Epstein Data Wiki

Sitrick And Company

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

11 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 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 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, 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 headlined “The Prince and the Pedophile” and “Duchess of York Got Loan From Wealthy US Pedophile.”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 “internet research on coverage of the Prince Andrew stories.”2 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.”11

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.”1213

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.”11 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.”14

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, 2013.15 After service and no response, the clerk entered Epstein’s default on July 12, 2013.15 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),15 but the court denied that application on October 16, 2013, and set a hearing on dismissal of the case for November 22.16 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 $20,000.17 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

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.1819 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.120 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 ([number redacted]).”21 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.22 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.1-4. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

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

  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

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

  12. 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. ↩

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

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

  15. “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

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

  17. “[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. ↩

  18. 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. ↩

  19. 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. ↩

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

  21. 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. ↩

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

Backlinks