Daniel W. Whitney

Attorney in Towson, MD
Notes and Comments Editor, University of Maryland Law Review, 1978-1979. Law Clerk to Chief Judge Robert C. Murphy, Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1979-1980.
Client Rating N/A help_info
Submit a client review

Peer Rating 5.0 of 5

Areas of Law

  • False Claims Act
  • Products Liability
  • Drug and Medical Device Litigation
  • Commercial Litigation
  • Toxic Torts
  • Subrogation
  • Medical Malpractice


Peer Rating


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


Managing Partner

Admission Details

Admitted in 1979, Maryland
1980, U.S. District Court, District of Maryland
1989, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
1991, U.S. Supreme Court
1993, District of Columbia and U.S. District Court, District of Columbia
2002, U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
2006, New York and U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
2007, U.S. District Court, Eastern and Southern Districts of New York

Law School Attended

University of Maryland
Class of 1979

University Attended

Drew University
Class of 1976
magna cum laude

Birth Information

Born in 1954
Salisbury, Maryland, 1954

Associations & Memberships

Bar Association of Baltimore City; Baltimore County, Maryland State and American Bar Associations.

Contact Information




Send email to Daniel W. Whitney

Office Information
Daniel W. Whitney
Managing Partner
 401 Washington Avenue, Twelfth Floor,
Towson, MD 21204-4821

Maintains an office in multiple locations

Whitney & Bogris, LLP (Towson, Maryland)

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.


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.