Jonathan Marks, P.C.LinkedIn

Jonathan Marks, P.C. 0 0 reviews - Read Reviews or Write a Review
Jonathan Marks, P.C. is a Law Firm in New York, New York
347-916-8227

About This Firm

Former Federal Prosecutor; Harvard Educated; 30 Years Experience - CALL NOW 888-295-4995

The Law Firm of Criminal Defense Lawyer Jonathan Marks has been aggressively defending clients facing criminal charges since 1978. Over the past 30 years, the Firm has earned an outstanding reputation for diligently defending its clients' rights through all stages of the criminal justice process.

Areas of Law

  • Criminal Law
  • Federal Criminal Law
  • White Collar Crime
  • Professional Discipline
  • Civil Rights
  • Commercial Litigation
  • Felonies
  • Burglary
  • Drug Crimes
  • Larceny
  • Kidnapping
  • Conspiracy
  • Manslaughter
  • Murder
  • Sex Crimes
  • RICO
  • Robbery
  • Weapon Possession
  • Embezzlement
  • Telemarketing Fraud
  • Mail Fraud
  • Counterfeiting
  • Smuggling
  • Drug Conspiracy
  • Drug Trafficking
  • Drug Possession
  • Drug Distribution
  • Drug Manufacture
  • Possession with Intent of Distribute
  • Prescription Fraud.

Contact Information

Firm Address

Jonathan Marks, P.C.
220 Fifth Avenue, Third Floor,
New York, NY 10001
U.S.A.

Phone

347-916-8227 Call firm now

Phone1

212-545-8008

Phone2

888-295-4995

Fax

212-889-3595

Email

Send email to Jonathan Marks, 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
5.0 out of 5.0
  • Lawyers rated at this firm meet very high criteria of general ethical standards
Jonathan Marks
Principal
5.0 out of 5.0

Firm Details

Firm Size

2

Office Information
220 Fifth Avenue, Third Floor,
New York, NY 10001
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.