EFTA00183732.pdf

Rol Slack lir „kite' 2/949 Arcrwite a." 2434 7 , Antai 3 Liu) cut, ,4,/e EFTA00183732  KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP AND AfilL/ArtO PART/H.3We; ' Cntercup Cantor 163 East 53'd Street New York, New York 10022-4611 Facsimile: WNW rwerA.COM September 2, 2008 VIA FACSIMILE (56D 820-8777 United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Re:Jeffrey Bpstein Dear • In response to your letter dated August 26, 2008, I am confirming that Mr. Goldberger should continue to be listed as the contact pawn in the' mended victim notification letters and should receive the carbon copies of thoso letters as they are sent. • Also, we plan on speaking to Mr. Josofsberg this week to discuss a procedure for paying his fees. We intend to comply fully with the agreement and Mr. Epstein will pay Mr. Josfsberg's usual and customary hourly rates for his work pursuant to the agreement facilitating settlements under 2255. Sncerely, &o "tz co: Chief, Northern Division ...Perger Roy Black ehMego Hong Kong London Los Angeles Munloh Son Fronoleoo Wushingiona EFTA00183733 ROBERT JOSEFSBERG From: ROBERT .JOSEFSBERG Sent: 09 2:16 PM ' To: Subject: Re: Eps e n Roy - I need to go on record regarding Mr Epsteins message that without any settlements there will be a "push back" on any future payments. First, Mr Epstein has no authority to "push back" on payments. Secondly, although I am vey interested in settling some cases, I will not let Mr Epstein coerce me into settling for some clients so that I can get paid for representing others. It would be unethical for me to settle any cases in order to avoid Mr Epstina threatened "push back". If I do settle any cases, it will have nothing to do with Mr epstein waving the money carrot in front of me. Third, on friday, Jan 23rd,(or Sat the 24th) you advised that Mr Epstein would promptly pay all costs and all legal fees through and including 1/23. I told you that I questioned his authity to "stop" paying for time and costs incurred after 1/23. BUT - I appreciated the fact that he would promptly pay our next bill - covering only through 1/23. I told you that I would not send out this new bill until' Mr epstein paid our prior, 120 and 90 day overdue statements. I didn't want a "new" statement to delay payment on the old overdue statments. Does your last email mean that Mr epstein is breaching his agreement to promptly pay for all time/costs incurred up to 1/23 7 I will send a new statement covering everything from approx 12/15 through 1/23. Please let me know whether Mr Epstein will comply with your message of 1/23, or he will "push back" on this next statement. My next statement will be sent the day after Mr Epstein pays the other old staements. If he did actually send the check today, I should have the next statment mailed by thurs or fri. Thus far Mr Epstein has made 3 changes re where I should send the statements. In order to avoid further delay and confusion, please let me know where you want me to send the next statements. I apologize if this email has typos!, etc but its the best I can do while I'm in trial. I do not apologize for the tone of this note - I am hurt and upset - I think that Mr Epstein is taking advantage of me, and taking advantage of our (Roy/Bob) relationship. Will further discuss this w you by phone or in personm. Thanks Original Messa e From: Roy BLACK < To: ROBERT I. JOSEFSBERG Sent: Tue Feb 03 12:47:59 2009 Subject: Epstein Bob: I am told a check went out today. I am also told there will be push back on further expenses without a settlement. So we need to discuss settling the cases. Jeffrey will not pay more for the fees and expenses without the start of settlement negotiations. So let's discuss. Roy 1 EFTA00183734 BERT PATTON From: ROBERT I. JOSEFSBERG Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 200912:47 PM To: 'Amy Eder7; 'Evelyn Sheehan'; KATHERINE W. EZELL; BERT PATTON Subject: FW: Epstein Original Message From: Roy BLACK rmailto:Mr.11.3 Sent: Monda , February 09, 2 I JOSEFSBERG To: ROBERT I. Subject: Re: Epstein The client has informed me and I will send you a note today on his position. Sorry for the delay. >» "ROBERT I. JOSEFSBERG" <RJOSEFSBERGOPODHURST.com> 2/6/2009 2:39 PM >» >» Having not heard from you, I assume that you still do not have sufficient direction, or are still lacking client input. I've had 3 or 4 issues pending since our conversation of 1/23 or 1/24. I've waited two weeks for your responses, and + am running out of time. I understand and sympathize with your situation. I wish someone would attempt to understand my situation. You are leaving me very limited alternatives. Original Messes e From: Roy BLACK < To: ROBERT I. JOSEFSBERG Sent: Thu Feb 05 12:04:21 2009 Subject: Re: Epstein I am talking to the client this afternoon. So / have no direction yet. >» "ROBERT I. JOSEFSBERG" < > 2/5/2009 11:17 AM ›.» >» Roy - you wrote on 2/3 that you were advised that "a check went out today". It did not. This morning 100,000 was wired. There was 200,000 that was more than 90 days overdue. The 50 percent payment is not acceptable. Unfortunately, this matter is going to blow up. My partner, Podhurst wants to bring this to a head by tomorrow. I will try to reach you during the lunch break in my arbitration. You were supposed to get back to me on yesterday - after you received "client input". I understand your situation - but it is apparent that your client does not care about his agreements, and is. Making everything impossible. I though it was appropriate to let you know before we take further action. Original Message From: Roy BLACK > To: ROBERT I. JOSEFSBERG Sent: Tue Feb 03 13:41:21 2009 Subject: Re: Epstein no problem. I will keep you informed. >» "ROBERT I. JOSEFSBERG" < > 2/3/2009 1:33 PM >» I'll be at my arbitration from approx 9 till 6. I'll try to call you during a break - or you can call me after 6. Why don't you email me after you get your client input - and I'll call you after that. Original Mess... From: Roy BLACK < To: ROBERT I. JOSEFSBERG Sent: Tue Feb 03 13:19:40 2009 Subject: Re: Epstein 1 EFTA00183735 Bob let's talk tomorrow. I need more input from the client before we discuss this. >>> "ROBERT I. JOSEFSBERG" < > 2/3/2009 1:11 PM Roy - I'm not satisfied with my last email to you - am in a rush because I'm in an 8 day arbitration. I need to talk to you - will you (at the milt hirsch function tonight? I'll try to get there btwn 6:45 and 7:30 - if we don't talk there, please call me after 7:30 - at 632 9230 Original Message From: ROBERT I. JOSEFSBERO To: 'RBLACK(Oroyblack.com, <IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII> Sent: Tue Feb 03 12:55:53 2 Subject: Re: Epstein Fine - can we settle IIIII ? - as to the "delay" in talking about settlement , when I met with Jay L in eallig i he said that Jeff would not be ready to talk about settling till the end of Jan. Both you and Jay did not return my 3 or 4 calls to each of you between Jan 10 and approx Jan 25 when I finally dpoke to you. Original Metak--- From: Roy BLACK < To; ROBERT I. JOSEFSBERG Sent: Tue Feb 03 12:47:59 2009 Subject: Epstein Bob: I am told a check went out today. I am also told there will be push back on further expenses without a settlement. So we need to discuss settling the cases. Jeffrey will not pay more for the fees and expenses without the start of settlement negotiations. So let's discuss. Roy 2 EFTA00183736 13/2009 13:11 FAX Q002/003 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP AND AIIRJATID PAIDIARSKIPS Cittgroup Center 153 East 63r0 Street Jay P. Lefkowitz,.. Now York, New York 10022-4811 Fac To ay: lefkovAtzekirklan .com . 'www.barklana.com Confidential For Settlement Purposes Only Pursuant to Rule 408 February 13, 2009 VIA FACSIMILE Robert . Josefsberg, Esq. Podhurst Orseck, P.A. City National Bank Building 25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33130 Dear Bob, We have received copies of your firm's invoices for the last several months as related your representation of a select group of individuals in connection with a matter between Mr. Epstein and the United States Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida (the "USAO"). We write this letter to (1) address issues raised by those invoices and (2) suggest a resolution to this matter that would benefit all parties involved. First and foremost, after thoroughly reviewing the invoices from your firm, it is clear that the services you have provided to the women at issue far exceed the scope of services for which Mr. Epstein agreed to pay under the federal Deferred Prosecution Agreement (the "Agreement") and Addendum. Pursuant to the relevant Agreement and Addendum, Mr. Epstein agreed to pay the attorney representative for his representation of a select group of individuals at "his or her regular customary hourly rate." Importantly, the Addendum limits the scope of this representation and specifies that the Agreement "shall not obligate Epstein to pay the fees and costs of contested litigation filed against him." The Addendum further provides that Mr. Epstein's obligation to pay the fees of an attorney represcutaildeases when the work performed is aimed at pursuing "a contested lawsuit pursuant to 18 . § 2255" or "any other contested remedy." Simply put, the Agreement and Addendum only require Mr. Epstein to pay fees expended in connection with negotiating a settlement for each of the relevant individuals, not for services relating to any type of pre-litigation effort. Thus, any charges related to work performed beyond, or extraneous to, reaching a settlement should not be Mr. Epstein's' responsibility. Mr. Epstein fully intends to fulfill his agreement and pay for all fees associated with settlement at your firm's regular hourly rates. However, Mr. Epstein will not pay for any services beyond those directed towards reaching a settlement. To resolve this matter, we are Chicago Hong Kong London Los Angeles Munich San Francisco WashIngtoe.M. EFTA00183737 02/13/2009 13:12 FAX Q4003/003 Confidential For Settlement Purposes Only Pursuant to Rule 408 Robert Josefsberg February 13, 2009 Page 2 available and ready to discuss the invoices with you on a line-by-line basis and believe that we can come to an agreeable resolution as to the fees accumulated to date. During the same discussion, we hope to clarify with you the exact number of women who have agreed to utilize your services for the purpose of reaching a settlement with Mr. Epstein. Second, upon serious consideration and discussion, Mr. Epstein is prepared to offer your clients a settlement that we believe will serve to compensate each individual appropriately. As a final resolution to this matter, Mr. Epstein would pay each individual who agrees to relinquish any andrnotential civil claims against him $50,000.00, which is the statutory amount provided by 18 § 2255, at the time of the alleged violations. Each individual would receive this amount, without any need to offer proof of claim or injury and without any further delay. We hope that you discuss this offer with your clients in the next 30 days, as Mr. Epstein's offer to settle will remain open until March 13, 2009. Very truly yours, Jay P f,7 fkowitz EFTA00183738 ROBERT t JOSEFSBERG From: ROBERT JOSEFSBERG Sent: 2009 2:16 PM To: m' Subject: Re: Epstein Roy - I need to go on record regarding Mr Epsteins message that without any settlements there will be a "push back" on any future payments. First, Mr Epstein has no authority to "push back" on payments. Secondly, although I am vey interested in settling some cases, I will not let Mr Epstein coerce me into settling for some clients so that I can get paid for representing others. It would be unethical for me to settle any cases in order to avoid Mr Epstins threatened "push back". If I do settle any cases, it will have nothing to do with Mr epstein waving the money carrot in front of me. Third, on friday, Jan 23rd,(or Sat the 24th) you advised that Mr Epstein would promptly pay all costs and all legal fees through and including 1/23. I told you that I questioned his authity to "stop" paying for time and costs incurred after 1/23. BUT - I appreciated the fact that he would promptly pay our next bill - covering only through 1/23. I told you that I would not send out this new bill untill Mr epstein paid our prior, 120 and 90 day overdue statements. I didn't want a "new" statement to delay payment on the old overdue statments. Does your last email mean that Mr epstein is breaching his agreement to promptly pay for all time/costs incurred up to 1/23 ? I will send a new statement covering everything from approx 12/15 through 1/23. Please let me know whether Mr Epstein will comply with your message of 1/23, or he will "push back" on this next statement. My next statement will be sent the day after Mr Epstein pays the other old staements. If he did actually send the check today, I should have the next statment mailed by thurs or fri. Thus far Mr Epstein has made 3 changes re where I should send the statements. In order to avoid further delay and confusion, please let me know where you want me to send the next statements. I apologize if this email has typos!, etc but its the best I can do while I'm in trial. I do not apologize for the tone of this note - I am hurt and upset - I think that Mr Epstein is taking advantage of me, and taking advantage of our (Roy/Bob) relationship. Will further discuss this w you by phone or in personm. Thanks Original Messa e From: Roy BLACK < > To: ROBERT I. JOSEFSBERG Sent: Tue Feb 03 12:47:59 2009 Subject: Epstein Bob: I am told a check went out today. I am also told there will be push back on further expenses without a settlement. So we need to discuss settling the cases. Jeffrey will not pay more for the fees and expenses without the start of settlement negotiations. So let's discuss. Roy 1 EFTA00183739  KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP AMIDAPCLIAnDIAJAMKSMM CD:orouo Center 163 ate 63rd Street Jay P. LeftyAtr, New York, Now York 10022-4511 To y: I 40(11 www.kritland.com September 2, 2008 VIA FACSIMILE (561) 820-8in United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Re: Jeffrey Epstein In response to your letter dated August 26, 2008, I am confirming that Mr. Goldberger should continue to be listed as the contact person in the amended victim notification letters and should receive the carbon copies of those letters as they are sent. Also, we plan on speaking to Mr. Soscfsberg this week to discuss a procedure for paying his fees. We intend to comply fully with the agreement and Mr. Epstein will pay Mr. losfsbeeg's usual and customary hourly rates for his work pursuant to the agreement facilitating settlements under 2255. S'ncerely, . L fko "tz cc: . : , Chief, Northern Division Jac Goldberger Roy Black Pupa Hong Kong London Loa Angeles Munich San Franoktco Washington, aged 0619-2S2-SOC L-laP3 und WdGC3 :9 sooz BD unr >I 17 t•T 06TG EGZ Sot 6T:8T 600E/80/90 EFTA00183740  PodhurstOrseck TRIAL Sr APPELLATE LAWYERS Aaron S. Podinust Robert Orseck (1934-1978) Ro berg Joel D Walter H. Beckham. Jr. Stever. Marks Karen Podhurat Dem Victor M. Din, Jr. Of Counsel Katherine W. Ezell Stephen F. Rosenthal Ricardo M. Martinez-Cid February 20, 2009 Ramon A. Rasco Alexander T. Rundlet John Gravante, RI Jay P. Lefkowitz,II. Kirkland & Ellis LLP Citigroup Center 153 East 53rd Street New York, NY 10022-4611 Dear Mr. Lefkowitz: I received your letter dated February 13, 2009. What your client is doing is obvious, and it is in breach of his Non-Prosecution Agreement. The agreement speaks for itself. Enclosed is a copy of the marching orders I received from Mr. Sloman. Pursuant to these directions and the ethical requirements of the legal profession to zealously represent my clients, I have attempted to efficiently and effectively pursue my clients' claims against Mr. Epstein. Perhaps your client thought that he could victimize and intimidate countless underage girls, that he would then agree to provide minimal compensation to them for the damage he inflicted upon them and that I would then simply let them come in and "sign the paperwork" for the absolute minimum recovery. My role is not a clerical one where I merely document a settlement that simply offers the statutory minimum even though courts have provided recovery for each occurrence. What's more, your letter presumes that I should allow my clients to accept such an offer without fully evaluating their claims. Settling their cases in a vacuum would amount to malpractice. As we see it, each of our 9 or 10 clients has three choices: to do nothing, to settle, or to sue your client. In order to make an educated decision, we are required to conduct a comprehensive review of each client's personal history, the events surrounding their abuse at the hands of Mr. Epstein and what has happened to them since he sexually exploited and abused them. Collateral interviews and psychological evaluations are crucial componentsof corroborating facts and assessing a fair damages calculation. Extensive legal research into their potential legal claims and resulting damages must also take place. Such an investigation is, of course, going to be helpful at trial if any of them choose to litigate their claims. This, however, does not change the fact that everything we've done is necessary in order to determine if we should settle: As a matter of fact, you and I discussed hiring Sandy Marks, a jury consultant. Again, such an exercise would be extremely helpful at trial, but an analysis of what would happen at trial is exceptionally beneficial at the settlement stage. Podhunt Orseck, P.A. 25 West Plaster Street, Suite BOO, Miami, FL 33130 Miami 305.233.2200 Fax 3053582322 • Port Lauderdale 954.463.4346 www.podhurstcom EFTA00183741 February 20, 2009 Page 2 You are welcome to set up a conference call or visit us so we can go through my bills line by line in search of "any charges related to work performed beyond, or extraneous to, reaching a settlement." To be clear, nothing in our bills is extraneous to settlement of our clients' claims. Our bills represent our work on behalf of 9 or'10 clients. I will take this opportunity to remind you that of the $412,827.76 that we have sent you itemized bills for, only $163, 992.15 has been paid. Mr. Black wrote on February 3`d that he was advised that a check had been sent out that day. It had not. By the time we got 50% of outstanding fees, outstanding bills were more than 90 days overdue. Failure to pay our fees jeopardizes your client's agreement with the United States Attorney's Office. My exchange with Mr. Black (copies of e-mails are attached) illustrates that promises that have been written or said by you or Mr. Black have been breached. I find myself in a position where I do not know if Mr. Epstein is bound by what you or Mr. Black say. Before we go further, I need confirmation that you and/or Roy Black can commit Mr. Epstein. One of Mr. Black's e-mails clearly states that "Jeffrey will not pay more for the fees and expenses without the start of settlement negotiations." I am frankly baffled by your client's misguided pretense. When I met with you on November 26, 2008, you said Mr. Epstein would not be ready to talk about settling until the end of January. Both you and Mr. Black did not return three or four calls to each of you between January 10 and approximately January 25. Just so the record is clear, we have diligently pursued reaching the stage of active settlement negotiations and have been stonewalled by your side, until your February 13'h "take it or leave it" $50,000 per client offer. In addition, I have attempted to tackle any procedural and logistical problems in an efficient, economical and timely manner. At each step, I have either encountered delay or a complete lack of response. For example, I wasted a lot of time and energy on your client's frivolous claim that I cannot represent my clients at trial. You shocked me with that position on November 21" and promised to get back to me to discuss it. Since we met in November, we haven't received a response regarding this issue. You apparently have finally abandoned this position. In addition, at that November meeting, I told you that some victims have severe psychological problems and that their claims warranted far in excess of $150,000 but that we are sensitive to concerns about them using the money otherwise. As a result, we discussed putting the money in special trusts expressly restricted for payment of psychological treatment. Again, I have received no response. Finally, the March 13th cutoff date is nonsensical. I trust that you wouldn't dare be attempting to say that Mr. Epstein's offer is withdrawn after that. As I said before, your client is in clear breach of his Non-Prosecution Agreement. I am at a loss as to why he would be willing to face the prospect of numerous civil trials, which will be ugly for him, and a federal prosecution in order to avoid fairly compensating my clients for the harm he inflicted upon them. ery truly yours, V Robert C. Jo cc: Roy Black Alan Dershowitz EFTA00183742  ISSPOs). e ice PodhurstOrseck TRIAL & APPELLATE LAWYERS lei,rcma--4, .- RIMY WATS City National Bank Building 25 West Plagler Street, Suite 800 02 PA $ 00.44° Miami, Florida 33130 0004273379 JUN 24 2009 MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 331 30 Assistant U.S. Attorney Office of the U.S. Attorney Seventh District ofFlorida 500 East Broward Blvd., 7" Floor Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 33394$3O16 0001 EFTA00183743 `03/03%2069. 18:32 VAX nortuna KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Aatti AMIAMIO PARTMASICPS Citlgroop Cantor 153 East 53rd Street Jay P. Lotkowitz, New York, New York 10022-4011 Fncsinalo: To I i (212) 446.4900 (ekes/its a .GOT www.kirkland.com Confidential For Settlement Purposes Only Pursuant to Ruh; 408 March 3, 2009 VIA F46CSIMILE Robed I. Josefsberg, Esq. Podhunt Orseck, City National Bank Building 25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33130 Dear Mr. Josefsberg, J write in response to your letter dated February 20. 2009. First, there is no merit whatsoever to your contention that Mr. Epstein has breached the Non-Prosecution Agreement, and your implication that be has is simply unsupported by the facts. As you state in that letter, the "agreement speaks for itself' and should be honored as such. My February 13, 2009 letter to you was an attempt to ensure that the portion of the Agreement concerning restitution be carried out as intended and written. Indeed, our objections to your expanded role in representing the alleged victims and to Mr. Epstein's obligations to pay fees incurred outside of the settlement context are valid. Furthermore, nowhere in the Agreement or Addendum does it state that a fee dispute or contentions as to the exact role of the attorney representative constitute a breach of that Agreement. In fact, there is a requirement that fee disputes he resolved with a special master. As I further explain below, your letter and accompanying documents, as well as the description of services performed in your invoices, lead us to believe that there has been a misunderstanding as to your role. S With your letter, you enclosed a communication from Mr. Sloman to Judge dated October 25, 2007 and an additional document, presumably also from Mr. Sloman, entitled "PROPOSAL FOR PROCEEDING ONCE ATTORNEY IS SELECTED." While you refer to these documents as your "marching orders," neither document is part of the signed Agreement between Mr. Epstein and the United States Attorney's Office "USAO"). The October 25, 2007 letter was not even addressed to you, but rather to Judge the individual responsible for selecting an appropriate attorney representative. And since the October 2007 letter was drafted, there have been several communications between Mr. Epstein's defense team and the USA() which served to further clarify the Agreement with respect the role of the attorney representative. Chicago Hong Kong London Los Angeles Munich San Francisco Washington, M. EFTA00183744 03/03/2000 18:33 PAX Q003/004 Confidential KIRKLAND & ELLIS LIP For Settlement Purposes Only Pursuant to Rule 408 Roberti. Josefsberg March 3, 2009 Page 2 Thus, this document may have contributed to the apparent misunderstanding concerning your defined responsibilities in this matter. In any case, your purported reliance on this letter raises more questions than it answers. For example, the letter clearly indicates that the parties were to "(firstly prepare a short written submission .. . regarding the role of the attorney representative and regarding Epstein's Agreement to pay such attorney representative his or her regular customary hourly rate . . ." (emphasis added). However, you never inquired as to the existence of such a joint statement to help inform you of your defined role. Indeed, you failed to reach out to anyone on Mr. Epstein's defense team to obtain such a document Even though the October 2007 letter does not provide any direct instructions as to your particular responsibilities, it does quote relevant portions of the Agreement which expressly limit Mr. Epstein's obligation to pay the attorney representative. Specifically, the Agreement "shall not obligate Epstein to pay the fees and costs of contested litigation filed against him." Furthermore, the proposed instructions are represented in a document that was not agreed upon between the USAO and Mr. Epstein's defense team. Indeed, we clearly rejected the notion that (1) the selected attorney be able to fulfill any role beyond negotiating a settlement, and (2) that Epstein would pay for any services beyond those incurred while trying to reach a settlement. While we have no objections to your representation of the relevant individuals, we believe that your role, as made clear in the Agreement, is limited to settlement negotiations. In other words, under the Agreement, if an individual wants to consider any measure beyond settlement with Mr. Epstein, she must pursue those avenues through another lawyer. Based on the language of the Agreement, it is our position that you are not responsible for pursing your clients' claims, as you state in your letter. Furthermore, Mr. Epstein is certainly not trying to "victimize and intimidate" anyone. The offer to settle was an earnest effort to avoid any further delay in resolving this matter. Notably, the government has expressly provided that it takes no position regarding potential claims of government witnesses.' Oiven this lack of offer of $50,000 to resolve claims that are not time-barred (as we believe ' claim to be), without any On several occasions, USAO representatives have asserted that the government takes no position as to the claims of the individuals identified its alleged victims. For the sake of confidentiality, we will not produce the relevant documents. One such communication, however, was made in a December 6, 2007 letter from United Stales Attorney Acosta to myself. in which he stated that "the Office has no intention to take any position in any civil litigation arising between Mr. Epstein and any individual victim . .." EFTA00183745 03/0312000 18:34 FAX Q004/004 Confidential KIRKLAND 8. ELLIS LLP For Settlement Purposes Only Pursuant to Rule 408 Robert . Josefsberg March 3, 2009 Page 3 requirement to verify the allegations made, is more than reasonable.2 And while you are surely entitled to your personal opinion as to the merits of our settlement offer, we remind you that you are under an obligation to discuss our offer with your clients and to allow each one to determine whether she would like to accept such an offer. If these individuals choose to reject Mr. Epstein's offer and consider potential litigation against Mr. Epstein, another lawyer, not paid by Mr. Epstein, will have to perform that work. I hope these matters can be resolved in an amicable manner. I would welcome the opportunity to meet with you face-to-face so that we are able to move forward. I am certain that a great deal of the confusion can be resolved through an in-person meeting. Due to the fact that there are many lawyers involved, I fear that some your past correspondence was not returned in a timely manner. I will endeavor to make certain that this does not happen again. Very truly yours, P. Le owitz $50,000 represents the statutory minimum under I8 § 2255, constitutionally questionably statute reasons we will nut address here, at the time of the alleged conduct. Th. stein agreed to settle claims with the relevant individuals pursuant to the terms of the Agreement. EFTA00183746  PodhurstOrseck TRIAL & APPELLATE LAWYERS Aaron S odhurst Robert Orseck (19344978) Robert berg Joel D. Walter H. Beckham, Jr. Steven Marks Karen Podhurst Den Victor M. Diaz, Jr. Of Counsel Katherine W. Ezell Stephen F. Rosenthal Ricardo M. Martinez•Cid Ramon A. Rasco Alexander T. Rundlet ' John Gravante, III June 8, 2009 Via Fax and U.S. Mail Robert Critton, Esq. Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman, LLP 515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Re: Epstein Case Our File No.: 30608 Dear Bob: I was shocked when I heard from Bob Josefsberg that Jeffrey Epstein and counsel do not recall, or have decided to ignore, his contractual obligation to pay this firm's fees and costs relating to any of his victims/our clients who elect to settle their claims without filing suit. You asked Bob to put his position in writing, and this letter is our rough attempt to do so. The Agreement Paragraph 7 of the Non-Prosecution Agreement ("NPA") provides for the selection of an attorney representative ("Atty Rep") for the individualsMire on a list of individuals whom the United States has identified as victims, as defined in 18 § 2255 ("Victims"), which list was to be provided and was provided to Epstein's attorneys, Jack Goldberger and Michael Tien, after Epstein signed the NPA and was sentenced. Subsequently, there was an Addendum to the Non-Prosecution Agreement ("Addendum"), the stated intent of which was to clarify certain provisions of page 4, paragraph 7 of the NPA. In paragraph 7A of the Addendum, it was agreed that the United States had the right to assign to an independent third-party, the responsibility of selecting the Atty Rep, agariet to the good faith approval of Epstein's counsel. As you know, former ChiefJudge Edward ME was the independent third-party chosen by the United States in consultation with and with the good faith approval of Podhant Orseck, P.A. 25 West Plagler Street, Suite 800, Miami, FL 33130 Miami 305358.2800 Pax 305.358.2382 • Fort Lauderdale 954.465.4346 EFTA00183747 Robert Critton, Esq. June 8, 2009 Page 2 Epstei counsel. Judge M, in turn and in accordance with paragraph 7, selected our partner Robert. Josefsberg as Atty Rep for the victims. Both parties had the right to object to his selection prior to his final designation. Mr. Josefsberg was formally designated as Atty Rep on or about September 2, 2008, without objection from either side. Pursuant to paragraph 7 of the NPA, Mr. Josefsberg is to be paid for [his services as Atty Rep] by Epstein. Paragraph the Addendum directed the Parties to jointly prepare a short written submission to Judg regarding the role of the Atty Rep and Epstein's Agreement to pay such Atty Rep his customary hourly rrepresenting the victims. The United States prepared a proposal and submitted it to Judge, to which Epstein apparently objected. Not only did neither Epstein nor his counsel deign to join with the United States in preparing such a proposal, but they failed and refused to submit their own proposed protocol. In that circumstance, Epstein clearly waived his right to submit a joint proposal or any proposal at all. Accordingly, he has no right to object to the proposal submitted by the United States. A clear reading of the Addendum at 7B demonstrates that there was no disagreement, nor could there have been any misunderstanding regarding what is referred to as "Epstein's Agreement to pay . . . [Mr. Josefsberg's] regular customary hourly rate." This obligation is reiterated in the first sentence of paragraph 7C. Epstein's choosing not to submit a proposal as to the role of the Atty Rep in no way relieved him of his obligation to pay the Atty Rep his regular hourly rate for his representation of the designated victims, so long as they are engaged in the settlement process. This is particularly apt when Epstein chose to avail himself of this settlement opportunity so as to preclude the Atty Rep's filing of a lawsuit on behalf of the victim. Epstein's obligation to pay the Atty Rep's fees and costs pursuant tot he NPA and its Addendum ceases only in the event that the Atty Rep files contested litigation against Epstein on behalf of a victim. The Recent Settlement During the last six months there have been meetings, emails and phone conversations between Roy Black, Jay Lefkowitz and Bob Josefsberg that corroborate our position. Please check with Jay and Roy as to their recollection of these matters. Despite his putting up one road block after another, Mr. Epstein, through you as his counsel, . ' s iltstedgethanerdidentifiedvietrim ently settled the elaim of onessofEppsutein el ourclient victims, is in the of ng our final bill to our representation of Ms. and will be submitting it to you or Mr. Goldberger as soon as the entitlement issue is resolved. We fully expect Jeffrey Epstein to honor his agreement by paying the fees and costs related to this representation according to the terms of the NPA and the Addendum. We are also prepared to make a second settlement proposal (for another client) and expect similar EFTA00183748 Robert Critton, Esq. June 8, 2009 Page 3 treatment of attorney fees in that matter. Remedies There are several alternatives available to us, should Jeffrey Epstein refuse to honor his agreement to pay according to those terms. Both our victim clients and the Atty Rep and his firm are and were intended to be third party beneficiaries of the NPA and the Addendum. As such, we have the right to bring suit for specific performance of and/or declaratory judgment regarding the terms of the agreement between Epstein and the United States. In the alternative, other Epstein counsel have stated that all fee disagreements should be resolved by a special master. We are not averse to that. I am sure that I need not remind you that with regard to the Atty Rep's work thus far, there has been complete performance on our side and partial performance by the Defendant. Epstein did make partial payment of our initially invoiced fees earlier in these proceedings. When he stopped paying, his counsel communicated that he would start paying again when there were settlements. This in itself constitutes an acknowledgment of his obligation to do so. Having initially paid and thus inducing continued performance by the Atty Rep, Epstein is now equitably estopped to deny his contractual obligation. The Atty Rep, on the other hand, has full corn leted his part of the bargain by providing the necessary services to make it possible for to settle her claim without filing a contested lawsuit, and the Any Rep is entitle to e pat in for those services by Epstein. Finally, there is the implied obligation of good faith and fair dealing inherent in every contract, including those intended to benefit third parties. Please advise us of your position prior to Friday's heating, because your position may influence our involvement at that hearing. Very truly yours, cot-t-A2A-4- LAI Eng.( Katherine W. Ezell KWE/mce EFTA00183749  (USAFLS) From: KATHEFUNE W. EZat. Sere To: Subject AttaChmOnis: 200.90616102117672.pdl I had attached a sticky to this one stating that it was followed by a letter stating that everything we discuss tcworrow will be confidential unless both parties agree in writing. EFTA00183750  (USAFLS) From: KATHERNE W EZELL Sent To: larUSAFLS) Subject Leger hO ying any Fees and hearing tornarow I let Hi. you a phone message. We recannad a while ago a loner from Bob Otto ‘stio is see nkngty incregiOus Nat we believe we ate alined to any foss. If you are near a fax. I could send it to you. I viSI bring It to the hearing tomorrow. Kathy EFTA00183751  KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP AND AMLIATED PAKINERSHIPS CIllgroup Center 153 East 53rd Street Jay P. Lefkoaitz, New York, New York 10022-4611 To Facsimile: *Jo www.kirklend.com June 12, 2009 WA FEDERAL EXPRESS Ms. Esq. United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Ave., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Ms. I am in possession of your June 12, 2009 letter giving notice of breach. I respectfully submit that the Motion to Dismiss that is referenced therein did not constitute a willful breach of Mr. Epstein's obligations under the non-prosecution agreement. Mr. Epstein's counsel unanimously determined that the filing of this Motion to Dismiss was not a breach of the non- prosecution agreement, and the Motion to Dismiss was filed by counsel without Mr. Epstein's