HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012658.jpg

KIRKLAND & ELLIS Honorable Alice S. Fisher November 28, 2007 Page 3 even the identity of the complainant(s) and because of the involvement of the federal criminal justice system in civil séttlements between private individuals. Fourth. The USAO has improperly insisted that the chosen attorney representative should be able to litigate the claims of individuals, which violates the terms of the Agreement and deeply infringes upon the spirit and nature of the Agreement. Initially, for the sake of expediting a settlement in this matter, we suggested that Mr. Epstein establish a restitution fund specifically for the settlement of the identified individuals’ civil claims and that an impartial, independent representative be. appointed to administer that fund. Notably, such a restitution fund was created in a federal case, U.S. v. Boehm, Case No. 3:04CR00003 (D. Alaska 2004). The federal prosecutors here rejected this idea, and they insisted that an attorney representative, paid for by Mr, Epstein, be appointed. Yet, there was no suggestion at the time that the attorney representative’s duties included litigating claims on behalf of the identified individuals. However, after the parties agreed to the appointment of an attorney representative, the prosecutors announced that the criteria for choosing an appropriate attorney representative now includéd that the individual be “a plaintiff's lawyer capable of handlirig multiple lawsuits against high profile attorneys.” This interpretation of the scope of the attorney representative’s role is far outside the common understanding that existed when we negotiated Mr. Epstein’s settlement with the USAO. Furthermore, we firmly believe that ethics rules preclude the representative from litigating claims on behalf of the identified individuals. In sum, we believe that the actions undertaken in this matter by the USAO with respect to the 18 U.S.C. § 2255 provisions of the Agreement are highly unusual. We respectfully request a meeting with you at your earliest convenience to discuss the important issues raised by the USAO’s conduct in this deeply policy-laden matter. Sincerely, MD WS. Kenneth W. Starr HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012658