Natalie Heineman

Natalie Heineman

5.0
Rating: 8.3

Licensed for 18 years

Litigation Lawyer at Seattle, WA
Practice Areas: Litigation, Health Care

1700 Seventh Avenue, 2100, Seattle, WA

About Natalie

Biography

Practice Areas

2

Practice Areas

Litigation 70%

Ms. Heineman's litigation practice focuses on the defense of health care professionals and organizations including hospitals, physicians, nursing homes, pharmacists, and oral surgeons.

18 years | 200 cases

70%
Health Care 30%

Ms. Heineman represents health care professionals in Department of Health disciplinary matters.

18 years | 200 cases

30%

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 Washington for 10 years

State: Washington

Acquired: 2015

Active

No misconduct found

Licensed in Massachusetts for 18 years

State: Massachusetts

Acquired: 2007

Administrative Suspension

No misconduct found

Location

LHA

1700 Seventh Avenue, 2100, Seattle, WA, 98101

Ad

Transform legal challenges into solutions.

Connect now to review your situation.

The Avvo Rating explained

display-bg

The Avvo Rating explained

Natalie Heineman's Reviews

Avvo Review Score

5.0 /5.0

2 Client Reviews

Filter Avvo Reviews (2) Refine reviews to match your needs. Use the filters to quickly surface reviews that align with your case or priorities.
Star rating
5 stars 2
4 stars 0
3 stars 0
2 stars 0
1 star 0
Practice Areas
What Clients Mention

Showing 1 - 1 of 1 review | Lawsuits & Disputes

Posted by Nora | October 13, 2020 | Hired Attorney | Lawsuits & Disputes

The most professional, caring, and diligent expertise. Thank you!

I would like to thank the law firm of Ms. Natalie Heineman for her excellent quality of service to my legal needs in one of the most turbulent times of my career. When you hire Ms. Heineman, you can expect careful, professional, and prompt paperwork and communications. In my particular case, she went... above and beyond and thought outside the box to achieve an amicable resolution. She is honest and does not rush your phone conferences with her. Her counsel was helpful, comforting, and her work set a new standard for me, as new as I am to needing representation. While I hope to never require the services of a lawyer, I would not hesitate to keep her as a number one for me in the case I ever need her. I hope you consider her firm in your search for your legal needs! I cannot recommend her enough! Thank you so kindly Ms. Heineman, for your thoroughness!

See All Client Reviews

Natalie Heineman's Lawyer Endorsements

Endorse Natalie
Lauren William Locke headshot
Lauren Locke

Litigation lawyer | Oct 24

Relationship: Worked together on matter

"I have worked with Natalie on a matter and was very impressed by her professionalism, intellect, hard work, and trial skills. I would highly recommend her."

View All Endorsements
Lauren William Locke headshot
Lauren Locke

Litigation lawyer

Experience

Rating:  8.3 (Excellent)

Honors

2017

Rising Star, Washington Super Lawyers

2015

Rising Star, Massachusetts Super Lawyers

2014

Rising Star, Massachusetts Super Lawyers

Work Experience

2013 - 2015

Attorney, Foster & Eldridge, LLP

2009 - 2013

Attorney, Morrison Mahoney, LLP

2007 - 2009

Attorney, Swiggart & Agin, LLC

Associations

2019 - Present

King County Bar Association

Judicial Survey Committee

2018 - Present

Defense Research Institute - Nursing Home Litigation

2015 - Present

Washington Defense Trial Lawyers

Sample of Legal Cases

Cardiac tamponade following placement of ICD

Defense verdict

Sinus injury caused by dental implant

Defense verdict

Failure to diagnose prostate cancer

Defense verdict

Failure to diagnose liver cancer

Defense verdict

Failure to diagnose prostate cancer

Defense verdict

Lingual nerve injury following 3rd molar extraction

Defense verdict

See More Legal Cases

Education

2007

Suffolk University Law School

JD - Juris Doctor

1999

University of Arizona

BA - Bachelor of Arts (Philosophy)

Speaking Engagements

2020

WA Continuing Education Course

Nursing Home Litigation Defense in Washington State: Current Case Law and Defense Strategies

2019

WA Continuing Legal Education

Challenging Harris v. Drake: Key Cases and Strategies for the Defense

2019

WA Continuing Legal Education

Wrongful Death Law in Washington State after 2019 Enactment of Senate Bill 5163

2018

WA Continuing Legal Education

Causation and Damages: The Loss of Chance Doctrine in Washington State

2016

Washington Continuing Legal Education

Causation: Recent Developments and Considerations for Challenging Plaintiffs Experts

Publications

2014

Massachusetts Medical Society Journal Negligent Credentialing in Massachusetts: Implications of Rabelo v. Nasif

2008

8 J. High Tech Computer Software Derivative Works

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