David R. Thompson

Attorney in Easton, MD
Articles Editor, William & Mary Law Review, 1973-1974. Commonwealth Attorney, King George County, Virginia, 1976-1977. County Attorney, Talbot County, Maryland, 1982-1986. Town Attorney, Oxford, Maryland, 1978—.
410-822-6800
Credit Cards Accepted
Client Rating N/A help_info
Submit a client review

Peer Rating 5.0 of 5
  • Zoning
  • Land Use
  • Real Estate
  • Property Rights
  • Administrative Law
  • Municipal Law
  • Civil Practice
  • Litigation in State and Federal Courts

 

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 1974, Virginia
1978, Maryland

Credit Cards Accepted
Mastercard
Visa
Law School Attended

College of William & Mary
Class of 1974
J.D.

University Attended

College of William & Mary
Class of 1970
A.B.

Birth Information

Born in 1948
St. Mary's County, Maryland, 1948

Military

U.S. Army

Associations & Memberships

Talbot County, Maryland State and American Bar Associations; Virginia State Bar.

Representative Cases

Mastandrea v. North, 361 Md. 107 (2000); Spring v. Bradley, 355 Md. 79 (1999); Bucktail, LLC v. Talbot County 352 Md. 530 (1999); Chesapeake Publishing Corp. v. Williams, 339 Md. 285, 661 A.2d 1169 (1995); Mears v. Town of Oxford, 762 F.2d 368 (4th Cir. 1985); Schisler v. State, 394 Md. 519 (2006); Bryan v. Makosky, 380 Md. 603 (2003).

Contact Information

Phone

410-822-6800


Office Information
David R. Thompson
Partner
 130 North Washington Street, P.O. Box 1747,
Easton, MD 21601-1747

Loading...

Logo
Cowdrey Thompson, P.C. (Easton, Maryland)

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.