AUSA Villafana’s Conflict‑of‑Interest and Ex‑Parte Contacts in Epstein‑Related Victim Representation

2a 26. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Tab 18, December 13, 2007 Letter from M. Villafana (admitting that the notification occurred “shortly after the signing”). AUSA Villafana Misleads Mr. Epstein In An Attempt To Refer Plaintiffs to Her Boyfriend’s Close Friend On September 25, Ms. Villafana recommended a local products-liability defense attomey, Humberto “Bert” Ocariz, Esq., for the highly lucrative post of attorney representative for the government’s list of as-yet-undisclosed “victims.” (a) Ms. Villafana wrote to the defense, “I have never met Bert, but a good friend in our appellate section and one of the district judges in Miami are good friends with him and recommended him.” See Tab 28, September 25, 2007 Email from M. Villafana to J. Lefkowitz (bottom email) (emphasis added). (b) Ms, Villafana failed to disclose that this “good friend in our appellate section” was her live-in boyfriend. See Tab 18, December 13, 2007 Letter from M. Villafana (conceding the “relationship” with “my boyfriend’). (c) Beyond her clear conflict-of-interest and affirmative effort to conceal it, it is unimaginable that AUSA Villafana would have engaged in an ex-parte communication with a United States District Judge in the same district about the details of a pending grand-jury investigation without prior disclosure and supervisory approval. (d) Later, it became clear that Ms. Villafana also had at least one other ex-parte communication with that same United States District Judge about the grand jury’s investigation. See Tab 29, October 5, 2007 Email from M. Villafana to J. Lefkowitz (stating that “one of the District Judges in Miami mentioned [retired Judge Joseph Hatchett] as a good choice” to decide any fee disputes concerning Epstein’s paying for a lawyer to represent the unnamed women in claims against Epstein). The next day, AUSA Villafana advised the defense that she was removing one of the alternatives to Mr. Ocariz from our consideration, on the basis that “one of his partners is married to an AUSA here,” and explained that, because of that personal relationship, These actions were improper. As you know, the Department prohibits employees from using any nonpublic information to secure private benefits of any kind: “An employee shall not ... allow the improper use of nonpublic information to further his own private interest or that of another, whether through advice or recommendation, or by knowing unauthorized disclosure.” 5 C.F.R. § 2635.703 (emphasis added). Among the examples of prohibited disclosure specifically illustrated by this regulation is the disclosure of nonpublic information to “friends” to further their financial interests, id., at Example 1, and the disclosure of nonpublic information to a newspaper reporter, id., at Example 5 (see allegations below regarding the leak to the New York Times). Furthermore, the Justice Department prohibits its employees from using their position to benefit friends or relatives. See 5. C.F.R. § 2635.702; see also 5. C.F.R. § 2535.502. HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012165