Mark A Behrens

Mark A Behrens

0.0
Not yet reviewed Write a Review
Rating: 9.0

Licensed for 35 years

Litigation Lawyer at Washington, DC
Practice Areas: Litigation, Business, Class Action

1155 F St NW, Ste 200, Washington, DC

About Mark

Biography

Practice Areas

Fees and Rates

We have not found any cost information for this lawyer


Looking for an attorney? Avvo can help.

search module image

Search our directory

Quickly connect with top attorneys through our legal directory to get help with your legal issue.

chat module image

Avvo's live chat agents can help coordinate a consultation with a local attorney.

Chat with a live agent who can match you with the right attorney for your legal needs.

Chat with

Licenses

Licensed in District of Columbia for 35 years

State: District of Columbia

Acquired: 1991

Good Standing

No misconduct found

Licensed in Virginia for 35 years

State: Virginia

Acquired: 1990

Active

No misconduct found

Location

Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP

1155 F St NW, Ste 200, Washington, DC, 20004-1313

Ad

Transform legal challenges into solutions.

Connect now to review your situation.

The Avvo Rating explained

display-bg

The Avvo Rating explained

Mark A Behrens's Reviews

Avvo Review Score

0.0 /5.0

Not Yet Reviewed

Mark A Behrens's Lawyer Endorsements

Endorse Mark

No Endorsement Data Available Yet
This attorney hasn't received any attorney endorsements recently on Avvo.

No Endorsement Data Available Yet
This attorney hasn't created any attorney endorsements recently on Avvo.

Experience

Rating:  9.0 (Superb)

Honors

2001

Burton Award for Legal Achievement, Burton Foundation

Work Experience

2001 - Present

Partner, Shook Hardy & Bacon

Associations

2011 - Present

NFIB Small Business Legal Center’s Advisory Board

2008 - Present

American Law Institute

Member

2006 - Present

Washington Legal Foundation Legal Policy Advisory Board

Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc.

Education

1990

Vanderbilt University Law School

JD - Juris Doctor

Speaking Engagements

2013

American Bar Association

Asbestos Litigation and Bankruptcy Trusts

Publications

2012

15 J. Health Care L. & Pol’y 173 The Constitutional Foundation for Federal Medical Liability Reform

2011

8 Rutgers J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 50 Punitive Damages in Asbestos Personal Injury Litigation: The Basis for Deferral Remains Sound

2011

118:2 Obstetrics & Gynecology 335 Medical Liability Reform: A Case Study of Mississippi

2010

31 N. Ill. L. Rev. 37 The Need for Rational Boundaries in Civil Conspiracy Claims

2009

28 Rev. Litig. 501 What’s New in Asbestos Litigation?

2009

17 Mich. St. J. Int’l Law 165 Global Litigation Trends

2008

37 Sw. U. L. Rev. 479 The “Any Exposure” Theory: An Unsound Basis for Asbestos Causation and Expert Testimony

2003

68 Mo. L. Rev. 525 I’ll Take That: Legal and Policy Problems Raised by Statutes That Require Punitive Damages Awards To Be Shared With The State

2003

82 Or. L. Rev. 33 Selective Due Process: The United States Supreme Court Has Said That Punitive Damages Awards Must Be Reviewed for Excessiveness, But Many Courts Are Failing to Follow The Letter And Spirit of The Law

2002

54 Baylor L. Rev. 331 Some Proposals for Courts Interested in Helping Sick Claimants and Solving Serious Problems in Asbestos Litigation

2002

11 Cornell J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 273 The Case for Adopting Appointive Judicial Selection Systems for State Court Judges

2000

37 Harv. J. on Legis. 483 Federal Courts Should Decide Interstate Class Actions: A Call For Federal Class Action Diversity Jurisdiction Reform

2000

27 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 237 Tort Reform Past, Present And Future: Solving Old Problems And Dealing With “New Style” Litigation

2000

103 W. Va. L. Rev. 1 Fostering Mutual Respect and Cooperation Between State Courts and State Legislatures: A Sound Alternative to a Tort Tug of War

2000

65 Brook. L. Rev. 1003 Reining In Punitive Damages “Run Wild”: Proposals For Reform By Courts And Legislatures

1999

34 Wake Forest L. Rev. 1057 Medical Monitoring – Should Tort Law Say Yes?

1999

36 Harv. J. on Leg. 269 Federalism and Federal Liability Reform: The United States Constitution Supports Reform

1996

16 U. Pa. J. Int’l Bus. Law 669 Japan’s New Product Liability Law: The Citadel Of Strict Liability Falls, But Access To Recovery Is Limited By Formidable Barriers
Avvo Rating

Our Rating is calculated using information the lawyer has included on their profile in addition to the information we collect from state bar associations and other organizations that license legal professionals. Attorneys who claim their profiles and provide Avvo with more information tend to have a higher rating than those who do not.

What determines Avvo Rating?
  • Experience & background Years licensed, work experience, education
  • Legal community recognition Peer endorsements, associations, awards
  • Legal thought leadership Publications, speaking engagements
  • Discipline Disciplinary information may not be comprehensive, or updated. We recommend that you always check a lawyer's disciplinary status with their respective state bar association before hiring them.
Avvo Rating Levels
10.0 - 9.0 Superb8.9 - 8.0 Excellent7.9 - 7.0 Very Good6.9 - 6.0 Good5.9 - 5.0 Average4.9 - 4.0 Concern3.9 - 3.0 Caution2.9 - 2.0 Strong Caution1.9 - 1.0 Extreme Caution