Thomas N. Yeager

Thomas N. Yeager 0 0 reviews - Read Reviews or Write a Review
Thomas N. Yeager is a Lawyer in Chestertown, Maryland

443-282-1144
View Web Site
http://www.yeagerlawoffice.net

Areas of Law

  • General Practice
  • Governmental Law
  • Civil Litigation
  • Criminal Defense
  • Real Estate
  • Personal Injury
  • Family Law
  • Wills
  • Collections
  • Mechanics Liens

Contact Information

Currently Employed at

Law Office of Thomas N. Yeager
Member
203 Maple Avenue, P.O. Box 455,
Chestertown, MD 21620
U.S.A.

Phone

443-282-1144 Call Now

Phone 1

410-810-0428

Fax

410-778-6464

Email

Send email to Thomas N. Yeager

Website

http://www.yeagerlawoffice.net

 

Peer Rating

Rated

Overall Peer Rating

2.9 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 1990, Maryland

Payment Information
  • Fixed Fees Available
Law School Attended

University of Maryland
Class of 1990
J.D.

University Attended

University of Maryland
Class of 1986
B.A.

Birth Information

Born in January 18,1964
Laurel
Maryland

Associations & Memberships

Kent County Bar Association; Maryland State Bar Association, Inc. (Member, Board of Governors and Resolution of Fee Disputes Committee).

Biographical Details

Judicial Law Clerk to Hon. Elroy G. Boyer and Hon. J. Frederick Price, Circuit Court, Kent County, 1990-1991. Graduate, "Career Prosecutor's Course," National College of District Attorneys, 1994. Instructor, "Street Level Narcotics Course for Patrol Office... More

Office Information
Thomas N. Yeager
203 Maple Avenue, P.O. Box 455,
Chestertown, MD 21620
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.