David P. Brooks LinkedIn

Attorney in Mesa, AZ
Associate, Brown & Bain, P.A. 1989-1995; Partner, Brown & Bain, P.A., 1995-1999; Owner, Brooks & Affiliates, PLC, 1999-Present;. Admitted, State Bar of Arizona, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, United States Tax Court. Member, City of Mesa Judicial Advisory Board; Executive Editor, Brigham Young University Law Review, 1988-1989. Author: "Advertising Injury: Getting the Most Out of Your Insurance Policy," 14 Hastings Comm. & Ent. L.J., 389, 1992; Note, "In Re United States Catholic Conference: Considering Non-Party Rights," 1988 B.Y.U. L.Rev. 89.
480-999-1542
Client Rating N/A help_info
Submit a client review

Peer Rating 5.0 of 5

Areas of Law

  • Insurance
  • Product Liability
  • Litigation
  • Business Organization
  • Commercial Law
  • Construction
  • Contracts
  • Real Estate
  • Unfair Competition
  • Civil Practice

 

Peer Rating

av

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

Position

Member

Admission Details

Admitted in 1989, Arizona

Law School Attended

Brigham Young University
Class of 1989
J.D.
cum laude

University Attended

University of Utah
Class of 1986
B.S.
magna cum laude

Birth Information

Born in 1962
Salt Lake City, Utah, January 14, 1962

Associations & Memberships

State Bar of Arizona 1989

Representative Cases

Vencor, Inc. v. National States Insurance Company, 303 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir. 2002)

Contact Information

Phone

480 890-8195 Call Now

Fax

480 890-8164

Email

Send email to David P. Brooks


Office Information
David P. Brooks
Member
 1515 N. Greenfield Road, Suite 101,
Mesa, AZ 85205

Loading...


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.