Kenneth A. DiMuzio

Kenneth A. DiMuzio 0 0 reviews - Read Reviews or Write a Review
Kenneth A. DiMuzio is a Lawyer in Woodbury, New Jersey

856-381-4837
View Web Site
http://www.hoffmandimuzio.com

Areas of Law

  • Personal Injury
  • Workers Compensation

Contact Information

Currently Employed at

Hoffman DiMuzio
Partner
25-35 Hunter Street, P.O. Box 7,
Woodbury, NJ 08096-7007
U.S.A.

Phone

856-381-4837

Phone 1

856-845-8243

Telecopier

856-845-4176

Email

Send email to Kenneth A. DiMuzio

Website

http://www.hoffmandimuzio.com

 

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 1969, New Jersey and U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey
1977, U.S. Supreme Court
1981, U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

Law School Attended

Georgetown University
Class of 1969
J.D.

University Attended

Georgetown University
A.B.
cum laude
Class of 1966

Birth Information

Born in April 8,1944
Woodbury
New Jersey

Associations & Memberships

Gloucester County (Trustee, 1978-1980; President, 2002-2003), New Jersey State and American Bar Associations; New Jersey Institute of Municipal Attorneys (Trustee, 1985-1986),

Biographical Details

Phi Beta Kappa. Editor, Georgetown University Law Journal, 1968-1969. Author: "The Siting and Operation of Hazardous Waste Disposal Facilities," New Jersey Municipalities Magazine, May, 1981; "Reforming the Business Personal Property Tax," New Jersey Leagu... More

Office Information
Kenneth A. DiMuzio
25-35 Hunter Street, P.O. Box 7,
Woodbury, NJ 08096-7007
U.S.A.
Loading...

Hoffman DiMuzio
Hoffman DiMuzio (Woodbury, New Jersey)

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.