DOJ-OGR-00021352.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document 77, 06/29/2023, 3536038, Page180 of 258
SA-178
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 178 of 348

friendships or associations with any of Epstein’s attorneys. In fact, Menchel told OPR that he and
his USAO colleagues viewed Epstein’s attempt to exert influence through his choice of counsel as
“ham-fisted” and “clumsy.”

Sloman told OPR that although he became aware that Lourie was friends with Guy Lewis
and Lewis’s law partner, he was unaware of personal relationships between any of his other
colleagues and any of Epstein’s attorneys, but that in any event his attitude regarding cases
involving former colleagues “was that we would give them process, but we didn’t pull any punches
with them.” In Sloman’s view, preexisting relationships with defense counsel did not “change the
equation” because as AUSAs, he and his colleagues were motivated by what they perceived to be
best for the case.

Lourie told OPR that his preexisting associations with Epstein’s attorneys “didn’t influence
anything.” Notably, at the outset of the Epstein case, Lourie sought guidance from the USAO’s
Professional Responsibility Officer about the propriety of his role as a supervisor in the
investigation, because of his acquaintance with Lewis and long-time friendship with Lewis’s law
partner. OPR considered Lourie’s caution in seeking and obtaining the Professional Responsibility
Officer’s advice as an indication that he was alert to his ethical responsibilities regarding
relationships with defense counsel, including avoiding the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Acosta said during his OPR interview that he “developed” the three criteria reflected on
the term sheet—a sentence of incarceration, sexual offender registration, and monetary damages
for the victims—before he engaged directly with any of Epstein’s attorneys and before Epstein
added Starr and Lefkowitz, the Kirkland & Ellis attorneys, to his team. Acosta pointed out that
the USAO continued to insist on a resolution that satisfied all three of those criteria even after
Kirkland & Ellis became involved in the case.

Acosta took other actions that appear inconsistent with an intent to benefit Starr and
Lefkowitz. On several occasions, when directly appealed to by Lefkowitz or Starr, he directed
them to address their communications to Villafaña, Sloman, and other subordinates. After his
October 12, 2007 breakfast meeting with Lefkowitz, Acosta immediately communicated with
Sloman about their conversation. In late 2008, when Acosta anticipated leaving the USAO and
was considering pursuing employment with Kirkland & Ellis, he recognized the conflict of interest
and instructed Sloman to stop copying him on emails relating to the Epstein matter. On Acosta’s
behalf, the USAO’s Professional Responsibility Officer sought and obtained formal Department
approval of Acosta’s recusal from the case based on the fact that he had “begun to discuss possible
employment” with Kirkland & Ellis. These actions support Acosta’s assertion that he was
cognizant of his ethical responsibilities concerning relationships with defense counsel.224

224 In addition, in May 2008, the USAO’s Professional Responsibility Officer consulted with the Department’s
Professional Responsibility Officer about whether Acosta should recuse from the Epstein matter because he was
considering seeking a visiting professorship at Harvard Law School in 2009, and Dershowitz—a Harvard Law School
professor—was representing Epstein “as a private, paying client, and not as any part of a Harvard Law School clinic
or law school teaching program” and “should have no role in deciding whether Mr. Acosta is offered any position as
a visiting professor.” The Department advised that these facts provided no basis for recusal.

152

DOJ-OGR-00021352