Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, Eso.
DECEMBER 13, 2007
PAGE 2 OF 5
I informed you that I selected Mr. Ocariz because he was a friend and classmate of two people
whom I respected, and that I had never met or spoken with Mr. Ocariz prior to contacting him about
this case. All of those facts are true. I still have never met Mr. Ocariz, and, at the time that he and
I spoke about this case, he did not know about my relationship with his friend. You suggest that I
should have explicitly informed you that one of the referrals came from my “boyfriend” rather than
simply a “friend,” which is the term I used, but it is not my nature to discuss my personal
relationships with opposing counsel. Your attacks on me and on the victims establish why I wanted
to find someone whom I could trust with safeguarding the victims’ best interests in the face of
intense pressure from an unlimited number of highly skilled and well paid attorneys. Mr. Ocariz
was that person.
One of your letters suggests a business relationship between Mr. Ocariz and my boyfriend.
This is patently untrue and neither my boyfriend nor I would have received any financial benefit
from Mr. Ocariz’s appointment. Furthermore, after Mr. Ocariz learned more about Mr. Epstein’ s
actions (as described below), he expressed a willingness to handle the case pro bono, with no
financial benefit even to himself. Furthermore, you were given several other options to choose from,
including the Podhurst firm, which was later selected by Judge Davis. You rejected those other
options.
You also allege that I improperly disclosed information about the case to Mr. Ocariz. I
provided Mr. Ocariz with a bare bones summary of the agreement’ s terms related to his appointment
to help him decide whether the case was something he and his firm would be willing to undertake.
I did not provide Mr. Ocariz with facts related to the investigation because they were confidential
and instead recommended that he “Google” Mr. Epstein’s name for background information. When
Mr. Ocariz asked for additional information to assist his firm in addressing conflicts issues, I
forwarded those questions to you, and you raised objections for the first time. I did not share any
further information about Mr. Epstein or the case. Since Mr. Ocariz had been told that you
concurred in his selection, out of professional courtesy, I informed Mr. Ocariz of the Office's
decision to use a Special Master to make the selection and told him that the Office had made contact
with Judge Davis. We have had no further contact since then and I have never had contact with
Judge Davis. I understand from you that Mr. Ocariz contacted Judge Davis. You criticize his
decision to do so, yet you feel that you and your co-counsel were entitled to contact Judge Davis to
try to “lobby” him to select someone to your liking, despite the fact that the Non-Prosecution
Agreement vested the Office with the exclusive right to select the attorney representative.
Another reason for my surprise about your allegations regarding misconduct related to the
Section 2255 litigation is your earlier desire to have me perform the role of “facilitator” to convince
the victims that the lawyer representative was selected by the Office to represent their interests alone
and that the out-of-court settlement of their claims was in their best interests. You now state that
doing the same things that you had asked me to do earlier is improper meddling in civil litigation.
Much of your letter reiterates the challenges to Detective Recarey’s investigation that have
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012578