Breckenridge Ingles

Attorney in Gloucester, VA
Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney, 1979-1982.
Credit Cards Accepted

Areas of Law

  • Civil Litigation
  • Personal Injury
  • Real Estate
  • Estate and Probate - General
  • Family Law
  • Business Formation
  • Criminal Law


Overall Client Rating

in Family Law
4.1 out of 5.0

Communication Ability
Quality of Service
Value for Money

  • Data based on 4 reviews
  • Recommended by 3 Clients
  • Last reviewed on 11/19/14
Posted by a Consumer on 11/19/14
5.0 out of 5.0
Attorney Ingles provided me the information I needed. His knowledge of the law was impressive.
Report abuse

Experience & Credentials



Admission Details

Admitted in 1979, Virginia

Credit Cards Accepted
Additional Payment Information
  • Fixed Hourly Rates
  • Fixed Fees Available
  • Law School Attended

    Washington & Lee University
    Class of 1979

    University Attended

    Washington & Lee University
    Class of 1976

    Birth Information

    Born in 1954
    Gloucester, Virginia, April 6, 1954

    Associations & Memberships

    Virginia State Bar; Virginia Trial Lawyers Association (Member, Board of Governors, 1991-2000); American Association for Justice.

    Representative Cases

    Florio v. Clark, Record No. 081080, Supreme Court of Virginia decided April 17, 2009; Jett v. DeGaetani, 259 Va 616 (2000); Pavlick v. Pavlick, 254 Va 176 (1997); Reed v. Liverman, 250 Va 97 (1995); Barrick v. Board of Supervisors, 239 Va. 628 (1990); Bilger v. Commonwealth, Court of Appeal, Record No. 0605-10-1 (2011); Riley v. Riley, Record No. 2... More

    Contact Information






    Send email to Breckenridge Ingles

    Office Information
    Breckenridge Ingles
     6516 Main Street,
    Gloucester, VA 23061


    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.