Jackie M. Bennett, Jr.

Attorney in Cincinnati, OH

JACKIE M. BENNETT represents individuals and corporations in cases expected to go to trial. His practice concentrates in the areas of commercial, civil and white-collar criminal litigation, as well as regulatory investigations by state and federal agencies. Jackie has experience and expertise in matters involving internal corporate investigations, corporate governance, securities regulation, foreign corrupt practices, patent infringement, environmental crimes and an array of contract and business tort actions. Many of these matters have involved requests for expedited injunctive relief.

Prior to entering private practice in Indianapolis, Jackie was a federal prosecutor for 14 years. He served in the Office of Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr from 1995 to 1999, the last two years as the Principal Deputy in charge of the OIC's Washington, D.C. operations. Jackie supervised the day-to-day operations of that office and was involved in a number of high profile investigations and prosecutions. He served as senior advisor to Judge Starr on investigative and prosecutorial aspects of several matters, including the Impeachment Referral of William Jefferson Clinton. In that regard, he was one of three prosecutors selected by Judge Starr to conduct the grand jury questioning of President Clinton. Jackie also played a principal role in several trials during the Arkansas phase of the Whitewater Investigation, including the 1996 fraud and conspiracy trial resulting in the convictions of then-sitting Arkansas Governor Jim Guy Tucker and former Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan owners Jim and Susan McDougal.

From 1988 to 1995, he served as Trial Attorney and Senior Trial Attorney in the elite Public Integrity Section of the Justice Department's Criminal Division in Washington, D.C. During his time in that office, he prosecuted numerous public corruption cases nationwide, including some of the most challenging corruption cases in the United States in recent years:

· U.S. v. Albert Bustamante (1993, M.D. Texas) - bribery and racketeering trial of U.S. Congressman from Texas.

· U.S. v. Thomas McGill, et al (1990, E.D. Pa.) - bribery, case-fixing and tax evasion trial of prominent Philadelphia judge and criminal defense lawyer.

· U.S. v. Joseph Gieniec, (1991, C.D. Cal.) - Hobbs Act extortion and illegal gratuities case against Deputy U.S. Marshal.

· U.S. v. Darrell Tomblin (1993, M.D. Texas) - prosecution of PAC director in connection with the S&L crisis and efforts to bribe a U.S. Senator.

· U.S. v. David Durenberger (1994, D.D.C.) - prosecution of a former U.S. Senator from Minnesota for false claims.

Jackie also served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Indiana from 1985 to 1988. Before that he was a judicial law clerk in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana for the Honorable Sarah Evans Barker and her predecessor, the Honorable Cale J. Holder.

Jackie was highly-decorated as a federal prosecutor, having received numerous awards from the Justice Department. In 1994, Attorney General Janet Reno presented Jackie with the prestigious John Marshall Award, presented annually "For Outstanding Legal Achievement," in recognition of his work in prosecuting corruption matters.

Since 2005, Jackie has been honored in editions of Chambers USA: America's Leading Lawyers for Business in the area of Litigation. The Best Lawyers of America, the oldest and most respected peer-review publication in the legal profession, has named Jackie as the "Indianapolis Litigation - Environmental Lawyer of the Year" for 2012. He has also been recognized by Best Lawyers for both Commercial and Environmental Litigation and White Collar Criminal Law. Jackie has also been honored by Benchmark Litigation for Commercial Litigation and White-Collar Crime. For several years he also has been recognized in peer rankings-based Indiana Super Lawyers.

In October 2011, Jackie was honored by the Indiana Bar Foundation for law-related education and pro bono services at the 2011 Randall T. Shepard Celebration.

Professional Affiliations / Recognitions:

AV Peer Review Rating (LexisNexis/Martindale-Hubbell) (Awarded), Best Lawyers in America (Member), Chambers USA: America's Leading Lawyers for Business (Member 2005-current), Indiana State Bar Association (Member), Indiana Super Lawyers (Member), Indianapolis Bar Association (Member), Indianapolis Legal Aid Society (Board of Directors), Seventh Circuit Bar Association (Member)

Community Involvement:

Cale J. Holder Memorial Scholarship Committee (Board of Directors)

(317) 713-3444
Client Rating N/A help_info
Submit a client review

Peer Rating 5.0 of 5

Areas of Law

  • White Collar Criminal Defense
  • Litigation
  • Securities - Litigation
  • Patent Litigation
  • Environmental Transactional Services
  • First Amendment & Media Law
  • Environmental
  • Campaign & Election Law
  • FCPA and International Anti-Corruption

 

Peer Rating

av

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

Position

Partner

Admission Details

Admitted in 1983, Indiana
Northern District of Indiana
Southern District of Indiana

Law School Attended

Indiana University - Robert H. McKinney School of Law
Class of 1983
J.D.

University Attended

Hanover College
Class of 1980
B.A.

Contact Information

Phone

(317) 713-3444

Fax

(317) 713-3699

Email

Send email to Jackie M. Bennett, Jr.


Office Information
Jackie M. Bennett, Jr.
Partner
 425 Walnut Street, Suite 1800,
Cincinnati, OH 45202-3957

Maintains an office in multiple locations
Loading...

Logo
Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP (Cincinnati, Ohio)

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.

Anonymity

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.