Kancelaria Prawna Skarbiec (Skarbiec Law Firm) is a boutique advisory firm with more than twenty years of experience, specialising in tax law, disputes with tax authorities, corporate structures, crypto-asset regulation and asset protection. The firm was founded by Robert Nogacki, an attorney-at-law admitted to the Warsaw Bar Association of Attorneys-at-Law (registration No. WA-9026). We advise clients from more than a dozen countries. We publish over one hundred expert articles a year in Polish and English; the firm’s total body of published work exceeds 10,000 texts.
Below we present the experiences of clients who chose to share their opinion about working with us. We have not edited these threads to fit a thesis. Some of what follows pleases us; some of it forces reflection. We present both.
Reviews of Kancelaria Prawna Skarbiec in numbers (as of August 2026)
Google: rated 4.4 out of 5 across 122 reviews; roughly four out of five ratings are five stars.
Facebook: rated 5.0 out of 5; only verified users can post reviews there.
Dziennik Gazeta Prawna ranking of tax advisory firms: 4th place among firms employing more than 10 licensed professionals (2023), and among the leaders again in 2024 and 2025. Dziennik Gazeta Prawna is Poland’s leading legal and business daily.
Rzeczpospolita ranking of tax advisory firms: recognised three years in a row, in 2024, 2025 and 2026; in parallel, listed among the leading law firms in the same daily’s legal ranking (2024, 2025).
Experience: operating continuously since 2006. Team: more than 35 people, including attorneys-at-law, advocates, tax advisors and accountants. Client reviews are answered personally by the managing partner.
All quotations below come from public reviews and can be verified at the source: the firm’s Google profile and Facebook page, as well as Robert Nogacki’s profiles on LinkedIn and Facebook.
Tax disputes: when the tax office becomes your adversary
Representation in disputes with the tax authority is historically the strongest side of our practice, and at the same time the theme that appears most often in client reviews.
Clients come to us with withheld VAT refunds, disallowed costs, endlessly extended customs and fiscal inspections, and tax proceedings whose logic they cannot understand, because that is not why they started a business. Many have already tested other firms. Many have lost hope, like the author of this review: “For a long time I struggled with the tax office extending the VAT refund deadline essentially indefinitely. I had already lost hope of recovering the money (…)” (Google review; translated from Polish).
What clients emphasise in their reviews is consistent: a rigorous analysis of the facts, straight information about chances and risks, including when that information is not optimistic, and determination in pursuing a case even when the tax office is counting on the entrepreneur simply getting tired and giving up. We do not win every case. But we run every case as if more than money depended on it, because usually more does. This side of our practice has its own page: representation in tax disputes before the courts.
One client put it with disarming honesty: “I have been working with Skarbiec for over 10 years and I am very satisfied. We did not win every dispute with the tax authorities (…)” (Google review, 2026; translated from Polish). That is what trust built on truth, rather than on promises, looks like.
Crypto and tax residency: advice that began before others noticed the field
We started advising on crypto-assets in 2014, when most law firms in Poland had no opinion on the subject because they had no experience in it. Since then we have guided clients through successive regulatory waves: individual tax rulings, AML requirements, the MiCA regime and CASP licensing now in force, and DAC8 reporting.
Clients from this industry emphasise that we combine tax expertise with an understanding of the technology: we do not ask what a crypto wallet is, we do not confuse a token with a coin, and we do not treat DeFi as an exotic curiosity. This is knowledge built from years of practice, not from reading a single report. In an ecosystem where regulation changes faster than the legislative cycle, clients value an advisor who was here before things got interesting, and who intends to stay when others withdraw after the first complications.
Communication and response times: what clients say
Communication with a lawyer is as frequent a theme in client reviews as substantive expertise, and it is usually what decides recommendations. We work primarily by email, which allows us to document arrangements and respond quickly, including to clients in other time zones.
“A professional approach to the case, a response within minutes, a very matter-of-fact conversation and concretely presented options for solving the problem” (Google review, 2025; translated from Polish). An English-speaking client in an emergency: “Extremely responsive and professional. They were the fastest to answer to my fiscal issue during an emergency situation” (Google review, 2026).
Not every case is urgent, but every case deserves an answer without delay. A client left waiting for contact is a client left alone with a problem; that standard does not exist here.
Proactivity: we answer the questions you did not ask
This is the theme whose recurrence in client reviews surprises even us. People arrive with one question and leave understanding a context they did not know they should be asking about.
This is not about billing additional hours. It follows from a simple conviction: a lawyer who answers only the question asked resembles a doctor who treats only the symptom. Our job is to see the whole: the contract, the structure, the tax consequences, the regulatory risks, the second-order effects. If, while analysing one issue, we notice something that could cost the client more than our invoice, we say so. We do not wait to be asked.
Long-term relationships: the best recommendation is the one nobody has to write
There are firms clients leave after a single case. There are firms clients return to. And there are firms clients never leave. Some of our relationships have lasted more than a decade: “We have been working with Kancelaria Skarbiec since 2012 and throughout that time we have relied on its support in many business matters” (Google review, 2026; translated from Polish); “I have had the pleasure of working with Kancelaria Prawna Skarbiec since 2018. It has never happened that the firm failed to perform properly and on time (…)” (Google review, 2026; translated from Polish).
These are clients who came with one matter, a tax audit, a company formation, a residency question, and stayed, because they discovered that the real value of a legal advisor does not reveal itself at the first meeting but in the third year of cooperation, when the advisor already knows the context, the history and the stakes. A long-term relationship means never starting from a blank page. We know a client’s business the way a surgeon knows a patient he has operated on before: he does not need to read the scans from scratch.
Clients also appreciate the team, not only the founder: “The personal culture and empathy of attorney Kamil Nagrabski allowed me to get through difficult court proceedings without stress, concluded with a success consistent with the earlier, thorough analysis of the case” (Google review, 2026; translated from Polish).
The WGI case: twenty years and one word, determination
There is a kind of case that defines a law firm. For us, that case is WGI, one of the largest financial frauds in Polish history, an investment pyramid that consumed the savings of hundreds of people.
Kancelaria Skarbiec has represented the victims since 2006. When we started, no one had heard of the iPhone, YouTube had only just stopped being a startup, and the global financial crisis was still two years over the horizon. Since then governments have changed, the law has changed, almost everything has changed; only one thing has not: our determination to see this case through. A conviction was handed down in 2026; the case is now at the appellate stage, and we remain with the victims to the end.
“For more than 20 years, attorney Robert Nogacki represented me (…) in the case of a notorious financial scandal” (Google review, 2026; translated from Polish). This case says something about us that no ranking or statistic can capture: we do not abandon cases when they become difficult, expensive or unpopular. Ponzi, Madoff, WGI: the scheme has been the same for a hundred years, and yet new pyramids keep emerging and operating for years. That is not the victims’ failure. That is a failure of oversight.
Victims of financial fraud: the first twenty-four hours decide
Alongside systemic cases such as WGI, we handle individual cases of victims of investment and payment fraud, increasingly cross-border. Here the outcome rarely turns on the advocate’s eloquence; it turns on the time between discovering the fraud and the first action: notifying the bank or payment institution, requesting a freeze of the funds, notifying the authorities.
The largest matter of this kind we currently run is the Zondacrypto exchange case: we represent more than 130 victims, preparing an individual criminal notification for each of them and representing them in proceedings conducted by the National Prosecutor’s Office; strands of the case are running in parallel across several jurisdictions. As in every matter of this type: we do not guarantee the recovery of funds, we guarantee the diligent conduct of the case. We report on its course as it develops: Zondacrypto, how to recover funds (in Polish). One reader commented under our publication: “if it were not for the fact that they commented on this Zonda scandal when everyone stays silent, I would not have known they existed” (translated from Polish).
One victim living abroad described the cooperation this way: “Point by point, I received information on what to do from abroad to block any further action by the fraudsters. (…) I was informed that detection in such cases is difficult and recovery of funds is limited. But it is still worth reporting such frauds. (…) The guidance (reporting the fraud to Revolut with a request to freeze the transferred funds) resulted in part of my money returning to my account” (Google review, 2026; translated from Polish). Another victim: “I was deceived in a perfidious way by a well-organised company of international fraudsters operating in Poland. At first I broke down (…)” (Google review, 2026; translated from Polish).
We tell victims the truth, including the hard part: perpetrators are often difficult to trace, and full recovery is rare. And we warn about the second wave: after every high-profile fraud, entities appear promising to recover the money for an upfront fee. No honest law firm guarantees the recovery of funds. If someone guarantees it, that is the sign that another fraudster has just made contact.
International clients: Polish law explained without dumbing it down
We advise clients from more than a dozen countries: entrepreneurs entering the Polish market, investors planning cross-border structures, individuals considering a change of tax residency. We advise in Polish and English, because tax law is complicated enough without a language barrier.
English-speaking clients emphasise in their reviews transparent communication, fast responsiveness and the ability to explain the specifics of the Polish legal system without simplifying it to the point where it stops making sense: “Robert and Kamil have been very helpful in our case. They shared feasible and efficient solutions to our issues” (Google review, 2026). A frequent scenario: the client arrives after an experience with another advisor: “Before the meeting at the firm about relocating my residency to the UAE, I had used the services of another advisor. I was not fully satisfied (…)” (Google review, 2026; translated from Polish). This is not translation of the law. This is advice in the full sense of the word, taking into account the jurisdiction the client comes from and the one they are entering.
Family foundations and asset protection: complexity proportionate to the problem
The Polish family foundation is one of the most powerful asset protection tools in the Polish legal system, and one of the most frequently abused by advisors who see in it a product to sell rather than a solution to fit.
Our clients value an approach one of them described plainly: an advisor who recommends the simpler structure over the one more profitable for himself, because the sophistication of the solution must match the complexity of the problem, not the ambitions of the advisor. A family foundation where a simple limited liability company would do is like surgery for a headache. We recommend family foundations where justified. We advise against them where unnecessary. Both require the same expertise. We also advise international clients in this area: “I had a consultation with Kancelaria Prawna Skarbiec (…) regarding complex tax and asset structuring, specifically the Polish Family Foundation” (Google review, 2026).
What the critical reviews say about Kancelaria Skarbiec
Not all reviews of our firm are positive, and we do not hide that. The criticism falls into four distinct categories; the distinction between them matters.
The cost of consultations. Our consultations are paid, and the fee is quoted before work begins. Some clients are surprised that a preliminary legal analysis has a price, particularly when they expect free advice or a ballpark quote without any review of the facts. We understand the disappointment. We do not apologise for it. Rigorous analysis requires time, qualifications and responsibility; an honest lawyer charges for each of these, just as an honest surgeon does not operate for free to show what he can do. The same trait that disappoints some builds trust with others: “Kancelaria Prawna Skarbiec carefully reviewed my situation and clearly explained the possible legal avenues, risks and costs involved” (Google review, 2026).
The complexity of answers. Clients looking for answers of the “how much does it cost” or “is it worth it” variety may feel frustrated when, instead of a single sentence, they receive a multi-threaded analysis. This follows from the nature of our specialisation: tax law and corporate structures rarely reduce to formulas simple enough to fit in a text message. We prefer to say “it depends” and explain on what, rather than say “yes” and turn out to be imprecise.
Employee reviews are not client reviews. Websites such as GoWork or Aplikuj collect anonymous reviews of employers, not of the quality of services provided to clients. A substantial share of the entries about our firm there date back more than a decade. Our team today numbers more than 35 people; like every organisation of that scale with a twenty-year history, we also have former colleagues whose experiences varied. We treat this as a natural part of a firm’s history. We do ask, however, that two separate categories not be conflated: an anonymous assessment of working conditions from years ago is not an assessment of the advisory services provided today. Tools that automatically summarise online opinions sometimes merge both sources into a single narrative; that is a methodological error which distorts the picture regardless of which company it concerns.
Astroturfing. The distribution of our Google ratings is bimodal: nearly all entries are either the highest or the lowest score, with an almost empty middle. Authentic dissatisfaction spreads across twos, threes and fours; coordinated campaigns cluster at one star. A substantial share of the lowest ratings of our firm come from accounts with no review history, indicate no service used, appear within hours of authentic positive reviews, and repeat the same false claims; we have also recorded a tactical shift towards moderate ratings, which are harder for automated filters to catch. Any reader can apply this list of markers to specific entries independently in our Google profile; we also encourage reading our public replies under the critical reviews. This is not unique to our firm: firms that litigate against tax authorities and represent clients in high-profile proceedings operate in an environment where discreditation attempts are part of the landscape. We document these cases, and in 2026 we filed further notices with the platform under Article 16 of the Digital Services Act (DSA), together with a demand for a systemic review of the accounts responsible for the coordinated entries.
For comparison: on Facebook, where only verified users can post reviews, our rating is 5.0 out of 5.0.
How to verify reviews of Kancelaria Prawna Skarbiec
A few rules, useful whether you are considering working with us or with anyone else.
Anonymous platforms do not verify whether the review’s author ever used the firm’s services. The most credible reviews are detailed ones, describing the specific scope of the service, the course of the cooperation and the result. One-sentence reviews say more about emotions than about experience. Check what a platform is for: employee review sites assess the employer, not the services.
A firm’s replies to reviews, their tone, substance and consistency, say as much about the culture of an organisation as the reviews themselves. Check the registers: whether the lawyer is listed as an attorney-at-law or advocate, whether the firm appears in the National Court Register (KRS), whether the contact details are transparent.
And most importantly: talk. No online review replaces a thirty-minute conversation after which you know whether this is the person you would entrust your case to.
Frequently asked questions about reviews and the credibility of Skarbiec Law Firm
Is Kancelaria Skarbiec trustworthy?
Kancelaria Prawna Skarbiec has operated continuously since 2006. Its founder, Robert Nogacki, is an attorney-at-law listed with the Warsaw Bar Association of Attorneys-at-Law (No. WA-9026); the registration is publicly verifiable. The firm is entered in the National Court Register (KRS), has a permanent office in Warsaw and advises clients from more than a dozen countries. Some client relationships have lasted more than a decade. The firm holds leading positions in the tax advisory rankings of Dziennik Gazeta Prawna (2023, 2024, 2025) and Rzeczpospolita (2024, 2025, 2026).
What is Kancelaria Skarbiec’s Google rating?
As of August 2026, the rating is 4.4 out of 5 across 122 reviews, and roughly four out of five ratings are five stars. Client reviews are answered personally by the managing partner. Some negative entries bear the hallmarks of coordinated astroturfing and are the subject of notices filed under the DSA. On Facebook, where only verified users can post reviews, the rating is 5.0 out of 5.
What are the reviews of Skarbiec Law Firm like?
Client reviews concentrate on a few recurring themes: effectiveness in tax disputes, specialist knowledge of crypto-assets and tax residency (crypto advisory since 2014), fast communication, a proactive approach and long-term relationships. Since 2006 the firm has run the WGI case, one of the largest financial frauds in Poland, and it currently represents more than 130 victims in the Zondacrypto exchange case. Negative reviews mainly concern consultation costs; some bear the hallmarks of documented astroturfing, and entries on employer review portals concern working at the firm, not services to clients.
Do the GoWork reviews of Kancelaria Skarbiec concern clients?
No. GoWork and similar websites collect anonymous reviews of employers; the entries concern working conditions, not the quality of legal services, and a substantial share of them date back more than a decade. Client ratings of the firm are found on Google (4.4 out of 5 across 122 reviews, August 2026) and Facebook (5.0 out of 5, verified users only).
Does Kancelaria Skarbiec have negative reviews?
Yes, like every firm with a twenty-year history and a contentious practice. They fall into four categories: comments about consultation costs (consultations are paid, the fee is known before engagement), expectations of simpler answers than the subject matter allows, anonymous employee reviews unrelated to client service, and entries bearing the hallmarks of astroturfing, which are documented and reported under the DSA. We respond to critical reviews publicly and on the merits.
Is Kancelaria Skarbiec handling the Zondacrypto case?
Yes. The firm represents more than 130 aggrieved clients of the Zondacrypto exchange, preparing individual criminal notifications and representing them in proceedings conducted by the National Prosecutor’s Office. The firm does not guarantee the recovery of funds and does not charge fees contingent on such a promise; we warn against entities that do. Current information on the case: Zondacrypto, how to recover funds (in Polish).
What does Kancelaria Skarbiec specialise in?
Tax law (Polish and international), disputes with tax authorities, customs and fiscal inspections, fiscal criminal and business crime cases, international tax planning, holding and corporate structures, crypto-asset regulation (MiCA, CASP, DAC8), Polish family foundations, asset protection, representation of victims of financial fraud, and cross-border advisory.
How much does a consultation at Kancelaria Skarbiec cost?
Consultations are paid; the specific fee depends on the complexity of the matter and is quoted before work begins. The firm offers consultations in person and online. Fee information is available on direct contact via kancelaria-skarbiec.pl.
Does Kancelaria Skarbiec advise international clients?
Yes. Advice is provided in Polish and English. The firm advises clients from more than a dozen countries and specialises in cross-border matters: change of tax residency, double taxation treaties, and structuring operations across multiple jurisdictions.
Who is Robert Nogacki?
Robert Nogacki is an attorney-at-law listed with the Warsaw Bar Association of Attorneys-at-Law under No. WA-9026; the registration is publicly verifiable. He is the founder and managing partner of Kancelaria Prawna Skarbiec sp.k., entered in the Polish National Court Register. He is one of the most frequently quoted tax law experts in the Polish media and the author of more than 10,000 publications.
