In 2015, venture capitalist Kevin Kinsella and his wife, Tamara, chose to litigate their divorce before a retired former judge and JAMS panel member, Sheila Sonenshine. JAMS is a large national provider of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) services and has more than 300 panelists in a number of U.S. cities.
During the Kinsella private divorce arbitration, Ms. Sonenshine, the arbitrator, ordered Mr. Kinsella to pay temporary spousal support of more than $120,000.00 per month. Enraged, Mr. Kinsella then investigated Ms. Sonenshine background and sued her and JAMS for alleged misrepresentation of her credentials. Sonenshine unsuccessfully sought to have the suit dismissed and a three-week jury trial just concluded this month.
Mr. Kinsella claimed that he relied upon Ms. Sonenshine’s representations set forth in her resume published on the JAMS website to the effect that she had a successful post-judicial career as a successful venture capitalist and investment fund founder before joining JAMS. Kinsella argued that he never would have agreed to Ms. Sonenshine’s selection had he known that one of her funds had paid over 40 million dollars to settle a class action suit and that another of her funds had failed to find any investors.
At trial, the majority of the jury agreed with JAMS and Ms. Sonenshine’s assertions that the evidence established that Kinsella did not rely upon any alleged misrepresentations by Ms. Sonenshine or JAMS. The jury further determined that Kinsella failed to prove that he was damaged by any such alleged misrepresentations. JAMS and Ms. Sonenshine naturally declared victory.
The case is notable for several reasons. First, ADR providers and their panel members are
seldom sued. ADR providers and neutrals should, however, be careful not to embellish their professional credentials. Regardless of the outcome, the Kinsella litigation has resulted in bad publicity on a local and national level for both JAMS and Sheila Sonenshine. JAMS now has a disclaimer on its website concerning representations contained in panel member biographies. This may be too little too late. It is essential for individual and corporate ADR providers to be perceived as trustworthy. During trial, JAMs admitted that it didn’t fact check its panelists’ bios. The Kinsella case has been, at best, a pyrrhic victory for JAMS and Ms. Sonenshine.
KINSELLA V. JAMS:
TRIAL AND ENDGAME
by Gregg Bertram