Skip to content
WikiBusines

Wikipedia for law firms · notability index 2026

A Wikipedia page for a law firm: cases count, rankings don't

In legal services, 62% of topics in our 2018–2026 assessments have low confidence of notability, 38% medium, and none has high confidence. A firm struggles to gather independent coverage: much of its work is confidential, and the Chambers, Legal 500 and IFLR rankings are directories that confirm a fact but do not prove notability. So we first check whether the press has written about the firm itself: a case, a deal, a dispute.

Notability audit · from €490 Create a page · from €2,400

// 62% low confidence, none high — our assessment pipeline, not the market · prices from the 11.2026 price list · paid edits are disclosed in the name of WikiBusines

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_firm_N

Law firm N

law firm · high-profile case

Law firm N is an international law firm founded in London in 1987. It represented a party in a high-profile dispute that the business press covered in detail.[1][2]

Type: law firmOffices: countries X and YPractices: disputes, deals

  • Financial Timeseditorial article on the case and the firm's role✓counts
  • Reuterseditorial news on the court ruling✓counts
  • Bloomberginvestigation into a deal involving the firm✓counts
  • PR Newswirepress release on a won case✗doesn't count
  • Forbes Contributora partner's contributor column✗doesn't count
  • Court decisions registertext of the ruling in the case◐fact only
independent, significant: 3 of 6passes: 3 significant independent

Law firm N

law firm · rankings and awards

Law firm N is a law firm founded in Warsaw in 2004. It advises on corporate law and arbitration and is included in industry rankings.[1]

Type: law firmOffices: country XPractices: corporate law

  • Financial Timesmarket overview with a section on the firm✓counts
  • Chambersentry in a ranking directory◐fact only
  • Legal 500entry in a ranking directory◐fact only
  • PR Newswirepress release on the “Firm of the Year” award✗doesn't count
  • LinkedIna partner's article✗doesn't count
  • “Best firms” rounduppaid participation in a list✗doesn't count
independent, significant: 1 of 6fails: 1 significant independent

Law firm N

legaltech product · contract automation

Law firm N is a legaltech company from New York, founded in 2018. It develops a platform for contract automation.[1][2]

Type: legaltechClients: in-house legal teamsProduct: contract platform

  • Wirededitorial analysis of the product✓counts
  • The Vergeeditorial report on the platform✓counts
  • TechCrunchround announcement based on a press release✗doesn't count
  • PR Newswirepress release about a partnership✗doesn't count
  • Crunchbaseprofile in a company database✗doesn't count
  • Market researchanalytical report on legaltech◐fact only
independent, significant: 2 of 6borderline: 2 significant independent, more needed
autoindex 2026 · 62% low · the counter is a guide, not a rule
62%of topics with low confidence in the industry
4–5weeks per page
90days of monitoring and guarantee
€2,400English Wikipedia page, from

Why a page

Why a law firm needs a Wikipedia page: trust, search and AI answers

What a page gives you

trust

Checked before a case is entrusted

Corporate clients, partners and market peers check a firm against open sources. A sourced article gives the first description of the firm that the firm did not write itself.

Why it matters → search

Google Knowledge Panel

Wikipedia is one of the open sources Google uses to build a knowledge panel about a firm. A panel cannot be ordered, but a clear sourced article gives it something to draw on.

Why it matters → AI

AI assistants

ChatGPT, Gemini and Perplexity rely on Wikipedia when they answer the question “what is this firm”. What the article says is often repeated in the answer.

Why it matters → reputation

Neutral account of cases and disputes

For cases and disputes the press has already covered, the article gives a sourced account, not snippets from comments. Criticism that the press has described cannot be removed from the article.

Why it matters →

We professionally create, edit and maintain Wikipedia pages for law firms

Page lifecycleauto

Page creation

from €2,400English Wikipedia4–5 weeks

A neutral article about the firm: sources from the business and legal press on cases and deals, an infobox with type, offices and practices. We do not list clients and deals the press has not written about. 90 days of monitoring and guarantee.

Page creation →

Editing and updates

€700–€1,9002–3 weeks

New cases, mergers, changes in the partnership, new offices and practices. We remove what is outdated and add what is current, every claim with a source.

Page editing →

Ongoing support

from €720/year12 months of guarantee

Annual support: we watch for changes and vandalism, including evaluative wording and outdated data on partners and offices, and respond with edits.

Annual support →

Paid edits are always disclosed on Wikipedia in the name of WikiBusines. Page protection is applied only by Wikipedia administrators.

Why Wikipedia matters →All services →

01Eligibility

Law firm notability: what counts and what doesn't

Wikipedia requires significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and in several of them (the WP:NCORP rule). Rankings, association memberships, headcount and a client list do not confer notability on their own: what counts is what independent editors have written about the firm.

  • 62%low confidence
  • 38%medium
  • 0%high

Legal services, firms · Wikipedia Notability Index 2026-v1 (WikiBusines, CC BY 4.0), assessments 2018–2026. This is an assessment of the industry, not of your firm: what decides is the list of its own publications.

auto

Too early? It is not a dead end: sources can be prepared.

Media programpublications in independent outlets Wikidataa sourced entry about the firm AI visibilitywhat AI assistants say about you

Types of legal organizations: where it is realistic and where almost never

WikiBusines expert assessment, 11.2026; it is not part of the dataset. Click a type: the profile in the window at the top of the page will switch.

Notability Index: all 13 industries →Notability audit →Wikipedia for companies →

02Sources

Which outlets count for law firms: business, industry and general press

Wikipedia keeps no official list of “good” outlets, but the community has assigned statuses to hundreds of sources (WP:RSP). Below are the outlets that sources about law firms most often come from, with the WikiBusines working tier and the community status. What counts is a specific piece, not the outlet's brand. We assess the specialist legal press (Law360, The American Lawyer, Legal Week, The Lawyer) the same way: a news item that names the firm among the parties to a deal gives no depth.

auto

Financial Times

UK

year of last WP:RSP discussion: 2018

CountsEditorial pieces on cases, deals and regulatory decisions that name the firm directly.

Doesn't countSponsored sections, partner content and pieces that retell a press release.

Bloomberg

Global

year of last WP:RSP discussion: 2025

CountsEditorial news and analysis on cases and deals involving the firm.

Doesn't countCompany and executive profiles compiled from press releases (separate row below).

Reuters

UK

year of last WP:RSP discussion: 2018

CountsEditorial news on court cases, deals and regulators' decisions that name the firm directly.

Doesn't countDistributed press releases and partner-zone content.

The Wall Street Journal

US

year of last WP:RSP discussion: 2025

CountsEditorial articles and investigations with a substantive passage devoted to the firm.

Doesn't countA one-sentence mention of the firm among the parties to a deal.

The Economist

UK

year of last WP:RSP discussion: 2024

CountsEditorial pieces on the legal services market with a section on the firm.

Doesn't countOpinion columns used as confirmation of facts.

Bloomberg profiles

US

year of last WP:RSP discussion: 2018

CountsOnly uncontested facts: name, founding date, executives.

Doesn't countNotability: the profile rests on the firm's press releases.

The New York Times

US

year of last WP:RSP discussion: 2024

CountsInvestigations and editorial pieces on a case or on a firm that features in it.

Doesn't countOpinion columns used as confirmation of facts.

The Guardian

UK

year of last WP:RSP discussion: 2025

CountsEditorial articles and investigations; opinion is read as opinion.

Doesn't countOpinion columns and reader blogs.

The Washington Post

US

year of last WP:RSP discussion: 2024

CountsEditorial pieces on high-profile cases that name the firm directly.

Doesn't countOpinion columns and commercial partners' material.

BBC

UK

year of last WP:RSP discussion: 2025

CountsEditorial pieces on cases and investigations with original sourcing.

Doesn't countA press release retold as news.

Politico

US

year of last WP:RSP discussion: 2024

CountsEditorial pieces on regulatory and political matters in which the firm is a party.

Doesn't countBrief mentions of the firm in digests.

Handelsblatt

Germany

no separate WP:RSP status

CountsEditorial pieces on legal cases and the market in German or English.

Doesn't countPartner sections and retold releases.

TechCrunch

Global

year of last WP:RSP discussion: 2025

CountsEditorial texts on a legaltech product with a news hook.

Doesn't countRound announcements based on a press release, and sponsored content.

Wired

US

year of last WP:RSP discussion: 2025

CountsAnalysis of a product or technology based on original reporting.

Doesn't countSponsored content and retold releases.

The Verge

US

year of last WP:RSP discussion: 2024

CountsEditorial reviews and reports on a product.

Doesn't countBrief mentions in service roundups.

The Information

Global

no separate WP:RSP status

CountsOriginal investigations and editorial reporting about the firm.

Doesn't countRetellings of other outlets' stories.

Ars Technica

US

year of last WP:RSP discussion: 2022

CountsTechnical analyses and reports on products.

Doesn't countPress releases and announcements.

VentureBeat

US

year of last WP:RSP discussion: 2025

CountsIndividual editorial pieces, each assessed separately.

Doesn't countSponsored content and retold releases.

PR Newswire

US

year of last WP:RSP discussion: 2019

CountsOnly as a primary source for the fact that the firm announced something.

Doesn't countNotability: there is no editorial review.

Crunchbase

US

year of last WP:RSP discussion: 2019

CountsUsually nothing: the community decided not to use it as a source.

Doesn't countNotability and article facts: the database contains everyone.

Forbes Contributor

Global

year of last WP:RSP discussion: 2026

CountsOnly as the author's opinion, not as fact.

Doesn't countNotability: this is not the outlet's editorial content.

LinkedIn

Global

year of last WP:RSP discussion: 2023

CountsNothing: self-publishing.

Doesn't countArticles by partners and by the firm itself.

Medium

Global

year of last WP:RSP discussion: 2022

CountsNothing: self-publishing.

Doesn't countArticles by employees and by the firm itself.

Statista

Global

year of last WP:RSP discussion: 2023

CountsNothing that proves notability: it is a directory with statistics.

Doesn't countNotability and facts about the firm.

TierTier 1Tier 2Tier 3no consensusavoidnot in our dataset

WP:RSP statusgenerally reliableno consensusgenerally unreliabledeprecatedblacklistedmixed

Tiers are WikiBusines' working classification, not an official list. Statuses are from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, CC BY-SA 4.0, revision 11.2026. Law360, The American Lawyer, Legal Week and The Lawyer are not yet in our dataset, so they have no tier pills. Chambers, Legal 500 and IFLR are directories and rankings, not news outlets: in an article they appear only as a fact.

How we read a piece: one publication, five checks, a verdict

auto
Financial TimesTier 1

Law firm N conducted a dispute that changed market practice

editorial article · staff author byline

  1. ✓Independent of the firm
  2. ✓Editorial piece, not a contributor's
  3. ✓Not sponsored
  4. ✓Substantial coverage of the firm, not a mention
  5. ✓Not a press release disguised as news

Counts as an independent sourcepassed 5 of 5

Outlet NTier 1

Law firm N advised on a deal and entered a ranking

“news” · the text matches the firm's press release

  1. ✗Independent of the firm
  2. ✓Editorial piece, not a contributor's
  3. ✓Not sponsored
  4. ✗Substantial coverage of the firm, not a mention
  5. ✗Not a press release disguised as news

Doesn't count A retold press release is not independent coverage, even in a Tier 1 outlet.passed 2 of 5

Media list: 891 outlets →Media coverage →

03Risks

Why law firm pages get deleted: five typical reasons

A Wikipedia reviewer tags an article, and then it is either fixed or deleted. Below are five situations in the legal industry: what is written “before” and what we write “after”. These are schematics, not copies of articles.

auto
{{Primary sources}}The article relies too heavily on primary sources

Law firm N

Law firm N — advised Client A, Client B and Bank C on multibillion deals; source: the firm's website

Law firm N — a law firm; its role in Bank C's deal is described in a Reuters piece [1]

how we write it

Why it gets deleted

A list of clients and deals from the firm's website is promotional and often confidential. A reviewer sees in it not coverage but self-presentation.

What we do

We name only clients and deals that the press has written about together with the firm. The rest we leave out.

{{Notability}}The topic's notability is not shown by independent sources

Law firm N

Law firm N — a firm recommended by Chambers and Legal 500 as one of the leading

Law firm N — a law firm; it is included in the Chambers directory for arbitration practice [1]; the Financial Times wrote about its court case [2]

how we write it

Why it gets deleted

Chambers, Legal 500 and IFLR are directories and rankings: they confirm the fact of inclusion, but not notability. Without press material about the firm itself, a reviewer adds a tag.

What we do

We mention a ranking as a fact, with the year and the publication, without “leading”. We show notability through editorial pieces.

{{Notability}}The topic's notability is not shown by independent sources

Law firm N

Law firm N — founded by Name Surname, a graduate of University X, with many years of experience; included in the “top lawyers” list

Law firm N — a law firm founded in 1998 [1]; about partners we write only what the press has described about them personally [2]

how we write it

Why it gets deleted

Partners' biographies do not prove the firm's notability: notability is not inherited, and a résumé reads like advertising.

What we do

We write about the firm: history, practices, offices. We single out a partner only when there is press material about that person, and then it is a separate page for the person.

{{Advert}}The article is written like an advertisement

Law firm N

Law firm N — provides a full range of legal services with an individual approach to every client

Law firm N — a law firm with corporate law, arbitration and tax practices; it has offices in countries X and Y [2]

how we write it

Why it gets deleted

“Full range”, “individual approach”, “leading” are formulas from firms' websites. Wikipedia is not a service catalog.

What we do

We describe practices neutrally and from sources, without evaluative words. We advise checking the bar rules on advertising with your own association.

{{COI}}The article’s author may have a conflict of interest

Law firm N

Law firm N — the best-known firm in the region; the section on a dispute with a former client was removed as “inaccurate”

Law firm N — a law firm; a dispute with a former client that the press described is presented in the “Criticism and disputes” section [4]

how we write it

Why it gets deleted

An author connected to the firm removes criticism. It shows in the edit history, and reviewers check it.

What we do

We disclose paid editing in the name of WikiBusines and do not remove criticism that the press has described.

  • Chambers, Legal 500, IFLRDirectories and rankings: only the fact of inclusion, with the year and the publication. They are not independent coverage and do not prove notability.
  • Clients and dealsOnly those the press has written about together with the firm. Confidential clients and deals do not appear on the page.
  • Advertising and ethicsBar rules on advertising differ from country to country: check the rules of your own association. We do not give legal advice, and we disclose paid edits.

Guarantees →Restoring a deleted page →

04Article

A Wikipedia article about a law firm: structure, infobox, what it contains and what it doesn't

In the article every claim rests on a source, there is a section on criticism and disputes, and there are no evaluative words. The infobox gives facts: type, year of foundation, headquarters, offices, number of lawyers with a year and a source, practices.

auto
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_firm_N

Law firm N

law firm · corporate law and arbitration

History

Law firm N was founded in London in 1998 as a banking law practice [1]. It later opened offices in other countries and expanded its list of practices [2].

  • 1 Financial Times · editorial article ✓ independent
  • 2 The firm's website · history and offices ◐ primary

Practices and notable cases

The main practices are corporate law, arbitration and tax [2]. The firm represented a party in a case that the press covered in detail [3].

  • 2 The firm's website · history and offices ◐ primary
  • 3 Reuters · editorial news ✓ independent

Offices

The firm's offices are located in countries X and Y [2]. The number of lawyers as of 2025 is given according to a directory [4]; there are no evaluations such as “leading”.

  • 2 The firm's website · history and offices ◐ primary
  • 4 Chambers · directory ◐ fact

Criticism and disputes

A former client challenged the firm's actions in court, and the court issued a ruling [5]; the press wrote about the dispute [6]. The firm stated that it disagrees with the ruling.

  • 5 Court ruling · document ◐ fact
  • 6 Bloomberg · investigation ✓ independent

Notes

  1. 1 Financial Times · editorial article ✓ independent
  2. 2 The firm's website · history and offices ◐ primary
  3. 3 Reuters · editorial news ✓ independent
  4. 4 Chambers · directory ◐ fact
  5. 5 Court ruling · document ◐ fact
  6. 6 Bloomberg · investigation ✓ independent

What the article leaves out

  • Slogans and evaluative words: “leading”, “best”, “full range”
  • A list of clients and deals from the firm's website
  • Rankings and awards as proof of notability
  • Partners' biographies instead of an article about the firm
  • Photos with a logo or screenshots without a license

Page creation →Image checker →

05Process

From audit to a page in 4–5 weeks: steps for a law firm

The five steps are the same for everyone, but for a law firm each has its own particularity: how to handle rankings, clients under NDA and the language of the article.

auto

Source audit

We check what pieces about the firm already exist and sort them into those that count and those that do not. The notability audit takes 3–5 days, the result is a written conclusion, and the cost is credited to the project if you order it within one month.

For a law firm: we take the Chambers and Legal 500 rankings as facts, and look for notability in the press on cases and the firm's role. Clients and deals: only those already in the press.

✓Financial Times✓Reuters✗press release◐ranking

Draft and disclosure

We write a neutral text with footnotes for every claim. Paid editing is always disclosed on Wikipedia in the name of WikiBusines.

For a law firm: there are no “leading” or “full range” wording and no clients under NDA; we advise checking the bar rules on advertising with your own association.

✓disclosed: WikiBusines◐draft

Submission

We submit the draft for review by the Wikipedia community when the source base can bear it. If it can't, we say so honestly before submission.

For a law firm: before submission we check that partners' biographies do not stand in for the article about the firm and that the “Criticism and disputes” section is in place.

◐draft→submitted for review

Review and edits

A reviewer may place a tag or ask for independent sources. We respond with edits, not arguments.

For a law firm: most often we are asked to replace promotional formulas and to remove a list of clients without sources.

?independent sources needed✓answer with sources

90 days of monitoring

We watch the page for 90 days: edits, tags, deletion proposals. Page protection is applied only by Wikipedia administrators. If a published page could not be defended after 3 attempts within this window, we refund 80% of the project amount.

Next: annual support extends the guarantee for another 12 months.

90days
0306090

How it works →Annual support →

06Pricing

How much a page for a law firm costs: price-list prices, no industry markups

where to start

Notability audit

from €4903–5 days

A written conclusion: whether there are enough independent sources about the firm and what is missing. Credited toward the project if ordered within a month.

Order an audit → English Wikipedia

Page on English Wikipedia

from €2,4004–5 weeks

Sources, a draft with disclosure, submission, edits after review, and 90 days of monitoring and guarantee.

Create a page → other languages

Other language editions

from €1,500Ukrainian, French, Spanish

The same process for other language editions. Full prices by language are in the calculator.

All prices →

Guarantee: 80% refund if a published page could not be defended after 3 attempts within the 90-day window. Guarantee terms →

Price calculator →

07FAQ

Wikipedia for law firms: frequently asked questions

Do the Chambers and Legal 500 rankings count?

As a fact, yes: the article can say the firm is included in a ranking for a given practice, with the year and the publication. As proof of notability, no: these are directories and rankings, not independent coverage. Notability is shown by press material about the firm itself: a case, a deal, a dispute, its role. The same goes for IFLR and “best firms” roundups.

Our case was high-profile. Does that create notability?

It does, if independent press wrote in detail about the case and the firm's role, not just the firm's own press release. Boutiques without such a trail have a harder time: at the audit we look for what is already documented. Sometimes the honest answer is to prepare publications first and postpone the page.

Which legal outlets count?

General business outlets first: Financial Times, Bloomberg, Reuters, The Wall Street Journal. We assess the specialist legal press (Law360, The American Lawyer, Legal Week, The Lawyer) piece by piece: a news item that names the firm among the parties to a deal gives no depth. Paid directories, promotional roundups, press releases (PR Newswire) and Crunchbase do not count. See outlet statuses in the media list.

Our cases and clients are under NDA. What happens to them?

They will not be in the article. Wikipedia accepts only what reliable independent sources have published; we do not look for or name confidential clients and deals. If outlets that name the firm directly wrote about a case, it can be described with a reference to those outlets.

Write about the firm or about the managing partner?

These are two pages, each with its own review. Notability is not inherited (the WP:INHERITORG rule): a well-known partner does not make the firm notable, and vice versa. A partner's biography needs its own press material about that person.

Does this violate the bar rules on advertising?

There is no general answer: the rules differ by country and association, and we do not give legal advice. Check the rules of your own bar association. For our part, we write neutral text without evaluative words and disclose paid editing on Wikipedia in the name of WikiBusines.

Can we skip the audit?

You can, but we don't recommend it. A notability audit (from €490, 3–5 days) gives a written conclusion on whether there are enough sources, and is credited toward the project if you go ahead within one month. Without it you risk submitting a page that cannot be defended.

What if the index and the audit say “too early” or “low confidence”?

Then we prepare sources, not a page. The Media program delivers publications in independent outlets, Wikidata a sourced entry, Wikitia or EverybodyWiki an interim venue. When there is enough material, we return to the audit. The index describes the industry as a whole, not your firm: what decides is the list of its own publications.

Full FAQ →Notability audit →

Related pages

For companiesWikipedia for business in general Notability auditfrom €490, credited within a month Notability index13 industries, 2018–2026 data Media list891 outlets with tiers and statuses Wikipedia for fintechneighboring industry: regulatory and court materials

Law firms and Wikipedia: we'll tell you honestly whether your firm passes

Send the firm's name and a few publications in which the press wrote about it. We will say whether the sources are enough and, if not, what to prepare.

  1. 1
    Firm and practicesName, offices, main practices.
  2. 2
    Three strongest publicationsOnly editorial pieces about the firm or its case, no press releases and rankings.
  3. 3
    GoalA firm page, a person page, Wikidata, or source preparation first.
Notability audit · from €490 Create a page

4–5 weeks per page · 90 days of monitoring and guarantee · paid edits disclosed in the name of WikiBusines