Eric Roland Spencer

Attorney in Roanoke, VA
Phone number not available
View Web Site

Areas of Law

  • Domestic Relations
  • Divorce
  • Child Custody
  • Traffic Violations
  • Child Support
  • Criminal Law
  • DWI/DUI

 

Overall Client Rating

in Criminal Law and Family Law
5.0 out of 5.0

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

  • Data based on 6 reviews
  • Recommended by 6 Clients
  • Last reviewed on 11/25/13
Posted by a Consumer on 11/25/13
Recommended
5.0 out of 5.0
Mr. Spencer is very professional, listens to the client, provides clear information about the case, and responds promptly. His staff is also very professional and helpful. I highly recommend this attorney to friends.
Report abuse
Posted by a Consumer on 05/14/13
Recommended
5.0 out of 5.0
He was prompt and friendly. His staff was very helpful.
Report abuse
Posted by a Consumer on 10/23/12
Recommended
5.0 out of 5.0
I live in GA and received a traffic ticket in VA. I thought it was just a traffic ticket were I could pay the fine. Found out it was a Reckless Driving charge and its penalties. Mr. Spencer took my case with 3 days until my court date. He got it reduced to a lesser charge because of my driving record. He is a great Lawyer.
Report abuse

Experience & Credentials

Position

Member

Admission Details

Admitted in 1977, Virginia
U.S. District Court, Eastern and Western Districts of Virginia
U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Western District of Virginia


Featured Lawyers
Loading...


Glenn, Feldmann, Darby & Goodlatte
Roanoke, U.S.A.
877-495-6329 | Email
Client Rating

5.0 / 5.0
Peer Rating

4.6 / 5.0

Frankl Miller & Webb
Roanoke, U.S.A.
540-283-9222 | Email
Client Rating

5.0 / 5.0
Peer Rating

4.4 / 5.0

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.