Worden Thane P.C.LinkedIn

Worden Thane P.C. 0 0 reviews - Read Reviews or Write a Review
Worden Thane P.C. is a Law Firm in Missoula, Montana
Phone number not available

View Web Site
Website not available

Areas of Law

  • General Trial Practice, Federal, State and Tribal Courts and Administrative Agencies
  • Estate Planning, Probate and Tax Law
  • Business Organizations, Banking and Bankruptcy Law and Collections
  • Labor and Employment, Hospitals and Health Care, Schools, Construction, Oil and Gas and Transportation Law
  • Real Estate, Water and Environmental Law
  • Insurance Defense, Commercial, Medical/Professional Malpractice Defense, Products Liability and Personal Injury and Wrongful Death Litigation.

Contact Information

Firm Address

Worden Thane P.C.
111 N. Higgins, Suite 600, P.O. Box 4747,
Missoula
U.S.A.

Email

Send email to Worden Thane P.C.

People at This Firm

Lawyer Name:
Area of Law:
Loading...
 

Peer Rating

Rated

Average Peer Rating

Based on this firm's rated lawyers
4.5 out of 5.0

Legal Knowledge
4.5
Analytical Capabilities
4.5
Judgement
4.5
Communication Ability
4.5
Legal Experience
4.5

  • Lawyers rated at this firm meet very high criteria of general ethical standards
Shane A. Vannatta
Partner
4.4 out of 5.0
Jeremy G. Thane
Associate
5.0 out of 5.0
Molly R. Shepherd
Of Counsel
5.0 out of 5.0
W. Carl Mendenhall
Partner
4.5 out of 5.0
Martin S. King
Partner
4.4 out of 5.0
Gail Midtlyng Haviland
Partner
4.4 out of 5.0
Patrick G. Frank
Partner
5.0 out of 5.0
Colleen M. Dowdall
Partner
4.4 out of 5.0
Patrick D. Dougherty
Partner
5.0 out of 5.0
Peter S. Dayton
Partner
4.4 out of 5.0
Ronald A. Bender
Partner
5.0 out of 5.0
Matthew J. Cuffe
Partner
4.4 out of 5.0
Sean M. Morris
Partner
4.4 out of 5.0
Reid J. Perkins
Associate
2.9 out of 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.