gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.363.11.pdf

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 363-11 Filed 08/11/16 Page 1 of 40 Exhibit K  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 363-11 Filed 08/11/16 Page 2 of 40  MENU ALAN DERSHOWITZ, DEFAMATION, LAW PROFESSORS Settlement Reached In Litigation Between Alan Dershowitz, Paul Cassell, And Bradley Edwards By DAVID LAT  6 Comments /  32 Shares / Apr 8, 2016 at 6:16 PM Alan Dershowitz Welcome celebrated lawyer and law professor Alan Dershowitz back to the headlines — and not because of his role in The People v. O.J. Simpson: American Crime Story. We have a Friday night news dump on our hands.  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 363-11 Filed 08/11/16 Page 3 of 40 The defamation case filed against Dershowitz by two other prominent members of the legal community, high­profile Florida lawyer Brad Edwards and former federal judge Paul Cassell, just settled. As you may recall, Edwards and Cassell sued Dershowitz for defamation last year in Florida state court. The two lawyers alleged that Dershowitz defamed them when he claimed that they knowingly filed a lawsuit containing falsehoods about him or at least failed to properly investigate their client’s allegations that Dershowitz had sexual relations with her when she was a minor. Settlement talks in the defamation case have been going on for months, and the two sides just reached agreement. Shortly before 5 p.m. today, Edwards and Cassell moved to withdraw their motion for partial summary judgment. Their moving papers acknowledge a confidential settlement and mutual release between themselves and Dershowitz, then go on to state: “ In the event that the noticed withdrawal is determined to be subject to Court approval, the Plaintiffs would show in support of this notice that Edwards and Cassell continue to represent [Dershowitz accuser] Virginia Giuffre in separate pending matters, and shall continue to advance her legitimate legal interests in those matters. As expressly understood by the parties upon the execution of the Confidential Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release, Ms. Giuffre reaffirms her allegations, and the withdrawal of the referenced filings is not intended to be, and should not be construed as being, an acknowledgement by Edwards and Cassell that the allegations made by Ms. Giuffre were mistaken. Edwards and Cassell do acknowledge that the public filing in the Crime Victims’ Rights Act case of their client’s allegations against Defendant Dershowitz became a major distraction from the merits of the well-founded Crime Victims’ Rights Act case by causing delay and, as a consequence, turned out to have been a tactical mistake. For that reason, Edwards and Cassell have chosen to withdraw the referenced filing as a condition of settlement. So Virginia Giuffre, formerly known as Virginia Roberts, stands by her accusations that Alan Dershowitz had sexual relations with her when she was a minor. But her lawyers, Brad Edwards and Paul Cassell, concede that dragging the Dersh into this matter “became a major distraction from the merits of the well­founded Crime Victims’ Rights Act case” challenging the deal federal prosecutors struck with one of Dershowitz’s former clients, financier Jeffrey Epstein. (Accused of having sexual relations with multiple underage girls, Epstein ultimately pleaded guilty to just a single state charge of soliciting prostitution.)  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 363-11 Filed 08/11/16 Page 4 of 40 A spokesman for Boies, Schiller & Flexner, which also represents Virginia Giuffre, issued this statement earlier today: “Virginia Giuffre was not a party to that [defamation] lawsuit and was not a party to the settlement. We continue to represent Ms. Giuffre in other litigation and Ms. Giuffre stands by her allegations.” We’ll have more later. We suspect, however, that many of our readers will be disappointed to learn that this clash of the legal titans has been averted, preventing the allegations on all sides from being explored in greater depth in open court. UPDATE (4/9/2016, 10:55 a.m.): Here is the statement of Alan Dershowitz about the settlement: “ I am pleased that the litigation has concluded and I am gratified by the Joint Statement issued today by Jeffrey E. Streitfeld on behalf of the parties, in which “Edwards and Cassell acknowledge that it was a mistake to have filed sexual misconduct accusations against Dershowitz and the sexual misconduct accusations made in all public filings (including all exhibits) are hereby withdrawn.” Mr. Streitfeld’s announcement and the Joint Statement are copied below. You can access mediator Jeffrey Streitfeld’s statement and the joint statement of the parties — which, to be honest, aren’t very exciting — over here. Speaking to the Boston Globe, Dershowitz said, “It’s as if I’ve been waterboarded for 15 months. This has taken a terrible toll on my family, on my friends. . . . I never met this woman [Virginia Giuffre], I didn’t know her.” UPDATE (4/11/2016, 1:20 p.m.): For additional interesting commentary, see Vivia Chen, Dershowitz Settles Sex Case, But Is He Vindicated?, and Casey Sullivan, Alan Dershowitz Extends Truce Offer to David Boies Amid Bitter Feud. UPDATE (4/12/2016, 10:45 a.m.): Did money change hands as part of this settlement? See Vivia Chen, Did Dershowitz Pay Big Bucks to Settle Sex Case? Edwards v. Dershowitz: Notice of Withdrawal of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [Seventeenth Judicial Circuit] Lawyers Acknowledge Mistake In Filing Sexual Misconduct Charges Against Professor  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 363-11 Filed 08/11/16 Page 5 of 40 Dershowitz [Wiley Rein] Sex allegations against Dershowitz called ‘mistake’ [Boston Globe] Earlier: Alan Dershowitz Fights Back Against Allegations Of Sexual Relations With A Minor The Latest Legal Superstar To Collide With Alan Dershowitz: David Boies TOPICS Alan Dershowitz, Alan M. Dershowitz, Boies Schiller, Boies Schiller & Flexner, Bradley Edwards, Bradley J. Edwards, Broward County, Casey Sullivan, Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), David Boies, Defamation, Depositions, Extortion, Florida, Jack Scarola, Jeffrey E. Streitfeld, Jeffrey Epstein, Jeffrey Streitfeld, Law Professors, Paul Cassell, Paul G. Cassell, Sex, Sex Scandals, Sextortion, Virginia Giuffre, Virginia Roberts, Vivia Chen ATL LAW FIRM DIRECTORY Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP More stats and coverage INSIDER RATING B INDUSTRY REPUTATION A TOP PRACTICE BY HEADCOUNT Litigation 87% LATEST REVENUE $345,000,000 FIRM SIZE 282 lawyers LARGEST OFFICE New York LATEST ON BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 363-11 Filed 08/11/16 Page 6 of 40 Did This Biglaw Firm Get Benched In Daily Fantasy Sports Litigation? Reinventing The Law Business: Where Is The Legal Profession Heading? (Part 3) Legal Eagle Wedding Watch: Love Wins Congratulations And Best Wishes To Elizabeth Wurtzel And Jim Freed On Their Marriage! TALK TO THE RECRUITERS WHO TALK TO DECISION MAKERS  Love ATL? Let's make it official. Sign up for our newsletter. Your email address Subscribe News (daily updates) ATL Small Law Firms Bonus Alerts (real­time alerts) ATL In­House Counsel Layoff Alerts (real­time alerts) ATL Legal Technology ATL Partner Issues POPULAR ARTICLES   Harsh Message What’s Behind The One Thing Can From Law School New Am Law 100 Improve All Your Right In The Numbers? Law School Middle Of Finals Grades  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 363-11 Filed 08/11/16 Page 7 of 40 FROM THE ABOVE THE LAW NETWORK 2016 Top Law Firm Gender Your Next Client Wants You Can’t Control Your Transactional Law Firm Diversity Index to Hire You – NOW! Firm’s Reputation Rankings ABOVE THE LAW LAWYER MARKETING LAWYER MARKETING ABOVE THE LAW  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 363-11 Filed 08/11/16 Page 8 of 40  6 comments (hidden for your protection) comments sponsored by SHOW ALL COMMENTS NEWSLETTER SIGNUP Subscribe and get breaking news, commentary, and opinions on law firms, lawyers, law schools, lawsuits, judges, and more. [email protected] Submit EDITORIAL STAFF Managing Editor David Lat Editors  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 363-11 Filed 08/11/16 Page 9 of 40 Staci Zaretsky Joe Patrice Breaking Media Editor at Large Elie Mystal OUR SITES © 2016 Breaking Media, Inc. All rights reserved. Registration or use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 363-11 Filed 08/11/16 Page(https://store.law.com/registration/default.aspx? 10 (https://store.law.com/Registration/Login.aspx? of 40 (http://www.law.com/subscribe) (http://www.law.com/search) promoCode=par:limited) source=http://www.law.com) (http://www.law.com) By Vivia Chen Published: Apr 10, 2016 Dershowitz Settles Sex Case, But Is He Vindicated? Alan Dershowitz I’ve been covering Alan Dershowitz for over a year now, and I can assure you he’s not repressed (http://www.americanlawyer.com/id=1202715316005/Prof-Dershowitz-Tell-Me-How-You-Really-Feel? slreturn=20160310223823). When we chatted on the phone on Saturday, he got right to the point: “I got what I always wanted. They withdrew everything!” Dershowitz is talking about the settlement that he reached with lawyers Brad Edwards and Paul Cassell (http://www.americanlawyer.com/id=1202716384195/Meet-the-Lawyer-Whos-Giving-Dershowitz-Hell), who sued the famous Harvard professor for defamation; Dershowitz also countersued them. (If you need a refresher, the backdrop is that Edwards and Cassell’s client Virginia Roberts Giuffre accused Dershowitz, along with Prince Andrew and others (http://www.americanlawyer.com/id=1202716145382/Jane-Doe-3-Swears-She-Had-Sex-with-Dershowitz-), of having sex with her when she was a minor. Dershowitz denied the charges and accused her two lawyers of acting improperly.) Last Friday, Edwards and Cassell issued a notice of withdrawal of the motion for partial summary judgement, and the litigation came to an end. The notice is short and sweet; here’s the key part: As expressly understood by the parties upon the execution of the Con潖dential Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release, Ms. Giuffre reaf潖rms her allegations, and the withdrawal of the referenced 潖lings is not intended to be, and should not be construed as being, an acknowledgement by Edwards and Cassell that the allegations made by Ms. Giuffre were mistaken. Edwards and Cassell do acknowledge that the public 潖ling in the Crime Victims’ Rights Act case of their client’s allegations against Defendant Dershowitz became a major distraction from the merits of the well-founded Crime Victims’ Rights Act case by causing delay and, as a consequence, turned out to have been a tactical mistake. For that reason, Edwards and Cassell have chosen to withdraw the referenced 潖ling as a condition of settlement. Let’s parse this: Edwards and Cassell say they the accusations against Dershowitz were a “distraction” and “tactical mistake,” though they stand by their clients allegations. That’s essentially saying, “Oops, our bad for accusing Dershowitz of those nasty things, but that doesn’t mean he’s innocent.” If Dershowitz was looking for total vindication, I’m not sure this cuts it. But Dershowitz says he’s satis潖ed with the wording in the settlement. As a legal matter, he says, Giuffre’s lawyers couldn’t admit she was wrong to accuse him. “They can’t take back the claims because that could be used against her on a perjury indictment. That would mean throwing Caseher under the bus,” he explains. “Ultimately, 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document they’ll 363-11 have to makeFiled a claim08/11/16 that it was casePage of mistaken 11 identity, of 40 that it was done in good faith.” What might give Dershowitz more satisfaction is the joint statement that he, Edwards and Cassell issued about the settlement: Edwards and Cassell maintain that they 潖led their client’s allegations in good faith and performed the necessary due diligence to do so, and have produced documents detailing those efforts. Dershowitz completely denies any such misconduct, while not disputing Roberts’s statements that the underlying alleged misconduct may have occurred with someone else. Dershowitz has produced travel and other records for the relevant times which he relies on to establish that he could not have been present when the alleged misconduct occurred. He has also produced other evidence that he relies upon to refute the credibility of the allegations against him. The parties believe it is time to take advantage of the new information that has come to light on both sides during the litigation and put these matters behind them. Given the events that have transpired since the 潖ling of the documents in the federal court and in this action in which Dershowitz was accused of sexual misconduct, including the court order striking the allegations in the federal court 潖lings, and the records and other documents produced by the parties, Edwards and Cassell acknowledge that it was a mistake to have 潖led sexual misconduct accusations against Dershowitz; and the sexual misconduct accusations made in all public 潖lings (including all exhibits) are hereby withdrawn. Dershowitz also withdraws his accusations that Edwards and Cassell acted unethically. Lots of legal contortions here, but this is the eye-popper: “Edwards and Cassell acknowledge that it was a mistake to have 潖led sexual misconduct accusations against Dershowitz.” And this time, “mistake” was not preceded with the word “tactical.” I can only imagine the amount of negotiation that must have been expended on this joint statement. Dershowitz says he feels “grati潖ed” by the result. “Nobody believes [Giuffre]; her credibility came from her lawyers, and they have withdrawn the accusations,” he says. Edwards and Cassell, however, aren’t happy with the way Dershowitz has been spinning the settlement. On Sunday, they issued a statement, which says in part: Following the announcement of the settlement of defamation claims against Alan Dershowitz, he has been making public statements suggesting that he has prevailed in the lawsuit and that the terms of the settlement exonerate him of any wrongdoing. Those statements are at best misleading. It is a mistake for anyone to conclude based upon Mr. Dershowitz’s statements that the case against him was abandoned due to lack of factual support. It is a mistake for anyone to conclude based upon Mr. Dershowitz’s statements that Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell had determined that the allegations against Alan Dershowitz made by Virginia Roberts Giuffre were false or unfounded. Neither the terms of the settlement nor the agreed upon joint public statement issued as part of the settlement support any such conclusions, and it is false to state or suggest otherwise. Pow. Wham. Not sure where this leaves us. It certainly seems that Edwards and Cassell are now backing away from their “mistake” remark in the joint statement. For now, at least, Dershowitz says he’s not bothered by that latest comment. Overall, he seems pretty content with the outcome—though he tells me: “Part of me is disappointed because I wanted to have a trial and have evidence come out.” And what has this case cost him? Though Dershowitz says he spent over $1 million on legal fees (insurance covered a chunk of it), he won’t disclose if the settlement entails any monetary rewards, citing a con潖dentiality clause. But he says he’s not suffering 潖nancially because of the ordeal: “I continue to be sought after; people call me every day for legal work.” [email protected] Next posts: What’s up with the con潖dentiality agreement in the Dershowitz settlement? And the continuing saga of the Alan Dershowitz and David Boies feud. I’ve been covering Case Alan Dershowitz for overDocument 1:15-cv-07433-LAP a year now, and363-11 I can assure Filed you he’s08/11/16 not repressed Page 12 of 40 (http://www.americanlawyer.com/id=1202715316005/Prof-Dershowitz-Tell-Me-How-You-Really-Feel? slreturn=20160310223823). When we chatted on the phone on Saturday, he got right to the point: “I got what I always wanted. They withdrew everything!” Dershowitz is talking about the settlement that he reached with lawyers Brad Edwards and Paul Cassell (http://www.americanlawyer.com/id=1202716384195/Meet-the-Lawyer-Whos-Giving-Dershowitz-Hell), who sued the famous Harvard professor for defamation; Dershowitz also countersued them. (If you need a refresher, the backdrop is that Edwards and Cassell’s client Virginia Roberts Giuffre accused Dershowitz, along with Prince Andrew and others (http://www.americanlawyer.com/id=1202716145382/Jane-Doe-3-Swears-She-Had-Sex-with-Dershowitz-), of having sex with her when she was a minor. Dershowitz denied the charges and accused her two lawyers of acting improperly.) Last Friday, Edwards and Cassell issued a notice of withdrawal of the motion for partial summary judgement, and the litigation came to an end. The notice is short and sweet; here’s the key part: As expressly understood by the parties upon the execution of the Con潖dential Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release, Ms. Giuffre reaf潖rms her allegations, and the withdrawal of the referenced 潖lings is not intended to be, and should not be construed as being, an acknowledgement by Edwards and Cassell that the allegations made by Ms. Giuffre were mistaken. Edwards and Cassell do acknowledge that the public 潖ling in the Crime Victims’ Rights Act case of their client’s allegations against Defendant Dershowitz became a major distraction from the merits of the well-founded Crime Victims’ Rights Act case by causing delay and, as a consequence, turned out to have been a tactical mistake. For that reason, Edwards and Cassell have chosen to withdraw the referenced 潖ling as a condition of settlement. Let’s parse this: Edwards and Cassell say they the accusations against Dershowitz were a “distraction” and “tactical mistake,” though they stand by their clients allegations. That’s essentially saying, “Oops, our bad for accusing Dershowitz of those nasty things, but that doesn’t mean he’s innocent.” If Dershowitz was looking for total vindication, I’m not sure this cuts it. But Dershowitz says he’s satis潖ed with the wording in the settlement. As a legal matter, he says, Giuffre’s lawyers couldn’t admit she was wrong to accuse him. “They can’t take back the claims because that could be used against her on a perjury indictment. That would mean throwing her under the bus,” he explains. “Ultimately, they’ll have to make a claim that it was case of mistaken identity, that it was done in good faith.” What might give Dershowitz more satisfaction is the joint statement that he, Edwards and Cassell issued about the settlement: Edwards and Cassell maintain that they 潖led their client’s allegations in good faith and performed the necessary due diligence to do so, and have produced documents detailing those efforts. Dershowitz completely denies any such misconduct, while not disputing Roberts’s statements that the underlying alleged misconduct may have occurred with someone else. Dershowitz has produced travel and other records for the relevant times which he relies on to establish that he could not have been present when the alleged misconduct occurred. He has also produced other evidence that he relies upon to refute the credibility of the allegations against him. The parties believe it is time to take advantage of the new information that has come to light on both sides during the litigation and put these matters behind them. Given the events that have transpired since the 潖ling of the documents in the federal court and in this action in which Dershowitz was accused of sexual misconduct, including the court order striking the allegations in the federal court 潖lings, and the records and other documents produced by the parties, Edwards and Cassell acknowledge that it was a mistake to have 潖led sexual misconduct accusations against Dershowitz; and the sexual misconduct accusations made in all public 潖lings (including all exhibits) are hereby withdrawn. Dershowitz also withdraws his accusations that Edwards and Cassell acted unethically. Lots of legal contortions here, but this is the eye-popper: “Edwards and Cassell acknowledge that it was a mistake to have 潖led sexual misconduct accusations against Dershowitz.” And this time, “mistake” was not preceded with the word “tactical.” I can only imagine the amount of negotiation that must have been expended on this joint statement. Dershowitz says he feels “grati潖ed” by the result. “Nobody believes [Giuffre]; her credibility came from her lawyers, and they have withdrawn the accusations,” he says. Edwards and Cassell, however, aren’t happy with the way Dershowitz has been spinning the settlement. On Sunday, they issued a statement, which says in part:  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 363-11 Filed 08/11/16 Page 13 of 40 Following the announcement of the settlement of defamation claims against Alan Dershowitz, he has been making public statements suggesting that he has prevailed in the lawsuit and that the terms of the settlement exonerate him of any wrongdoing. Those statements are at best misleading. It is a mistake for anyone to conclude based upon Mr. Dershowitz’s statements that the case against him was abandoned due to lack of factual support. It is a mistake for anyone to conclude based upon Mr. Dershowitz’s statements that Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell had determined that the allegations against Alan Dershowitz made by Virginia Roberts Giuffre were false or unfounded. Neither the terms of the settlement nor the agreed upon joint public statement issued as part of the settlement support any such conclusions, and it is false to state or suggest otherwise. Pow. Wham. Not sure where this leaves us. It certainly seems that Edwards and Cassell are now backing away from their “mistake” remark in the joint statement. For now, at least, Dershowitz says he’s not bothered by that latest comment. Overall, he seems pretty content with the outcome—though he tells me: “Part of me is disappointed because I wanted to have a trial and have evidence come out.” And what has this case cost him? Though Dershowitz says he spent over $1 million on legal fees (insurance covered a chunk of it), he won’t disclose if the settlement entails any monetary rewards, citing a con潖dentiality clause. But he says he’s not suffering 潖nancially because of the ordeal: “I continue to be sought after; people call me every day for legal work.” [email protected] Next posts: What’s up with the con潖dentiality agreement in the Dershowitz settlement? And the continuing saga of the Alan Dershowitz and David Boies feud. Industry: Law Firms (/the-legal-industry/law潖rms) Law Schools (/the-legal-industry/lawschool) TRENDING NOW Argument Preview: Gibson Dunn's Olson Takes Aim at CFPB (http://www.litigationdaily.com/home/id=1202754644393) High Court's First Latina Justice Calls for More Diversity (http://www.newyorklawjournal.com/home/id=1202754614920) Did Dershowitz Pay Big Bucks to Settle Sex Case? (http://www.alm.law.com/jsp/law/locateArticle.jsp?id=1202754666961) Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 363-11 Goldman Sachs Deal Filed May Spell Big Payday08/11/16 for Kellogg Huber,Page 14 of 40 Korein Tillery (http://www.americanlawyer.com/home/id=1202754670719) $50,000 Punitive Award Given in Attorney Fee Dispute (http://www.dailybusinessreview.com/home/id=1202754650885) MOST POPULAR FROM THE ALM NETWORK 'Equally Divided' Supreme Court is Asked to Rehear Union-Fees Case (/sites/articles/2016/04/08/equally-divided-supreme-court-is-asked-to-rehear-union- fees-case/) Argument Preview: Gibson Dunn's Olson Takes Aim at CFPB (/sites/articles/2016/04/11/argument-preview-gibson-dunns-olson-takes-aim-at- cfpb/) Split Panel Backs Tenancy for Disabled Woman's Son (/sites/articles/2016/04/11/split-panel-backs-tenancy-for-disabled-womans-son/) Eastern District Patent Filings Plummet (/sites/articles/2016/04/09/eastern-district- patent-潖lings-plummet/) MORE STORIES 'Equally Divided' Supreme Court is Asked to Rehear Union-Fees Case (/sites/articles/2016/04/08/equally-divided-supreme-court-is-asked-to-rehear- union-fees-case/) Argument Preview: Gibson Dunn's Olson Takes Aim at CFPB (/sites/articles/2016/04/11/argument-preview-gibson-dunns-olson-takes-aim-at- cfpb/) Split Panel Backs Tenancy for Disabled Woman's Son (/sites/articles/2016/04/11/split-panel-backs-tenancy-for-disabled-womans-son/)  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 363-11 Filed 08/11/16 Page 15 of 40 Eastern District Patent Filings Plummet (/sites/articles/2016/04/09/eastern- district-patent-潖lings-plummet/) (https://twitter.com/lawdotcom) (http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Lawcom­ (https://plus.google.com/105568464779205123032/posts) ( Legal­ http://feeds.feedblitz.com/law/law­ © 2016 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved Privacy Policy [New] (http://www.alm.com/privacy­policy) | ALM License Agreement (http://www.alm.com/about/terms­use) (http://oasc17.247realmedia.com/RealMedia/ads/click_lx.ads/alm.law/articledisplay/1193836805/x26/default/empty.gif/777436355331514f2f6e63414370324c? x) (http://oasc17.247realmedia.com/RealMedia/ads/click_lx.ads/alm.law/articledisplay/163852931/x25/default/empty.gif/777436355331514f2f6e63414370324c? x)  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 363-11 Filed 08/11/16 Page 16 of 40 Photo by John Lamparski/Getty Images for Hulu Alan Dershowitz Extends Truce Offer to David Boies Amid Bitter Feud 1 day ago Famed lawyer Alan Dershowitz has extended a truce offer to the prominent U.S. litigator David Boies after the two attorneys squared off in a year­long battle over the handling of underage sex allegations against Dershowitz. The allegations were struck from court record last year but have still rankled the 77­year­old Harvard law professor and prompted him to publicly criticize lawyers representing the alleged victim, Virginia Roberts. “It’s a tragedy that we have gotten into this personal conflict, and I would like to put this to an end,” said Dershowitz, in an interview Saturday night, after a defamation settlement with other lawyers in the matter was announced Friday. “We both do important things and it’s a distraction.” On Friday, Dershowitz settled a defamation lawsuit with Florida lawyers Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell, who sued Dershowitz last year after he made public statements about their representation of Roberts, including an interview with CNN International in which he called them “sleazy, unprofessional and unethical.” The controversy started in December 2014, when Roberts claimed that convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein forced her to have sex with Dershowitz, the U.K’.s Prince Andrew and other men, at Epstein’s private Caribbean island and other places, more than 15 years ago. Roberts never filed suit against Dershowitz — Boies pointed to a statute of limitations that restricted her from doing so — but she made the claims to join a federal case filed in 2008 by other alleged victims of Epstein, who sued the U.S. government to quash a non­prosecution agreement with Epstein.  Case Today, no claims are1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document pending against Dershowitz 363-11theFiled regarding 08/11/16 alleged sex acts,Page 17 he which of 40 and Prince Andrew have denied. A federal judge last year ordered the claims struck from the record because they weren’t relevant to the 2008 case. And in the settlement Friday, Edwards and Cassell issued a joint statement (https://bol.bna.com/wp­content/uploads/2016/04/Dershowitz­Settlement­Release.pdf) with Dershowitz acknowledging that it was a mistake to have filed sexual misconduct accusations against him. The pact came with a statement from former FBI director Louis Freeh, who said he conducted an internal investigation into the accusations against Dershowitz but that “the totality of the evidence” refuted the claims. Yet, Dershowitz has nonetheless made a point to speak out against Roberts’ lawyers, including David Boies, who he feels have acted inappropriately for representing a client with frivolous claims, among other things. (https://bol.bna.com/wp­content/uploads/2016/04/202856580­e1460334193173.jpg) David Boies, chairman of Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP. Photo by Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg Boies, in an interview, said that “Alan has been loose with some of the things he says” which he said have been used as a strategy to deflect attention from himself. He also said that Roberts stands by her allegations against Dershowitz, even though they are no longer filed in court, and that Boies’s firm has done nothing wrong. “I don’t know what Mr. Freeh did,” said Boies, in response to the Freeh investigation. “Louis Freeh never contacted me — he never contacted my client, he never called up Sigrid McCawley, who is the lawyer day­to­day representing her, to say, ‘Can I see your client? Can I see what documentation your client has? Can I talk to any other witnesses?'”  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Dershowitz responded Document by saying that if Boies 363-11 is willing to haveFiled Freeh08/11/16 Page speak with 18 ofRoberts, Virginia 40 “she should expect a call next week.” Freeh was not immediately available for comment. Boies also questioned the terms of the settlement, saying, “What did he have to give up? How much did he have to pay to avoid this litigation?” After Friday’s settlement, the only outstanding piece of related litigation against Dershowitz is a motion for sanctions that Boies’ firm filed in December 2015 in Florida circuit court. The motion said that Dershowitz disclosed confidential settlement discussions with Roberts’ lawyers and wrongfully characterized what was said when he told media outlets that Boies told him privately that he believed he was innocent. Boies disputes he ever said it. “I am perfectly willing to bury the hatchet with David Boies,” said Dershowitz, on Saturday. “We used to be friends. I think we had mutual respect for each other. I think it’s a tragedy that we have come into conflict, and I extend an offer to him to sit down and try to resolve our differences. Just between two old friends — agree where we agree, disagree where we disagree — shake hands and go on with our lives.” He said that he likes to live by the Jewish Law called Lashon Hara, which he said prohibits falsely speaking ill of anybody. “I actually have told him, that if he thinks I said anything that is wrong, to tell me what it is and I will correct the record,” said Dershowitz. “I don’t want to say anything false about anybody.” Dershowitz’s comments came after a contentious back­and­forth set of interviews, in which the two lawyers went from attacking each other and calling each other liars, to Dershowitz’s nostalgic invitation, referring to Boies as “an old friend” who he was introduced to years ago through the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D­Mass.). “It has been a disappointment to me that our friendship has been hurt by this conflict, because it’s not really between me and him — it’s between a woman who made up a story and me, and I’ve resolved that, so we should move on with our lives,” said Dershowitz. Boies, in response, issued the following statement: “I am certainly willing to sit down with Alan Dershowitz. Everything I have said about Alan publicly, and in court, has been in response to something he has said about me or my firm.” The invitation marks a twist in the legal battle between Boies and Dershowitz, and it could be one of the last chapters of their high profile feud. For years, both have operated at the top of the legal profession: Boies, the chairman of Boies Schiller & Flexner, was instrumental in overturning California’s Proposition 8 ban on gay marriage and counts some of the largest corporations and U.S. politicians as clients. Dershowitz is perhaps most prominently known for being the appellate defense lawyer in the murder trial of O.J. Simpson in 1995, and, an outspoken supporter of gun control, he is a frequent speaker on the U.S. legal system. His other clients have included Mike Tyson and Patty Hearst. The interviewsCase — two1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document with Dershowitz, and 363-11 one hour­long Filed 08/11/16 interview with Boies Page 19 ofafter — started 40 Dershowitz’s defamation settlement was announced on Friday. At first, Dershowitz continued to criticize Roberts’ lawyers — including Boies, saying that “he has some very hard questions to answer” — and vowed to advocate for law reform that would prevent meritless claims from being brought against innocent people. He told Big Law Business that he hopes at least Roberts will be investigated by law officials for perjury. Boies fired back, saying that he welcomes law enforcement officials to become involved in the case to investigate perjury, including any possible perjury Dershowitz could have committed. Asked what kind of charges could be brought against Dershowitz, Boies said: “I’m not trying to fuel this by making charges against Alan… His situation is sad enough.” Dershowitz said he is happy to cooperate with any law agency that would investigate “whether it is she or I that is lying.” He also said that he took issue with how the sex allegations were handled from the start, in 2014 and 2015. “It really paints the prominent people in the legal profession in a very bad light,” said Dershowitz. “Lawyers shouldn’t be doing things like this. They should be careful. They shouldn’t be making mistakes. For them, it was a mistake, but for me it was 15 months of being waterboarded with these claims, and you can imagine what it means for my grandchildren. They never even called me and asked if there was any proof that it could have happened.” Dershowitz said that he kept meticulous records of his whereabouts through cell phone and other records and was able to track that he wasn’t near the Caribbean island on dates that Roberts had alleged he had sex with her, around 2000. “Remember, I’m a lawyer — I bill by the hour. I have a record of every single day,” said Dershowitz. “She said she had dinner with Bill Clinton on the island twice, and we did a FOIA request and found that Bill Clinton was never on the island. She said she met Al Gore on the island, and he was never on the island. And David Boies could have easily checked that. All he had to do was pick up the phone and make the phone call, but he didn’t do it.” Boies, in turn, said that Dershowitz “doesn’t know what I did or did not do” and that whether they were on the island or not “was wholly irrelevant” to Boies’s involvement in court. Separately, Dershowitz took issue with the way he said Boies’ firm approached him after Roberts’ claims first arose in late 2014. Dershowitz said that one of Boies Schiller’s lawyers, Carlos Sires, emailed and then called him, saying that he would represent Dershowitz and asked him to turn over documents related to the Roberts case, including his case strategy and “some investigative work,” Dershowitz said. “And then, only then, did he tell me he wouldn’t represent me,” said Dershowitz. “Initially, they lied about the reason. They said that one of their partners was the chair of Columbia University and they didn’t want to get involved in cases involving academics. That was a blatant lie. So while they were representing Virginia Roberts, they got all my client privileged information.” Sires, contacted Sunday, disputed Dershowtiz’s account, saying that it is not accurate, and that there was no conflict. “We challenged Mr. Dershowitz many months ago that if he thought there was any support for  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 363-11 Filed 08/11/16 Page 20 of 40 (https://bol.bna.com/wp­content/uploads/2016/04/GettyImages­508280642.jpg) Alan Dershowitz attends Hulu Presents “Triumph’s Election Special” produced by Funny Or Die at NEP Studios on February 3, 2016 in New York City. Photo by John Lamparski/Getty Images for Hulu  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP his claim whatsoever he should bring it to Document court,” said363-11 Sires viaFiled 08/11/16 email. Page “He did not 21 of do so. He40 did not do so because his claim is baseless.” Earlier on Saturday evening, Boies said in an interview that Dershowitz isn’t a party to any lawsuit he is handling, and that Dershowitz’s criticism of him and his firm is misplaced. Boies’s firm is currently only representing Roberts in a defamation case against British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell for saying that Roberts made “obvious lies” when accusing Maxwell of recruiting Roberts to become a victim of sex trafficking between 1999 to 2002. “Alan Dershowitz is not a party to that litigation,” said Boies. “There is a statute of limitations issue. He could only be sued for sexual abuse of a minor if he waived the statute of limitations, and he has declined to do that… All he has to do is sign his name — sign a piece of paper like the one that has been given to him, and if he’s lost it, we’ll give it to him again.” Instead, Boies said that Dershowitz has reverted to a “very sad” PR campaign against the lawyers representing Roberts. Dershowitz disputed Boies’s comments that he declined to waive the statute of limitations, saying that he filed an affidavit under oath that he never had sex with Roberts, which opened himself up to a perjury indictment if prosecutors felt that he could have been lying. But Boies, like Sires, said that Dershowitz has not brought any of his claims against the firm in court, even though Boies Schiller has encouraged him to do so. “He’s obviously more comfortable making claims to reporters than he is making claims in court,” said Boies. “He can get away with that to a point, but he’s not going to get away with that with me. When he first made these claims with, for example my firm, we wrote him a letter that said, ‘Put up or shut up, bring these claims to court or move on.’ ” Dershowitz issued a statement following Boies’s comments, saying, “I may well do so.” Asked if Boies has considered bringing his own defamation lawsuit against Dershowitz, Boies dismissed the possibility, saying “almost all public debate belongs in the public field… I’m also comfortable with the public record.” For the meantime, Boies Schiller’s sanction motion against Dershowitz in a Florida circuit court remains outstanding. Dershowitz said that a hearing in Florida will take place in mid­May regarding the sanctions motion, but he hopes that his invitation to Boies will smooth over their fractured relationship. At most, he confirmed that the discussions, if successful, could result in another settlement to put the entire Roberts matter behind him. “I mean, that would be a show of good faith, but we’re prepared to litigate,” said Dershowitz. “We have all of our litigation strategies lined up.” (This story has been updated to include details about Dershowitz’s settlement and additional comments from Boies and Dershowitz)  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 363-11 Filed 08/11/16 Page 22 of 40 (http://www.bna.com/bloomberglaw? promocode=BLBBLAW) 4/12/2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document Did Dershowitz Pay Big Bucks363-11 to Settle Sex Filed 08/11/16 Case | The Page 23 of 40 American Lawyer NOT FOR REPRINT Click to Print or Select 'Print' in your browser menu to print this document. Page printed from: The American Lawyer Did Dershowitz Pay Big Bucks to Settle Sex Case? Vivia Chen, The Careerist April 11, 2016 Note: Since the original publication of this post, we've included additional statements by Alan Dershowitz about the circumstances under which he's prepared to waive confidential information. It's not over. If you thought the settlement that Alan Dershowitz reached on Friday with the lawyers representing Virginia Roberts Giuffre puts the controversy to bed, you're naive. Possibly delusional. (Giuffre alleged that she was coerced into having sex with Dershowitz and others when she was a minor. Here are details about the settlement.) The latest bombshell: Jack Scarola, counsel for Giuffre's lawyers Paul Cassell and Bradley Edwards, emailed me this: "If Mr. Dershowitz were to request a waiver of the confidentiality provisions, we would agree to the request." Talk about throwing down the gauntlet! That would mean spilling the terms of the settlement— about who had to shell out what to make this messy lawsuit go away. I assumed Cassell and Edwards paid Dershowitz and wanted confidentiality, since they admitted in the settlement to making "mistakes" in alleging that Dershowitz had sex with Giuffre. But David Boies, who represents Giuffre in a related matter, tells me I'm off target. In a phone conversation on Sunday, Boies dangled this tidbit of information before me: "I don't know the terms of the settlement, but I know that it was proposed that [Edwards and Cassell] be paid hundreds of thousands of dollars [by Alan Dershowitz] to drop the case." My eyes widened. Go on, Mr. Boies, I said. He continued: "Ask Alan Dershowitz who paid whom. I know Dershowitz asked for confidentiality, and Edwards and Cassell will waive it . . . And if Dershowitz won't waive confidentiality, that should tell you if there's something incriminating." So I rushed to ask Cassell and Edwards about waiving confidentiality, and got the response from Scarola that they'd essentially do it in a New York minute. Scarola also emailed me a post settlement statement (which I covered in part yesterday) that says this: http://www.americanlawyer.com/printerfriendly/id=1202754666961 1/2 4/12/2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document Did Dershowitz Pay Big Bucks363-11 to Settle Sex Filed 08/11/16