James E. Cooling

Attorney in Kansas City, MO
Omicron Delta Kappa. Co-Author: "Aviation Litigation," MoBar CLE Volume on Tort Law; "Considerations in Auto-Pilot Litigation," 48 Journal of Air Law and Commerce 693, 1983. Law Clerk to the Honorable John E. Bardgett, Supreme Court of Missouri, 1971. Past President, Aviation Insurance Association.
Client Rating N/A help_info
Submit a client review

Peer Rating 5.0 of 5

Areas of Law

  • Aviation Law


    Peer Rating


    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


    Managing Partner

    Admission Details

    Admitted in 1968, Missouri
    U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri
    U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri
    U.S. Supreme Court

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

    University of Notre Dame Law School
    Class of 1968

    University Attended

    University of Missouri
    Class of 1965

    Birth Information

    Born in 1943
    Coleman, Texas

    Associations & Memberships

    Kansas City Metropolitan and American (Member, Aviation and Space Law Committee) Bar Associations; The Missouri Bar (Chairman: International Law Committee, 1977-1982; Aviation, Space and Trans... More

    Contact Information






    Send email to James E. Cooling

    Social Networking

    Office Information
    James E. Cooling
    Managing Partner
    City Center Square 1100 Main Street, Suite 2400,
    Kansas City, MO 64105-2120


    Cooling & Herbers, P.C. (Kansas City, Missouri)

    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.