Daniel M. Katz

Daniel M. Katz 0 0 reviews - Read Reviews or Write a Review
Daniel M. Katz is a Lawyer in Washington, District of Columbia

202-659-4656

About This Lawyer

Litigation Attorney, General Counsel's Office, Appellate Court Branch, National Labor Relations Board, 1969-1973.

Contact Information

Phone

202-659-4656

Email

Send email to Daniel M. Katz

 

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 1969, District of Columbia and U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
1970, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth and Tenth Circuits
1971, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
1973, U.S. Supreme Court
1975, U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
1976, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
1977, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
1978, Virginia, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia
1986, U.S. District Court, District of Maryland including Trial Bar and U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
1987, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
1990, U.S. Court of Federal Claims
2001, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Law School Attended

University of Chicago
Class of 1969
J.D.

University Attended

University of Michigan
Class of 1966
B.A.

Birth Information

Born in 1944
Washington, D.C., October 17, 1944

Associations & Memberships

The District of Columbia Bar; Virginia State Bar; American Bar Association.

Office Information
Daniel M. Katz
4530 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W, Suite 250,
Washington, DC 20016
U.S.A.
Loading...


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.