Knowlegeable and easily accessible attorney. He clarified everything clearly. Was pleasure working with him.

I am a Disabled Senior Latino. Rajeev Madnawat, Esq. was assigned by the Santa Clara County Bar Association to Arbitrate my claim, in their office on August 21, 2012, of excessive fees charged by an attorney in my divorce petition. My complaint centered on the attorney charging me $1,852.92 while accomplishing zero in my divorce matter. The Bar Association Rules said I could present my case supported facts to justify my contention that I was overcharged. My position was that my X-attorney had lied throughout our relationship and I wanted to prove that his invoices were inflated and manufactured to support his scenario, that my divorce petition had gained zero and our contract had not been fulfilled. Mr. Madnawat took charge and decided I was not going to be allowed to make my presentation. Mr. Madnawat challenged my integrity and honesty, when I tried to challenge my opponent's. My competence to fire off dates and facts so easily when recounting the truth exasperated Mr. Madnawat. Meanwhile my opponent was clumsy trying to make his invoices "fit" his story. Mr. Madnawat suddenly changed the arbitration subject to my Contempt of Court Conviction on November 1, 2010. Mr. Madnawat again challenged my testimony where I explained that Judge Johnson told me in an aside that she was not sentencing me to jail because I had not threatened or verbally abused my wife. Mr. Madnawat said my statement was not true, twice telling me that the Judge would never explain her reasoning in court; never say what she did in fact say. I told the truth and I should know what Judge Johnson said as she spoke directly to me. Mr. Madnawat also brought up the current status of my divorce, which was not relevant to the arbitration hearing. Mr. Madnawat telling me that I was incorrect about that too; about being scheduled to having a Case Management Conference prior to my scheduled trial in October. Mr. Madnawat finally quit this attack on my creditability when I pointed out to him that just because I have a trial date does not mean there will be a trial. Mr. Madnawat never challenged any of my opponent's testimony or submissions. Mr. Madnawat then decided to attack my wife's character which also had zero to do with the arbitration hearing. Mr. Madnawat told me, and thus the group of us attending the hearing, that my wife was crazy and what I should do protect myself from the manic. Mr. Madnawat had serious problems sticking to the financial issues. Mr. Madnawat's emotionality so overwhelmed him he forgot we were having an arbitration hearing not a judgment. The arbitration subject was fair and honest billing; a day's work for a day's pay. Mr. Madnawat's did not focus to the purpose of the arbitration hearing. I would never engage him if I ever needed an attorney nor would I recommend him.

Knowlegeable and easily accessible attorney. He clarified everything clearly. Was pleasure working with him.

I am a Disabled Senior Latino. Rajeev Madnawat, Esq. was assigned by the Santa Clara County Bar Association to Arbitrate my claim, in their office on August 21, 2012, of excessive fees charged by an attorney in my divorce petition. My complaint centered on the attorney charging me $1,852.92 while accomplishing zero in my divorce matter. The Bar Association Rules said I could present my case supported facts to justify my contention that I was overcharged. My position was that my X-attorney had lied throughout our relationship and I wanted to prove that his invoices were inflated and manufactured to support his scenario, that my divorce petition had gained zero and our contract had not been fulfilled. Mr. Madnawat took charge and decided I was not going to be allowed to make my presentation. Mr. Madnawat challenged my integrity and honesty, when I tried to challenge my opponent's. My competence to fire off dates and facts so easily when recounting the truth exasperated Mr. Madnawat. Meanwhile my opponent was clumsy trying to make his invoices "fit" his story. Mr. Madnawat suddenly changed the arbitration subject to my Contempt of Court Conviction on November 1, 2010. Mr. Madnawat again challenged my testimony where I explained that Judge Johnson told me in an aside that she was not sentencing me to jail because I had not threatened or verbally abused my wife. Mr. Madnawat said my statement was not true, twice telling me that the Judge would never explain her reasoning in court; never say what she did in fact say. I told the truth and I should know what Judge Johnson said as she spoke directly to me. Mr. Madnawat also brought up the current status of my divorce, which was not relevant to the arbitration hearing. Mr. Madnawat telling me that I was incorrect about that too; about being scheduled to having a Case Management Conference prior to my scheduled trial in October. Mr. Madnawat finally quit this attack on my creditability when I pointed out to him that just because I have a trial date does not mean there will be a trial. Mr. Madnawat never challenged any of my opponent's testimony or submissions. Mr. Madnawat then decided to attack my wife's character which also had zero to do with the arbitration hearing. Mr. Madnawat told me, and thus the group of us attending the hearing, that my wife was crazy and what I should do protect myself from the manic. Mr. Madnawat had serious problems sticking to the financial issues. Mr. Madnawat's emotionality so overwhelmed him he forgot we were having an arbitration hearing not a judgment. The arbitration subject was fair and honest billing; a day's work for a day's pay. Mr. Madnawat's did not focus to the purpose of the arbitration hearing. I would never engage him if I ever needed an attorney nor would I recommend him.

Knowlegeable and easily accessible attorney. He clarified everything clearly. Was pleasure working with him.

I am a Disabled Senior Latino. Rajeev Madnawat, Esq. was assigned by the Santa Clara County Bar Association to Arbitrate my claim, in their office on August 21, 2012, of excessive fees charged by an attorney in my divorce petition. My complaint centered on the attorney charging me $1,852.92 while accomplishing zero in my divorce matter. The Bar Association Rules said I could present my case supported facts to justify my contention that I was overcharged. My position was that my X-attorney had lied throughout our relationship and I wanted to prove that his invoices were inflated and manufactured to support his scenario, that my divorce petition had gained zero and our contract had not been fulfilled. Mr. Madnawat took charge and decided I was not going to be allowed to make my presentation. Mr. Madnawat challenged my integrity and honesty, when I tried to challenge my opponent's. My competence to fire off dates and facts so easily when recounting the truth exasperated Mr. Madnawat. Meanwhile my opponent was clumsy trying to make his invoices "fit" his story. Mr. Madnawat suddenly changed the arbitration subject to my Contempt of Court Conviction on November 1, 2010. Mr. Madnawat again challenged my testimony where I explained that Judge Johnson told me in an aside that she was not sentencing me to jail because I had not threatened or verbally abused my wife. Mr. Madnawat said my statement was not true, twice telling me that the Judge would never explain her reasoning in court; never say what she did in fact say. I told the truth and I should know what Judge Johnson said as she spoke directly to me. Mr. Madnawat also brought up the current status of my divorce, which was not relevant to the arbitration hearing. Mr. Madnawat telling me that I was incorrect about that too; about being scheduled to having a Case Management Conference prior to my scheduled trial in October. Mr. Madnawat finally quit this attack on my creditability when I pointed out to him that just because I have a trial date does not mean there will be a trial. Mr. Madnawat never challenged any of my opponent's testimony or submissions. Mr. Madnawat then decided to attack my wife's character which also had zero to do with the arbitration hearing. Mr. Madnawat told me, and thus the group of us attending the hearing, that my wife was crazy and what I should do protect myself from the manic. Mr. Madnawat had serious problems sticking to the financial issues. Mr. Madnawat's emotionality so overwhelmed him he forgot we were having an arbitration hearing not a judgment. The arbitration subject was fair and honest billing; a day's work for a day's pay. Mr. Madnawat's did not focus to the purpose of the arbitration hearing. I would never engage him if I ever needed an attorney nor would I recommend him.

Knowlegeable and easily accessible attorney. He clarified everything clearly. Was pleasure working with him.

I am a Disabled Senior Latino. Rajeev Madnawat, Esq. was assigned by the Santa Clara County Bar Association to Arbitrate my claim, in their office on August 21, 2012, of excessive fees charged by an attorney in my divorce petition. My complaint centered on the attorney charging me $1,852.92 while accomplishing zero in my divorce matter. The Bar Association Rules said I could present my case supported facts to justify my contention that I was overcharged. My position was that my X-attorney had lied throughout our relationship and I wanted to prove that his invoices were inflated and manufactured to support his scenario, that my divorce petition had gained zero and our contract had not been fulfilled. Mr. Madnawat took charge and decided I was not going to be allowed to make my presentation. Mr. Madnawat challenged my integrity and honesty, when I tried to challenge my opponent's. My competence to fire off dates and facts so easily when recounting the truth exasperated Mr. Madnawat. Meanwhile my opponent was clumsy trying to make his invoices "fit" his story. Mr. Madnawat suddenly changed the arbitration subject to my Contempt of Court Conviction on November 1, 2010. Mr. Madnawat again challenged my testimony where I explained that Judge Johnson told me in an aside that she was not sentencing me to jail because I had not threatened or verbally abused my wife. Mr. Madnawat said my statement was not true, twice telling me that the Judge would never explain her reasoning in court; never say what she did in fact say. I told the truth and I should know what Judge Johnson said as she spoke directly to me. Mr. Madnawat also brought up the current status of my divorce, which was not relevant to the arbitration hearing. Mr. Madnawat telling me that I was incorrect about that too; about being scheduled to having a Case Management Conference prior to my scheduled trial in October. Mr. Madnawat finally quit this attack on my creditability when I pointed out to him that just because I have a trial date does not mean there will be a trial. Mr. Madnawat never challenged any of my opponent's testimony or submissions. Mr. Madnawat then decided to attack my wife's character which also had zero to do with the arbitration hearing. Mr. Madnawat told me, and thus the group of us attending the hearing, that my wife was crazy and what I should do protect myself from the manic. Mr. Madnawat had serious problems sticking to the financial issues. Mr. Madnawat's emotionality so overwhelmed him he forgot we were having an arbitration hearing not a judgment. The arbitration subject was fair and honest billing; a day's work for a day's pay. Mr. Madnawat's did not focus to the purpose of the arbitration hearing. I would never engage him if I ever needed an attorney nor would I recommend him.

Knowlegeable and easily accessible attorney. He clarified everything clearly. Was pleasure working with him.

I am a Disabled Senior Latino. Rajeev Madnawat, Esq. was assigned by the Santa Clara County Bar Association to Arbitrate my claim, in their office on August 21, 2012, of excessive fees charged by an attorney in my divorce petition. My complaint centered on the attorney charging me $1,852.92 while accomplishing zero in my divorce matter. The Bar Association Rules said I could present my case supported facts to justify my contention that I was overcharged. My position was that my X-attorney had lied throughout our relationship and I wanted to prove that his invoices were inflated and manufactured to support his scenario, that my divorce petition had gained zero and our contract had not been fulfilled. Mr. Madnawat took charge and decided I was not going to be allowed to make my presentation. Mr. Madnawat challenged my integrity and honesty, when I tried to challenge my opponent's. My competence to fire off dates and facts so easily when recounting the truth exasperated Mr. Madnawat. Meanwhile my opponent was clumsy trying to make his invoices "fit" his story. Mr. Madnawat suddenly changed the arbitration subject to my Contempt of Court Conviction on November 1, 2010. Mr. Madnawat again challenged my testimony where I explained that Judge Johnson told me in an aside that she was not sentencing me to jail because I had not threatened or verbally abused my wife. Mr. Madnawat said my statement was not true, twice telling me that the Judge would never explain her reasoning in court; never say what she did in fact say. I told the truth and I should know what Judge Johnson said as she spoke directly to me. Mr. Madnawat also brought up the current status of my divorce, which was not relevant to the arbitration hearing. Mr. Madnawat telling me that I was incorrect about that too; about being scheduled to having a Case Management Conference prior to my scheduled trial in October. Mr. Madnawat finally quit this attack on my creditability when I pointed out to him that just because I have a trial date does not mean there will be a trial. Mr. Madnawat never challenged any of my opponent's testimony or submissions. Mr. Madnawat then decided to attack my wife's character which also had zero to do with the arbitration hearing. Mr. Madnawat told me, and thus the group of us attending the hearing, that my wife was crazy and what I should do protect myself from the manic. Mr. Madnawat had serious problems sticking to the financial issues. Mr. Madnawat's emotionality so overwhelmed him he forgot we were having an arbitration hearing not a judgment. The arbitration subject was fair and honest billing; a day's work for a day's pay. Mr. Madnawat's did not focus to the purpose of the arbitration hearing. I would never engage him if I ever needed an attorney nor would I recommend him.

Knowlegeable and easily accessible attorney. He clarified everything clearly. Was pleasure working with him.

I am a Disabled Senior Latino. Rajeev Madnawat, Esq. was assigned by the Santa Clara County Bar Association to Arbitrate my claim, in their office on August 21, 2012, of excessive fees charged by an attorney in my divorce petition. My complaint centered on the attorney charging me $1,852.92 while accomplishing zero in my divorce matter. The Bar Association Rules said I could present my case supported facts to justify my contention that I was overcharged. My position was that my X-attorney had lied throughout our relationship and I wanted to prove that his invoices were inflated and manufactured to support his scenario, that my divorce petition had gained zero and our contract had not been fulfilled. Mr. Madnawat took charge and decided I was not going to be allowed to make my presentation. Mr. Madnawat challenged my integrity and honesty, when I tried to challenge my opponent's. My competence to fire off dates and facts so easily when recounting the truth exasperated Mr. Madnawat. Meanwhile my opponent was clumsy trying to make his invoices "fit" his story. Mr. Madnawat suddenly changed the arbitration subject to my Contempt of Court Conviction on November 1, 2010. Mr. Madnawat again challenged my testimony where I explained that Judge Johnson told me in an aside that she was not sentencing me to jail because I had not threatened or verbally abused my wife. Mr. Madnawat said my statement was not true, twice telling me that the Judge would never explain her reasoning in court; never say what she did in fact say. I told the truth and I should know what Judge Johnson said as she spoke directly to me. Mr. Madnawat also brought up the current status of my divorce, which was not relevant to the arbitration hearing. Mr. Madnawat telling me that I was incorrect about that too; about being scheduled to having a Case Management Conference prior to my scheduled trial in October. Mr. Madnawat finally quit this attack on my creditability when I pointed out to him that just because I have a trial date does not mean there will be a trial. Mr. Madnawat never challenged any of my opponent's testimony or submissions. Mr. Madnawat then decided to attack my wife's character which also had zero to do with the arbitration hearing. Mr. Madnawat told me, and thus the group of us attending the hearing, that my wife was crazy and what I should do protect myself from the manic. Mr. Madnawat had serious problems sticking to the financial issues. Mr. Madnawat's emotionality so overwhelmed him he forgot we were having an arbitration hearing not a judgment. The arbitration subject was fair and honest billing; a day's work for a day's pay. Mr. Madnawat's did not focus to the purpose of the arbitration hearing. I would never engage him if I ever needed an attorney nor would I recommend him.

Knowlegeable and easily accessible attorney. He clarified everything clearly. Was pleasure working with him.

I am a Disabled Senior Latino. Rajeev Madnawat, Esq. was assigned by the Santa Clara County Bar Association to Arbitrate my claim, in their office on August 21, 2012, of excessive fees charged by an attorney in my divorce petition. My complaint centered on the attorney charging me $1,852.92 while accomplishing zero in my divorce matter. The Bar Association Rules said I could present my case supported facts to justify my contention that I was overcharged. My position was that my X-attorney had lied throughout our relationship and I wanted to prove that his invoices were inflated and manufactured to support his scenario, that my divorce petition had gained zero and our contract had not been fulfilled. Mr. Madnawat took charge and decided I was not going to be allowed to make my presentation. Mr. Madnawat challenged my integrity and honesty, when I tried to challenge my opponent's. My competence to fire off dates and facts so easily when recounting the truth exasperated Mr. Madnawat. Meanwhile my opponent was clumsy trying to make his invoices "fit" his story. Mr. Madnawat suddenly changed the arbitration subject to my Contempt of Court Conviction on November 1, 2010. Mr. Madnawat again challenged my testimony where I explained that Judge Johnson told me in an aside that she was not sentencing me to jail because I had not threatened or verbally abused my wife. Mr. Madnawat said my statement was not true, twice telling me that the Judge would never explain her reasoning in court; never say what she did in fact say. I told the truth and I should know what Judge Johnson said as she spoke directly to me. Mr. Madnawat also brought up the current status of my divorce, which was not relevant to the arbitration hearing. Mr. Madnawat telling me that I was incorrect about that too; about being scheduled to having a Case Management Conference prior to my scheduled trial in October. Mr. Madnawat finally quit this attack on my creditability when I pointed out to him that just because I have a trial date does not mean there will be a trial. Mr. Madnawat never challenged any of my opponent's testimony or submissions. Mr. Madnawat then decided to attack my wife's character which also had zero to do with the arbitration hearing. Mr. Madnawat told me, and thus the group of us attending the hearing, that my wife was crazy and what I should do protect myself from the manic. Mr. Madnawat had serious problems sticking to the financial issues. Mr. Madnawat's emotionality so overwhelmed him he forgot we were having an arbitration hearing not a judgment. The arbitration subject was fair and honest billing; a day's work for a day's pay. Mr. Madnawat's did not focus to the purpose of the arbitration hearing. I would never engage him if I ever needed an attorney nor would I recommend him.

Knowlegeable and easily accessible attorney. He clarified everything clearly. Was pleasure working with him.

I am a Disabled Senior Latino. Rajeev Madnawat, Esq. was assigned by the Santa Clara County Bar Association to Arbitrate my claim, in their office on August 21, 2012, of excessive fees charged by an attorney in my divorce petition. My complaint centered on the attorney charging me $1,852.92 while accomplishing zero in my divorce matter. The Bar Association Rules said I could present my case supported facts to justify my contention that I was overcharged. My position was that my X-attorney had lied throughout our relationship and I wanted to prove that his invoices were inflated and manufactured to support his scenario, that my divorce petition had gained zero and our contract had not been fulfilled. Mr. Madnawat took charge and decided I was not going to be allowed to make my presentation. Mr. Madnawat challenged my integrity and honesty, when I tried to challenge my opponent's. My competence to fire off dates and facts so easily when recounting the truth exasperated Mr. Madnawat. Meanwhile my opponent was clumsy trying to make his invoices "fit" his story. Mr. Madnawat suddenly changed the arbitration subject to my Contempt of Court Conviction on November 1, 2010. Mr. Madnawat again challenged my testimony where I explained that Judge Johnson told me in an aside that she was not sentencing me to jail because I had not threatened or verbally abused my wife. Mr. Madnawat said my statement was not true, twice telling me that the Judge would never explain her reasoning in court; never say what she did in fact say. I told the truth and I should know what Judge Johnson said as she spoke directly to me. Mr. Madnawat also brought up the current status of my divorce, which was not relevant to the arbitration hearing. Mr. Madnawat telling me that I was incorrect about that too; about being scheduled to having a Case Management Conference prior to my scheduled trial in October. Mr. Madnawat finally quit this attack on my creditability when I pointed out to him that just because I have a trial date does not mean there will be a trial. Mr. Madnawat never challenged any of my opponent's testimony or submissions. Mr. Madnawat then decided to attack my wife's character which also had zero to do with the arbitration hearing. Mr. Madnawat told me, and thus the group of us attending the hearing, that my wife was crazy and what I should do protect myself from the manic. Mr. Madnawat had serious problems sticking to the financial issues. Mr. Madnawat's emotionality so overwhelmed him he forgot we were having an arbitration hearing not a judgment. The arbitration subject was fair and honest billing; a day's work for a day's pay. Mr. Madnawat's did not focus to the purpose of the arbitration hearing. I would never engage him if I ever needed an attorney nor would I recommend him.

Knowlegeable and easily accessible attorney. He clarified everything clearly. Was pleasure working with him.

I am a Disabled Senior Latino. Rajeev Madnawat, Esq. was assigned by the Santa Clara County Bar Association to Arbitrate my claim, in their office on August 21, 2012, of excessive fees charged by an attorney in my divorce petition. My complaint centered on the attorney charging me $1,852.92 while accomplishing zero in my divorce matter. The Bar Association Rules said I could present my case supported facts to justify my contention that I was overcharged. My position was that my X-attorney had lied throughout our relationship and I wanted to prove that his invoices were inflated and manufactured to support his scenario, that my divorce petition had gained zero and our contract had not been fulfilled. Mr. Madnawat took charge and decided I was not going to be allowed to make my presentation. Mr. Madnawat challenged my integrity and honesty, when I tried to challenge my opponent's. My competence to fire off dates and facts so easily when recounting the truth exasperated Mr. Madnawat. Meanwhile my opponent was clumsy trying to make his invoices "fit" his story. Mr. Madnawat suddenly changed the arbitration subject to my Contempt of Court Conviction on November 1, 2010. Mr. Madnawat again challenged my testimony where I explained that Judge Johnson told me in an aside that she was not sentencing me to jail because I had not threatened or verbally abused my wife. Mr. Madnawat said my statement was not true, twice telling me that the Judge would never explain her reasoning in court; never say what she did in fact say. I told the truth and I should know what Judge Johnson said as she spoke directly to me. Mr. Madnawat also brought up the current status of my divorce, which was not relevant to the arbitration hearing. Mr. Madnawat telling me that I was incorrect about that too; about being scheduled to having a Case Management Conference prior to my scheduled trial in October. Mr. Madnawat finally quit this attack on my creditability when I pointed out to him that just because I have a trial date does not mean there will be a trial. Mr. Madnawat never challenged any of my opponent's testimony or submissions. Mr. Madnawat then decided to attack my wife's character which also had zero to do with the arbitration hearing. Mr. Madnawat told me, and thus the group of us attending the hearing, that my wife was crazy and what I should do protect myself from the manic. Mr. Madnawat had serious problems sticking to the financial issues. Mr. Madnawat's emotionality so overwhelmed him he forgot we were having an arbitration hearing not a judgment. The arbitration subject was fair and honest billing; a day's work for a day's pay. Mr. Madnawat's did not focus to the purpose of the arbitration hearing. I would never engage him if I ever needed an attorney nor would I recommend him.

Knowlegeable and easily accessible attorney. He clarified everything clearly. Was pleasure working with him.

I am a Disabled Senior Latino. Rajeev Madnawat, Esq. was assigned by the Santa Clara County Bar Association to Arbitrate my claim, in their office on August 21, 2012, of excessive fees charged by an attorney in my divorce petition. My complaint centered on the attorney charging me $1,852.92 while accomplishing zero in my divorce matter. The Bar Association Rules said I could present my case supported facts to justify my contention that I was overcharged. My position was that my X-attorney had lied throughout our relationship and I wanted to prove that his invoices were inflated and manufactured to support his scenario, that my divorce petition had gained zero and our contract had not been fulfilled. Mr. Madnawat took charge and decided I was not going to be allowed to make my presentation. Mr. Madnawat challenged my integrity and honesty, when I tried to challenge my opponent's. My competence to fire off dates and facts so easily when recounting the truth exasperated Mr. Madnawat. Meanwhile my opponent was clumsy trying to make his invoices "fit" his story. Mr. Madnawat suddenly changed the arbitration subject to my Contempt of Court Conviction on November 1, 2010. Mr. Madnawat again challenged my testimony where I explained that Judge Johnson told me in an aside that she was not sentencing me to jail because I had not threatened or verbally abused my wife. Mr. Madnawat said my statement was not true, twice telling me that the Judge would never explain her reasoning in court; never say what she did in fact say. I told the truth and I should know what Judge Johnson said as she spoke directly to me. Mr. Madnawat also brought up the current status of my divorce, which was not relevant to the arbitration hearing. Mr. Madnawat telling me that I was incorrect about that too; about being scheduled to having a Case Management Conference prior to my scheduled trial in October. Mr. Madnawat finally quit this attack on my creditability when I pointed out to him that just because I have a trial date does not mean there will be a trial. Mr. Madnawat never challenged any of my opponent's testimony or submissions. Mr. Madnawat then decided to attack my wife's character which also had zero to do with the arbitration hearing. Mr. Madnawat told me, and thus the group of us attending the hearing, that my wife was crazy and what I should do protect myself from the manic. Mr. Madnawat had serious problems sticking to the financial issues. Mr. Madnawat's emotionality so overwhelmed him he forgot we were having an arbitration hearing not a judgment. The arbitration subject was fair and honest billing; a day's work for a day's pay. Mr. Madnawat's did not focus to the purpose of the arbitration hearing. I would never engage him if I ever needed an attorney nor would I recommend him.

Knowlegeable and easily accessible attorney. He clarified everything clearly. Was pleasure working with him.

I am a Disabled Senior Latino. Rajeev Madnawat, Esq. was assigned by the Santa Clara County Bar Association to Arbitrate my claim, in their office on August 21, 2012, of excessive fees charged by an attorney in my divorce petition. My complaint centered on the attorney charging me $1,852.92 while accomplishing zero in my divorce matter. The Bar Association Rules said I could present my case supported facts to justify my contention that I was overcharged. My position was that my X-attorney had lied throughout our relationship and I wanted to prove that his invoices were inflated and manufactured to support his scenario, that my divorce petition had gained zero and our contract had not been fulfilled. Mr. Madnawat took charge and decided I was not going to be allowed to make my presentation. Mr. Madnawat challenged my integrity and honesty, when I tried to challenge my opponent's. My competence to fire off dates and facts so easily when recounting the truth exasperated Mr. Madnawat. Meanwhile my opponent was clumsy trying to make his invoices "fit" his story. Mr. Madnawat suddenly changed the arbitration subject to my Contempt of Court Conviction on November 1, 2010. Mr. Madnawat again challenged my testimony where I explained that Judge Johnson told me in an aside that she was not sentencing me to jail because I had not threatened or verbally abused my wife. Mr. Madnawat said my statement was not true, twice telling me that the Judge would never explain her reasoning in court; never say what she did in fact say. I told the truth and I should know what Judge Johnson said as she spoke directly to me. Mr. Madnawat also brought up the current status of my divorce, which was not relevant to the arbitration hearing. Mr. Madnawat telling me that I was incorrect about that too; about being scheduled to having a Case Management Conference prior to my scheduled trial in October. Mr. Madnawat finally quit this attack on my creditability when I pointed out to him that just because I have a trial date does not mean there will be a trial. Mr. Madnawat never challenged any of my opponent's testimony or submissions. Mr. Madnawat then decided to attack my wife's character which also had zero to do with the arbitration hearing. Mr. Madnawat told me, and thus the group of us attending the hearing, that my wife was crazy and what I should do protect myself from the manic. Mr. Madnawat had serious problems sticking to the financial issues. Mr. Madnawat's emotionality so overwhelmed him he forgot we were having an arbitration hearing not a judgment. The arbitration subject was fair and honest billing; a day's work for a day's pay. Mr. Madnawat's did not focus to the purpose of the arbitration hearing. I would never engage him if I ever needed an attorney nor would I recommend him.

Knowlegeable and easily accessible attorney. He clarified everything clearly. Was pleasure working with him.

I am a Disabled Senior Latino. Rajeev Madnawat, Esq. was assigned by the Santa Clara County Bar Association to Arbitrate my claim, in their office on August 21, 2012, of excessive fees charged by an attorney in my divorce petition. My complaint centered on the attorney charging me $1,852.92 while accomplishing zero in my divorce matter. The Bar Association Rules said I could present my case supported facts to justify my contention that I was overcharged. My position was that my X-attorney had lied throughout our relationship and I wanted to prove that his invoices were inflated and manufactured to support his scenario, that my divorce petition had gained zero and our contract had not been fulfilled. Mr. Madnawat took charge and decided I was not going to be allowed to make my presentation. Mr. Madnawat challenged my integrity and honesty, when I tried to challenge my opponent's. My competence to fire off dates and facts so easily when recounting the truth exasperated Mr. Madnawat. Meanwhile my opponent was clumsy trying to make his invoices "fit" his story. Mr. Madnawat suddenly changed the arbitration subject to my Contempt of Court Conviction on November 1, 2010. Mr. Madnawat again challenged my testimony where I explained that Judge Johnson told me in an aside that she was not sentencing me to jail because I had not threatened or verbally abused my wife. Mr. Madnawat said my statement was not true, twice telling me that the Judge would never explain her reasoning in court; never say what she did in fact say. I told the truth and I should know what Judge Johnson said as she spoke directly to me. Mr. Madnawat also brought up the current status of my divorce, which was not relevant to the arbitration hearing. Mr. Madnawat telling me that I was incorrect about that too; about being scheduled to having a Case Management Conference prior to my scheduled trial in October. Mr. Madnawat finally quit this attack on my creditability when I pointed out to him that just because I have a trial date does not mean there will be a trial. Mr. Madnawat never challenged any of my opponent's testimony or submissions. Mr. Madnawat then decided to attack my wife's character which also had zero to do with the arbitration hearing. Mr. Madnawat told me, and thus the group of us attending the hearing, that my wife was crazy and what I should do protect myself from the manic. Mr. Madnawat had serious problems sticking to the financial issues. Mr. Madnawat's emotionality so overwhelmed him he forgot we were having an arbitration hearing not a judgment. The arbitration subject was fair and honest billing; a day's work for a day's pay. Mr. Madnawat's did not focus to the purpose of the arbitration hearing. I would never engage him if I ever needed an attorney nor would I recommend him.

Knowlegeable and easily accessible attorney. He clarified everything clearly. Was pleasure working with him.

I am a Disabled Senior Latino. Rajeev Madnawat, Esq. was assigned by the Santa Clara County Bar Association to Arbitrate my claim, in their office on August 21, 2012, of excessive fees charged by an attorney in my divorce petition. My complaint centered on the attorney charging me $1,852.92 while accomplishing zero in my divorce matter. The Bar Association Rules said I could present my case supported facts to justify my contention that I was overcharged. My position was that my X-attorney had lied throughout our relationship and I wanted to prove that his invoices were inflated and manufactured to support his scenario, that my divorce petition had gained zero and our contract had not been fulfilled. Mr. Madnawat took charge and decided I was not going to be allowed to make my presentation. Mr. Madnawat challenged my integrity and honesty, when I tried to challenge my opponent's. My competence to fire off dates and facts so easily when recounting the truth exasperated Mr. Madnawat. Meanwhile my opponent was clumsy trying to make his invoices "fit" his story. Mr. Madnawat suddenly changed the arbitration subject to my Contempt of Court Conviction on November 1, 2010. Mr. Madnawat again challenged my testimony where I explained that Judge Johnson told me in an aside that she was not sentencing me to jail because I had not threatened or verbally abused my wife. Mr. Madnawat said my statement was not true, twice telling me that the Judge would never explain her reasoning in court; never say what she did in fact say. I told the truth and I should know what Judge Johnson said as she spoke directly to me. Mr. Madnawat also brought up the current status of my divorce, which was not relevant to the arbitration hearing. Mr. Madnawat telling me that I was incorrect about that too; about being scheduled to having a Case Management Conference prior to my scheduled trial in October. Mr. Madnawat finally quit this attack on my creditability when I pointed out to him that just because I have a trial date does not mean there will be a trial. Mr. Madnawat never challenged any of my opponent's testimony or submissions. Mr. Madnawat then decided to attack my wife's character which also had zero to do with the arbitration hearing. Mr. Madnawat told me, and thus the group of us attending the hearing, that my wife was crazy and what I should do protect myself from the manic. Mr. Madnawat had serious problems sticking to the financial issues. Mr. Madnawat's emotionality so overwhelmed him he forgot we were having an arbitration hearing not a judgment. The arbitration subject was fair and honest billing; a day's work for a day's pay. Mr. Madnawat's did not focus to the purpose of the arbitration hearing. I would never engage him if I ever needed an attorney nor would I recommend him.

Knowlegeable and easily accessible attorney. He clarified everything clearly. Was pleasure working with him.

I am a Disabled Senior Latino. Rajeev Madnawat, Esq. was assigned by the Santa Clara County Bar Association to Arbitrate my claim, in their office on August 21, 2012, of excessive fees charged by an attorney in my divorce petition. My complaint centered on the attorney charging me $1,852.92 while accomplishing zero in my divorce matter. The Bar Association Rules said I could present my case supported facts to justify my contention that I was overcharged. My position was that my X-attorney had lied throughout our relationship and I wanted to prove that his invoices were inflated and manufactured to support his scenario, that my divorce petition had gained zero and our contract had not been fulfilled. Mr. Madnawat took charge and decided I was not going to be allowed to make my presentation. Mr. Madnawat challenged my integrity and honesty, when I tried to challenge my opponent's. My competence to fire off dates and facts so easily when recounting the truth exasperated Mr. Madnawat. Meanwhile my opponent was clumsy trying to make his invoices "fit" his story. Mr. Madnawat suddenly changed the arbitration subject to my Contempt of Court Conviction on November 1, 2010. Mr. Madnawat again challenged my testimony where I explained that Judge Johnson told me in an aside that she was not sentencing me to jail because I had not threatened or verbally abused my wife. Mr. Madnawat said my statement was not true, twice telling me that the Judge would never explain her reasoning in court; never say what she did in fact say. I told the truth and I should know what Judge Johnson said as she spoke directly to me. Mr. Madnawat also brought up the current status of my divorce, which was not relevant to the arbitration hearing. Mr. Madnawat telling me that I was incorrect about that too; about being scheduled to having a Case Management Conference prior to my scheduled trial in October. Mr. Madnawat finally quit this attack on my creditability when I pointed out to him that just because I have a trial date does not mean there will be a trial. Mr. Madnawat never challenged any of my opponent's testimony or submissions. Mr. Madnawat then decided to attack my wife's character which also had zero to do with the arbitration hearing. Mr. Madnawat told me, and thus the group of us attending the hearing, that my wife was crazy and what I should do protect myself from the manic. Mr. Madnawat had serious problems sticking to the financial issues. Mr. Madnawat's emotionality so overwhelmed him he forgot we were having an arbitration hearing not a judgment. The arbitration subject was fair and honest billing; a day's work for a day's pay. Mr. Madnawat's did not focus to the purpose of the arbitration hearing. I would never engage him if I ever needed an attorney nor would I recommend him.

Knowlegeable and easily accessible attorney. He clarified everything clearly. Was pleasure working with him.

I am a Disabled Senior Latino. Rajeev Madnawat, Esq. was assigned by the Santa Clara County Bar Association to Arbitrate my claim, in their office on August 21, 2012, of excessive fees charged by an attorney in my divorce petition. My complaint centered on the attorney charging me $1,852.92 while accomplishing zero in my divorce matter. The Bar Association Rules said I could present my case supported facts to justify my contention that I was overcharged. My position was that my X-attorney had lied throughout our relationship and I wanted to prove that his invoices were inflated and manufactured to support his scenario, that my divorce petition had gained zero and our contract had not been fulfilled. Mr. Madnawat took charge and decided I was not going to be allowed to make my presentation. Mr. Madnawat challenged my integrity and honesty, when I tried to challenge my opponent's. My competence to fire off dates and facts so easily when recounting the truth exasperated Mr. Madnawat. Meanwhile my opponent was clumsy trying to make his invoices "fit" his story. Mr. Madnawat suddenly changed the arbitration subject to my Contempt of Court Conviction on November 1, 2010. Mr. Madnawat again challenged my testimony where I explained that Judge Johnson told me in an aside that she was not sentencing me to jail because I had not threatened or verbally abused my wife. Mr. Madnawat said my statement was not true, twice telling me that the Judge would never explain her reasoning in court; never say what she did in fact say. I told the truth and I should know what Judge Johnson said as she spoke directly to me. Mr. Madnawat also brought up the current status of my divorce, which was not relevant to the arbitration hearing. Mr. Madnawat telling me that I was incorrect about that too; about being scheduled to having a Case Management Conference prior to my scheduled trial in October. Mr. Madnawat finally quit this attack on my creditability when I pointed out to him that just because I have a trial date does not mean there will be a trial. Mr. Madnawat never challenged any of my opponent's testimony or submissions. Mr. Madnawat then decided to attack my wife's character which also had zero to do with the arbitration hearing. Mr. Madnawat told me, and thus the group of us attending the hearing, that my wife was crazy and what I should do protect myself from the manic. Mr. Madnawat had serious problems sticking to the financial issues. Mr. Madnawat's emotionality so overwhelmed him he forgot we were having an arbitration hearing not a judgment. The arbitration subject was fair and honest billing; a day's work for a day's pay. Mr. Madnawat's did not focus to the purpose of the arbitration hearing. I would never engage him if I ever needed an attorney nor would I recommend him.

Knowlegeable and easily accessible attorney. He clarified everything clearly. Was pleasure working with him.

I am a Disabled Senior Latino. Rajeev Madnawat, Esq. was assigned by the Santa Clara County Bar Association to Arbitrate my claim, in their office on August 21, 2012, of excessive fees charged by an attorney in my divorce petition. My complaint centered on the attorney charging me $1,852.92 while accomplishing zero in my divorce matter. The Bar Association Rules said I could present my case supported facts to justify my contention that I was overcharged. My position was that my X-attorney had lied throughout our relationship and I wanted to prove that his invoices were inflated and manufactured to support his scenario, that my divorce petition had gained zero and our contract had not been fulfilled. Mr. Madnawat took charge and decided I was not going to be allowed to make my presentation. Mr. Madnawat challenged my integrity and honesty, when I tried to challenge my opponent's. My competence to fire off dates and facts so easily when recounting the truth exasperated Mr. Madnawat. Meanwhile my opponent was clumsy trying to make his invoices "fit" his story. Mr. Madnawat suddenly changed the arbitration subject to my Contempt of Court Conviction on November 1, 2010. Mr. Madnawat again challenged my testimony where I explained that Judge Johnson told me in an aside that she was not sentencing me to jail because I had not threatened or verbally abused my wife. Mr. Madnawat said my statement was not true, twice telling me that the Judge would never explain her reasoning in court; never say what she did in fact say. I told the truth and I should know what Judge Johnson said as she spoke directly to me. Mr. Madnawat also brought up the current status of my divorce, which was not relevant to the arbitration hearing. Mr. Madnawat telling me that I was incorrect about that too; about being scheduled to having a Case Management Conference prior to my scheduled trial in October. Mr. Madnawat finally quit this attack on my creditability when I pointed out to him that just because I have a trial date does not mean there will be a trial. Mr. Madnawat never challenged any of my opponent's testimony or submissions. Mr. Madnawat then decided to attack my wife's character which also had zero to do with the arbitration hearing. Mr. Madnawat told me, and thus the group of us attending the hearing, that my wife was crazy and what I should do protect myself from the manic. Mr. Madnawat had serious problems sticking to the financial issues. Mr. Madnawat's emotionality so overwhelmed him he forgot we were having an arbitration hearing not a judgment. The arbitration subject was fair and honest billing; a day's work for a day's pay. Mr. Madnawat's did not focus to the purpose of the arbitration hearing. I would never engage him if I ever needed an attorney nor would I recommend him.