Talk:Adam Leitman Bailey

COI tag (July 2021)

ticket:2021071910006988, ongoing UPE contributions. Cabayi (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC) Does the suspension belong on a Wikipedia page? (As in, this is not necessarily relevant to the general page). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Texasmom1965 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I can’t access the full article either. I just checked the one that’s cited, and I don’t see where he told someone to commit suicide. Chickensalad2022 (talk) 13:41, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

The section regarding the suspension should be removed from this page as per WP:G10 – this section constitutes an attack page. The inclusion of the suspension is disparaging as it is not reliably sourced, considering the cited article is from a subscription-only source, and therefore not accessible to the general public. Further, this section is not relevant nor properly weighed as it occurred over three years ago and accounts for only four months out of a 20+ year career.

Additionally, as per WP:BLPCOI, Wikipedia pages for living persons may not be used “for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities”. Seeing as this particular page has been the epicenter for an off-wiki dispute pertaining to the suspension, the section should be removed, and the matter handled off of Wikipedia.

Finally, the language in this section is biased, which explicitly violates WP:BLPBALANCE. The phrasing “undignified conduct” is slanted and goes against Wikipedia’s policy that “the overall presentation and section headings [should be] broadly neutral.” Therefore, the suspension section of this article is inappropriate for this page, and should be expeditiously removed. Texasmom1965 (talk) 16:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

The contents of what is cited on this Wikipedia page does not match the subscription-only portion of the text that can be viewed online; in fact it entirely contradicts it. This Wikipedia page asserts that Bailey was suspended for "telling a party suing Bailey's client that he 'should commit suicide'", and that Bailey was "threatening criminal charges to obtain an advantage in a civil matter." However, that exact language is nowhere to be found in the viewable section of the subscription-only website. Rather, the article states that Bailey was suspended for "accusations that he barged into an arbitration hearing and swore at a witness and that he threatened to refer a tenant for criminal prosecution over comments posted online." The suspension portion of this page is not properly cited, and should therefore be removed.

Finally, you don’t destroy a just under 30 year career with one lapse in judgement. Especially where the subject has argued many of the most important case of his generation, some of which involve the Ground Zero Mosque, a Former President of the United Stated, causing Congress to Change a Law, and not to mention a best-selling and award winning attorney and author.

NinearchesSLDUB (talk) 00:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

After reading the above comments, I share the same opinion that this suspension does not belong on a Wikipedia page. I agree with the comment "WP:G10 – this section constitutes an attack page. The inclusion of the suspension is disparaging as it is not reliably sourced, considering the cited article is from a subscription-only source, and therefore not accessible to the general public. Further, this section is not relevant nor properly weighed as it occurred over three years ago and accounts for only four months out of a 20+ year career. Additionally, as per WP:BLPCOI, Wikipedia pages for living persons may not be used “for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities”. Seeing as this particular page has been the epicenter for an off-wiki dispute pertaining to the suspension, the section should be removed, and the matter handled off of Wikipedia. Finally, the language in this section is biased, which explicitly violates WP:BLPBALANCE. The phrasing “undignified conduct” is slanted and goes against Wikipedia’s policy that “the overall presentation and section headings [should be] broadly neutral.” Therefore, the suspension section of this article is inappropriate for this page, and should be expeditiously removed."

I can see that the original commenter has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts and that another account was flagged for being a sock puppet, but I do agree with what the account commented. I think the suspension section of this page should be removed as it is not relevant to the general page and seems to be an attack page. It also is not properly cited, and the full article cannot be accessed. Lolipoplegomaster (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I am a resident of East Sussex, England, my sister is a barrister in London, England, therefore I am familiar with legal affairs. I agree with Lolipoplegomaster, and all of the other contributors who support the removal of the separate, bolded, enlarged section titled Suspension of Law License, right after Notable Cases, which includes the only civil attorney to defeat a former President of the United States in a civil court case called Trump Soho;  the successful defense as the lawyer of the Park 51; his successful battle to save the last historic buildings in Harlem, New York;  and his record setting litigation during the Financial Crisis of 2008 and an award winning author and attorney. Based on working on so many other Wikipedia cases, the suspension section does not belong on this page. First, looking at the history of the section, the subject of the alleged suspension was the sock puppet who created the section and has been banned. Second, the description of the alleged suspension is not accurate based on the article used as the source. The description in the article is completely different than the wording in the Suspension section. Third, the only source used by any of the sock puppets who have posted this section is an article that can only be read with a subscription, except for a few lines where I am not even sure what occurred. Based on my further research on google, this entire episode appears to be unclear, debated and a political hit job. Fourth, based on the conduct in April and May of 2019, which can be found in the talk history of this page, the person who is banned because the page was created by someone that openly swore to bankrupt and defame the subject, this Suspension from this page as per WP:G10 – as this section constitutes an attack page.  It is clearly written by someone who openly has a personal vendetta against Adam Leitman Bailey.  Per WP:BLPCOI, Wikipedia pages for living persons may not be used “for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities”.  The person who re wrote the entire Wikipedia page and this section received a discretionary sanctions alert and caused "past disruption in this topic area", causing this page to be a semi-protected page. Fifth, the phrasing “undignified conduct” is slanted and goes against Wikipedia’s policy that “the overall presentation and section headings [should be] broadly neutral.”  I do not know any of the parties involved, but it is a shame to include these numerous attacks in April and May of 2019 and this alleged event in this Wikipedia page based on the importance of his work and the lack of information and proper Wikipedia etiquette followed when attacking Adam Leitman Bailey. BellaRumi1982 (talk) 19:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Engoron “accosted” by Bailey in February

Edit ...

Engoron “accosted” by Bailey in February

"The judge described the “90-second incident” was a “nothingburger” from a “landlord-tenant lawyer ranting” and said that he did not base any part of his rulings on what Bailey said."

https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/25/politics/engoron-recusal-response-trump-civil-case/index.html 67.173.189.12 (talk) 15:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 July 2024

Include in the "Legal Practice and Notable Cases"

In February of 2024, Adam Leitman Bailey, accosted Justice Arthur Engoron outside the court house to give his unsolicited opinion on a pending case against Donald J. Trump, overwhich the Judge was presiding. During an interview, Bailey stated to NBC New York "I saw him in the corner [at the courthouse] and I told my client, 'I need to go.' And I walked over...I wanted him to know what I think and why…I really want him to get it right." Judge Engoron has described the encounter as a “landlord-tenant lawyer ranting," stating "I did not initiate, welcome, encourage, engage in, or learn from much less enjoy, Bailey’s tirade. I did not base any part of any of my rulings on it, as Bailey has outlandishly, mistakenly, and defamatorily claimed." 74.217.52.243 (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: WP:UNDUE and not related to his legal practice or notable cases. – macaddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 17:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

References