Los Angeles Clippers forward Derrick Jones Jr. will need to pay his former agent Aaron Turner a 4% commission ($1.2 million) on a three-year, $30 million contract Jones says he directly negotiated with the Clippers last year, an arbitrator ruled on Wednesday.
The key reason: Jones didn’t provide Turner written notice of 15 days of his decision to fire him before signing with the Clippers.
The arbitration highlights how players firing one agent in hopes of quickly signing with another have to meet contractual notice obligations.
Jeffrey Mishkin—a prominent sports attorney and former NBA executive who now works at Phillips ADR Enterprises—emphasized language contained in the NBPA Standard Player Agent Contract (SPAC), which governs the legal relationship between a player and agent with respect to the player’s employment with an NBA team. The dispute was heard by an arbitrator (and not a judge) because, per SPAC language and accompanying NBPA regulations, player-agent disputes are subject to arbitration. As the exclusive bargaining representative of NBA players, the NBPA licenses agents and thereby gives them the legal right to represent players in contract negotiations.
Jones and Turner signed their SPAC in 2016, when Jones, who played college basketball at UNLV, signed with the Phoenix Suns as a rookie free agent. Paragraph 6 of the SPAC says that a player or agent can terminate the agreement at any time for any reason or no reason at all “effective 15 days after written notice of termination is given to the other party.” Termination can occur immediately if the NBPA suspends or revokes an agent’s certification, but Turner capably performed his duties.
In 2023-24, Jones had a career year for the Mavericks, who were defeated by the Boston Celtics in the 2024 NBA Finals. On June 21, 2024—four days after the Mavericks’ season ended—the Mavericks offered Jones, through Turner, a three-year, $27 million contract. Jones testified he was “furious” by the offer, which was much less than he expected. He said that Turner told him his “market” would yield a four-year, $45 million deal; Turner said he never made such a statement. The two men also dispute the date and details of their Zoom conversation about next steps in free agency.
On June 26, 2024, Jones sent Turner an email saying he was terminating their SPAC. Two days later, Jones asked Turner to waive the 15-day notice period and Turner declined.
At that point, Jones was about to enter NBA free agency on June 30 without an agent. Unfortunately for Jones, the Mavericks quickly signed another player and informed him they were no longer interested. Jones’ fortunes changed when the Clippers offered him a three-year, $30 million contract. The Clippers told Jones they had made the same offer to another player and “that the first to accept the offer would receive it.” Jones signed with the Clippers on July 9, 2024.
Through attorney Darren Heitner of Heitner Legal, Turner in the arbitration hearing made several arguments that he’s entitled to the 4% commission on the Clippers contract.
For one, the Jones-Turner SPAC was still operative when Jones signed with the Clippers. The termination notice was sent on June 26 and Jones signed with the Clippers 13 days later. The notice provision requires 15 days.
Turner also argued his work landing Jones the Mavericks’ offer was instrumental in Jones receiving the Clippers offer. Although the Clippers offer was for $3 million more, Turner insisted the actual value was around the same given tax and cost of living differences between California, which has the country’s highest state income tax and a high cost of living, and Texas, which has no state income tax and isn’t as expensive to live. Turner further maintained the Mavericks’ offer served as a market basis for negotiations with the Clippers, even if Turner himself didn’t conduct the Clippers’ negotiations.
Jones, who was represented by Drew Tulumello and Zachary Schreiber of Weil, Gotshall & Manges and Andrew Latack of Klutch Sports Group, offered several rebuttals.
Jones asserted that exigent circumstances warranted the shortening of the 15-day notice window. He pointed out that the Mavericks “made a deep run into the Finals which ran so close to the start of free agency.” In that same vein, Jones maintained the notice period is designed “to protect the player, not the agent.”
Jones also insisted that Turner performed no work for which a commission is owed. Turner didn’t represent Jones in the Clippers negotiation.
In siding for Turner, Mishkin underscored the notice provision. Not enough time passed between when Jones informed Turner he was out and when Jones signed with the Clippers.
Mishkin also wasn’t persuaded there were exigent circumstances to warrant shortening the 15-day window. Mishkin highlighted Jones’ testimony that he had “grown dissatisfied with Turner’s representation” by 2023—long before his 2024 free agency neared. Jones’ argument was “further undermined,” Mishkin wrote, “by his testimony that he was communicating with other agents” during the 2024 playoffs. Those agents included members of Klutch Sports Group, with whom Jones later signed.
Another problem for Jones, Mishkin explained, is that his depiction of agent services “is not nearly as narrow” as he believes. Conducting compensation negotiations with a team is only one of relevant services contemplated by the SPAC. Mishkin went so far as to write 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 that contract took place.”
Jones could petition a federal court to vacate Mishkin’s arbitration award, but he’d face challenging odds. Under applicable law, judges are only expected to vacate an arbitration award in narrow circumstances, such as when the award is procured by fraud or when the arbitrator exceeded their contractual authority. Especially given Mishkin’s unusually deep expertise on NBA related legal matters, a judge would likely accord him a high degree of deference.
