Steven M. Wald

Steven M. Wald

also known as Steve Wald

0.0
Not yet reviewed Write a Review
Rating: 6.6

Licensed for 31 years

Litigation Lawyer at Saint Louis, MO
Practice Areas: Litigation

3636 S. Geyer Rd., Suite 200, Saint Louis, MO

About Steven

Biography

Practice Areas

1

Practice Area

Litigation 100%

Rails-to-Trails Litigation

18 years

100%

Fees and Rates

Cost

Contingency

30%-33%


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 Missouri for 29 years

State: Missouri

Acquired: 1996

Good Standing, Active

No misconduct found

Licensed in Illinois for 28 years

State: Illinois

Acquired: 1997

Administrative - Not Authorized to Practice

No misconduct found

Licensed in Texas for 31 years

State: Texas

Acquired: 1994

Not Eligible to Practice - Administrative

No misconduct found

Location

Stewart, Wald & Smith, LLC

3636 S. Geyer Rd., Suite 200, Saint Louis, MO, 63127

Stewart Wald & McCulley

2100 Central, Suite 22, Kansas City, MO, 64108

Ad

Transform legal challenges into solutions.

Connect now to review your situation.

The Avvo Rating explained

display-bg

The Avvo Rating explained

Steven M. Wald's Reviews

Avvo Review Score

0.0 /5.0

Not Yet Reviewed

Steven M. Wald's Lawyer Endorsements

Endorse Steven

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:  6.6 (Good)

Sample of Legal Cases

Action Capital Properties, LLLP v. United States

In Action Capital Properties, LLLP v. United States, our attorneys recovered $714,000 on behalf of 2 landowners in Fulton County, Georgia, along a 2.3-mile trail.

Goodwill v. United States

In Goodwill v. United States, our attorneys recovered $494,000 on behalf of 2 landowners in Greenville County, South Carolina along a 2.38-mile trail.

Tacsites v. United States

In Tacsites v. United States, our attorneys recovered $188,000 on behalf of 1 landowner in Fulton County, Georgia, along a 2.04-mile trail.

Hazen XXVI, LLC v. United States

In Hazen XXVI, LLC v. United States, our attorneys recovered $75,000 on behalf of 11 landowners in Howard County, Indiana, along a 2.38-mile trail.

Ansley Walk Condo. Assoc. v. United States

In Ansley Walk v. United States, our attorneys recovered $18,416,000 on behalf of 5 landowners in Fulton County, Georgia, along a 1-mile trail.

112 Haywood LLC v. United States

In 112 Haywood LLC v. United States, our attorneys recovered $800,000 on behalf of 2 landowners in Greenville County, South Carolina along a 3.29-mile trail.

Williams v. United States

In Williams v. United States, our attorneys recovered compensation on behalf of 12 landowners in Washington and Carter Counties, Tennessee, along a 10-mile trail.

Carpenter v. United States

In Carpenter v. United States, our attorneys recovered $87,000 on behalf of 8 landowners in Pulaski County, Arkansas, along a 4.04-mile trail.

Creston VFW v. United States

In Creston VFW v. United States, our attorneys participated in successfully representing landowners along a 1.75-trail in Kent County, Michigan.

Phillips v. United States

In Phillips v. United States, our attorneys recovered $233,000 on behalf of 32 landowners in Geneva and Covington Counties Alabama, along a 42.9-mile trail.

Turner v. United States

In Turner v. United States, our attorneys recovered $1,800,000 on behalf of 29 landowners in Shelby County, Tennessee, along a 13.34-mile trail.

Lambert v. United States

In Lambert v. United States, our attorneys recovered $3,960,000 on behalf of 88 landowners in Shelby County, Tennessee, along a 6.26-mile trail.

Finch v. United States

In Finch v. United States, our attorneys recovered $2,700,000 on behalf of 184 landowners in Pulaski County, Arkansas, along a 4.04-mile trail.

Bridgeman v. United States

In Bridgeman v. United States, our attorneys participated in recovering $10,930,000 on behalf of landowners in Washington and Carter Counties, Tennessee, along a 10-mile trail.

Thomas v. United States

In Thomas v. United States, our attorneys recovered $5,500,000 on behalf of 79 landowners in Shelby County, Tennessee, along a 7.08-mile trail.

Greenwood v. United States

In Greenwood v. United States, our attorneys recovered $1,000,000 on behalf of 53 landowners in Lawrence County, Arkansas, along a 6.70-mile trail.

Sutton v. United States

In Sutton v. United States, our attorneys recovered $3,100,000 on behalf of 37 landowners in Yolo County, California, along a 9.27-mile trail.

Furlong v. United States

In Furlong v. United States, our attorneys recovered $14,200,000 on behalf of 272 landowners in Albany, New York, along a 10.94-mile trail.

Capreal v. United States

In Capreal v. United States, our attorneys recovered $3,300,000 on behalf of landowners in Webster and Dudley Counties, Massachusetts, along a 10.8 mile trail.

See More Legal Cases

Education

2002

Washington University

M.B.A.

1994

Louisiana State University, Paul M. Hebert Law Center

JD - Juris Doctor

1991

Ithaca College

B.S.

Languages

English

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