×
Go back to Martindale-Avvo ➔

Cruser, Mitchell, Novitz, Sanchez, Gaston & Zimet LLPPartner
no photo

Mr. William Thomas Mitchell

Not yet reviewed

275 Scientific Dr., Ste. 2000, Norcross, GA 30092

Employment Law, Employment Discrimination, Civil Rights and 5 more

About Mr. William Thomas Mitchell

Mr. William Thomas Mitchell is a lawyer practicing employment law, employment discrimination, civil rights and 5 other areas of law. William Thomas received a B.A. degree from Michigan State University in 1987, and has been licensed for 36 years. William Thomas practices at Cruser, Mitchell, Novitz, Sanchez, Gaston & Zimet LLP in Norcross, GA.

Awards

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.
Martindale-Hubbell Peer AV

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.

Champion Badge Silver

At least three reviews and a score of 4.0 or higher.

Champion Badge Gold

At least six reviews and a score of 4.2 or higher.

Champion Badge Platinum

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:

Martindale-Hubbell Peer AV Preeminent Rating

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.

Mr. William Thomas Mitchell got this award in 2021

Martindale-Hubbell Peer Distinguished Rating

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.

Martindale-Hubbell Peer Notable Rating

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

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 Choice

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.

Reviews for William Thomas

This lawyer does not have any client reviews on Lawyers.com yet

Write a Review

Services

Areas of Law

  • Civil Rights
  • Professional Liability
  • Commercial Litigation
  • Business Law 1
    • Business Litigation
  • Other 4
    • Employment Law
    • Employment Discrimination
    • Governmental Liability
    • Public School Law

Practice Details

  • Firm Information
    Position
    Partner
    Firm Name
    Cruser, Mitchell, Novitz, Sanchez, Gaston & Zimet LLP
  • Representative Cases & Transactions
    Cases
    Ward v. Dodson, 256 Ga. App. 660, 569 S.E. 2d 554 (2002) (summary judgment granted to deputy based on Georgia official/individual capacity law)
    Vaughn v. Cox, 264 F.3d 1027 (2002) (excessive force case involving high speed pursuit)
    Gay Guardian Newspaper v. Ohopee Regional Library, 235 F.Supp. 2nd 1362 (S.D.Ga. 2002) (summary judgment granted in First Amendment public forum case)
    Dixon v. Burke County, 333 F.3d 1271 (11th Cir. 2002) (summary judgment granted in due process/discrimination case)
    Foster v. Fulton County, 223 F. Supp. 2d 1301, (N.D.Ga. 2002) (jail class action involving HIV inmates)
    DeKalb County v. Adam, 272 Ga. 401, 529 S.E.2d 610 (2002) (jail class action involving inadequate medical care)
    Davis v. DeKalb County School District, 233 F.3d 1367 (2000) (summary judgment granted in Title IX teacher on student sexual assault)
    Goodman v. City of Smyrna, 230 Ga. App. 630, 497, S.E.2d 372 (1998) (summary judgment granted in wrongful death case involving road defect)
    Magnum v. Miami Aircraft Support, Inc., 217 Ga. App. 855, 459 S.E.2d 592 (1995) (trial motion in limine affirmed relative to a default judgment case)
    Feise v. Cherokee County, 434 S.E.2d 551 (1993) (summary judgment granted creating law that deputies had no duty to protect crime victim)
    Riggio v. Lawson, 24 Ga. App. 774, 420 S.E.2d 613 (1992) (summary judgment granted in personal injury matter).

Experience

  • Bar Admission & Memberships
    Admissions
    1990, Georgia
    U.S. District Court, Northern District of Georgia
    U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
  • Education & Certifications
    Law School
    Wayne State University
    Class of 1990
    J.D.
    Other Education
    Michigan State University
    Class of 1987
    B.A.

Email Mr. William Thomas Mitchell

Case type is required.
I am is required.
First name is required.
Last name is required.
A valid zip code is required.
Country is required.
State is required.
A valid city is required.
A valid email address is required.
A valid phone number is required.
Message is required.
0/1000 characters

By clicking the Submit button, you agree to the Terms of Use, Supplemental Terms and Privacy Policy. You also consent to be contacted at the phone number you provided, including by autodials, text messages and/or pre-recorded calls, from Lawyers.com and its affiliates and from or on behalf of attorneys you request or contact through this site. Consent is not a condition of purchase.

You should not send any sensitive or confidential information through this site. Emails sent through this site do not create an attorney-client relationship and may not be treated as privileged or confidential. The lawyer or law firm you are contacting is not required to, and may choose not to, accept you as a client. The internet is not necessarily secure and emails sent though this site could be intercepted or read by third parties.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA. See Google’s Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.

Thank you! Your message has been successfully sent.

For your records, a copy of this email has been sent to test@test.com.

Summary of Your Message
Case Type:
I am a/an:
First Name:
Last Name:
City:
Zip Code or Postal Code:
State:
Country:
Phone Number:
Message:
Return to Profile Reset Form
Lawyers.com Client Reviews

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.

For more information on Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings™, please visit our Ratings Page on Martindale.com and our Frequently Asked Questions