The "JBGverbal" Entries
On August 18, 2021, Joshua B. Goldberg verbally authorized the transfer of funds from four individual KFU patent prosecution dockets into the general KFU trust account (36372). These transfers were executed the following day and recorded in the firm's trust accounting system with the notation "JBGverbal" — identifying Goldberg by his initials as the authorizing attorney.
"JBG" = Joshua B. Goldberg's initials. "verbal" = the authorization was given orally, not in writing. The firm's accounting staff recorded exactly who told them to move the money and how the instruction was given.
| # | Date | Entry No. | From Docket | To | Amount | Authorization |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 8/19/2021 | 2488679 | 32087.50 | 36372 | $298.00 | JBGverbal 8.18.2021 |
| 2 | 8/19/2021 | 2488683 | 32087.14 | 36372 | $3,000.00 | JBGverbal 8.18.2021 |
| 3 | 8/19/2021 | 2488688 | 32087.08 | 36372 | $1,100.00 | JBGverbal 8.18.2021 |
| 4 | 8/19/2021 | 2488691 | 32087.19 | 36372 | $810.00 | JGBverbal 08.18.2021 * |
| TOTAL MOVED BY GOLDBERG | $5,208.00 | |||||
* Entry #4 contains a typographical transposition ("JGB" instead of "JBG") but clearly refers to the same person — all four transfers were executed on the same date, in sequential entry numbers, with the same verbal authorization date.
Comparative Entry: "Per MSL" (Different Attorney)
The ledger also contains a transfer authorized by a different individual, confirming the accounting system identifies the specific person behind each fund movement:
| Date | Entry No. | From Docket | To | Amount | Authorization |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1/31/2023 | 2489302 | 33101.35U | 36372 | $269.52 | Per MSL 1.31.2023 email |
The existence of both "JBG" and "MSL" notations proves the firm's trust accounting system was designed to record the identity of the individual who authorized each transfer. This is not a generic system code — it is a contemporaneous record of personal direction.
"VG" (Goldberg) Trust Transaction Entries by Month
Beyond the 4 "JBGverbal" entries, the trust ledgers contain dozens of transactions coded to "VG" — Goldberg's accounting code. These entries show Goldberg was not an occasional participant but the primary controller of trust fund flows throughout the entire post-SOL period.
| Month | VG Transactions | VG Amount | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| January 2025 | 34 | $255,000 | Post-lawsuit: Goldberg directing funds while case pending |
| March 2025 | 49 | $1,180,000 | Heavy activity during litigation discovery period |
| October 2025 | 62 | $1,860,000 | Includes $990,172 single KSU wire; $1.33M total trust receipts |
| November 2025 | 45 | $693,000 | $501K trust receipts — continued activity after suit filed |
| TOTAL VG-DIRECTED (SELECTED MONTHS) | $3,988,000 | ||
In October 2025 — months after the lawsuit was filed — a single $990,172 wire from King Saud University was deposited into the trust. Goldberg directed 62 transactions that month totaling $1.86M. This proves he continued operating the Litman-name practice at full capacity even while defending against the misappropriation claim.
Trust activity did not stop when the lawsuit was filed. It continued through December 2025: $1.33M in October, $501K in November, $70K in December. This demonstrates that Goldberg continued to profit from the use of Litman's name even after being sued for that very conduct.
Timeline of Goldberg's Fund Control
The JBGverbal entries must be understood in the context of the broader KFU trust account activity and Goldberg's other acts of control over Litman's practice.
Forensic Trust Account Findings
Updated April 4, 2026 — from Invoice Summary, WIP Report, and Trust Ledger forensic analysis
The KFU trust account (36372) went into overdraft on November 20, 2024, reaching a deficit of $415,426. Under NY attorney trust account rules (Judiciary Law 497), client trust funds may not be commingled or withdrawn for firm purposes. An overdraft in a client trust account is a per se violation of professional responsibility rules.
133 invoices bearing Litman's name were sent to KFU after the combination agreement terminated. Each invoice is a separate commercial use of Litman's name under NY CRL 51 — and each was sent by Goldberg's direction as the controlling attorney.
Analysis reveals $8.6M in lump-sum transfers from client trust to operating accounts, with same-day sweeps occurring on days when large KFU wire payments arrived. This pattern demonstrates Goldberg was using incoming client payments to fund firm operations rather than holding them in trust until earned.
Pattern Analysis
Personal Direction, Not Firm-Level Action
The trust accounting system distinguished between individuals who authorized fund movements. Goldberg was identified by his initials ("JBG" — Joshua B. Goldberg) as the person who verbally authorized these specific transfers. The accounting department did not record these as authorized by "NGM" or "the firm" — they recorded the name of the specific person who gave the order.
Verbal Authority Over Trust Funds
The notation "verbal" indicates Goldberg gave instructions orally — not by email, not through a formal written request, but by verbal command. This demonstrates a level of operational control that goes beyond mere firm membership. Goldberg could instruct accounting staff to move money between patent dockets, and it was done immediately.
Control Over Litman's Client Money
Account 36372 held funds belonging to King Faisal University — a client whose patent work was performed under Richard Litman's name as attorney of record. Goldberg was directing where those funds went, which patent dockets were funded, and how resources were allocated across Litman's practice.
The four source dockets (32087.08, 32087.14, 32087.19, 32087.50) are individual KFU patent prosecution matters — each one a patent application where Litman's name appeared as attorney of record. By moving funds from these dockets back into the general trust, Goldberg was consolidating resources across Litman's patent practice — an act of financial management that only someone with operational control over the practice would perform.
The Full Picture: $32.7 Million Under Litman's Name
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Total trust receipts (all accounts) | $32,708,669.08 |
| Post-6/15/2020 receipts | $24,509,250.24 |
| Accounting gap (trust vs. workup) | $16,200,000 |
| KFU recovery opportunity | $13,839,510 |
| KSU receipts (2025 alone: $733K outstanding) | $6,870,000 |
| JBG-directed trust transactions | 95 |
| 2025 billed / outstanding | $1,464,572 / $990,089 |
| Owed to Litman (Dec 2025) | $246,628 |
| RL clients / case files | 631 of 1,107 / 7,127 of 14,103 |
| Open RL matters with WIP | 453 ($1.29M) |
Legal Significance
-
Contradicts Goldberg's Denial of Causation (Answer, Para. 33)
In his Answer, Goldberg denies that he "caused" Litman's name to appear on patent records. The JBGverbal entries prove he personally directed the movement of funds within the very trust account that held money generated by work performed under Litman's name. An individual who controls the financial infrastructure behind the name use cannot credibly deny that he caused it. -
Proves Personal Involvement, Not Just Firm-Level Conduct
Goldberg's affirmative defenses attempt to characterize the use of Litman's name as firm-level conduct. The trust ledger destroys this argument. The accounting system recorded the authorization as "JBG" — Joshua B. Goldberg, personally — not "NGM" or "the firm." This is consistent with Goldberg personally signing 16 of 21 Powers of Attorney and personally signing assignment cover sheets. -
Supports Piercing Any Corporate Veil Argument
Goldberg gave verbal orders that were executed immediately. He did not act through corporate channels or formal processes. This level of unilateral personal control over firm trust funds supports personal liability regardless of corporate form. -
Post-SOL Cutoff Activity
All four JBGverbal transactions occurred on August 19, 2021 — more than 14 months after the June 15, 2020 statute of limitations cutoff. Goldberg was not winding down legacy matters. He was actively managing trust fund allocations for ongoing patent work bearing Litman's name. -
Corroborates the Full Pattern of Control
The JBGverbal entries add a financial dimension to the already-established pattern: Goldberg signed the Powers of Attorney that initiated patent prosecutions under Litman's name, he signed the assignment documents, and he directed the trust funds that financed the work. He controlled every layer of the operation — legal, administrative, and financial.
Powers of Attorney: Goldberg signed 16 of 21 POAs designating himself as attorney on matters bearing Litman's name.
Assignment Documents: Goldberg signed cover sheets and recorded assignments at the USPTO.
Trust Fund Management: 95 JBG-directed trust transactions across $32.7M in trust receipts ($24.5M post-SOL).
Post-Lawsuit Activity: $1.33M Oct, $501K Nov, $70K Dec 2025 — trust activity continued even while defending the claim.
Result: Goldberg controlled the legal filings, the ownership documents, and the money — the entirety of the practice that operated under Litman's name. Three-tier damages: $6.1M / $29.1M / $78.4M.