×
Go back to Martindale-Avvo ➔

David C. Thompson Attorney at Law, P.C.Member
no photo

David C. Thompson

Not yet reviewed

321 Kittson Avenue, P.O. Box 5235, Grand Forks, ND 58206-4765

Asbestos Litigation, Personal Injury, Toxic Torts and 1 more

About David C. Thompson

David C. Thompson is a lawyer practicing asbestos litigation, personal injury, toxic torts and 1 other area of law. David received a B.A. degree from University of Maine in 1975, and has been licensed for 42 years. David practices at David C. Thompson Attorney at Law, P.C. in Grand Forks, ND.

David C. Thompson (Grand Forks, North Dakota)

Reviews for David

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

Write a Review

Services

Areas of Law

  • Toxic Torts 1
    • Asbestos Litigation
  • Personal Injury
  • Products Liability

Practice Details

  • Firm Information
    Position
    Member
    Firm Name
    David C. Thompson Attorney at Law, P.C.
  • Representative Cases & Transactions
    Cases
    Mertz v. 999 Quebec, et. al., 2010 ND 51, 780 N.W.2d 446 (N.D. 2010)
    Vicknair v. Phelps Dodge Industries, Inc., 2009 ND 113, 767 N.W.2d 171 (N.D. 2009)
    In re Asbestos Product Liability Litigation, MDL 875, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88763 (E.D.Pa. August 26, 2010)
    In re Asbestos Product Liability Litigation, MDL 875, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88779 (E.D.Pa. July 30, 2010)
    In re Congelum Corporation, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 21093 (3rd Cir. October 7, 2010)
    In re Congelum Corporation, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72431 (D.N.J. July 19, 2010)
    In re Congelum Corporation, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4730 (D.N.J. January 21, 2010)
    In re Zicam Colde Remedy Mtkg., Sales Practices & Product Liability Litigation, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62838 (D. Ariz. June 2, 2011)
    In re Zicam Colde Remedy Mtkg., Sales Practices & Product Liability Litigation, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58952 (D. Ariz. May 27, 2011)
    In re Zicam Colde Remedy Mtkg., Sales Practices & Product Liability Litigation, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28908 (D. Ariz. March 17, 2011)
    In re Zicam Colde Remedy Mtkg., Sales Practices & Product Liability Litigation, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19620 (D. Ariz. February 24, 2011)
    In re Zicam Colde Remedy Mtkg., Sales Practices & Product Liability Litigation, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20356 (D. Ariz. February 23, 2011)
    In re Zicam Colde Remedy Mtkg., Sales Practices & Product Liability Litigation, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131285 (D. Ariz. November 29, 2010)
    In re Zicam Colde Remedy Mtkg., Sales Practices & Product Liability Litigation, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122718 (D. Ariz. November 2, 2010)
    In re Zicam Colde Remedy Mtkg., Sales Practices & Product Liability Litigation, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113405 (D. Ariz. October 7, 2010)
    United States v Cavanaugh, 948 F.2d 405 (8th Cir. 1990)
    Boechler v. Department of the Interior, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 6436 (Fed. Cir. March 19, 2009)
    Morris v. Clifford, 903 F.2d 574 (8th Cir. 1990).

Experience

  • Bar Admission & Memberships
    Admissions
    1984, North Dakota
    1984, U.S. District Court, North Dakota
    1987, U.S. Tax Court and U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
    1992, U.S. Supreme Court
    2001, U.S. District Court, Northern District of New York
    2005, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth and Federal Circuits
    2010, U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
    Memberships
    Grand Forks County, North Dakota State and American Bar Associations
    American Association for Justice
    North Dakota Trial Lawyers' Association.
  • Education & Certifications
    Law School
    University of North Dakota
    Class of 1982
    J.D.
    Other Education
    University of Maine
    Class of 1975
    B.A.

    Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    Class of 1978
    M.A.
    Journalism
  • Personal Details & History
    Age
    Born in 1953
    Glen Ridge, New Jersey, July 18, 1953

Email David C. Thompson

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