FINANCIAL ATTACHMENT ANALYSIS — Litman v. Goldberg

Case: Litman v. Goldberg, Index No. 524343/2025
Date: March 23, 2026
Source: 2,426 financial attachments (618.9 MB) extracted from 548 Goldberg-to-Litman emails

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Extraction and analysis of 2,426 financial documents from Goldberg's emails to Litman reveals that NGM collected approximately $18.4 million in fees under Litman's name from 2020-2025. Litman was entitled to 20% but was paid only $725,806 — a shortfall of approximately $2.95 million. The firm was 76-79% economically dependent on Litman-originated work, giving Goldberg massive financial incentive to keep using Litman's name and identity on USPTO filings.

THE NUMBERS

Total Revenue Under Litman's Name

Payment Pattern — Goldberg Squeezed Litman Out

• 2020: $75,000/quarter → still paying something
• 2021-2022: $30,000/quarter → payments declining
• 2023: One payment of $20,000 in Q1, then $210,806 arbitration-related → erratic
• 2024-2025: $0 paid → complete shutoff, despite record-breaking collections

Monthly Revenue Scale (Representative Months)

Firm Revenue Dependency on Litman's Name

In March 2024 (representative month):
- 78.84% of all firm revenue ($1,125,037 of $1,426,910) was collected under Litman's name as "responsible attorney"
- Only 35% of that was credited to Litman as fee-earner
- 65% ($624,042) went to Goldberg, Meyer, and other NGM attorneys
- Goldberg personally took $207,135 in fee credits from Litman-originated work that month alone

KEY DOCUMENTS

1. The Combination Agreement Amendment (May 2017)

NGM paid $214,532 to acquire:
- The federal service mark registration of "Litman Law Offices, Ltd." — they literally bought Litman's name
- All accounts receivable of the IP Practice
- The Freedom Bank accounts and all monies therein

Signed by: Joshua B. Goldberg and Jerald L. Meyer (Co-Managing Partners of NGM)

2. The $1,437,568 KSU Invoice (2020-2021)

An 11-page invoice for 359 individual patent matters billed to the Saudi Ministry of Finance under "Litman Law" letterhead. This single invoice package — for work done during the post-SOL period — represents $1.4M in revenue generated using Litman's name.

3. Fee Allocation Summaries (Q1 2020 – Q2 2025)

Excel spreadsheets showing docket-by-docket fee allocation. Every quarter, Goldberg sent Litman a spreadsheet showing:
- Fees collected on each client matter
- Litman's 20% share
- The "Net Due RCL" running balance

The running balance peaked at $410,221 in Q3 2022, then was shown as $0 from late 2022 onward — despite payments stopping. This accounting change coincides with the arbitration.

4. Payment Allocation Reports (Monthly, 2023-2025)

Monthly reports labeled "RCL as originating attorney" showing exactly which client payments were attributed to Litman. These prove:
- Litman originated the clients (KFU, KSU, KNPC, UAEU, Kuwait University, Sabah Al-Ahmad)
- Goldberg collected the fees
- Litman was systematically excluded from the revenue his name generated

5. Arbitration Award Calculation ($316,870)

Goldberg's own spreadsheet calculated the arbitration award at $316,869.92 — 29 unpaid monthly $10,000 installments (Oct 2020 – Feb 2023) plus per-diem interest at $1.643/day.

6. Receivables Under Litman's Name (June 2025)

As of June 5, 2025: $3,183,565.88 in outstanding accounts receivable attributed to "Richard Litman" as responsible lawyer. This report was requested by Goldberg himself — proving he actively manages the billing system that uses Litman's name even now.

7. Trust Account Balances

Three trust accounts holding $1,439,251 total as of June 2025, with $35 million in total inflows since 2017. KFU trust alone held $427,274 in January 2023. All under "Responsible Lawyer 418 (Richard Litman)."

8. The $156,010.60 Wire Transfer (April 2024)

Wire from "Nath and Associates PLLC" to "Richard Litman Trustee" at Fidelity — Litman's share of March 2024 collections. The firm collected $1,125,037 under Litman's name that month. Litman received $156K. Goldberg personally took $207K.

WHAT THIS MEANS FOR THE CASE

Financial Motive (Why Goldberg Used Litman's Name)

Goldberg kept Litman's name on 905 patents, 206 USPTO documents, and the firm's practice because that name generated $18.4 million in revenue over 5 years. The firm was 76-79% dependent on Litman-originated work. Removing Litman's name risked losing KFU ($725K-$1M/month), KSU, and other Middle Eastern university clients who had relationships with Litman, not Goldberg.

Damages (What Litman Lost)

• $2.95 million in unpaid 20% fee share (2020-2025)
• $316,870 arbitration award (calculated by Goldberg's own spreadsheet)
• $3.18 million in outstanding receivables still attributed to his name
• Loss of professional reputation and control of his identity
• Under NY Civil Rights Law § 51, damages can include profits derived from the unauthorized use — that's $18.4 million in total fees collected under Litman's name

Consent Defense Destruction (Goldberg's Defense #10)

The financial documents prove Litman was being systematically excluded from the revenue his name generated. Payments went from $75K/quarter to $0/year while collections skyrocketed. No rational person would consent to their name being used commercially while the person using it owes them $2.95 million and refuses to pay.

Causation (Goldberg Controlled Everything)

Goldberg authorized every wire transfer, directed every payment allocation, managed every trust account, and signed the amendment that acquired Litman's name for $214,532. The financial trail proves total control.