J. Matthew Stephens LinkedIn

Attorney in Memphis, TN
Recipient, American Jurisprudence Awards in: General Litigation Clinic and Child Advocacy Clinic; Member, National Moot Court Team, 1999; Law Clerk to the Honorable W. Frank Crawford of the Tennessee Court of Appeals, 2001-2002. Author, "Becoming the Best Healthcare Gunslinger in the Ninth Circuit," Subrogator, National Association of Subrogation Professionals, Winter, 2006.
901-202-4423
Client Rating N/A help_info
Submit a client review

Peer Rating N/A help_info

Areas of Law

  • Employment Litigation
  • ERISA Litigation
  • Health and Disability Plan Subrogation
  • Employee Benefits Litigation

 

Experience & Credentials

Position

Partner

Admission Details

Admitted in 2001, Tennessee
2002, U.S. District Court, Western District of Tennessee
2003, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit and U.S. District Court, Middle District of Tennessee
2004, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois
2005, U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
U.S. District Court, Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas

Law School Attended

The University of Memphis
Class of 2001
J.D.

University Attended

The University of Memphis
Class of 1998
B.P.S.
cum laude

State Technical Institute at Memphis
Class of 1995
A.A.S.

Birth Information

Born in 1974
Memphis, Tennessee, April 8, 1974

Associations & Memberships

National Association of Subrogation Professionals (NASP).

Representative Cases

Isabel v. City of Memphis, 404 F.3d 404 (6th Cir. 2005).

Contact Information

Phone

901-202-4423

Fax

901-844-4435

Email

Send email to J. Matthew Stephens


Office Information
J. Matthew Stephens
Partner
 5178 Wheelis Drive,
Memphis, TN 38117-4549

Loading...

Logo
Lawrence & Russell, PLC (Memphis, Tennessee)

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.