$ 200-475 per hour
I assist parents and their children in obtaining an appropriate education as required by Federal law.
2
Practice Areas
47 years | 3,000 cases
26 years | 50 cases
$ 200-475 per hour
Quickly connect with top attorneys through our legal directory to get help with your legal issue.
Chat with a live agent who can match you with the right attorney for your legal needs.
Chat withState: Oregon
Acquired: 2015
No misconduct found
State: Illinois
Acquired: 2002
No misconduct found
State: Texas
Acquired: 1982
No misconduct found
State: California
Acquired: 1980
No misconduct found
2211 SW 1st Ave., Unit 204, Portland, OR, 97201
Showing 1 - 3 of 3 client reviews from Avvo
Posted by anonymous | April 25, 2011
Harold handled a large complex case for me. One of the other parties in the litigation told me that Harold was by far the best attorney in the court room in his opinion and I very much agreed with him.
Posted by anonymous | April 21, 2011
We have had numerous issues handled by Mr. Gold and his firm over the past 10+ years. We prefer to avoid litigation if at all possible, and Mr. Gold is an excellent counselor in helping us decide what position to take. If necessary, he will take the litigation path and pursue it with vigor. in 2...
Posted by Haven | April 6, 2011
I can't say enough wonderful things about Mr. Gold. I believe it was Divine Providence that allowed our paths to cross. I could not have learned to advocate effectively for my son, who has autism and multiple disabilities, without the ongoing aid and advice of this fine attorney. As a special ...
"I endorse this lawyer. I have worked with Harold on a number of cases in the past 30 or so years. Harold is a smart, dedicated and very organized attorney who is focused on the outcome of his case from the beginning to the end of the matter."
Litigation lawyer
2015
AV Preeminent Rated, Martindale-Hubbell
2014
AV Preeminent Rated, Martindale-Hubbell
2013
AV Preeminent Rated, Martindale-Hubbell
2012
AV Preeminent Rated, Martindale-Hubbell
2011
AV Preeminent Rated, Martindale-Hubbell
2010
AV Preeminent Rated, Martindale-Hubbell
2009
AV Preeminent Rated, Martindale-Hubbell
2008
AV Peer Review Rating, Martindale-Hubbell
2007
AV Peer Review Rating, Martindale-Hubbell
2006
AV Peer Review Rating, Martindale-Hubbell
2006
AV Peer Review Rating, Martindale-Hubbell
2005
AV Peer Review Rating, Martindale-Hubbell
2004
AV Peer Review Rating, Martindale-Hubbell
2003
AV Peer Review Rating, Martindale-Hubbell
2002
AV Peer Review Rating, Martindale-Hubbell
2001
AV Peer Review Rating, Martindale-Hubbell
2000
AV Peer Review Rating, Martindale-Hubbell
1999
AV Peer Review Rating, Martindale-Hubbell
1998
AV Peer Review Rating, Martindale-Hubbell
1997
AV Peer Review Rating, Martindale-Hubbell
1996
AV Peer Review Rating, Martindale-Hubbell
1995
AV Peer Review Rating, Martindale-Hubbell
1994
AV Peer Review Rating, Martindale-Hubbell
1993
AV Peer Review Rating, Martindale-Hubbell
1992
AV Peer Review Rating, Martindale-Hubbell
1992
AV Peer Review Rating, Martindale-Hubbell
1991
AV Peer Review Rating, Martindale-Hubbell
1990
AV Peer Review Rating, Martindale-Hubbell
2015 - Present
Owner, Law Ofice of Harold B. Gold
2001 - 2015
Partner, Wisener Nunnally Gold LLP
2000 - 2001
Limited Partner, Frank Majorie & Associates
1996 - 1999
Of Counsel, Cantilo, Maisel & Hubbard LLP
1993 - 1995
Partner, Woolley, Gold & Scher, LLP
1990 - 1993
Partner, Rubinstein & Perry
1987 - 1990
Partner, Fugit, Hubbard, Woolley, Bloom & Mersky
1982 - 1987
Associate, Freytag, Marshall, Beneke, LaForce & Rubinstein
1980 - 1982
Associate, Lewitt, Hackman, Hoeflin & Shapiro
2015 - Present
Multnomah Bar AssociationMember
1980 - Present
American Bar AssociationMember
2009 - 2012
Garland Chamber of CommerceBoard of Directors
1982 - 2015
Dallas Bar AssociationMember
The case was settled
After obtaining rulings from the court favorable to our position we were able to settle the case on favorable terms
The Court upheld our position that there was no jurisdiction
The Court of Appeals upheld my argument that the claim should be rejected
The Court of Appeals determined that there was not such a breach
The case was settled
The case was settled favorably to the class
1 Defendant settled but the Court ultimately ruled against the class. The issue continues to arise.
I argued against the plan of sale in that court as well. While the Court approved the sale over my objection, the sale ultimately failed for the reasons I had indicated.
The Court agreed with my argument
The Texas Supreme Court in a split decision held that the Bank was justified in not knowing that the funds belonged to the insurance company.
The court agreed with my argument that the action of the lawyers was illegal
The bankruptcy court agreed with my argument that the arbitration award was enforceable in the bankruptcy court
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the position I advocated
The Court held that the arbitration provision was not enforceable
The Court upheld part of the ordinance, but client signage was allowed to stay in place
Court of Appeals sustained the position of my client
On appeal the judgment of the court that there was no jurisdiction was reversed.
Judgment for the individual.
Judgment for the Seller
1980
JD - Juris Doctor
1976
BA - Bachelor of Arts
English
Legal Answers
Legal Guides
Can I sue the school district for emotional distress?
02 Apr 2014
Child is enrolled in school in TX. Non-custodial parent takes child and enrolls in his school. Is the school district liable?
21 Oct 2013
Can I press charges on my Principal?
03 Jun 2013