Mark T. Silliker LinkedIn

Attorney in Harrisburg, PA
Part-time Instructor, Harrisburg Area Community College, 2005-2008. Dauphin County Custody Conciliator, 1993-2007.

Areas of Law

  • Adoptions
  • Child Custody
  • Child Support
  • Guardianship
  • Paternity
  • Visitation Rights
  • Grandparent Rights
  • Wills and Estates
  • Divorce
  • Separation
  • Spousal Support
  • Alimony
  • Alimony Pendente Lite
  • Assets and Property Division
  • Premarital Agreements


Overall Client Rating

in Family Law
5.0 out of 5.0

Communication Ability
Quality of Service
Value for Money

  • Data based on 2 reviews
  • Recommended by 2 Clients
  • Last reviewed on 11/13/12
Posted by a Consumer on 11/13/12
5.0 out of 5.0
This was my first time needing an attorney. Mr. Silliker was very reassuring, and I immediately liked his attitude and his confidence. I was especially nervous about custody, but it turns out he was a Custody Conciliator for many years. I can't say enough good things about him, other than I highly recommend him.
Report abuse
Posted by a Consumer on 06/24/12
5.0 out of 5.0
He is the best. He is also a wonderful man. Takes care of everything for you. Prompt reliable treats you like family. Don't know what I'd do without him. I recommend him to everyone.
Report abuse

Experience & Credentials



Admission Details

Admitted in 1981, Pennsylvania

Law School Attended

University of Baltimore
Class of 1980

University Attended

Worcester State College
Class of 1975

Birth Information

Born in 1952
Newton, Massachusetts, September 14, 1952

Associations & Memberships

Dauphin County and Pennsylvania Bar Associations.

Contact Information


717-671-1500 Call Now


Send email to Mark T. Silliker

Office Information
Mark T. Silliker
 5922 Linglestown Road,
Harrisburg, PA 17112


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.