Greg L. Peterson

Attorney in Aberdeen, SD
Projects Editor, South Dakota Law Review, 1979-1980. Law Clerk, Fifth Judicial Circuit, 1980-1981.
605-225-2232

Areas of Law

  • Litigation
  • Insurance
  • Workers Compensation
  • Corporate Law
  • Estate Planning
  • Trust Litigation
  • Trusts and Estates

 

Overall Client Rating

in Trusts and Estates
5.0 out of 5.0

Communication Ability
5.0
Responsiveness
5.0
Quality of Service
5.0
Value for Money
5.0

  • Data based on 1 reviews
  • Recommended by 1 Client
  • Last reviewed on 03/05/12
No feedback is available.
The individuals that have reviewed this lawyer have not provided any additional feedback.
Are you a former client?  Submit a review

Experience & Credentials

Position

Member

Admission Details

Admitted in 1980, South Dakota and U.S. District Court, District of South Dakota
1991, North Dakota

Law School Attended

University of South Dakota
Class of 1980
J.D.

University Attended

University of South Dakota
Class of 1977
B.A.
Political Science

Associations & Memberships

Brown County Bar Association; The State Bar of South Dakota (Director, Young Lawyers Section, 1983-1986); Christian Legal Society; South Dakota Trial Lawyers Association; South Dakota Defense ... More

Representative Cases

Western Consolidated Cooperative v. Pew, 2011 S.D. 9 ; Mundhenke v. Holm, 2010 SD 67; Hogg v. Siebrecht, 464 N.W.2d 209 (S.D. 1990); Braun v. New Hope Township, 2002 S.D. 67, 646 N.W.2d 737; Trammell v. Prairie States Life Ins. Co., 473 N.W.2d 460 (S.D. 1991).

Contact Information

Phone

605-225-2232

Email

Send email to Greg L. Peterson

Social Networking



Office Information
Greg L. Peterson
Member
 305 Sixth Avenue, S.E., P.O. Box 970,
Aberdeen, SD 57402-0970

Loading...

Logo
Bantz, Gosch & Cremer, L.L.C. (Aberdeen, South Dakota)

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.