mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00021352.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "180",
    "document_number": "77",
    "date": "06/29/2023",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 22-1426, Document 77, 06/29/2023, 3536038, Page180 of 258\nSA-178\n\nCase 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 178 of 348\n\nfriendships 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.\"\n\nSloman 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.\n\nLourie 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.\n\nAcosta 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.\n\nAcosta 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\n\n224 In addition, in May 2008, the USAO's Professional Responsibility Officer consulted with the Department's 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.\n\n152\nDOJ-OGR-00021352",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 77, 06/29/2023, 3536038, Page180 of 258",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SA-178",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 178 of 348",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "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.\"",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "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.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "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.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "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.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "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",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "224 In addition, in May 2008, the USAO's Professional Responsibility Officer consulted with the Department's 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.",
      "position": "footnote"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "152",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00021352",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Menchel",
      "Epstein",
      "Sloman",
      "Lourie",
      "Guy Lewis",
      "Acosta",
      "Starr",
      "Lefkowitz",
      "Villafaña",
      "Dershowitz"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "USAO",
      "Kirkland & Ellis",
      "Harvard Law School"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "06/29/2023",
      "04/16/21",
      "October 12, 2007",
      "May 2008",
      "2009"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 22-1426",
      "Document 77",
      "3536038",
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 204-3",
      "DOJ-OGR-00021352"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court document related to the Epstein case, discussing the ethical responsibilities of USAO officials in their interactions with defense counsel. The text is printed, with no handwritten content or stamps. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}