Michael W. Strain

MS
  • Member at Morman Law Firm
  • Sturgis, SD 57785-0729
  • Peer Reviews
    4.6/5.0 (19)
    Client Reviews
    < 50% Recommended (1)
  • Profile Visibility [ i ]
  • Update your Profile

Areas of Practice (6)

  • Premises Liability
  • Products Liability
  • Fraud and Deceit
  • Medical Malpractice
  • Personal Injury
  • Criminal Law

Education & Credentials

University Attended:
University of South Dakota, B.S., 1983
Law School Attended:
University of South Dakota, J.D., 1987
Year of First Admission:
1987
Admission:
U.S. District Court, District of South Dakota, U.S. Court of Claims; 1995, Wyoming; 1987, South Dakota
ISLN:
903369075

Peer Reviews

  • 4.6/5.0 (19 reviews)
  • 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

    4.6/5.0
  • Analytical Capability

    4.6/5.0
  • Judgment

    4.5/5.0
  • Communication

    4.6/5.0
  • Legal Experience

    4.7/5.0

See All 19 Reviews »


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

Client Reviews

  • 1.5/5.0 (1 review)
  • Communication

    1.0/5.0
  • Responsiveness

    3.0/5.0
  • Quality of Service

    1.0/5.0
  • Value for Money

    1.0/5.0
  • No Recommendations   1.5/5.0 Rated on 01/27/12 in Personal Injury.

    Mr. Strain did not perform due diligence on my husband's personal injury case. He lost the file twice. He did not contact the WY state patrol for their recordings of the injury/accident. When I brought the recording to him, he stated that WY told... Read more

    Read more

    Mr. Strain did not perform due diligence on my husband's personal injury case. He lost the file twice. He did not contact the WY state patrol for their recordings of the injury/accident. When I brought the recording to him, he stated that WY told him they didn't have anything for him. He also stated that he could not use the evidence as it would show a "one time act" that would not help the case. After four (4) years the Court concluded that there was no proof. Read less

    Read less
Disclaimer