Our company designs and builds Chlor Alkali plants.

We entered into a contract to design and build a Chlor Alkali facility for $98,570,722.00.

Problems arose and there was a dispute about what caused the problems.

There were separate litigations between the owner and a third-party over the issue of causation.

The claim against us was initially filed before the American Arbitration Association. The claim was for $26,500,000.00 but we only had $9 million of insurance.

After the dispute was in arbitration for approximately 10 months, Goodman/Keller convinced the owner to dismiss the arbitration and refile their case in district court. This allowed us to name other third-parties responsible for the Plaintiff’s losses which enabled the litigants to collect from them amounts that would reimburse the owner for their alleged losses.

The case ultimately had 22 parties represented by 30 attorneys.

Goodman/Keller was very creative in designing into the case management orders elements that reduced the litigation expenses. These including a streamline set of 11 uniform Interrogatories that were served on each party that developed the same or similar information from each party that bared on their obligations and liability and delayed email production and depositions.

Goodman/Keller also scheduled a mediation, which was initially unsuccessful, but we coupled it with a daylong presentation by experts retained by various parties that opined on their opinions and conclusions to persuade other parties about their liability and exposure.

Thanks to the great work of Goodman/Keller, the case was resolved by mediation. The result was very satisfactory to my company.

Goodman/Keller did a great job of defending my company. What I found most impressive was:

1. They knew the case backwards and forwards;
2. They were creative in devising methods and ultimate solution that fit the case and matched our needs and expectations.
3. They were organized;
4. They always kept me informed and they involved me in every critical decision that impacted the outcome; and
5. They were very professional during the whole process

I am very pleased to recommend this Firm for any legal issue that you might have.

Chief Operating Officer

Design Build Engineers

Jeff Goodman defended our company in an action alleging that the plaintiff (a/k/a decedent) died while attempting to unclog a conveyor which was located on a catwalk hundreds of feet above the ground. Our company fabricated the catwalk and towers that support the conveyor and auxiliary equipment for the processing plant where the decedent was employed.

The proceedings involved fourteen defendants represented by twenty lawyers. We were added to the case late in the proceedings after most of the deposition discovery had been completed.

The decedent's estate sought approximately $15 million in damages.

Thanks to Goodman's efforts, we were successful in settling the claims against us at mediation for a nominal sum approximately six months after we were joined as a defendant in the multi-party litigation. The entire case did not settle because the decedent's estate chose to further pursue their $15 million claims against the non-settling defendants.

We could not have been more pleased with the representation and advocacy we received from Goodman. We were very favorably impressed with how our case was handled:

Goodman met with and gathered from co-defendants' counsel relevant and knowledgeable information relating to the claims against us.

Goodman met with our key employees who were knowledgeable about the project, and as a result, Goodman provided a detailed, preliminary assessment of the claims against us.

Goodman utilized members of our "in-house" design staff to develop the preliminary work-up of our case evaluation and strategy thereby saving us from exorbitant expert fees and expenses.

Goodman pursued their limited discovery strategy which unearthed the information needed to more fully evaluate the case and prepare for mediation or trial if a trial was necessary.

Goodman avoided any surprises by keeping us fully informed of all significant developments in the case by letters, e-mails and/or phone calls.

Goodman outlined a strategy for settling the claims against us, and they informed us of the likely settlement range.

Goodman followed their strategy and negotiated a very successful outcome.

In sum, Goodman did an excellent job of representing us and defending our interests. I would recommend Goodman to anyone in need of zealous and cost-effective representation.

Sincerely,

Vice President
Industrial Farm and Bulk Storage Equipment Designer and Manufacturer

Jeff Goodman has represented our company for nearly twenty years. Our headquarters for North America is located in Central Iowa.

What I like about working with Jeff Goodman is that he listens to our needs and tells it like it is – he tells us what he can and cannot do for us so the result meets the expectation initially discussed.

The approach devised by Jeff allowed us to initiate suits on five and six-figure dollar amount delinquency debt cases here in Iowa with one law firm representing us (as opposed to numerous firms in various jurisdictions around the United States) and, once jurisdiction is found by the Iowa court, the dealer's interest in defending the case diminishes and their interest in settling the case escalates.

In those cases where a judgment is entered, we register and transcribe the judgment to the state where the dealer resides. However in most instances, these cases resolve shortly after the court finds that it has jurisdiction over the dealer and the dealer sees that a settlement may be the most cost effective option.

Sincerely,

Director
Agricultural Financing Company for North America

I write to recommend the Goodman firm who defended us in an action brought by a City for alleged breaches of contract and/or professional standards.

The City's demand was for $6,217,136.56 and another claim was for $2,781,044.72. Both the City and our co-defendant relentlessly pursued their damage claims.

There are a number of qualities that I appreciated about the legal representation provided by Goodman including:

Communication: The Goodman firm kept us regularly informed on all significant developments in the case and, when the circumstances demanded it, they resolved any problems before they mushroomed into a bigger issue.

The approach formulated by the Goodman firm spared us (and our co-defendant) from paying the exorbitant and unjustified demands of the City, but also provided the City with a mechanism to recoup their damages through enforcement of a Development Agreement with an entity not a named party in the litigation.

Preparedness: The Goodman firm was always well prepared. They anticipated virtually every move made by opposing counsel and stood ready to respond effectively.

Advocacy: Early on, Goodman reviewed the facts of the case and the applicable law and formulated arguments that were chiefly responsible for the successful resolution of this dispute.

Creativity: All too often, attorneys assigned to defend a case approach it in a linear and predictable way by merely filing an answer, propounding discovery, deposing numerous witnesses and then simply waiting for mediation and settling for what the mediator (or the circumstances) dictated after a full day of horse trading.

Goodman persuaded the City that the appropriate method of recouping their losses was to seek recourse from the developer pursuant to a Development Agreement. Ironically, the developer was not even named as a party in the litigation. This unique and creative approach to resolving the case was the catalyst to settling an otherwise intractable dispute that would have culminated in a three- to five-week trial.

The result gained by Goodman was a win-win for everyone, and the professional services they provided coupled with their creativity, responsiveness, efficacy and just plain “get ˈer done” attitude was excellent and greatly appreciated.

I have worked with a variety of lawyers in my over 35-year career, and it is my pleasure to highly recommend to you Goodman Law, P.C.

Best Regards,

President & CEO
Architecture & Engineering Design Firm

Mr. Goodman has represented our company in the Midwestern states for approximately 17+ years. In approximately 2003, Mr. Goodman was designated as one of our key counsel for our nationwide litigation, and since then, Mr. Goodman has represented us in numerous disputes in a variety of states.

Mr. Goodman and his firm have defended our company on a regular basis in products liability, personal injury and wrongful death claims, and vehicular (truck/auto) claims.

By way of example, Mr. Goodman served as counsel for us in a defective products claim against a manufacturer of the material used to manufacture our windows and also the holder of a patented manufacturing process. The claim made by us was for approximately $40 million. Mr. Goodman, along with two other attorneys, worked closely together to bring this claim to a very successful and satisfactory settlement for us.

Mr. Goodman has also represented us in a number of automobile and/or truck fatalities and personal injury cases. The fatality cases were settled very expeditiously and for very small sums (i.e., low six-figure amounts) which we deemed extraordinary in comparison to the comparative verdicts and settlements in other cases that we were able to assemble regionally and nationally for purposes of evaluating our cases.

Mr. Goodman was also involved in a novel products liability claim against us in which a homeowner fell out of a window that was designed to permit the homeowner to stand inside the home and manipulate the hinges on the window sash so that the exterior glass could be cleaned as the homeowner stood inside the home (as opposed to climbing up a ladder from the exterior of the home). For some unexplained reason, the sash unexpectedly became detached from the window frame. The homeowner attempted to grab the sash as it fell and he tumbled a distance of 20 or 30 feet to the ground. The homeowner was paralyzed and suffered permanent, life-changing injuries. This case was dismissed after summary judgment was granted in favor of our company.

With respect to trucking and vehicular accidents, Mr. Goodman has developed a rapid response approach to these cases. In the Midwestern states, he has developed a network of vehicular accident reconstructionists. When an accident occurs in any of the Midwestern states, Mr. Goodman can dispatch an accident reconstructionist located no further than two hours from any accident site in the states of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, and South Dakota.

Mr. Goodman has also devised a method whereby, in those cases where the insured's liability is clear, a letter is sent to the decedent's injured party's family expressing condolences for the family's losses and requesting an opportunity to explore resolution of the case without admitting fault. As part and parcel of this approach, it is often times suggested to the decedent's family that they consider initially hiring an estate/probate lawyer so that the potential for settlement can be thoroughly explored, and the costs of litigation (including a 25% to 40% contingent fee) are avoided until and unless the family deems the settlement offers unacceptable at which time they are free to retain a contingent fee (25%-40%) litigation lawyer.

These preliminary steps avoid the impasse that inevitably results during settlement negotiations where the plaintiff seeks a higher settlement merely because 25% to 40% of his/her settlement will be paid to a contingent fee lawyer as opposed to a 2% or 3% contingency paid to an estate/probate lawyer.

Jeff Goodman has also advised us on directors' and officers' issues, and I have been highly satisfied with his legal advice and services in this area as well.

Jeff Goodman is a quick study and works very hard to not only "cut to the chase," but also to prepare a case so that it is well positioned for settlement and/or trial ready.

Very truly yours,

Senior Vice President and General Counsel
World-Wide Window and Door Manufacturer

In my own experience and based on the experience of my predecessor, the results that Jeff Goodman has been able to achieve for our company and its affiliates have been remarkable, We have been equally pleased with the cost- effective nature of his approach to resolving our legal problems.

In addition to being an outstanding trial lawyer, I also look to Jeff as a legal counselor to advise us on various legal matters from a strategy perspective so small problems do not become larger ones.

Sincerely,

Vice President and General Counsel
Fortune 500 Convenience Store Company

We engaged Jeff Goodman to defend us in a lawsuit. I was very impressed with the service he provided us. He aggressively pursued the case by initially demanding that we be dismissed from the case on the grounds that plaintiff could not prove that the gasoline product or gas line was defective and/or that the gasoline was, indeed, provided by us, as well as other grounds.

After precise and efficient discovery techniques, Jeff was able to file a Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that we did not belong in the case. The Court granted the motion, and we were dismissed. In my experience, a very rare outcome.

Although the case was disposed of summarily, I developed complete confidence in Mr. Goodman's litigation abilities. If we had gone to trial, I felt confident that our interests would have been very competently protected. He had a litigation plan that carefully and accurately evaluated the factual and legal issues in the case. He coordinated that plan with me on a regular basis. He aggressively kept the case moving to its successful conclusion, and he did so in a cost-efficient manner. As you know, that is not always the situation, as many attorneys like to "milk the discovery stage" of litigation for all its worth. Jeff did not do that.

His local knowledge of the courts and his ability to interact favorably with both the attorneys for the co-defendants and for the plaintiff was invaluable in resolving the matter in our favor. That is the kind of attorney and firm that 1 am looking for to represent us. Needless to say, I would not hesitate to use Jeff's services in the future, should such need arise.

Very truly yours,

In-House Counsel and Legal Advisor
Multinational Oil & Gas Company

In one instance, Jeff represented us in a case in which a buyer purchased a rural parcel of property sued to rescind a purchase agreement alleging that the sellers and real estate agents failed to disclose that from 1960 to 1975 the property had been used as a city landfill.  The sellers of the property (which our agents represented) had prior knowledge of the existence of the landfill but failed to disclose that information to the buyers. 

The case proceeded to trial and during trial, one of the experts testified that more than 850,000 tons of garbage was buried under the property.  The sellers testified that they had advised the agents of this condition and attempted to blame the nondisclosure on the agents and lasted approximately two weeks. 

At the conclusion of the trial, the jury engaged in deliberations for a few hours.  The jury returned a verdict denying the claims of the Plaintiffs and no damages were awarded against us.

I work closely with Jeff during all pretrial proceedings and attended the trial.  Jeff did a superb job in representing the company in a case that had a potentially significant exposure. 

I, along with other representatives of our company, were most pleased with Jeff's trial skills and the excellent defense that he provided to the company.  . 

Very truly yours,

 Former Senior Vice President and General Counsel for Iowa's Largest Real Estate Company

Jeff represented a joint venture…

As the general contractor, our joint venture constructed a building in downtown Des Moines, Iowa. During the early construction phases, three ironworkers were positioned in a 40-foot tower crane section attempting to mate a second 40-foot tower crane section that was suspended from a crawler crane. Regrettably, the crawler crane dropped the suspended tower crane section suddenly, severing an ironworker's arm. 

There was an issue in the case as to whether the ironworker was, at the time of injury, an employee of the joint venture. 

The ironworker received worker's compensation benefits from the joint venture's worker's compensation carrier. Notwithstanding this, a direct action was filed by the injured iron worker against the joint venture. Ultimately, and thanks to Jeff's efforts, a summary judgment was entered in favor of the joint venture.

The owner/lessor of the crawler crane was later named as a party-Defendant in the lawsuit filed by the injured ironworker. The case against the crawler crane owner/lessor proceeded to trial. During trial, the case settled for $499,000.00. A second action was filed by the crawler crane owner/lessor against the joint venture. After discovery was completed, Jeff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court not only entered a Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of the joint venture, but ultimately entered an order reimbursing the joint venture for its attorney fees. 

Jeff also represented the joint venture in a second case in which one of our employees fell from the top of a building during the construction phase when his tether line was severed. The worker died as a result of the fall. Jeff was successful in tendering the defense to a subcontractor who was found to be responsible for the failure of the tether line and inadequacy of the harness. As a result, the joint venture was not held responsible for the injuries. 

I have worked with many attorneys in injury cases and I must say that I was most
impressed with the results that Jeff was able to achieve for our joint venture in these cases. 

Sincerely yours,

In-House Counsel and Legal Advisor 

Fortune 500 Construction Company 

One of the things that our company greatly benefits from is that Jeff and other members of his firm do both defense work and plaintiff's work.  This gives them a very unique perspective in evaluating, defending, and resolving our cases. 

Very truly yours,

Vice President and General Counsel 

World-Wide Window & Door Manufacturer

We have been very delighted with the service and the results that Goodman Law, P.C. has provided to our company and our insureds. While the legal ability of the members of the firm is impressive, their level of responsiveness and follow-through helps distinguish Goodman Law, P.C. from other law firms.  In addition, I have worked closely with Jeff Goodman, who has done an outstanding job of "cutting to the chase" by formulating a litigation strategy that is not only commensurate with the nature of the case, but also directed at resolving the dispute.

I would not hesitate to hire Goodman Law, P.C. to serve as legal counsel in future cases or to recommend the firm to other insurance companies. 

Sincerely,

Legal Counsel

One of the Nation's 50 top-performing Property/Casualty Insurers 

I, along with members of my staff, have had the pleasure of working with Jeff Goodman since the mid-1990s. I have always been impressed with Jeff's capabilities as an attorney.

Jeff is very skilled at analyzing a case, developing a litigation plan that fits the size, type and nature of the case, and executing on the plan.  We have been very pleased with the results he has been able to obtain for our insureds.

As I am sure you are aware, in the insurance claims arena, it is important that our outside counsel frequently update us as to the status of the case.  Jeff and his firm take this obligation and regard our adjusters assigned to the claim as an integral component of case management and resolution. 

Sincerely,

Claims Counsel

National/Regional Casualty/Insurance Claims Services 

I have worked in the past with Jeff Goodman on a very complicated construction-related accident case.

Other representatives in the company have also worked with Jeff on a variety of other cases. 

Jeff represented our insured and was not only able to win on summary judgment a claim against our insured in the underlying litigation but also was successful on a subsequent claim of indemnity/contribution.  

In addition to not only winning the case, Jeff was able to recover $78,000 in attorney fees from our opponent because our insured was the prevailing party.

I have always been impressed with Jeff's ability to identify the salient legal issues and develop a litigation plan that expeditiously moves the case along towards resolution whether the resolution occurs through dispositive motion or trial.

Sincerely,

Specialty Risk Services Director

12^th Largest Property & Casualty Insurance Company in United States 

We employed Jeff Goodman and his firm to defend a triple fatality involving our company vehicle and two other vehicles. Our tractor/trailer was east-bound on a two-lane highway. As the vehicle rounded a corner, it allegedly crossed the center line causing our tractor/trailer to collide with a Dodge Grand Caravan that was traveling in the west-bound lane. The Dodge Caravan punctured our tractor/trailer's gasoline tank. The tractor/trailer then collided head-on with an oncoming Chevrolet pickup truck. After the vehicles locked together, our tractor/trailer burst into flames, which then spread to the pick-up.

The drivers of the Dodge Caravan and the pickup truck, in addition to our driver, were killed. 

Jeff Goodman hired an accident reconstructionist who arrived at the scene a few hours after the accident. In the days following the accident, we conferred with Jeff and the accident reconstructionist to assess the evidence. Jeff recommended that we write to the driver's surviving family to express our regrets and request that at an appropriate time in the future, we meet to discuss the settlement of their claims.

On November 8, 2010, (approximately 69 days after the accident), an offer of settlement was made to the son of the deceased driver of the Dodge Caravan. This offer was formally accepted by the Estate's counsel on or about November 15, 2010.

The widow of the driver of the Chevrolet pickup truck was initially hesitant to engage in settlement discussions. After the passage of time, we were successful in scheduling a meeting with her. We met with her and her counsel on February 18, 2011 (approximately six months after the accident), to make an offer of settlement. The Estate formally accepted our offer of settlement on or about March 4, 2011. 

Our company is delighted that both of these claims were settled within such a short
time after the accident (i.e., six months), within our primary policy limits and without litigation or attorneys (except those representing the estates). We believe that the role Mr. Goodman played was critical to the successful outcome. 

Sincerely, 

Claims Manager

Hardware Store Cooperative with over 5,000 Independent Retail Locations 

During my tenure as City Attorney, Jeff has continued to represent the City as outside counsel and I have worked with him on a regular basis.  Jeff has done an excellent job of representing the City and has provided me with regular, thorough updates on the status of litigation matter(s) he is handling.

Jeff and his firm has demonstrated a strong grasp and knowledge of the statutory and common law applicable to those matters for which he has represented the City, and has been creative and cost-effective in his approach to resolving disputes. 

Very truly yours,

City Attorney 

I have had the pleasure of working with Jeff Goodman on a regular basis during the years that he served as our City Attorney.  Jeff and the members of his firm provided the City with excellent representation and legal advice.

In 1999, we hired an in-house attorney to serve as our City Attorney.  Jeff continues to serve as outside counsel for the City.

 During his tenure as City Attorney, Jeff handled some very complex and controversial issues including the restructuring of the Park and Recreation Board.  Originally, the Park Board had been an independent, elected Board.  The Council decided the Park Board should become part of the city government.  This restricting had a number of legal issues that were challenged by the Park and Recreation Board.  Jeff handled this high profile matter very capably and effectively. 

Jeff also handled a number of employment-related issues with the City.  One high profile matter involved the termination of our city manager.  As you can imagine, this was a very difficult choice for the Council.  However, once the Council made the decision to terminate our city manager, Jeff very skillfully advised the Council on how this matter should be handled to avoid a lawsuit and/or legal controversy.

We have been very pleased with the legal services that Jeff and his firm have provided to the City. 

Sincerely, 

City Councilmember

Our City was faced with a very difficult situation.  The City had hired a police officer who had a troubling employment background which we were unaware of at the time we hired him.  We encountered some problems with the police officer and received many complaints from our citizenry.

As a result, the City Council decided to terminate the police officer.  We hired Jeff to advise the City on the termination of the police officer.

Jeff very competently and effectively advised the City Council as to the pros and cons of the termination of the police officer, and we were successful in our efforts.

Sincerely,

City Attorney 

In 1997, an individual became entangled in an unguarded sweep auger that was
operating in a grain bin.  As a result of the injuries, the individual was killed.  Our
company was named in the case as the manufacturer and we retained Jeff Goodman to
represent our company.

I am pleased to report that Jeff Goodman did an excellent job of representing us in
this case and was able to achieve a verdict in favor of our company
thereby denying the claim of the injured party. 

Jeff did an outstanding job of evaluating our case and developing a litigation
strategy that delivered the aforementioned result.

At all times during the course of the case, Jeff kept us completely informed of
significant developments and counseled us as to how certain issues should be addressed
and handled. 

Very truly yours

President

Agricultural Equipment Manufacturer  

I am Vice President and General Counsel for a sports equipment manufacturer.  My office is located in Chicago, Illinois.  Our company is essentially self-insured with excess insurance coverage.  I point this out because the role of counsel to the self-insured is somewhat unique since any payment that is made as settlement or as a result of a judgment is the company's money, not the money of an insurer. 

Jeff represented us in a football injury case in which our company was named as a party-defendant along with a community school district and various other defendants.

The case involves a high school student who suffered a spinal cord injury during a football game.  We are currently in the discovery phase of the case, and we anticipate filing a Motion for Summary Judgment.

I was very pleased with the representation Jeff has provided.  He keeps us regularly updated on developments in the case and consults with us with respect to all important decisions.

I also believe that Jeff has a very good sense of how to handle cases in a cost-effective way and, if trial is necessary, he is well equipped, based on his experience, to represent us at trial.

Very truly yours,

Vice President and General Counsel

Sports Equipment Designer & Manufacturer

I am in-house Corporate Counsel for an international seed corn company.  My
responsibilities include management of some of our litigation matters.  Jeff and his
firm have represented, and are currently representing, us in a number of cases.  A
couple of them are discussed below.

One case involved a claim of wrongful discharge of an employee who was
working in India.  Part of the case was disposed of because we prevailed on a Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment.  The balance of the case proceeded to trial.  After three
weeks of trial, a verdict was entered in favor of our company, and the case was dismissed.

In another case, Jeff represented our company for one of our employees who received an electrical shock when she came into contact with a Hobart refrigerator in one of our laboratories.  The refrigerator had been rewired and partially redesigned by another 

Pioneer employee to accommodate the cultures that were being stored in the refrigerator. 

The injured employee received worker's compensation benefits but filed a
separate lawsuit, claiming gross negligence and related claims, against our
employees who had rewired and redesigned the refrigerator.  After initial discovery was
served and responded to and depositions of certain material witnesses were taken, Jeff
prepared a Motion for Summary Judgment. The case was ultimately dismissed.

We are pleased with the representation that Jeff and his firm have provided.  We are kept advised of the status of each case and we are consulted before any significant
action is undertaken.

Jeff and the members of his firm approach each case with sensitivity toward cost-
effectiveness balanced with a result-oriented approach. 

Very truly yours,

Corporate Counsel

International Hybrid Seed Company 

In the early 1990's, our company designed prototype store fixtures for a department store, which ultimately was used in a Des Moines, Iowa store.

In approximately 1994, a family was shopping at a department store.  A minor child climbed on a store fixture that we designed and a shelf from the store fixture fell off and injured the child.  The child was rushed to the hospital and examined, and it was found that he suffered substantial internal injuries, which ultimately resulted in his death.  We, along with the manufacturer of the store fixture, the department store, and manufacturers and suppliers of the components of the store fixture were named in a lawsuit. 

Jeff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in this case.  Shortly before trial, the Court granted the Motion for Summary Judgment, and our company was dismissed from the case.  The case proceeded to trial against the department store and the other defendants.  A judgment in excess of $1 million was entered against the Defendant(s).

I was very impressed with Jeff's representation of our company.  He took the steps necessary to discover the information that allowed us to evaluate the case and our options.  He also provided us with his candid evaluation of the case.  We ultimately decided that a Motion for Summary Judgment would be appropriate even though there was no certainty that we would prevail on the Motion because we designed the store fixture.

Jeff very ably handled this case in a method and manner that resulted in a very favorable result to our company in a very cost-effective manner.

Very truly yours,

CEO 

Retail Store Fixture Designer and Manufacturing Company 

I want to compliment you on the excellent job you did defending our Company. We were especially delighted with the small settlement amount our company ultimately paid. The fact that you were able to force the winch manufacturer to shoulder the burden of the settlement was terrific.

I want to compliment you on the excellent job you did in not only assessing the case and developing our litigation strategy, but we were also very pleased with the cost-effective approach that you took in actually defending us.

Although I hope that we can avoid litigation in the future, you can be assured that if we are named as a party defendant in future cases pending in the Midwest, our company would be delighted to have you represent our interests as defense counsel. 

 Sincerely,

President and CEO

Publicly Traded Farm Equipment Manufacturer 

RE: Goodman Law, P.C.
Attn: To whom it may concern:

When our firm was first notified of a potential malpractice claim, we were concerned that our insurer would merely evaluate the case purely on a cost-benefit basis and recommend settling the case for less than what it would cost to defend the case even though our architects did nothing wrong.

During our initial meeting with our attorney, Jeff Goodman informed us of his approach to defending claims against architects and other licensed professionals. Jeff does what is necessary to ensure that the reputation of the licensed professional is intact because licensed professionals are sometimes asked whether they have ever been sued and the outcome of the lawsuit.

Jeff was not satisfied with mere allegations of the plaintiff's counsel but demanded convincing proof from him evidence to support our opponent's allegations and claims. Jeff was relentless in his efforts pressing our opponents for evidence that proved that our architectural work was defective or deficient or otherwise played a role in causing the damages.

Through Jeff's steadfast efforts, we learned that, indeed, there was no evidence to support the plaintiff's claims against us and the problem that they were complaining about was the fault of others.

Ultimately, the other parties settled the case and, thanks to Jeff's efforts, neither our firm nor our insurer contributed anything to the settlement.

Thanks to Jeff's zealous efforts as our attorney, our spotless professional reputation was preserved and remains intact.

As we worked with Jeff for approximately ten (10) months, I never felt "out of the loop," "in the dark" or "behind the curve". Jeff always kept us updated on our case in a timely manner. We felt confident and at ease that our legal problem was in good hands with Jeff and would be resolved in our favor.

Jeff's representation of our firm was excellent, cost effective and sensitive to our need to guard and defend our firm's well-earned professional reputation and prove that we did nothing wrong.

Sincerely,
Architectural Design Firm

IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY

OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 

September 29, 2015

Dear Jeff:

Thank you so much for serving as a guest lecturer for Construction Engineering 380, Engineering Law on
July 7, 2015.

As you know, the Engineering Law is a once per week/three-hour course includes approximately 50
students from several disciplines within the Engineering Department ranging from Construction
Engineering to Mechamcal Engineering, Industrial Engineering and several others.

After your lecture on The Ten Mistakes that Design Professionals Make to Get Themselves Named in a
Lawsuit, I received many wonderful, positive comments from my students abouiyour lecture including:
"The guest speakers were very good, especially the first and the last. The last speaker "
(Jeff Goodman) was excellent."

"The guest speakers were exceptional and allowed a greater understanding of the
concepts presented in class. I wish I would have taken this class as an undergraduate
student. Loved the class and will recommend to any engineering student."

"The last guest speaker (Jeff Goodman) for the course was a lawyer in the Des Moines
area who came prepared with an agenda and list of key topics he wanted to discuss. He
kept to his agenda, covered his key pomts, and managed the class time efficiently."

"The guest lecturers were excellent in giving real world insight to what we were talking
about in class."

I hope you will consider returning to lecture to my Engineering Law Class or other courses in the future at
Iowa State University.

Best wishes and I remain,
Very truly yours,

Brad Perkins. PE
Senior Lecturer
Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering
Iowa State University, Town Engineering Bldg. Rm. 452
Ames, Iowa 50011-3232/Email: b erkins iastate.edu
Phone: 515-210-9099