Employment Agencies Lawyer in zip code 29532 | 1 Available
I N K Connections - Employment Agencies Lawyer in zip code 29532
Ratings:
Yelp Rating:
Area of Practice: Employment Agencies
Zip code: 29532, Darlington, North Carolina
I N K Connections Yelp Reviews
A man came to our door claiming to work for I N K connections. He said he was from Alabama (also flashed a driving license to prove it) told a sad story......yyyy...11/13/20 @ 5:15 PM. A young man came to my door and told a long sad story about coming from Alabama to get his life back on track. As other people have... ... I N K Connections Lawyer Reviews
...
Contact: (843) 802-5672
I N K Connections.
221 S Ervin St.
No Q&As yet near 29532 (Employment Agencies)
Be the first to ask Lawbamba Community. Real Local lawyers answer.
Who are the Top best Employment Agencies lawyers in zipcode 29532?
I N K Connections is among the top rated Employment Agencies lawyer in Darlington. The reviews and ratings are based on actual client feedback. The selected Darlington Employment Agencies lawyer may be able to address other General legal issues such as Employment Agencies and other legal issues listed below in Darlington,North Carolina.Popular issues in Zipcode 29532
Selecting a Employment Agencies Attorney in 29532
Is the Employment Agencies attorneys office in your own zipcode or locality?
Lawbamba helps you by showing the top best rated attorneys in Zipcode: 29532 for Employment Agencies attorneys.
Once you browse through the list of top avvo and yelp reviewed attorneys in a selected zipcode you can also use the filters to sort by the lawyer ratings. The unique filters also allows you to change areas of practice and counties to provide a faster and wider search experience!
What are Lawbamba Avvo and Yelp Client Review Ratings in 29532
Lawbamba Client Review Ratings: Draws on Avvo and Yelp client reviews and comments and supplements the information available through Peer Review Ratings. Direct client reviews on a Employment Agencies lawyer's qualities provides a unique another perspective and key information as you make your choice for legal services.
Having utilized your selected lawyers' services make sure you Employment Agencies come back to review and rate the Employment Agencies lawyer or the law firm you worked with for your case.
No Q&As yet near 29532 (Employment Agencies)
Be the first to ask Lawbamba Community. Real Local lawyers answer.
Selecting a Employment Agencies Attorney in 29532
Is the Employment Agencies attorneys office in your own zipcode or locality?
Lawbamba helps you by showing the top best rated attorneys in Zipcode: 29532 for Employment Agencies attorneys.
Once you browse through the list of top avvo and yelp reviewed attorneys in a selected zipcode you can also use the filters to sort by the lawyer ratings. The unique filters also allows you to change areas of practice and counties to provide a faster and wider search experience!
What are Lawbamba Avvo and Yelp Client Review Ratings in 29532
Lawbamba Client Review Ratings: Draws on Avvo and Yelp client reviews and comments and supplements the information available through Peer Review Ratings. Direct client reviews on a Employment Agencies lawyer's qualities provides a unique another perspective and key information as you make your choice for legal services.
Having utilized your selected lawyers' services make sure you Employment Agencies come back to review and rate the Employment Agencies lawyer or the law firm you worked with for your case.
Explore more Employment Agencies Lawyers in ZIP Codes Nearby 29532
Atlanta, Georgia (ZIP 30346) - 257.9 miles away
Washington, DC, Washington (ZIP 20005) - 355.5 miles away
Baltimore, Maryland (ZIP 21202) - 390.0 miles away
Louisville, Kentucky (ZIP 40222) - 422.5 miles away
Columbus, Ohio (ZIP 43222) - 429.6 miles away
Employment Agencies Case examples in zip code 29532
Legal issues involving agencies that place employees with employers. Case Example: Coffey v. Target Corporation (2010) - Case involving disputes with employment agencies and worker classification. Judgment: The court addressed misclassification issues and agency responsibilities.