Dr. Mary-Ann Leon

Attorney in Greenville, NC
Phone number not available
View Web Site
Client Rating N/A help_info
Submit a client review

Peer Rating 5.0 of 5

Areas of Law

  • Employment Law
  • Employment Litigation
  • Employment Discrimination
  • Fair Employment Practices
  • Personnel Policies
  • Covenants Not To Compete
  • Retaliatory Discharge
  • Sexual Harassment
  • Whistleblower Litigation
  • Wrongful Termination
  • Wage and Hour Law
  • Personal Injury
  • Automobile Accidents and Injuries
  • Workers Compensation


Peer Rating


Overall Peer Rating

in Labor and Employment
5.0 out of 5.0

Legal Knowledge
Analytical Capabilities
Communication Ability
Legal Experience

  • Meets very high criteria of general ethical standards
Posted by a Private Practice Attorney on 08/16/14
5.0 out of 5.0
A thoughtful, smart lawyer who shares her knowledge with colleagues.
Report abuse
Posted by a Private Practice Attorney on 08/08/14
5.0 out of 5.0
Mary-Ann is an excellent employment lawyer and I often refer cases to her.
Report abuse
Posted by a Private Practice Attorney on 08/08/14
5.0 out of 5.0
Mary-Ann Leon is an amazing attorney. Though she is often "on the other side of the v. from me," I find her to be reasonable, always exercise good judgment, well prepared, and very knowledgeable. She is an excellently skilled attorney. Her clients are in the best of hands.
Report abuse

Experience & Credentials



Admission Details

Admitted in 1999, North Carolina
2000, U.S. District Court, Eastern and Middle Districts of North Carolina

Law School Attended

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Class of 1999

University Attended

University of Kansas
Class of 1986

University of New Mexico
Class of 1980

California State University, Fullerton
Class of 1979

Featured Lawyers

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.