EFTA00208244

U.S. Department of Justice 
United States Attorney 
Southern District of Florida 
500 South Australian Ave., Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
(561) 820-8711 
Facsimile: (561) 820-8777 
April 22, 2008 
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS 
la, 
Counsel 
Office of Professional Responsibility 
U.S. Department of Justice 
Washington, DC 20530-0001 
Re: Self-Report of Allegation of Conflict of Interest 
Dear Mr. 
I write to advise you that I have learned that lawyers for a target of one of my 
investigations, Jeffrey Epstein, have raised ethical concerns regarding my involvement in his 
potential prosecution in the Southern District of Florida. Specifically, I understand that Epstein's 
attorneys have notified Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher and/or her staff that I have an 
actual conflict of interest. As part of pre-indictment plea negotiations, the parties agreed that 
Epstein's victims would be allowed to collect civil damages from Epstein and that Epstein would 
provide counsel for the victims. I provided Epstein's counsel with a series of possible attorneys,
, who is a friend of my boyfriend, 
'). At 
as a friend of a "good friend." Epstein's attorneys rejected the other 
suggestions and selected 
After conferring with the First Assistant and the U.S. Attorney, 
we decided that, despite the terms of the non-prosecution agreement, the Office should not be 
responsible for selecting the attorney to represent the victims, and that a Special Master, working 
pro bono, should make the selection. Accordingly, the matter was submitted to a Special Master, 
and 
was not selected as the attorney for the victims. Despite this resolution, Epstein's 
counsel continue to allege that my suggestion of 
to serve as counsel for the victims 
represents a conflict of interest and that I should be removed from prosecuting the case and/or 
disciplined. Therefore, I am self-reporting this allegation for review by the Office of Professional 
Responsibility. 
including 
the time, I identified 
Background of Investigation 
Operation Leap Year is a child exploitation investigation where the main target, Jeffrey Epstein, 
used his personal assistants and others as "recruiters" who would find high school girls, most of whom 
were minors, to travel to his home in Palm Beach, where the would erform "sexual massages." The 
sexual behavior ranged from fondling the girls, placing 
them, performin 
and engaging in 
minor females. More than twenty-five minor victims have been identified. 
The case was originally investigated by the City of Palm Beach Police Department and was 
presented to the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office. Epstein immediately hired "high-powered" 
attorneys -F1 with connections to the State Attorney and pressured the State Attorney's Office to forego 
on them asking them to engage in sexual achy' 
with Epstein's girlfriend, 
with them. In all cases, Epstein 
in the presence of the 
EFTA00208244

filing charges. As part of their presentation to the State Attorney's Office, Epstein's attorneys raised 
allegations of misconduct on the part of the lead investigator from the Palm Beach Police Department. 
They also presented information from the "MySpace" pages of several victims that portrayed them as 
drug and/or alcohol abusers and liars. 
The Palm Beach Police Department, seeing that the State Attorney's Office was likely to do 
nothing about E stein, approached the FBI, who, in turn, approached me. We met with the police 
detective, 
and discussed the investigation. When the State Attorney's Office presented the 
case to a grand jury (an extremely unusual step for a non-murder case) and obtained an indictment 
charging only three counts of solicitation of adults to engage in prostitution, we decided to open an 
investigation. 
The investigation was lengthy and extensive. 
Because I was aware of the allegations of 
wrongdoing by the police department, the FBI and I consciously decided to undertake an independent 
investigation, which involved an independent review of the audio and videotaped interviews of the 
victims, subsequent interviews by FBI agents, and obtaining and reviewing extensive documentary 
evidence. 
From the start, Epstein's attorneys tried to convince me to stop the investigation and defer to the 
state prosecution. As part of this, they presented the same allegations of wrongdoing by the police 
detective and by the victims that they had presented to the State Attorney's Office. I assured them that 
we would do an independent review of the evidence before making a decision. As part of the 
investigation, I asked the FBI to follow up on the allegations of wrongdoing by the police detective. 
They did so, and determined that, with the exception of one error in a police report, the allegations were 
false. We also reviewed the "MySpace" pages and considered how they would affect the prosecution of 
the case. 
When it became evident that I would not stop the investigation, Epstein's attorneys complained to 
others in my chain of command that I was harassing Epstein, violating various rules, and was simply 
trying to advance my career. In the press, his counsel even suggested that he was being persecuted 
based upon his religion or because he was wealthy. Epstein also began to hire additional attorneys with 
connections to our Office (a series of former Assistant U.S. Attorneys and a former U.S. Attorney) to try 
to influence the Office's decision. 
The Pre-Indictment Plea Negotiations 
I prepared an indictment package for review by the Office. B this time, Epstein's counsel had 
already met with the head of the West Palm Beach office 
and I, and was demanding 
the opportuni 
to meet with the Chief of the Criminal Division 
and the First 
Assistant 
. The four of us met with counsel for Epstein and rejected their proposed 
resolution of the case, which involved no jail time. A counter-proposal was made by the Chief of the 
Criminal Division, which included a plea to a state charge that carried a sex offender registration 
requirement, a jail term, and the payment of damages to the victims pursuant to a federal law that would 
have been implicated if we had proceeded on the federal charges, 18 U.S.C. § 2255. 
Epstein's counsel asked to meet with the U.S. Attorney (Alexander Acosta) and the Chief of the 
Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section at the Department of Justice. After that meeting, Epstein's 
counsel was again informed that we intended to proceed. At that point, Epstein's counsel asked for the 
opportunity to "appeal" the decision to Washington, D.C. The U.S. Attorney agreed to give them two 
EFTA00208245

weeks for that appeal. At the same time, Epstein's counsel asked to begin negotiations to resolve the 
dispute in accordance with the terms set forth by the Chief of the Criminal Division. 
At the Office's request, I began crafting an agreement containing those terms. Epstein's counsel 
expressed concerns about Epstein's safety while incarcerated, and asked if there was a way to plead to a 
federal charge that would bring about the desired outcome. I, therefore, undertook drafting two separate 
sets of documents: (1) a Non-Prosecution Agreement setting forth a plea to state offenses; and (2) a 
federal Plea Agreement with a federal Information to be filed with the Court. The negotiations were 
difficult and tedious. Whenever Epstein's attorneys and I reached an impasse, they would "appeal" to 
the powers above me, starting with the head of the West Palm Beach office, then to the Chief of the 
Criminal Division, then to the First Assistant and the U.S. Attorney. Although the U.S. Attorney 
continued to defer to Mr. 
and me, Epstein's counsel would constantly ask the U.S. Attorney to 
intervene. 
As mentioned above, with respect to the terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, Fz from the 
Office's perspective, there were three necessary terms: (1) a sentence of eighteen months' imprisonment 
[reduced from twenty-four months after negotiations with the defense]; (2) a plea to one state offense 
that required sex offender registration [reduced from pleading to three separate state offenses that each 
required sex offender registration]; and (3) an agreement to pay damages to the victims in accordance 
with federal law. Because of the state component of the agreement, 
(also from our Office), and I met with the State Attorney for Palm Beach County and an Assistant State 
Attorney, and three of Epstein's lawyers, Jack Goldberger, Gerald Lefcourt, and Jay Lefkowitz. F3 At 
that meeting, we discussed the issue of sex offender registration, and Jack Goldberger said that Epstein 
was willing to plead guilty to procuring minors to engage in prostitution, one of the three charges for 
which sex offender registration was required. Goldberger specifically noted that this charge required 
registration but was still acceptable to the defense. After several weeks of negotiations, Epstein's 
attorneys began to complain about the sex offender registration requirement and, in some drafts, tried to 
"slip in" a citation to a different state offense that did not require registration. When I inquired why 
there was a sudden objection to a term that had been agreed upon several weeks before, I learned that, 
when Goldberger made that representation and throughout the first few weeks of negotiations, the 
defense believed that procuring minors to engage in prostitution did not require sex offender 
registration. 
When they learned that my research was correct, and that the charge did require 
registration, they then tried to avoid that term, first by trying to "slip in" the change to the agreement, 
and then by re-arguing the point with me, 
and the U.S. Attorney. Their 
arguments were rejected, and the term remained in the Agreement. 
With respect to the second term, regarding a jail sentence, we later learned that Epstein's 
attorneys had been trying to arrange with the State Attorney and the Palm Beach Sheriff's Office to 
allow Epstein to serve his term on "work release," which would allow him to be out of custody all day, 
just returning to a "halfway house" to sleep at night. 
With respect to the third term, there were also intense negotiations. Epstein's attorneys wanted 
us to bind the victims to a set settlement amount or pool of funds, bar them from litigating any issues, 
and require them to waive their federal claims in lieu of a state restitution fund. All of these requests 
were refused for several reasons, including, first, that the Office did not have the power to bind the 
victims to any contractual terms; and second, that the federal statute presumed damages in an amount 
not less than $150,000, so binding them to a state restitution fund would greatly decrease their 
opportunity to recover. Under the federal damages statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2255, a victim's attorney was 
entitled to recover attorney's fees from the defendant. This, however, would require the victims to find 
EFTA00208246

their own attorneys. The defense wanted to avoid this to keep from having to litigate against several 
different attorneys at the same time, and as a way to keep the terms of the agreement from widespread 
disclosure. I considered it in the victims' best interests to provide a way for them to have an attorney 
who was competent to represent them and to negotiate on their behalf without each victim having to run 
the gauntlet of finding a plaintiffs' attorney. F4 I therefore developed a list of criteria for the attorney 
who should be appointed to represent the victims. I also began thinking about possible attorneys to 
serve in that position. 
Virtually all of the drafts of the Non-Prosecution Agreement contained an agreement that the 
United States would move for the appointment of a Guardian ad Litem to represent the victims in the 
U.S. District Court, using the following language: 
Upon the execution of this agreement, the United States will file a motion with the United 
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida for the appointment of a guardian 
ad litem for these persons [referring to the victims]. 
On September 24, 2007, for the first time, Epstein's attorney, Jay Lefkowitz, revised the paragraph 
regarding the Guardian ad Litem to the following: 
Upon execution of this agreement, the United States will either file a motion under seal 
with the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida for the 
appointment of a representative who is: (a) a lawyer; (b) independent; (c) selected by a 
federal judge; and (d) paid for by the federal court or, in consultation with Epstein's 
counsel, the United States shall select a representative who shall be paid for by Epstein. 
September 24, 2007 was the final deadline that had been set for the signing of the Non-Prosecution 
Agreement (it had been extended several times over several months at the request of Epstein's lawyers), 
so this significant change needed to be dealt with quickly. I explained to Lefkowitz that, unless a case 
was pending, there was no basis for the United States to file such a motion and there was no basis for 
the federal court to pay for the attorney, especially since the statute at issue called for the defendant to 
pay for attorneys' fees. Lefkowitz then suggested that we drop the first half of the sentence and just 
have the attorney selected by the United States in consultation with Epstein's attorneys. I agreed, and 
the final language was the following: 
Upon the execution of this agreement, the United States, in consultation with and subject 
to the good faith approval of Epstein's counsel, shall select an attorney representative for 
these persons, who shall be paid for by Epstein. 
The agreement was completed and signed that day, September 24, 2007. 
The Selection of the Attorney Representative 
As mentioned above, I had given some thought to the attributes of the attorney appointed to 
represent the victims, which I had planned to include in the motion for appointment of a guardian ad 
litem. These attributes included experience representing plaintiffs and defendants, employment with a 
firm large enough to handle multiple lawsuits simultaneously, federal trial experience, tenacity, honesty, 
and a person at a place in his or her career where he or she could put the interests of the victims first and 
not be concerned about currying favor with Epstein's high-profile attorneys or the press. 
EFTA00208247

Although I had never met him, I was aware of == 
a friend of my boyfriend, 
F5 
eras 
a seasoned trial attorney who had represented both plaintiffs and defendants and who had 
litigated against other high profile attorneys under difficult circumstances. I knew that 
and another 
mutual friend of= 
and i 
found him very trustworthy and I felt that he could be trusted to 
protect the victims' interests. I asked 
whether he thou ht 
was suitable for and would be 
willing to accept the assignment and he said he thought so. 
ommended that I give 
a call 
and provided me with his contact information. I then called 
and told him a little bit about what I 
was looking for under the terms of the agreement. I told 
that I had gotten his contact information 
from= but I did not tell him about m relationship with M. To avoid any claim that I had disclosed 
grand jury information to him, I told 
that if he wanted detailed information about the case, he 
could "Google" Epstein's name and find all the public sources of information about the case. 
and I corresponded by e-mail and he ran a conflicts check to insure that he was able to accept the 
appointment, if it was made. 
After the agreement was signed, I mentioned 
name to Lefkowitz. I told him that he was 
mutual friends with two people whom I respected. I also told Lefkowitz that 
worked at the 
Shook, Hardy, and Bacon firm, and that he had worked with Guy Lewis, another of Epstein's attorneys. 
Later, Lefkowitz called me and said that he had checked on 
and he sounded like a good choice, 
but he asked to be provided with additional names from which to choose. On September 25, 2007 (the 
day after the agreement was signed), I sent Lefkowitz a list of four additional attorneys. In that e-mail, I 
wrote: "Just so you know, I have never met 
, but a good friend in our appellate section a l
and one of the district judges in Miami are good friends with him and recommended him." The 
following morning, I asked Lefkowitz to disregard two of the names, one of whom was partners with 
the husband of an Assistant U.S. Attorney in West Palm Beach because of the Department's conflict of 
issue rules. 
On September 26th, Lefkowitz provided me with two names to consider. I researched their 
backgrounds and determined that they were both retired state court judges who were of advanced age 
who were no longer practicing law full-time. I declined those names, writing: "Meaning no disrespect 
to these distinguished gentlemen, one of my criteria is that, if negotiations with you don't work out, they 
have the stamina to take you all to trial, so I politely decline
 suggestion." Lefkowitz later told me 
that he had considered the other names and decided thaa 
was the best choice. I then started to try 
to work out the details of the representation so that the girls could be told about their attorney and they 
could start deciding how they wanted to proceed. 
On September 27th, I corresponded both with Lefkowitz and 
about how the re resentation 
would be paid for, and with Lefkowitz about what information I could share with 
I tried to 
schedule a conference call to discuss the matter, but Lefkowitz was unwilling to meet. Late that 
afternoon, I spoke with the First Assistant, 
who had been out of the office during the last 
week of negotiations. He expressed concern about our Office selecting any individual attorney and 
wanted to refer the matter to a Special Master to make the selection. I informed 
about this new 
development and told him that I would get back to him when I knew the Office's final decision about 
how to proceed. 
I then began working with Lefkowitz to select a Special Master and to create procedures for how 
the Special Master would select the attorney and, once chosen, how the attorney would proceed with 
representing the victims. Immediately, Lefkowitz and other attorneys for Epstein began to seek delays 
and objected to things already contained in the Non-Prosecution Agreement — an attempt to re-open the 
plea negotiations that had been concluded. They also began to object to my attempts to abide by our 
EFTA00208248

legal obligations to inform victims about the outcome of investigations and prosecutions. In early 
October, I took an unpaid leave of absence to deal with a number of health issues. I attempted to resolve 
the Special Master issue before I left, but was unable to because of the defense objections. On October 
5th, I again asked Lefkowitz to meet with me via telephone to finalize the decision regarding a Special 
Master. In that e-mail, I gave Lefkowitz the list of attorneys whom we intended to provide to the 
Special Master for his selection: Fs "As far as the five attorney names that we will be providing, I 
propose Bert MI 
Katherine Ezell at Podhurst Orseck, Stuart Grossman, Ed Rogers, and Walter 
Cobath." 
While I was on leave, First Assistant 
negotiated an Addendum to the Non-
Prosecution Agreement that called for a Special Master to select one or more attorneys to represent the 
victims. Those negotiations were almost as difficult as the ones leading to the Non-Prosecution 
Agreement, and the Addendum was not sial until October 29, 2007. In mid-October, after I learned 
of the Office's final decision, I informed 
that the decision to use a Special Master had been made 
and told him the name of the Special Master. In addition, I stated: "I will leave it to you whether you or 
someone in your firm wants to contact Judge Davis. I apologize that this process has become so 
cumbersome. It has reminded me why government bureaucracy moves so slowly. Thatil ,
c ou for your 
willingness to ste up and undertake this difficult project." I next had contact with 
on October 
29th, when 
sent me an e-mail asking whether Judge Davis had been selected as the Special 
Master. I responded that Judge Davis had been selected. Following that exchange, I have had no 
further contact with 
and I still have never met him face-to-face. At some time after these events, 
told 
about our relationship, but I do not know exactly when that occurred. 
I understand from Epstein's attorneys that 
did contact Judge Davis about serving as the 
attorney for the victims. Judge Davis selected a different firm (ironically, one of the firms I had 
included in my October 5th list, which the defense rejected at the time). After pressure from Epstein's 
attorneys, the firm chosen by Judge Davis declined the appointment and no other firm has been 
Si
lted or selected. Several of the victims have since obtained private counsel. No one has selected 
to be her attorney and when victims have asked me to recommend an attorney, I have simply 
declined, stating that I could not provide them with that advice. Despite the existence of the Non-
Prosecution Agreement, Epstein's counsel and several private investigators have tried to contact the 
victims, greatly upsetting some victims. On the advice of other child exploitation prosecutors, I 
contacted a national crime victims' organization, which was able to appoint pro bono attorneys for those 
victims who wanted representation regarding the state and federal criminal cases. 
Conclusion 
At this time, none of the terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement have been followed or 
enforced. In light of Epstein's failure to abide by the terms of the Agreement, the Office intends to 
proceed to prosecute Epstein. I wanted to bring this allegation to the attention of the Office of 
Professional Responsibility, and to provide your Office with any other information that is needed. 
Please advise me if any further information or action is needed. Thank you for your assistance 
with this matter. 
Sincerely, 
R. Alexander Acosta 
United States Attorney 
By: 
EFTA00208249

Assistant United States Attorney 
cc: R. Alexander Acosta, U.S. Attorney 
Mn connection with the state litigation, Epstein hired Guy Fronstin and Jack Goldberger from West Palm 
Beach, television legal commentators Roy Black and Gerald Lefcourt, and author and Harvard Law Professor 
Alan Dershowitz. In connection with the federal investigation, Epstein added former Independent Counsel 
Kenneth Starr and Jay Lefkowitz from Kirkland and Ellis, former U.S. Attorney Guy Lewis, former Assistant 
U.S. Attorneys Lilly Ann Sanchez and Michael Tien, and Massachusetts defense attorney Martin Weinberg. 
nit note that for at least the first two weeks of the negotiations, Epstein's counsel shifted back and forth 
between a plea to state charges and a plea to federal charges, so I was drafting both a Non-Prosecution 
Agreement and a plea agreement. The federal plea agreement did not go through because Epstein's counsel were 
concerned that Epstein would not be eligible to serve his term in a "prison camp" and because the Office was 
concerned about finding appropriate federal charges that would "cap" Epstein's sentence at the agreed eighteen 
months. 
May Lefkowitz handled the majority of the negotiations with me. 
a lThe agreement provided that the girls would not be required to use the attorney, he or she would simply 
advise the victim of her rights and she could then decide to stay with that attorney or find another attorney on her 
own. 
UYera is also an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the West Palm Beach office. He is assigned to theiglate 
Section. Contrary to allegations raised by Epstein's attorneys, 
has no business relationship with 
they have been friends since law school. 
F A number of documents related to the state investigation were available at TheSmokingGun.com and 
other websites. I know that, after he did this, 
contacted 
to thank him for the referral and he 
mentioned that he had found out information about the case and that this was the type of case he would be 
willing to do pro bono. During that conversation, 
did not tell 
about the personal relationship 
between us. 
EThe "good friend in our appellate section" refers tc. M. Reading this now, it is a bit unclear 
because the recommendation came only from 
,
 
not from their mutual friend, the district judge, who was 
never asked for and who never provided a recommendation. 
a lPlease note that, in the final version, no list of attorneys was provided to the Special Master. 
EFTA00208250