Two clients paid as promised - then came the $300,000 case
A Georgia appeals court has revived a lawyer’s claim that his former employer reneged on a handshake deal worth $150,000.
The Court of Appeals of Georgia on October 30, 2026, reversed a lower court ruling that had thrown out the case before trial in a dispute between an attorney and Casino Law Group, where he had been employed on a $100,000 salary. The central question: was an oral promise to split client fees an enforceable deal, or just a discretionary bonus the firm could walk away from?
It started on the attorney’s first day. He proposed bringing three clients from his former firm to Casino Law Group and asked for 50 percent of the fees each case generated. According to his testimony, a co-owner of the firm initially floated 15 percent. The attorney pushed for 50. The next day, the co-owner agreed: “we’ll compensate you 50 percent basically of whatever fee we get in handling these cases.”
The first two clients came across within a week. Their cases resolved, and the firm split the fees as promised. No issue there.
The third client took longer. She initially stayed with the attorney’s old firm but months later texted him to express her displeasure with her current representation. He arranged a meeting, the client switched to Casino Law Group, and nine months later the case resolved at mediation, generating a $300,000 fee.
When the attorney asked about his half, the co-owner’s response, as recited in the court record, was blunt: “I’m not going to pay you 50 percent. That’s too much money. ... [I]f I pay you that much, you’re going to be making more money than me.”
Casino Law Group paid him $30,000 - 10 percent, not 50.
The attorney left the firm and sued for breach of contract, among other claims. The trial court dismissed the case without a trial, finding the oral promise too vague and the payment a discretionary bonus.
The appeals court disagreed on every count. A three-judge panel found the case was full of factual disputes that only a jury could sort out. The co-owner denied discussing the third client during the original fee-sharing negotiation - but admitted discussing the other two. The attorney testified all three were named. That contradiction alone, the court held, meant the case could not be thrown out early.
On the bonus question, the court drew a clear line. An employer can certainly make bonus payments discretionary. But when the agreement is a straight exchange - bring in the client, get half the fee - that is not a gift. It is a deal. And the fact that the attorney was already earning a set salary did not prevent him from negotiating additional compensation for additional work.
The case now heads to a jury trial.
For HR teams, the decision is a practical caution: oral promises of extra pay - even those made after someone is already on the books - can create enforceable obligations when they are tied to specific performance and a clear formula. If it is meant to be discretionary, it needs to say so.
The claims in this case have not been finally determined. The appeals court reversed the lower court’s ruling and sent the matter back for trial, where the factual disputes will be resolved by a jury.
