Jack M. Skelding, Jr.

Attorney in Tallahassee, FL
Phi Delta Phi. Member: Florida House of Representatives Advisory Committee on the Future, 1982-1984; Tallahassee/Leon County Consolidation Committee, 1986—. Ex-Officio, Advisory Task Force on the Security for Public Deposits Act, 1982-1984. Member and Chairman, Business and Finance Committee, Tallahassee Downtown Improvement Authority.
850-222-7718
Client Rating N/A help_info
Submit a client review

Peer Rating 5.0 of 5

Areas of Law

  • Legislative and Executive Lobbying
  • Sales and Use Tax
  • Administrative Law

 

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

Of Counsel

Admission Details

Admitted in 1971, Florida

Law School Attended

Florida State University
Class of 1971
J.D.

University Attended

University of South Florida
Class of 1968
B.A.

Birth Information

Born in 1944
Austin, Texas, June 11, 1944

Associations & Memberships

Tallahassee and American Bar Associations; The Florida Bar (Chairman, Legislative Subcommittee, Savings and Loan Committee, Corporation, Business and Banking Section, 1982-1983).... More

Representative Cases

Murphy v. Mack, 341 So. 2d 1008 (1st DCA 1977); 358 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 1978); Vending Unlimited Inc. v. Dept of Regulation, 364 So. 2d 548 (1st DCA 1978).

Contact Information

Phone

850-222-7718

Email

Send email to Jack M. Skelding, Jr.


Office Information
Jack M. Skelding, Jr.
Of Counsel
 225 South Adams Street, Suite 250,
Tallahassee, FL 32301-1709

Maintains an office in multiple locations
Loading...

Logo
Brewton Plante P.A. (Tallahassee, Florida)

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.