Sierra Leone and the U.S. law firm Jenner & Block have reached a settlement in principle to resolve a contentious legal fee dispute over more than $8 million, according to a recent ruling by U.S. Magistrate Judge G. Michael Harvey in Washington, D.C. While the court’s order confirms that a deal has been struck, it provides few details about the terms, leaving many of the specifics undisclosed.
Origins of the Dispute: High-Stakes Arbitration
The dispute dates back to Jenner & Block’s representation of Sierra Leone between 2019 and 2021 in a major arbitration and legal fight with Gerald International Ltd., an iron-ore contractor. Gerald had sued Sierra Leone, seeking over $1.8 billion in damages after the government imposed an export ban on its mining operations.
According to court filings, the two parties originally signed an engagement letter that committed Sierra Leone to pay a flat fee of $1.5 million per year for Jenner & Block’s services, excluding out-of-pocket expenses. As the case evolved, Jenner & Block claims the work quickly grew far beyond what either side initially anticipated.
Escalating Legal Work & Disputed Billing
Jenner & Block told the court that the scope of its representation expanded dramatically. The firm cited three main reasons: (1) Sierra Leone did not comply with an interim ICC tribunal order favoring Gerald; (2) the arbitration and court proceedings deviated from what the parties expected in an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) or ICSID (International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes) context; and (3) Sierra Leone asked Jenner & Block to pursue additional issues, including accusations that one of the ICC arbitrators was biased.
By August 2020, Jenner & Block notified Sierra Leone that the workload was much greater than contemplated and requested additional compensation. According to its complaint, the firm says Sierra Leone repeatedly acknowledged that the extra work justified higher fees. Some communications even allegedly involved senior officials, including then-President Julius Maada Bio, confirming the country would address the increased fees.
Over the course of the representation, Sierra Leone paid approximately $3.6 million in legal fees. That sum comprised $2.25 million under the flat-fee agreement plus roughly $1.35 million for work that Jenner considered “out-of-scope” of the original contract. But Jenner & Block maintains that Sierra Leone still owed $8.1 million, broken down as $750,000 under the flat-fee leg and $7.35 million for the out-of-scope portion.
Sierra Leone Pushes Back: Contract, Immunity, and Counterclaims
Sierra Leone strongly contested Jenner’s claims. In filings, the government argued that it had already fulfilled its obligations under their contract and that no valid additional agreement had been made. In particular, Sierra Leone said the only binding commitment was the agreed fixed annual fee.
Beyond disputing the financials, Sierra Leone also raised sovereign immunity as a defense. The government asserted that, as a foreign sovereign nation, it could not be sued under U.S. law for matters beyond the explicitly agreed contractual scope.
However, in January 2025, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan rejected Sierra Leone’s motion to dismiss the case. The court found that Sierra Leone had waived its immunity in the engagement letter, which stipulated that U.S. (District of Columbia) law would govern any disputes, and that the parties agreed to litigate in that forum. She also concluded that Jenner & Block had pleaded sufficient facts to support multiple legal theories, including breach of contract, quantum meruit (payment for services rendered), unjust enrichment, and promissory estoppel.
Adding to the tension, Sierra Leone filed counterclaims, accusing Jenner & Block of fraudulent overbilling and raising serious allegations about the firm’s billing practices.
Settlement in Principle: What We Know (and Don’t)
The recent settlement in principle marked a significant development, potentially closing a chapter in what had become a protracted and high-profile legal battle. According to Judge Harvey’s order, the parties agreed to resolve their dispute, though the order did not spell out how much of the claimed $8.1 million Sierra Leone will end up paying or whether any part of the firm’s counterarguments will be dropped.
Both sides have declined to publicly comment on the resolution. As of now, neither Jenner & Block nor Sierra Leone has provided detailed statements on the settlement terms.
Implications and Analysis
From a legal-industry perspective, this case underscores several critical dynamics in cross-border legal work:
- Complexity Risk in Arbitration Matters
The dispute illustrates how international arbitration can become far more elaborate and resource-intensive than anticipated. What begins as a fee-for-service engagement — here, a flat annual fee — can balloon when the issues, forums, and legal strategies shift dramatically. - Sovereign Clients & Legal Risk
Governments entering into engagements with private law firms must carefully consider risk allocation: not only the potential scale of legal work but also how payment obligations are structured, especially if additional compensation is “implied” rather than written. - Sovereign Immunity Waivers
The case provides a reminder that a carefully drafted engagement letter can contain a waiver of sovereign immunity. In this instance, the court held that Sierra Leone waived its immunity by agreeing to an exclusive jurisdiction clause in a U.S. court. - Billing Disputes and Accountability
Sierra Leone’s counter-accusations of overbilling may shed light on the ongoing tension between law firms’ billing practices and client expectations. For governments or state actors, especially in financially sensitive contexts, cost-management and clear documentation are vital. - Reputational Stakes
For Jenner & Block, the case involved not just a large unpaid invoice but also reputational risk: public counterclaims of fraud could affect client trust. For Sierra Leone, the dispute had financial, legal, and political implications, given the scale of the underlying arbitration and the government’s fiduciary responsibilities.
What’s Next
While the “in principle” settlement reduces immediate uncertainty, key questions remain:
- Will Sierra Leone pay the full $8.1 million demanded, or a reduced amount?
- Will Jenner & Block drop its counterclaims, or will they factor into the settlement?
- What structural changes will Sierra Leone implement to avoid similar disputes with outside counsel in the future?
- Will any portion of the settlement remain confidential, or will parties disclose more as part of the final agreement?
Because the terms are not publicly disclosed, legal commentators will likely continue to watch for court filings or public statements. Should the settlement become final and publicly affirmed, it could serve as a cautionary tale for other governments and law firms engaged in high-stakes international work.
In sum, the tentative resolution of this multi-million-dollar fee dispute signals a close, though guarded, chapter in a high-stakes legal saga. It highlights the complexity of modern cross-border legal engagements, especially when governments and large private firms collide over billing, scope, and jurisdiction.
Explore More Legal Career Insights on LawCrossing
Stay ahead of the curve in the legal industry. Whether you’re tracking international litigation trends, exploring law firm opportunities, or researching market-shaping cases like this one, LawCrossing offers the most comprehensive database of legal jobs and news.
Discover your next big career move or stay informed on the latest developments — visit LawCrossing today!
