Dana M. ThompsonLinkedIn

Dana M. Thompson 0 0 reviews - Read Reviews or Write a Review
Dana M. Thompson is a Lawyer in Canton, Georgia

888-790-3173
Credit Cards Accepted

Areas of Law

  • Commercial Real Estate
  • Mediation
  • Governmental Law
  • Divorce Mediation
  • Family Law

Contact Information

Currently Employed at

Thompson, Meier & King, P.C.
Managing Partner
Brown-Vandiviere House 341 East Main Street, P.O. Box 1847,
Canton, GA 30169
U.S.A.

Phone

888-790-3173 Call Now

Phone 1

770-479-1844

Fax

770-479-4999

Fax 1

770-479-2107

Email

Send email to Dana M. Thompson

 

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 1987, Georgia

Payment Information
  • Accepts Visa, MasterCard and American Express
Law School Attended

University of Georgia
Class of 1987
J.D.

University Attended

Randolph-Macon Woman's College
B.A.
with honors
Class of 1983

University of Reading
England

Birth Information

Born in September 28,1961
Atlanta
Georgia

Associations & Memberships

State Bar of Georgia (Member, Sections on: Family Law, Real Property and ADR); Georgia Office of Dispute Resolution, Registered Mediator.

Biographical Details

Special Assistant Attorney General, 1994—. Georgia Registered Mediator (Domestic and Civil), 1995—. Canton Downtown Development Authority, Chair, Board Member, 1998—. Salvation Army Advisory Board, 2001-2003. Cherokee County Family Violence Board, 2003—. C... More

Office Information
Dana M. Thompson
Brown-Vandiviere House 341 East Main Street, P.O. Box 1847,
Canton, GA 30169
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.