Adam J. Conti

I had a consultation with Conti, during which he told me I had a strong case. After the first meeting, he was never available which struck me as odd. His office staff (assistants and paralegals) seemed to always have a reason why he wasn't available which conveniently made it possible for me to talk ...with an assistant. Conti never showed up at a hearing and his assistant and paralegal drafted letters and made appearances at hearings. The staff consistently provided an excuse why Conti couldn't make an appearance at hearings, and they told me as the case evolved he would be available. His staff would often tell me the assistant was in consult with Conti and not to worry. None of it made sense. There should be an ethical issue if I paid for Conti to represent me and he outsourced my case to his assistant. The assistant showed up at the hearing. I was told that the presiding Administrative Judge didn't like Conti, so the assistant represented me. Again, all of this behavior was bizarre but I remained optimistic. I paid handsomely for each consultation and provided supporting documentation for my case against my employer. During a hearing the assistant failed to question my employer about allegations made against me, and I raised the matter with the assistant, then the assistant attempted to address the matter and the AJ told the assistant that the proceedings in that setting was beyond objection and he should have acted sooner. Disappointed all the way around that there was a missed opportunity to counter allegations that were falsely made. At that point my instincts were Conti and staff didn't have my best interest nor were they representing me to WIN. Disappointed in the way my case was handled.

I had a repeat consultation with Conti, during which he did not take ANY notes, did not have ANY assistants present, did not in ANY way substantiate his stance that multiple wrongdoings by my employer could not be in any way challenged, in spite of meticulous documentation that I collected following ...his own recommendations following the initial consultation. I paid handsomely for both initial and repeat consultation, but thankfully I followed my instincts and did not sign a retainer. I believe that the reviewer who posted on June 20, 2017 was onto something when he said that Conti may be a government's shill attorney. By the way, he was keenly interested in keeping the written evidence that I had brought with me to the repeat consult, even as he was dismissive that I could prevail in a legal action against perpetrators. He did not get his way, of course, as that in itself seemed instantaneously ODD. Why would an attorney who thinks that there is no basis for legal action based on my account and documentation that I had brought with me need or want to keep these same documents? Maybe he'd sell them back to the government, per pound? I am posting this testimony to warn any government employees who are seeking to defend their equal opportunity rights: do not go to or even talk with Conti, do not waste your money or time.