Michael A. Anderson

Attorney in Chattanooga, TN
Phi Delta Phi. Listed in Best Lawyers in America for Personal Injury Litigation, 2006-present. Mid-South Super Lawyers. National Trial Lawyers Association. Million Dollar Advocates Forum.
Credit Cards Accepted
Client Rating N/A help_info
Submit a client review

Peer Rating 4.7 of 5

Areas of Law

LitigationCivil Trial LawPersonal Injury LawProducts Liability LawProfessional Negligence
Civil Trial Law
Personal Injury Law
Products Liability Law
Professional Negligence


Peer Rating


Overall Peer Rating

in Litigation, Personal Injury and General Practice
4.7 out of 5.0

Legal Knowledge
Analytical Capabilities
Communication Ability
Legal Experience

  • Meets very high criteria of general ethical standards
Posted by a Private Practice Attorney on 07/05/12
5.0 out of 5.0
Outstanding trial lawyer with highest ethical standards.
Report abuse
Posted by a Private Practice Attorney on 06/25/12
5.0 out of 5.0
Michael is a zealous, but reasonable advocate who thoroughly acquaints himself with the facts and law applicable to the matters in which he is engaged. He exercises excellent judgment in dealing with adversary counsel.
Report abuse
Posted by a Private Practice Attorney on 07/07/12
5.0 out of 5.0
Mike is an excellent attorney.
Report abuse
Posted by a Private Practice Attorney on 06/26/12
5.0 out of 5.0
Hard-working and smart.
Report abuse
Posted by a Private Practice Attorney on 06/19/12
5.0 out of 5.0
I have known Mr. Anderson for over 20 years and litigated with him.
Report abuse
Posted by a Private Practice Attorney on 06/18/12
5.0 out of 5.0
I have had matters off and on with Mike for 20 years . sometimes against . he has done excellent work and behaved professionally at all times . he has earned a top rating
Report abuse
Posted by a Private Practice Attorney on 06/18/12
5.0 out of 5.0
Excellent ethical attorney
Report abuse
Posted by a Private Practice Attorney on 06/17/12
5.0 out of 5.0
I have referred several matters to Mike Anderson, all with excellent results.
Report abuse

Experience & Credentials



Admission Details

Admitted in 1985, Alabama
1987, Tennessee
1991, Georgia
U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth and Eleventh Circuits
U.S. District Court, Eastern, Middle and Western Districts of Tennessee
U.S. District Court, Northern and Middle Districts of Georgia
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Alabama

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

    Cumberland School of Law of Samford University
    Class of 1985

    University Attended

    Auburn University
    Class of 1982

    Birth Information

    Born in 1960
    Birmingham, Alabama, October 17, 1960



    Associations & Memberships

    Best Lawyers in America- Plaintiff Personal Injury; Mid-South Super Lawyers; National Trial Lawyers Association; Tennessee, Federal and American (Member, Sections on: Tort; Insurance Practi... More

    Representative Cases

    Spears v. Colonial Bank of Alabama, 514 S.E. 2d 814 (Ala. 1987); Downing v. Bowater, Inc., 846 S.W. 2d 265 (Tenn. App 1992); Fayne v. Vincent, 301 S.W. 3d 162 (Tenn. 2009); Mills v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 300 S.W. 3d 627 (Tenn. 2009); Sykes v. Chattanooga Housing Authority, 343 S.W.3d 18 (Tenn. 2011).

    Contact Information


    423-308-3538 Call Now






    Send email to Michael A. Anderson

    Office Information
    Michael A. Anderson
    Market Court 537 Market Street, Suite 202,
    Chattanooga, TN 37402


    Patrick, Beard, Schulman & Jacoway, P.C. (Chattanooga, Tennessee)

    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.