Testimonials

Mr. Adam G. Linett is Very Knowledgeable, Competent, and Well-Seasoned

I have been using Mr. Linett’s services since 2006 when I started my business. One of the more recent favorable decisions secured for my company by Mr. Linett involved a home improvement contract dispute in which the defendant (a former customer of mine) appealed after losing to us at trial. 

Throughout the whole discovery, trial and appeal process I was always kept fully informed by Mr. Linett. His attention to all the minute details, and his thorough preparedness, became clearly evident during the trial. What impressed me the most was the comprehensiveness of his knowledge of the rules of procedure, the rules of evidence, and his knowledge of so many different little laws and statutes. It’s one thing to have knowledge of all these little rules & laws, it’s something completely different to seemingly always be able to cite the precise rule that applies at the precise time that it is needed. On more than one occasion the judge did his own research to verify an obscure rule or law that Mr. Linett applied on our behalf during the proceedings. On another occasion the judge commended Mr. Linett’s meticulous compliance with procedure and said Mr. Linett would always be welcome in his courtroom.

Mr. Linett’s performance made it look like the other attorney had just graduated from law school.

THE CASE:

Initially my customer claimed that our work was defective and refused to pay us. When I inspected the job I discovered a minor aesthetic manufacturing defect in the materials. I got the manufacturer involved and the manufacturer acknowledged the defect, without actually saying it was a defect, and offered my customer several thousand dollars as a good faith gesture if my customer would accept the installed materials “as is”. My customer said he would pay me when he got the check from the manufacturer.

My customer never paid me, so I sued him.

During trial it was revealed that my customer had been awarded enough money from his insurance company to pay for 90% of the job before he even hired my company. It was further revealed that he had indeed accepted several thousand dollars from the manufacturer for the minor aesthetic defect that he was still trying to hold my company responsible for.

Through skillful questioning by Mr. Linett, my former customer was caught in a couple of lies on the stand. There was also a bunch of hearsay and many documents, including one document allegedly written by an “expert”, presented by my former customer during trial that were ruled inadmissible thanks to Mr. Linett. Not withstanding the lies, our case would still have boiled down to the fact that my customer, at best, had only a layman’s understanding of the work being disputed, and therefore, as a matter of law, he was not qualified to testify as to the nature or quality of the product or the installation. The judge decided in our favor, and the appeals court just recently decided in our favor as well.