Jump to Navigation

Wilmington, Delaware, Law Firm

Serving Clients Throughout Delaware

The law firm of Martin D. Haverly, Attorney at Law, is a multipractice law firm focused on protecting client rights and interests. We represent employees, employers, businesses and injured individuals.

Whether a case involves an employment law matter, a personal injury, a will or estate administration, or a business problem, we use the full resources of our team and the law to creatively address our clients' issues. We use negotiation, mediation, settlement, arbitration and litigation as the means for which we obtain positive outcomes. Throughout the life span of any of these processes, we keep our clients informed and involved.

The more we learn about your specific needs and what you hope to accomplish, the better we can construct our approach and services to best fit your situation.

Our firm has more than 19 years of history representing Delaware clients. Originally, the firm's employment law practice was geared toward individual employees. Today, that tradition continues, and we have expanded our services to cater to the growing business needs of employers as well. With a deeper understanding of both perspectives in employment law, we better serve all clients.

Bring your questions, concerns and legal problems to our table. As our client, you will receive trusted legal counsel, unwavering dedication to your cause and steadfast determination to resolve your case efficiently and effectively. We are a combination of compassionate and aggressive advocates, prepared to use an approach that best fits our clients and their goals.

Lawyers Committed To Achieving The Best Possible Result

At Martin D. Haverly, Attorney at Law, our team is here to support you. Contact us at 302-529-0121 to arrange an in-person meeting. Our office is conveniently located in the suburbs just outside the city of Wilmington. Consultations for personal injury clients are always free.

View Cases

  • Sheridan v. E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 100 F.3d 1061 (3rd Cir. 1996) (en banc) (Plaintiff's jury verdict and the "pretext only" paradigm for proof of intentional discrimination established).
  • Hawkins v. Division of State Police, et al., C.A. No. 99-297-SLR (Religious discrimination case which successfully obtained an offer of judgment and caused the State to stop using the MMPI-1.
  • Miller v. Daimler Chrysler Corp., C. A. No. 01-827-JJF (D.Del. 2003) (Race Discrimination claim survived Motion for Summary Judgment).
  • Panaro v. J.C. Penny, Inc., C.A. 01C-02-010 JOH, 2002 WL 130692 (Del. Super. 2002)(In a personal injury case, admission into evidence of direct examination of deceased deponent/plaintiff does not.
  • Price, et al. v. L. Aaron Chaffinch, et al., C.A. No. 04-956-GMS, 2006 WL 1313178 (D.Del. 2006) (First Amendment Retaliation, Petitions Clause and Defamation Claims survived Motion for Summary Judgment).
  • Reyes v. Freebery, 141 Fed. Appx. 49 (3d Cir. 2005) (per curiam) remanding to District Court to explain its restrictions on the public's right to access to judicial records and counsel's First Amendment.
  • Underwood v. Sear Roebuck and Co., 343 F.Supp.2d 259 (D.Del. 2004) (Gender discrimination claim survived Motion for Summary Judgment).
  • Shotzberger v. State of Delaware Dept. Of Correction, 2004 WL 758354 (D.Del. Jan. 30, 2004) (Gender discrimination claim survived Motion for Summary Judgement).
  • Stull v. Thomas S. Neuberger, P.A., 2003 WL 21481016 (Del. Super. Febr. 28, 2003) (Effect of Delaware accord and satisfaction law on a contract for legal services).
View More Cases

Case Evaluation Form

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.


Privacy Policy