Couzixs Banorows & Vecxovion January 3,2019 333 Twin Duipliia Drive, Suite 145, Redwood Shores, California 94065 Re: Monica Ribbeck Kelly Dear Mr. Danko: I represent Monica Ribbeck Kelly. We have recently become aware of a posting on your aviation blog dated June 29, 2017. The posting contains false, defamatory matter and we request that you issue an apology and retract the posting immediately. More specifically, your blog refers to Monica Ribbeck Kelly as that Ms. Kelly instituted “fivolous legal proceedings after Malaysia, Airlines Flight 370 went missing” and having disappeared. Both statements ate false and {defamation per se and constitute an interference with Ms. Kelly's law practice. First, the charges against Ms. Kelly in which she was alleged to have filed frivolous legal proceedings involving Flight 270 were dismissed, completely, See attached Exhibit |. Second, she hhas not disappeared. She is, and has been, licensed to practice law in the State of Illinois, at all times, including atthe time of your posting. Please contact me wits questions about this. We exppct an apology and retraction to be issued immediately AVibgIn re Monlea E. Ribbeck "Respondent-Appellant ‘Commission No.2014PR00092 ‘Synopsis of Review Board Report and Recommendation (April 2016) ‘This matter aries out of the Administrator's one-count complaint charging Respondent with ‘ling a fivolous pleading and engaging in conduct prejudicial 1 the sdministation of justice, based upon het filing ofa Rule 224 petition in an sirline-rash ease. Following a bearing, the Hearing Board found that Respondent had fled = ‘ivolous pleading in violation of ins Rule of Professional Conduct 3.1 2010), agreeing with the court thet had dismissed Respondent's Rule 224 petition that a Rule 224 petition is inappropriate where the identity of at lest one potential defendant is already known. The Hearing Board alzo found that Respondent's fling of the petition resulted in the unnecessary expenditure of judicial resources and. therefore prejudiced the administration of justice in ‘lation of Tlinois Rule of Professional Conduct 8 (0), On review, Respondent challenged both findings of misconduct, arguing tht she ‘nad an objectively reasonable basis for fling the petition and therefore tht it nether was fivolous nor prejudiced the administration of justice. She also challenged the Hearing Bosrd’s recommendation of a 60-day suspension, arguing that she should not be sanctioned when the our itself chose not to sanction her for filing the Rule 224 petition, “The Review Board reversed the findings of misconduct, finding that Respondent had an objectively resonable basis for filing the Rule 224 petition and that her fling of the patton was not prejudicial tothe administration of justice. It thus recommended thatthe ease against Respondent be dismissed.FILED BEFORE THE REVIEW BOARD OF THE APH 19 2016 a pmipearc aaa na = tmeniutttowmnaen APB B46 coun In the Matter of MONICA E. RIBBECK, Commission No, 2014PR0002 Respondent-Appellant, | No, 6225920, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE REVIEW BOARD. SUMMARY. Within & few weeks after Malaysia Aiines light 370 diseppeared mid-light, Respondent was retained by the estate of one of Flight 370"s passengers. On behalf ofthe esate, Respondent filed a Rule 224 petition in Cook County Circuit Cour, naming the Rocing Company and Malaysia Ainines as respondents and seeking information to determine the identity of other possible defendants. Judge Kathy Flanagan dismissed the petition based on her ial defendant is ‘view that Rule 224 petitions cannot be used in eases where at least one pote known, The Administrator fled @ one-count complaint sgsinst Respondent, alleging that she had filed a fvolous pleading and that her conduct in doing so was prejudicial to the ministration of juste in violation of Rules 3.1 and 8.4(2), respectively, of the tins Rules ‘of Professional Conduct (2010). The Hearing Board concluded that Respondent had violated. both rules and recommended a 60-day suspension, Responden: filed exceptions to the Hering Board's findings and sanction recommendation, For the easons se forth below, we reverse the Hearing Boards findings of misconduct and recommend the eae be dismissed,