Menu
Login
Approx $80000 in damages and a costs order! District Court of New South Wales. Barrie goldsmith of goldsmith lawyers acted for defendant. Judge ordered damages and costs against defendant. Unsuccessful outcome for defendant. Was this bad legal advice? Should this matter have been attempted to be settled earlier?
Company Business Name: barrie goldsmith goldsmith lawyers
Country of complaint: United States
Address: New York, New York
Barrie Goldsmith, Goldsmiths Lawyers, Legal Fees Disputes, Alleged unauthorised credit card fraud,
Multiple client disputes regarding legal fees have resulted in litigation.
Goldsmiths lawyers clients beware
I have been a client of Barrie Goldsmith of Goldsmith lawyers in Sydney and I find him completely incompetent, arrogant and abusive when he doesn't get his own way. His focus appears to be on the money he receives from his clients rather than the outcome they achieve. If you want a successful outcome I would suggest you look elsewhere. He tries hard to promote himself through various websites that he owns but that is just part of the disguise of getting you hooked in to his game of cat and mouse all to your detriment. Be careful. Be very, very careful.
You are not a client or ex-client of my firm. Not a single client of my firm, during a period of in excess of 30 years, has ever been treated the way that you have. You are the same pathetic coward who has been publishing other false, defamatory and malicious reviews about me. If you really are that client or ex-client of my firm, tell me who you are and then we can discuss in detail any real grievances. Barrie Goldsmith of Goldsmiths Lawyers
This review was not written by or on behalf of the defendant for whom i acted but rather by some malicious person against whom i successfully acted in another case. The "review" is simple nonsense.
The defendant lost the case because the Judge preferred the evidence of the plaintiff to that of the defendant. Simple as that. The defendant was fully advised that the outcome of the case depended upon the question of credibility. Someone had to be believed, and someone had to be disbelieved. Both parties knew the risk. Neither wanted to settle and both were adamant that their contrary versions of the relevant conversation were correct.
Any proper reading of the judgement makes that abundantly clear.
Barrie Goldsmith
Goldsmiths Lawyers
SYDNEY