Mathew D. Evans

Mathew D. Evans 0 0 reviews - Read Reviews or Write a Review
Mathew D. Evans is a Lawyer in Sacramento, California

916-459-1766
View Web Site
http://www.mathewevansmediate.com

Free Consultation

Areas of Law

  • Products Liability
  • Construction Litigation
  • Public Entity Defense
  • Mediation
  • Employment Discrimination
  • Professional Liability
  • Insurance Defense

Contact Information

Currently Employed at

Evans, Wieckowski & Ward, LLP
Of Counsel
745 University Avenue,
Sacramento, CA 95825-6708
U.S.A.

Phone

916-459-1766

Phone 1

916-923-1600 ext 12

Fax

916-923-1616

Email

Send email to Mathew D. Evans

Website

http://www.mathewevansmediate.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 1977, California

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

McGeorge School of Law
University of the Pacific
J.D.
Class of 1976

University Attended

New Mexico Military Institute
Class of 1967
A.A.

University of Nevada
Class of 1970
B.S.

Birth Information

Born in June 12,1947
Lovelock
Nevada

Military

Capt. U.S. Army, 1970-1972

Associations & Memberships

Sacramento County Bar Association; State Bar of California; Association of Defense Counsel of Northern California; The Association of Trial Lawyers of America; National Truck & Heavy Equipment Claims Council.

Biographical Details

Pro Tem Settlement Conference Judge, Sacramento, Placer and Nevada Counties.

Office Information
Mathew D. Evans
745 University Avenue,
Sacramento, CA 95825-6708
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.