141-286531-16

NO. - - - - - - -

JIM WARD, an Individual, and

WARDLAW SERVICES, INC.,
a Texas corporation,
Plaintiff,
V.

DAN MCDONALD, an Individual,

MCDONALD LAW FIRM, P.C.,
a Texas professional corporation, and
CIRCELLI, WALTER & YOUNG,
P.L.L.C., a Texas professional limited
liability company,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Defendants.

FILED
TARRANT COUNTY
7/15/2016 4:43:47 PM
THOMAS A. WILDER
DISTRICT CLERK

IN THE DISTRICT COURT

JUDICIAL DISTRICT

TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS

ORIGINAL VERIFIED PETITION, JURY DEMAND,

REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURES AND INJUNCTION RELIEF
Plaintiffs, Jim Ward and Wardlaw Services, Inc. , for their causes of action against
Defendants, Dan McDonald, McDonald Law Firm, P.C. and Circelli, Walter & Young, P.L.L. C.
("Circelli") allege and states as follows:

PARTIES AND JURISDICTION

1.

Plaintiff, Jim Ward, is an individual who resides in Tarrant County, State of

2.

Plaintiff, Wardlaw Services, Inc. is a Texas corporation with its principal place of

Texas.

business in Tarrant County, State of Texas.

3.

Defendant, Dan McDonald, is an individual who, upon information and belief,

resides in Tarrant County, State of Texas.

4.

McDonald Law Firm, P.C., is a Texas professional corporation with its principal

place of business in Tarrant County, State of Texas.

5.

Defendant, Circelli, is a Texas professional limited liability company with its

principal place of business in Tarrant County, State of Texas. 1

6.

This is an action for injunctive relief and money damages arising out of a contract

entered into and performed in and around Tarrant County, State of Texas.

This Court has

jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter herein and venue in appropriate in Tarrant
County, Texas.
7.

The Plaintiffs affirmatively pleads monetary relief in excess of $1,000,000.00 and

would show the Honorable Court that discovery should be conducted in accordance with Track
III, Rule 190.3.

REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE

8.

Pursuant to Rule 193, Texas Rule Texas Rules of Civil Procedures, Defendants

are requested to disclose to the Plaintiffs within 30 days of service of this request, the
information or material described in Rule 194.2 to be produced at the Law Offices of Philip R.
Russ, 2700 S. Western, Suite 1200, Amarillo, Texas 79109, during normal business hours and/or
Fellers Snider, 100 N. Broadway, Ste. 1700, Oklahoma City, OK 73102-8820.

FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS

Plaintiffs hereby incorporate each and every allegation above as if fully set forth herein.
1

Plaintiff has only named Circelli as a party-defendant because the monies at issue in this action are to be deposited
in a trust account belonging to Circelli, and subsequently disbursed out of that account. Plaintiff does not allege
Circelli has done anything wrong. Rather, Plaintiff names Circelli in conjunction with its request that the Court
exercise jurisdiction over Circelli's trust account to maintain the status quo pending resolution of this lawsuit.

9.

In approximately May, 2016, Chesapeake Energy entered into an historic

settlement of more than 400 lawsuits alleging underpayment of royalty payments. The lawsuits
were brought on behalf of more than 13,000 plaintiffs, all of whom are royalty owners in the
Barnett Shale (primarily Tanant and Johnson counties).
10.

The settlement of these lawsuits (hereinafter, the "Barnett Shale Settlement") was

for approximately $52.5 Million. Although Dan McDonald and his law firm, McDonald Law
Firm, P.C. (collectively, "McDonald") has received the recognition and spotlight as "lead
counsel," the Barnett Shale Settlement would not have occurred but for the indispensable
contribution of McDonald's co-counsel, Ward. Indeed, McDonald likely would have had fewer
clients and faced more costly and protracted litigation with an uncetiain outcome but for the cocounsel agreement (the "Agreement") he entered into with Ward. A copy of the Agreement is
attached hereto as Exhibit A. Ward' s contribution cannot be overstated.
11.

Ward, together with his team of consultants and expe11s, developed and possessed

the blueprint for victory. Proving any one royalty owner's case would be difficult and time
consuming on its own.

Moreover, in the case of thousands of plaintiffs, it would be cost-

prohibitive as many plaintiffs only stood to gain a few hundred dollars if they prevailed against
Chesapeake.
12.

Ward, an attorney with significant oil and gas experience, spent two years piecing

together documents, court records, and data which effectively proved the case for all plaintiffs,
not just certain plaintiffs. The marshalling of evidence by Ward and his experts was invaluable.
Because of Ward, a database of critical evidence already existed when McDonald was soliciting
clients for royalty lawsuits in the Barnett Shale.

13.

In 2014, when McDonald recognized what Ward and his team had already

developed and possessed, and the subject matter expertise they could provide, McDonald asked
Ward to join him as co-counsel on behalf of all the Barnett Shale royalty owners.
14.

Understanding that Ward and his team had already "picked the lock" regarding

Chesapeake' s underpayment of royalties and had all the evidence to prove it, McDonald drafted
the Agreement wherein Ward would provide the database of critical evidence, together with oil
and gas expertise and consultation, and McDonald would serve as trial counsel and handle the
litigation.
15.

Concerned that McDonald was reneging on the Agreement, Ward retained

counsel to make demand on McDonald for an accounting of the Barnett Shale Settlement. 2
McDonald refused to give such an accounting, taking the position that, at most, the Agreement
only pertained to approximately 6 (of the more than 13 ,000) plaintiffs.
16.

Ward has learned through the media and sources other than McDonald that the

Barnett Shale Settlement was conditioned upon the approval of its terms by at least 90% of the
clients representing at least 95% of the natural gas production at issue. The deadline for this
approval was Monday, July 11, 20 16, at 5:00 p.m.
17.

The necessary approval was obtained and the settlement funds are expected to be

wired into a trust account maintained by the law firm of Circelli, Walter & Young on Monday,
July 18, 2016. 3

The Agreement pertained to other royalty owner litigation in addition to the Barnett Shale litigation against
Chesapeake, but for purposes of the instant lawsuit, it is only the Barnett Shale litigation which is relevant.

Circell i, Walter & Young is another law firm representing all or some of the plaintiffs in the litigation resolved by
the Barnett Shale Settlement.

18.

Because Ward has a valid claim to one-third of the net attorney fees to be paid

from the Barnett Shale Settlement, because McDonald refuses to honor the Agreement, and
because disbursement of the settlement funds is scheduled to happen on Monday, July 18, 2016,
this Court should enter injunctive relief to preserve the status quo until this dispute can be
resolved.

FIRST CLAIM - ANTICIPATORY BREACH AND BREACH OF CONTRACT

Plaintiffs hereby incorporate each and every allegation above as if fully set forth herein.
17.

The Agreement between Ward and McDonald is valid.

18.

Ward satisfied all obligations and tendered performance under the Agreement.

19.

McDonald breached the Agreement in at least the following ways:

(a) The Agreement contractually obligated McDonald to ensure compliance with

the rules of professional conduct which, among other things, requires agreements regarding the
division of attorney fees to be in writing and approved by the clients. Although McDonald
drafted the employment agreements with the clients, he failed to include a provision regarding
the division of attorney fees between McDonald and Ward. This failure constitutes a material
breach of contract.
(b) The Agreement grants both McDonald and Ward the right to examine and
inspect all of the records relating to the clients' files.

McDonald has failed and refused to

provide such records to Ward or to permit Ward access to such records which constitutes a
material breach of contract.
(c) The Agreement grants both McDonald and Ward the right to examine and
inspect the trust account pertaining to the clients. McDonald has failed and refused to provide

trust account documentation or access to the trust account which constitutes a material breach of
contract.
(d) The Agreement provides that McDonald's retention oflocal counsel is subject
to Ward's approval.

McDonald associated with local counsel without advising Ward or

permitting Ward the opportunity to consider and approve which constitutes a material breach of
the contract.
20.

McDonald contends Ward is not entitled to one-third of the attorney fees

attributable to the Barnett Shale Settlement. McDonald has failed and refused to include Ward in
any discussions regarding distribution of the Barnett Shale Settlement proceeds and has made no
provision for distribution of Ward ' s share of the attorney fee associated therewith. McDonald ' s
denial of Ward' s rights to share in the attorney fee and to have access to the files and account
pertaining to the Barnett Shale Settlement constitutes an anticipatory breach of the Agreement.
21.

Ward has been damaged as a result of McDonald ' s breach.

SECOND CLAIM - QUANTUM MERUIT/OUASI CONTRACT

Plaintiffs hereby incorporate each and every allegation above as if fully set forth herein.
22.

Ward furnished valuable materials and services to McDonald and to clients

represented by McDonald and Ward.

23.

The materials and services were furnished by Ward to McDonald and to the

clients represented by McDonald and Ward with the expectation and assurance that Ward would
be compensated for such materials and services.
24.

The materials and services furnished by Ward to McDonald and to the clients

represented by McDonald and Ward were accepted under such circumstances that the McDonald

and/or the clients represented by McDonald and Ward were reasonably notified that Ward
expected to be paid by McDonald and/or the clients represented by McDonald and Ward.
25.

McDonald significantly benefited from the materials and services furnished by

Ward to McDonald.
26.

Ward is entitled to compensation for the materials and services Ward provided to

McDonald and the clients represented by McDonald and Ward.

THIRD CLAIM - UNJUST ENRICHMENT

Plaintiffs hereby incorporate each and every allegation above as if fully set forth herein.
27.

Ward conferred a significant benefit on McDonald and the clients represented by

McDonald and Ward.

28.

To date, Ward has not been compensated for the materials he provided and work

he performed for McDonald and the clients represented by McDonald and Ward.
29.

It would be unjust to allow McDonald to retain the benefit of the services Ward

rendered and the materials Ward provided without fully and fairly compensating Ward.
30.

McDonald has been unjustly emiched, and Ward is entitled to restitution in the

amount of one-third of the attorney fees attributable to the Barnett Shale Settlement, plus costs,
expenses and attorney fees and such other relief as this Court deems just and equitable.

FOURTH CLAIM - PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL

Plaintiffs hereby incorporate each and every allegation above as if fully set forth herein.

31.

McDonald promised Ward that, in exchange for the materials and services Ward

provided, McDonald would treat any and all prospective clients of McDonald and Ward as joint
clients with Ward.
32.

McDonald could foresee that Ward would rely on his promise.

Indeed,

McDonald intended for Ward to rely on his promise.

33.

Ward reasonably and substantially relied on McDonald's promise to his

detriment.
34.

Injustice can only be avoided by the legal enforcement of McDonald' s promise to

35.

Ward is entitled to compensation he would have received if McDonald delivered

Ward.

on his promise.

FIFTH CLAIM - FRAUD

Plaintiffs hereby incorporate each and every allegation above as if fully set forth herein.
36.

McDonald made a material representation that, in exchange for the materials and

services Ward provided, McDonald would treat any and all prospective clients of McDonald and
Ward as joint clients with Ward.
37.

McDonald made a material representation that he would take on the responsibility

to comply with all requirements, including specifically, the rules of professional conduct, in
order to effectuate the joint representation of all their clients who are plaintiffs in the litigation
which has resulted in the Barnett Shale Settlement.
38.

These representations were false at the time they were made, and McDonald knew

these representations to be false, or made these representations recklessly to induce Ward to act.

39.

McDonald made these material representations with the intent that they should be

acted upon by Ward.

40.

Ward acted in reliance upon McDonald's material representations.

41.

As a result of Ward's reliance upon McDonald's material representations, Ward

has suffered damage for which he is entitled to compensation.

SIXTH CLAIM - TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE

Plaintiffs hereby incorporate each and every allegation above as if fully set forth herein.
42.

At the time McDonald approached Ward about jointly representing the clients in

the litigation which resulted in the Barnett Shale Settlement, Ward was already speaking with
clients and/or potential clients about pursuing a royalties lawsuit against Chesapeake concerning
the Barnett Shale. Ward had already marshalled the evidence to prove the case and was in
contact with numerous individuals with royalty interests in the Barnett Shale. As such, there was
a reasonable probability that Ward would have entered into contracts with the clients who will
now receive compensation pursuant to the Barnett Shale Settlement.
43.

When McDonald recognized that Ward had the knowledge, expertise, data,

evidence, consultants and advantage in the pursuit of clients, McDonald intentionally interfered
with Ward's eff01ts to enter into attorney-client contracts by representing to Ward that he would
treat any and all clients and/or prospective clients as joint clients with Ward if Ward would direct
them to McDonald.
44.

McDonald did so with the conscious desire to prevent a contractual relationship

between Ward and the thousands of prospective clients which McDonald ultimately obtained.

45.

McDonald knew that his conduct in this regard was certain or substantially certain

to result in interference with Ward's prospective contracts.

46.

Ward suffered actual harm as a result of McDonald's interference and is entitled

to compensation stemming therefrom.

SEVENTH CLAIM - MONEY HAD AND RECEIVED

Plaintiffs hereby incorporate each and every allegation above as if fully set forth herein.
47.

McDonald has received and/or stands to receive money which in equity and good

conscience belongs to Ward.

48.

One-third of the attorney fee attributable to the Barnett Shale Settlement rightfully

belongs to Ward.
49.

Under the circumstances, injustice can only be avoided by this Court allowing

Ward to recover one-third of the attorney fee attributable to the Barnett Shale Settlement.

EIGHTH CLAIM - DECLARATORY RELIEF

Plaintiffs hereby incorporate each and every allegation above as if fully set forth herein.
50.

McDonald ' s denial of Ward' s right to one-third of the attorney fee per the

Agreement and his failure and refusal to involve Ward in the distribution of the settlement
proceeds or even permit access to the relevant files and information is clear indication that
McDonald is no longer acting in the best interest of Ward.
51.

McDonald has a fiduciary duty to Ward to handle Ward's money and property

interest in the settlement proceeds in a fair and honest manner. Unless ordered by this Court,
McDonald will continue to improperly account for and withhold Ward 's share of the attorney fee

10

and the related earnings therefrom that lawfully and rightfully belong to Ward and not
McDonald.
52.

Ward seeks a construction and declaration that McDonald has effectively

breached the Agreement, and further, that McDonald cannot unilaterally alter the terms of the
Agreement without Ward' s consent.
53.

Ward further seeks a declaration that McDonald failed to comply with the written

terms of the Agreement and breached its fiduciary obligations owed to Ward.
54.

Ward also seeks a declaration that the Agreement is currently in full force and

effect, and that McDonald owes Ward one-third of the attorney fees from the Barnett Shale
Settlement.

NINTH CLAIM - REFORMATION

Plaintiffs hereby incorporate each and every allegation above as if fully set forth herein.
55.

Alternatively, if the Court determines that the Agreement is ambiguous, then it

should be reformed to reflect the intention of the parties to the Agreement, Ward and McDonald,
that the fee-sharing arrangement applies to all clients represented by McDonald who are
plaintiffs in the litigation that resulted in the Barnett Shale Settlement.
56.

Accordingly, to the extent the Comi determined the Agreement is ambiguous,

Ward is entitled to reformation under Texas law based upon the following doctrines, without
limitation: mistake of fact, mutual mistake (legal and equitable), failure of conditions precedent,
frustration of purpose and ambiguity.

11

TENTH CLAIM - THEFT

Plaintiffs hereby incorporate each and every allegation above as if fully set forth herein.
57.
Ward.

McDonald's conduct constitutes unlawful appropriation of prope1ty belonging to

Under the Texas Theft Liability Act, a person who commits theft is liable for the

damages resulting from the theft. Texas Civil Practices & Remedies Code 134.003.
58.

Ward is entitled to recover the damages suffered as a result of McDonald's theft

the amount of actual damages found by the trier of fact and, in addition to actual damages,
damages awarded by the trier of fact in a sum not to exceed $1,000. Texas Civil Practices &

Remedies Code 134.005(a)(l).

59.

As a result of McDonald's theft of Ward ' s property, McDonald was required to

hire legal counsel to prosecute this lawsuit. Accordingly, pursuant to 134.005(b) of the Texas
Civil Practice and Remedies Code, Ward is entitled to recover his reasonable costs and
attorneys' fees and court costs incurred in connection with the prosecution of this lawsuit. Ward
seeks all reasonable and necessary costs and attorneys' fees in this case which include the
following: (a) preparation and trial of this lawsuit; (b) post-trial, pre-appeal legal services; (c) an
appeal to the Court of Appeals; (d) making or responding to a request for review of an appeal by
the Supreme Court of Texas; (e) an appeal to the Supreme Court of Texas in the event such
appeal is permitted; and (f) post-judgment discovery and collection in the event execution on the
judgment is necessary.

ELEVENTH CLAIM - INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Plaintiffs hereby incorporate each and every allegation above as if fully set forth herein.

12

60.

The defendants are to receive the funds from Chesapeake on or about July 18,

2016, to be wired to the trust account of one of the defendant law firms and will thereafter
disburse funds, including attorneys and costs, without accounting to Ward, paying Ward, or
complying with the terms of the Agreement (Exhibit "A"). Should such events occur, Ward shall
suffer irreparable loss and harm for which Ward does not have an adequate legal remedy. Until
Ward's claims set forth above are adjudicated, it is impossible for Ward to obtain payment and
sharing in said fees. Nevertheless McDonald, for malicious and bad faith motives, refuses to
account to Ward and further unlawfully contends that Ward is only entitled to a portion of the
recovery on behalf of approximately 6 claimants rather than the entire class consisting of
approximately 13,000. McDonald intends to use the trust account maintained by Circelli to
further his unlawful purposes.
61.

The only method of preserving Ward ' s property rights and preventing personal

harm as a result of the defendants refusal to communicate and account to Ward and avoiding
further irreparable loss and damages is for this Court to issue a temporary restraining order,
directed to McDonald and Circelli, restraining them, their agents, servants, and attorneys and all
other persons acting in concert with them from directly or indirectly disbursing or attempting to
disburse any of the subject attorneys fees and costs to be paid and/or reimbursed to the attorneys
handling said suit and to freeze said attorneys fees to maintain the status quo pending resolution
of this suit.

To completely protect the Ward's rights, upon hearing, a temporary injunction

should issue, continuing in effect the provisions of the temporary restraining order aforesaid, and
upon final hearing, a permanent injunction should issue, continuing in effect the provisions of the
temporary restraining order in perpetuity.

13

62.

It is further averred that McDonald, for selfish and bad faith motives, and through

breaches of its fiduciary and special relationship and trust, knowingly and without belief of the
truth of the matters asserted or in reckless disregard of whether said matters are true or false,
made representations orally and in writing, and through a course of dealings with Ward and
obtained the reliance of said party upon said representations and then unlawfully failed to
perform as represented and agreed resulting in damages to Ward. McDonald is guilty of tortious
misrepresentation and/or promissory fraud by virtue of the said representations and breach of
fiduciary duties, all of which have resulted in damage to Ward within the minimum jurisdictional
limits of the Court, for which Ward herein sues.

WHEREFORE, Ward prays for judgment in its favor and against McDonald as follows:
1.

Temporary Restraining Order and Temporary Injunction directed to McDonald

and Circelli, restraining them, their agents, servants, and attorneys and all other persons acting in
concert with them from directly or indirectly disbursing or attempting to disburse any of the
subject attorneys fees and costs to be paid and/or reimbursed to the attorneys handling said suit
and to freeze said attorneys fees to maintain the status quo pending resolution of this suit. To
completely protect the Ward ' s rights, upon hearing, a temporary injunction should issue,
continuing in effect the provisions of the temporary restraining order aforesaid, and upon final
hearing, a permanent injunction should issue, continuing in effect the provisions of the
temporary restraining order in perpetuity, requiring Circelli to maintain in its trust account and
not disburse an amount equal to one-third of the total attorney fees related to the Barnett Shale
Settlement proceeds pending resolution of this lawsuit;

14

2.

Compensation damages for breach of contract in the amount of one-third of the

attorney fees to be paid out of the Barnett Shale Settlement;

3.

Compensatory damages based on equitable doctrines of quantum meruit, unjust

enrichment, money had and received and promissory estoppel;

4.

Compensatory damages for fraud;

5.

Compensatory damages for tortious interference with prospective contracts;

6.

Compensatory damages for theft;

7.

Declaration that (a) the Agreement is valid and in full force and effect; (b) that the

Agreement cannot be unilaterally modified by McDonald; (c) that McDonald is in anticipatory

breach of the Agreement; (d) alternatively, that McDonald made a promise which Ward
reasonably and substantially relied upon to Ward ' s detriment; and (e) that McDonald owes a
fiduciary duty to Ward which he has breached;
8.

Alternatively, if the Court determines that the Agreement is ambiguous, then it

should be reformed to reflect the intention of the parties to the Agreement that the fee-sharing
arrangement applies to all clients represented by McDonald who are plaintiffs in the litigation
that resulted in the Barnett Shale Settlement;
9.

Punitive damages; and

10.

Interest, costs, attorney fees, and any additional relief this Court deems just and

equitable.

15

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Philip R. Russ

Philip R. Russ, TX Bar No. 17406000
Law Offices of Philip R. Russ
2700 S Western, St # 1200
Amarillo, TX 79109-1546
Telephone:
(806) 358-9293
Facsimile:
(806) 358-9296
Email:
philiprruss@russlawfirm.com
- and Bryan N.B. King, OBA No. 16673
(pro hac vice admission pending)
Kevin R. Donelson, OBA No. 12647
(pro hac vice admission pending)
Brent M. Johnson, OBA No. 17070
(pro hac vice admission pending)
FELLERS SNIDER, P.C.
100 N. Broadway Avenue, Suite 1700
Oklahoma City, OK 73102-8820
Telephone:
(405) 232-0621
Facsimile:
(405) 232-9659
Email:
bking@fellerssnider.com
Email:
kdonelson@fellerssnider.com
Email:
bjohnson@fellerssnider.com

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

ATTORNEY'S LIEN CLAIMED

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

16

VERIFICATION

STATE OF TEXAS

)
) ss.
)

COUNTY OF TARRANT

I, JIM WARD, of lawful age and first duly sworn, state that:
I am the owner of Wardlaw Services, Inc., a Plaintiff herein. I have read and
reviewed the information contained in the Petition, and do upon my oath, solemnly verify
the following facts as true and correct.
WARDLAW SERVICES, INC.

er\

SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to b e f o ~ ; ~ , ~

(SEAL)

~blic'--"'

My Commission Expires:_[Y-{~_./~3_0_,/. . . . (~f~-.

689981 /89124

18

VERIFICATION
STATE OF TEXAS

)
) ss.
)

COUNTY OF TARRANT

I, JIM WARD, of lawful age and first duly sworn, state that:
I am the individual identified herein as a Plaintiff. I have read and reviewed the
information contained in the Petition, and do upon my oath, solemnly verify the
following facts as true and correct.

SUBSCRJBED and SWORN to before me this /t:)1aay of July, 2016.

j(~Jw-~1~

(SEAL)

My Commission Expires:

Notary Public

I f((

D'{ bD
I

17

EXHIBIT ''A''

' .

LAW

FIRM

February 19, 20 14
Mr. Jim Ward
Ward Law Services, Inc.
1740 Martel Ave.
Fort Worth, Texas 76103
Re: Royalty Owner Litigation - Co-Counsel Agreement
Dear Mr.Ward:
This letter sets forth the agreements we have reached with regard to acting as co-counsel for
Royalty Owners, as hereinafter defined. We have agreed as follows:

I. Joint Representation of Royalty Owners. McDonald Law Firm, P.C. ("MLF") and
Ward Law Services, Inc. ("Ward") agree to combine their respective experience,
expertise and resources for the joint representation as co-counsel of Royalty Owners.
2. Royalty Owners. Royalty Owners shall be defined as those individuals or companies
that are represented by MLF and Ward against various operators for underpayment or
failure to pay appropriate royalties on the production of hydrocarbons owned by
Royalty Owners ("Royalty Owner Litigation").
3. Responsibilities. MLF shall act as lead counsel and attorneys in charge on all cases in
Royalty Owner Litigation in which MLF and Ward act as co-counsel. MLF shall
have responsibility for docketing and compliance with all statutes of limitations,
preparation of pleadings, discovery, retention of all expert and technical witnesses,
pretrial motions, pretrial memoranda, pretrial orders, trial motions, settlement
negotiations and mediation, trial, appeal and all litigation deadlines, as well as
compliance with the rules of professional conduct. Ward agrees to advise MLF, as
MLF may request from time to time, on the law of oil and gas and the ownership,
leasing, production and marketing of same.
4. Expenses. MLF agrees to pay all expenses incurred in connection with Royalty
Owner litigation including, but without limitation to, the following: (a) expert
witness fees and expenses, (b) deposition fees and costs, (c) filing and service fees
and associated costs, (d) illustrative and demonstrative evidence costs and expenses,
(e) special courier expense, (t) document gathering, production and/or retention costs;
(g) document and records review and analysis; and, (h) costs of travel.
5. Disbursements to Clients. All settlements and/or judgment proceeds shall be
deposited into a trust account established by MLF ("Trust Account"). From the Trust
3100 West 7 th Street, Suite 230 Fort Worth, Texas 76107
817.71 7.5081 8 17.717.5082 Fax
www.DWMLawFirm.com

..

6.
7.

8.

9.

Accow1t, MLF shall disburse to the clients their respective share of the proceeds in
accordance with their respective employment agreement with MLF, and then to the
firms their respective fees.
Accounts. Both MLF and Ward may examine and inspect all of the books and
records relating to the Trust Account at all reasonable times.
Division of Fees. All fee recoveries from any settlement and/or judgment proceeds
relating to Royalty Owner Litigation shall be paid as follows : MLF 66.67% and
Ward 33.33% of net attorney's fees. Net attorney's fees means fees earned after
payment of any local counsel fees. MLF agrees that retention of local counsel shall
be subject to the approval of Ward, such approval not to be unreasonably withheld.
Files. Files for the Royalty Owners shall be maintained in either paper or electronic
form at the office of MLF. Ward shall have access to said files at all reasonable
times.
Effective Date. T is Agreement is dated and is effective this ,J
day of

~Y\~~C>-M.

, 2014.

f:>:\S ,

If this Agreement ccurately reflects our agreements, please evidence such by signing
and retuming the enclosed duplicate copy.

Ward Law Services, Inc.

By:&~\iJ~