Help

Conley & Wirick, P.A.LinkedIn

Conley & Wirick, P.A. 5.0 reviews - Read Reviews or Write a Review
Conley & Wirick, P.A. is a Law Firm in Bath, Maine
Client Rating 5.0 / 5.0
Submit a review
Peer Rating 5.0 / 5.0
888-328-1057

View Web Site

Free Consultation | Credit Cards Accepted

About This Firm

Attorney at Law

Conley & Wirick, P.A. represents plaintiffs in state and federal courts in the areas of personal injury and wrongful death caused by negligence, defective products, medical malpractice, professional negligence, premises liability, and other tort liability matters. Additionally, the firm represents business and individuals in commercial disputes. Conley & Wirick also concentrates in insurance, corporate and partnership litigation.

Some of Conley & Wirick's recent and current cases include a young child who choked to death due to home nursing negligence; psychological malpractice resulting in a judgment of 1.45 million dollars; cases of victims with injuries resulting in Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy (RSD) Chronic Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS), including a young mother totally disabled by CRPS/RSD and a businessman who suffers disabling pain due to CRPS/RSD; a young boy who was sexually assaulted; several victims of motor vehicle collision; a young girl who was severely bitten in the face and neck by a large dog. The firm has successfully represented several children who were catastrophically injured by defective automobile seat belts and air bags.

In Jenkins v. Daimler Chrysler Corporation, 3-year old Steven Jenkins, Jr. sustained severe and disabling brain injuries as a result of a front passenger airbag, which deployed in a low-speed collision and struck him in the face. He was restrained in a forward facing booster seat in the front seat of a Dodge minivan. On the fourth day of trial in the Los Angeles Superior Court, a settlement was reached with Chrysler for a confidential amount. In Evans v. Daimler Chrysler Corporation, on Christmas Day, 1996, 6-year old Andrew Evans was an unrestrained front seat passenger in a Dodge minivan that was involved in a low-speed frontal collision. The passenger air bag deployed and struck Andrew in the face and neck, rendering him a ventilator-dependent quadriplegic. During the second day of jury trial in the Omaha, Nebraska, District Court, a settlement for Andrew and his family was obtained from Chrysler. In Williams v. Inverness, Mr. Conley's client was injured when her ear was pierced in the upper cartilage area. The Defendant manufacturer of the ear piercing equipment refused to settle. At trial, the jury returned a unanimous verdict against the manufacturer. In that case, the manufacturer appealed the jury verdict. The Law Court affirmed and upheld the jury verdict, and Ms. Williams received over $120,000. The case of Theberge v. Ford Motor Company involved defective seat belts and defective restraint system. In that case, the client was a 7-year old boy who was restrained in the back seat of a Ford Escort by a lap-only belt. The car was involved in a low-to-moderate speed collision. The boy sustained injuries, which rendered him a quadriplegic. Within days of the scheduled jury trial, Ford Motor Company settled for a confidential amount. In Swint v. General Motors Corporation, a member of the firm represented the widow and estate of a police officer killed in the line of duty. The late Officer Swint was thrown from his police cruiser during a side-impact collision, when his door opened and his seat belt malfunctioned. That case also led to settlement for a confidential amount.

Conley & Wirick has obtained many six-figure & seven-figure jury verdicts, and settlements for clients in product liability, medical malpractice and negligence cases.

The firm has also successfully represented a Maine shipbuilding business in a lawsuit involving partnership and contractual issues that threatened the existence of the company. Another business dispute that resulted in a favorable verdict at trial involved the defense of a construction materials firm over a breach of employment contract. In a recent case, we represented an international paper manufacturer in the failure by one of its vendors to pay several hundred thousands of dollars owed for products delivered. Without litigation, we were able to negotiate a settlement that resulted in full payment of the entire debt owed plus interest within 6 months.

Areas of Law

  • Personal Injury
  • Medical Malpractice
  • Professional Liability
  • Premises Liability
  • Divorce and Family Law.
  • Product Liability Law
  • Contract Disputes
  • Civil Trial Practice
  • Probate Litigation

Contact Information

Firm Address

Conley & Wirick, P.A.
30 Front Street, Suite 2,
Bath, ME 04530-2600
U.S.A.

Phone

888-328-1057 Call firm now

Phone

207-443-3434

Fax

207-443-3849

Email

Send email to Conley & Wirick, P.A.

Firm Website

People at This Firm

Lawyer Name:
Area of Law:
Loading...
 

Overall Client Rating

in Personal Injury and Products Liability
5.0 out of 5.0

Communication Ability
5.0
Responsiveness
5.0
Quality of Service
5.0
Value for Money
5.0

  • Data based on 1 reviews
  • Recommended by 1 Client
  • Last reviewed on 03/30/10
No feedback is available.
The individuals that have reviewed this lawyer have not provided any additional feedback.
Are you a former client? Submit a review

Firm Details

Year Established

1998

Firm Size

2

Payment Information
  • Accepts Visa and MasterCard
  • Free Initial Consultation
  • Fixed Hourly Rates
  • Fixed Fees Available
Office Information
30 Front Street, Suite 2,
Bath, ME 04530-2600
U.S.A.
Loading...

Office Hours
Monday
08:00 AM- 05:00 PM
Tuesday
08:00 AM- 05:00 PM
Wednesday
08:00 AM- 05:00 PM
Thursday
08:00 AM- 05:00 PM
Friday
08:00 AM- 05:00 PM

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.