According to DOJ-released documents indexed by Epstein Exposed, ROBERT GLASSMAN appears in 7 case documents in the Epstein files.
Mentioned in 8 documents. Roles: Jane's attorney, Witness, Counsel for victims, Attorney representing Jane in a civil case against Ghislaine Maxwell, Attorney for the Claimant
Large reports can take 10 to 30 seconds. Your download will start automatically.
ROBERT GLASSMAN 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
Robert S. Glassman is an attorney at the law firm Panish Shea & Boyle LLP, based at 11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700, Los Angeles, California 90025. He practiced alongside colleagues Kevin Boyle and Nathan Werksman at the firm. Glassman served as legal counsel for victims in cases related to Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, representing at least one key victim witness referred to in court documents as 'Jane' or 'Jane Doe.'
Epstein Connection
Robert Glassman was an attorney representing at least one victim (referred to as 'Jane') in both the criminal prosecution of Ghislaine Maxwell (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330) and in a related civil case (Jane Doe v. Indyke et al., SDNY Case No. 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF). He coordinated extensively with the SDNY investigation team beginning in late 2019, facilitated interviews of his client and her family members, and filed a civil lawsuit on her behalf in January 2020. He also represented a claimant in connection with a General Release related to the Epstein matter. During the Maxwell criminal trial, the defense sought to call Glassman as a witness regarding his advice to Jane about cooperating with the government, which was opposed by both the prosecution and Jane's other attorneys on attorney-client privilege grounds. He was also grouped with victim attorneys Jack Scarola and Brad Edwards as lawyers Maxwell's defense wished to call as witnesses. Additionally, Glassman opposed the release of grand jury transcripts without redacting victims' identifying information.
Key Allegations(9)
Glassman represented 'Jane,' a key victim witness, in the SDNY criminal investigation of Ghislaine Maxwell and coordinated her interviews with prosecutors beginning in December 2019.
documentedGlassman filed a civil lawsuit on behalf of his client (Jane Doe v. Indyke et al., SDNY Case No. 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF) in January 2020.
documentedMaxwell's defense argued Maxwell had a constitutional right to call Glassman as a witness to testify about his advice to Jane regarding cooperating with the government and testifying against Maxwell, claiming the attorney-client privilege did not apply or had been waived.
documentedThe US Department of Justice argued the defense's motion to call Glassman should be denied due to attorney-client privilege and lack of probative value under Rule 403.
documentedJane's attorneys argued Glassman should not be compelled to testify because it would violate attorney-client privilege, be irrelevant, and the subpoena served on him was procedurally improper.
documentedThe US Government opposed Maxwell's request to call victim lawyers Scarola, Edwards, and Glassman as witnesses, arguing their testimony was irrelevant and would compromise attorney-client privilege.
documentedGlassman, as a victim's attorney, opposed the release of grand jury transcripts without redacting victims' identifying information.
documentedGlassman reviewed and approved a notarized General Release executed by a claimant on November 30, 2020, in Los Angeles County, California.
documentedGlassman submitted a request to the SDNY/DOJ for information relating to Jeffrey Epstein, which was governed by Touhy regulations restricting Department employee disclosures.
documentedLegal Status
Robert Glassman appears in the Epstein case files exclusively in his capacity as a victims' attorney. He represented 'Jane' (a victim witness) in the criminal case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (20 Cr. 330) and in the civil case Jane Doe v. Indyke et al. (SDNY Case No. 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF). He was the subject of a defense subpoena and motion to compel his testimony during the Maxwell trial, which was opposed by both the government and Jane's other attorneys.
Notable Statements(5)
“unfortunately, we can't do earlier than 11. She just needs time to get to my office after taking care of kid stuff etc.”
“Re the mom, my understanding is that she is overseas somewhere. Pretty sure she's not in the US. I will find out and we can chat about it on Monday.”
“Only Maxwell would sue in the midst”
“sorry for not giving you a heads up on this. That was not my intent. Just been really busy with a couple of other big matters going on now.”
“Thanks for letting us know. Can you send me a list of the schools you've subpoenaed and reached out to? Just want to make sure if she gets a call from someone, it is actually from someone who you've contacted and is legit. As you can imagine, there are lots of calls and emails to her and her manager saying all kinds of stuff.”
Contradictions(2)
Maxwell's defense claimed Glassman's testimony was necessary because the attorney-client privilege did not apply or had been waived, and his testimony was relevant to Jane's credibility.
Both the US Department of Justice and Jane's own attorneys argued that attorney-client privilege fully applied, that it had not been waived, and that the defense's theories for why the privilege did not apply were without merit. The government further argued that the victims themselves had already testified and been cross-examined, making the lawyers' testimony unnecessary.
Glassman was coordinating with SDNY prosecutors and facilitating his client's cooperation with the investigation throughout late 2019 and 2020.
In January 2020, SDNY investigators appeared unaware that Glassman had filed a civil lawsuit on behalf of his client, learning about it through media reports. Glassman apologized for not giving them a heads up, suggesting some gaps in coordination.
Key Relationships(8)
Glassman represented a victim ('Jane') in the criminal prosecution of Ghislaine Maxwell and was the subject of Maxwell's defense motion to compel his testimony. He also represented a Jane Doe in a civil case related to Maxwell.
Glassman represented victims in matters relating to Jeffrey Epstein, including filing a civil case (Jane Doe v. Indyke et al.) and submitting a Touhy request for Epstein-related information from the DOJ.
Glassman was grouped with Jack Scarola as one of three victim lawyers Maxwell's defense sought to call as witnesses during the Maxwell trial.
Glassman was grouped with Brad Edwards as one of three victim lawyers Maxwell's defense sought to call as witnesses during the Maxwell trial.
Judge Alison J. Nathan presided over the Maxwell criminal case in which multiple motions were filed concerning Glassman's potential testimony.
Jeffrey S. Pagliuca, Maxwell's attorney, filed letters to the court discussing the anticipated testimony of Glassman and other victim attorneys.
Sigrid McCawley appeared on the same email distribution lists as Glassman in communications related to Epstein victims and the USVI Epstein Estate matter.
Darren Indyke was a defendant in the civil case Jane Doe v. Indyke et al. (SDNY Case No. 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF) filed by Glassman on behalf of Jane Doe.
Timeline(18 events)
Interview 302 involving Robert Glassman listed in Maxwell trial 3500 material disclosure records.
SDNY investigators emailed Glassman about scheduling a meeting with his client for Monday, requesting an earlier start time and information about the client's mother's location.
Glassman responded that the meeting could not start before 11 AM and provided information that the client's mother was likely overseas.
Glassman exchanged scheduling emails with SDNY investigators about the Monday meeting.
SDNY investigators confirmed they would begin with interviews of siblings and mother and planned a follow-up meeting with the client in January.
SDNY investigators learned through media reports that Glassman had filed a civil lawsuit on behalf of his client and requested a copy of the filing.
Glassman apologized for not giving SDNY investigators advance notice of the civil filing and sent a copy of the federal complaint.
SDNY investigators followed up with Glassman about scheduling another interview with his client, proposing dates in February.
Glassman discussed school subpoenas with SDNY investigators and colleague Kevin Boyle noted procedural requirements for subpoenas in California.
Follow-up email exchanges between Glassman and investigators; Glassman remarked about Maxwell suing during what appears to be the pandemic period.
AUSA communicated with Glassman regarding a Touhy request for information relating to Jeffrey Epstein, outlining DOJ regulatory requirements for disclosure.
Communications regarding the Touhy request for tangible and documentary evidence in Jane Doe v. Indyke et al.
Media reported on prosecutors' request to halt civil proceedings against Maxwell; Glassman was quoted as representing Jane Doe in a letter to the court.
A notarized General Release was executed by a claimant in Los Angeles County and reviewed and approved by Glassman as the claimant's attorney.
Glassman communicated with parties regarding a bail application, likely related to Ghislaine Maxwell's detention.
During the Ghislaine Maxwell criminal trial, Maxwell's defense filed motions seeking to call Glassman as a witness. The government, along with Jane's other attorneys (Kevin Boyle), opposed the motions on attorney-client privilege grounds. Multiple letters were filed arguing for and against compelling Glassman's testimony.
The government refused to enter into a stipulation regarding Glassman's testimony, arguing that a statement in an email was not admissible and required additional context.
Court order by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer docketed a letter from Glassman opposing release of grand jury transcripts without redacting victims' identifying information.
At a Glance
Click values for sourcesSources
7 sources for document mentions
The letter, filed by Ghislaine Maxwell's attorneys, argues that Maxwell has a constitutional right t...
“The letter, filed by Ghislaine Maxwell's attorneys, argues that Maxwell has a constitutional right t”
The document is a letter from the US Department of Justice to Judge Alison J. Nathan arguing that th...
“The document is a letter from the US Department of Justice to Judge Alison J. Nathan arguing that th”
The US Attorney's office submits a letter to Judge Alison J. Nathan arguing that a statement in an e...
“The US Attorney's office submits a letter to Judge Alison J. Nathan arguing that a statement in an e”
The provided document is a compilation of excerpts from two different court filings. The first is an...
“The provided document is a compilation of excerpts from two different court filings. The first is an”
The US Government filed a letter opposing Ghislaine Maxwell's request to call victim lawyers Jack Sc...
“The US Government filed a letter opposing Ghislaine Maxwell's request to call victim lawyers Jack Sc”
Sources
1 source for known connections
Co-Document Mentions
“Named alongside other network members in 9 documents”
Network Graph
Known Connections (3)
External Cross-Check
Search ICIJ Offshore Leaks, OFAC Sanctions, SEC EDGAR, and Federal Courts
Document Mentions
This dossier on ROBERT GLASSMAN was compiled from court records, flight logs, and public documents. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.