← litmanintelligence.com  |  ← Counsel PDFs index  |  Counsel dashboard

Coercion And Control Memo

MEMORANDUM: COERCION, CONTROL, AND THE ABSENCE OF CONSENT

Case: Litman v. Goldberg, Index No. 524343/2025 Court: Supreme Court of the State of New York, Kings County Before: Hon. Brian L. Gotlieb, J.S.C. Surviving Claim: Count V -- NY Civil Rights Law Sections 50-51 (Misappropriation of Name) Date: March 29, 2026 Classification: Attorney Work Product -- Privileged and Confidential

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

  1. Joshua B. Goldberg maintained control over a disabled man through health insurance dependency while simultaneously using that man's name for commercial profit and exploiting his client relationships to collect millions of dollars in outstanding receivables. The evidence, drawn from 276,899 emails and contemporaneous documents, establishes that:

(a) Goldberg knew Richard Litman and his wife Cheryl depended on biological drugs available only through the NGM group health plan;

(b) Goldberg used the threat of insurance termination as leverage in settlement negotiations;

(c) Goldberg recruited Litman to collect over $2.1 million from King Saud University while simultaneously claiming Litman was "dead" to the firm;

(d) Zero emails in the entire 276,899-email archive show Litman consenting to the use of his name on patent filings; and

(e) Three separate emails from Litman explicitly deny consent, and five attempts to notify clients were blocked over four years.

  1. This evidence destroys every consent-based defense Goldberg has raised and supports a finding of willful misappropriation warranting punitive damages. A man who holds another's health insurance hostage while profiting from his name is not acting in good faith, and a court should treat him accordingly.

II. THE COERCION DYNAMIC: HEALTH INSURANCE AS LEVERAGE

Phase 1 -- Knowledge of Vulnerability

  1. Goldberg had intimate knowledge of both Richard and Cheryl Litman's medical conditions. On May 1, 2021, Goldberg wrote to Litman: "How is Cheryl doing? Is her Crohn's still bothering her?" (Goldberg to Litman, May 1, 2021, Subject: "Re: [Assignment document and firm matters]"). This was not casual inquiry. Goldberg understood that Cheryl's Crohn's disease required biological drugs -- medications available only through the NGM group health plan.

  2. Litman himself was medically disabled as of June 15, 2020, a fact Goldberg participated in documenting. On August 13, 2020, Goldberg acknowledged to Litman: "Sorry to hear your vision is negatively impacted also. That makes it a good thing you are not driving, but a bad thing you are essentially unable to leave the house." (Goldberg to Litman, August 13, 2020). Litman's conditions included psoriatic arthritis, autoimmune disorders requiring an immunosuppressing biologic (Taltz), dystonia (inherited generalized dystonia), and vision impairment requiring multiple surgeries.

  3. Both Litman and Cheryl depended on biological drugs that were not available outside the group plan. This was not a matter of preference or convenience. It was a matter of medical necessity.

Phase 2 -- Insurance Tied to Employment Status

  1. On October 6, 2020, Goldberg informed Litman that his health and dental premium deduction was $483.02 per pay period and offered to cover the payment -- but only if doing so would not jeopardize Litman's disability benefits. (Goldberg to Litman, October 6, 2020). This established the pattern: insurance as a conditional benefit tied to Goldberg's decisions about Litman's employment status.

  2. By December 2020, Cheryl's coverage had already been disrupted once. On December 21, 2020, Goldberg wrote to Litman: "On the health insurance for you and Cheryl, I have asked our new HR company if there is anything specific we need to watch out for based on your approved disability claim." (Goldberg to Litman, December 21, 2020). Note the phrase "approved disability claim" -- Goldberg fully acknowledged Litman's disability while continuing to use his name on patent filings.

  3. In September 2021, MetLife actually cancelled Litman's life insurance. Merritt Green, the outside attorney engaged by Goldberg, told Litman: "It is YOUR OBLIGATION to complete process." (Merritt Green communications, September-October 2021). The message was clear: benefits were not guaranteed, and their continuation depended on Goldberg's cooperation.

  4. On March 15, 2022, Goldberg sent the email that laid bare the leverage dynamic. He wrote: "For you, the question all comes down to whether you will be an active employee vs. on disability/retired. If you are an active employee, we have no problems keeping you on our insurance. If you are retired/on disability, that is a huge difference." (Goldberg to Litman, March 15, 2022). Goldberg was telling a disabled man that his health coverage depended on a status determination that Goldberg himself controlled. During this exact period, Goldberg was signing Powers of Attorney listing Litman as attorney of record on patent filings.

Phase 3 -- Explicit Threats and Bargaining

  1. On April 17, 2023, Litman wrote to Goldberg: "I appreciate your confirmation about not cancelling the health insurance -- notwithstanding the threats by Merritt Green. I think that was a good decision on your part -- you know how important the health insurance is to me and Cheryl." (Litman to Goldberg, April 17, 2023, Subject: "Question re insurance"). Litman also noted that Cheryl was paying approximately $1,000 per month for her group coverage and asked whether dental insurance had also been cancelled. The reference to "threats by Merritt Green" establishes that cancellation had been explicitly raised as a possibility.

  2. On May 1, 2023, Goldberg proposed a settlement framework that included as one of its explicit terms: "We agree you (and Cheryl) will stay on our health insurance, as you are currently." (Goldberg to Litman, May 1, 2023, Subject: "Thoughts"). Health insurance was not a peripheral issue in these negotiations. It was a bargaining chip -- offered alongside financial terms, payment schedules, and the disposition of the Combination Agreement. This proves Goldberg understood the leverage he held and was prepared to use it.

  3. On June 29, 2023 -- two weeks after the arbitration decision -- Litman wrote: "Cheryl typically takes care of sending the check for her health insurance. I had to handle it so I hope it is received. Not a time to worry about health insurance." Goldberg replied: "I am glad you have help for Cheryl." (Litman-Goldberg exchange, June 29, 2023). The context makes clear that Cheryl was ill, that Litman was managing her affairs, and that even in these circumstances the threat to coverage loomed.

Phase 4 -- The June 2025 Cutoff

  1. On June 20, 2025, Litman wrote to Goldberg: "You know how important this coverage is, especially for my wife's medical needs." (Litman to Goldberg, June 20, 2025).

  2. On June 24, 2025, Litman sent the email that encapsulates the entire case. He wrote: "Let me be clear: if I were in your position, terminating me from the group plan -- knowing the biological drugs Cheryl and I rely on are not covered outside of it -- would be the last step I'd take without first assessing the financial implications. Continued group coverage remains one of the only real incentives I have to work toward a structured resolution without litigation." And further: "It's difficult to reconcile the firm terminating my group health coverage while continuing to use my name publicly as 'Senior Counsel' and as attorney of record... You can't have it both ways." (Litman to Goldberg, June 24, 2025, Subject: "Decision re COBRA").

  3. Two days later, Goldberg's answer came -- not from Goldberg himself, but from his lawyer. On June 26, 2025, Heba Carter of Goldberg's outside counsel wrote to Litman: "All benefits you have been receiving will terminate effective June 30, 2025. This includes health insurance, disability insurance, malpractice insurance, access to the company credit card, and payment for your cell phone coverage. All of these will be terminated on June 30, 2025." (Heba Carter to Litman, June 26, 2025, Subject: "NGM--Matters"). Carter gave Litman four days' notice.

  4. On June 28, 2025, Litman responded: "Your use of my Nath Law email address -- more than five years after you claimed I was terminated -- underscores the central contradiction..." (Litman to Heba Carter, June 28, 2025, Subject: "Continued Use of My Name and Role as Senior Counsel (2017-2025)"). Litman listed four categories of unauthorized name use and reserved all rights and remedies.

Phase 5 -- The Human Cost

  1. On October 7, 2024 -- eight months before the benefits cutoff -- NGM's HR administrator sent a Medicare Part D and Prescription Drug Creditable Coverage notice to all employees, including Litman. The notice stated: "This notice is part of a DOL requirement to notify all employees that our medical insurance plans are considered 'creditable' for the 2024 calendar year period." (Cathy Centra to all employees, October 7, 2024, Subject: "Medicare Part D and Prescription Drug Coverage Notice"). More than four years after Goldberg claimed Litman was "terminated," the firm was still treating him as an employee for insurance purposes.

  2. After benefits were cut on June 30, 2025, Litman was forced onto COBRA at a premium of $2,867.11 per month -- more than $34,000 per year -- for the same coverage he had maintained as a purported NGM employee while Goldberg used his name to generate millions in patent prosecution revenue.

  3. By November 2025, Cheryl Litman was in the ICU. Litman wrote from her bedside requesting COBRA confirmation, as bill collectors had begun calling due to coverage confusion. The man whose name appeared on 905 issued patents and whose professional identity generated $18.53 million in fees was begging for confirmation that his wife's emergency medical care would be covered.

III. THE KSU CONTRADICTION: POST-"TERMINATION" ACTIVE WORK

  1. Goldberg's legal position, adopted in arbitration and accepted by the arbitrator, is that Litman's disability was equivalent to death and that the Combination Agreement terminated on June 15, 2020. The arbitrator found that "Litman's status as Senior Counsel with NGM ceased by agreement" on that date and that he was "treated as if he had died."

  2. The email record tells a different story. After the supposed "termination," Goldberg and his partners actively recruited Litman to collect over $2.1 million in outstanding receivables from King Saud University -- exploiting the very personal relationships that gave Litman's name its commercial value.

The Collection Campaign

  1. On October 26, 2020 -- just four months after the claimed termination date -- Goldberg wrote to Litman: "It would be good Richard for something now to come from you; it shows we have an entire team focused on this." (Goldberg to Litman, October 26, 2020). The outstanding receivable from KSU at that time was $2,129,314.01. Litman then directly emailed KSU leadership at Goldberg's request.

  2. In November 2020, Litman set up Zoom calls with KSU and proposed new invoicing procedures -- work that only someone with existing personal relationships at the university could perform.

  3. In January 2021, Litman, Goldberg, and Jerry Meyer conducted a three-way strategy session on collecting $2,263,748 from KSU. Goldberg reported: "I just talked with Jerry about this also. We are all in agreement." (Goldberg to Litman, January 2021). Litman then drafted the collection letter.

  4. On April 7, 2022 -- nearly two years after "termination" -- Litman revealed: "Stan let me know that Merritt mentioned to him about me helping collect from KSU." (Litman to Goldberg, April 7, 2022). The firm's own outside counsel was discussing Litman's ongoing involvement in KSU collections. Litman then met Goldberg in person at the Root Hill Cafe in Brooklyn, New York, and proposed a collection strategy drawn from his personal knowledge of the client.

  5. In July 2022, Litman leveraged his personal relationships with KSU leadership: "Unless KSU makes progress on payment to the law firm, I should not recommend that IIPI fund a tech development plan where the university takes a lead position." And later: "I feel really good about working with you to turn the KSU payment situation around." (Litman to Goldberg, July 2022).

  6. Even after the arbitration decision in June 2023, Litman was still working KSU collections. On July 18, 2023, Litman wrote the devastating summary: "NGM vehemently argued in the arbitration the combination ended three years ago and the Judge agreed with NGM's position that it was like I was dead as of June 15, 2020." (Litman to Goldberg, July 18, 2023, Subject: "Re: Please follow up"). The firm argued he was dead while asking the dead man to collect $2.1 million.

  7. As late as January 2024, Martha Long -- Goldberg's paralegal -- was still copying Litman on KSU patent correspondence at rlitman@nathlaw.com, three and a half years after the claimed "termination."

  8. The point is inescapable: you cannot claim someone is "dead" to the firm while asking them to collect $2.1 million from your biggest client using the personal relationships that make their name commercially valuable. The KSU evidence proves that Goldberg understood the commercial value of Litman's name and relationships and exploited both -- while simultaneously denying that the name use was his doing.

IV. THE TEXT MESSAGE CONTEXT: SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS, NOT CONSENT

  1. Goldberg may attempt to rely on text messages exchanged during the arbitration period as evidence of implied consent. There are three independent reasons these text messages are legally meaningless as a consent defense.

Reason 1 -- Settlement Privilege

  1. The text messages were exchanged during pending arbitration proceedings as an effort to resolve the dispute without further proceedings. Settlement discussions are inadmissible under well-established New York law. See CPLR 4547; Park South Assocs. v. Stein, 100 A.D.2d 517 (1st Dep't 1984).

Reason 2 -- No Meeting of the Minds

  1. Litman's position throughout the arbitration was that he remained Senior Counsel on medical leave. He had not been terminated. The five-year payment period had not yet begun. He was on medical leave with the title "Senior Counsel" -- without duties, without wages -- as both parties had agreed on September 17, 2020.

  2. Litman did not learn until four months after the text exchange, from the Arbitration Award itself, that Goldberg's actual legal position was that disability equaled death equaled termination. The arbitrator accepted Goldberg's position. But at the time of the text messages, the parties were talking past each other. There was no meeting of the minds on Litman's status, and a purported consent based on a mutual misunderstanding of fundamental terms is no consent at all.

Reason 3 -- Written Amendment Requirement

  1. Any modification to the Combination Agreement as amended requires the signatures of both Jerry Meyer and Joshua Goldberg in writing. Text messages cannot modify a written agreement that contains an integration clause. Moreover, Goldberg has now admitted -- in his Answer, in arbitration, and in his BOP responses -- that the Combination Agreement terminated on June 15, 2020. If the contract was terminated, then anything texted during arbitration about "Senior Counsel" status, name use, or the parties' ongoing relationship is legally irrelevant. Goldberg cannot simultaneously claim the agreement ended in 2020 and that text messages sent during a 2023 arbitration somehow authorized continued name use.

The Correct Timeline of Name-Use Objections

  1. The May 3, 2021 document -- the Modified Assignment of Federal Registrations -- and the April 30, 2021 email ("The assignment of the LITMAN LAW OFFICES, LTD. mark does not include the right to use my name separate and apart from the mark") mark the point when Litman thought name use should have ended. The text messages came later, in the context of trying to resolve a dispute about payments and status -- not granting permission to use his name on government filings.

V. DEFENSE-BY-DEFENSE DESTRUCTION

Affirmative Defense No. 8 -- "Purely as a Courtesy"

  1. In his BOP response, Goldberg characterized the continued use of Litman's name as having been done "purely as a courtesy." The KSU evidence alone demolishes this characterization:

(a) You do not ask a "courtesy" to collect $2.1 million from your biggest client.

(b) You do not keep a "courtesy" on your health insurance as a bargaining chip in settlement negotiations.

(c) You do not ask a "courtesy" to draft collection letters, set up Zoom calls with university leadership, and travel to Brooklyn for in-person strategy meetings.

(d) You do not send a "courtesy" Medicare Part D notices as a current employee more than four years after claiming he was terminated.

  1. The word "courtesy" implies an act of no commercial consequence. The evidence proves the opposite: Litman's name and personal relationships had ongoing, quantifiable commercial value that Goldberg exploited for years. The $18.53 million in fees collected under Litman's name between 2020 and 2025 was not generated by courtesy. It was generated by the deliberate use of a man's professional identity for trade purposes.
  1. Consent requires free will. The evidence establishes that Litman could not freely consent because:

(a) His wife had Crohn's disease requiring biological drugs available only through the NGM group health plan.

(b) Goldberg's outside counsel threatened to cancel coverage (and ultimately did so with four days' notice).

(c) Health insurance was explicitly a bargaining term in Goldberg's May 1, 2023 settlement framework.

(d) Litman was medically disabled, housebound, and dependent on the firm for both insurance and disability-related financial support.

  1. This is textbook coercion. A consent obtained under these circumstances -- if it had been obtained, which it was not -- would be voidable as a matter of law.

  2. But consent was never obtained. The record shows:

(a) The April 30, 2021 email explicitly reserved name rights: "does not include the right to use my name separate and apart from the mark."

(b) Zero consent emails were found in 276,899 emails searched.

(c) Three emails from Litman explicitly deny consent: - May 1, 2023: "were not agreed to by me at anytime" - July 18, 2023: "Although I did not agree to terminate my affiliation" - June 24, 2025: "There is no basis without my consent that I should still be listed on USPTO filings"

(d) Client notification was blocked five times over four years. Litman drafted a client notification letter on July 9, 2023. It was never sent. Goldberg acknowledged the need for client notification but never followed through.

  1. Silence is not consent when the silent party is dependent on the other party for life-sustaining medical coverage. A person who fears losing access to the biological drugs keeping his wife alive cannot be said to have "acquiesced" in the use of his name simply because he did not file a lawsuit sooner.

  2. In any event, Litman was not silent. He raised the name-use issue repeatedly:

  3. April 30, 2021: Reserved name rights in the assignment
  4. May 2023: "not agreed to by me at anytime"
  5. July 2023: Demanded client notification
  6. June 10, 2025: Explicitly requested removal from nathlaw.com
  7. June 24, 2025: "There is no basis without my consent"

  8. June 28, 2025: Formal objection letter to Goldberg's counsel

  9. The Nunc Pro Tunc Assignment filed by Goldberg with the USPTO (Reel 007281, Frame 0821) states in its own terms: "Assignee agrees that Assignor owns his name." Goldberg's own document, filed unilaterally without any email discussion in 276,899 emails, confirms that no consent was given. A man does not need to "agree" that another person owns his own name unless the name was being used without permission.

VI. IMPLICATIONS FOR DAMAGES

  1. The coercion evidence supports a finding of willful misappropriation, not mere negligence or inadvertence. Under New York law, willfulness is the predicate for punitive damages in a Sections 50-51 action.

  2. The evidence of willfulness is overwhelming:

(a) Goldberg knew Litman was disabled and unable to practice law (August 13, 2020: "essentially unable to leave the house").

(b) Goldberg knew Litman and Cheryl depended on biological drugs available only through the group plan (May 1, 2021: "Is her Crohn's still bothering her?").

(c) Goldberg used insurance as a settlement bargaining chip (May 1, 2023: "We agree you (and Cheryl) will stay on our health insurance").

(d) Goldberg personally signed 16 Powers of Attorney listing Litman as attorney of record, all after June 15, 2020, and 12 of those after the arbitration decision that found Litman was "dead" to the firm.

(e) Goldberg sent the "fraud" text message on January 30, 2023: "if you are on disability, what would be considered legal vs. fraud?" -- demonstrating consciousness of wrongdoing.

(f) Goldberg filed zero POAs in his own name during this period. Every POA appointed Customer Number 37833, which directed all USPTO correspondence to "Richard C. Litman / Nath, Goldberg & Meyer."

  1. A judge seeing the full record -- a disabled man's health insurance held hostage while his name generates $18.53 million in fees, his wife in the ICU while bill collectors call about coverage confusion, five years of name exploitation ending only when a lawsuit was filed -- is likely to find not just willfulness but the kind of egregious conduct that warrants significant punitive damages.

  2. The KSU evidence directly ties Litman's name and relationships to $2.1 million in receivables the firm was trying to collect. The firm's own records show it was 76-79% dependent on Litman-originated work. Goldberg's May 2023 settlement framework -- offering to keep insurance in exchange for resolution -- proves he understood the leverage he held and was prepared to use it.

VII. EXHIBIT INDEX

No. Date From / To Subject Key Quote Memo Section
1 May 1, 2021 Goldberg to Litman [Firm matters and assignment] "Is her Crohn's still bothering her?" II (Phase 1)
2 Oct. 6, 2020 Goldberg to Litman [Disability and insurance] "$483.02 deduction from your salary each pay period" II (Phase 2)
3 Dec. 21, 2020 Goldberg to Litman [Health insurance] "based on your approved disability claim" II (Phase 2)
4 Mar. 15, 2022 Goldberg to Litman [Insurance status] "If you are retired/on disability, that is a huge difference" II (Phase 2)
5 Sept.-Oct. 2021 Merritt Green re: Litman [Life insurance] "It is YOUR OBLIGATION to complete process" II (Phase 2)
6 Apr. 17, 2023 Litman to Goldberg "Question re insurance" "notwithstanding the threats by Merritt Green" II (Phase 3)
7 May 1, 2023 Goldberg to Litman "Thoughts" "We agree you (and Cheryl) will stay on our health insurance" II (Phase 3)
8 June 29, 2023 Litman-Goldberg exchange [Insurance payment] "Not a time to worry about health insurance" / "glad you have help for Cheryl" II (Phase 3)
9 June 24, 2025 Litman to Goldberg "Decision re COBRA" "the biological drugs Cheryl and I rely on are not covered outside of it" II (Phase 4)
10 June 26, 2025 Heba Carter to Litman "NGM--Matters" "All benefits... will terminate effective June 30, 2025" II (Phase 4)
11 June 28, 2025 Litman to Carter "Continued Use of My Name and Role as Senior Counsel (2017-2025)" "Your use of my Nath Law email address -- more than five years after you claimed I was terminated" II (Phase 4)
12 Oct. 7, 2024 Cathy Centra to all employees "Medicare Part D and Prescription Drug Coverage Notice" "This notice is part of a DOL requirement to notify all employees" II (Phase 5)
13 Aug. 13, 2020 Goldberg to Litman [Health update] "essentially unable to leave the house" II (Phase 1)
14 Oct. 26, 2020 Goldberg to Litman [KSU collections] "it would be good Richard for something now to come from you" III
15 Jan. 2021 Goldberg to Litman [KSU strategy] "I just talked with Jerry about this also. We are all in agreement." III
16 Apr. 7, 2022 Litman to Goldberg [KSU collections] "Stan let me know that Merritt mentioned to him about me helping collect from KSU" III
17 July 2022 Litman to Goldberg [KSU leverage] "I feel really good about working with you to turn the KSU payment situation around" III
18 July 18, 2023 Litman to Goldberg "Re: Please follow up" "it was like I was dead as of June 15, 2020" III
19 Apr. 30, 2021 Litman to Goldberg [Assignment of marks] "does not include the right to use my name separate and apart from the mark" IV, V
20 May 1, 2023 Litman to Goldberg "Re: Thoughts" "were not agreed to by me at anytime" V
21 June 24, 2025 Litman to Goldberg "Decision re COBRA" "There is no basis without my consent that I should still be listed on USPTO filings" V
22 Jan. 30, 2023 Goldberg to Litman [Text message] "if you are on disability, what would be considered legal vs. fraud?" VI
23 Sept. 17, 2020 Goldberg to Litman [Disability framework] "I agree it would be cleanest to treat it like death" II, III
24 Nov. 11, 2020 Goldberg to Litman (forwarding MetLife) [Disability approval] "MetLife approved your disability claim" II
25 Nunc Pro Tunc Assignment Goldberg (filed with USPTO) Reel 007281, Frame 0821 "Assignee agrees that Assignor owns his name" V
26 Nov. 2025 Litman (from ICU) [COBRA confirmation request] Written from Cheryl's ICU bedside II (Phase 5)

VIII. CONCLUSION

  1. Goldberg cannot claim consent when he held the means of coercion. A man whose wife depends on biological drugs available only through the group health plan, whose outside counsel threatens coverage termination, and who offers to maintain insurance as an explicit settlement term is not dealing at arm's length. He is exploiting a vulnerability he helped create.

  2. Goldberg cannot claim Litman was "dead" to the firm when the email record proves otherwise. The firm asked its "dead" partner to collect $2.1 million from its biggest client, to draft collection letters, to set up Zoom calls with university leadership, to travel to Brooklyn for strategy meetings, and to leverage personal relationships cultivated over decades. You do not ask a dead man to do these things. You ask a man whose name and relationships have commercial value -- and then you use that name on 905 patents without his consent.

  3. Goldberg cannot use settlement discussions as evidence of anything other than a dispute he created. The text messages were exchanged during arbitration, between parties who did not share a common understanding of Litman's status, about a written agreement that could not be modified by text message. They are inadmissible, irrelevant, and in any event contradicted by years of explicit written objections.

  4. What the evidence does show is a five-year pattern of deliberate exploitation: a disabled man's name used for trade, his health insurance used for leverage, his client relationships used for revenue, and his objections ignored until a lawsuit made silence impossible. This is not a close case on consent. It is a textbook case of coercion, and the damages should reflect it.

Prepared for counsel review in connection with Litman v. Goldberg, Index No. 524343/2025.