William M. Furr

Attorney in Norfolk, VA

Billy chairs the firm's Labor and Employment Law group. He represents management in all aspects of the employer-employee relationship, including wage and hour litigation, equal employment opportunity, wrongful discharge litigation, enforcement of non-competition agreements, FMLA compliance and ADA Title III litigation.

He practices in both state and federal courts and before the National Labor Relations Board, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the U.S. Department of Labor, the Virginia Department of Labor and Industry and the Virginia Employment Commission.

Professional Recognition

Best Lawyers in America, Labor & Employment Law (2003-present)

Virginia's "Legal Elite, "Virginia Business magazine (2000-present)

Selected by Super Lawyers magazine in 2006-present

Benchmark Litigation: The Guide to America's Leading Litigation Firms and Attorneys, Employment Litigation

AV Peer Review Rating by LexisNexis Martindale-Hubbell

"Top Forty Under 40," Inside Business (1999)


American Bar Association: Labor and Employment Law Section

Virginia Bar Association: Labor Relations and Employment Law Committee

Federal Bar Association

Norfolk Portsmouth Bar Association

Hampton Roads Society for Human Resource Management


Virginia Bar Association, Labor Relations and Employment Law Section: Council Member

Virginia Bar Association: Committee for Nominations to Virginia Commissions and Appellate Courts

Norfolk Portsmouth Bar Foundation: Board Member

The Norfolk Forum: former President and Board Member

National Multiple Sclerosis Society: Former Chair, Hampton Roads Chapter

Norfolk Civil Service Commission: Former Chair

Hampton Roads Society for Human Resource Management: Former Director/Legal Counsel

Lee's Friends (Cancer Support Agency): Former Director

CIVIC Leadership Institute: Former Director

City of Norfolk: Former Chair, Grievance Panel

University of Virginia Club of Tidewater: Former President

Regional Jefferson Scholars Selection Committee, University of Virginia: Former Chair


· Successfully represented a Health Maintenance organization in a Title VII race discrimination claim in federal court. After a four-day jury trial, the jury found in favor of the employer on all counts.

· Successfully represented an executive formerly employed by a government contractor in a breach of fiduciary duty and breach of non-compete agreement lawsuit in Queen Anne's County, Maryland Circuit Court. After a three-day jury trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the executive on all counts.

· Successfully represented a hospital and one of its managers in an assault and battery claim brought by a former employee. After a three-day jury trial, the jury found in favor of the employer and the manager on all counts.

· Successfully represented several employers in multiple plaintiff collective actions for unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

· Obtained summary judgment on behalf of a publisher in a Title VII gender discrimination lawsuit in Columbus, Ohio federal court.

· Obtained summary judgment in Greensboro, North Carolina federal court on behalf of a national portrait business being sued for disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

· Successfully represented a home security business in a defamation claim by a former employee.

· Obtained summary judgment on behalf of a government contractor in an age discrimination claim by an applicant who had been denied employment.

· Successfully represented a local television station in Norfolk federal court in a breach of contract claim by a former employee.

· Obtained summary judgment on behalf of a hospital in Norfolk federal court in three companion cases alleging race discrimination under Title VII.

· Successfully represented a local municipality in a federal court claim by a former police officer claiming that he was discharged in violation of his First Amendment rights. After a four-day trial, the court found in favor of the municipality.

· Obtained summary judgment on behalf of a regional governmental authority in a lawsuit brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act in federal court.

· Obtained partial summary judgment and then a favorable verdict in federal court on behalf of a Peninsula Sheriff in a wrongful discharge suit by two of the Sheriff's deputies. The two deputies claimed that they were wrongfully discharged because they did not support the Sheriff's candidacy during his re-election campaign.

· Obtained summary judgment in state court on behalf of an international corporation in a lawsuit by a former executive claiming commissions relating to the sale of a business division.

· Enforced a noncompetition agreement in Richmond Circuit Court on behalf of a regional manufacturer. After the Court issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the former employee from soliciting former customers, the former employee agreed to a settlement in which he paid the employer's attorney's fees.

(757) 628-5651
Client Rating N/A help_info
Submit a client review

Peer Rating 5.0 of 5

Areas of Law

  • Labor and Employment


    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 1988, Virginia

    Law School Attended

    College of William & Mary
    Class of 1988

    University Attended

    University of Virginia
    Class of 1984

    Contact Information


    (757) 628-5651


    Send email to William M. Furr

    Office Information
    William M. Furr
     440 Monticello Avenue - Suite 2200,
    Norfolk, VA 23510-2197


    Willcox & Savage, P.C. (Norfolk, Virginia)

    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.