James E. Carbine

Attorney in Baltimore, MD
Notes and Comments Editor, Maryland Law Review, 1971-1972. Author: "Setting Up a Complex Litigation War Room," The Practical Litigator, July 1992; "The Role of Document Coding in Large and Small Cases," The National Trial Lawyer, March 1993; "Misunderstood 'Secrets' of Expert Witness Discovery Under the Federal Rules," The National Trial Lawyer, July 1993; "Time's Running Out on the Billable Hour as a Standard for Legal Fees," The Daily Record, November 1993. Commission Member, Governor's Study Commission on Landlord-Tenant Laws, 1974-1977. Maryland Volunteer Lawyers Service, Director and Secretary, 1991—; Director, JEDDI Corporation, 1995—.
Client Rating N/A help_info
Submit a client review

Peer Rating 5.0 of 5

Areas of Law

  • Complex Litigation
  • Civil Litigation


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 1972, Maryland
1973, U.S. District Court, District of Maryland
1986, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Law School Attended

University of Maryland School of Law
Class of 1972

University Attended

Michigan State University
Class of 1967

Birth Information

Born in 1945
Scottsbluff, Nebraska, June 3, 1945

Associations & Memberships

American Bar Association (Member, Litigation Section; Committees on: Computer Litigation, 1985—; Corporate Counsel, 1985—; Co-Chair, Trial Practice Committee, 1994—; Chair, A... More

Contact Information


410-385-5300 Call Now

Office Information
James E. Carbine
 111 South Calvert Street, Suite 2700,
Baltimore, MD 21202


James E. Carbine, P.C. (Baltimore, 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.