Edward CohenLinkedIn

Edward Cohen 0 0 reviews - Read Reviews or Write a Review
Edward Cohen is a Lawyer in Cincinnati, Ohio

513-721-6500
Free Consultation

Areas of Law

  • Workers Compensation Law
  • Negligence Law
  • Torts
  • Litigation
  • Social Security
  • Wrongful Death
  • Automobile Accidents and Injuries
  • Truck Accidents
  • Motorcycle Accidents
  • Appellate Practice

Contact Information

Currently Employed at

Clements, Mahin & Cohen, L.P.A., Co.
Member
The Executive Building 35 East Seventh Street, Suite 710,
Cincinnati, OH 45202-4009
U.S.A.

Phone

513-721-6500

Facsimile

513-763-6415

Email

Send email to Edward Cohen

 

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 1982, Ohio, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio and U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

Payment Information
  • Free Initial Consultation
  • Fixed Hourly Rates
  • Fixed Fees Available
Law School Attended

University of Cincinnati
Class of 1982
J.D.

University Attended

University of Cincinnati
Class of 1976
B.A.

Indiana University
Class of 1982
M.A.

Birth Information

Born in December 20,1954
Hamilton
Ohio

Associations & Memberships

Cincinnati (Member, Workers Compensation Committee, Chairman, 1992-1993; Tort/Insurance Law Committee), Ohio State (Member: Workers Compensation Committee; Negligence Law Committee) and American Bar Associations; Cincinnati Academy of Medicine (Member, Joint Committee).

Representative Cases

State ex rel Adams v. Aluchan, of al (2003) 101 Ohio St. 3d 1452; Walters v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. (1999 - 1st Dist. Ct. Appeals); Flora v. Cincinnati Milacrom 88 Ohio App 3d 306 (1993); State Farm Mutual Ins Co. v. Mahin, 92 Ohio App 3d 291 (1993); State ex rel Adams v. Aluchom et al, 78 Ohio App 3d 261 (1992); Lanhart v. Southern Ohio Fabricators 61 Ohio App 31 432 (1991); Johnson v. University of Cincinnati 68 Ohio App 3d M1 (1991); State ex rel Amenniti Dunn Service v. Industrial Commission (1989); Steely v. Boweil et al, 65 Ohio App 3d 161 (1989).

Biographical Details

Moot Court Board (Director, 1981-1982); Order of Barristers. Winner, Midwest Regional, Giles Sutherland Rich Patent Law Competition. Recipient: Research and Teaching Scholarship; Interdisciplinary Doctoral Fellowship; College of Law Scholarship; Rawson Col... More

Office Information
Edward Cohen
The Executive Building 35 East Seventh Street, Suite 710,
Cincinnati, OH 45202-4009
U.S.A.
Loading...

Clements Mahin and Cohen L P A Co
Clements, Mahin & Cohen, L.P.A., Co. (Cincinnati, Ohio)

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.