Talk:Davis Wright Tremaine

biography banner

I removed the biography banner. This article is about a law firm, and hardly qualifies as a biography.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 21:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Avery Index Reference Removed

I removed the references to the Avery Index because the reference that was added did not lead to any lists that actually showed the firm. I have included the original text here in case someone wants to re-add, but before doing so, they should probably consider linking to the individual lists to which this sentence is referring.

Davis Wright Tremaine ranked within the top 20 on various 2006 Avery Index lists including: #9 Most Family Friendly Firms, #7 Happiest Associates, #12 Most Dedicated to Pro Bono Work, and #12 Most Perfect Firm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chilepo (talk • contribs) 17:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

HAVA Racketeering Investigation (2002(?) - present)

Early/Mid/Late 2013 - present. An in-depth investigation of two WA DWT attorneys who worked with a now-disbarred WA attorney to engineer somewhere between a $1mil and $4bil racketeering (RICO). This is likely a record, and apparently occupied far more time and energy than anyone (outside this complex enterprise) imagined, based on the totality of evidence uncovered thus far. And that evidence is...growing.

The case is un-prosecutable in WA state and at the federal level, due to strong state and federal connections, including in the current and former intelligence community. Instead, the case is being pursed in "Colbert-esque, truthin' fashion" (with a disturbing hint of "House of Cards" -- Egad!)

Just as one (but not the only) example -- the current WA State Attorney General used to work for ... DWT. In addition, several of the gangstez in the case call DC their home. One 'sexy' associate in DC runs a 'brothel' of sorts -- and works with (her words) "influencers" (emphasis added). Mein Heirr! (Ya know..life IS a Cabaret to some) :-)

There are currently two public records projects going on regarding this, with the WA State SOS, and the WA Attorney General. In addition, in connection with the racketeering, the Seattle Times (also a DWT client) is involved with at least one case pointing to an embarrassing wire fraud. However, the main victim of the story has decided to not pursue charges at the moment, since the paper has no published ethical guidelines (unlike most others in the country). Although at least one article in the Times is a "slam dunk libel", BUT due to an incredible amount of verbal and legal somersaults by some very 'well-endowed' persons, no one managed to catch this absurdly large RICO enterprise. Top talent...indeed :-o

It is rumored that taxpayer money (source unclear) went to an "emergency escape elevator and rooftop personal protection missile battery" and a "HAVA - funded neocon island party home" hidden in the WA state HAVA vote reform fund allocation. "Demooooooooooocracy is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO overrated" -- why not celebrate a four billion dollar "victory" on the one-year anniversary Shrub signed that "game" into law? Ohhhhhhhhhh noooz! ("Federal crimes can be fun if you are creative (and immune)!")

The DWT entry in Wikipedia has none of the "dark side" (Ken Lay has been outdone) -- but that's gonna change (subject to ongoing Wiki review, of course). Would DWT "eat babies"? From the looks of it -- yes. Union-bustin', wage-killin', whistleblower-hatin' ... talent (a.k.a. DWT-Seattle)! They are likely to become world famous :-o

Finally (eyes-rolling) DWT is also a traitor to the US, they have a main office in Shanghai -- what exactly are they doing there? Which country do they work for?(Yes I know they probably don't pay significant US taxes, but...)

More to come on this "truly exciting" example from WA State -- and China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.187.174.70 (talk) 08:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Conflict of interest editing

A total and unencyclopedic rewrite of this article was done in March 2020 by User:69.8.217.36. 69.8.217.36 is an IP address owned by dwt.com. Employees and entities of Davis Wright Tremaine are required to abide by Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines (WP:COI) and must disclose their relationship with DWT if they are being paid for their contributions here (WP:PAID). gobonobo ^{+ c} 21:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• DWT logo color.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:40, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• DWT logo color.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest edit request

I'm a long-time Wikipedia editor who works at Davis Wright Tremaine, but my job does not include Wikipedia editing and I'm not being paid for this. The article is woefully out of date, incomplete, and non-neutral. I am not editing it directly because of my conflict of interest, but I'm requesting edits to the particularly problematic section "Malpractice suits". I've written a proposed improved version and am requesting that the existing section be replaced. I believe I have written it WP:NPOV, have added a WP:RS even though it reflects negatively on the firm and substantiates previously-unsupported material in the section, but have tried to remove unsupported and non-neutral aspects of the language. Here are some details:

• The heading is generally worded ("Malpractice suits"), but after reviewing, the sources only discuss one lawsuit. I'm not opposed to the generally worded heading if there are reliable sources supporting other cases, but until then I propose heading the section in reference to the one suit that is its actual topic.
• The first sentence is "Davis Wright Tremaine has been the subject of numerous malpractice lawsuits." There's no suggestion in the existing cited source or the additional source I have added, and I'm not personally aware of any indication, that DWT has faced more malpractice lawsuits than would be ordinary for a large law firm. There's no indication of what "numerous" means and no discussion in the sources regarding any other malpractice suits against DWT. Thus, the "numerous" aspect of the statement is completely unsupported. Further, unless there are reliable sources that DWT is subject to abnormally high levels of malpractice claims, including such a statement is not encyclopedic--it merely states an ordinary aspect of large law firm business. It might as well say "Davis Wright Tremaine owns numerous desks."
• The last sentence asserts that this was "the largest malpractice award in the history of the State of Oregon." Nothing like that statement is supported in the one cited reference (which was published prior to the settlement). The second reference I'm adding supports the similar but more qualified language I'm proposing. My version would also recognize that the statement is only supported as of the date of the cited source, and also reflects that the amount was agreed to in settlement, and is not an "award", a term that usually refers to a tribunal's determination, not parties' agreement. This is also consistent with the wording of the cited source.

Thanks, and I'm happy to discuss any concerns with the requested edit. W.stanovsky (talk) 18:54, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Existing

(as of 17 June 2022):

Malpractice suits

Davis Wright Tremaine has been the subject of numerous malpractice lawsuits. Of particular note was a suit alleging that they played a key role in assisting retirement home operator Sunwest Management Inc. in its running of a $400 million Ponzi scheme. The lawsuit, which was filed by a group of Sunwest investors, alleged that Davis Wright Tremaine encouraged individuals and businesses to invest in Sunwest, even though they were aware of the company's financial troubles. The suit was resolved before trial, when Davis Wright Tremaine agreed to pay a $30 million settlement to the plaintiffs, the largest malpractice award in the history of the State of Oregon.

Proposed

2009 Sunwest malpractice suit

In 2009, investors in retirement home operator Sunwest Management Inc. sued Davis Wright Tremaine, alleging that it played a key role in assisting in its running of a $400 million Ponzi scheme. The lawsuit alleged that Davis Wright Tremaine encouraged individuals and businesses to invest in Sunwest, even though they were aware of the company's financial troubles. Davis Wright Tremaine's involvement in the suit was resolved before trial, when the firm agreed to pay a $30 million settlement to the plaintiffs, one of the largest malpractice settlements by a law firm accused of securities wrongdoing in Oregon history. As of Davis Wright Tremaine's settlement, investor claims remained against Sunwest law firms K&L Gates and Thompson & Knight (now part of Holland & Knight).

These changes have been made and the edit request tag has been closed. I agree that section was out of date and the edit request contained what appears to be NPOV language. Interested editors are encouraged to review and make any additional changes that may be better. The citation needed tag is of particular interest and it is recommended that it be replaced by a verifiable citation. Go4thProsper (talk) 02:10, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

References