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done —Sirdog (talk) 04:47, 21 May 2022 (UTC)