Peer reviews submitted prior to 2008 are not displayed.
Other Legal Directories
Lawyers Client Review
1.3/5.0(1 review)
This judge was rude and biased. He failed to familiarize himself with the case, seemed to not be able to read very well or listen fairly. Lack of empathy and understanding, unprofessional conduct.
Client Champion awards recognize those attorneys who excel at service as affirmed by their clients. The awards, based on the quantity
and quality of an attorney’s Martindale-Hubbell client reviews, demonstrate an ongoing commitment to delivering excellent client service.
Award recipients stand out from their peers with a platinum, gold or silver icon.
At least three reviews and a score of 4.0 or higher.
At least six reviews and a score of 4.2 or higher.
At least ten reviews and a score of 4.5 or higher.
A lawyer who receives a minimum threshold of qualifying responses from fellow attorneys can qualify for one of three prestigious
Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings:
AV Preeminent®: The highest peer rating standard. This rating signifies a large number of the lawyer’s peers rank him
or her at the highest level of professional excellence for their legal knowledge, communication skills and ethical standards.
Distinguished: An excellent rating for a lawyer with some experience. This rating indicates the attorney is widely
respected by their peers for high professional achievement and ethical standards.
D Mayland McKimm got this award in 2026
Notable: This rating indicates that the lawyer has been recognized by a large number of their peers for strong ethical standards.
Avvo Top Contributor: The Avvo Top Contributor Award is granted to attorneys who have earned significant contribution points in a given year on our sister site, Avvo.com. Contribution points are earned by answering questions in Q&A,
publishing Legal Guides, and other useful contributions to the Avvo community.
Avvo Client’s Choice: The Avvo Client's Choice Award Badge is granted to attorneys with a significant number of 4+ star reviews in a given year.
This judge was rude and biased. He failed to familiarize himself with the case, seemed to not be able to read very well or listen fairly. Lack of empathy and understanding, unprofessional conduct.
See more