Peter F. X. Callahan

Attorney in Downingtown, PA
Partner, Swartz Campbell, LLC, 1997-2006. Assistant District Attorney, Philadelphia and Delaware Counties, Pennsylvania, 1990-1996. Defense Attorney, Trial Counsel, U.S. Marine Corps Investigative Supervisor-Naval Investigative Service, 1986-1990.
Free Consultation
Client Rating N/A help_info
Submit a client review

Peer Rating 4.4 of 5

Areas of Law

  • Medical Malpractice
  • Personal Injury
  • Civil Litigation
  • Criminal Litigation
  • Business Litigation
  • Commercial Litigation


Peer Rating


Overall Peer Rating

4.4 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 1986, Pennsylvania
1987, U.S. Courts Martial
1997, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Additional Payment Information
  • Free Initial Consultation
  • Fixed Hourly Rates
  • Fixed Fees Available
  • Law School Attended

    Villanova University
    Class of 1986

    University Attended

    St. Joseph's University
    Class of 1983

    Birth Information

    Born in 1961
    Delaware County, Pennsylvania, October 13, 1961


    Captain, U.S. Marine Corps, 1986-1990

    Associations & Memberships

    Chester County, Delaware County (Former Chair, Medical/Legal Committee) and Pennsylvania Bar Associations.

    Contact Information


    610-594-1600 Call Now


    Send email to Peter F. X. Callahan

    Office Information
    Peter F. X. Callahan
     537 West Uwchlan Avenue, Suite 200,
    Downingtown, PA 19335

    Maintains an office in multiple locations

    Wusinich & Brogan (Downingtown, Pennsylvania)

    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.