Law Firms Clash Over $10 Billion Verdict Fees

Ross LLP, a boutique Los Angeles law firm, has initiated a lawsuit against its former firm, Ellis George LLP, over fee disputes related to a monumental $10 billion verdict. The case stemmed from a decades-long legal battle among the Jogani brothers over their real estate and diamond businesses. In March 2024, a Los Angeles jury awarded $10 billion in assets and damages to four brothers, including $3 billion in punitive damages against Haresh Jogani for breaching an oral contract. Ross LLP, representing Rajesh and Chetan Jogani, claims Ellis George is wrongly seeking a share of its attorney fees despite having no fee-splitting agreement.

The Allegations

Ellis George LLP, which previously represented Rajesh and Chetan Jogani, filed arbitration proceedings asserting entitlement to a portion of the fees. Ross LLP contends in its complaint that Ellis George is limited to a quantum meruit recovery—a reasonable value for services rendered—since there was no ongoing contingency fee agreement when Ellis George ceased representation.

“Ross LLP … and Ellis George have no fee-splitting agreement or any agreement of any kind,” states the lawsuit, emphasizing that Ellis George's claims are unfounded.

The tension heightened after three attorneys—Peter W. Ross, Charles Avrith, and Richard Schwartz—left Ellis George in late 2021 to form Ross LLP. They allege that Ellis George withheld their 2021 profits, violating partnership agreements. By January 2022, Ross LLP had secured Rajesh and Chetan Jogani as clients, ultimately representing them in the six-month trial.

The Trial and the $10 Billion Verdict

The trial began in September 2023, with Ross LLP handling the entirety of the litigation for Rajesh and Chetan Jogani. The proceedings, lasting nearly six months, involved over 50 witnesses and hundreds of exhibits. The case culminated in a historic $10 billion verdict, one of the largest in Los Angeles history, which included significant real estate holdings and punitive damages.

Following the verdict, Ellis George filed a lien against the judgment and subsequently pursued arbitration, demanding a share of Ross LLP’s fees. Ross LLP claims this action is a legal overreach, asserting that Ellis George had no role in the trial itself.

Legal Precedents and the Arbitration

Ross LLP cited the California Supreme Court’s 1972 decision in Fracasse v. Brent, which restricts attorneys discharged by clients from enforcing contingency fee contracts. Such attorneys are instead limited to quantum meruit claims. According to Ross LLP, this precedent applies here as Ellis George was no longer representing the clients during the trial.

Ross LLP’s complaint also challenges the arbitration's validity, arguing that arbitration cannot determine Ellis George’s entitlement since the clients have yet to collect on the judgment.

What’s Next?

The case raises critical questions about law firm fee agreements and professional ethics. Both firms remain entrenched in their positions, with Ross LLP seeking a declaration to limit Ellis George to quantum meruit recovery.

Represented by Call & Jensen, Ross LLP continues to dispute Ellis George’s claims, while the outcome of the arbitration remains pending. As of now, the broader legal community is closely watching the case for its implications on fee-sharing practices in high-stakes litigation.

Law Firms Involved

• Ross LLP (Ross LLP)
• Ellis George LLP (Ellis George LLP)
• Plaintiffs’ representation: Call & Jensen (Call & Jensen)

This legal battle underscores the complexities surrounding attorney compensation in high-value litigation and highlights the need for clear agreements to prevent disputes