Talk:Boutique law firm

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.

Yanalfailat (talk · contribs) has been paid by LXL LLP. Their editing has included contributions to this article.
Bretzoliver (talk · contribs) has been paid by Euclid Law. Their editing has included contributions to this article. Declared employment status here

Move to "Boutique law firm"?[edit]

"Boutique firm" is pretty generic. An i-bank specializing in high tech M&A or a partnership of architects focusing on luxury hotels would each lay claim to the term. Should we move this article to "boutique law firm"? "Boutique" and "boutique firm" should perhaps then be disambiguation pages. Pygora123 05:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Thanks. --Edcolins 19:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the article. Feel free to edit boutique firm. --Edcolins 19:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup[edit]

Thanks for reverting my cleanup. I won't revert it again, but will try to improve this article, which still falls short of Wikipedia standards IMHO. Let's take:

"There can be some confusion because commentators can refer to any small-sized firm as a boutique" - Can we provide a source for that?
"... a few national IP firms ..." - US centric?
"... perhaps the most prestigious law firm in the United States ..." - Seems awfully biased to me?

--Edcolins (talk) 16:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The source (Tamar Lewin, Business and the Law: Smaller Firms are Vanishing, New York Times, March 9, 1987.) provided for supporting "Boutique law firms have been losing ground since the 1980s in the consolidation of the legal market" does not verify the statement. The source does not mention "boutique law firm", but just "small law firms", which as I understand is not the same, right? More than that, I cannot see why a 1987 source could support an assertion that since the 1980s (i.e. also throughout the 1990s and 2000s) boutique law firms would be loosing ground. Cheers, --Edcolins (talk) 16:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boutique law firm. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091014063427/http://www.abanet.org/lpm/magazine/articles/v35/is1/pg42.shtml to http://www.abanet.org/lpm/magazine/articles/v35/is1/pg42.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 17:42, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence on boutiques does not make sense--clarification needed[edit]

I capped "with exception" to show at what part it doesn't make sense.

If it's saying the word "boutique" should apply to any size of law firm including large ones, then how is it that a few large boutique law firms are EXCEPTIONS to this rule that encompasses them ??? Maybe the writer meant to use a different sense of word than "apply", like to instead start this sentence by saying:

Law firms should be KNOWN AS boutiques as long as they focus on particular areas...[rest of sentence unchanged].

"Boutique should apply to those firms that focus on particular areas, regardless of size, though they are typically smaller, WITH EXCEPTION to a few firms such as Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner or Fish & Richardson with over 400 attorneys.[1]"

I just don't know which it is because I don't have information about this topic. Someone pls clear this up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moon822 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]