Clifford J. Shoemaker LinkedIn

Attorney in Vienna, VA
Co-Author: "The Swine Flu Litigation," Litigation, The Journal of the Section of Litigation, American Bar Association, Vol. 8, No. 1, Fall, 1981. Author: "A Call To Arms," Mealeys. "Shoemaker on Vaccines," monthly featured articles, Mealey's Litigation Report: Thimorosal and Vaccines, July 2002—.
703-349-7525
Client Rating N/A help_info
Submit a client review

Peer Rating 5.0 of 5

Areas of Law

  • Plaintiff's Trial Practice in all Courts
  • Negligence Law
  • Vaccine Injuries Law
  • Personal Injury Law
  • Wrongful Death Law
  • Products Liability 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

Member

Admission Details

Admitted in 1973, Iowa
1974, U.S. Court of Military Appeals
1976, U.S. Tax Court
1977, District of Columbia, U.S. Supreme Court and Virginia
1984, U.S. Court of Federal Claims

Law School Attended

Drake University
Class of 1973
J.D.

George Washington University
Class of 1977
LL.M. in Taxation

University Attended

University of Iowa
Class of 1970
B.A.

Drake University
Class of 1973
M.B.A.

Birth Information

Born in 1948
Carroll, Iowa, August 29, 1948

Associations & Memberships

The District of Columbia Bar; Bar Association of the District of Columbia; Virginia State Bar; Iowa State, Federal and American Bar Associations; The Association of Trial Lawyers of Ameri... More

Contact Information

Phone

703-281-6395

Email

Send email to Clifford J. Shoemaker


Office Information
Clifford J. Shoemaker
Member
 9711 Meadowlark Road,
Vienna, VA 22182-1951

Loading...

Logo
Shoemaker Gentry & Knickelbein (Vienna, Virginia)

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.