Attorney Reprimanded For Incompetent Representation Of Miss Universe Contestant
A reprimand has been imposed by New Jersey Supreme Court for conduct described in a letter opinion of the Disciplinary Review Board
Specifically, on June 3, 2012, Sheena Monnin was eliminated as a contestant after the first round of competition in the Miss Universe pageant. Thereafter, but before the final round of competition had commenced, another contestant told Monnin that she had seen a document listing the top five contestants. Indeed, the top five contestants were those whose names had appeared on that list. Monnin immediately resigned her position as Miss Pennsylvania USA and proceeded to claim, through Facebook posts and an appearance on The Today Show, that the Miss Universe pageant was “rigged.”
On June 25, 2012, the Miss Universe Organization (MUO) filed an arbitration demand, seeking $10 million in compensatory damages from Monnin for breach of contract, among other claims. The contract was an agreement between Monnin and MUO. Monnin’s copy of the document was not signed by either party. On June 27, 2012, Monnin retained respondent to represent her for the purpose of asserting a claim against MUO on her behalf, in addition to defending its claim against her. Because Monnin’s copy of the contract was unsigned, respondent advised her that she was not bound by any agreement to arbitrate, that MUO could not compel her to appear at an arbitration, and, therefore, that she was not obligated either to reply to any communications from the arbitrator or to attend any arbitration hearing.
Between late June and November 5, 2012, respondent repeatedly notified MUO and the arbitrator that he represented Monnin, that she was not subject to the contract, and that she would not participate in any arbitration. In late August, 2012, he instructed the arbitrator to cease direct contact with Monnin, as she was represented by counsel.
Thereafter, respondent failed to comply with discovery requests in the arbitration matter; failed to submit Monnin’s share of the arbitration fee, despite receiving a bill; and failed to inform Monnin of a scheduled November 5, 2012 arbitration hearing. Monnin believed that MUO had withdrawn its arbitration demand. Respondent informed the arbitrator that Monnin would not appear at the hearing.
Neither respondent nor Monnin appeared for the November 5, 2012 arbitration hearing. On December 13, 2012, respondent received a copy of the final arbitration award, granting MUO $5 million in damages. On December 17, MUO filed, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a petition to confirm and convert the arbitration award into a judgment. At that point, Monnin retained new counsel, who filed a cross-motion to vacate the award due to respondent’s ineffective assistance of counsel, which was based on respondent’s own supporting declaration.
On July 2, 2013, the federal district court denied the motion to vacate and confirmed the $5 million arbitration award…
On October 31, 2013, Monnin, through counsel, filed a malpractice action against respondent and the firm, in the Superior Court of New Jersey. On July ii, 2014, the parties entered into a settlement agreement and mutual release. Although its terms were confidential, the OAE and respondent stipulated that the agreement “subsequently was used to fully satisfy” the $5 million judgment entered against Monnin in the federal court action. On August 25, 2014, Monnin’s malpractice complaint against respondent and the firm was dismissed with prejudice. Monnin was satisfied with the result.
The federal court decision is linked here.
Mitigation
The stipulation identifies several mitigating factors: respondent’s unblemished disciplinary record in more than twenty years of practice; his cooperation with the OAE’s investigation; his father’s “life changing medical diagnosis” (which required respondent to devote a tremendous amount of time and attention to winding down his father’s business, assisting with the preparation of his father’s Social Security Disability application, and staving off his father’s creditors in order to avoid bankruptcy); respondent’s devotion to a substantial number of pro bono clients; his extensive participation in community organizations; and his receipt of multiple awards in recognition of his service to others. Further, the stipulation notes that respondent’s father’s illness took an emotional toll on respondent and that the negative publicity generated by the Monnin case adversely affected his ability to generate business.
Finally, the authors of twenty-six character letters, written by both colleagues and clients, attested to respondent’s selfless generosity of both spirit and time to clients and community, as well as his skill as a lawyer.
Law360 had a story on the malpractice case brought against the attorney.
The Guardian reported on the underlying lawsuit involving a plaintiff who has recently been in the news for unrelated reasons. (Mike Frisch)