James Alle

Attorney in Grosse Pointe, MI
St. Thomas More Law Society Scholar. Legal Research and Writing Fellowship Instructor, Loyola University School of Law, 1974-1975. Listed in The Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers, 2000-2005. Original Member, Wayne County Circuit Court Family Division Bench-Bar Committee.
313-882-0200
Client Rating N/A help_info
Submit a client review

Peer Rating 5.0 of 5

Areas of Law

  • Family Law

     

    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

    Member

    Admission Details

    Admitted in 1975, California
    1979, Michigan and U.S. District Courts, Western District of Michigan and Southern District of California

    Law School Attended

    Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles
    Class of 1975
    J.D.
    cum laude

    University Attended

    Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles
    Class of 1971
    B.A.

    Birth Information

    Born in 1949
    Lynwood, California, October 12, 1949

    Associations & Memberships

    Detroit Metropolitan Bar Association (Chairperson, Family Law Section, 1999-2002); State Bar of Michigan (Member, Family Law Section); State Bar of California (inactive); Wayne County Family Bar Ass... More

    Contact Information

    Phone

    313-882-0200 Call Now

    Email

    Send email to James Alle


    Office Information
    James Alle
    Member
     16824 Kercheval Place, Suite 201,
    Grosse Pointe, MI 48230

    Loading...

    Logo
    The Law Office of James Alle (Grosse Pointe, Michigan)

    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.