Lawbamba

Top best Technology Lawyers in zip code 10601 White Plains

Home   ➤ New York   ➤➤ Zip- 10601 - White Plains - Technology

We have more than 4 top best Technology lawyers in zip code 10601, White Plains, New York. Donna Frosco, Zachary Baral Cohen are among the top best Technology attorneys in zip code 10601. While choosing lawyers in zip code 10601, compare their reviews.


Donna Frosco - top best Technology Lawyer in zip code 10601

Donna Frosco

Rating: 4.35


Area of Practice: Appellate ,Construction ,Corporate ,Environmental ,Intellectual Property ,Technology and Science

Zip code: 10601, White Plains, New York



Contact: 914-946-4777
Keane and Beane, P.C..
445 Hamilton Avenue   1Fifth Floor New  10601.

Zachary Baral Cohen - top best Technology Lawyer in zip code 10601

Zachary Baral Cohen

Area of Practice: Corporate, Health Law, Information Technology and Cybersecurity, Intellectual Property, Not-for-Profit Law

Zip code: 10601, White Plains, New York



Contact:
Bleakley Platt & Schmidt LLP.
One North Lexington Avenue.

Marko C. Maglich - top best Technology Lawyer in zip code 10601

Marko C. Maglich

Area of Practice: Immigration, White Collar and Government Enforcement, Automotive, Higher Education, Energy and Utilities, Financial Services, Hospitality, Pharmaceuticals, Professional Services, Real Estate, Media, Technology, Transportation

Zip code: 10601, White Plains, New York



Contact: 914-872-8060
Jackson Lewis P.C..
44 South Broadway.

Sarah Y. Lippman - top best Technology Lawyer in zip code 10601

Sarah Y. Lippman

Area of Practice: Intellectual Property & Technology, Intellectual Property Litigation, Trademark & Brand Management

Zip code: 10601, White Plains, New York



Contact: 914-286-2937
Greenberg Traurig, LLP.
445 Hamilton Avenue.

FAQs - Technology Attorneys in 10601

Technology Case examples in zip code 10601

Description: Involves legal issues related to assisted reproductive technologies, including surrogacy and IVF. Case Example: Smith v. Reproductive Clinic, 2021 - Addressed disputes over assisted reproductive services. Judgment: The court ruled on contract and custody issues in reproductive technology cases.