Epstein Data Wiki

Sitrick And Company

Properties2
tagsentity, los-angeles, public-relations, litigation
aliasesSitrick & Co, Sitrick and Co, Sitrick Brincko Group, LLC

17 min read

TypeCrisis and corporate communications firm; “a division of Sitrick Brincko Group, LLC”1 and, per its own 2011 invoice, “A Subsidiary of Resources Global Professionals”2
PrincipalMichael S. Sitrick, Chairman & CEO2
Address1840 Century Park East, Suite 800, Los Angeles, CA 900672
Engagement with EpsteinA written contract dated Nov. 4, 2005, effective Oct. 21, 2005, retained through Epstein’s Florida criminal-defense firm3; a further oral contract on or about March 11, 2011, for press-crisis work concerning coverage of Epstein’s friendship with Prince Andrew, Duke of York4
Fee disputeSitrick sued Epstein in Los Angeles Superior Court (Case No. BC502448) for unpaid fees; a default judgment for $155,464.22 was entered April 14, 20145
ResolutionMutual Release Agreement, dated April 2015, settling the judgment and Epstein’s related Florida action; signed and notarized by Sitrick April 24, 2015, in Los Angeles County6

Sitrick And Company is a Los Angeles crisis- and corporate-communications firm, described in its own correspondence as “a division of Sitrick Brincko Group, LLC”1, the agreement continuing past that phrase. Its chairman and chief executive, Michael S. Sitrick, personally handled the firm’s work for Jeffrey Epstein.2 The documents in this release record two periods of engagement, a fee dispute that went to litigation, and a settlement, but nothing of what, if anything, the firm did for Epstein after 2011.

The 2005 engagement

The complaint Sitrick actually filed against Epstein alleges that “[o]n or about November 4, 2005, Epstein entered into a written contract (the ‘Contract’)” with Sitrick “to provide advice and public relations services,” and that the contract “provides it may be terminated with 30 days written notice by either party” and “has never been terminated.”4 The filed complaint does not say why Epstein hired the firm. That is spelled out only in Michael Sitrick’s own declaration, sworn under penalty of perjury in support of the default judgment, which describes the same November 4, 2005 contract as being for advice and public relations “regarding allegations that [Epstein] had improper sexual relations with a fourteen-year-old girl whom he hired to perform a massage” (a characterisation Sitrick’s counsel had also used in an earlier draft of the complaint that was never filed, before the filed version replaced it with the neutral language quoted above).7 Epstein’s own outside counsel gave a fuller account of the underlying instrument in 2012: the Miami criminal-defense firm Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf, then representing Epstein in the Florida criminal case against him, retained Sitrick “effective as of October 21, 2005… to provide advice and public relations services in connection with legal issues it is handling,” under a letter that describes Sitrick’s role as “corporate communications advisor, specialist and non-designated expert consultant”8, the sentence continuing on the sheet. The letter itself, headed “SITRICK AND COMPANY INC.” and dated November 4, 2005 and addressed to Roy Black, set a minimum annual retainer of $30,000 in place of the firm’s standard $60,000, exactly half, against hourly rates of $165 to $650 depending on which Sitrick employee performed the work.3

The two sides later disputed how long that 2005 agreement stayed in effect. Sitrick’s position, taken in its own litigation, was that the letter was never terminated and so still applied in 2011.4 Epstein’s counsel took the opposite position: that the agreement’s own terms confined it to “the ‘legal issues’ the Black Law Firm ‘is handling’ for Mr. Epstein in Florida on the Criminal Case,” that those issues concluded when the criminal case was resolved in 2008, and that Sitrick had performed no further work for Epstein after 2006.8

The 2011 Prince Andrew engagement

Both sides agree that a new, oral engagement began in early March 2011. The filed complaint states only that “[o]n or about March 11, 2011, Epstein entered an oral contract with Plaintiff (the ‘Oral Contract’) to provide consulting advice and public relations services concerning Epstein’s relationship with Prince Andrew of England.”4 Michael Sitrick’s sworn declaration describes the same oral contract in fuller terms, as being “to assist with his various attorneys to help counteract negative media attention” arising from a photograph of Epstein and Prince Andrew, Duke of York, walking in Central Park, and news articles the declaration lists under three titles: “The Prince and the Pedophile”, “Duchess of York Got Loan From Wealthy US Pedophile” and “Meet Manhattan’s Raunchy New Odd Couple — The Prince and the Pervert”9. Epstein’s counsel likewise recounts that “in early March of 2011… Sitrick’s principal, Michael Sitrick, proposed to send a new consulting agreement for a new engagement concerning these 2011 publicity issues,” which Epstein, through his general counsel Darren Indyke, “unequivocally rejected”10.

Sitrick performed the work regardless. Its invoice for professional services through March 26, 2011 bills 95 hours of time across six of its staff, including Sitrick himself, Tony Knight and Thomas S. Mulligan, and describes fielding calls from British reporters at the Daily Mail, the Telegraph and the Sunday Times, coordinating with Epstein’s attorney Jay Lefkowitz of Kirkland & Ellis, drafting and revising public statements, and “int[er]net research on coverage of the Prince Andrew stories”211. The narrative lines record more than press calls: a discussion with a Today Show producer, “review of police records” and “review of prior records from 2007” on the first day, a discussion with “defamation attorneys, PR affiliate in London”, and a discussion with Mark Bolland in the United Kingdom.212

⭐ The invoice reconciles three ways, and the arithmetic is worth setting out because the figures later sued for do not match it. Its professional summary lists six names with hours and rates whose products total the professional fees it states, its hours total the 95 the page gives above, and its fees plus its expenses equal the balance it demands:213

six staff, hours × rate, summed$70,255.00, the stated professional fees
those hours, summed95.00
expenses: on-line research $873.00 and telephone $191.07$1,064.07
fees plus expenses$71,319.07, the stated balance due

⭐⭐ And the run holds a second invoice the page did not reach. Dated May 3, 2011 and running through April 23, 2011, it bills four staff for 33.25 hours at $23,171.25, adds $5,000.00 of expenses for $28,171.25, carries the first invoice forward as a “Previous balance” of $71,319.07, and states a balance due of $99,490.32. Each of those three sums is exact.14

⭐⭐⭐ And a third invoice closes the chain on the exact sum sued for. Michael Sitrick’s own declaration says the outstanding balance “totals $103,517.82 as shown on the June 8, 2011 invoice contained therein”, and that invoice is attached to the declaration as part of its Exhibit B. It runs through May 28, 2011, bills professional fees of $4,027.50 and expenses of $0.00, carries a previous balance of $99,490.32, and states a balance due of $103,517.82.1516

➡ So the principal sued for and awarded is the running balance of three invoices, and every step of it reconciles to the cent:

InvoiceThroughFeesExpensesPrevious balanceBalance due
April 7, 20113/26/2011$70,255.00$1,064.07$71,319.07
May 3, 20114/23/2011$23,171.25$5,000.00$71,319.07$99,490.32
June 8, 20115/28/2011$4,027.50$0.00$99,490.32$103,517.82

⭐ The last figure is the damages the court awarded three years later, unchanged. The additions are this page’s arithmetic on figures each invoice states; no invoice performs the running sum across the three.131416

⭐⭐ One rate on the 2011 invoices lies outside the 2005 letter’s range, and it is the principal’s own. The November 2005 engagement letter sets hourly rates of $165 to $650. Both 2011 invoices bill Michael Sitrick at $895 an hour. The other 2011 rates, $595, $550, $525 and $185, fall inside it.31314 ⚠ That bears on the question the two sides actually disputed, which was whether the 2005 letter governed the 2011 work, and it is stated here as a comparison of two documents and not as a conclusion about either party’s case.

The second invoice also records work the first does not: on April 6, 2011 the principal billed for “review and edit op-ed”, for “work on digital strategy” and a memorandum on it, and for a discussion and a conference call with Roy Black.17 Sitrick’s counsel wrote Epstein’s attorneys that July that Sitrick and Knight believed they “would have been able to do a great deal more — particularly with respect to the pedophilia allegations — if what they had been told by Mr. Epstein agreed with what they were told by the attorneys representing him with respect to the ages of the girls who provided the massages and other facts of the case,” that the attorneys, disputing Epstein’s account, had “intervened and told Sitrick not to move forward on their plan,” and that Sitrick believed the “pedophile” allegations “could have been put to a stop earlier if their advice had been heeded earlier with respect to forcing the Duchess of York to retract her statement calling Mr. Epstein a pedophile.”18

An internal email exchange that November shows the relationship still active: on November 10, 2011, one of Epstein’s staff wrote Darren Indyke, “Please call Michael Sitrick”; Indyke replied, “Tell sitrick I am on vacation”19.20

The fee dispute

Sitrick’s demand letter of July 12, 2011 put the amount owed at $103,518 and recounted a monthslong effort to get a new engagement letter signed: Indyke told Sitrick on May 6 that the proposed letter was “unacceptable,” and on May 31 that “there is no detail whatsoever in the engagement letter, including but not limited to detail re fees, approvals, or obligations, and that is just for starters.”18 Sitrick submitted a demand for arbitration to the American Arbitration Association on March 22, 2012.10 Epstein’s counsel objected to the arbitration’s jurisdiction in a June 17, 2012 letter, arguing that the 2005 agreement’s arbitration clause covered only the Black firm’s criminal-case work and that Epstein had “expressly refused to enter into Sitrick’s proposed written agreement in connection with the 2011 publicity issues.”21

The dispute moved to court. Sitrick filed a complaint for breach of contract, breach of oral contract, open book account, account stated and quantum meruit in Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC502448, on March 7, 2013, and a First Amended Complaint on April 8, 2013.22 After service and no response, the clerk entered Epstein’s default on July 12, 2013.22 Sitrick’s counsel applied for a default judgment of $151,579.78 ($103,517.82 in damages plus $23,450.01 in prejudgment interest, $23,797.00 in attorney’s fees and $814.95 in costs),22 but the court denied that application on October 16, 2013, and set a hearing on dismissal of the case for November 22.23 On a further application for default judgment, heard April 10, 2014, against a request that had by then grown to $170,983.22, the court disallowed a $2,850 arbitration filing fee and $1,850 in other arbitration costs, and cut the $30,819 in attorney’s fees requested to $20,000.24 A default judgment was entered April 14, 2014, awarding Sitrick $103,517.82 in damages, $29,652.93 in prejudgment interest at 10% annually, $20,000 in attorney’s fees and $2,293.47 in costs (a total of $155,464.22).5

⭐ That total reconciles in two directions, and neither sum appears in any document cited here. Added forwards, the four awards are $155,464.22. Worked backwards from the request, the figure the court was asked for was $170,983.22, and subtracting the $2,850 arbitration filing fee it disallowed, the $1,850 of other arbitration costs it disallowed, and the $10,819 by which it cut the fee request from $30,819 to $20,000, leaves $155,464.22 as well. ⭐ The earlier application, denied in October 2013, reconciles the same way: $103,517.82, $23,450.01, $23,797.00 and $814.95 are $151,579.78 exactly. The arithmetic is this page’s, on figures each order and judgment states.22245

The Florida action and settlement

Sitrick recorded the California judgment in Palm Beach County, Florida, on August 27, 2014.1 Epstein, through Florida counsel W. Chester Brewer Jr., filed a complaint to stay enforcement of the judgment, arguing it was “void and unenforceable” because he had never been properly served in the California suit: the underlying proof of service shows only substituted service on a man the process server identified as a “co-occupant” and “a competent member of the household” at Epstein’s Palm Beach residence, and Epstein’s usual place of abode was the U.S. Virgin Islands.2526 That action was Case No. 502014 CA 01228 in the Palm Beach County Circuit Court.1

In April 2015, Epstein and “MICHAEL SITRICK AND SITRICK AND COMPANY, a division of Sitrick Brincko Group, LLC” signed a Mutual Release Agreement resolving the California judgment, its Florida domestication, and the stay-enforcement action, releasing all claims between the parties related to those matters.127 Michael Sitrick signed twice, individually and as representative of Sitrick And Company, before a notary in Los Angeles County on April 24, 2015.6 The copy of the agreement in this release carries no signature above the printed name “JEFFREY EPSTEIN,” and the New York notary block set aside for his acknowledgment is entirely blank.6

Nine days before that notarization, Epstein’s own office schedule for Wednesday, April 15, 2015, at Little St. James, records “4:00pm JE to Call Michael Sitrick”, followed by a short parenthetical.28 ⚠ What that parenthetical holds is not stated here. The extraction of it resolves to two characters that are not words, this page has not read the sheet at the image, and nothing is inferred about it from the companion message quoted next.28 An email Epstein’s assistant Lesley Groff sent him that same morning carries the identical entry with the phone number not yet filled in: “4:00pm JE to Call Michael Sitrick (Darren to provide phone number)”, meaning Darren Indyke was still to supply the contact number.29 Nothing in the release states what, if anything, was discussed on that call.

Darren Indyke; Lesley Groff.

Footnotes

  1. “MUTUAL RELEASE AGREEMENT,” Apr. 2015, reciting the California and Florida case history. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01734330 p.1. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  2. Sitrick And Company invoice to Jeffrey Epstein, “Professional services and expenses through: 3/26/2011,” dated Apr. 07, 2011. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00604136 p.1-5; the summary of out-of-pocket expenses is on p.5 and a second, later invoice occupies p.6-8 of the same run. An electronic address and telephone and facsimile numbers printed on these sheets are not reproduced here. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7

  3. Sitrick And Company Inc. to Roy Black, Nov. 4, 2005, engagement letter (annotated copy). https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01121316 p.1. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  4. First Amended Complaint for Damages, Sitrick and Company v. Jeffrey Epstein, LASC Case No. BC502448, filed Apr. 8, 2013, paragraphs 4-5 (the operative pleading; supersedes the unfiled draft complaint circulated in July 2012). https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01121316 p.19. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  5. Judgment, Sitrick and Company v. Jeffrey Epstein, LASC Case No. BC502448, entered Apr. 14, 2014, recorded in Palm Beach County, Florida, Book 27003/Page 1069. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01092956 p.8. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  6. Same agreement, signature and notary pages; Sitrick’s notarization is dated and signed in Los Angeles County; the New York block for Epstein’s signature and notarization is blank in this copy. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01734330 p.3. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  7. Declaration of Michael S. Sitrick in Support of Application for Default Judgment, paragraph 2, sworn under penalty of perjury. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00313240 p.5. ↩

  8. Stephen G. Rinehart (Troutman Sanders LLP) to Sandra L. Marshall, AAA, Jun. 17, 2012, “Salient Facts” section. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01082714 p.3. ↩ ↩2

  9. Same declaration, paragraph 3. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00313240 p.6. ↩

  10. Same letter; the March 22, 2012 arbitration date is stated on p.1 and repeated in the “Salient Facts” section on p.4. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01082714 p.1, 4. ↩ ↩2

  11. The extraction of this phrase prints “intemet”, an m where the sheet’s print has r and n; the bracketed characters are this page’s reading of that damage and the sheet has not been read at the image. ⚠ The same narrative line carries the entry’s hours figure interleaved into the sentence, which is how the invoice’s table extracts; the figure is omitted from the quotation because it stands in a column on the printed sheet and not in the sentence. ↩

  12. The same invoice, narrative entries for March 7, 8, 9 and 14, 2011. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00604136 p.2, 4. The forename of one person named in a March 7 entry is left as the document leaves it. An electronic address and telephone and facsimile numbers printed on every sheet of this run are not reproduced here. ↩

  13. The same invoice, “Professional Summary” and the summary of out-of-pocket expenses. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00604136 p.2, 5. The six names, their hours and their rates are printed in a table; the products, the totals and the comparison with the 2005 letter’s rate range are this page’s arithmetic on figures the sheets state. Two of the six are named above; the other four are not named here, which costs the reader the ability to attribute the junior research time to individuals. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  14. A second Sitrick And Company invoice in the same run, dated May 3, 2011, “Professional services and expenses through: 4/23/2011”, with its professional summary and its statement of fees, expenses, previous balance and balance due. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00604136 p.6-7. ⚠ Cited from the extraction and not verified at the image; the “current professional fees and expenses” line is damaged in the extraction and the value given above is the one that follows from the two figures printed above it. Bank routing and account numbers and a federal tax identification number printed on this sheet are not reproduced here, and neither is the electronic address. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  15. Same declaration, paragraph 4, on the monthly invoices, Exhibit B and the outstanding balance. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00313240 p.6. ⚠ The extraction of this sheet interleaves the declaration’s own line numbers into its sentences, which is how a numbered pleading extracts; the numbers are omitted from the quotations here and nothing else in them is altered. ↩

  16. Sitrick And Company invoice to Jeffrey Epstein, dated June 08, 2011, “Professional services and expenses through: 5/28/2011”, among the invoices attached to the declaration as Exhibit B. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00313240 p.22. ⚠ Cited from the extraction and not verified at the image. A further copy of the same invoice stands at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00593185 p.9. Bank routing and account numbers, a federal tax identification number, an electronic address and telephone and facsimile numbers printed on these sheets are not reproduced here. ↩ ↩2

  17. The same second invoice, narrative entry for April 6, 2011. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00604136 p.8. ⚠ Cited from the extraction and not verified at the image. ↩

  18. J. Michael Hennigan (Hennigan Dorman LLP) to Roy Black and Jay Lefkowitz, Jul. 12, 2011. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01125017 p.1-3. ↩ ↩2

  19. Unnamed sender to Darren Indyke, “Please call Michael Sitrick,” Nov. 10, 2011, 12:12pm Eastern (the message’s own header carries an explicit UTC offset, “+0000,” timestamped 17:12:03; the reply below quotes the same message as sent “at 12:12 PM,” which is 17:12 UTC converted to U.S. Eastern Standard Time). https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00424403 p.1. ↩

  20. Darren Indyke, reply, Nov. 10, 2011. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00424406 p.1. ↩

  21. Same letter. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01082714 p.6. ↩

  22. “Brief Summary of Case Supporting Default Judgment” and supporting declaration, Sitrick and Company v. Jeffrey Epstein, LASC Case No. BC502448. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00313240 p.1-2. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  23. Minute order, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Dept. 20, Oct. 16, 2013. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01734008 p.1. ↩

  24. “[Proposed] Order” on Sitrick’s renewed request for default judgment, Sitrick and Company v. Jeffrey Epstein, LASC Case No. BC502448, heard Apr. 10, 2014, signed by Hon. Kevin C. Brazile. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01121316 p.31-32. ↩ ↩2

  25. Jeffrey Epstein v. Sitrick and Company, Complaint to Stay Enforcement of Foreign Judgment, Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Florida. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01092956 p.1-2. ↩

  26. Proof of Service of Summons, Sitrick and Company v. Jeffrey Epstein, LASC Case No. BC502448 (Exhibit “B” to the Florida stay complaint), showing substituted service on Janusz Banasiak, May 30, 2013. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01092956 p.9. ↩

  27. Same agreement, general release clause. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01734330 p.2. ↩

  28. Jeffrey Epstein’s office schedule, week of April 2015, entry for Wed. April 15, 2015, at LSJ (Little St. James). https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00285028 p.3. ↩ ↩2

  29. Lesley Groff to Jeffrey Epstein, “WEd. April 15, 2015,” Apr. 15, 2015. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01746168 p.1. ↩

Backlinks