We see that Kit Baigent is the latest person to be taken to court by Terry Goldberg of Turner Freeman; one of a long line of people who have drawn the ire of Mr Goldberg. Kit William Baigent was until very recently a solicitor employed in the Sydney office at Turner Freeman Lawyers.
We wonder, though, if Terry Goldberg will lie on oath like he did in Local Court proceedings 2015/00259781, when he claimed he acted for a party in other Supreme Court proceedings when he did no such thing (the subject of this website), and also like he did in Supreme Court Proceedings 2015/00354540 when he claimed an ex-client’s money was in his firm’s trust account when that $30,000 had already vanished and still remains unaccounted for (referred to here).
We are also informed that Maddy Sutton (Mariel Jessica Sutton), also a recent ex-employee of Turner Freeman Lawyers, has also been named as a defendant in the matter.
What chance do Kit Baigent and Maddy Sutton have with the likes of Terence Goldberg, who will lie at the drop of a hat in order to gain whatever he wants.*
(Update: We are happy to advise that this matter was discontinued in the Supreme Court of NSW on 3 July 2019.
The first directions hearing took place on 21 June 2019, so the matter was quite shortlived.)
Diverging somewhat, another of Terence Goldberg’s victims is also an ex-employee of the firm, Mr Michael Hyland. It is widely reported that on leaving Turner Freeman Lawyers, Terence Goldberg commenced proceedings against his ex-employee, alleging that Mr Hyland had taken and misused confidential data from the firm by way of client information, with Turner Freeman claiming that Mr Hyland had contacted former clients for his and his new employers’ benefit, and to the detriment of Turner Freeman Lawyers.
There is no judgment on Caselaw in relation to this matter, which leads us to believe that the matter was either withdrawn, or an agreement was made. Michael Hyland went on to work with Leitch Hasson Dent (LHD Lawyers), where he is now Special Counsel to that firm. An article on the Australian Financial Review relating to this matter can be found here.
One thing we can say for certain is that Terence Goldberg, as stated in Roseanne Beckett’s affidavit of 7 March 2018 (as available on this site), is using the court as his own personal plaything, and is unjustly using the court as a method of bullying and harassing those who displease him. Roseanne Beckett is another of those taken to court by Mr Goldberg, and the said affidavit was filed during those proceedings.
The bitter irony, too, is that Kit Baigent was latterly the solicitor with carriage of that matter in Terence Goldberg v Roseanne Beckett (2015/00354540), with Kit Baigent appearing in court on Terence Goldberg’s behalf on several occasions. Fiona Seaton previously had carriage of the matter, however, Kit Baigent stepped in after Ms Seaton left the firm.
Fiona Seaton left Turner Freeman after a complaint was made about her conduct to the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner (here), which related to a letter Ms Seaton had written to Roseanne Beckett’s then solicitors, and in such, claimed that Roseanne Beckett had conspired with a friend to commit a criminal act, with such claim being untrue.
Fiona Seaton is now employed as a solicitor at the Workers Compensation Independent Review Office (or WIRO as it is known as).
As an aside, Kit Baigent, and Fiona Seaton for that matter, should have taken note of the fable of The Scorpion and the Frog:
“A scorpion asks a frog to carry it across a river. The frog hesitates, afraid of being stung by the scorpion, but the scorpion argues that if it did that, they would both drown. The frog considers this argument sensible and agrees to transport the scorpion. The scorpion climbs onto the frog’s back and the frog begins to swim, but midway across the river, the scorpion stings the frog, dooming them both. The dying frog asks the scorpion why it stung, to which the scorpion replies ‘I couldn’t help it. It’s in my nature.'”
But obviously, Mr Baigent and Ms Seaton thought that it would not happen to them. A bit like Foez Dewan, another ex-employee of Turner Freeman, whose signature just happens to be on the document (here) which improperly claims a debt against an incorporated association.
Probably unknown to Mr Dewan at that time was the ensuing criminal activities of his then boss, and the ensuing using of the gained monies for the purposes of laundering those and other funds (see timeline of fraud here). Foez Dewan, though, would have been fully aware that his claim that the association in question was indebted to Turner Freeman was fraudulent, and his actions were therefore very deliberate.
And then, too, there’s the case of young Simon Hanly-Jones, who worked at Turner Freeman between January 2013 and August 2015, before Simon’s legal career was cut short. If the whisperings and innuendo are to be believed, Terence Goldberg wrote an affidavit containing falsities and forced Mr Hanly-Jones to sign it, thereby effectively ending Mr Hanly-Jones’s career in law due to the said falsities being discovered.
Extraordinary conduct, however, all on this site is entirely factual.
The partners at Turner Freeman have been well aware of Mr Goldberg’s many transgressions for a number of years, however, they have turned their collective heads sideways and therefore enabled the criminal conduct to both flourish and be maintained. Terence Goldberg is a liar and a thief, and his firm nothing less than a criminal enterprise.
There is no suggestion that any of the abovenamed, ie Kit Baigent, Maddy Sutton, Michael Hyland, Fiona Seaton, and Simon Hanly-Jones have any knowledge of the criminality taking place within Turner Freeman Lawyers, nor is there any suggestion that they have partaken in any such behaviours. They are merely pawns in Terence Goldberg’s unsavoury endeavours. Foez Dewan, however, is an entirely different matter. Mr Dewan knew exactly what he was doing.
* A small update as at 28 June 2019: On perusal of the Turner Freeman Lawyers website, it states that both Kit Baigent and Maddy Sutton are again employees of the firm, with their names having appeared on the site this morning after an absence of two weeks or so. Questions galore.
As Turner Freeman has commenced action against the two said lawyers, why on earth would they return to that firm? Has the firm, perhaps, mistakenly placed their names on their website, therefore giving the impression that they are still employees? Or have the two indeed returned to the fold?
Given that there are live proceedings against both Mr Baigent and Ms Sutton, it is inconceivable that they are presently sitting in their seats within the firm that is taking legal action against them. And so the lies continue. Terry Mucker just cannot help himself.