Charles E. BuriLinkedIn

Charles E. Buri 0 0 reviews - Read Reviews or Write a Review
Charles E. Buri is a Lawyer in Phoenix, Arizona

602-977-2874
View Web Site
http://www.charlesburilaw.com

Free Consultation

Areas of Law

  • Personal Injury Law
  • Medical Malpractice
  • Commercial Litigation
  • Lottery Law
  • Administrative Law
  • Product Defects
  • Gaming Law

Contact Information

Currently Employed at

Charles E. Buri
Attorney
4742 North 24th Street, Suite A-150,
Phoenix, AZ 85016-9139
U.S.A.

Phone

602-977-2874

Cell Phone

480-305-4914

Fax

888-349-2874

Email

Send email to Charles E. Buri

Website

http://www.charlesburilaw.com

 

Peer Rating

av

Overall Peer Rating

5.0 out of 5.0
  • Meets very high criteria of general ethical standards
No feedback is available.
The individuals that have reviewed this lawyer have not provided any additional feedback.

Experience & Credentials

Admission Details

Admitted in 1974, Arizona and U.S. District Court, District of Arizona
1977, U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
1980, U.S. Supreme Court
2011, U.S. Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit

Payment Information
  • Free Initial Consultation
  • Fixed Hourly Rates
Law School Attended

University of Arizona
Class of 1973
J.D.

University Attended

University of Arizona
Class of 1971
B.S.

Birth Information

Born in January 20,1950
Lancaster
Pennsylvania

Associations & Memberships

Maricopa County and American (Member, Litigation Section) Bar Associations; State Bar of Arizona (Member: Civil Jury Instructions Committee, 1995-1998; Civil Practice and Procedure Committee, 2009-Present); American Association of Justice; Arizona Association of Justice; National Trial Lawyers; Litigation Counsel of America; Arizona's Finest Lawyers; Million Dollar Advocates Forum.

Representative Cases

Patton v. Cox, 276 F.3d 493 (9th Cir. 2002); U.S. Postal Service v. Amada, 200 F.3d 647 (9th Cir. 2000); DeCola v. Freyer, 198 Ariz. 28, 6 P.3d 333 (App. 2000); Culpepper v. State, 187 Ariz. 431, 930 P.2d 508 (App. 1996); Schmitz v. Arizona State Board of Dental Examiners, 141 Ariz. 37, 684 P.2d 918 (App. 1984); Matter of Wickman, 138 Ariz. 337, 674 P.2d 891 (App. 1983); Caldwell v. Arizona State Board of Dental Examiners, 137 Ariz. 396, 670 P.2d 1220 (App. 1983); Lipschultz v. Superior Court, 128 Ariz. 16, 623 P.2d 805 (1981); Barnet v. Board of Medical Examiners, 121 Ariz. 338, 590 P.2d 454 (1979); Arizona State Board of Dental Examiners v. Hyder, 114 Ariz. 544, 562 P.2d 717 (1977).

Biographical Details

Phi Delta Phi. Listed in: Who's Who in Arizona, 1989; Who's Who is America, 2000-Present; Southwest Super Lawyers, 2009; Arizona's Finest Lawyers, 2011; American Trial Lawyer's Association Top 100 Trial Lawyers of Arizona, 2011; Litigation Counsel of Ameri... More

Office Information
Charles E. Buri
4742 North 24th Street, Suite A-150,
Phoenix, AZ 85016-9139
U.S.A.
Loading...


About Client Rating
About Peer Rating

Welcome to Martindale-Hubbell® Client Review, a new ratings service that allows you to view and provide feedback on a lawyer or law firm on service and relationship qualities such as Communication Ability, Responsiveness, Quality of Service, and Value for Money.

Determining a Rating

The Client Review Rating is determined through aggregation of validated responses. This compilation of Client Reviews translates to a numerical rating and associate descriptive term on a scale of 1 -5. 1 being lowest as "Rated" and 5 being highest as "Preeminent".

  • 4.5-5.0 Preeminent
  • 3.0-4.4 Distinguished
  • 1-2.9 Rated

Martindale-Hubbell uses a third-party resource to validate that the respondent is a living person, but cannot confirm the lawyer/client relationship, which in many cases is confidential. Clients must affirm that they are a client of the lawyer or firm identified for review at the time of the completed Client Review.

The Reviewers

Those who complete Client Reviews are clients of law firms who hired a lawyer within the last year, whose matter is not pending, and want to share their experience of that lawyer or law firm with other potential clients. Reviewers can be of any type from in-house counsel, corporate executives, small business owners to private individuals, and even sometimes another lawyer in a different jurisdiction.

Anonymity

Client Reviews are anonymous and reviewers' identities are not published; however a summary of basic demographics will be part of the display of responses.

Why do we collect demographics as part of the review?

Those who are researching a lawyer or law firm like to see that there are other clients who might be "like them". This is valuable information contributing to the decision-making process of hiring a lawyer.

Martindale-Hubbell's role

Martindale-Hubbell facilitates the process of Client Review by gathering responses, validating them and aggregating results for display online. The content of the responses are entirely from reviewers, the clients of the firm or lawyer.

It is important to note that Martindale-Hubbell does not undertake to develop Client Reviews for all firms and lawyers. Therefore, the fact that a firm or lawyer has not been reviewed should not be construed unfavorably. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome and Martindale-Hubbell accepts no responsibility for the content or accuracy of any review over which Martindale-Hubbell exercises no editorial review or control.