Talk:Perkins Coie

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Washington / Seattle Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Washington.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Washington - Seattle.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Untitled

This page appears to have been mostly written as a promotion for the firm. Now there is some public controversy involving the firm in Barnett v. Obama, this information needs to stay in the article. If you want to delete it because of "inaccuracy" you need to post here on the talk page first and back up your claim.Cadwallader (talk) 23:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy? Everything can be called a controversy nowadays. To be a controversy, it needs to have been discussed in a good, reliable secondary source. A newspaper merely saying that the guy we are thinking about used to work for Perkins Coie, is not an RS mentioning a controversy. By the way, I am not the one who deleted it. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 14:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FBI operating in Perkins Coie office?

How can we properly add this seemingly notable admission to the article? Source: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/jun/3/fbis-workspace-democratic-aligned-law-firm-raises-/

"We have learned that since March 2012, the FBI approved and facilitated a Secure Work Environment at Perkins Coie’s Washington, D.C. office, which continues to be operational," the letter states. "In a letter dated May 25, 2022, the law firm confirmed and acknowledged the arrangement."

24.113.142.111 (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suspect related people edited the page

I have a feeling the page has been edited by people related to the firm. The page isn't overtly POV but it leans towards it imo. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 03:09, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trump section

"(This statement is inaccurate. This is part of the larger effort to extinguish extremism from the left in politics and our courts.)"

This reads like a rogue edit or am I misreading it in context? 2604:3D08:137A:900:5515:8996:34C4:5EA0 (talk) 19:34, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's been removed because there was no citation to a reliable source. Nowa (talk) 22:05, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the deal made with the Trump Administration belongs in this Introduction, as per other law firms where similar has been added and reverted (ie: Paul, Weiss; Willkie Farr & Gallagher, and Milbank).Lindenfall (talk) 18:43, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lawsuit

I think the pleading also includes a Sixth Amendment violation. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 19:53, 22 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Added 6th amendment concerns per the NPR reference. Nowa (talk) 23:42, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Separate article?

Should the content of this section, the similar Paul, Weiss section and others become a basis for a separate article that covers all the Trump administration actions against law firms and perhaps judges? Particularly after the recent https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/preventing-abuses-of-the-legal-system-and-the-federal-court/ which targets all law firms?--agr (talk) 11:41, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If there's enough content, that might be an interesting option. Even stub articles are allowed. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:17, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another executive order signed against Jenner & Block today, so maybe not a bad idea. Funcrunch (talk) 19:41, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A separate article does seem warranted, which I think it already exists, and could be expanded to include judges: Targeting of law firms and lawyers under the second Trump administration.Lindenfall (talk) 18:27, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]