Joseph P. Suntum

Joseph P. Suntum: Attorney with Miller, Miller & Canby Chartered
  • Member at Miller, Miller & Canby Chartered (12 Attorneys)
  • 200-B Monroe Street, Rockville, MD 20850
    View Joseph P. Suntum's office location
  • Joe Suntum joined Miller, Miller & Canby in 1988, has been a principal in the firm since 1994 and is currently the firm's Litigation practice leader. Mr. Suntum handles a wide variety of substantive areas of litigation including eminent domain and condemnation, complex business litigation, and appellate advocacy. Mr. Suntum is a rare trial lawyer who has successfully tried both murder cases and multi-million dollar civil actions. He has also successfully argued numerous appeals before the Maryland courts of appeal.
  • Peer Reviews
    5.0/5.0 (1)
    Client Reviews
    No Reviews
  • Profile Visibility [ i ]

Biography

Law Clerk to Hon. Elsbeth Levy Bothe, Circuit Court for the City of Baltimore, 1982-1983. Assistant Public Defender, Montgomery County, Maryland, 1983-1987.

American Inns of Court (Barrister, LXI, 1988-1992); Alan J. Goldstein Inn of Court (Member, 1995-2000; Treasurer, 1997-1998; Secretary, 1998-1999).

Areas of Practice (4)

  • Eminent Domain
  • Condemnation
  • Trial Practice
  • Appellate Practice

Education & Credentials

Contact Information:
301-762-5212  Phone
301-762-6044  Fax
www.millermillercanby.com
University Attended:
University of Maryland, B.A., 1979
Law School Attended:
University of Maryland, J.D., 1982
Year of First admission:
1982
Admission:
1983, U.S. District Court, District of Maryland; 1982, Maryland
Memberships:
Montgomery County (Secretary, 1995-1996; Executive Committee, 1997-1999; Bar Foundation Board of Directors, 2006—); Member, Federal Practice Section), Maryland State and American (Member, Litigation Section) Bar Associations.
Birth Information:
Denver, Colorado, July 1, 1957
Reported Cases:
Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Rockville Pike Joint Venture Ltd. Partnership, 376 Md 331 (2003) (Commercial lease surrender, finality of judgement); Buxton v. Buxton, 363 Md. 634 (2001) (laches, damages, breach of Fiduciary duty); Golub v. Cohen, 138 Md. App 508 (2001) (enforcement of settlement agreement, bifurcation of proceedings); Schochet v. State, 320 Md. 714, 580 A2d. 176 (1990) (constitutional right to privacy); State v. Calhoun, 306 Md. 692, 511 A2d. 461 (1986); State v. Tichnell, 306 Md. 428, 509 A2d. 1179 (1986) (death penalty post-conviction litigation).
ISLN:
903311593

Peer Reviews

  • 5.0/5.0 (1 review)
  • A Martindale-Hubbell Peer Rating reflects a combination of achieving a Very High General Ethical Standards rating and a Legal Ability numerical rating.
  • Legal Knowledge

    5.0/5.0
  • Analytical Capability

    5.0/5.0
  • Judgment

    5.0/5.0
  • Communication

    5.0/5.0
  • Legal Experience

    5.0/5.0
  • 5.0/5.0 Rated by a Partner on 04/05/12 in Civil Litigation

    Mr. Suntum exhibits the highest level of integrity, legal skill and experience of any lawyer that I know. He is deserving of the highest rating from Martindale-Hubell.

    Mr. Suntum exhibits the highest level of integrity, legal skill and experience of any lawyer that I know. He is deserving of the highest rating from Martindale-Hubell. Read less

    Read less

*Peer Reviews provided before April 15, 2008 are not displayed.

Client Reviews

This attorney does not have client reviews.
Disclaimer

Documents ({{amountArticles}})

Documents by this lawyer on Martindale.com
Other documents: ,

Rockville, Maryland

Contact Joseph P. Suntum

Required Fields

Required Fields


By clicking on the "Submit" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, Supplemental Terms and Privacy Policy. You also consent to be contacted at the phone number you provided, including by autodials, text messages and/or pre-recorded calls, from Martindale and its affiliates and from or on behalf of attorneys you request or contact through this site. Consent is not a condition of purchase.

You should not send any sensitive or confidential information through this site. Emails sent through this site do not create an attorney-client relationship and may not be treated as privileged or confidential. The lawyer or law firm you are contacting is not required to, and may choose not to, accept you as a client. The Internet is not necessarily secure and emails sent though this site could be intercepted or read by third parties.