James A. Billings

Attorney in Augusta, ME
Editor-in-Chief, 1999-2000, Staff Member, 1998-1999, Maine Law Review. Law Clerk: Honorable John A. Dooley, Vermont Supreme Court, 2000-2001; Honorable James Z. Davis, Utah Court of Appeals, 2001-2002. Co-Author: "Maine's Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act: Wise or Wicked?" 52 Me.L.Rev. 175 (2000).
Credit Cards Accepted
Client Rating N/A help_info
Submit a client review

Peer Rating N/A help_info
  • Civil Litigation
  • Criminal Defense
  • Family Law
  • Personal Injury
  • Construction Law


Experience & Credentials



Admission Details

Admitted in 2002, Maine and U.S. District Court, District of Maine
2003, U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit

Credit Cards Accepted
American Express
Law School Attended

University of Maine, School of Law
Class of 2000
magna cum laude

University Attended

University of Maine
Class of 1997
summa cum laude

Associations & Memberships

Kennebec County (President), Maine State and American Bar Associations; Maine Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (Treasurer); Maine Trial Lawyers Association; National Association of Cri... More

Representative Cases

Flaherty v. Muther, 2011 ME 32, 17 A.3d 640; State v. Nelson, 2010 ME 40, 994 A.2d 808; Napp v. Parks Camp, Ltd., 2007 ME 126, 932 A.2d 531; Maddocks v. Whitcomb, 2006 ME 47, 896 A.2d 265; State v. Miller, 1999 ME 182, 741 A.2d 448.

Hobbies & Interests

Skiing, boating, fishing, camping.

Contact Information


207-620-8294 Call Now




Send email to James A. Billings

Office Information
James A. Billings
 133 State Street,
Augusta, ME 04330-5605


McKee Billings, LLC, P.A. (Augusta, Maine)

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.