Skip to main content
Rajeev Kumar Madnawat

Rajeev Madnawat’s client reviews

     3.0 stars 2 total

Review Rajeev Madnawat
  • Knowledgeable

    5.0 stars

    Posted by kingoft

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

  • Did not focus on the ARBITRATION

    1.0 star

    Posted by a Arbitration client

    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.

    Rajeev Kumar Madnawat’s response: “Just to clarify, this poster is an insane person who appeared before me for resolution of a dispute with his attorney. He was never my client. He is a convicted criminal, probably on drugs. He came to the hearing with a lollipop in his mouth and wouldn't throw that away. He lied in every sentence during the hearing, changed his testimony continuously and and failed to overcome things he himself previously stated in emails and letters. He actually admitted openly that he lies through his teeth all the time (his convicted resulted from he being caught lying in open court ). A fair decision was rendered, which was in fact partially in his favor. But, his argument was that everybody was supposed to do exactly what he wanted because after all "he was a latino vet." During the hearing, it was difficult to control him. He was abusive, calling names and at one point he got up and lunged at the opposing party. I had to dismiss the hearing at that point.”