|
|
Address
405 Madison Avenue, Suite 910
Toledo, Ohio 43604 (Lucas Co.)
Average Client Review Rating
Rating not available
Average Peer Review Rating
4.4
out of 5
 Accepts Credit Cards (Main Office) Thomas Sobecki started his practice in 1987 after completing his four year military obligation serving as an attorney in the U.S. Army JAG and a one year stint with the Rudnick and Wolfe law firm in Chicago. He specializes in employment law, discrimination and other areas of civil law, and appeals. Statement of PracticeCivil Rights, Discrimination, Libel, Slander and Defamation, Contracts, Breach of Contract, Education Law, School Law, Labor and Employment, Americans with Disabilities Act, Family and Medical Leave Act, Sexual Harassment, Wrongful Termination, Law Enforcement, Police Misconduct, Military Law. Year Established: 1986
Firm Size: 1
Languages: English.
Rate InformationFixed Hourly Rates
Fixed Fees Available
Accepts Major Credit Cards - Other - Check or Money Order
Address405 Madison Avenue, Suite 910
Toledo, OH 43604, (Lucas Co.)
PhonePhone: (419) 242-9908
Fax: (419) 242-9937
Website
http://www.tomsobecki.com
Office HoursMonday: 09:00 AM - 06:00 PM
Tuesday: 09:00 AM - 06:00 PM
Wednesday: 09:00 AM - 06:00 PM
Thursday: 09:00 AM - 06:00 PM
Friday: 09:00 AM - 06:00 PM
Thomas A. Sobecki (Senior Attorney) admitted to bar, 1981, Ohio; 1985, Illinois; 1988, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio and U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit; 1992, U.S. Supreme Court; 1999, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio. Education: University of Toledo (B.A., summa cum laude, 1978); Northwestern University (J.D., 1981). Member: Toledo Bar Associations; Ohio State Bar Association; American Bar Association; National Employment Lawyers Association; Ohio Employment Lawyers Association. [Colonel, U.S. Army, 1981-2003]. Reported Cases: State of Ohio, ex rel. Patricia A. Parker v. Lucas County Job and Family Services, 176 Ohio App.3d 715 (2008); Grosjean v. FirstEnergy, 481 F. Supp.2d 878 (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio - 2007) ; Nocella v. Basement Experts of America, 499 F. Supp.2d 935 (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio - 2007); Hall v. ITT Automotive, 362 F. Supp.2d 952 (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio - 2005); Kasprzak v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 431 F. Supp.2d 771 (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio - 2005); Kaylor v. Rankin, 356 F. Supp.2d 839 (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio - 2005); Schroeder v. Maumee Bd. of Educ., 296 F. Supp.2d 869 (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio - 2003); McClain v. Northwest Community Corrections Center, 95 Ohio St.3d 484 (2002); Lagunovich v. Findlay City School System, 181 F. Supp.2d 753 (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio - 2001); Pollard v. City of Northwood, 161 F. Supp.2d 782 (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio - 2001); Hertzfeld v. Med. College of Ohio at Toledo, 145 Ohio App.3d 616 (2001); Bourquin v. KeyBank, N.A., 138 Ohio App.3d 435 (2000); Irving v. Austin, 138 Ohio App.3d 552 (2000); Griswold v. Freseniuis USA, Inc., 978 F. Supp. 718 and 964 F. Supp. 1166 (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio - 1997); Pratt v. UAW, Local 1435, 939 F.2d 385 (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit - 1991); Simpson v. Diversitech General, Inc., 945 F.2d 156 (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit - 1991);. Languages: English. Practice Areas: Civil Rights; Discrimination; Libel, Slander and Defamation; Contracts; Breach of Contract; Education Law; School Law; Labor and Employment; Americans with Disabilities Act; Family and Medical Leave Act; Sexual Harassment; Wrongful Termination; Law Enforcement; Police Misconduct; Military Law.
Ratings Methodology
The following firm members have been rated by their peersDisclaimer: No representation is made that the quality of legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers. The testimonial or endorsement does not constitute a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter. Any result that the endorsed lawyer or law firm may achieve on behalf of one client in one matter does not necessarily indicate that similar results can be obtained for other clients. Past success cannot be an assurance of future success because each case must be decided on its own merits. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Martindale-Hubbell® does not undertake to develop a Client Review Rating or Peer Review Rating for all firms and/or lawyers. Therefore, the fact that a firm or lawyer has not been reviewed should not be construed as unfavorable. Martindale-Hubbell accepts no responsibility for and will not be liable for the content and accuracy of the individual Reviews and the aggregated Reviews.
|