Frederick C. Sussman

Attorney in Annapolis, MD
Member, Editorial Advisory Board, "Municipal Litigation Reporter," 1999—. Author: "Zoning Considerations in the Municipal Annexation of Land," Maryland Institute for Continuing Professional Education of Lawyers, 1989; "The Municipal Attorney: A Vital Part of Your Local Government," Municipal Maryland, October, 1995; "Local Government Lawyer- An Integral Part of the Process," Maryland Bar Journal, November/December, 1998; "Employers Beware, EEOC Toughens ADA 'Reasonable Accommodation 'Obligations for Employer," Chamber News, September, 1999; " Telecommuting - A Boon or an Employer's Nightmare," Chamber News, September, 1999. General Counsel, Maryland Municipal League, 1987—. General Counsel, Anne Arundel Economic Development Corporation, 1999—. Town Attorney, Indian Head, Maryland, 1999—. Town Attorney, Riverdale Park, Maryland, 2001—; Town Attorney, La Plata, Maryland, 1987—. Town Attorney, Highland Beach, Maryland, 1986-1992. City Attorney, Seat Pleasant, Maryland, 2001—. Town Attorney, Leonardtown, Maryland, 2004—. City Attorney, Annapolis, Maryland, 1982-1986. Assistant County Attorney, Anne Arundel County, 1975-1982. Temporary Administrative Hearing Officer, Anne Arundel County, 1988, 1998. Chairman, Anne Arundel County Council Salary Standard Commission, 2001. Member, Anne Arundel County Public Schools Budget Task Force, 2003—. Chairman, City of Annapolis Redistricting Committee, 2001. Chairman, City of Annapolis Ethics Commission, 1981-1982. Member, State Advisory Boards on Liability, 1981-1982 and Special Taxing Districts, 1976-1978. Member: Greater Annapolis Chamber of Commerce (President, 1989-1990 and Board Member, 1987-1992); Anne Arundel Trade Council (Chair, 1998, Vice-Chair, Legislative Committee and Member, 1994-1998, Land Use and Economic Development Committees; Board Member and Chair, 1999, Government Relations Committee; Member, Economic Development Committee, 1999—); Annapolis and Anne Arundel County Chamber of Commerce (Board Member, 1999—, Vice-Chair, 2004, Treasurer, 2003 and Chair, 1999-2002, Government Relations Committee; Member, Economic Development Committee, 1999); Maryland Seafood Festival (Board of Directors, 1989-1990). Member, Annapolis Society for Human Resources Management, 2001—.
Client Rating N/A help_info
Submit a client review

Peer Rating 4.4 of 5

Areas of Law

  • Municipal Law
  • Zoning, Planning and Land Use Law
  • Employment Law
  • Real Estate
  • Real Property Law
  • Condominium Association Law
  • Homeowners Association Law
  • Civil Litigation


Peer Rating


Overall Peer Rating

4.4 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 1974, Maryland
U.S. District Court, District of Maryland
U.S. District Court, District of Columbia
U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Additional Payment Information
  • Fixed Hourly Rates
  • Fixed Fees Available
  • Law School Attended

    Tulane University
    Class of 1974

    University Attended

    Tulane University
    Class of 1972

    Birth Information

    Born in 1950
    New Haven, Connecticut, August 25, 1950

    Associations & Memberships

    Anne Arundel County, Maryland State (Chairman, 1997-2000 and Member, 1987—, State and Local Government Section; Member, Employment Law Section, 1997—) and American Bar Associat... More

    Contact Information


    410-268-6600 Ext. 3407


    Send email to Frederick C. Sussman

    Office Information
    Frederick C. Sussman
     125 West Street, Fourth Floor, P.O. Box 2289,
    Annapolis, MD 21404-2289


    Council, Baradel, Kosmerl & Nolan, P.A. (Annapolis, Maryland)

    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.


    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.