DOJ-OGR-00023125.tif

this matter.” Lourie responded with an assurance that the Reiter notification was only “so he does not find out about it in the paper,” and he concluded: “I enjoyed it as well. Mr. Epstein was fortunate to have such excellent representation.” VIII. POST-NPA NEGOTIATIONS Almost immediately after the NPA was signed, conflicts arose about its terms, and the difficult negotiation process began anew. The USAO quickly realized that there were numerous issues concerning the monetary damages provision that were not resolved in the NPA, and the parties differed in their interpretations of the § 2255 provision, in particular the role and duties of the attorney representative for the victims. As negotiations regarding the damages provision continued, the defense was able to delay having Epstein enter his guilty plea in state court. A, September — October 2007: Sloman’s Concerns about Selection of an Attorney Representative Lead to a Proposed NPA Addendum The first controversy centered on the appointment of an attorney representative for the victims. Initially, Villafafia reached out to a private attorney who was one of several suggested to her for that role. Villafafia notified Lefkowitz that she was recommending the attorney to serve as the victims’ representative and suggested a phone conference to discuss what information the USAO could disclose to the attorney about the case. Villafafia told Lefkowitz that she had never met the attorney, but he had been recommended by “a good friend in our appellate section” and by one of the district judges in Miami.'** Over the next few days, Villafafia exchanged messages with the attorney about the possibility of his serving as the attorney representative. She also exchanged emails with Lefkowitz, passing along procedural questions raised by the attorney. By this time, Lourie had fully transitioned to his detail at the Department’s Criminal Division. Sloman, who had been on vacation during the week the NPA was finalized, returned to the office, reviewed the final agreement, and immediately expressed his disapproval of the provision authorizing the USAO to select an attorney representative for the victims, which he believed might raise the appearance of a conflict of interest. Instead, he proposed that a special master make the selection. Although evidently frustrated by Sloman’s belated proposal, Villafafia conveyed to Lefkowitz the suggestion that a special master be appointed to select the attorney representative, rather than having the USAO make the selection.!*° She provided Lefkowitz with probe into possible federal criminal violations in exchange for the guilty plea to the new state charge, with the understanding that he will do prison time.” Dan Mangan, “‘Unhappy Ending’ Plea Deal—Moneyman to Get Jail For Teen Sex Massages,” New York Post, Oct. 1, 2007. ABC News later reported that federal charges “could carry more substantial prison time. Now, Epstein’s high-powered lawyers, including Kenneth Starr, . .. may try to get him out of registering as a sex offender... .” Scott Michels, “Money Manager Said to Plan to Plead Guilty to Prostitution Charges: Jeffrey Epstein may serve about 18 months in prison for soliciting prostitutes,” ABC News, Oct. 11, 2007. 14 The “good friend” was an AUSA whom Villafafia was dating. The defense subsequently raised this as a misconduct issue, alleging that Villafafia was “closely associated” with the individual nominated for the victims’ representative position. 135 In a separate email to the proposed attorney representative, Villafafia commented, “[O]f course they tell me this now.” 87 DOJ-OGR-00023125