Talk:Littler Mendelson

SPA / COI edits

A brand new WP:SPA with a suspiciously WP:COI sounding name, just inserted some blatant brochure-wear that I reverted. I can only assume this is someone connected with the firm in question, or a well-meaning editor who is simply reporting stuff. Given that this is well-cited to non self-published sources I am inclined to think the former. Nevertheless, there is a lot of good stuff there that we can and should incorporate, as long as we can stay balanced and stick with stuff that is encyclopedic in relevance and tone. If nobody else does I'll come back to it when I have a chance.

For any editor associated with the firm, I suggest you use this talk page to propose changes to the article and limit yourself to minor clerical corrections and updates. Anything that makes the article sound like a business directory listing or firm website is going to be spotted quickly and reverted. Please refer to WP:COI for some hints on dealing with conflict of interest situations on Wikipedia. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 22:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Littler updates

I am not a marketing professional. I work for Littler in the Knowledge Management department and one of my job functions is to archive the Firm’s knowledge and information. Our intent in updating the Littler page on Wikipedia was to expand on the current limited description of the Firm, not to promote it. A team in the KM department here spent several weeks refining the copy to try to ensure the Wikipedia guidelines were followed and the information presented conveyed only facts about the Firm, such as its history, founders, practice areas, industry recognition and other factual particulars. We feel that the description of our content as "blatant brochure-ware" is inaccurate.

We researched the Wikipedia guidelines as applied to other law firms. We found listings for Skadden and Latham Watkins that, based on our understanding of the guidelines appeared too self-promotional and we made every effort to avoid this tone. We also reviewed the Sheppard Mullin listing and believe that the tone of our submitted description is no less neutral than theirs.

If you still consider our submission unacceptable, we would appreciate input regarding how best to revise the copy in order to more closely adhere to the Wikipedia guidelines. Specifically, which text/references/sections would you consider unacceptable, and how can we change these to follow the Wikipedia guidelines and display the updated information while avoiding a conflict of interest? Our objective here is to add relevant information to the Littler Wikipedia listing in an acceptable (and timely) manner. We welcome any editorial assistance and/or suggestions you might be able to provide. LaborLawGuru (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added the list of Littler practice areas to the page. This is purely encyclopedic content containing correct internal Wikipedia links. Please feel free to share any objections you may have to the addition of this content here. LaborLawGuru (talk) 23:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Updates to Hard Data and Request for Removal of Editorial Comments

I intend this update to bring the firm's page up to current in terms of number of practicing attorneys (over 800) and office locations. I would also like to remove some of the editorial comments such as "practicing exclusively in the aggressive representation of employers in labor and employment law..." The word "aggressive" is not objective in this case. Textheavy (talk) 22:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Questioning the Intentions of User Who Added Extremely Negative Item

As I read this "unbaised," "encyclopedic" article on Littler Mendelson, I have to wonder about the intentions of the user Lahaun who added a year-old mention of the CA Court of Appeals criticism of Littler Mendelson. While I do not suggest it is not accurate, it feels unbalanced to add such a blatantly negative piece of information to the article with nothing to balance. Littler Mendelson is often demonized by unions and other law firms because it represents management in litigation, but my experience as a contractor with this organization is that most of their energy is directed towards education and prevention to avoid litigation. Textheavy (talk) 18:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Intent to Remove the Negative Reference

Based on the determination that the user Lahaun had "an ax to grind" when adding a year-old, extremely negative reference to this article, I intend to remove it. I am fully aware that there is nothing objectively inaccurate about the citation, but is is clearly not in the spirit of "encyclopedic" documentation to describe only negative incidents surrounding an organization. I would like to at least balance this article with one or more positive accomplishments of this firm, without running the risk of these additions being flagged as marketing or creating a "brochure" for the organization. Textheavy (talk) 16:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. It's interesting stuff, and possibly encyclopedic if incorporated carefully into the right article, but without context there's no indication that the disposition of a single case no matter how egregiously handled would serve to educate the reader in any constructive way about a firm of 800 attorneys. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Addition of Infobox content. Removal of negative reference that reappeared

I've just added an Infobox based on the infobox found on Skadden's article. I also removed the negative reference that had been previously removed, as it shows a high bias against the firm. Textheavy (talk) 17:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it's just you and me here. Interesting how a huge law firm's article doesn't get as much editing traffic as a small tech startup. In any event I endorse that per the discussion immediately above. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Intent to update article based on review of similar firms' articles

I've been asked to review the articles of firms similar in practice and size to Littler Mendelson. The intention is to bring this article in line with identified standards. I will make efforts to restrict additions to objective data. The update will likely be committed in the first week of August, 2011. Textheavy (talk) 20:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Factual Updates

Updating factual data only: Number of attorneys, number of offices. Org's website used as reference. Btnummers (talk) 15:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Change to "Approx" Attorney Count, Intention to add List of Office Locations

Given the frequency of changes in number of attorneys, I will be changing the exact number of attorneys (entered by Btnummers) to an approximate number. I also intend to add a list of the locations where this firm has offices. 38.99.33.10 (talk) 17:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC) (forgot to log in Textheavy (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC))

Updating list of practice areas

While I am here, I am going to go ahead and update the list of specific practice areas based on those listed on the firm's website. Textheavy (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Cleaning up references, intent to add section on firm's international expansion

I saw that there were some problems with the list of offices I added. It looks like the problems were around disambiguation. At some point I'll have to take some time to go through them again. Now I want to fix the issue with the references, and soon to add some information about the firm's international expansion into Mexico and Venezuela. Textheavy (talk) 01:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

law firm is helping the Wikimedia Foundation to do union-busting

So far there aren't any news articles that specifically mention Littler Mendelson (yet), but it is obvious that they have been retained to help engage in a fight against ongoing unionization efforts (as they are named here):

https://www.nlrb.gov/case/20-RC-391740

Case Number: 20-RC-391740

Will post news articles as they appear; it should be mentioned in the Wikipedia article here that they are fighting against us. ~2026-42392-14 (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Oh, it'll be updated the second coverage exists, no need to worry about that. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:16, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

There's a WP:BLOG item The Wikimedia Foundation Hired the Union Busters Its Own Encyclopedia Warned About, but that's a WP:SPS with (AFAIK) no editorial fact-checking and oversight, and it's by a Wikipedian, Ocaasi, making it a bit circular, so I don't see it as usable. Boud (talk) 19:18, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I meant the second coverage from a reliable source happens, because it will. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:20, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Even if there is a secondary reliable source, that might still be undue weight. This law firm had thousands of clients over the past decades, we must have a really good reason to include the WMF. Union busting tends to generate at least some coverage, I'm pretty sure a lot more sources exists that are not currently used in the article. PhotographyEdits (talk) 21:47, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it'd be undue weight to include a sentence or two when sourcing is available. Presumably there could be a section that goes into detail about notable clients more generally. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:16, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

@Clovermoss Why is the NLRB case not enough of a source to include Wikimedia's hiring of Littler in the main post body?

You reverted my edit with "A bit premature". Including that the foundation running this very website hiring a union busting firm is NOT pre-mature.

That revert absolutely feels like bad faith. Please provide clear guidance on how we can get this back into the article. ~2026-42832-54 (talk) 11:29, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Clovermoss's removal here (which appears to be a good-faith application of content policy), because there is currently no coverage of the Wikimedia Foundation's hiring of Littler Mendelson in secondary reliable sources, which is needed to establish due weight for a mention of this matter in this article. This incident is too new to have any academic sourcing, and the only external news coverage I can find is "Wikimedia Foundation Declines Voluntary Union Recognition as Labor Dispute Grows" published in the Singaporean edition of the  International Business Times (RSP entry), which is considered generally unreliable. I would wait until the WMF's hiring of Littler is more prominently covered in secondary reliable sources before considering inclusion.​ — Newslinger talk 12:16, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

It's definitely a good faith removal. I can see why it might look suscipious from a non-Wikipedian perspective, though. If it helps resolve your concerns, I have been one of the most consistent outspoken voices on how what's happening here is not okay.

From a Wikipedian explaining policy perspective, if the specific firm was mentioned in the 404Media source, I would've been okay with it being here. However, it wasn't and that fails our verification policy. I'm sure this will get some mainstream news eventually. We tend to rely on secondary coverage because as an encyclopedia, we're summarizing existing material. I once gave a talk at the Internet Archive about other reasons relying on primary sources can cause issues, if you're curious. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:25, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Interesting video, thanks for sharing!

If it helps resolve your concerns, I have been one of the most consistent outspoken voices on how what's happening here is not okay. Yes, and also thank you for speaking up. It's wild how Wales won't answer questions about the hiring of this law firm when pressed about it. Something is ... not right here: "Houston, we have a problem", as they say. ~2026-42392-14 (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

For regular media sources on Littler + WMF, there's Hardware Upgrade, though currently we're getting into WP:OVERCITE, so I'll let others decide which sources are best. Boud (talk) 15:21, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the Hardware Upgrade article. I've added the citation in Special:Diff/1368048504. However, I don't think a mention of the WMF is due at this time, since that article only briefly covers Littler in one sentence, and the International Business Times was previously considered generally unreliable. (It has been a while since IBTimes was discussed on WP:RSN, so its article can be discussed there if its reliability merits another look.) I've tagged the paragraph for undue weight, but feel free to add new reliable coverage when it materializes. — Newslinger talk 18:44, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I removed the WP:IBTIMES source, which didn't even have its title written properly. If people want to upgrade it or argue for an exception in this particular case at WP:RSN, go ahead. The Hardware Upgrade article only mentions Littler once, but it describes Littler as the being at the core of the dispute at the time of writing. I don't have an opinion on WP:DUE here, but having more sources would be safer. Boud (talk) 19:20, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

since that article only briefly covers Littler in one sentence ... The thing is, it only needs to be mentioned once for verifiability. This is factually accurate, and I don't see why a short mention of their involvement with the WMF would be undue, as the whole union-busting coverage is extensive beyond this particular law firm, who is definitely assisting. ~2026-42392-14 (talk) 19:30, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

References