Re: Epstein

there a time today we can speak?

How about 430 pm?

Jay,

Here's our proposed letter to the special master.

<<071015 Special Master Letter2.wpd>>

I have reviewed your proposed language and wanted to raise a few areas of concern.

First, I am not sure why we are not just asking Judge Davis to represent these women. If he is available, that would save us a whole additional layer of process. I had thought that was initially the idea. I am not sure why you seem to be moving in another direction.

I also cannot understand why the draft affirmatively requests that J Davis select a lawyer whose firm is sizeable enough to litigate multiple trials simultaneously. That seems to be directly at odds with the purpose of the agreement, which is to facilitate out of court settlements. Indeed, to the extent any woman were to elect to bring an action against Mr. Epstein, she would not only be free to select any lawyer of her choice, but would be restricted from using the lawyer representative in this capacity due to the conflicts of interests that would cause. This part of your proposed language is of significant concern to me.

Your letter also indicates the 150k statutory limit without reference to the pre-existing 50G limit. To be sure, any of the women are free to seek whatever settlement they want, but given the question that exists about the statutory amount, the letter should not state definitely that it will be 150k.

In addition, you have omitted a few important items from your proposal. Given that Judge Davis or any other potential attorney representative should understand the scope of the work, the language should make clear that there may be discovery to test the claims of alleged "victims."

Finally, I think it is important that the attorney representative be told clearly that Mr. Epstein has agreed to pay the lawyer's hourly rate only for the time he or she spends working to effectuate settlements for the identified women.

Jay

Jay,

The Judge Davis issue is a non-starter. We've beaten that horse to death. Regarding your contention that "the attorney representative be told clearly that Mr. Epstein has agreed to pay the lawyer's hourly rate only for the time he or she spends working to effectuate settlements for the identified women," Alex and I agree that paragraph 7C is sufficient, Regarding the other points, we have made the following concessions:

1. Regarding the language concerning a lawyer whose firm is sizeable enough to litigate multiple trials simultaneously, I have removed paragraph 4 on page 3 of the letter.

2. Regarding the 150k statutory limit language, I have included a footnote which should satisfy your concern.

3. Regarding language there may be discovery to test the claims of alleged "victims", please see new paragraph 4 on page 3 which now states as criteria that the firm should have "Experience litigating against large law firms and high profile attorneys who may test the veracity of the victims' claims."

I have attached the Addendum and the revised letter to Judge Davis. Jay, this needs to be concluded. Alex and I believe that this is as far as we can go. Therefore, please advise me whether we have a deal no later than COB tomorrow, Tuesday, October 23, 2007. Thanks,

I will review these materials this evening and be in touch with you tomorrow with the expectation of wrapping this up by the end of the day. One question I have, however, is why you say that Judge Davis is a non-starter. I understood that he was ready, willing and able to serve as the attorney representative. If you have had conversations with him and that is not the case, please let me know.

I will go over the other issues you raise in your email and will look forward to speaking tomorrow.

Thanks -- Jay

I have not spoken to him but it was our intention to assign the decision to select a lawyer to Judge Davis not for him to represent the girls. We do not want to select the lawyer who represents the girls. I don't know who said he'd do it but it wasn't us.

Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld