Daniel G. Lilley

Attorney in Portland, ME
Winner: Homer Albers Moot Court, 1965-1966; New England Moot Court Competition, 1966-1967. University of Maine Trial Consultant, Cumberland Legal Aid Clinic, 1969, 1970, 1971. Assistant Attorney General, 1967-1969. Member, Commission to Revise Criminal Laws, 1980-1989.
207-517-0159

Areas of Law

  • Criminal Trial
  • Personal Injury
  • Appellate
  • Medical Malpractice
  • Financial Litigation

 

Overall Client Rating

in Criminal Law
4.2 out of 5.0

Communication Ability
4.0
Responsiveness
4.0
Quality of Service
5.0
Value for Money
4.0

  • Data based on 1 reviews
  • Recommended by 1 Client
  • Last reviewed on 09/07/13
Posted by a Consumer on 09/07/13
Recommended
4.3 out of 5.0
Very good lawyer up here in Maine..expensive though
Report abuse

Experience & Credentials

Position

Member

Admission Details

Admitted in 1967, Maine
1969, U.S. District Court, District of Maine
1980, U.S. Supreme Court

Law School Attended

Boston University
Class of 1967
LL.B.

University Attended

University of Maine
Class of 1964
B.A.

Birth Information

Born in 1938
Boston, Massachusetts, November 28, 1938

Military

With U.S. Navy, 1957-1961

Associations & Memberships

Maine State Bar Association; Maine Trial Lawyers Association (Member, Board of Directors); The Association of Trial Lawyers of America; National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; Americ... More

Representative Cases

Marquis v. Faer Family Ins., 628 A2d 644 (Me., 1993).

Contact Information

Phone

207-774-6206 Call Now

Email

Send email to Daniel G. Lilley


Office Information
Daniel G. Lilley
Member
 39 Portland Pier, P.O. Box 4803,
Portland, ME 04112

Loading...

Logo
Daniel G. Lilley Law Offices (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.