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

Illinois Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Chicago Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Law 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Companies This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Companies To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes Maintain : Portal:Companies Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs Other : Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner Answer requests for comments

Hi again – COI editor for Sidley Austin here with some new requests, primarily focused on building out the History section of the article. Happy to share PDFs of any paywalled/offline sources via email on request.

• In the infobox, update revenue to "3.4 billion USD (2024)^[1]"
• In the first sentence, update

in 21 offices worldwide.

to

in 21 offices across the world, including North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia.

Per the source cited in the infobox and Sidley's site. (I know sources aren't needed in the lead, but just in case.) Cf. DLA Piper, Gibson Dunn, Ropes & Gray, and Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, which structure their opening sentences similarly.

• In "1866–1900s: Origins in Chicago", add before "William Pratt Sidley,"

In 1876, the firm organized the Western Electric Company and Illinois Bell, and the Bell System became a longtime client.^[2] Mary Todd Lincoln was another early client,^[3] seeking counsel following her husband Abraham Lincoln's death.^[4]

• In "1900s: Expansion and consolidation", update

In 1972, the firm merged with the 50 lawyers of Chicago firm Leibman, Williams, Bennett, Baird & Minow. Additional offices were then established in London, Los Angeles, Singapore and New York.

to

In 1972, Sidley & Austin, with 100 lawyers, merged with the 50 lawyers of Chicago firm Leibman, Williams, Bennett, Baird & Minow.^[5] Additional offices were then established in London in 1974 and in Singapore and New York in 1982.^[6]

Adding citations and revising to match.

• In "1900s: Expansion and consolidation", update

Following the merger, Washington D.C. partner Day resigned and later sued the firm, In a 1974 lawsuit, Day alleged that the merger represented a "breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, fraud and misrepresentation, conspiracy, wrongful dissolution or ouster of co-partner and breach of partnership agreement." The suit was later dismissed with prejudice.^[7]

to

Day, a chair of the firm's Washington, D.C., office prior to the merger, sued Sidley & Austin in response to the relocation of the merged firm's Washington office and being asked to share chairmanship of the office, although Day had approved and signed the merger agreement and amended partner agreement. A U.S. District Court judge dismissed the suit, and all appeals were denied.^[8] The case is sometimes cited in discussions of partnership law.^[9][10]

Per my previous discussion with Rusalkii (who opted not to continue with this item), I think most of this content is likely WP:UNDUE as a significant part of the firm's history, but I took a shot at drafting updated copy if the consensus is that it should remain.

• In "1900s: Expansion and consolidation", add before "In 1985,":

In 1975, Charles E. Lomax joined the firm, later becoming its first black partner. His clients included Don King and Muhammad Ali,^[11] for whom the firm arranged fights.^[2] In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Sidley & Austin represented AT&T in the time leading up to and during United States v. AT&T.^[12]

• In "1900s: Expansion and consolidation", update

In 1985, U.S. Solicitor General Rex E. Lee founded Sidley Austin's Appellate Practice Group to represent clients in all appellate courts, including the United States Supreme Court, the federal courts of appeals, and state appellate and supreme courts. Following Lee's death, the group was led by Carter Phillips, who has argued more cases before the Supreme Court than any lawyer in private practice.^[13]

to

In 1985, Sidley & Austin became the first law firm to establish a standalone appellate practice for U.S. Supreme Court cases,^[14] recruiting Benjamin W. Heineman Jr. to lead it, as well as former U.S. Solicitor General Rex E. Lee.^[15] By 2012, the firm had argued 106 Supreme Court cases and was involved in approximately 40% of the cases the Court heard each year. The head of Sidley's D.C. office, Carter Phillips,^[14] had argued 76 cases before the Supreme Court by June 2012, more than any other active lawyer.^[16]

Adding independent sources and updating to reflect the sources.

• In "1900s: Expansion and consolidation", add to end of section:

Michelle Obama (formerly Robinson) met her future husband and future President Barack Obama in 1989 while both worked at Sidley, when Michelle was in her first year as an associate and Barack was a summer associate.^[17] In 1995, a group of women lawyers at Sidley co-founded the firm's Women in Leadership program.^[18]

• In "2000s", add before "In 2007,":

In 2002, Sidley was among the first law firms to establish a practice dedicated to international trade law.^[19] The firm signed on as the anchor tenant for One South Dearborn in Chicago in 2003.^[20]

Thank you for your help! Mary Gaulke (talk) 05:30, 20 July 2025 (UTC); adding edit COI template Mary Gaulke (talk) 02:29, 21 July 2025 (UTC); added one item for lead Mary Gaulke (talk) 00:02, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done Encoded  Talk 💬 06:58, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! As noted above, I'm a COI editor here with some new requests, covering the last few sections of the article. Again, happy to share PDFs of any paywalled/offline sources via email on request.

• Update

Other honors include the American Bar Association's 2019 Champions for Disability Inclusion in the Legal Profession Award.^[1] and being named a 2019 "Litigation Department of the Year" finalist by The American Lawyer.^[2]

to

In 2024, The American Lawyer named the firm as a finalist for "Corporate Practice of the Year".^[3]

• After "Its appellate and US Supreme Court practice has been featured in USA Today, BusinessWeek, the American Lawyer, the Legal Times, and the National Law Journal.", add:

The National Law Journal named the firm's appellate and Supreme Court practice to its 2024 "Appellate Hot List",^[4] its 17th consecutive appearance on the list.^[5]

• Update

In 2020, Sidley was named "Firm of the Year" in Capital Markets (Overseas); Corporate Compliance; Healthcare, Pharma and Life Sciences; and Real Estate and REIT by China Business Law Journal.^[6] In 2018, Sidley was named Competition & Regulatory Team of the Year at The Lawyer Awards in London.^[7]

to

In 2024, Sidley won "International Law Firm of the Year" at the British Legal Awards, organized by ALM;^[8] was named a "Firm of the Year" in six categories at the China Business Law Awards;^[9] and won "Best Pro Bono Initiative" at The Lawyer European Awards.^[10]

Add to list where alphabetically appropriate:

• David Barlow, United States district judge of the United States District Court for the District of Utah^[11]
• Benjamin Beaton, U.S. district judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky^[12]
• Jay Bybee, senior U.S. circuit judge of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit^[13]
• Edmond Chang, U.S. district judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois^[14]
• Brian Fahrney, Chair of the Executive Committee as of May 2025^[15]
• Joan Larsen, U.S. circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit^[16]
• Patrick Morrisey, governor of West Virginia^[17]
• Ryan D. Nelson, U.S. circuit judge of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit^[18]
• Yvette Ostolaza, Chair of the Management Committee as of May 2022^[19]
• Rebecca Slaughter, commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission^[20]

I welcome any feedback or questions. Thank you for your help! Mary Gaulke (talk) 19:45, 14 September 2025 (UTC); edit COI template added Mary Gaulke (talk) 01:49, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Declined to update the list of alumni. Lists like this violate WP:RELEVANCE, as no connection is shown between their time at the firm and their achievements. It also violates WP:LISTS, as there are no stated criteria for inclusion in the list, other than "people who make the firm look good." The existing list shows former President Obama as a "summer associate." That is strange, because most people think of an associate as a licensed attorney who can represent clients. It seems more likely that Obama was a summer intern who was still in law school. Perhaps some explanation is in order.

I did add an independent reference to a former associate which questioned his legal acumen. Julian in LA (talk) 02:10, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Julian in LA: Thanks for your response, and I'm going to look into sources to see if I can clarify your question on President Obama. I'm also hoping you can help clarify for me – it seems odd to me that the content on Mike Lee's recent activity would be germane to this article, given that Lee hasn't worked for Sidley Austin in more than 20 years. Lee's own article doesn't mention this at all, and wouldn't this content be most relevant there? I'm also not seeing verification for Just as dead men tell no tales, they suffer no loss of earnings when their memories are besmirched, and they feel no sense of humiliation. in the cited source. Mary Gaulke (talk) 20:55, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly, the part in green is my own paraphrase. A more boring statement is offered by Minc Law. Would you prefer that?

Under common law and according to the definition of this defamation, deceased individuals cannot be defamed. Defamation is defined as an act or statement that damages one’s reputation. The dead do not have reputations to damage. The memory of a deceased person can be damaged, but this is not addressed under the tort of defamation.

https://www.minclaw.com/legal-resource-center/what-is-defamation/can-dead-people-defamed/

After I wrote the comment on President Obama, I remembered the phrase "summer law clerk." Perhaps that's what he was. One source said that Obama did something really significant during his clerkship: he met and married Michele.

Regarding Mike Lee's service of 20 years ago, I said in my earlier post that the entire alumni list violates Wikipedia's relevance standards, but I chose not to remove it for now. Many professional firms have these lists, so if it is to be retained, it should include both good and bad comments about these people. If a former associate goes into politics and faces public criticism, that is not notable to the firm, but Mike Lee was criticized specifically for his legal knowledge. I was careful to refer to the two bloggers rather than stating the "moron" description as accepted fact. I think the whole episode is both funny and interesting. Even practicing lawyers grow accustomed to having these things said about them.

I thought for a moment about whether I should look for a list of disbarred lawyers and see if anyone among Richard Nixon, John Dean, Michael Avenatti, Rudy Giuliani, etc. ever worked for this firm. That is a project for another day. Julian in LA (talk) 23:15, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Julian in LA: Hi! First up – looked for more sources on President Obama's time at Sidley. Everything I found used the phrase "summer associate" (a few examples), but context indicates this was a temporary role similar to an internship. Hope this helps clear it up. This article does note that Barack and Michelle met at Sidley near the end of "1900s: Expansion and consolidation".

Part of what surprises me about the paragraph on Lee is that several sentences on one alumnus while others are listed with only their titles seems WP:UNDUE, especially when the sources on Lee aren't exactly massive publications (Lee's official bio, a local news article that first mentions Lee in its seventh paragraph, and Raw Story, which was found generally unreliable in a 2021 RfC recommending it be cited only with in-text attribution). And surely a compilation of any accomplishments or foibles related to the law of any alumnus of the company would be lengthy beyond the point of relevance. Mary Gaulke (talk) 04:59, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Raw Story should be cited only with in-text attribution. I said "an article", but I could change it to "by the publication Raw Story", but that might make it worse. The citation to Lee's bio is to support the dates that he worked for the firm. The citation to Deseret News is to confirm that he really posted the statement. The only thing Raw Story did was to republish two bloggers who said that Lee's statement contradicts a basic part of defamation law, and added the word "moron."

Many other people from the list could be given interesting descriptions. I have added Newton Minow, who is famous for his "vast wasteland" speech. For Vice President Vance, there is no need to repeat the many things that have been said about him, but the connection between his time at Sidley, his appointment as a business executive and his run for Senate in a very short career might deserve a description. Julian in LA (talk) 01:51, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Julian in LA: I understand how the citations are used, but I don't think this response addresses my concerns about due weight or why this amount of media coverage (which doesn't make any connection between recent events and Sidley) warrants a paragraph of text in this article. Citing Raw Story, which is generally not considered a reliable source, just to indirectly cite WP:BLOGS, which are not reliable sources, doesn't make sense to me, especially without in-text attribution. (I do not understand what you mean when you say that in-text attribution "might make it worse".) What makes the Raw Story article relevant and important to cite here? And how is it not WP:OR to connect recent criticism of Lee to his work at Sidley 20+ years ago when the sources don't make that connection themselves?

On the Newton Minow paragraph – again, I fail to see why this amount of detail is relevant to this article, especially without any citations making the connection between the speech and Sidley. I could understand incorporating Minow into the existing alumni list; I don't understand why he warrants a standalone paragraph. Mary Gaulke (talk) 04:22, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Wikipedia policy that imposes one rule on a list of names and titles and another on a series of descriptions. The only thing to be done at this point is to remove the entire alumni section as a violation of WP:RELEVANCE. You could also say that listing a dozen out of the thousands of people who have passed through Sidley's doors violates WP:UNDUE. Julian in LA (talk) 03:07, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Julian in LA: I do think having no list of alumni makes more sense than the current approach of giving some alumni full paragraphs and others brief mentions. However, I don't understand how the existence of this list violates WP:RELEVANCE, given that the information directly pertains to this firm. To gut check myself, I took a look at how this is generally covered on Wikipedia, based on the articles of the firms in List of largest law firms by revenue. Of the top 10 on that list, 8 articles (Kirkland & Ellis; Latham & Watkins; DLA Piper; Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom; Gibson Dunn; Ropes & Gray; White & Case; and Sidley itself) have bulleted lists of alumni in this style; two (A&O Shearman and Baker McKenzie) do not. However, no other article's list includes multiple sentences of content on activity by those alumni before or after their time at the firm. Mary Gaulke (talk) 23:32, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This issue was previously discussed in connection with another Biglaw firm. I have sent a followup question to the third-party reviewer who had commented on it. Talk:Holland & Knight#Notable alumni on law firm pages Julian in LA (talk) 17:25, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you raising this to the reviewer there! Hopefully that will help clarify. From what I've seen lists of alumni like this are unusual in company articles generally but common in law firm articles, but I haven't found any explanation why. Mary Gaulke (talk) 01:52, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sam Sailor: Just giving you a ping here in case you'd like to weigh in on the question of alumni lists in law firm articles – whether these are relevant to include, and if so, how much information is generally due to include on individual alumni (i.e., if the first two paragraphs of the current alumni section in this article are fully relevant/due). Appreciate your time! Mary Gaulke (talk) 03:32, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Julian in LA: If Sam Sailor opts not to weigh in, would you be alright with me taking this to WP:3O or opening an RfC on the topic of alumni sections in law firm articles? Mary Gaulke (talk) 02:39, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No objection at all. Keep in mind that the issue affects the Lazard investment bank and other professional firms, not just law firms. Julian in LA (talk) 02:54, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a similar discussion, for an investment bank. Talk:Lazard#What lists should be on corporate pages? Julian in LA (talk) 17:35, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Lee's biographical page includes the following. Duplicating the Daily Beast story as part of that paragraph is a fascinating idea.

Lee is a prolific user of X, posting an average of 36 times daily in 2024

Julian in LA (talk) 23:20, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I gave it some more thought and decided that my paraphrase is unnecessary. I will remove it. Julian in LA (talk) 23:38, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just as background, other Biglaw firms have criticism in their articles. The Holland & Knight article describes their lobbying on behalf of payday lenders, one of the founders' support for segregation and their abandonment of DEI under pressure from the current administration. It also has interesting descriptions of some of their other cases that are of interest to the public. Julian in LA (talk) 02:57, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also decline to update the list of awards. An award, to be reliable, must come from a reliable source with established criteria. All of the awards listed here come from legal publications with no criteria indicated. The assumption is that the real purpose of the award is to draw attention to the publication that issues it. A search on "Litigation Department of the Year Finalist", for example, reveals mentions on dozens of in-house websites, but no mention in an independent, authoritative source. The description on Law.com reads like a sales brochure, not independent reporting. Julian in LA (talk) 02:40, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per discussion above, I'm about to open a WP:3O request for the conversation above about notable associates/alumni sections in articles about professional services firms. To summarize the dispute: Julian in LA contends that notable associates/alumni lists in articles about law firms and other professional services companies violate WP:RELEVANCE. I feel that a short list of notable alumni is appropriate, assuming RS citations are provided for each individual connecting them to the firm, given the precedent of similar sections in the majority of major law firm articles. (Please note I have a COI: Sidley is a client of mine.)

If the consensus is that the associates/alumni section in this article should be retained, I'd also appreciate a third opinion on whether the first two paragraphs of the current section in this article are WP:DUE. Julian in LA contends that this information is relevant because it is related to the legal knowledge of the named individuals. I believe it is WP:OR to make that connection when the cited sources do not, given that the main focus of the paragraphs are events that occurred before or after the individuals worked at the company.

Julian in LA, please chime in if I missed any nuance on your positions. And thank you to any other editors weighing in! Mary Gaulke (talk) 01:40, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That fairly states the issue. Julian in LA (talk) 17:09, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Response to third opinion request:

I don't think that these lists are a violation of WP:RELEVANCE, insofar as we accept this essay as a guideline (which is most certainly is not). I think under the classification of WP:RELEVANCE, the information about associates/alumni of a law firm would be "relevance level high", since they it is information about the law-firm that is directly about the topic of the article. A notable person being a member of the law firm is direct information about said law firm, it is "objective information directly about the topic of the article". In a broader scope, including notable people that went to a particular school is very common for educational institutions (to the point where University of Michigan#Notable people has an entire section about it). From my understand Julian in LA's argument is that for these alumni to be relevant, their notability must be in some aspect related to Sidley Austin (like perhaps they were notable because they were involved in an important court case on behalf of the law firm) ["connection is shown between their time at the firm and their achievements"]. I don't think that this requirement is put forth by WP:RELEVANCE. The relevant policy guidelines as I see it are WP:INDISCRIMINATE and its interpretation in MOS:TRIVIA, WP:LISTBIO, and WP:LSC. I have a hard time seeing a meaningful distinction between the lists on school/university articles and the lists on law firm articles, and it is an established Wikipedia consensus that these lists are acceptable on school articles. The connection between time at an educational institution and achievements is often just as tenuous or nonexistent as the connection between the time at a law firm and subsequent achievements. I don't have time right now to comment on the two paragraphs question, but I will try to come back later. Katzrockso (talk) 20:13, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest one difference between university articles and those for professional firms: Graduates of a university presumably spent four of their formative years entirely within a college community and were supposedly prepared for later success.

Professional firms are different. Of the people on Sidley's list, Barack Obama was there as a summer intern. Michelle Obama is famous for who she met and married while she was there. Mike Lee was an employee for three years, but his political activism outside of the office is probably what got him to the U.S. Senate. Newton Minow became famous as an FCC commissioner before he went to Sidley; his tenure there was basically to cash in on his previous service by lobbying his former agency. Julian in LA (talk) 21:59, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there are of course differences between university articles and professional firms. Whether or not those differences constitute a meaningful distinction that bears on whether the lists should be included in law articles is another question.

There are several 'issues' with college lists, per se. Students that transfer from one school to another are counted as alumni of whatever educational institution they ended up graduating from, not whatever institution they initially matriculated at. It is becoming increasingly common for students to attend 2-year community college and then transfer to a 4-year university to complete their degree. Note: I don't see any of these aspects of the collegiate lists to be a 'problem', I'm merely highlighting how the connection between alumni and the institution they graduated from is often quite tenuous or less than it seems to be.

You point to issues with the Sidley list - I am sure there are some. I don't think the resolution to the issues with this list are to remove lists of alumni from law institutions, but rather to establish clear standards for inclusion in the list by reference to WP:SOURCELIST and specifically WP:LISTCRIT. We already have .

When it comes to the specific examples proposed by MaryGaulke I have no particular opinion besides that editors of this article should come to a consensus about what the criterion for inclusion should be. Perhaps length of time, prominence at the firm, frequency of reference to background at the firm in the coverage about an individual could be relevant factors for inclusion. So in that aspect, I completely agree with your second paragraph that perhaps individuals who do not have as strong a relationship with the law firm should be excluded from the list. But that's a matter of establishing the specific criterion for inclusion.

When it comes to the Newton Minow and Mike Lee parts, I think there are several aspects here. Why is the background information about these two specific alumni WP:DUE in the article? If these events described are commonly referred to in coverage of Sidley Austin that would be one thing. But as far as I can tell, many of the facts (particularly in the Mike Lee paragraph) are WP:RELEVANCE "low" or "very low". From the perspective of a reader (as someone who knows nothing about Sidley Austin, the events in question, Newton Minow and only vaguely knows Mike Lee), separating out these two notable alumni from the rest makes it seem as though their actions are more significant in relation to the firm than others. However, from what I can tell from the sources, that is not the case. I agree with Mary that these two paragraphs are WP:UNDUE; when lists of people are included in articles (whether that be educational articles, law firm articles, geographic place articles), they are almost universally listed with their name and current occupation. Further information about their activities is typically only included insofar as their actions relate specifically to the topic of the article. For example, if someone from Junction City, Oregon were to move somewhere else start a successful business and donate $10 million dollars to Junction City because it was their hometown, it might be WP:DUE to include that information in prose in a notable people section because their business activities subsequently led to something pertinent to the article's topic (i.e. the city itself). Katzrockso (talk) 00:21, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those two people are described because I happen to know about them and I was motivated to write it. Descriptions of other people could be added. Julian in LA (talk) 00:28, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is the consensus now that MaryGaulke can make the change she requested? Julian in LA (talk) 00:33, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware that I was supposed to opine on any of the changes requested. I was trying to more narrowly focusing on the two issues I saw in the discussion (and that Mary pointed out): whether or not lists of alumni are warranted on law firm articles (in particular to this article specifically), and if they are, whether the two paragraphs about the alumni that are more detailed than the rest are WP:DUE. Whether or not the specific list of alumni that Mary wanted to add is appropriate is a separate question - though I will say that I think that adding all of those would make the list too lengthy. I do think that it would be appropriate to come up with WP:LISTCRIT to ensure that alumni with only tangential relevance to the law firm aren't listed, but as I do not have any particular knowledge of this firm I don't know if I can opine on what those criteria should be. As for the other changes requested, I saw no discussion so I don't think a 3O is necessary for those. Katzrockso (talk) 00:43, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is a reasonable reason for you adding them into the article, but that doesn't make facts only tangentially relevant to Sidley Austin WP:DUE in the article. For instance, since Barack Obama is listed in the article, would it be reasonable to start listing out the long list of actions he took as president? I don't think it would be WP:DUE to list out that he oversaw a covert drone program that killed civilians or that he signed the Affordable Care Act that allowed for Medicaid expansion, or whatever achievements any particular editor wants to list. My point is that this extra information about alumni is not relevant to the article and not DUE.

See also WP:TOPIC for a guideline on this question Katzrockso (talk) 00:48, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to drag this on forever, but the entry for Newton Minow has a wikilink to a surprisingly long article on his famous speech. An entry for Obama would just have a link to Presidency of Barack Obama.

The real bottom line, if I understand it: Mary can remove the two squib descriptions. I, or someone else, must review the proposed entries to the alumni list and approve them. Right? Julian in LA (talk) 03:10, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of Mary's proposed additions, most are judges or executive branch officials. Two, however, are promotions to management positions within Sidley. The source doesn't say what power they actually have or what they will do in their new positions. Is that appropriate? Julian in LA (talk) 03:17, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the proper approach from here would be to start a discussion on what type of alumni should be listed in this section. If editors of this article decide that length of service at Sidley Austin should be a deciding criterion for inclusion in the list, for example, then David Barlow (judge) seems to be a good addition to the list, given that he worked there from 2000-2010 and again from 2014-2017, while Michele Obama might be a poor addition given she spent 3 years there. My point is that some sort of WP:LISTCRIT needs to be established, otherwise there isn't a rational standard for inclusion/exclusion of any particular individual from the list. Katzrockso (talk) 03:45, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that institutional articles like this one don't attract a lot of editors, so there can't be a consensus. I am involved only because this appeared on the list of COI edits awaiting review.

Another possibility is to change the section to "Members in high government positions" and show two subcategories: revolving door appointments to the executive branch, and judgeships. Julian in LA (talk) 18:12, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to collaborate with you on defined criteria! Please give me a few days and I'll circle back here with thoughts.

In the meantime, could we please update the first two paragraphs of the current alumni section to bullet points to match the other items?

Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 21:13, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Squib descriptions removed as requested by Mary Gaulke. Julian in LA (talk) 02:59, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some criteria that I think might be a good starting point would be some sort of way to determine passing connection to the law firm vs substantive and meaningful connections. @Julian in LA touched on this earlier with the comments on Barack Obama, Mike Lee and Newton Minow. I think that we might want to consider perhaps two ways "into" the list - significant tenancy at the company (e.g. some of the judges you listed) and WP:SIGCOV of the connection (i.e. there are entire articles written on Michelle Obama's time at Sidley Austin). Katzrockso (talk) 23:33, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that all these people will have bio pages that show their connection with Sidley. If some of them did notable things while they were on Sidley's payroll, it should have a separate section, not just an entry on the alumni list.

I took a peek just now at the proposed entry for Judge Barlow. The reference is to a Salt Lake City newspaper which says that he had been US attorney for Utah, general counsel to Senator Lee and a member of a different Biglaw firm, Dorsey & Whitney. The very last sentence says that he had been with Sidley when he was appointed US Attorney by President Obama. Does that get him on the list? Julian in LA (talk) 00:06, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not proposing that it is a necessary condition that any person on the list should have their achievements/later career explicitly connected to their time at Sidley Austin, but that is definitely sufficient. I was proposing another possible sufficient condition: a notable person who has spent a lengthy amount of time at Sidley Austin (i.e. maybe more than 10 years or some other number).

Part of WP:LISTCRIT states "Would I expect to see this person or thing on a list of X?" and I think that I would expect to see notable alumni who spent significant amounts of time at the firm would be in such a list, particularly those who went onto positions of powers like legal appointments. So yes, I think he might warrant inclusion on the list given his long tenure at the firm.

Joseph Dinneen Kearney is an an example of someone who I don't think has quite the relationship to Sidley Austin that warrants inclusion in the list. He spent 'only' 6 years at the firm and there was no WP:SIGCOV of his background at Sidley Austin. In contrast, Peter Roskam had an entire news article written when he joined the firm [1].

These are the sort of criteria that I was thinking about:

Someone may be included in the list if:

• they spent 10+ years at the firm
• their time at the firm/decision to leave/retirement received WP:SIGCOV in an independent, reliable secondary source (not just a passing mention or factoid in a biography).

I'm sure these could be tinkered, but they seem like a good starting point to create a list that isn't bloated, but includes relevant notable alumni. Katzrockso (talk) 00:50, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out the reference to Rep. Roskam, entitled "Roskam joins Sidley law firm to lobby, consult." I would just love, love to have a section on revolving-door entries to Sidley by people who planned to lobby their former employer. Newton Minow would also be mentioned. This would be more than a list, as the time period and former agency should be explained for each person.

On the other hand, did Roskam have "significant coverage"? The referenced article was probably based on a press release from Sidley. OpenSecrets has a list of the companies he lobbied for. I could do a search on Newspapers.com, but I don't have much hope that it would show anything else about what he did at Sidley. Julian in LA (talk) 02:24, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there is enough substantive independent significant coverage in the article that extends beyond mere quotes. I think the fact that the news media takes note of someone joining/leaving/retiring from a firm is noteworthy enough to warrant inclusion in the list, irrespective of the extent of the coverage.

If you can support your section about revolving-door entries with reliable sources, go ahead. I have no objection to criticism of this law-firm (that again I know nothing about beyond the few articles I have read during this discussion) being included in the article. Katzrockso (talk) 03:44, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not comfortable with an arbitrary 10-year requirement. I think we can let the editors of reliable sources decide whether a person has been there long enough. Based on your last comments, here is a list criterion that we can use for professional firms:

WP:SIGCOV of the person's arrival or departure from the organization (Sidley), in a reliable source with a general readership (not just administrators of Biglaw firms).

Julian in LA (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was a two-pronged test for inclusion - satisfying either the 10-years at the firm or the criteria you just listed would warrant inclusion. Katzrockso (talk) 01:11, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a guy on the current list. He did 10 years at a firm that is a predecessor of Sidley. I don't think he should be included unless his firm was mentioned in news coverage of his nomination.

Marrero, Victor

Chairman, City Planning Commission, New York City, 1976-1977

Commissioner and vice chairman, New York State Housing Finance Agency, 1978-1979

Undersecretary of housing and urban development, 1979-1981

Private practice, New York City, 1981-1993

Nominated [to the bench] by William J. Clinton on May 27, 1999, to a seat vacated by Sonia Sotomayor.

https://www.fjc.gov/node/1391016

He began his career in law in 1982 as a partner of Tufo & Zuccotti, which later merged with Brown & Wood in 1985. It was then that he incidentally met his wife, Veronica White, now with Bloomberg L.P., who worked from 1985 through 1987 as a lawyer at Sidley & Austin and then Brown & Wood before the two firms merged in 2001.

https://www.sidley.com/en/us/sidley-pages/conversations/a-conversation-with-alumnus-victor-marrero/ Julian in LA (talk) 17:41, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another concern: Many of these people, including Victor Marrero, never worked for any firm called Sidley. They worked for other firms that merged with Sidley after the person left. These people should be on the alumni list in the article for the firm they worked for, not this one Julian in LA (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that, they should not be included on this list. Katzrockso (talk) 03:30, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for delayed follow up! Based on the above, I propose these criteria:

• Someone notable (as indicated by the existence of their own Wikipedia article) who
• spent >4–5 years total at the firm (and not a firm later merged with Sidley), OR
• their time at the firm/decision to leave/retirement received WP:SIGCOV in an independent, reliable secondary source (not just a passing mention or factoid in a biography).

From what I understand about this industry, 10 years may be an unhelpfully high benchmark. Per the criteria above, this would be the updated list:

• David Barlow, United States district judge of the United States District Court for the District of Utah^[1][2]
• Benjamin Beaton, U.S. district judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky^[3]
• James M. Cole, partner; former deputy attorney general of the United States and author of the Cole Memorandum^[4][5]
• J. Edward Day, former postmaster general of the United States^[6]
• George Deukmejian, former governor of California^[7][8]
• Joseph D. Kearney, dean of Marquette University Law School^[9]
• Rex E. Lee, former solicitor general of the United States and the 10th president of Brigham Young University^[10]
• Newton N. Minow, chair of the Federal Communications Commission during the Kennedy administration^[11]
• Ryan D. Nelson, U.S. circuit judge of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit^[12]
• Barack Obama, former president of the United States (summer associate in the firm's Chicago office)^[13]
• Michelle Obama, former first lady of the United States^[13]
• Peter Roskam, partner; former U.S. representative for Illinois's 6th congressional district^[14]

• Andy Strenio, former member of the Federal Trade Commission^[15]

• David S. Tatel, United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit^[16]
• JD Vance, United States senator from Ohio and vice president of the United States^[17]
• John D. Zeglis, former chief executive officer of AT&T Wireless^[18]

This adds David Barlow and Benjamin Beaton. It cuts Mike Lee, who appears to have spent only 3 years at Sidley; Chris Lu, who's around the cutoff at 5 years; and Victor Marrero, who primarily worked at a firm merged into Sidley. I also added refs for Joseph Kearney and Peter Roskam. @Katzrockso and Julian in LA: Would love your thoughts on this when you have a moment! Thanks as always. Mary Gaulke (talk) 03:59, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have a preliminary comment. I don't think it's necessary to say "former" for everybody. There is an assumption that a person on the alumni list will be shown with the highest office they attained. We don't say "the late" for people who have died, and nobody in the presidential debates ever said "former Secretary Clinton" or "former President Trump." Julian in LA (talk) 04:19, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this list is still a bit too long and I'd prefer a longer length requirement for inclusion if based on just length of service. If we were to exhaustively check all the alumni that had spent 4-5 years there, I suspect we would find more yet. One reason we want to have a longer requirement is that associates often spend 5-6 years at big law firm, while not having a truly significant or meaningful connection to the firm. A partner spends a longer time, which is the type of connection we should be selecting for. I'll have to do some more research into the particular numbers, because it looks like it has also changed over time.

But otherwise this sounds good to me. Katzrockso (talk) 08:35, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this list is OK as is. The purpose of COI review isn't to replace one editor's opinion with that of another. It is to prevent articles from turning into sales brochures. This list fairly reflects the reach and influence of Sidley. If a particular reader thinks it's long, they can move on to the next section. Becoming a partner is very important for the firm and the individual, but I doubt it meant much to the people who nominated them to judgeships and Executive Branch offices. Julian in LA (talk) 18:27, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This has moved beyond mere "COI review" and into a discussion of inclusion/exclusion criteria for the list of alumni on the page, which will naturally involve the opinions of editors on this talk page. Katzrockso (talk) 23:29, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have consensus on this list? Julian in LA (talk) 00:46, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have consensus that the proposed names are an appropriate alumni list. This request has already been marked as answered. Is there anything else I need to do? Julian in LA (talk) 19:34, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree we have a consensus nonwithstanding my dissenting opinion; I forgot to reply. Katzrockso (talk) 21:12, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both! Do I have your go-ahead to update the list in the article per the above? Julian in LA, per your comment, I can remove "former" from the applicable items. Mary Gaulke (talk) 03:01, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@MaryGaulke go ahead and make the edit, so long as "former" is removed. Katzrockso (talk) 03:58, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly! This is now done. Mary Gaulke (talk) 04:44, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]