John W. McKendree

Attorney in Denver, CO
Phi Delta Phi. Municipal Judge, City of Sheridan, Colorado, 1966. Member of Panel, American Arbitration Association. General Counsel for Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, Denver, Colorado, 1986-1991.
Client Rating N/A help_info
Submit a client review

Peer Rating N/A help_info

Areas of Law

  • Criminal Law
  • Criminal Defense
  • Disability Discrimination
  • Race Discrimination
  • Sex Discrimination
  • Title IX Discrimination
  • Title VII Discrimination
  • Age Discrimination
  • Age Discrimination in Employment
  • Employment Disability Discrimination
  • Employment Discrimination
  • National Origin Discrimination
  • Pregnancy Discrimination


Experience & Credentials



Admission Details

Admitted in 1964, Colorado, U.S. District Court, District of Colorado and U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
1968, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
1969, U.S. District Court, District of Montana
1976, U.S. Supreme Court
1987, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
1988, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
1989, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

Law School Attended

University of Denver College of Law
Class of 1963

University Attended

University of California at Berkeley
Class of 1955

Birth Information

Born in 1936
Taft, California, August 8, 1936

Associations & Memberships

Denver, Colorado and American (Member, Committees on: Development of the Law Under the National Labor Relations Act; International Labor Law; Member, Labor Relations Law Section) Bar Associat... More

Contact Information


303-618-8780 Call Now


Send email to John W. McKendree

Social Networking

Office Information
John W. McKendree
 44 Cook Street, Suite 100,
Denver, CO 80206


Law Offices of John W. McKendree (Denver, Colorado)

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.