Frances M. Wood

Attorney in Brampton, ON
Recipient: Law Federation Scholarship, 1995; Constitutional Law Prize, 1996. Member, Harrison-Shield Mooting Competition. Frankie is a well established Family Law and Civil Litigation Lawyer, representing individuals and small businesses. WWG LLP prides itself on providing top-tier legal services in a family-friendly environment. LibraryCo. Board Member.
Free Consultation | Credit Cards Accepted
Client Rating N/A help_info
Submit a client review

Peer Rating N/A help_info

Areas of Law

Civil LitigationFamily Law
Civil Litigation
Family Law


Experience & Credentials



Admission Details

Admitted in 1998, Ontario

Credit Cards Accepted

Also accepts Other
Additional Payment Information
  • Free Initial Consultation
  • Law School Attended

    University of Edinburgh
    Class of 1993

    University of Brunswick
    Class of 1996

    University Attended

    University of Toronto
    Class of 1991

    Birth Information

    Born in 1967
    Toronto, Ontario, August 6, 1967

    Associations & Memberships

    County & District Law President's Association - CDLPA (Executive Member); Ontario Bar Association; Advocates Society; Peel Law Association (Immediate Past President).

    Representative Cases

    Connolly v. Gale [2002] O.J. No. 3894 and [2002] O.J. No. 2571; Yeomans v. Yoemans [2001] O.J. No. 2174; Neill v. Pellolio [2001] O.J. No. 4639 (C.A.); Natwary v. Natwary [2003] O.J. No. 5628 (Div.Ct.); Lewarne v. Lewarne [2005] O.J. No. 402; Gazo v. Gazo [2005] O.J. No. 513 & [2006] O.J. No. 497; Morrone v. Morrone [2007] O.J. No. 5341; Tzaras v. ... More

    Contact Information






    Send email to Frances M. Wood

    Social Networking

    Wood Gold LLP (Brampton, Ontario)

    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.