Michael S. Fox

Attorney in Greensboro, NC
Associate, Fisher & Phillips, Atlanta, Georgia, 1989-1991. Prosecutor, DeKalb County, Georgia, 1991-1993. Assistant Attorney General, North Carolina. 1993-1996. Deputy General Counsel and Director of Governmental Affairs, Cone Mills Corporation, 1996-2001.
Client Rating N/A help_info
Submit a client review

Peer Rating 4.4 of 5

Areas of Law

  • Business Litigation
  • Real Estate Litigation
  • Government Affairs
  • Zoning Law
  • Land Use


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 1989, Georgia and U.S. District Court, Northern District of Georgia
1992, North Carolina and U.S. District Court, Eastern District of North Carolina
2002, U.S. District Court, Middle and Western Districts of North Carolina

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

    University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
    Class of 1989

    University Attended

    Appalachian State University
    Class of 1986
    summa cum laude, Phi Kappa Phi

    Birth Information

    Born in 1963
    Columbus, Georgia, October 17, 1963

    Associations & Memberships

    Greensboro and North Carolina Bar Associations; State Bar of Georgia; North Carolina State Bar.

    Contact Information


    336.271.5244 Call Now




    Send email to Michael S. Fox

    Office Information
    Michael S. Fox
     100 North Greene Street, Suite 600,
    Greensboro, NC 27401


    Tuggle Duggins P.A. (Greensboro, North Carolina)

    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.