Jeffrey M. Monhait



(215) 665-2084

(215) 665-2013

Jeff is an experienced litigator who helps companies of all sizes navigate business and commercial issues by bringing a practical, problem-solving mindset to every matter.  Jeff balances aggressive, zealous advocacy with a focus on efficiently achieving client goals in order to avert and resolve: complex business disputes and class actions; consumer disputes; intellectual property litigation; and issues pertaining to contract drafting, negotiation, and interpretation.  As a civil litigator, Jeff regularly works with clients in the technology sector, and has significant experience navigating the pre-trial process, especially with issues pertaining to federal court subject matter jurisdiction, evidentiary issues, and third-party subpoena practice.  As a former assistant district attorney at the District Attorney’s Office in Philadelphia (through the firm’s year-long secondment program), Jeff tried numerous criminal bench trials to verdict, and handled dozens of evidentiary hearings. 

Jeff also actively engages in pro bono and community work.  In addition to working on multiple prisoner civil rights cases, Jeff successfully helped an individual who was unconstitutionally sentenced to life without parole as a minor get resentenced and released from confinement.  More recently, Jeff has collaborated with the Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund to assist individuals in changing their names to reflect their gender identities.  Jeff has also served as a coach of the Haverford College Mock Trial program since its inception.

Jeff graduated from Harvard Law School, cum laude, where he served as an executive editor of the Journal of Sports and Entertainment Law.  In law school, Jeff interned with the Washington Nationals through the Sports Clinical Program, and worked for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau through the Negotiation and Mediation Clinical Program.  Jeff graduated from Haverford College with a Bachelor of Arts, magna cum laude, in psychology, where he was co-captain of the varsity tennis team and a member of the varsity squash team.


Cozen O'Connor Promotes 27 to Membership

May 01, 2019

Cozen O'Connor is pleased to recognize 27 attorneys with the promotion to member: Dylan Alper, Philip J. Berens, Alison Weintraub Berson, Evan Berquist, Alexandra Campau, Alissa K. Christopher, Matthew D. Clyde, Rachel Collins Clarke, Michael A. Corgan, Matthew L. Elkin, Nicole M. Ellis, Alex H. Hayden, David S. Huard, Haryle Kaldis, David Kirchblum, Matthew Evan Lewitz, Jesse Ryan Loffler, Samantha L. Mazo, Lindsey A. Miller, Jeffrey M. Monhait, Jonathan Nase, Jacqueline Promislo, Shelby K. Riney, Kelly Shinn, Terri A. Sutton, Daniel P. Thiel, and Laura Zulick.

Jeffrey Monhait Cited in NY Daily News Article Regarding A-Rod Arbitration Matter

January 09, 2014

In an article titled “Alex Rodriguez no star in this courtroom,” Tom Harvey, a New York attorney and legal analyst at the New York Daily News, favorably cites Jeffrey Monhait’s persuasive law review article published in Harvard’s Journal of Sports & Entertainment Law to discredit A-Rod’s assertion that the arbitration process is unfair. Monhait’s article details the history of baseball’s arbitration process and noted that union members viewed the process as fair, at least with respect to salary disputes.

An Appealing Design: Students devise an appeals process for the new consumer watchdog agency [Harvard Law Bulletin]

July 01, 2012

Last year, after Rory Van Loo left the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau implementation team to become assistant director of the Harvard Negotiation & Mediation Clinical Program, he asked his former colleagues how HLS students might assist the new agency.


Navigating NBA's New CBA During Misconduct Investigations [Law360]

June 09, 2017

Jeffrey Monhait and Stephen Miller discuss the new collective bargaining agreement between the NBA and the NBA Players Association and review the disciplinary powers of both the teams and the league in their Law360 article, "Navigating NBA's New CBA During Misconduct Investigations."

Potential benefits of cooperation with OFAC (Part 3) [InsideCounsel]

January 22, 2014

OFAC does not deal only with cooperating entities, of course. On one hand, non-cooperating entities certainly run a risk that OFAC will refer their violations to criminal authorities. But even a non-cooperator can receive benefits, even grudgingly, under OFAC’s administrative-penalty regime — especially compared to companies that become targets of criminal prosecution and the severe penalties attendant to that process. That comparison between administrative and criminal punishments of non-cooperating entities, as discussed infra, may yield useful, persuasive data to criminal defense lawyers representing an entity under criminal investigation.

Potential benefits of cooperation with OFAC (Part 2) [InsideCounsel]

December 23, 2013

As the formulas from Part 1 demonstrate, OFAC’s regulations strongly incentivize cooperation to reduce a violator’s penalty. The next section examines a few recent enforcement actions in which companies have taken advantage of these regulatory formulas to minimize penalties resulting from violations.

University’s Attorney-Client Privilege Survives Basketball Coach’s Disclosure [Harvard Journal of Sports & Entertainment Law]

November 27, 2013

In a whistleblower suit brought by a former athletic director, a New Jersey Appellate court recently held that a basketball coach’s disclosure to the NCAA of an email to the university’s counsel did not waive the university’s attorney-client privilege. See Hedden v. Kean University, No. A-4999-12T2 (N.J. App. Div. Oct. 24, 2013).

Potential benefits of cooperation with OFAC (Part 1) [InsideCounsel]

November 20, 2013

Recent settlements in civil enforcement proceedings brought by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) suggest that cover-ups, not crimes, may invite the stiffest penalties. Frequently, companies that cooperate with OFAC investigations, admit wrongdoing and take remedial actions to prevent future violations escape the enforcement process with mild punishments. Indeed, even companies that eventually cooperate after some initial resistance fare well in OFAC’s administrative enforcement process and often avoid criminal penalties altogether — penalties that, aside from the reputational damage, carry much more severe consequences, including prison time for individuals and massive financial impact.

Extradition: Companies Should Invest in Protecting Their Assets [The Legal Intelligencer]

July 24, 2013

Edward Snowden's detention in the Moscow airport transit zone, and the U.S. government's efforts to extradite him, may seem confined to that case's politically charged circumstances. But what if Snowden were merely a malingering corporate employee? Imagine if he had absconded with company secrets (such as the Coca-Cola recipe), or embezzled company funds, and was hiding out halfway across the world. Under what circumstances, if any, could he be forcibly returned to the United States to answer for his actions?

Baseball Arbitration: An ADR Success [Journal of Sports & Entertainment Law, Harvard Law School]

June 03, 2013

Major League Baseball’s salary arbitration system strikes a unique balance during a player’s first six major league seasons between teams completely controlling players and players earning their fair market value. Critically, the system resolves the issue of player salaries prior to, or, at the latest, early in spring training. This system developed somewhat serendipitously over more than a century of court battles, labor negotiations, and back room deals. Despite this ad hoc history, Major League Baseball’s salary arbitration system successfully handles and resolves these salary disputes.

When a Federal Agency Improperly Targets an Organization [The Legal Intelligencer]

May 29, 2013

The focus on the political consequences of the Internal Revenue Service scandal has overshadowed a troubling reality that a federal agency targeted specific groups of people for discriminatory treatment. In singling out conservative groups, the IRS reminded us that the McCarthy-era Red Scare is not the distant memory many would like to believe. However, the media's uniform condemnation of this conduct demonstrates how the world has changed since then. People do not quietly allow government abuses to occur. This political backlash may be responsible in part for the U.S. Department of Justice's criminal investigation into the IRS's actions. Civil lawsuits are being filed by affected groups. The critical question is what legal remedies are available to organizations singled out by the government for discriminatory treatment.

Supreme Court Willing to Reconsider Deference to Administrative Agencies [The Legal Intelligencer]

April 24, 2013

Most of the federal government's authority is exercised, on a day-to-day basis, through its administrative agencies. Central to the efficiency of those agencies — such as it is — is the judiciary's substantial deference to agency decision-making. Without that deference, people and corporations would often have an incentive to try to impair (or at least delay) agencies' actions through court challenges.

U.S. Appellate Court Expands Reach of Anti-Bribery Statute [The Legal Intelligencer]

February 27, 2013

Last month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in United States v. Ring, upheld a conviction for bribery under the public sector honest-services fraud statute, expanding the definitions of

Events & Seminars

Past Events

The Legal Intelligencer’s In-House Counsel CLE Seminar

October 17, 2013 - Philadelphia, PA


  • Harvard Law School, J.D., cum laude, 2012
  • Haverford College, B.A., magna cum laude, 2009
  • Pennsylvania
  • New Jersey
  • New York
  • U.S. District Court -- Eastern District of Pennsylvania
  • U.S. District Court -- New Jersey
  • U.S. District Court -- Middle District of Pennsylvania
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit