Last week, legal reporters covered an O'Melveny employee's attempt to remove information from Wikipedia.
A Wikipedia article stated that O'Melveny "supported" the Trump administration by "defend[ing] Donald Trump against a lawsuit over Trump University, . . . vett[ing] the president's nominees, . . . represent[ing] the Trump inaugural committee when it was investigated, . . . [and] represent[ing] President Trump's commerce secretary, Wilbur Ross, over allegations of conflicted investments."
According to Merriam Webster, this seems like a truthful statement. But after Mr. Trump was roundly criticized over chants of "send her back" -- an O'Melveny employee said the above quote was "subjective, false and misleading" and demanded its removal from Wikipedia. They also claimed that the vetting was performed by "an ex-partner . . . independent of his relationship to O'Melveny." In reality, an O'Melveny partner used a team of O'Melveny attorneys to perform the vetting. This is all public information.
Any way, this is a really insignificant story relative to the others on this blog. A lot of victims would be in a better place if all O'Melveny did was edit Wikipedia. But I'll include it, since the purpose of this blog is to use news stories to warn people about what they might expect from O'Melveny, and this is a small example. Whatever your political views, please be careful about believing the things O'Melveny says.
Any way, this is a really insignificant story relative to the others on this blog. A lot of victims would be in a better place if all O'Melveny did was edit Wikipedia. But I'll include it, since the purpose of this blog is to use news stories to warn people about what they might expect from O'Melveny, and this is a small example. Whatever your political views, please be careful about believing the things O'Melveny says.
