Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-26394House OversightFinancial Record

Transcript hints at vague knowledge of Epstein-related case during law firm hiring

The passage provides a fragmented deposition where a firm partner references hearing about an "Epstein case" from Russ Adler and others, and discusses hiring a lawyer (Brad) possibly for that case. No Speaker mentions hearing about an "Epstein case" from Russ Adler, possibly Farmer and Jaffe. Brad was hired with knowledge of a "significant" or "collectible" Epstein case. No specific financial figu

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #017495
Pages
2
Persons
0
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The passage provides a fragmented deposition where a firm partner references hearing about an "Epstein case" from Russ Adler and others, and discusses hiring a lawyer (Brad) possibly for that case. No Speaker mentions hearing about an "Epstein case" from Russ Adler, possibly Farmer and Jaffe. Brad was hired with knowledge of a "significant" or "collectible" Epstein case. No specific financial figu

Tags

financial-flowruss-adlerpotential-misconductforeign-influencelegal-caselaw-firm-hiringlegal-exposurehouse-oversightepstein

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
unfortunately, you are taking a little tiny spot out of a very, very busy time period in my life and in the life of the firm, so J can't tell you one way or the other. knowing he was a billionaire? Q. |} know you had a lot going on, I'm just A. | knew what] was told. | didn't check it trying to see if you remember anything specific about; out myself, but] trusted the people that told me. this. Q. And who told you? A. The only person ] remember discussing it with, as | sit here today, is Russ Adler. But if Farmer and Jaffe and those guys were with me at the time, ] likely would have discussed it with them as ave discussed it with them as well Q. So were you aware of this case before you made an offer to Brad to join the firm? A. Yes, Q. You said you didn't -- ] don't want to misquote you. You said you heard about it from other people, but you didn't do anything to know that personally. Was that before you made the offer of A. Epstein was a billionaire, Q. Okay. Did you know anything about the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the claims prior to AUSTENITE Onan Uo B® WME Do you recal] what salary you had offered Brad to come join the firm? A. I] donot. You have to just try to differentiate that what I knew then is a Jot different than what J know now so ... Q. Meaning? A. Obviously meaning that at the point in time that ] was hiring him or maybe a year after, ] would be able to tell you what I was paying him, but now it's insignificant. J don't remember how much I was paying him. Q. Did you learn about his book of business or know what kind of cases he was bringing in prior to employment? hiring him? A. 1] made the offer of employment based upon A. I do know that he -- I discussed either with z what other people had told me about Brad. Russ, well, ] know with Russ, and perhaps some other = Q. About Brad and his book of business or just people, ] knew about the Epstein case. i Brad and his legal skills? Q. What did you know about it? : A. Okay. When ] say Brad, ] mean Brad and his Page 20 ts SONNE te tre eae Ei are Ra Oger nee RSE . Lknew that it was a significant case. book of business and his legal skills. potentially significant value against an extremely Q. Okay. A. And his ability to generate business in the future. Q. You stated that you believed that you first heard about these cases from Russ and then perhaps from Brad. Once Brad was at the firm, did you keep up with these cases, these Epstein cases? MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me, I'm going to object to the form of the question. It is an inaccurate reflection of the prior testimony. It has no predicate. There was no reference about having heard about these cases from Brad. The names mentioned were Adler, possibly Farmer, possibly Jaffe. BY MS. HADDAD: Q. Once Brad started working at the firm, you've already testified you already knew about these Epstein cases, correct? A. Yes. Q. How did you keep abreast of these cases? A. I didn't. Q. You didn't know anything about them? A. I didn't say ] didn't know anything. 1 said 1 didn't keep track of it. collectible pedophile, for lack of a better word. Q. So was that case your primary motive in bringing Brad into-the firm? A. ] doubt it, ] mean, ] can't tell you one way or the other, but I doubt that ] would bring him in just for one case because what if the case fails, then J'm stuck with a lawyer w you know. I'm not saying, Brad, that you couldn't do anything, J'm just saying that if] only relied on one case, then if] bring a lawyer in for one case and one case only, what do I do with him when the case is over. Q. How did you know that this case would be a collectible case then? MR. SCAROLA: I'm going to object to the form of the question because it misstated the prior testimony. The prior testimony was not that it was a collectible case but that it was a case against a "extremely collectible pedophile.” BY MS. HADDAD: Q. What made you think that this case had any financial value? errr ta ARAL i cre meester etn cnc oe ta zat RY TR AN Ra aera tone eat , n 4 ypu sf ry Page ia § Page 21] 6 (Pages 18 to -21) FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON 305-371-6677 5ed93085-0554-447f-bcdd-ca2d8fe941 df

Technical Artifacts (3)

View in Artifacts Browser

Email addresses, URLs, phone numbers, and other technical indicators extracted from this document.

Phone305-371-6677
Wire Refreference
Wire Refreflection

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.