A person or persons operating from within an O'Melveny & Myers' office attempted to erase evidence of its links to Donald Trump, RollOnFriday can reveal, as the US firm sought to seal its merger with Allen & Overy.

On 18 July 2019, someone from within O'Melveny's Los Angeles office demanded Wikipedia remove all references to the firm's support for the Trump administration from its Wikipedia page.

"This is misleading", the unidentified person said about the section titled, "Support for the Trump Administration". 

"O'Melveny & Myers LLP did not publicly support any one candidate during the presidential campaign", claimed the person, "and instead, employees supported many different candidates." 

"Furthermore", they claimed, "O'Melveny & Myers LLP was not involved in vetting President Trump's nominees. Instead, an ex-partner at O'Melveny was responsible for the vetting independent of his relationship to O'Melveny. To claim that O'Melveny & Myers LLP has shown 'Support for the Trum [sic] administration' is subjective, false and misleading, and should be removed."

The demand was made on 18 July, a day after the President appeared to revel in chants of "send her back" at a political rally, and four days after Trump stoked racial tensions by telling four Congresswomen of colour to "go back". 


Back left looks guilty.

Wikipedia's editors partly acquiesced. They moved the offending text to the history section of O'Melveny's page and removed the title, "Support for the Trump administration". However, they did not delete or alter the rest of the text, and refuted claims that the content was untrue by citing several sources which showed that O'Melveny partners were still at the firm when they vetted Trump's nominees. 

"Contrary to what wrote (from an O'Melveny & Myers IP address), Arthur Culvahouse was not an 'ex-partner' at the time he and other attorneys from O'Melveny & Myers vetted the President's nominees", noted a Wikipedia editor in the site's editing section.

The attempt to scrub evidence that O'Melveny worked for Trump comes at a sensitive time for the firm, which is trying to secure a merger with Allen & Overy. 

It has been a long time in the works. RollOnFriday asked O'Melveny if de-Trumpifying its brand was A&O 's last pre-condition for joining forces. 

A spokesman for O'Melveny said, "the firm neither authorizes, nor condones, any efforts to alter the O’Melveny Wikipedia page. Our firm is home to many lawyers and staff with varying political opinions and activities. It’s one of our strengths, and we’re proud that members of the firm have been called to service in the Administrations of both parties". 

Wikipedia editors are now prohibited from amending the firm's page without the site's approval. O'Melveny's page status has been set to "Protected", due to "Persistent disruptive editing".

Tip Off ROF


Outrageous 26 July 19 10:00

This is a legitimate political choice

There should be no adverse consequences for engaging in the democratic process, whether you're a Trump supporter or a communist

Yes but 26 July 19 10:33


Yes but an organisation should have the right to choose who they merge with.

And if they believe that the company, they are targeting for merger, supports a right wing, facist, (wannabe) dictator, then they should be able to express there disgust at that and potentially not merge with them.

Well 26 July 19 13:00

There would be a certain irony to A&O refusing to merge with O'M because they don't like the fact he did work with a creepy rich white dude that thinks its ok to grab women by the p***y and pay them off to keep quiet!

Anon 26 July 19 18:03

Absolutely brilliant comment @ Well

And if the above comment has gone over some of your heads:


Looks like they are right for each other...


Trump is on another level 27 July 19 00:20

You in the UK don't get what a perilous and scary situation we're in with Trump. I pray we boot him out without a war or economic collapse. This man is FRIGHTENING.

Malevolent Arab 27 July 19 21:56

Why can't we separate politics from business?


Every politician has hired a law firm at some point.


Should the sworn members of a professional be held slave to their clients political views when they are obliged BY LAW not to turn away clients due to their political views?



Related News