Bruce A. McGlauflin LinkedIn

Attorney in Portland, ME
Judicial Clerk, Chief Justice Daniel E. Wathen, Maine Supreme Judicial Court, 1996-1997. Past President, Bath Area Family YMCA, 2003-2005. Treasurer, Board of Directors, University of Maine School of Law Alumni Association.
888-365-4823
Credit Cards Accepted
Client Rating N/A help_info
Submit a client review

Peer Rating 4.4 of 5

Areas of Law

  • Corporate Law
  • Commercial Law
  • Real Estate
  • Land Use
  • Probate
  • Estate Planning
  • Municipal 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

Member

Admission Details

Admitted in 1996, Maine
United States District Court for the District of Maine
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Credit Cards Accepted
Mastercard
Visa
Additional Payment Information
  • Fixed Hourly Rates
  • Fixed Fees Available
  • Law School Attended

    University of Maine School of Law
    Class of 1996
    J.D.
    magna cum laude

    University Attended

    Bucknell University
    Class of 1973
    B.S.

    University of Maine
    Class of 1977
    M.P.S.
    Community Development

    Birth Information

    Born in 1951
    Portland, Maine, November 29, 1951

    Contact Information

    Phone

    207-775-0200

    Email

    Send email to Bruce A. McGlauflin


    Office Information
    Bruce A. McGlauflin
    Member
     Two Monument Square, Suite 900, P.O. Box 17555,
    Portland, ME 04112-8555

    Loading...

    Logo
    Petruccelli, Martin & Haddow, LLP (Portland, Maine)

    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.