HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_029319.jpg

Thursday, September 12, 2013
Page 5

investors.” Edwards could not have possibly “pumped” the cases to investors when he
never participated in any communication with investors. However, Epstein’s
“pumping” claims fail for an even more basic reason: Edwards was entitled – indeed
ethically obligated as an attorney – to secure the maximum recovery for his clients
during the course of his legal representation. As is well known, “[a]s an advocate, a
lawyer zealously asserts the client’s position under the rules of the adversary system.”
Fla. Rules of Prof. Conduct, Preamble. Edwards therefore was required to pursue
(unless otherwise instructed by his clients) a maximum recovery against Epstein.
Edwards, therefore, could never be liable for doing something that his ethical duties as
an attorney required. In a further effort to harass Edwards, Epstein also filed a bar
complaint with the Florida Bar against Edwards. The Florida Bar dismissed the
complaint.

Another reason that Epstein’s claims that Edwards was “pumping” cases for investors
fails is that Edwards filed all three cases almost a year before he was hired by RRA or
even knew of Scott Rothstein. Epstein makes allegations that the complaints
contained sensational allegations for the purposes of luring investors; however,
language in the complaints remained virtually unchanged from the first filing in 2008
and overwhelming evidence supports the conclusion that all of the facts alleged by
Edwards in the complaints were true.

Epstein ultimately paid to settle all three of the cases Edwards filed against him for
more money than he paid to settle any of the other claims against him. At Epstein’s
request, the terms of the settlement were kept confidential. Epstein chose to make this
payment as the result of a federal court ordered mediation process, which he himself
sought (over the objection of Jane Doe, Edwards’ client in federal court) in an effort to
resolve the case. Notably, Epstein sought this settlement conference – and ultimately
made his payments as a result of that conference - in July 2010, more than seven
months after he filed this lawsuit against Edwards. Accordingly, Epstein could not
have been the victim of any scheme to “pump” the cases against him, because he
never paid to settle the cases until well after Edwards had left RRA, after Edwards had
severed all connection with Scott Rothstein (December 2009), and well after the
details of Rothstein’s Ponzi scheme had been widely publicized.

In addition, if Epstein had thought that there was some improper coercion involved in,
for example, Jane Doe’s case, his remedy was to raise the matter before Federal
District Court Judge Kenneth A. Marra who was presiding over the matter. Far from
raising any such claim, Epstein simply chose to settle that case. He was therefore
barred by the doctrine of res judicata from somehow re-litigating what happened in
(for example) the Jane Doe case. The doctrine of res judicata makes a judgment on
the merits conclusive ‘not only as to every matter which was offered and received to
sustain or defeat the claim, but as to every other matter which might with propriety

SDBS
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_029319