Michael R. Feinberg

Attorney in Los Angeles, CA
Member, AFL-CIO Lawyers Coordinating Committee, 1984—.
Client Rating N/A help_info
Submit a client review

Peer Rating 5.0 of 5

Areas of Law

  • Labor and Employment Law
  • Employment Discrimination
  • Sexual Harassment
  • Public Employment Relations Law
  • Wage and Hour Law
  • Education Law
  • Defamation


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



Admission Details

Admitted in 1979, California

Law School Attended

Loyola University of Los Angeles
Class of 1979

University Attended

University of Rochester, University of Southern California
Class of 1974

University of California at Los Angeles
Class of 1977
in American Labor History

Birth Information

Born in 1952
Brooklyn, New York, November 1, 1952

Associations & Memberships

Los Angeles County (Member, Labor and Employment Section) and American (Member: Labor and Employment Law Section) Bar Associations; State Bar of California; National Lawyers Guild (Member, ... More

Representative Cases

Johnson v. National Ass'n of Letter Carriers Branch 1100, 2002 Cal. App. LEXIS 3354, 4th DCA, 2002, and Johnson v. National Ass'n of Letter Carriers Branch 1100, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 15092 (9th Cir. 1999); Wilson v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 7743 (9th Cir. 2001); Williams v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 13260 (9th Cir... More

Contact Information




Send email to Michael R. Feinberg

Office Information
Michael R. Feinberg
 6300 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2000,
Los Angeles, CA 90048


Schwartz, Steinsapir, Dohrmann & Sommers, LLP (Los Angeles, California)

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.