According to DOJ-released documents indexed by Epstein Exposed, Jeffrey H. Sloman appears in 0 case documents, and 1 email record in the Epstein files.
Jeffrey H. Sloman served as First Assistant United States Attorney and later Acting U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida (SDFL), where he supervised the controversial 2008 Epstein plea deal (Non-Prosecution Agreement). In this role, Sloman oversaw the federal prosecution that resulted in Epstein receiving a minimal state sentence rather than federal charges. Appears in 750+ EFTA documents including DOJ correspondence, FBI case files, and legal filings related to the plea negotiations. Now a partner at Stumphauzer Kolaya Nadler & Sloman (sknlaw.com), a Miami litigation firm.
Large reports can take 10 to 30 seconds. Your download will start automatically.
Jeffrey H. Sloman is mentioned in documents or reporting related to the Epstein case. Being mentioned does not imply any wrongdoing, criminal conduct, or inappropriate behavior.
This dossier was generated by AI (Claude) from court filings, government releases, and other documentary sources in our database. It may contain errors or misattributions. Always verify claims against the linked source documents.
Background
Jeffrey H. Sloman served as First Assistant United States Attorney (FAUSA) in the Southern District of Florida (SDFL) during the federal investigation and prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein. In this capacity, he was a senior official in the U.S. Attorney's Office under U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta and played a central role in the negotiations leading to Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and the subsequent Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA). He communicated directly with Epstein's defense attorneys, including Jay Lefkowitz and Kenneth Starr of Kirkland & Ellis, as well as with local and federal law enforcement and the courts.
Sloman's involvement in the Epstein case became a focal point for allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, conflict of interest, and misrepresentation. Epstein's defense team, led by Kirkland & Ellis, raised concerns about Sloman's former law partner, Jeffrey M. Herman, who was simultaneously pursuing multi-million-dollar civil lawsuits against Epstein on behalf of alleged victims. This overlap was cited as creating an appearance of impropriety. Sloman also authored key correspondence that became the subject of dispute, including a May 19, 2008 letter that claimed an independent Department of Justice review had been conducted, and a letter regarding victim notification that was challenged by the defense as misleading.
After the NPA was signed, Sloman continued to serve as United States Attorney and was involved in enforcement of its terms, communicating with subsequent defense counsel Roy Black and others through at least 2010. He also published an Op-Ed in The Miami Herald defending the office's handling of the Epstein case, citing 'significant legal impediments' to federal prosecution.
Epstein Connection
Jeffrey H. Sloman was the First Assistant United States Attorney (FAUSA) in the Southern District of Florida who was directly involved in the federal investigation and prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein. He participated in the initial phone call with Epstein's defense counsel, negotiated terms of the NPA and DPA, authored correspondence to Epstein's lawyers and the court, directed the FBI in related matters, oversaw victim notification procedures, and communicated with senior DOJ officials including the Deputy Attorney General. His role was central to the resolution of the federal case against Epstein.
Key Allegations(16)
Sloman had a conflict of interest because his former law partner, Jeffrey M. Herman, was simultaneously pursuing approximately $50-million civil lawsuits against Epstein on behalf of alleged victims.
allegedSloman was still listed publicly as part of his former law firm as recently as two months before the May 2008 letters were sent, suggesting an ongoing connection.
allegedSloman's May 19, 2008 letter to Jay Lefkowitz claimed an independent de novo DOJ review of the Epstein case, but internal documents show the review was conducted by Drew Oosterbaan of CEOS, who had previously reviewed the prosecution memo, and was limited to an 'abuse of discretion' analysis rather than a full de novo review.
allegedSloman sent the FBI to meet with the state sex-crimes prosecutor in an attempt to secure her commitment regarding Epstein's incarceration and sentencing conditions after the NPA was signed.
allegedSloman demanded Epstein begin incarceration by January 4, 2008, approximately three weeks before the first civil trial date, and sought to limit Epstein's work release by pressuring the state court for an 18-month continuous jail sentence.
allegedSloman and AUSA Villafana demanded that Epstein waive his right to contest civil liability under 18 U.S.C. §2255 for an undisclosed list of victims, with minimum damages of $150,000 per victim, as part of the DPA -- terms described as unprecedented.
documentedSloman refused to negotiate the §2255 civil liability terms for two months, which were ultimately incorporated into the final Deferred Prosecution Agreement.
allegedSloman threatened to send a victim notification letter to an undisclosed list of victims, against which the defense made 14 separate substantive objections.
documentedSloman's November 27, 2007 email stated he intended to notify victims by letter after Thanksgiving, and the letter cited the Justice for All Act of 2004, which was later deemed inapplicable.
documentedSloman allegedly sought to prevent alleged victims/plaintiffs from being interviewed before they retained an attorney -- which turned out to be his former law partner -- to bring civil lawsuits against Epstein.
allegedSloman participated in the initial phone call with Epstein's defense counsel at the outset of the case, and AUSA Villafana issued document requests for Epstein's 2004-2005 tax returns and medical records.
documentedSloman threatened to terminate the DPA unless Epstein complied with a unilateral modification regarding terms not originally in the agreement.
allegedSloman wrote to the defense that a contact named Mr. Thomas was given 'non-case specific information,' which was contradicted by other evidence suggesting case-specific details had been disclosed.
allegedSloman's letter purported to prohibit any further contact between Epstein's defense team and U.S. Attorney Acosta.
documentedSloman imposed a compliance deadline of June 2, 2008 for all terms of the NPA, while defense was simultaneously seeking review by the Deputy Attorney General.
documentedLegal Status
Jeffrey H. Sloman was the First Assistant United States Attorney (FAUSA) in the Southern District of Florida during the Epstein investigation and was a principal government actor in the NPA/DPA negotiations. He was not charged with any crime. His conduct was subject to allegations of impropriety raised by Epstein's defense team and was subsequently examined in House Oversight documents and court filings.
Notable Statements(4)
“I intend to notify the victims by letter after Thanksgiving”
“The United States takes no position”
“[T]he SDFL indicated a willingness to defer to the State the length of the incarceration”
“significant legal impediments to [federally] prosecuting”
Contradictions(4)
Sloman's May 19, 2008 letter to Jay Lefkowitz claimed that an independent, de novo DOJ review of the Epstein case had been conducted.
Internal documents show the review was conducted by Drew Oosterbaan of CEOS, who had previously reviewed the prosecution memo. By letter dated May 15, 2008 (four days before Sloman's letter), Oosterbaan advised Lefkowitz that CEOS reviewed the matter only for abuse of discretion, not de novo. The review relied on the same prosecution memo previously examined.
Sloman represented that '[T]he SDFL indicated a willingness to defer to the State the length of the incarceration.'
Defense counsel argued the manner in which the agreement was actually negotiated 'contrasts sharply' with Sloman's representation, citing that federal prosecutors had actually pressured for a longer sentence than the state desired and insisted on specific incarceration terms.
Sloman wrote that information given to a defense contact (Mr. Thomas) was 'non-case specific information' provided 'pursuant to his request.'
Mr. Thomas's own contemporaneous hand-written notes revealed case-specific details had been discussed, contradicting Sloman's characterization of the information as non-case specific.
Sloman characterized the defense's position on Epstein's sexual conduct as claiming it was 'innocuous.'
The defense stated they argued not that the conduct was 'innocuous' as Sloman alleged, but that it was mostly Epstein's own self-pleasuring, which did not satisfy the requisite elements of the federal statute.
Key Relationships(10)
Sloman was FAUSA who oversaw and directly participated in the federal investigation, NPA negotiations, and DPA enforcement against Jeffrey Epstein. (d-32706, d-35093, d-35507, d-15810, efta-efta00213290)
Sloman served as FAUSA under U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta in the Southern District of Florida. Both were involved in Epstein case decisions. (d-9232, efta-efta00224728, d-32676)
Sloman corresponded directly with Jay Lefkowitz, Epstein's lead defense counsel at Kirkland & Ellis, regarding NPA terms, deadlines, and victim notification. (d-35519, d-9222, efta-efta00176157, efta-efta00214350)
Kenneth Starr, as Epstein's defense attorney, sent letters to DOJ officials raising concerns about Sloman's conduct, including the conflict of interest allegations regarding Sloman's former law partner. (d-34512, d-23228, d-36148, d-36245)
AUSA Marie Villafana worked directly with Sloman on the Epstein case, handling day-to-day prosecution matters, document requests, and victim notification. (d-32706, d-20356, d-35507, efta-efta00224728)
Sloman's actions were the subject of review requests to Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip, to whom defense counsel appealed for intervention. Sloman postponed the plea deadline pending Filip's review. (d-36245, d-24804, efta-efta00213038)
Roy Black, as Epstein's subsequent defense attorney, wrote to Sloman regarding enforcement of NPA terms, including victim notification, eligibility for sentence modification, and attorney fees disputes. (efta-efta00213290, efta-efta00183038, efta-efta00212179)
Jeffrey M. Herman was identified as Sloman's former law partner who was pursuing approximately $50-million civil lawsuits against Epstein on behalf of alleged victims, creating the alleged conflict of interest. (d-34512, d-25392, d-36532)
AAG Alice Fisher intervened to halt the transmission of the victim notification letter that Sloman had threatened to send. (d-32676)
Andrew Lourie was involved in the Epstein case timeline alongside Sloman and Acosta. (d-9232, d-34159)
Timeline(22 events)
The Epstein matter was presented to AUSA Villafana of the USAO West Palm Beach branch; Sloman was part of the USAO leadership overseeing the case.
Sloman reported to local police an attempted trespass by a 17-year-old male at his home. Investigation revealed the individual and Sloman's daughter were previously acquainted. The individual was charged with simple trespass.
Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) signed between the USAO and Epstein's defense team.
Sloman wrote to Judge Davis stating 'The United States takes no position' regarding certain aspects of Epstein's state case.
Sloman sent an email to Epstein's attorneys stating he intended to notify victims by letter after Thanksgiving.
Lefkowitz sent an email to Sloman regarding the §2255 victim compensation provisions; the terms were described as heavily negotiated.
Discussions between Sloman and defense counsel Lilly Ann Sanchez about a revised version of the victim notification letter.
U.S. Attorney Acosta sent a letter proposing changes to the DPA; defense later argued this was only a proposal, not a unilateral modification.
Epstein's guilty plea was eventually scheduled for this date, following delays caused by defense appeals to senior DOJ officials.
Drew Oosterbaan of CEOS advised Lefkowitz that CEOS reviewed the Epstein matter only for abuse of discretion, four days before Sloman's letter claiming an independent de novo review.
Sloman sent a letter to Jay Lefkowitz purporting to summarize the investigation and claiming an independent de novo DOJ review had been conducted. Defense characterized the letter as 'fraught with inconsistencies, false and misleading characterizations.'
Sloman sent an email to Lefkowitz further postponing the plea deadline until the Deputy Attorney General completed his review.
Sloman imposed a deadline for compliance with all terms of the NPA. The USAO sent a letter to Deputy AG Mark Filip regarding the Epstein case on the same date.
Kenneth Starr sent a letter to Deputy AG Filip raising conflict of interest concerns about Sloman's former law partner pursuing civil lawsuits against Epstein.
Defense attorney Jack Goldberger wrote to AUSA Villafana with follow-up points, referencing Sloman's earlier correspondence and requesting clarification on victim notification procedures.
Lefkowitz wrote to the USAO confirming compliance with Sloman's directions regarding victim notification contacts and attorney payment procedures.
Lefkowitz wrote to Robert Josefsberg referencing Sloman's letter to Judge Davis and an additional document, in the context of §2255 settlement discussions.
Lefkowitz wrote to AUSA Villafana referencing Sloman's earlier communications and the ongoing enforcement of the NPA.
Roy Black wrote to Sloman as United States Attorney regarding Epstein's eligibility for sentence modification under state law and notification obligations.
USAO responded to Roy Black's meeting and letter, referencing Black's February 8 letter to Sloman and addressing questions about the NPA's terms on civil liability and attorney fees.
Roy Black's firm wrote to both the AUSA and Sloman regarding a new civil complaint by Podhurst Orseck seeking over $2 million in additional fees related to attorney-representative work under the NPA.
Sloman published an Op-Ed in The Miami Herald (Feb. 15, year unclear) representing the existence of 'significant legal impediments to [federally] prosecuting' Epstein, which was cited by both supporters and critics of the plea arrangement.
At a Glance
Click values for sourcesActivity Timeline
External Cross-Check
Search ICIJ Offshore Leaks, OFAC Sanctions, SEC EDGAR, and Federal Courts
Document Mentions
Email Mentions (1)
This dossier on Jeffrey H. Sloman was compiled from court records, flight logs, and public documents. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.