Henness & Haight: Evidentiary Gallery
October 29, 2024: The "Pre-Retainer" Representation Claim
• The Fact: Ten days before a retainer was signed, the firm sent a formal notice to Dairyland Insurance stating they had been "retained".
• The Description: This document establishes that Henness & Haight created an "implied attorney-client relationship" to secure a claim on insurance benefits before any formal contract existed. It proves their duty to the case began in October, not November.
• November 4, 2024: Dairyland Coverage Acknowledgment
• The Fact: Dairyland Insurance sent a formal response to the firm's initial outreach, confirming that coverage was in effect for the October 11 incident.
• The Description: This confirms that by early November, the firm had successfully engaged the insurance carrier and was actively managing the financial side of the claim, well before addressing the physical evidence of the truck.
• November 8, 2024: The Electronic Retainer Agreement
• The Fact: The formal electronic retainer was signed by the client.
• The Description: The official start of the written contract. Despite this date, the firm’s earlier actions on October 29 had already legally bound them to a duty of diligence and protection of the client's interests.
• November 14, 2024: The "Three-Day Late" Spoliation Notice
• The Fact: The firm sent a preservation demand to Enterprise regarding mobile devices.
• The Description: This letter was sent three days after the semi-truck—and the $50,000–$100,000 in inventory inside—had already been cleared from Copart. It highlights a fatal delay in securing the most critical physical evidence of the crash.
• Late November 2024: The Client's List of Expectations
• The Fact: Joshua Markle provided a detailed roadmap of requirements, including inventory recovery and investigation of CHP report contradictions.
• The Description: This document proves the firm was put on notice regarding the specific investigative needs of the case, which they later claimed were "outside the scope" of their representation.
• January 2, 2025: The "Incomplete" File Delivery
• The Receipt: Correspondence regarding the first attempt at a "Full Client File".
• The Description: The firm attempted to satisfy a file request but provided a version that was missing key communications. This was the first sign that they were filtering the record to hide their own delays.
• January 13, 2025: The Withdrawal & "No-Lien" Clause
• The Fact: The firm withdrew from the case, citing that the client's requests were "outside the scope".
• The Description: In their exit, the firm explicitly waived their right to any lien for fees or costs. In legal practice, a powerhouse firm walking away from months of work for $0 is a major red flag indicating an attempt to mitigate a potential malpractice claim.
• December 3, 2025: The "Incompetent" Final Admission
• The Receipt: Redacted letter from Dallin Knecht, Esq.
• The Description: Over a year after the wreck, the firm's "professionalism" is on full display: they misidentified the date of the accident as "October 10, 2024" despite every other document stating October 11. This letter also admits they chose not to preserve the vehicle and confirms they breached privacy by putting a spouse's insurance card in the wrong email as the "Full Client File."
