Expert Advice When You Need It Most

Back to Search Results

Jeanne Marie Jorgensen

Jeanne Marie Jorgensen
Experience 3.5 star rating
Industry Recognition 1.5 star rating
Professional Conduct 5.0 star rating

What is the Avvo Rating?

1 Review 5.0 star rating
Former client? Write a review
No professional misconduct found.

Overview

Practice Areas
Chart?chs=124x124&cht=p&chp=4
  • 35% Bankruptcy / Debt
  • 35% Litigation
  • 25% Debt Collection
  • 5% Appeals

Fees and Payment Types

Fees

Hourly ($300/hour)

Contact Information

References

Client Reviews

Client Rating

Former client? Write a review
5.0 star rating 1 review
5 star rating

“Success”

Posted by: Stephen J Fridenberg, about 1 year ago.

Client Review: Jeanne M. Jorgensen has been our Corporate and personal attorney for the last 10 years. Her professionalism and tenacity has resulted in a favorable... more
Flag

Peer Endorsements

Endorse a fellow lawyer, get more visits to your profile

In addition to providing a simple way to express your gratitude to fellow lawyers, any time you add an endorsement to a peer's profile, a link to your profile will appear on it.

Endorse this lawyer

Résumé

 

License

16 years since Jeanne Marie Jorgensen was first licensed to practice law.

State License status Year acquired Last updated by Avvo
California Active 1996 02/07/2012
We have not found any instances of professional misconduct for this lawyer.

Work Experience
Position Duration
Partner/Attorney at Page & Jorgensen LLP 2007–present
Senior Counsel at Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP attorneys at law 1999–2007
See all 3 job entries

Education
School Major Degree Graduated
Southwestern Univ SOL law 1996
California St Univ Fullerton undergraduate 1990

Associations
Position Association Name Duration
Admitted United States Court of Appeals For the Ninth Circuit 2006-present
Member Orange County Bankruptcy Forum 1999-present
See all 7 association entries

Portfolio

Publications
Article Publication Date
"English Only in the Workplace and Title VII Disparate Impact: The Ninth Circuit's Misplaced Application of 'Ability to Comply' Should Be Rejected in Favor of the EEOC's Business Necessity Test," 25 Sw. U. L. Rev. 407 (1996). Southwestern University Law Review 1996