Nagi, Baxter & Seymour PC

Law Firm in Detroit, MI

Client Rating N/A help_info
Submit a client review

Peer Rating 5.0 of 5

About This Firm

The Firm concentrates their practice in defense of Aviation litigation and Insurance litigation for American and London insurers. They have represented Part 121 carriers, Part 135 operators and Part 91 aircraft owners, Airports, and pilots of all ratings in both State and Federal Courts. This includes MDL and Class-Action litigation representing Part 121 carriers involving Michigan incidents, citizens and venues.

The Firm also specializes in handling Appeals to all aspects of State and Federal venues.

The Firm also represents Property & Casualty Insurance Companies in First Party and Third Party claims and Coverage issues.

The Firm also represents Defendants in the asbestos claims litigation Multi-District Action, currently pending in Wayne County.

All of our attorneys has achieved the highest rating by Martindale - Hubbell.

Areas of Law

  • Aviation Law
  • Products and Premises Liability
  • Aviation Insurance Defense and Coverage
  • Class Actions
  • Appeals
  • and Asbestos Litigation.

Peer Rating


Average Peer Rating

Based on this firm's rated lawyers
5.0 out of 5.0
  • Lawyers rated at this firm meet very high criteria of general ethical standards
5.0 out of 5.0
5.0 out of 5.0
5.0 out of 5.0

People at This Firm

Lawyer Name:
Area of Law:

Firm Details

Firm Size



Northwest Airlines, Spirit Airlines and U.S. Airways.

Contact Information

Firm Address

Nagi, Baxter & Seymour PC
Murphy-Telegraph Building 155 West Congress Street, Suite 300,
Detroit, MI 48226-3272

Phone 1


Phone 2





Send email to Nagi, Baxter & Seymour PC

Office Information
Murphy-Telegraph Building 155 West Congress Street, Suite 300,
Detroit, MI 48226-3272


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.