It appears there are multiple anonymous reviews as well as commentary relating to the conduct of Barrie Goldsmith from Goldsmiths Lawyers in Sydney, Australia.
In light of the comments and questions submitted, it would be fair to assume that the intention of the reviews, questions and general enquiries relating to Mr Goldsmith is to obtain Mr Goldsmith's insight and responses relating to various client's experiences and the views of the courts in multiple matters, allowing him a fair opportunity to correct the record if the information is inaccurate or false in any way.
It is only reasonable to assume that any failure to respond to questions is an acknowledgment of the difficulty Mr Goldsmith must be experiencing in disclosing information he may consider to be challenging to address in a positive or forthcoming manner.
The observation that the reviews were submitted anonymously seems to be an indication that the intention of the writer is to focus the attention on the accuracy of the content, asking relevant questions, addressing questionable conduct, evaluating responses and the truthfulness of Mr Goldsmith and the professional capacity he appears to exercise.
It seems obvious that if he can't defend himself competently and articulate a reasoned explanation of his conduct, what chance does he have in defending his clients?
The reviews seem to allow the reader to be able to evaluate the accuracy and factual basis of various conduct identified rather than be distracted by irrelevant outbursts, tantrums and issues not relating to the veracity of the information being reviewed.
Interestingly and historically, it appears, this was the same sensible and reasoned approach the founding fathers of America exercised while attempting to ratify the U.S. Constitution with the guidance of writing The Federalist Papers.
Although they utilized the pseudonym "Publius", it would be reasonable to assume they wanted to maintain anonymity, to attempt to prevent unorthodox intervention in their positive historical moment, which may be viewed as an attempt to break free from the deception, oppression and the intimidation tactics of British interests.
It appears as no surprise that Mr Goldsmith is British and may well want to pull these trusty old tricks out of his British toolbox.
Once again Mr Goldsmith, let's close the book on the trickery.
Please be more forthcoming and truthful with your responses to questions that are relevant to prospective consumers.