David R. Jenkins

Attorney in Fresno, CA
Law Clerk to Honorable J.S. Hedrick, Jr., Bankruptcy Judge, U.S. Bankruptcy Court Eastern District of California, 1981-1983.
559-264-5695
Free Consultation

Areas of Law

  • Bankruptcy
  • Consumer Bankruptcy
  • Foreclosures
  • Bankruptcy Chapter 7
  • Bankruptcy Chapter 11
  • Bankruptcy Chapter 12
  • Bankruptcy Chapter 13
  • Debtor and Creditor
  • Insolvency
  • Liquidations
  • Receiverships
  • Commercial Bankruptcy

 

Overall Client Rating

in Bankruptcy
4.0 out of 5.0

Communication Ability
4.0
Responsiveness
4.0
Quality of Service
4.0
Value for Money
4.0

  • Data based on 1 reviews
  • Recommended by 1 Client
  • Last reviewed on 07/28/12
No feedback is available.
The individuals that have reviewed this lawyer have not provided any additional feedback.
Are you a former client?  Submit a review

Experience & Credentials

Position

Member

Admission Details

Admitted in 1980, California
1988, U.S. Supreme Court

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

    University of California School of Law, Davis
    Class of 1980
    J.D.

    University Attended

    St. Mary's College of California
    Class of 1977
    B.A.

    Birth Information

    Born in 1955
    Hammond, Louisiana, September 6, 1955

    Associations & Memberships

    Fresno County Bar Association; State Bar of California; Central California Bankruptcy Association (Member, Board of Directors, 1996—).

    Contact Information

    Phone

    559-264-5695

    Email

    Send email to David R. Jenkins


    Office Information
    David R. Jenkins
    Member
     2444 Main, Suite 120,
    Fresno, CA 93721

    Loading...


    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.