ShareThis Page
Greensburg lawyer Monzo being sued by media company |

Greensburg lawyer Monzo being sued by media company

The Tribune-Review
| Tuesday, December 4, 2018 6:18 p.m

A Latrobe media company contends it is owed more than $62,000 from a failed county judicial candidate for consulting services during the 2017 campaign season.

In a lawsuit filed Tuesday in Westmoreland County, West Media Group Inc. said attorney Lisa Monzo refused to pay bills for work the company performed last year during her failed bid to win a seat on the county’s Court of Common Pleas. The company seeks an additional $6,200 from Monzo for commissions accrued when she hired another firm for media buys during the campaign.

Monzo works as an attorney at the Greensburg law firm Monzo Galloway.

“We intend to defend the suit, which is a dispute over their product,” Monzo said Tuesday.

According to the lawsuit, Monzo retained West Media Group in January 2017 to serve as her exclusive media provider and oversee advertising and messaging during last year’s judicial campaign.

Monzo, a Democrat, defeated three candidates in May 2017 to win her party’s nomination and run for a 10-year seat as a Common Pleas Court judge. Republican Jim Silvis defeated her in the November general election to win the judgeship.

Rich Cholodofsky is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Rich at 724-830-6293 or

Categories: Westmoreland
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.