EFTA00190318

U.S. Department of Justice 
United Slates Attorney 
Southern District of Florida 
500 South Australian Ave., Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, FL 3340! 
(561)820-871 t 
Facsimile: (561) 820-8777 
[Date] 
VIA UNITED STATES MAIL 
[Name and address of victim's attorney] 
Re: 
JDefendantylVictimj: NOTIFICATION OF IDENTIFIED 
VICTIM 
Dear Mr. [Attorney]: 
By virtue of this letter, the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District 
of Florida asks that you provide the following notice to your client, [victim], who has been 
identified as a victim of a federal offense. 
On June 30,2008, [defendant] entered a plea of guilty to violations of Florida Statutes 
Sections [case information] and was sentenced to a term of twelve months' imprisonment to 
be followed by an additional six months' imprisonment, followed by twelve months of 
Community Control I, with conditions of community confinement imposed by the Court. 
In light of the entry of the guilty plea and sentence, the United States has agreed to 
defer federal prosecution in favor of this state plea and sentence, subject to certain 
conditions, including the following: 
1. 
An independent Special Master was assigned the task of selecting an 
attorney representative to represent the victims in connection with civil 
litigation between the victims and [defendant]. The Special Master 
selected Robert Josefsberg, Esq. of the firm Podhurst Orseck, P.A., a 
highly-respected and experienced attorney. [The victim] is not 
obligated to use Mr. Josefsberg as her civil attorney, but, as explained 
in greater detail below, Mr. Josefsberg's services will be provided at no 
cost to [the victim] because [defendant] is obligated to pay the costs and 
fees of the attorney-representative. Also, [defendant] and his attorneys 
EFTA00190718

[NAME OF VICTIM'S ATTORNEY] 
AMENDED NOTIFICATION OF IDENTIFIED VICTIM [NAME] 
[DATE] 
PAGE 2 OF 3 
Can only contact [the victim] via Mr. Josefsberg, assuming that she 
would like Mr. Josefsberg to serve as her attorney. 
2. 
If [the victim] elects to file suit against [the defendant] pursuant to Title 
18, United States Code, Section 2255, [defendant] will not contest the 
jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District 
of Florida over his person and/or the subject matter, and [defendant] 
waives his right to contest liability and also waives his right to contest 
damages up to an amount as agreed to between [the victim] and 
[defendant], so long as [the victim] elects to proceed exclusively under 
18 U.S.C. § 2255, and she waives any other claim for damages, whether 
pursuant to state, federal, or common law. Notwithstanding this 
waiver, [defendant's] agreement with the United States, his waivers and 
failure to contest liability and such damages in any suit are not to be 
construed as an admission of any criminal or civil liability. 
3. 
As stated above, [defendant] has agreed to pay the fees of the attorney 
representative selected by the independent third party. This provision, 
however, shall not obligate [defendant] to pay the fees and costs of 
contested litigation filed against him. Thus, if after consideration of 
potential settlements, [the victim] and Mr. Josefsberg elect to file a 
contested lawsuit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255 or she elects to pursue 
any other contested remedy, the obligation to pay the costs of the 
attorney representative, as opposed to any statutory or other obligations 
to pay reasonable attorneys fees and costs such as those contained in 
Section 2255, shall cease. 
Mr. Josefsberg will be contacting you within the next two weeks to explain these 
terms and to determine if he may contact [the victim] directly. If you would like to contact 
Mr. Josefsberg directly, he can be reached at 305 358-2800. 
If [the victim] has selected other counsel to represent her, or if she does so in the 
future, and she decides to pursue a claim against [the defendant,] his attorney, [name] asks 
that he be contacted at [firm name and address]. 
In addition, there has been litigation between the United States and two other victims 
regarding the disclosure of the entire agreement between the United States and [defendant]. 
Mr. Josefsberg can provide further guidance on this issue, or if [the victim] selects another 
EFTA00190719

[NAME OF vicrim's ATTORNEY] 
AMENDED NOTIFICATION OF IDENTIFIED VICTIM [NAME] 
[DATE] 
PAGE 3 OF 3 
attorney to represent her, that attorney can review the Court's order in the matter of In re 
Jane Does I and 2, S.D. Fl. Court File No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA. 
As I stated in my earlier notification, please understand that neither the U.S. 
Attorney's Office nor the Federal Bureau of Investigation can take part in or otherwise assist 
in civil litigation, but we again thank you and your client for all of her assistance during the 
course of this investigation. 
R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
By: 
A. MARIE VILLAFASIA 
ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY 
cc: 
Robert Josefsberg, Esq. 
[Defendant's attorney's name] 
EFTA00190720

Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
From: 
MAIL <MAIL©tlabar.orq> 
Sent: 
Monday, September 29, 2008 1:33 PM 
To: 
Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
Subject: 
Re: FW: Request for Written Staff Opinion ATTN Elizabeth Clark Tarbert 
Attachments: 
graycol.gif•, Florida Bar Ltr re Ethics Opinion.pdf; Final Victim Notification -- Sample.pdf; 
Final Victim Notification Represented Sample.pdf 
Dear Ms. Villafana: 
Thank you for re-sending the inquiry. Most inquiries receive a reply within 3-5 weeks. 
Sincerely, 
Elizabeth Clark Tarbert 
Ethics Counsel 
"Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS)" <[email protected]> on 09/29/2008 12:05:05 PM 
To: "Ethics Opinions" <etooinioneflabar.ore>
cc: 
Subject: FW: Request for Written Staff Opinion ATTN Elizabeth Clark Tarbert 
Staff: 
Dear Ms. Tarbert — Here is my earlier e-mail. 
Thank you. 
A. Marie VillafaHa 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
Phone 561 209-1047 
Fax 561 820-8777 
From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 7:21 PM 
To: [email protected] 
Cc: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS); Lee, Dexter (USAFLS) 
Subject: Request for Written Staff Opinion 
IS 
EFTA00190721

Dear Sir or Madam: Please see the attached correspondence. Thank you for your assistance. 
«Florida Bar Ltr re Ethics Opinion.pdf>> 
«Final Victim Notification — Sample.pdf» 
<<Final Victim Notification Represented Sample.pdf» 
A. Marie ViWalla 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
Phone 561 209-1047 
Fax 561 820-8777 (See attached file: Florida Bar Ltr re Ethics Opinion.pdfi(See attached file: Final Victim 
Notification —Sample.pdfi(See attached file: Final Victim Notification Represented Sample.pdfi 
16 
EFTA00190722

Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
From: 
Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) <[email protected]> 
Sent: 
Monday, October 20, 2008 4:48 PM 
To: 
Lee, Dexter (USAFLS) 
Cc: 
Acosta, Alex (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) 
Subject: 
RE: Draft Response Letter to Edwards' October 9, 2008 letter 
Hi Dexter — I am following up on my e-mail from Saturday night. 
The only concern I have is with the third sentence in your second paragraph: "Additionally, the meetings with 
Jane Does #1 and #2, in which the Non-Prosecution Agreement was discussed, also reflected the government's 
belief that the December 19, 2007 letter was part of the Agreement." I think that you are referring to the 
meeting that the agents had with Jane Doe #1 in October 2007. No one ever met with Jane Doe #2 because she 
was represented by counsel at the time. During the meeting with Jane Doe #1 in October, the December letter 
was not discussed because it was not in existence at the time. 
This is what I wrote in footnote 2 of our response to the Motion to Unseal: "Furthermore, petitioners aver that 
the October 2007 disclosure to Jane Doe #1 contained inaccurate information, but that disclosure was made 
before the December 2007 letter and, therefore, did not include anything related to the U.S. Attorney's now-
defunct proposed amendment to the Agreement." 
You may just want to refer him to that footnote, or you can edit the language as you see fit. 
Thank you! 
A. Marie Villafaila 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
Phone 561 209-1047 
Fax 561 820-8777 
From: Lee, Dexter (USAFLS) 
Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2008 1:29 PM 
To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
Cc: Acosta, Alex (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) 
Subject: Draft Response Letter to Edwards' October 9, 2008 letter 
Marie, 
Attached please find a draft response letter to Brad Edwards' October 9, 2008 letter to me. 
I was tempted to 
also include a response to his October 15, 2008 letter to me, which he filed with the court, which I have yet to 
SOD 
EFTA00190723

receive in the U.S. Mail. However, which version of 18 U.S.C. 2255 applies ($50,000 vs. $150,000) seems to 
be a question of retroactivity of the amendment. 
This is a civil remedy, so there's no ex post facto 
issue. The question is whether Congress intended the higher damages to apply to acts of sexual abuse 
occurring before the effective date of the amendment to section 2255. 
Since this involves a statutory interpretation issue, I am reluctant to start offering opinions on whether a 
breach of the Agreement occurs when Epstein argues that the current version of section 2255, with its floor of 
$150,000 in damages, does not apply to him. 
He may have agreed in negotiations that the $150,000 floor 
did apply, thereby waiving any retroactivity argument, just as he waived the jurisdictional argument that he 
was never convicted of a enumerated offense in federal court under 18 U.S.C. 2255. Thanks. 
Dexter 
« File: edwards_resp_ltr_100908.wpd » 
501 
EFTA00190724

Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
From: 
Lee, Dexter (USAFLS) <[email protected] 
Sent: 
Monday, October 20, 2008 4:51 PM 
To: 
Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
Cc: 
Acosta, Alex (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) 
Subject: 
RE: Draft Response Letter to Edwards' October 9, 2008 letter 
Marie, 
If the only meeting between the FBI agents and Jane Doe # 1 occurred in October 2007, then she could not 
have been told about the December 2007 letter, since it had yet to occur. 
Am I correct in assuming that the 
December 2007 part of the Agreement was made known to Jane Does # 1 and # 2 in the victim notification 
letters sent out at the same time we filed our response to the petition, July 9, 20087 Thanks. 
Dexter 
From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 4:48 PM 
To: Lee, Dexter (USAFLS) 
Cc: Acosta, Alex (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) 
Subject: RE: Draft Response Letter to Edwards' October 9, 2008 letter 
Hi Dexter — I am following up on my e-mail from Saturday night. 
The only concern I have is with the third sentence in your second paragraph: "Additionally, the meetings with 
Jane Does #1 and #2, in which the Non-Prosecution Agreement was discussed, also reflected the government's 
belief that the December 19, 2007 letter was part of the Agreement." I think that you are referring to the 
meeting that the agents had with Jane Doe #1 in October 2007. No one ever met with Jane Doe #2 because she 
was represented by counsel at the time. During the meeting with Jane Doe #1 in October, the December letter 
was not discussed because it was not in existence at the time. 
This is what I wrote in footnote 2 of our response to the Motion to Unseal: "Furthermore, petitioners aver that 
the October 2007 disclosure to Jane Doe #I contained inaccurate information, but that disclosure was made 
before the December 2007 letter and, therefore, did not include anything related to the U.S. Attorney's now-
defunct proposed amendment to the Agreement." 
You may just want to refer him to that footnote, or you can edit the language as you see fit. 
Thank you! 
A. Marie Male& 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
502 
EFTA00190725

Phone 561 209-1047 
Fax 561 820-8777 
From: Lee, Dexter (USAFLS) 
Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2008 1:29 PM 
To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
Cc: Acosta, Alex (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) 
Subject: Draft Response Letter to Edwards' October 9, 2008 letter 
Marie, 
Attached please find a draft response letter to Brad Edwards October 9, 2008 letter to me. I was tempted to 
also include a response to his October 15, 2008 letter to me, which he filed with the court, which I have yet to 
receive in the U.S. Mail. However, which version of 18 U.S.C. 2255 applies ($50,000 vs. $150,000) seems to 
be a question of retroactivity of the amendment. 
This is a civil remedy, so there's no ex post facto 
issue. The question is whether Congress intended the higher damages to apply to acts of sexual abuse 
occurring before the effective date of the amendment to section 2255. 
Since this involves a statutory interpretation issue, I am reluctant to start offering opinions on whether a 
breach of the Agreement occurs when Epstein argues that the current version of section 2255, with its floor of 
$150,000 in damages, does not apply to him. 
He may have agreed in negotiations that the $150,000 floor 
did apply, thereby waiving any retroactivity argument, just as he waived the jurisdictional argument that he 
was never convicted of a enumerated offense in federal court under 18 U.S.C. 2255. Thanks. 
Dexter 
« File: edwards_resp_ltr_100908.wpd » 
503 
EFTA00190726

Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
From: 
Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) <[email protected]> 
Sent: 
Monday, October 20, 2008 5:02 PM 
To: 
Lee, Dexter (USAFLS) 
Cc: 
Acosta, Alex (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) 
Subject: 
RE: Draft Response Letter to Edwards' October 9, 2008 letter 
Ili Dexter — We sent out two sets of victim notifications to Jane Doc it I, which were sent to Brad Edwards as 
counsel for Jane Doe # I (again, we never sent notifications to Jane Doe #2 because of her false exculpatory 
statements, which kept us from including her in any charged conduct). 
The first notification was sent on July 9th and contained the "incorrect" info (i.e., the December 2007 info). 
The second notification was sent on September 3rd, with the correct info. 
A. Made Villafaila 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, FL. 33401 
Phone 561 209-1047 
Fax 561 820-8777 
From: Lee, Dexter (USAFLS) 
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 4:51 PM 
To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
Cc: Acosta, Alex (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) 
Subject: RE: Draft Response Letter to Edwards' October 9, 2008 letter 
Marie, 
If the only meeting between the FBI agents and Jane Doe It 1 occurred in October 2007, then she could not 
have been told about the December 2007 letter, since it had yet to occur. 
Am I correct in assuming that the 
December 2007 part of the Agreement was made known to Jane Does # 1 and # 2 in the victim notification 
letters sent out at the same time we filed our response to the petition, July 9, 2008? Thanks. 
Dexter 
From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 4:48 PM 
To: Lee, Dexter (USAFLS) 
Cc: Acosta, Alex (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) 
Subject: RE: Draft Response Letter to Edwards' October 9, 2008 letter 
504 
EFTA00190727

Hi Dexter — I am following up on my e-mail from Saturday night. 
The only concern I have is with the third sentence in your second paragraph: "Additionally, the meetings with 
Jane Does #1 and #2, in which the Non-Prosecution Agreement was discussed, also reflected the government's 
belief that the December 19, 2007 letter was part of the Agreement." I think that you are referring to the 
meeting that the agents had with Jane Doe #1 in October 2007. No one ever met with Jane Doe #2 because she 
was represented by counsel at the time. During the meeting with Jane Doe #1 in October, the December letter 
was not discussed because it was not in existence at the time. 
This is what I wrote in footnote 2 of our response to the Motion to Unseal: "Furthermore, petitioners aver that 
the October 2007 disclosure to Jane Doe #1 contained inaccurate information, but that disclosure was made 
before the December 2007 letter and, therefore, did not include anything related to the U.S. Attorney's now-
defunct proposed amendment to the Agreement." 
You may just want to refer him to that footnote, or you can edit the language as you see fit. 
Thank you! 
A. Marie Villafalla 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
Phone 561 209-1047 
Fax 561 820-8777 
From: Lee, Dexter (USAFLS) 
Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2008 1:29 PM 
To: Villafana, Ann Made C. (USAFLS) 
Cc: Acosta, Alex (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) 
Subject: Draft Response Letter to Edwards' October 9, 2008 letter 
Marie, 
Attached please find a draft response letter to Brad Edwards' October 9, 2008 letter to me. I was tempted to 
also include a response to his October 15, 2008 letter to me, which he filed with the court, which I have yet to 
receive in the U.S. Mail. However, which version of 18 U.S.C. 2255 applies ($50,000 vs. $150,000) seems to 
be a question of retroactivity of the amendment. This is a civil remedy, so there's no ex post facto 
issue. The question is whether Congress intended the higher damages to apply to acts of sexual abuse 
occurring before the effective date of the amendment to section 2255. 
Since this involves a statutory interpretation issue, I am reluctant to start offering opinions on whether a 
breach of the Agreement occurs when Epstein argues that the current version of section 2255, with its floor of 
$150,000 in damages, does not apply to him. 
He may have agreed in negotiations that the $150,000 floor 
did apply, thereby waiving any retroactivity argument, just as he waived the jurisdictional argument that he 
was never convicted of a enumerated offense in federal court under 18 U.S.C. 2255. Thanks. 
sos 
EFTA00190728

Dexter 
« File: edwards_resp_ltr_100908.wpd » 
506 
EFTA00190729

Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
From: 
MAIL <[email protected]> 
Sent: 
Tuesday, November 04, 2008 12:22 PM 
To: 
Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
Subject: 
Re: FW: Request for Written Staff Opinion ATTN Elizabeth Clark Tarbert; Logbook I 
28386 
Attachments: 
graycol.gif; 28386gef denial.doc; Florida Bar Ltr re Ethics Opinion.pdf; Final Victim 
Notification -- Sample.pdf; Final Victim Notification Represented Sample.pdf 
Dear Ms. Villafana: 
My letter in response to your inquiry is attached below. This letter will be faxed and mailed to you later today. 
If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 850-561-5815 or on the hotline at 800-235-8619. 
Sincerely, 
Gail E. Ferguson 
Assistant Ethics Counsel 
(See attached file: 28386gef denial.doc) 
"Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS)" <Ann.Marie.C.VillafanaAusdoi.gov> on 09/29/2008 12:05:05 PM 
To: "Ethics Opinions" <[email protected]>
cc: 
Subject: FW: Request for Written Staff Opinion ATTN Elizabeth Clark Tarbert; Logbook # 28386 
Staff: Gail Ferguson/The Florida Bar 
Dear Ms. Tarbert — Here is my earlier e-mail. 
Thank you. 
A. Marie Villafana 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
Phone 561 209-1047 
Fax 561 820-8777 
17 
EFTA00190730

From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 7:21 PM 
To: etoeflabar.orq 
Cc: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS); Lee, Dexter (USAFLS) 
Subject: Request for Written Staff Opinion 
Dear Sir or Madam: Please see the attached correspondence. Thank you for your assistance. 
«Florida Bar Ltr re Ethics Opinion.pdf» 
«Final Victim Notification -- Sample.pdf» 
«Final Victim Notification Represented Sample.pdf» 
A. Marie Villafaiia 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
Phone 561 209-1047 
Fax 561 820-8777(See attached file: Florida Bar Lir re Ethics Opinion.pdp(See attached file: Final Victim 
Notification Sample.pdj)(See attached file: Final Victim Notification Represented Sample.pdf) 
18 
EFTA00190731

November 4, 2008 
VIA FACSIMILE (561) 820-8777 
& U.S. MAIL 
Ms. A. Marie Villafana 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Southern District of Florida 
500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 
Re: 
Ethics Inquiry 28386 
Dear Ms. Villafana: 
I received your request for an advisory ethics opinion dated September 18, 2008. You ask 
whether you violated Rule 4-7.4, Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, by complying with your 
statutory obligation to contact victims to inform them of the resolution of their matters and by 
complying with a court order to advise them that the services of an independent attorney-
representative would be offered to them free of charge. 
Unfortunately, I cannot provide the opinion you requested, because you are asking about your 
past conduct and legal questions that relate to your obligations under federal statutes and a court 
order. Florida Bar ethics attorneys are only authorized to provide opinions regarding an 
attorney's own future conduct. We are not authorized to render opinions concerning an 
attorney's past conduct or legal questions. See Procedures 2 (aXIXB) and 2(a)(1XD), Florida 
Bar Procedures for Ruling on Questions of Ethics (www.floridabar.org ). 
Although I cannot provide an opinion, I can discuss the relevant rules. Generally speaking, Rule 
4-7.4 (a), prohibits an attorney from soliciting clients in person or through an agent, or in writing 
without complying with the attorney advertising rules, if the lawyer's primary motive is 
pecuniary gain, and states: 
(a) Solicitation. Except as provided in subdivision (b) of this rule, a lawyer 
shall not solicit professional employment from a prospective client with whom the 
lawyer has no family or prior professional relationship, in person or otherwise, when 
a significant motive for the lawyer's doing so is the lawyer's pecuniary gain. A 
lawyer shall not permit employees or agents of the lawyer to solicit in the lawyer's 
behalf. A lawyer shall not enter into an agreement for, charge, or collect a fee for 
professional employment obtained in violation of this rule. The term "solicit" 
EFTA00190732

Ms. A. Marie Villafana 
November 4, 2008 
Page 2 
includes contact in person, by telephone, telegraph, or facsimile, or by other 
communication directed to a specific recipient and includes (i) any written form of 
communication directed to a specific recipient and not meeting the requirements of 
subdivision (b) of this rule, and (ii) any electronic mail communication directed to a 
specific recipient and not meeting the requirements of subdivision (c) of rule 4-7.6. 
Emphasis added. If your contact with victims is neither motivated by pecuniary gain nor to assist 
another lawyer whose significant motive is pecuniary gain, then it is unlikely that your contact 
with victims could be characterized as improper solicitation in violation of Rule 4-7.4 (a). 
Although your letter does not reference Rule 4-4.2 ("Communication with Person Represented 
by Counsel"), this rule prohibits a lawyer from communicating directly with a person the lawyer 
knows is represented in a particular matter, and states: 
(a) In representing a client, a lawyer shall not communicate about the subject of 
the representation with a person the lawyer knows to be represented by another 
lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer. 
Notwithstanding the foregoing, an attorney may, without such prior consent, 
communicate with another's client in order to meet the requirements of any court 
rule, statute or contract requiring notice or service of process directly on an adverse 
party, in which event the communication shall be strictly restricted to that required by 
the court rule, statute or contract, and a copy shall be provided to the adverse party's 
attorney. 
Emphasis added. It would be prudent for you to comply with this rule by limiting your contact to 
the lawyers of represented victims. Whether or not you were required to comply with this rule in 
the past, or whether you would be required to comply with it in the future, given your obligations 
under the federal statutes and the relevant court order involves legal questions beyond the scope 
of an ethics opinion. 
Finally, Rule 4-3.4, prohibits a lawyer from deliberately violating a court's order, and states: 
A lawyer shall not: 
• 
• 
(e) knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for an 
open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists; 
Emphasis added. 
EFTA00190733

Ms. A. Marie Villafana 
November 4, 2008 
Page 3 
Thus, Rule 4-3.4 (c), requires you to comply with any orders issued by the court. Again, I can 
provide no opinion on how to accomplish compliance, because interpretation of the court order 
requires legal advice beyond the scope of an ethics opinion. 
If you disagree with my denial of your request for an advisory ethics opinion, you have thirty (30) 
days to request that the Professional Ethics Committee review the denial. A request for review 
must be addressed to Elizabeth Clark Tarbert, Ethics Counsel, at 651 E. Jefferson Street, 
Tallahassee, Florida 32399. The request must be postmarked no later than thirty (30) days from 
the date of this letter, not the date of receipt. The request must contain the original inquiry 
number and clearly state the issues for review. You may include a written argument explaining 
why you believe you should be issued an advisory ethics opinion. Procedures governing your 
request for review and committee procedures may be found in Procedures 3(d), 4 and 6, Florida 
Bar Procedures for Ruling on Questions of Ethics (available on The Florida Bar's website at 
www.floridabar.org). The Professional Ethics Committee meets approximately four times per 
year. You will be notified of the committee's decision promptly. 
If you have any questions, please call me at (850) 561-5780. 
Sincerely, 
Gail E. Ferguson 
Assistant Ethics Counsel 
GEF/gef 
28386gef 
EFTA00190734

Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
From: 
Senior, Robert (USAFLS) <[email protected]> 
Sent: 
Wednesday, November 26, 2008 2:10 PM 
To: 
Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) 
Subject: 
RE: Jeffrey Epstein 
Meeting next Thursday. Does anything Roy say hold water? 
-----Original Message----
From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 12:18 PM 
To: Senior, Robert (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) 
Subject: FW: Jeffrey Epstein 
Hi guys -- Happy Thanksgiving! Let me know how you would like me to proceed. 
A. Marie Villafalla 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
Phone 561 209-1047 
Fax 561 820.8777 
----Original Message-----
From: Roy BLACK rmailto:[email protected] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 11:56 AM 
To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) 
Cc: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) 
Subject: Re: Jeffrey Epstein 
Marie since receipt of your letter I have looked into the situation and 
the following is what is happening: 
Mr. Epstein has not breached the Non-Prosecution Agreement 
(the "Agreement") by serving a portion of his 18-month 
sentence of imprisonment in the Palm Beach County Work 
Release Program. 
1. He is currently serving his sentence in the Palm 
Beach County Work Release Program, not in the 
State-Regulated Community Control Program. Thus he is not on community 
control. 
o The County Jail sentence he is presently serving is 
being served under the auspices of the Palm Beach 
County Sheriff's Office. 
o The Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office has a policy 
of allowing work release under certain criteria for 
those sentenced to the Palm Beach County Detention 
Center or Stockade. It has already been determined 
that Mr. Epstein qualifies under the Palm Beach County Sheriff's 
Office policy for work release. The Florida statute 
authorizing work release for someone imprisoned in 
county jail is at 951.24 (2Xa). 
576 
EFTA00190735

o The statute provides that when punishment by 
imprisonment in the county jail is prescribed, the 
sentencing court, in its discretion, may at any time 
during the sentence consider granting the privilege to 
the prisoner to leave the confines of the jail or 
county facility during necessary and reasonable hours, 
subject to the rules and regulations prescribed by the 
court, to work at paid employment or to conduct his or 
her own business or profession. See Fla. Stat. § 
951.24(2X8). 
o In Palm Beach County, the Sheriff's Office has 
discretion over work release. The local roles state 
that placement into House Arrest and Work Release "is 
at the discretion of the Sheriff and the presiding 
Judge" and offer no defined scope of the type of 
offenders that are eligible—or that are barred—from 
serving their time in Work Release." See Palm Beach 
County Department of Corrections Inmate Rule O-16. 
2. The Non Prosecution Agreement does not prohibit 
work release. 
o The Agreement does not regulate what programs Mr. Epstein can 
participate in while he is serving the County Jail 
sentence. 
3. The Agreement expressly provides that he is to be 
afforded the same benefits that any other inmate might 
receive. See 1 12 of the Agreement. 
5. Under Florida Law, work release is considered part 
of the confinement. See Rule 33-601.602, Fla. Admin. 
Code. (work release "allows inmates to work at paid 
employment in the community while continuing as inmates 
of the facility where they arc confined.").So he is an inmate. 
6. Alex Acosta recognized that Mr. Epstein 
might serve a portion of his sentence through the Work 
Release Program. 
o. On December 6, 2007, after the Agreement had been 
executed, counsel received a draft notification 
letter in which US Attorney Acosta expresses this 
intention. The draft document provides that the 
recipient is "entitled to notification when Mr. Epstein 
is released from imprisonment at the end of his prison 
tenn and/or if he is allowed to participate in a work 
release program." See December 6, 2007 letter to J. 
Lefkowitz from A. Acosta attaching draft notification 
letter, p. 8. 
7. I am told that on July 3, 2008, you wrote an email 
to the Deputy Sherriff stating that the US Attorney's 
Office had no objection to work release as long as 
Epstein is treated as any similarly situated inmate. If anything 
he is being treated more harshly than any other inmate in 
the program. He can't leave the office. He has a guard 
and is wearing a GPS device. So his terms are not more lenientbut rather 
577 
. dO. 4.elitik 
• 
EFTA00190736

more restrictive than any other 
inmate in the program. 
Clearly we do not feel this is a violation of the agreement and we have 
no intent to violate it. We will meet with you and anyone in the 
executive office to resolve this matter. Certainly it would be best for 
us to meet and discuss. 
>>> "Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS)" <Ann.Marie.C.Villafana®usdoj.gov> 
11/24/08 12:28 PM >>> 
Dear Roy: 
Please review A. Marie Villafafia 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
Phone 561 209-1047 
Fax 561 820-8777 
578 
EFTA00190737