After an arbitration ruling by distinguished sports attorney and former NBA executive Jeffrey Mishkin, Los Angeles Clippers forward Derrick Jones Jr. will have to pay his former agent Aaron Turner of Verus Sports a 4% commission ($1.2 million) on the three-year, $30 million contract Jones signed with the Clippers in July of 2024 during the NBA offseason.

The 2020 NBA Slam Dunk Contest winner had a career year statistically for the Dallas Mavericks in the 2023-24 NBA season in which Jones was a key piece in helping the Mavericks reach the 2024 NBA Finals, starting in 66 games out of the 76 games he played in, averaging 8.6 points and shooting 34.3% from three-point land which were all career highs for Jones at that point. Jones’ career year with the Mavericks in 2023-24 earned him a hefty pay raise for the contract he signed with the Clippers up from the one-year $2.7 million veteran’s minimum contract he signed with the Mavericks in the 2023 NBA offseason. But at dispute in this case was whether Jones owed any of the $30 million contract to his former agent that Jones says he directly negotiated with the Clippers last year.

Jones signed a Standard Player Agent Contract (SPAC) with Turner back in 2016. Specifically, paragraph 6 of the SPAC states that a player or agent can terminate the agreement at any time for any reason or no reason at all provided that “effective 15 days after written notice of termination is given to the other party.”

Allegedly, on June 21, 2024, after the Mavericks had lost to the Boston Celtics in the 2024 NBA Finals, the Mavericks offered Jones, through his agent Turner, a three-year, $27 million contract. Jones was unhappy with this offer as he expected a higher figure. Jones testified that Turner told him his market would be somewhere around the area of a four-year, $45 million contract. Turner denies making such a statement to Jones. With Jones being dissatisfied with Turner’s representation, Jones sent Turner an email on June 26, 2024, saying he was terminating their SPAC. Two days later Jones asked Turner to waive the 15-day notice, but Tuner declined.

Even though the SPAC was still operative, Jones at that point was without Turner’s representation negotiating for him and bringing him team offers. Jones was talking to other agents during the 2024 playoffs, ultimately signing with Klutch Sports Group. Eventually contract talks with the Mavericks fell through, but the Clippers offered Jones a three-year, $30 million contract. With the Clippers making this same offer to another player, time was of the essence; both players were told that the first to accept the offer would receive it. Jones testified that the Clippers came directly to him with the offer and that although the NBPA was on the phone with Jones “for help,” Jones negotiated the deal himself. Jones ended up accepting this offer from the Clippers and signed with them on July 9, 2024.

Turner was represented by prominent sports attorney Darren Heitner of Heitner Legal, and through Heitner, Turner made convincing key arguments that swayed Mishkin to rule in his favor.

First, Turner argued that the SPAC was operative when Jones signed with the Clippers, entitling him to his commission. The termination notice was sent to Turner on June 26, 2024, and was effective July 11, 2024. Jones signed with the Clippers on July 9, 2024, 13 days after the termination notice was sent which would fall within the 15-day notice period. The SPAC remained in force on July 9, 2024, when Jones signed with the Clippers.

Second, Turner contends that his negotiations with the Mavericks were instrumental in securing Jones’ three-year, $30 million contract with the Clippers. Although being $3 million more, Turner argued that the Clippers offer was essentially equivalent to the three-year, $27 million offer the Mavericks made to Jones. Turner accounted for California state taxes and cost of living compared to Texas which has no state income tax. Additionally, Turner argued that although he did not represent Jones in any negotiations after June 26, 2024, Jones still benefitted from and used, Tuner’s assistance, advice, and counseling in his negotiations with the Clippers. Specifically, Turner’s negotiations with the Mavericks and Turner’s work to determine Jones’ value in the NBA free agency market.

Jones, represented by Drew Tulumello and Zachary Schreiber of Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP and Andrew Latack of Klutch Sports Group, offered several counterarguments.

Jones argued that exigent circumstances justified shortening the 15-day notice requirement. Jones asserted that he should not be penalized due to the Mavericks making it all the way to the NBA Finals which ran so close to the start of free agency, a schedule which was out of Jones’ control. Jones also asserted that the notice period is meant to protect the player and not the agent.

Jones’ other main argument was that Turner is not entitled to his commission because Turner did not engage in any discussions or conduct “individual compensation negotiations” with the Clippers on Jones’ behalf. According to Jones, “NBPA jurisprudence is clear that an agent is only entitled to a commission on an executed contract that he actually negotiates.” Because Turner did not negotiate and actually execute the contract Jones signed with the Clippers, he is not entitled to compensation as Jones allegedly negotiated the Clippers contract he signed himself.

In siding with Turner, Mishkin decided that the termination of the SPAC was not effective until 15 days after notice of termination had been provided. Therefore, the SPAC was still in effect at the time Jones entered into the contract with the Clippers.

Mishkin also was not persuaded by Jones’ argument that exigent circumstances existed to warrant shortening the 15-day window. Even though the Mavericks made a deep playoff run in 2024 which prevented Jones from making decisions regarding his representation earlier, Jones still could have fired Turner earlier. Mishkin brought up Jones’ own testimony that by 2023, he had grown dissatisfied with Turner’s representation and contemplated firing him. Mishkin also highlighted that Jones’ argument is further undermined by his testimony that he was communicating with other agents during the playoffs.

Mishkin also disagreed with Jones’ narrow view of agent services. Conducting individual compensation negotiations with NBA teams is one of several duties described as “contract services” under the SPAC. Mishkin went on to say that “Jones’s unduly narrow view of compensable services would lead to the absurd result that an agent who diligently assists, advises and counsels a player and represents the player in negotiations would not be entitled to any compensation if the player was offered a contract directly by a club and no negotiation over the terms of the contract took place.” Mishkin stated that so long as an agent is fulfilling his duties under the terms of the SPAC, whether the agent or the player is the one to receive the offer from the NBA team that the player accepts and signs with is not dispositive of an agent’s entitlement to compensation. And here, Mishkin found that Turner contractually performed his duties.

In conclusion, Mishkin was convinced that Turner diligently represented Jones and continued to follow his obligations even after Jones notified him that he was terminating their SPAC. Mishkin stated that while it was Jones’ absolute right to terminate the relationship with Turner, under the express terms of the SPAC that termination was not effective until 15 days after notice of termination had been provided. Because the SPAC was still in effect at the time Jones entered into his contract with the Clippers, Turner is entitled to a fee of 4% of that contract under the SPAC.

Jones could petition a federal court to vacate Mishkin’s decision and arbitration award, but it is highly unlikely that a judge would overturn Miskin’s arbitration award. When it comes to arbitration awards in professional sports, there is precedent stating that, “Arbitration awards are generally presumed valid, review is ‘extremely deferential,’ and vacatur is appropriate only in ‘exceedingly narrow’ circumstances.” Considering Mishkin’s broad experience on sports law and NBA related legal matters, it’s hard to see a judge vacating his arbitration award in favor of Turner.

This player-agent dispute highlights the regulations and rules that NBA players and NBA agents must follow under the NBPA SPAC, which governs the legal relationship between a player and his agent. Specifically, this dispute shows the commissions that agents are righteously owed when properly performing services under the SPAC. Further, this dispute highlights the arbitration process as the method for resolving any and all disputes in SPAC’s between player agents and individual players as an NBPA SPAC contains a mandatory arbitration clause.

Romen Richardson is a 3L at Howard University School of Law in Washington, DC. Romen is currently the President of Howard Law’s Sports & Entertainment Law Students Association (SELSA). Romen aspires to be a prominent sports & entertainment attorney after graduating law school, and also hopes to one day be an NBA Agent. You can follow Romen here on LinkedIn.