William B. Hollberg

Attorney in Atlanta, GA
Author: "Religious Liberty Law and the States," 3 Georgia State University Law Review 19, 1986. Co-Author: with Stephen M. Krason, "The Law and History of Abortion: The Supreme Court Refuted," in Abortion, Medicine, and The Law, 196, 1986. Legislative Assistant to U.S. Senator David H. Gambrell, 1972. Chairperson, Common Cause Georgia, 1976-1977. Chairman, Georgia Campaign and Financial Disclosure Commission, 1982-1983. President, Rutherford Institute of Georgia, 1984-1989.
Client Rating N/A help_info
Submit a client review

Peer Rating 5.0 of 5

Areas of Law

  • Litigation
  • Divorce
  • Corporate Law
  • Real Estate
  • Estate Planning
  • Probate


Peer Rating


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 1971, Georgia
1980, U.S. District Court Northern District of Georgia
1981, U.S. Court of Appeals 5th Circuit
1982, U.S. Supreme Court
1983, U.S. Court of Appeals 11th Circuit

Law School Attended

University of Georgia
Class of 1971

University Attended

Wheaton College
Class of 1968

Georgia State University
Class of 1987

Birth Information

Born in 1947
Atlanta, Georgia

Associations & Memberships

State Bar of Georgia; Christian Legal Society.

Representative Cases

Poythress v. Duncan, 657 F.2d 691 (5th Cir. 1981, cert dismissed, 459 U.S. 1012 (1982); Weaver v. Bonner, 309 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2003).

Contact Information


404-760-1116 Call Now




Send email to William B. Hollberg

Office Information
William B. Hollberg
 2921 Piedmont Rd. N.E., Suite C,
Atlanta, GA 30305


Hollberg & Weaver, LLP (Atlanta, Georgia)

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.