Dena M. Winfield

Dena M. Winfield 2.0 reviews - Read Reviews or Write a Review
Dena M. Winfield is a Lawyer in Meridian, Idaho

Phone number not available
View Web Site
Website not available

Areas of Law

  • Divorce
  • Custody
  • Adoptions
  • Child Support
  • Modifications

Contact Information

Currently Employed at

Winfield Law Office, PLLC
Member
730 W. Ustick Rd., Ste. 110,
Meridian, ID 83646-5941
U.S.A.

Email

Send email to Dena M. Winfield

 

Client Rating

Overall Client Rating

in Family Law
2.0 out of 5.0

Communication Ability
3.0
Responsiveness
3.0
Quality of Service
1.0
Value for Money
1.0

  • Data based on 1 reviews
  • Last reviewed on 06/15/11
Posted by a Consumer on 06/15/11
2.0 out of 5.0
This was a child abuse case involving a step mother. The state dropped charges against her because when the judge asked to see the children (after she told me "never bring children to court because it looks bad on you") she didn't even ask for time to produce them. She shuffled through papers like she forgot what the case was even about. We got pummeled by the word "hearsay"! My children remained in partial custody of my ex and the abuser after SEVERAL thousand dollars were spent by me. :(

Experience & Credentials

Admission Details

Admitted in 1997, Oregon
2005, Idaho

Law School Attended

Willamette University
J.D.

University Attended

Albertson College of Idaho
B.A.

Featured Lawyers
Loading...


Susan Lynn Mimura & Associates, PLLC
Meridian, U.S.A.
208-286-1612 | Email
Client Rating

2.0 / 5.0
Peer Rating N/A

Rating Not Shown

Belnap Stewart Taylor & Morris PLLC
Boise, U.S.A.
208-577-6637 | Email
Client Rating

2.0 / 5.0
Peer Rating

3.2 / 5.0

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.