Talk:Grant & Eisenhofer

Edits

Upon speaking with numerous editors, it was decided that this page met Wikipedia's notability standards. I was given permission to remove the tag. Steph0513 (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

This article merely gives a history and basic information on a law firm which has been involved in major securities class action lawsuits. It does not advertise the firm's services. Every assertion made in the article is backed up by a reliable secondary source. The wikipedia pages of other law firms have similar sections as well as information on practice areas, notable cases, notable attorneys, etc. These sections were left out of the Grant & Eisenhofer page because they were criticized in an earlier version of the page for not being neutral. Previous versions of this page were speedily deleted the same day they were posted. This version, however, has stayed up since last week. Speedy deletion of an article that is well-cited and offers valid and valuable information on a law firm is unwarranted. Companies who were part of the class action lawsuits listed on Grant & Eisenhofer's page mentioned the class action on their pages. Thus, the class action lawsuit is apparently significant enough to note. If the lawsuits are significant enough to note, the law firm who was part of the suits is also entitled to a factual, neutral wikipedia page. Steph0513 (talk) 13:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

2nd Opinion

1. • Lead:
   • is an international litigation boutique consider less flamboyant language, e.g. partnership. This applies throughout. This is an encyclopaedia - use neutral language.
   • A lot of this reads like a very close paraphrase of the company website. Rewrite entirely in plain English. Discard all weasel words.
   • The lead should be an executive summary of the entire article.
   • References: #1 [1] is dead; some others lead to login page. In that case cite the source not a web page which is useless to those who do not pay subscriptions;
   • My impression is that a number of the sources do not actually support the statements, e.g. #24 [2] doesn't actually mention that they the amount of stock the potential client holds in the company accused of wrongdoing.. It says a lot of other things about selection, but not that. A lot of references report the result of cases, but make no mention of G&E, or sometimes just a one sentence ref. These aren't good enough. "Significant coverage is required". It may be that a lot of the article has to be thrown away. That's fine. Wikipedia is only interested in verifiability.
   • Format the references using {{cite news}} and {{cite web}} templates. All citations should be consistent.
   • Too much detail in the notable cases. As G&E was just one of many law firms involved, the result of the case may not be entirely down to them. The references do not necessarily say anything about the company.
   • Finally - check out WP:Naming conventions (companies) especially the bit about JPMorgan Chase rather than JPMorgan Chase & Co. Ampaersands can cause probems in linking. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggested removal

The following text

Since the firm’s founding, it has represented more than one hundred institutional investors and has acted as lead or co-lead counsel in six of the largest securities class actions in United States history:[13]

$3.2 billion settlement from Tyco International[14]
$450 million settlement from Royal Dutch Shell[15]
$448 million settlement from Global Crossing[16][17]
$325 million settlement from Delphi Corp.[18]
$303 million settlement from General Motors[19]
$300 million settlement from DaimlerChrysler[20]

sounds advertorial, rather than informational, and is repeated somewhat further down. I would just stop at ... United States history. if you felt that it was necessary to include any part of that text.

Noting that while the court cases may be notable, it doesn't necessarily make all the components notable. -- billinghurst (talk) 13:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok I deleted the bulleted list and added (See Notable Cases) after "United States history." Is this ok? Steph0513 (talk) 14:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Needs a re-write

The current article relies too heavily on press releases and insider reports/report cards instead of reliable sources. Additionally, the articles reads like a profile page that highlights the successes of the firm. Instead the articles needs to be written with a more encyclopedic style and tone that covers both the high points and low points of the firms history. I've tagged the article to let the reader know that the article doesn't adhere to the usual standards for a Wikipedia article. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 00:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Potential references

[http://www.forbes.com/2010/06/22/securities-class-action-personal-finance-pay-to-play.html 'Class Action Lawyers Hide Behind Foundation Fig Leaf", Forbes, 2010. While this reference is somewhat old, the current wording of this articles highlights older cases referred to in the Forbes article.

Content moved from lead.

I removed this content from the lead because it was an overly detailed list of recognition and is a large part of what makes the article tone seem promotional instead of encyclopedic in tone. Putting here in case any of it needs to be integrated into the body. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 21:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

G&E has been named one of the nation’s top plaintiffs firms by The National Law Journal in the annual "Plaintiffs' Hot List" every year since the List's inception and, in 2008, was named to The National Law Journal’s "Plaintiffs’ Hot List Hall of Fame."Qualters, Sheri (21 October 2013). \"Plaintiffs Hot List: Grant & Eisenhofer\". National Law Journal. Retrieved 7 January 2014. "},"attrs":{"name":"NLJ 2013 Plaintiffs Hot List"}}" about="#mwt17" class="reference ve-pasteProtect" id="cite_ref-NLJ_2013_Plaintiffs_Hot_List_4-0" rel="dc:references" data-ve-attributes="{"typeof":"mw:Extension/ref","rel":"dc:references","about":"#mwt17"}">[1] In 2013, legal research firm Chambers and Partners named G&E a "Top Firm" for the 10th consecutive year.\"Chambers and Partners 2013 Ranked Firms\". Chambers and Partners USA. Retrieved 7 January 2014. "},"attrs":{"name":"Chambers 2013"}}" about="#mwt19" class="reference ve-pasteProtect" id="cite_ref-Chambers_2013_5-0" rel="dc:references" data-ve-attributes="{"typeof":"mw:Extension/ref","rel":"dc:references","about":"#mwt19"}">[2] Chambers has described G&E as “a longstanding plaintiffs’ law firm [that] is renowned for its careful selection of cases, which frequently push and define legal boundaries,” “has an impressive success rate in terms of recoveries,” and “offers a deep bench of experienced litigators with notable trial expertise.”[5] Also in 2013, Law360 named G&E one of the "Most Feared Plaintiffs Firms" in its inaugural list of plaintiffs firms it described as "hugely successful" based on their "performance in high-profile or complex cases between July 1, 2011, and July 1, 2013, including significant court rulings, trial victories and settlements."Stendahl, Max (4 October 2013). \"Law360 Names the Most Feared Plaintiffs Firms\". Law360. Retrieved 7 January 2014. "},"attrs":{"name":"Law 360 Names 11 Most Feared Firms"}}" about="#mwt22" class="reference ve-pasteProtect" id="cite_ref-Law_360_Names_11_Most_Feared_Firms_6-0" rel="dc:references" data-ve-attributes="{"typeof":"mw:Extension/ref","rel":"dc:references","about":"#mwt22"}">[3] In its profile of the firm, that publication wrote, "over the last decade and a half, Grant & Eisenhofer PA has grown into one of the most high-profile shareholder and whistleblower advocates in the country, securing record-high cash settlements."Simpson, Jake (9 October 2013). \"Most Feared Plaintiffs Firm: Grant & Eisenhofer\". Law360. Retrieved 7 January 2014. "},"attrs":{"name":"Law 360 G&E Named Most Feared"}}" about="#mwt24" class="reference ve-pasteProtect" id="cite_ref-Law_360_G.26E_Named_Most_Feared_7-0" rel="dc:references" data-ve-attributes="{"typeof":"mw:Extension/ref","rel":"dc:references","about":"#mwt24"}">[4]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Grant & Eisenhofer. 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.crn.com/tools/quotes/index.jhtml/%3Bjsessionid%3DK1EEHVBYEKYYSQSNDLPSKH0CJUNN2JVN?Account=crn&GUID=8436603&Ticker=RMG&Page=MediaViewer
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100416035540/http://securities.stanford.edu/news-archive/2004/20040320_Settlement01_Morgenson.htm to http://securities.stanford.edu/news-archive/2004/20040320_Settlement01_Morgenson.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100416035107/http://securities.stanford.edu/news-archive/2004/20040218_Settlement01_Batchelor.htm to http://securities.stanford.edu/news-archive/2004/20040218_Settlement01_Batchelor.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100416043844/http://securities.stanford.edu/news-archive/2004/20040112_Settlement01_Burr.htm to http://securities.stanford.edu/news-archive/2004/20040112_Settlement01_Burr.htm

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) 14:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Fraud. i was on post op fentanyl morphine and oxycontin.

I can't afford lawyer. My cheated me at least out of 170.000 .Iof..martial DBrooks1695 (talk) 23:55, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I was disabled and not able to understand what he done. My spine was operated on and bone placement. The only reason for divorce he did not want a disabled. He filed for a divorce while i was in six months of recovery. I didn't know at the time i never received a settlement because he manipulated the court's and myself to believe that inheritance was a settlement and in california this is not true. I didn't understand until 2018 a decade later what he had done. I was on Fentanyl, morphine and Oxycontin which impaired my mental status. On 4-17-2019 presiding judge denied motion set aset. And now another lawyer free consult said no motion set aside default for fraud and hidden assets. I'm totally disabled and cannot afford the attorney Maria Akopyan to file Ommitance Of Assets And Spousal reers.Legal Aid cannot take this case.Who can help me with a grant of he is going to get away with this. He had a lawyer and I'm at an disatvantage since I only receive SSDI(Pverty). I was a license nurse before my disability, spinal disease,(laminectomy syndrome with deliberating bone stenosis and chromic pain. My primary care physician wrote a letter to the judge clearly informing medically that the medication i was perscribed cause impaired me and clouded my judgement,low my heart rate and respiratory system. Being on opoids for medical reason is not my fault that i didn't understand what he was exactly doing. He had me sign documents after the divorce that was never filed with the judicial system.Is there any grant that i can apply for to help with Attorney cost. Going into court solo again and he has a lawyer i will definitely loose. I'm entitled to martial assets doing the marriage. He should be held in fraud and misconduct although i defaulted first divorce court date that doesn't give him the right to legally and morally mistreat me. This is grossly dishonesty. Thank. you Donna Brooks Email donna_f_brooks@yahoo.com Contact (909) 579-0231🙏😊.God Bless.

DBrooks1695 (talk) 00:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC)