Matthew W. White LinkedIn

Attorney in Opelika, AL
Assistant District Attorney, Fifth Judicial Circuit of Alabama, 1994-1997.
334.745.6466
Client Rating N/A help_info
Submit a client review

Peer Rating 4.4 of 5

Areas of Law

  • General Civil Litigation
  • Insurance Defense
  • Personal Injury
  • Driving While Intoxicated
  • Wrongful Death
  • Workers Compensation
  • Criminal Law

 

Peer Rating

bv

Overall Peer Rating

4.4 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

Partner

Admission Details

Admitted in 1994, Alabama, U.S. District Court, Middle and Southern Districts of Alabama
U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Alabama

Additional Payment Information
  • Fixed Hourly Rates
  • Fixed Fees Available
  • Law School Attended

    Mississippi College School of Law
    Class of 1994
    J.D.

    University Attended

    Auburn University
    Class of 1990
    B.S.
    in Business Administration

    Birth Information

    Born in 1967
    Montgomery, Alabama, January 23, 1967

    Associations & Memberships

    Lee County and American Bar Associations; Alabama State Bar (Chairperson, Quality of Life for Lawyers Committee; Member, Worker's Compensation Committee).

    Contact Information

    Phone

    334.745.6466

    Fax

    334.749.2800

    Email

    Send email to Matthew W. White


    Office Information
    Matthew W. White
    Partner
     205 South Ninth Street,
    Opelika, AL 36801

    Loading...

    Logo
    Adams White Oliver Short & Forbus, LLP (Opelika, Alabama)

    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.