Talk:Corporate lawyer

This article was nominated for deletion on 9 January 2008. The result of the discussion was merge.

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

Business Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles 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.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Law Low‑importance 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 articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The problem with the suggested merge is that there is no coherent way to merge this with Lawyer. The Lawyer article is a broad, carefully balanced overview (for which I went to great lengths to pull a mix of sources carefully balanced to provide a worldwide view) while this article is directed towards a subset of the profession that exists only in a few First World countries, particularly the United Kingdom and the United States. As I discovered in my research in the literature of the sociology of the legal profession for Lawyer, most countries do not have professional services sectors or corporate sectors well developed enough to support the wide range of specialists taken for granted in the UK and the U.S. Most lawyers or jurists in the vast majority of countries are generalists working in small firms or as solos.

Frankly, merging this with Lawyer is going to create a huge mess and infuriate all the Wikipedia editors from outside the U.S. because it blatantly violates the worldview view/systematic bias guideline. If this has to be merged with anything, it should be merged with Attorney-at-law or Solicitor. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, I oppose merge idea. This article's topic should be a stand-alone. Cirt (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I put a globalise tag on this article - it is presently extremely-US centric (without acknowledging that). --Legis (talk - contribs) 14:36, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]