As a retired state trial and appellate court judge, Sonenshine has the standard credentials for an adjudicator working in the growing field of private arbitration and mediation where top neutrals command rates of more than $25,000 a day. Kinsella’s suit has already cleared a key hurdle. If his argument continues gaining traction, it could force change on ADR firms that aggressively market their neutrals as specialists in a wide array of fields. Vess wrote that allowing JAMS to squeeze out of the suit on technical grounds “would give private ADR companies carte blanche to engage in false and deceptive advertising.”
JAMS and Sonenshine, in turn, claim that Kinsella’s lawsuit is part of “an unrelenting campaign against attorneys who have opposed him and judges who have ruled against him.” Kinsella, they point out, hired a private investigator to scour Sonenshine’s background only after she awarded his former spouse temporary support. “Plaintiffs actions show the extent to which a disappointed litigant can harass and intimidate a judge and her sponsoring organization after receiving rulings with which he disagrees,” wrote Joseph McMonigle of Long & Levit, who represents JAMS and Sonenshine in the case.
