|
|
Address
1012 Rio Grande Street
Austin, Texas 78701 (Travis & Williamson Cos.)
Average Client Review Rating
Rating not available
Average Peer Review Rating
5.0
out of 5
 Free Initial Consultation  Accepts Credit Cards (Main Office) After working as a Research Attorney for the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, I began my law practice in 1981. I specialize in the defense of criminal cases, and I have received board certification in criminal law. During my career I have handled all sorts of criminal cases in Travis and Williamson Counties, including cases like yours. Statement of PracticeState and Federal Criminal Law, Drug Crimes, White Collar Crime, Driving While Intoxicated, Theft, Weapons Charges, Assault, Felonies, Traffic Violations, Check Fraud, Juvenile Criminal Law, Parole and Probation Law. Year Established: 1981
Firm Size: 1
Rate InformationFixed Fees Available
Free Initial Consultation
Accepts Major Credit Cards - Visa
- MasterCard
- American Express
- Discover
Address1012 Rio Grande Street
Austin, TX 78701, (Travis & Williamson Cos.)
PhonePhone: 512-472-1950
Fax: 512-472-4102
Website
http://www.ianinglis.com
Office HoursMonday: 08:00 AM - 05:30 PM
Tuesday: 08:00 AM - 05:30 PM
Wednesday: 08:00 AM - 05:30 PM
Thursday: 08:00 AM - 05:30 PM
Friday: 08:00 AM - 05:30 PM
Saturday: By Appointment Only
Ian Inglis (Member) born Bryan, Texas, October 26, 1950; admitted to bar, 1978, Texas; 1981, U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas; 1986, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit; 1991, U.S. Supreme Court. Education: University of Texas at Austin (B.A., Philosophy, magna cum laude, 1974); University of Texas at Austin (J.D., with honors, 1978). Phi Beta Kappa. Member: State Bar of Texas; Austin Criminal Defense Lawyers Association; Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association. (Board Certified, Criminal Law, Texas Board of Legal Specialization). Reported Cases: Jefferson v. State, 974 S.W.2d 887 (Tex.App. Austin 1998); Riley v. State, 963 S.W.2d 932 (Tex.App. Austin 1998); Loving v. State, 947 S.W.2d 615 (Tex.App. Austin 1997); Moss v. State, 938 S.W.2d 186 (Tex.App. Austin 1997); Yount v. State, 872 S.W.2d 706 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993); Ex parte Menchaca, 854 S.W.2d 128 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993); Muniz v. State, 851 S.W.2d 238 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993); Blakely v. State, 843 S.W.2d 33 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992); Blakely v. State, 814 S.W.2d 433 (Tex.App. Austin 1991); Yount v. State, 808 S.W.2d 633 (Tex.App. Austin 1991); Bryant v. State, 793 S.W.2d 59 (Tex.App. Austin 1990); Ellis v. State, 723 S.W.2d 671 (Tex.Crim.App. 1986); Amaya v. State, 733 S.W.2d 168 (Tex.Crim.App. 1986); Wray v. State, 711 S.W.2d 631 (Tex.Crim.App. 1986); Robinson v. State, 665 S.W.2d 826 (Tex.App. Austin 1984); Allen v. State, 656 S.W.2d 592 (Tex.App. Austin 1983); Ex parte Rogers, 640 S.W.2d 921 (Tex.Crim.App. 1982); Ex parte Shorthouse, 640 S.W.2d 924 (Tex.Crim.App. 1982); Wray v. State, 642 S.W.2d 27 (Tex.App. Texarkana 1982); Stevens v. State, 636 S.W.2d 857 (Tex.App. Waco 1982); Campbell v. State, 632 S.W.2d 165 (Tex.App. Waco 1982); Keen v. State, 626 S.W.2d 309 (Tex.Crim.App. 1981). Practice Areas: Criminal Law(100%); Assault and Battery; Burglary; Civil Forfeiture; Criminal Appeals; Criminal Conspiracy; Criminal Defense; Criminal Forfeiture; Criminal Fraud; Criminal Prosecution; Drivers License Suspension; Driving While Intoxicated; DUI/DWI; Expungements; Federal Criminal Law; Felonies; Forgery; Grand Jury Practice; Habeas Corpus; Hit and Run; Homicide; International Criminal Law; Mail Fraud; Manslaughter; Misdemeanors; Parole and Probation; Post-Conviction Remedies; Search and Seizure; Shoplifting; Theft; Weapons Charges.
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.
|