Founded in 1854, Bieser, Greer & Landis, LLP assists with numerous legal challenges,
including Criminal Law, Family Law and Litigation issues. From our office in Dayton, the firm’s attorneys deliver exceptional counsel and service to Montgomery County clients.
This badge is granted to attorneys who have been reviewed by a past client.
AV Preeminent Peer Rated
This elite award is granted to attorneys who have been recognized by their peers for their very high ethical standards, with an average peer review score of 4.5 or higher.
About Awards
Client Champion Awards
Client Champion awards recognize those attorneys who excel at service as affirmed by their clients. The awards, based on the quantity
and quality of an attorney’s Martindale-Hubbell client reviews, demonstrate an ongoing commitment to delivering excellent client service.
Award recipients stand out from their peers with a platinum, gold or silver icon.
At least three reviews and a score of 4.0 or higher.
At least six reviews and a score of 4.2 or higher.
At least ten reviews and a score of 4.5 or higher.
Martindale Peer Awards
A lawyer who receives a minimum threshold of qualifying responses from fellow attorneys can qualify for one of three prestigious
Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings:
AV Preeminent®: The highest peer rating standard. This rating signifies a large number of the lawyer’s peers rank him
or her at the highest level of professional excellence for their legal knowledge, communication skills and ethical standards.
Bieser, Greer & Landis, LLP got this award in 2021
Distinguished: An excellent rating for a lawyer with some experience. This rating indicates the attorney is widely
respected by their peers for high professional achievement and ethical standards.
Notable: This rating indicates that the lawyer has been recognized by a large number of their peers for strong ethical standards.
Avvo Awards
Avvo Top Contributor: The Avvo Top Contributor Award is granted to attorneys who have earned significant contribution points in a given year on our sister site, Avvo.com. Contribution points are earned by answering questions in Q&A,
publishing Legal Guides, and other useful contributions to the Avvo community.
Avvo Client’s Choice: The Avvo Client's Choice Award Badge is granted to attorneys with a significant number of 4+ star reviews in a given year.
Jennifer Brogan is an amazing attorney. There was days that we had ups and downs but she had so much knowledge and understanding that always kept us focused. She has a lot of compassion for her job. I couldn't ask for anyone better! Jennifer Brogan is truly our guardian angels!
My experience was not good. Three different attorneys have told me what a mess my divorce agreement is. and how inappropriate it is for my situation. Trisha seemed more interested in getting the agreement done and appeasing the other attorney than taking my concerns seriously. She was not responsive during the process and took weeks to respond to most emails despite my sending very few.
Nightmare We spent over $40,000 to lose. He didn't review photographs & he didn't call an important witness at trial. He offended everybody that mattered with his arrogance & he talked down to everyone by making references to dead writers nobody knows. He made every decision in the case & every decision turned out to be wrong. It was my fault when I complained & I had to pay other lawyers to fix the mess, which he did.
I do not like to disparage another, but I must speak. Simple things like failing to bring proof of my income to a temporary orders hearing—the most essential document—requesting multiple times the same document that I had previously sent and blaming me when the other party expressed frustration when she was the one mishandling papers. She didn’t respond to emails. She scapegoated me to the other party as I saw in conversation threads and only skimmed my messages regularly as I could see by her response. I have a file of multiple examples. A few weeks to the trial, I confronted her on various concerns which I had previous brought up and that second opinions from other lawyers separately identified where she was failing. She withdrew that day as counsel rather than demonstrating accountability and maturely responding to my concerns and I was left to myself at the trial. The outcome was dismal because of her unethical behavior and my family with many children is permanently harmed.
Representative Clients: Dayton Power & Light Co.; Miami Valley Regional Transit Authority; Kettering Medical Center; The Dayton Foundation; Greater Dayton Public Television, Inc.; Medical Protective Co.; St. Paul Insurance Co.; Continental Loss Adjusting Services; Motorists Insurance Co.; National City Bank.
REPRESENTATIVE CLIENTS: National City Bank, Dayton; Consolidated Rail Corp.; Columbia Gas Transmission Corp.; The Dayton Foundation; Greater Dayton Public Television, Inc.; Greater Dayton Regional Transit Authority; Ohio Transit Risk Pool; Kettering Health Network; Good Samaritan Hospital; Miami Valley Hospital; Stewart Title Guaranty Co.; Ohio Bar Liability Co.; Medical Protective Co.; National Casualty Co.; Travelers Insurance Co.; Leisure Lawn; Crawford & Company; Western Heritage Ins. Co.; Purity Foods, Inc.; Miller Valentine; Price WaterHouse-Coopers; Deloitte & Touche; United Technologies; Premier Integrated Medical Associates, LLC; Dayton Water Systems; Stone Center; Boeing Corp.; Victoria Theatre Association; EvenFlo; Vectren Energy Delivery of Ohio; Beerman Realty; Summit Solutions; MeadWestvaco Corp.; Carrier, Inc.; GE Lighting, Inc. References: National City Bank; Chase Bank.
Martindale-Hubbell® Client Review Ratings™ display reviews submitted by individuals who have either hired or consulted the lawyers or law firms.
The Client Review Rating score is determined through the aggregation of validated responses. People who submit reviews are either individuals who consulted with the lawyer/law firm or who hired the lawyer/law firm and want to share their experience of that lawyer or law firm with other potential clients. Reviewers can be anyone who consults or hires a lawyer including in-house counsel, corporate executives, small business owners, and private individuals.
Martindale-Hubbell validates that a reviewer is a person with a valid email address. As part of the review process, respondents must affirm that they have had an initial consultation, are currently a client or have been a client of the lawyer or law firm identified, although Martindale-Hubbell cannot confirm the lawyer/client relationship as it is often confidential. The content of the responses is entirely from reviewers.
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome and Martindale-Hubbell accepts no responsibility for the content or accuracy of any review. For more information on Martindale-Hubbell Client Review Ratings, please visit our Client Review Page
Martindale Peer Reviews
Martindale-Hubbell® Peer Review Ratings™ are the gold standard in attorney ratings, and have been for more than a century. These ratings indicate attorneys who are widely respected by their peers for their ethical standards and legal expertise in a specific area of practice.
The Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings process is the gold standard due to its objectivity and comprehensiveness. Lawyers solicited for peer reviews include both those selected by the attorney being reviewed and lawyers independently selected by Martindale-Hubbell. All reviewers are verified as attorneys through Martindale-Hubbell’s extensive attorney database. Only attorneys practicing at least three years and receiving a sufficient number of reviews from non-affiliated attorneys are eligible to receive a Rating.
What are the different Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings?*
• AV Preeminent®: The highest peer rating standard. This rating signifies that a large number of the lawyer’s peers rank him or her at the highest level of professional excellence for their legal knowledge, communication skills and ethical standards.
• Distinguished: An excellent rating for a lawyer with some experience. This rating indicates the attorney is widely respected by their peers for high professional achievement and ethical standards.
• Notable: This rating indicates that the lawyer has been recognized by a large number of their peers for strong ethical standards.
Lawyers who have received peer reviews after 2009 will display more detailed information, including practice areas, summary ratings, detailed numeric ratings and written feedback (if available). Details for individual reviews received before 2009 are not displayed.
Attorneys that receive reviews from their peers, but not a sufficient number to establish a Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Rating, will have those reviews display on our websites.
Ratings and reviews are feedback from people who have either consulted an attorney about an issue (but may not have hired the attorney) or people who hired an attorney as a current or former client and provided their feedback to our sister site, Avvo.com.