What is document EFTA00011026?

It is a letter from Judge Richard M. Berman to Professor Bruce A. Green concerning ethical issues and potential conflicts of interest in cases related to *US v. Epstein*.

Who is mentioned in this document?

Key individuals mentioned include Judge Richard M. Berman, Professor Bruce A. Green, David Boies, Virginia Giuffre, Jeffrey Epstein, and Alan Dershowitz. Other individuals mentioned are Martin Weinberg, Reid Weingarten, Boles, and Harry Reid. Also mentioned is Louis Stein.

What does this document reveal?

The document reveals concerns about potential ethical violations and a lack of transparency surrounding Bruce A. Green's involvement in cases related to Jeffrey Epstein, specifically regarding his views on David Boies' representation of Virginia Giuffre and his public commentary on the Epstein case.

What is document EFTA00011026?

It is a letter from Judge Richard M. Berman to Professor Bruce A. Green concerning ethical issues and potential conflicts of interest in cases related to *US v. Epstein*.

Who is mentioned in this document?

Key individuals mentioned include Judge Richard M. Berman, Professor Bruce A. Green, David Boies, Virginia Giuffre, Jeffrey Epstein, and Alan Dershowitz. Other individuals mentioned are Martin Weinberg, Reid Weingarten, Boles, and Harry Reid. Also mentioned is Louis Stein.

What does this document reveal?

The document reveals concerns about potential ethical violations and a lack of transparency surrounding Bruce A. Green's involvement in cases related to Jeffrey Epstein, specifically regarding his views on David Boies' representation of Virginia Giuffre and his public commentary on the Epstein case.

EFTA00011026 - EFTA00011027

Document EFTA00011026 is a letter from Judge Richard M. Berman to Professor Bruce A. Green regarding a potential conflict of interest and ethical concerns in the case of *US v. Epstein* and its related cases.

This document is a letter from Judge Richard M. Berman to Bruce A. Green, a legal ethics expert, questioning Green's impartiality and transparency concerning his involvement in cases related to *US v. Epstein*. The judge expresses surprise over Green's failure to disclose his role in advocating for David Boies' disqualification from representing Virginia Giuffre, particularly in light of Green's public commentary on the Epstein case. The letter suggests concerns about potential chilling effects on the rights of victims to be heard.

Key Highlights

•Judge Richard M. Berman questions Bruce A. Green's impartiality and transparency in the Epstein case.
•The letter discusses a potential conflict of interest regarding David Boies' representation of Virginia Giuffre.
•Concerns are raised about a possible chilling effect on the rights of victims to be heard.

Frequently Asked Questions

Books for Further Reading

Perversion of Justice: The Jeffrey Epstein Story

Julie K. Brown

Investigative journalism that broke the Epstein case open

Filthy Rich: The Jeffrey Epstein Story

James Patterson

Bestselling account of Epstein's crimes and network

Relentless Pursuit: My Fight for the Victims of Jeffrey Epstein

Bradley J. Edwards

Victims' attorney's firsthand account

Document Information

Bates Range

EFTA00011026 - EFTA00011027

Pages

Document Content

Page 1 - EFTA00011026

Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 56 Filed 09/04/19 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE 500 PEARL STREET NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10007 (212)1308-0715 CHAMBERS OF RICHARD M. BERMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Bruce A. Green Louis Stein Chair Fordharn University School of Law 150 West 62"d Street Room 7-168 New York City, NY 10023 Dear Professor Green, USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC It: DATE FILED: I September 4, 2019 Thank you for your letter of August 30, 2019. I appreciate your taking the time to clarify the record. I learned that you had been "retained to provide opinions as an expert on legal ethics" in v. Dershowitz following the August 27, 2019 public hearing in US v. Epstein. I learned of your role in theaase by reading your affidavit, dated June 7, 2019, which includes your legal ethics opinion that David Boies should be disqualified from representing Ms. in that matter. As you are aware, both Mr. Boles and Ms. were invited to testify at the August 27, 2019 hearing. I remain surprised that your advocacy of Mr. Boles' disqualification from representing Ms. Guiffre (in a case obviously related to US v. Epstein) was not disclosed simultaneously with your August 26, 2019 Law Journal opinion piece entitled "The Judge in Epstein's Case Should Not Tum the Dismissal Into a Drama for the Victims." I am also surprised that you would find the August 27, 2019 public hearing to be an inappropriate occasion for transparency in light of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 57 and the Crime Victims' Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771. You wrote: "This is an odd moment for transparency in a criminal case." 1 EFTA00011026

Page 2 - EFTA00011027

Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 56 Filed 09/04/19 Page 2 of 2 Finally, it is unfortunate that your opinion piece may have been construed as an effort to chill Ms. a and Mr. Boies' right to be heard under 18 U.S.C. § 3771 at the August 27, 2019 public hearing. You wrote: "[W]hatever informational interests the victims may have would be served by affording them a chance to attend the hearing, not by giving them a speaking role." Sincerely. Richard M. Berman U.S.D.J. cc: AU Martin G. Weinberg, Esq.; Reid Weingarten, Esq.; David Boies, Esq. 2 EFTA00011027