Kirkland & Ellis LLP
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Jay
|
Employment |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. EPSTEIN
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. EPSTEIN
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jay Lefkowitz
|
Employment affiliation |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Negotiation of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). | Unspecified | View |
| 2008-06-19 | N/A | Date of the letter arguing against new investigation. | N/A | View |
| 2008-06-19 | N/A | Date of the letter | N/A | View |
2022.03.04-3%20Exhibit%202.pdf
This document is 'Exhibit 2' filed in the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands on March 4, 2022, in case ST-2021-RV-00005. The content is a Wall Street Journal article from February 9, 2016, titled 'Legal Fees Cross New Mark: $1,500 an Hour'. The article discusses the rising billing rates of top corporate lawyers in the US, citing specific firms like DLA Piper, Proskauer Rose, and Kirkland & Ellis. It serves as evidence of market rates for legal services, likely submitted to support a fee application in the associated court case.
041.pdf
This document is a Motion for Limited Appearance filed on June 4, 2009, in the case of Jane Doe 101 v. Jeffrey Epstein in the Southern District of Florida. Attorney Robert D. Critton, Jr. moves for the admission of Jay P. Lefkowitz of Kirkland & Ellis LLP to appear as co-counsel for Jeffrey Epstein. The document includes certificates of service to opposing counsel and a certificate of good standing for Lefkowitz from the District of Columbia court.
026.pdf
This document is a Motion for Limited Appearance filed on May 21, 2009, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case 9:09-CV-80591-KAM). Robert D. Critton, Jr. requests the court to admit Michael D. Shumsky of Kirkland & Ellis LLP as co-counsel for the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein. The document lists legal counsel for both the plaintiff (Jane Doe 101) and the defendant, along with their contact information.
025.pdf
This document is a legal motion filed on May 21, 2009, in the Southern District of Florida case Jane Doe 101 v. Jeffrey Epstein. Local counsel Robert D. Critton, Jr. requests the court to admit Jay P. Lefkowitz (of Kirkland & Ellis LLP) pro hac vice to represent Jeffrey Epstein. The document outlines Lefkowitz's qualifications, confirms payment of the admission fee, and provides service information for all counsel of record.
EFTA00032459.pdf
This document is a 'Law360 White Collar' email newsletter dated October 1, 2018. It summarizes various legal and corporate news stories, including the Deutsche Bank Libor trial, Elon Musk's SEC settlement, an emoluments suit against Donald Trump, and the Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination. The document lists numerous law firms and companies in its sidebars, including 'Epstein Becker Green', which is likely the reason for its inclusion in this collection, though it refers to a law firm and not Jeffrey Epstein personally.
EFTA00032341.pdf
This document is a 'Public Policy Law360' email newsletter dated February 19, 2020. It summarizes various legal and political news stories, including an emergency meeting of federal judges regarding political interference in the Roger Stone case, the Boy Scouts of America bankruptcy filing due to sex abuse claims, and President Trump's pardons of Rod Blagojevich and Bernard Kerik. The document mentions the law firm 'Epstein Becker Green', which likely triggered its inclusion in an Epstein-related search, but it does not appear to contain information regarding Jeffrey Epstein's criminal activities.
EFTA00026434.pdf
This document is a Law360 Public Policy email newsletter from April 4, 2019, summarizing various legal and political developments. Key topics include Senate rule changes for judicial nominees, the release of the Mueller Report, and a budget hearing where Labor Secretary Alex Acosta defended his handling of the Jeffrey Epstein sex crime case. The newsletter also covers antitrust cases, environmental rulings, and the 'Varsity Blues' college admissions scandal court appearances.
EFTA00014144.pdf
A letter from the U.S. Attorney's Office (SDNY) to Jeffrey Epstein's lawyers, Jay Lefkowitz and Roy Black, dated August 26, 2008. The letter confirms a 'final list' of 32 victims, discusses the logistics of victim notification letters, and demands confirmation of payment for Mr. Josefsberg's fees. It also explicitly warns that if Epstein breaches the Non-Prosecution Agreement, the Office intends to indict him.
EFTA00014114.pdf
This document is an email thread from November 2008 between attorney Jay Lefkowitz (Kirkland & Ellis) and an Assistant U.S. Attorney (USAFLS). Lefkowitz arranges a meeting, noting he will be seeing Jeffrey Epstein during his trip to update him on civil cases, but expresses a desire for his meeting with the AUSA to be primarily social. The AUSA confirms availability and mentions an upcoming email to Lefkowitz and 'Roy' regarding two issues related to Mr. Epstein.
EFTA00014037.pdf
An email exchange between attorney Jay Lefkowitz (Kirkland & Ellis) and an Assistant U.S. Attorney (USAFLS) regarding a meeting concerning Jeffrey Epstein. The AUSA asks if Lefkowitz will attend a meeting on Thursday with 'Roy' (likely Roy Black). Lefkowitz responds on December 3, 2008, stating he does not plan to attend.
EFTA00014035.pdf
An email chain from December 2008 between attorney Jay Lefkowitz (Kirkland & Ellis) and an unnamed Assistant U.S. Attorney in West Palm Beach. They discuss an upcoming meeting involving 'Roy' which Lefkowitz states he will not attend, and arrange a phone call.
EFTA00013989.pdf
This document is a letter from Kenneth Starr to a high-ranking DOJ official arguing against the federal prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein. Starr alleges significant prosecutorial misconduct, including violations of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), leaks to the New York Times, and conflicts of interest within the US Attorney's Office. He claims the prosecution is politically motivated by Epstein's ties to Bill Clinton and requests a 'de novo' independent review of the case.
EFTA00013949.pdf
A letter from the U.S. Attorney's Office (SD FL) to Jeffrey Epstein's legal team (Lefkowitz and Black) dated August 20, 2008. The letter addresses the implementation of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, specifically the payment of fees to Special Master representative Robert Josefsberg and disputes regarding victim notification lists. The U.S. Attorney offers an ultimatum: stick to the September 2007 victim list (leaving Epstein open to prosecution for later-identified victims) or include victims known as of June 30, 2008, which would require Epstein to compensate them.
EFTA00013855.pdf
A letter from Jay P. Lefkowitz of Kirkland & Ellis to the US Attorney's Office (Southern District of Florida) dated June 19, 2009. The letter seeks to clarify ambiguous provisions within Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), specifically Paragraph 8 regarding waivers of liability and potential civil claims. Lefkowitz argues that the waiver applies to single violations rather than multiple asserted violations and reserves the right to use statute of limitations defenses.
EFTA00013811.pdf
This document is a legal submission by Kirkland & Ellis LLP to the Deputy Attorney General arguing against federal prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein in circa 2008. The defense argues that Epstein's conduct amounts to state-level solicitation of prostitution rather than federal sex trafficking or sex tourism, citing recent Supreme Court decisions to advocate for a narrow interpretation of federal statutes. The text asserts that Epstein did not target minors, did not use interstate commerce to lure victims, and that any underage women lied about their age.
EFTA00013801.pdf
This document is a legal rebuttal from Kirkland & Ellis LLP regarding the government's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation and the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The defense argues that the DOJ's review was not independent, alleges prosecutorial misconduct regarding victim notification and the selection of victim representatives (citing a conflict of interest involving an AUSA's boyfriend), and disputes the government's characterization of the sexual conduct. The document also details the defense's objections to the government's threat to terminate the agreement if Epstein did not comply with unilaterally modified terms by June 2, 2008.
EFTA00013758.pdf
This document contains an email chain between Jeffrey Epstein's defense attorney, Jay Lefkowitz, and the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAFLS) in late November 2007. The correspondence reveals a significant dispute regarding the government's intention to notify alleged victims about the case under the 'Justice for All Act,' to which the defense strongly objects, arguing it would cause reputational damage and spur civil litigation before a plea is entered. The emails also discuss the selection of attorneys Podhurst and Josephsberg for a role in the proceedings, which the defense ultimately accepts.
EFTA00013750.pdf
An email chain from October 2007 between attorney Jay Lefkowitz (Kirkland & Ellis) and redacted government officials (CC'ing Alex Acosta). The correspondence discusses legal strategy, specifically an agreement where liability would not be contested for specific victims ('girls on our list'), limiting discovery to damages rather than claim veracity. It also references Judge Davis's willingness to serve as a 'decider' and the execution of an addendum.
EFTA00013721.pdf
This document is an email chain from January 30, 2008, between Jay Lefkowitz (Kirkland & Ellis) and U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta, which Acosta forwarded to an unidentified Assistant U.S. Attorney. Lefkowitz informs Acosta of a $50 million civil lawsuit filed against Epstein and states that they intend to depose a specific individual (name redacted) in response. The Assistant U.S. Attorney replies to Acosta's forward with the remark, 'Won't he be surprised when [Redacted] isn't part of the indictment,' implying that a key figure or the deposition target would not be facing federal charges.
EFTA00013701.pdf
This document is an email chain from November 2007 involving Jay Lefkowitz (Kirkland & Ellis) and officials at the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAFLS), including Alexander Acosta (CC'd). Lefkowitz sends a response to a letter to 'Jeff'. The subsequent internal government emails discuss a Palm Beach Post article, with one official noting they 'especially like the part about how the feds were overreaching the whole time,' likely referencing public perception or a quote in the article.
EFTA00013698.pdf
Legal correspondence from Jeffrey Epstein's attorney, Jay Lefkowitz, to prosecutor Jeffrey Sloman regarding the Non-Prosecution Agreement. The letter defends Epstein's agents contacting potential witnesses, confirms the plea and sentencing date of January 4, 2008, and insists on Epstein receiving an 18-month sentence with standard Florida state work release privileges ('equal treatment'). Lefkowitz also raises concerns about the government's handling of victim representation under 18 U.S.C. § 2255.
EFTA00013696.pdf
This document is an email chain from October 18, 2007, involving US Attorney Alex Acosta, attorney Jay Lefkowitz (Kirkland & Ellis), and USAFLS staff. The emails discuss scheduling Jeffrey Epstein's 'change of plea' hearing, ultimately agreeing on November 20, 2007. The correspondence reveals a personal rapport between Acosta and Lefkowitz, noting a recent breakfast meeting, and discusses ensuring the date change does not impact when Epstein begins serving his sentence.
EFTA00013661.pdf
An email chain concluding with a formal letter from Jay Lefkowitz (Epstein's attorney) to Alex [Acosta] (US Attorney). Lefkowitz argues against federal prosecution, claiming 'Main Justice' is not directing it and that it would be a 'novel application' of statutes. He cites witness testimony alleging women lied about their ages to Epstein and that the FBI pressured women to identify as victims. He requests a meeting to resolve the matter before a July 8 state court deadline.
EFTA00013623.pdf
This document is a letter from U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta to retired Judge Edward B. Davis, confirming Davis's appointment as a Special Master. The letter outlines the terms of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), specifically identifying that the U.S. government has identified 34 victims. It details Epstein's agreement to pay for an attorney representative for these victims and waive liability contests in specific civil suits, provided the victims proceed under 18 U.S.C. § 2255.
EFTA00013619.pdf
This document contains a chain of emails from October 16-22, 2007, between Jay Lefkowitz (Kirkland & Ellis) and the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAFLS), specifically involving Alex Acosta and a redacted prosecutor. The correspondence details negotiations regarding a letter to 'Judge Davis' (a proposed special master) concerning the selection of legal representation for Epstein's victims. Key points of contention include whether Judge Davis would represent the victims directly, the criteria for the selected law firm, statutory compensation limits ($150k vs $50k), and the inclusion of language regarding discovery to test the veracity of victims' claims.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity