| Date | Source | Statement / Admission | Legal Significance | Element |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| June 15, 2021 | Text messages | "I will continue managing the firm as I have been" | Admits unilateral control of firm operations — including all decisions about attorney listings, POA filings, and name use on patents. Goldberg ran the firm; Litman did not. | Element 4 (Knowing/Willful): Establishes Goldberg as the sole decision-maker for all firm actions, including those that caused Litman's name to appear on patents and the website. |
| Jan. 28, 2023 | Text messages | "Without admitting to anything with respect to the firm's prior position, I am ready to clearly state in writing you get your percentage of collected fees billed. No reductions for what a client hasn't paid." | Admits Litman is entitled to a percentage of all collected fees billed. The phrase "without admitting to anything with respect to the firm's prior position" implies the firm previously took a contrary position — i.e., withheld or reduced fees. | Element 2 (Trade Purpose): Confirms the commercial revenue stream tied to Litman's name. Litman's name on patents generated billable fees, and Goldberg acknowledges Litman's entitlement to a share. |
| Jan. 30, 2023 | Text messages | "I am fine with you being considered 'Senior Counsel'" | Admits Goldberg controlled whether and how Litman's professional title was used. The phrasing "I am fine with" reveals it was Goldberg's decision to make — not Litman's. | Element 1 (Use of Name): Confirms Goldberg directed the use of Litman's name and title on the firm website. Also proves Goldberg's control over name use — a prerequisite for causation. |
| Jan. 31, 2023 | Text messages | Litman: "If you and Jerry split up and you keep the clients, will you honor the payments to me?" Goldberg: "Yes" | Admits the payment obligation to Litman is personal to Goldberg, not dependent on the NGM entity. Even if the firm restructured, Goldberg acknowledged he would continue paying Litman for use of his originated clients. | Element 2 (Trade Purpose): The commercial exploitation of Litman's name and client relationships would continue regardless of firm structure — proving the name use was about revenue, not professional courtesy. |
| June 20, 2024 | Text messages | "Yes, Scottsdale is our current carrier" | Confirms professional liability carrier. Combined with the July 6, 2021 Scottsdale application where Goldberg listed Litman as "Of Counsel," this establishes a third channel of name use (insurance filings) and proves Goldberg's awareness that Litman was being held out as affiliated with the firm. | Element 1 (Use of Name) / Element 4 (Knowing): Acknowledges the same insurer to whom Goldberg represented Litman as "Of Counsel" — linking Goldberg's knowledge of the name use to his direct act of signing the insurance application. |
| June 21, 2024 | Text messages | Provides trust bank account information and acknowledges Virginia bar dues issue | Admits NGM administered Litman's professional identity — paying his bar dues, maintaining his trust account. This shows the name-use infrastructure was active and managed by Goldberg's firm. | Element 4 (Knowing/Willful): Goldberg managed the professional identity apparatus that kept Litman's name active. Paying bar dues for an attorney who was "disabled" and "doesn't work here anymore" is an affirmative act to maintain the name-use infrastructure. |
| Aug. 14, 2024 | Text messages | Does not dispute Litman's statement that "7 figures" are owed | Tacit admission of significant financial obligation. A reasonable person would deny a seven-figure claim if it were unfounded. Goldberg's silence is an adoptive admission under CPLR 4547. | Element 2 (Trade Purpose): The magnitude of the financial obligation — seven figures — confirms the commercial scale of the revenue generated using Litman's name. |
| Oct. 4, 2024 | Text messages | "KFU is getting back to normal. I expect payments from them to resume" and "We also just got our first application drafting instructions" | Admits ongoing commercial activity with KFU — Litman's largest originated client — under Litman's name. New "application drafting instructions" means new patent applications being filed through the same CN-37833 pipeline that lists Litman as attorney. | Element 2 (Trade Purpose): Active commercial patent prosecution under Litman's name was continuing as of October 2024, more than 4 years after the 6/15/2020 termination date. |
| Dec. 23, 2024 | Text messages | "KFU is winding up with 631 patents this year, we hit their goal of 600" | Admits massive patent volume — 631 KFU patents in a single year — all processed through the name-use pipeline. At the time of this statement, Litman's name was still on Line 74 (the switchover did not occur until Jan. 14-21, 2025). | Element 2 (Trade Purpose) / Element 5 (Publication): 631 patents in one year, each a separate government publication bearing Litman's name. This is industrial-scale commercial exploitation. |
| May 4, 2025 | Text messages | "Really good day with KSU and Thamer" | Admits continued use of client relationships Litman originated. KSU (King Saud University) is a Litman-originated client, and Thamer is the KSU contact. Goldberg is servicing Litman's clients and using Litman's professional relationships for commercial gain. | Element 2 (Trade Purpose): Goldberg personally benefits from Litman's originated client relationships — the same relationships that justify the name use under his own RFA No. 2 response. |
| June 2025 | Text messages | Acknowledges that Soluno reports for Atty #418 "drew its data from account ledgers that didn't include payments actually made" | Admits the accounting system used to calculate Litman's royalties was deficient — it failed to capture actual payments. This supports the $16.2M accounting gap between the trust ledger ($32.7M) and Goldberg's workup ($16.5M). | Element 2 (Trade Purpose): Confirms the commercial revenue generated under Litman's name was substantially larger than what was being reported. The accounting deficiency systematically understated the value extracted from Litman's name. |
| July 18, 2025 | Text messages | "It should be. Let me find out from IT what happened" (re: Litman's email access being cut) | Acknowledges Litman's firm email was eliminated. This occurred while Litman's name was still on 453 open matters in the billing system. Cutting email access while maintaining name use proves Goldberg wanted the commercial benefit of Litman's name without Litman's involvement. | Element 3 (Without Consent) / Element 4 (Knowing): You cannot consent to name use when you have been cut off from the very systems that would allow you to monitor or control that use. |
| Date | Source | Statement / Admission | Legal Significance | Element |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| March 8, 2021 | "we would rather we all do it together than you going off on your own" | Admits Goldberg wanted Litman's continued association with the firm. This was not passive — Goldberg actively sought to keep Litman engaged because Litman's name and client relationships drove firm revenue. | Element 2 (Trade Purpose): Goldberg's desire to keep Litman "together" with the firm — rather than allowing him to take his clients — proves the commercial value of Litman's name to NGM's operations. | |
| March 8, 2021 | "thank you for offering to help, without a paycheck" | Admits Litman was working without compensation. Goldberg was using Litman's name, professional reputation, and client relationships to generate revenue while paying him nothing. | Element 2 (Trade Purpose) / Element 4 (Knowing): Goldberg knew Litman was not being compensated, yet continued to use his name on patents and the website for the firm's commercial benefit. | |
| June 11, 2025 | "For KFU, you should clearly receive your percentage of any non-USPTO fees we received. If that is not happening, I need to figure out why" | Admits Litman's entitlement to KFU fees and acknowledges he may not have been receiving them. The phrase "I need to figure out why" implies Goldberg controlled the payment infrastructure and had not been monitoring whether Litman was actually paid. | Element 2 (Trade Purpose): Confirms the commercial fee stream tied to Litman's name. KFU alone generated $24.5M+ in trust receipts. Goldberg's admission that payments may have failed reaches the question of willful exploitation. | |
| June 13, 2025 | "If we have to send a second wire to make up any shortfall, we will" | Acknowledges potential shortfall in payments owed to Litman. The fact that a "second wire" might be needed implies the first payment was inadequate — consistent with the $16.2M accounting gap. | Element 2 (Trade Purpose): Confirms ongoing financial obligations flowing from the commercial use of Litman's name on patent matters. |
These are statements by Litman himself — not admissions by Goldberg — but they are directly useful for impeaching Goldberg's affirmative defenses, particularly the consent defense (Tenth Affirmative Defense) and the laches/acquiescence defenses.
| Date | Source | Litman Statement | Impeaches Which Defense | How |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| June 16, 2025 | Text messages | Litman explicitly raises "use of my name" with Goldberg | 10th Defense (Consent) | Litman confronted Goldberg about unauthorized name use. A person who consented would not object. Goldberg's non-response is an adoptive admission that the use was unauthorized. Under CPLR 4547, a party's silence in the face of an accusation that calls for a response may be received as an admission. |
| Sept. 18, 2023 | Text messages | Litman discusses needing to "set up a new entity" and attend a CLE on "notifying clients" | 10th Defense (Consent) / 3rd Defense (Laches) | Litman was planning to separate from the firm and establish his own practice. A person who consented to ongoing name use by a former partner would not be planning an independent entity. This shows Litman intended to reclaim control of his professional identity. |
| Various, 2023-2025 | Text messages and emails | Litman repeatedly demands financial reports, accounting, and payment of amounts owed | 5th Defense (Acquiescence) / 10th Defense (Consent) | Litman was not passive. He persistently demanded transparency and payment. A person who acquiesced to Goldberg's control would not be making repeated demands for accounting. Each demand is evidence of non-consent. |
| July 15, 2025 | Text messages | "I feel very badly about having to do this" (regarding litigation) | 3rd Defense (Laches) / 5th Defense (Acquiescence) | Establishes Litman's reluctance to litigate — rebutting any argument that the lawsuit was vexatious or opportunistic. Litman delayed litigation not because he consented but because he hoped for a non-adversarial resolution. This is the opposite of laches — it is good faith. |
These iCloud-sourced admissions supplement the admissions already cataloged in the Admissions Inventory and the Element-by-Element Admissions Matrix (comprehensive element-by-element mapping from all sources including RFAs, BOP, federal case, arbitration).
The text message admissions are particularly valuable because:
All text message screenshots are preserved in Richard Litman's iCloud Photos and are available for authentication by Litman's affidavit or deposition testimony. The text messages were exchanged between Litman's personal phone number and Goldberg's personal phone number. Email correspondence is from the NGM SharePoint archive (276,899 emails produced by Goldberg in discovery, Feb. 20, 2026) and Litman's personal Gmail account.
Prepared March 30, 2026 — Litman v. Goldberg, Index No. 524343/2025