Jump to content

Talk:Cravath, Swaine & Moore

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Blatchford

[edit]

"The firm arose from two predecessor firms, led by William H. Seward (later Abraham Lincoln's Secretary of State) and Richard M. Blatchford (later appointed to the Supreme Court), respectively" I think the authors meant Samuel Blatchford who was on the Suprmeme Court, there is no record of a justice Richard M. Blachford. Seeing as the article on Samuel Blatchford mentions his working creating Cravath, Swaine & Moore I am making the change.

Merger work

[edit]

Article might also mention a number of prominent, recent mergers: Cravath did the AOL-Time Warner merger, Sprint-Nextel, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.117.232.33 (talk) May 16, 2005

Prestigious

[edit]

Cravath IS the most prestigous firm in America. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.243.236.29 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Please sign and date your comments. I am not going to get into an argument about whether one can really identify the single most prestigious firm in the US (I don't really believe claims that should be made in Wikipedia articles unless they are sourced to a third party), but I would not that growing up in the UK legal system, we always had the belief that Sullivan & Cromwell was the most prestigious firm in the US. Legis 08:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would add, that as a dual-qualified lawyer in both New York and England, Cravath is arguably the most prestigious firm in the US (whatever that means), but in London it barely registers. To claim that it is the most prestigious firm in the world is simply false, especially given London's current pre-eminence in finance and cross-border work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.213.106 (talk) 02:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The citation is a prestige ranking by vault of presitige of the partner. In that way, Cravath is the most prestigious in America. However, the more widely accepted method of associate prestige ranks Cravath as a very close second every year for as long as I can remember. Sullivan and Cromwell is a distant third on both lists, fyi. Despite this, I see no reason to say it is the most prestigious in either america or the world.LedRush (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cravath is well known as "Death Star". Why not put it in the article? Prestige is a funny thing. Mention Cravath to even a business class passenger on a flight and they may or may not know it. Skadden Arps and Shearman and Sterling are well known to some members of the public, who often don't know the subtle differences between firms. 903M (talk) 05:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry, but the claim that Cravath is the world's most prestigious law firm because a group of partners based in the United States voted it accordingly is simply astounding. Accordingly, I am changing it to to read "amongst the most prestigious in the world." If there are objections, we can discuss it accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.207.33.253 (talk) 16:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One Worldwide Plaza

[edit]

Didn't Cravath have an equity stake in One Worldwide Plaza when it was built??? If so, did they hold on to it during the recent downturn and various sales??? If not, when did they sell it? (assuming they had an equity stake to begin with). I know that a lot of lawfirms got into the real estate business - I know that Dewey Ballantine held a chunk of that refurbished Rockefeller Center building - or, at least they did in the early 90's. How about Cravath? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.131.179 (talk) September 2, 2009

Cravath represented the Nazi regime in the 1930's according to its own book. Swaine, The Cravath Firm And Its Predecessors: 1819-1947. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobby5000 (talk • contribs) 11:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Cravath, Swaine & Moore. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 06:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cravath, Swaine & Moore. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 16:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship with CBS

[edit]

Since it was founded in 1927, the claim that it goes back to the 1800s seems dubious. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:49, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WFB coverage

[edit]

This page was part of an Harvard Law School edit-a-ton on 2 April, meant to add content re major cases which this firm might wish were not so widely known [1]. HLS student and Wikipedian Avachat (Lawschooltoker) made the actual edits (instead of each individual making the edits themselves), contrary to WP policy it seems (?), and further removed language describing the Gaza war protests in the United States (those at law schools eg HLS) as anti-Semitic (but they claim to have kept language noting that the firm deemed them so - have not checked). The inclusion of unsavoury major cases, and clarification re who claimed the protests were anti-Semitic, seem like sound edits that should stand.

On 14 April, the edit-a-ton was covered by Washington Free Beacon as an instance of 'anti-Semitism' [2]. There now may be/seem to be accounts/IPs reverting those edits, possibly due to the WFB coverage alone. On 17 April, Avachat made a TikTok in response, noting this trend after the WFB article [3]. (This note added on coming across Avachat's TikTok.) Asdfjrjjj (talk) 07:03, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Asdfjrjjj, I wanted to leave a quick note regarding your recent edit to the article. You reverted my change, which was intended to ensure the content accurately reflected the cited source; I even quoted directly from the source in my note, showing that the language I had removed wasn’t supported by the source. In your edit summary, you mentioned that a simple Google search provides evidence for the claim. Even if that’s the case (which I’m not convinced of), the currently cited source still doesn’t support the specific language that was restored. Also, just to clarify, I wasn’t aware of any WFB coverage related to this, so there’s no need to assume otherwise. Thanks! Richessehonk (talk) 08:46, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Cases and Representations

[edit]

There’s no clear definition of what counts as a notable case or client. Having a discussion on this would be useful to make sure there is neutrality. Richessehonk (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cravath,_Swaine_%26_Moore&oldid=1286235879"