Robert W. LoreeLinkedIn

Robert W. Loree 0 0 reviews - Read Reviews or Write a Review
Robert W. Loree is a Lawyer in San Antonio, Texas

210-404-1320

Areas of Law

  • Civil Trial Law
  • Civil Appeals
  • Construction
  • Deceptive Trade Practices
  • Insurance
  • Mediation
  • Consumer
  • Family Law
  • Personal Injury
  • Real Estate
  • Corporate

Contact Information

Currently Employed at

Loree, Hernandez & Lipscomb
Member
14607 San Pedro Avenue, Suite 125,
San Antonio, TX 78232
U.S.A.

Phone

210-404-1320 Call Now

Telecopier

210-404-1310

Email

Send email to Robert W. Loree

 

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 1978, Texas
1981, U.S. District Court, Western and Southern Districts of Texas
U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Law School Attended

University of Texas at Austin
Class of 1978
J.D.

University Attended

University of Maryland
B.A.
with honors
Class of 1975

Birth Information

Born in April 15,1953
New York
N.Y.

Associations & Memberships

San Antonio and American Bar Associations; State Bar of Texas (Member, Alternate Dispute Resolutions Committee, 1985-1988); San Antonio Trial Lawyers Association; Texas Trial Lawyers Association.

Biographical Details

Phi Beta Kappa; Phi Kappa Phi. Author: "Preservation of Error," Texas Practice Guide, 2nd Ed., 1985. Briefing Attorney, Fourth Court of Civil Appeals, 1978-1979. Arbitrator and Mediator, Bexar County Courts, 1989—. (Board Certified, Civil Trial Law, Texas ... More

Office Information
Robert W. Loree
14607 San Pedro Avenue, Suite 125,
San Antonio, TX 78232
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.