Lawyers.com > Find a Lawyer > Edward-H.-Zebersky
Help

Edward H. ZeberskyLinkedIn

Edward H. Zebersky 0 0 reviews - Read Reviews or Write a Review
Edward H. Zebersky is a Lawyer in Fort Lauderdale, Florida

Client Rating N/A help_info
Submit a review
Peer Rating 5.0 / 5.0
954-416-2570
View Web Site

Free Consultation

Areas of Law

  • Class Actions
  • Insurance Coverage Disputes
  • Torts
  • Products Liability
  • Complex Commercial Litigation
  • Wrongful Death

Contact Information

Currently Employed at

Zebersky & Payne, LLP
Member
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 2150,
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
U.S.A.

Phone

954-416-2570

Phone 1

(954) 989-6333

Fax

(954) 989-7781

Email

Send email to Edward H. Zebersky

Website
 

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 1991, Florida and U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida
2001, United States Supreme Court
2005, U.S District Court, Northern District of Florida
2006, U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida and U.S District Court, Eastern District of Michigan

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

University of Miami
J.D.
cum laude
Class of 1991

University Attended

University of Wisconsin-Madison
Class of 1988
B.B.A.

Birth Information

Born in May 16,1966
Oyster Bay
New York

Associations & Memberships

Broward County Bar Association; The Florida Bar; Florida Justice Association (President, 2006-2007); Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers (President, 2006; President-Elect, 2005-2006; Treasurer, 2004-2005; Secretary, 2003-2004; Member, Executive Committee, 2001—; Chairman Insurance Committee, 1998-2004); Broward County Trial Lawyers; The Association of Trial Lawyers of America.

Representative Cases

Freedom Life Ins. Co. of America v. Wallant, 953 So.2d 16 (Fla. 4 DCA 2005); Foundation Health v. Westside EKG Associates, 944 So.2d 188 (Fla. 2006); Schwartz v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 912 So.2d 1270 (Fla. 2005); Gaetan v. GEICO Indem. Co., 911 So.2d 94 (Fla. 2005); Magnetic Imaging Systems, I, Ltd. v. Prudential Property & Cas. Ins. Co., 847 So.2d 987 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Consortium for Diagnostics, Inc. v. Cigna Ins. Co., 781 So.2d 1128 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Magnetic Imaging Systems I, Ltd. v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 775 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); American States Ins. Co. v. Magnetic Imaging Systems I, Ltd., 750 So.2d 731 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Belfort v. Falowski, 749 So.2d 520 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); USA Diagnostics, Inc. v. Rosales, 740 So.2d 598 (Fla. 3d DCA1999); Fortune Ins. Co. v. USA Diagnostics, Inc., 736 So.2d 1279 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Ulysses Cruises, Inc. v. Calves, 728 So.2d 363 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Magnetic Imaging Systems I, Ltd., 696 So.2d 1302 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Union American Ins. Co. v. U.S.A. Diagnostics, Inc., 697 So.2d 560 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Orion Ins. Co. v. Magnetic Imaging Systems I, 696 So.2d 475 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Magnetic Imaging Systems I, Ltd., 694 So.2d 852 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); George v. Hitek Community Control Corp., 639 So.2d 661(Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Wheeler v. Allstate Floridian Indemn. Co., 19 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 871 (S.D. Fla. 2006).

Biographical Details

Order of the Coif. Moot Court Board, 1990-1991. Listed in Who's Who in American Law. Recipient, Chair's Choice Pro Bono Service Award, Florida Bar. Member, 1990-1991 and Managing Editor, 1991, University of Miami Inter-American Law Review.

Office Information
Edward H. Zebersky
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 2150,
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
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.