Marcus W. Chesnutt

Attorney in New Bern, NC
Delta Theta Phi. Senior Law Clerk to Chief U.S. District Judge John D. Larkins, Jr., 1978-1979 and Member, Local Rules Committee, Civil Rules Section, 1979, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of North Carolina. Member, Trial Advocacy Board, Cumberland School of Law, 1977-1978. Permanent Delegate, 4th Circuit Judicial Conference, 1980—. President, Third Judicial District, 1983-1984.
Free Consultation | Credit Cards Accepted

Areas of Law

  • Criminal
  • Traffic
  • Domestic
  • Personal Injury


Overall Client Rating

in Criminal Law, Transportation and General Practice
4.8 out of 5.0

Communication Ability
Quality of Service
Value for Money

  • Data based on 3 reviews
  • Recommended by 3 Clients
  • Last reviewed on 12/02/10
No feedback is available.
The individuals that have reviewed this lawyer have not provided any additional feedback.
Are you a former client?  Submit a review

Experience & Credentials



Admission Details

Admitted in 1978, North Carolina

Credit Cards Accepted
Additional Payment Information
  • Free Initial Consultation
  • Fixed Hourly Rates
  • Fixed Fees Available
  • Law School Attended

    Cumberland School of Law of Sanford University
    Class of 1978

    University Attended

    University of North Carolina
    Class of 1975

    Birth Information

    Born in 1953
    Lumberton, North Carolina, August 31, 1953

    Associations & Memberships

    Craven County and North Carolina Bar Associations; North Carolina State Bar; North Carolina Academy of Trial Lawyers.

    Contact Information



    Office Information
    Marcus W. Chesnutt
     225-C Broad Street, P.O. Box 12530,
    New Bern, NC 28561-4901


    Chesnutt, Clemmons & Peacock, P.A. (New Bern, North Carolina)

    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.