Glenn F. Meier

Attorney in Las Vegas, NV
Member, Emory Law Journal. Recipient, American Jurisprudence Award, Property.

Areas of Law

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Construction Litigation
  • Civil Practice
  • Disabilities
  • Insurance Coverage
  • Military Law


Overall Client Rating

1.2 out of 5.0

Communication Ability
Quality of Service
Value for Money

  • Data based on 1 reviews
  • Last reviewed on 08/07/13
Posted by a Consumer on 08/07/13
1.3 out of 5.0
Settlement was anticipated.
Then was told the case had not settled.
Calls to office got no info, the office staff claimed ignorance about status of case on multiple occasions.
Finally with a query learned case had settled, but the lawyer had failed to notify me, gave no account statement, and did not return the remainder of the account balance.
Repeated requests for an account statement were ignored.

Glenn Meier did get the job done,
and then showed that he thinks he is accountable to no one.
Report abuse

Experience & Credentials



Admission Details

Admitted in 1990, Georgia and U.S. Court of Military Appeals
1996, Nevada and U.S. District Court, District of Nevada
1998, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
2000, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2004, U.S. Supreme Court

Law School Attended

Emory University School of Law
Class of 1990

University Attended

University of California at Riverside
Class of 1987

Birth Information

Born in 1965
Chandler, Arizona, March 30, 1965


Capt., USAF, Judge Advocate General's Dept., Active Duty, 1990-1996

Associations & Memberships

American Bar Association (Member, Litigation Section, 1990—).

Contact Information


702-673-1000 Call Now


Send email to Glenn F. Meier

Office Information
Glenn F. Meier
 2300 W. Sahara Avenue, Suite 1150,
Las Vegas, NV 89102-4395


Meier Fine & Wray (Las Vegas, Nevada)

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.