Martin J. Phipps LinkedIn

Attorney in San Antonio, TX
National Order of the Barristers. William S. Sessions American Inns of Court. Recipient: Gertrude Jorrie Outstanding Advocacy Award; Best Brief and Best Oral Advocate Awards, Norvell Moot Court, 1994. St. Mary's National Mock Trial Champion, 1993. Second Overall Advocate, Texas Young Lawyers Association Moot Court, 1994. Author: "Attorney Referral for Medical Treatment, A Wolf in Disguise?" 32 St. Mary's L.J 383,423 (2001). Adjunct Professor, St. Mary's School of Law. Director, St. Mary's Law School External Advocacy Program, 1998-2008. Past President, San Antonio Defense Counsel Association.
210-340-9800
Client Rating N/A help_info
Submit a client review

Peer Rating 5.0 of 5
 

Peer Rating

av

Overall Peer Rating

5.0 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

Shareholder

Admission Details

Admitted in 1994, Texas

Law School Attended

St. Mary's School of Law
Class of 1994
J.D.

University Attended

Texas Tech University
Class of 1991
B.S.
Political Science

Birth Information

Born in 1969
Reno, Nevada, August 7, 1969

Associations & Memberships

San Antonio and American Bar Associations; State Bar of Texas; Defense Research Institute's International Association of Defense Counsel; Texas Association of Defense Counsel.

Contact Information

Phone

210-340-9800

Email

Send email to Martin J. Phipps


Office Information
Martin J. Phipps
Shareholder
One International Centre 100 Northeast Loop 410, Suite 1500,
San Antonio, TX 78216-4700

Maintains an office in multiple locations
Loading...

Logo
Goldman Phipps, PLLC (San Antonio, Texas)

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.