Mark P. ScherzerLinkedIn

Mark P. Scherzer reviews - Read Reviews or Write a Review
Mark P. Scherzer is a Lawyer in New York, New York

Client Rating N/A help_info
Rating Not Shown
Submit a review
212-406-9606
Credit Cards Accepted

Areas of Law

  • Insurance Law
  • ERISA
  • Litigation
  • Lobbying
  • COBRA
  • Disability Benefits
  • Employee Benefit Litigation
  • ERISA Litigation
  • Health Benefits
  • Health Care Legislation
  • Health Care Reform
  • Health Insurance
  • Health Insurance Coverage
  • Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
  • Health Law
  • Managed Care
  • Disability Insurance
  • Insurance Contracts
  • Insurance Coverage
  • Life and Health Insurance
  • Life Insurance
  • Insurance Litigation

Contact Information

Currently Employed at

Law Office of Mark P. Scherzer
Member
7 Dey Street, Suite 600,
New York, NY 10007
U.S.A.

Phone

212-406-9606 Call Now

Fax

212-964-6903

Email

Send email to Mark P. Scherzer

Networking
 
Rating Not Shown
This lawyer has chosen not to display the rating(s) provided by his or her clients.

Experience & Credentials

Admission Details

Admitted in 1979, New York and U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
1980, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York
1985, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
1996, U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

Payment Information
  • Accepts Visa and MasterCard
  • Fixed Hourly Rates
  • Fixed Fees Available
Law School Attended

Yale University
Class of 1978
J.D.

University Attended

Haverford College
B.A.
magna cum laude
Class of 1973

University of Chicago
M.A.
Anthropology
Class of 1975

Birth Information

Born in April 24,1951
Bronx
New York

Associations & Memberships

New York County Lawyers Association; New Yorkers for Accessible Health Coverage (Member, Steering Committee; Legislative Counsel).

Representative Cases

Burke v. First UNUM Life Insurance Company of New York, 975 F. Supp. 310 (S.D.N.Y. 1997); Bradley v. Empire Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 562 N.Y.S. 2d 908 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Co. 1990); Doe v. United Services Life Insurance Co., 123 F.R.D. 437 (S.D.N.Y. 1988); Fay v. Oxford Health Plan, 287 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2002); Fortune v. Medical Associates of Woodhull, 803 F. Supp. 636 (E.D.N.Y. 1992); Massachusetts Casualty Ins. Co. v. Morgan, 886 F. Supp. 1002 (E.D.N.Y. 1995); New England Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Doe, 93 N.Y. 2d 122 (1999); Swensen v. Colonial Life Insurance Co. of America, 1993 WL 378470 (S.D.N.Y. 1993); Whitney v. Empire Blue Cross and Blue Shield, 920 F. Supp. 477 (S.D.N.Y. 1996); rev'd and remanded 106 F.3d 475 (2d Cir. 1997); Troy v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of America, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14965 (S.D.N.Y., Mar. 31. 2006); Noia v. Division 1181 ATU - New York Welfare Fund, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68324 (E.D.N.Y., Sep. 14, 2007); Zurndorfer v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of America, 543 F. Supp. 2d 242 (S.D.N.Y., 2008).

Biographical Details

Recipient: Lambda Legal Defense, Jay C. Lipner Liberty Award, 1992; Community Service Award, Lesbian & Gay Law Association of Greater New York, 1992; Outstanding Service Award, Cancer Care, 1993. The Poz 50 (Most Influential AIDS Policymakers), Poz Magazin... More

Office Information
Mark P. Scherzer
7 Dey Street, Suite 600,
New York, NY 10007
U.S.A.
Loading...

Law Office of Mark P Scherzer
Law Office of Mark P. Scherzer (New York, New York)

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.