EFTA01112075.pdf

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, and L.M., individually, Defendant, MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISOUALIFY Counter-Plaintiff, Bradley J. Edwards, by and through his undersigned attorneys, files this Memorandum of Law in support of his Motion to Disqualify Attorney Fred Haddad, from further participation in this proceeding. BACKGROUND AND FACTS SUPPORTING DISQUALIFICATION Edwards represented and continues to represent victims of sexual assault at the hands of Epstein in civil actions filed against Epstein and in a pending crime victim's rights act claim in Federal District Court. During the time of this representation, Edwards was recruited by Russell Adler and hired by the Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler firm ("RRA"). Edwards brought the Epstein files with him to RRA. On or around November 1, 2009 RRA was closed as a result of Rothstein's (the president of RRA) involvement in a massive Ponzi scheme. While at RRA, Edwards worked in the personal injury tort division. His supervisor was Russell Adler, head of the division. During this time frame Edwards had numerous discussions and meetings at which Adler was present regarding the Epstein cases. These discussions involved strategy and EFTA01112075 Case No.: 502009CA040800)0DOCMBAG Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Disqualify Page 2 confidential information protected by the work product and attorney-client privileges, information for which Edwards has been obliged to claim privilege in the instant case to protect the interest of his clients. In support, Mr. Edwards testified as follows before this Court: Russell Adler knew what was going on with the cases we had Epstein meetings where myself, former Judge Bill Berger, Russ Adler, other members of the fine would talk about Epstein, talk strategy about Epstein. Our mental impressions were out on the table, so to speak; discovery, strategy was discussed. Not only that, the intimate details of our clients was discussed. Things that all fall into the parameter of work product privilege and attorney-client privilege, and that's just in-person communication. See hearing transcript from October 25, 2012 at p. 12.I Additionally, there was a computer program at RRA called Q Task in which attorneys could and did exchange electronic communications about strategy and details surrounding their cases. Russell Adler had access to all the information posted on Q Task about the Epstein cases. But it is basically a virtual boardroom for attorneys to communicate specifically back and forth, have meeting in a virtual manner so that you can discuss cases, details of cages strategy on cases. And one of the projects — actually, every case, I think, had a project within Q Task. Certain people who would give impact or input on cases were invited to the project. Both myself and Russ Adler were on those projects, which means everything that I posted or Bill Berger, krinstance, posted, or Russ Adler posted — I believe those were the main participants in that project — would have access to literally everything that was in that communication device. See Exhibit A at p.13. Adler's deposition testimony in this action confirms that he was privy to confidential information about the Epstein cases while Edwards was at RRA.2 p.123 2 I want to clarify a couple of things. Mr. 3 Edwards has testified athis deposition -and I have 4 it in the room if you want to see it that he 5 discussed the Epstein cases with you on a regular 6 basis, is that a true statement? 7 A In a general sense, yes. Specifically, as 8 I said, there were issues that might have come up 9 where he would ask me about or bounce things off of 10 me. 11 And if I were to ask you those issues, you 12 would say it's work -product? I The pertinent portions of the Hearing transcript are attached as Exhibit A. 2 The pertinent portions of Adler's deposition transcript are attached as Exhibit D. EFTA01112076 Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Disqualify Page 3 13 Correct, Although, I will tell you that my 14 answer applies to all of his cases and everyone 15 else's cases. I try to keep an overall understanding 16 of what's going on with people's cases, because I 17 always wanted to help and see where they were. p.124 10 I personally worked on my own cases every 11 day. So, did I do some work on the Epstein case? 12 I'm sure I did. I told you the extent of what I 13 remembered. But you gotta also remember that, I was la inquisitive about every lawyer's cases in my group is because I was a real take-charge person from an 16 administrative viewpoint just about making sure cases 17 were being litigated, that the lawyers had anything is they needed to do. that they were happy, that they 19 were well-staffed, and things like that. 20 Do you know whether the Epstein cases were, 21 :'m not sure of the verb for this, whether that QTASK I 22 was used for any of the Epstein cases? 23 A I'm sure it was used to some extent. After the discovery of Rothstein's Ponzi scheme and the demise of RRA, Edwards formed a new law firm and continued representing the plaintiffs who had filed civil actions against Epstein. Epstein quickly took advantage of the situation and in an attempt to intimidate Edwards and his clients, initiated this action against Edwards, Rothstein and one of Edwards' clients for abuse of process. Epstein essentially alleged that Edwards joined Rothstein in the abusive prosecution of sexual assault cases against Epstein to "pump" the cases to Ponzi scheme investors. These claims hinged on the premise that Edwards was a knowing participant in the Ponzi scheme run by Rothstein. Edwards responded by filing a counterclaim against Epstein for abuse of process. Years into the prosecution and on the eve of a hearing on the Edwards' Motion for Summary Judgment, Epstein voluntarily dismissed his claim. Nevertheless, in order to prevail on his abuse of process claim, Edwards will need to establish that Epstein's claim was baseless. In other words he will have to prove that he had no knowledge of the Ponzi scheme at EFTA01112077 Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXX.MBAG Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Disqualify Page 4 RRA and that his actions in prosecuting the claims against Epstein had the legitimate purpose of lawfully advancing his clients' interests. After the demise of RRA, in early November 2009, Herbert Stettin was appointed as bankruptcy trustee of the RRA firm. In November, Russell Adler hired Fred Haddad to represent him after he resigned from RRA. Mr. Haddad represented Adler in a clawback claim by the RRA trustee. The subject matter of that representation was substantially related to matters at issue in this proceeding including the legitimacy of the prosecutions against Mr. Epstein (about which Mr. Adler had knowledge given his access to and participation in those cases while Edwards was with RRA) and the extent to which members of the RRA firm, other than Rothstein, knew of and participated in the Ponzi scheme orchestrated by Rothstein. Furthermore, during Mr. Haddad's representation of Adler, Rothstein implicated Adler as a co-conspirator and Mr. Adler was and perhaps still is under criminal investigation. The trustee in the clawback action made similar allegations that Adler was a knowing Ponzi scheme participant. and Haddad represented him. Despite his representation of Adler in a substantially related matter (the clawback case and any investigation with respect to Adler's alleged involvement in the Ponzi scheme) and despite the fact that Adler, his client, will be an important witness in this case, Adler is expected to support Edwards' assertions of lack of knowledge of the Ponzi scheme, the legitimacy and propriety of the prosecution efforts against Epstein, and Edwards' stellar abilities and reputation as a litigator. Mr. Haddad has entered an appearance as co-counsel on behalf of Epstein in the instant case. His representation of both Epstein and Adler presents a number of EFTA01112078 Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXX'vlBAG Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Disqualify Page 5 conflicts which support the entry of an Order disqualifying Mr. Haddad from further involvement in this matter. First there is no doubt based upon the testimony of both Adler and Edwards that Adler had access to confidential information concerning the prosecution of the civil claims against Epstein. Adler was deposed in this action by Epstein and Mr. Haddad represented him at the deposition. Adler, when questioned by Epstein's lawyer invoked the work product privilege with respect to communications between himself and Edwards while Edwards was at RRA. Just a few examples from the transcript are set forth below. p.7 9 The first one: Did you look to see if you 10 had documents evidencing any and all written 11 communications between you and Bradley Edwards 12 regarding any pending and/or contemplating litigation 13 against Jeffrey Epstein from September 2008 to the 14 present? 15 A Let me save you some time and paint with a 16 broad brush. Any communications between myself or 17 Brad Edwards .or I see you even have Scott Rothstein 18 listed in another one of these requests .during the 19 time that I was employed by the RRA firm is 20 work-product privilege and I invoke that privilege 21 and I will refuse to answer any questions concerning 22 any such communications. That privilege extends to 23 any of these documents that you're requesting that 24 fits within those parameters. p.103 7 A Fine. Look, did I have discussions about 8 the Epstein case with Brad Edwards? I'm sure I did. 9 What were those particular discussions about, to the 10 extent that I had them? That's work-product, as I 11 understand the work-product doctrine. In other words Adler refused to divulge information to Epstein's lawyer on the basis of privilege while being represented by Mr. Haddad, and now Mr. Haddad represents Epstein. Mr. Haddad is asking EdWards and this Court to trust that Adler, Mr. Haddad's client, has not and will not divulge confidential information. Mr. Haddad is asking this Court and Mr. Edwards to EFTA01112079 Case No.: 502009CA0408000006ViBAG Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Disqualify Page 6 trust that Mr. Haddad has never asked his client about his involvement in the Epstein cases or the involvement of RRA lawyers in the Ponzi scheme, despite his representation of Adler in the clawback action and during the time frame that Adler was being implicated as a co-conspirator in the Ponzi scheme. Simply put, to allow Mr. Haddad to represent Epstein is tantamount to allowing Adler, a party with knowledge of confidential information that has been withheld from Epstein, to represent Epstein. Aside from the fact that Mr. Haddad, through his representation of Adler, has access to confidential information that may be beneficial to Epstein in this case, Mr. Haddad has other conflicts as well which are set forth below. 1. Despite the dismissal of Epstein's claims against Edwards, Edwards needs to prove that those claims were baseless. Edwards has to prove that contrary to Epstein's allegations, Edwards had no knowledge of or participation in the Ponzi scheme. The broader the existence of knowledge of the scheme, the less likely it becomes that Edwards had no knowledge. Knowledge on Adler's part helps Epstein, but Haddad is ethically precluded from suggesting that Adler as the head of the firm's litigation department had knowledge. If Adler had no knowledge of the scheme it is far less likely that Edwards had knowledge. So the question becomes, is Mr. Haddad, on behalf of his new client Epstein, prepared to concede that Adler had no knowledge of and no participation in the Ponzi scheme? Unless that issue is eliminated by stipulation, Mr. Haddad who was defending and continues to defend Adler against allegations of his involvement, cannot possibly participate in a case in which his current client is suggesting Adler was involved. 2. As Edwards' supervisor, Adler will be called to support the propriety of all of Edwards' prosecution efforts including that discovery efforts were well justified to meet the burden of proof necessary to hold the serial child molester Haddad is now representing responsible for criminal assaults. Is Mr. Haddad prepared to concede those points and not challenge his own client on cross examination, and can he ethically do so?3 3 Mr. Haddad suggested at the 10/25/12 evidentiary hearing that his co-counsel could cross examine Adler. However, this "Chinese wall" type of approach does not alleviate Edwards' concerns as Mr. Haddad could simply tell his co-counsel what to ask. Furthermore, Florida does not permit the construction of Chinese walls to avoid conflicts. See R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-1.10(b); Birdsall v. Crowngap Ltd., 575 So.2d 231, 232 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Perrin, 516 So.2d 6, 7 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). EFTA01112080 Case No.: 502009CA040800)OOOCMBAG Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Disqualify Page 7 3. Adler is in a position to support Edwards' damage claims with testimony about the quality of Edwards' legal skills and the monetary value of his time. Part of the damage theory is that Edwards is entitled to be compensated for the value of the time he was obliged to devote to defending himself against Epstein's maliciously motivated claims. Is Mr. Haddad prepared to concede those issues and waive any cross examination of or extrinsic challenge to Adler's testimony on those points? 4. Adler is also uniquely positioned to discuss the damage Edwards suffered to his reputation, and the emotional impact of having been falsely accused of being a knowing participant in one of history's most massive Ponzi schemes since Adler not only directly observed Edwards during the relevant time periods, but shared the experience with him. He was a passenger in the very same horrific "train wreck" and can describe the mental anguish shared by those who became the focus of suspicion. How could Mr. Haddad ethically challenge this testimony from his own client? LEGAL AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DISQUALIFICATION Counter-Plaintiff readily agrees that disqualification of a party's chosen counsel is a remedy that should be resorted to sparingly. Edwards also acknowledges that the right of a party to choose his or her attorney is deeply engrained in Florida jurisprudence. However, that right is not unlimited. Disqualification is appropriate where a party (Epstein) obtains an unfair informational advantage by virtue of their counsel (Haddad) having access to privileged or confidential information. The Fifth District recently examined this issue in Gmfinkel, P.A. v. Mager, 57 So. 3d 221 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). Mager served as managing partner of the Garfinkel law firm. Mager was terminated and subsequently sued the film. The parties entered into a settlement agreement in which Mager agreed that in the future he would not represent or assist any client in litigation against the Garfinkel firm. Later, Garfinkel sued Mager for breach of the settlement agreement. Mager argued that the agreement was void as contrary to public policy because it improperly limited the freedom of potential clients to choose Mager as their lawyer. EFTA01112081 Case No.: 502009CA0408003000CMBAG Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Disqualify Page 8 The Filth District held that the provision did not violate public policy and noted that a party does not have the right to an attorney possessing confidential information of the adversary. Id. at 224. The Court further noted that: 'The Rules Regulating the Florida Bar affirmatively restrict attorneys with "inside" knowledge from using it for the gain of other clients. See generally, R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-1.6 (confidentiality of client information); 4-1.7 (conflict of interest; current client) 4-1.8 (conflict of interest; prohibiting use of client information to disadvantage of client); 4-1.9 (conflict of interest; former client).i4 Id. The Court also relied upon and discussed Greene v. Greene, 391 N.E. 2d 1355 (1979) in which a plaintiff brought an action for breach of fiduciary duty against the firm of Finley Kumble. Two members of the law firm representing the plaintiff had been partners at Finley Kumble at the time during which some events relevant to plaintiffs claims had occurred. The defendant law firm moved to disqualify the plaintiff's lawyers arguing that through the prior employment at defendants' firm, attorneys at the finn representing the plaintiff had acquired confidential information related to the plaintiff's claim. The court found that disqualification was required and noted that the former partners of the defendant firm owed it a fiduciary duty similar to that an attorney owes its client. Id. at 225 (citing Greene). The Greene Court went on to note that even though a litigant may normally select the attorney of their choosing, an attorney may not accept employment in violation of a fiduciary relationship. Id. The same reasoning should apply in this case. Mother illustrative case is Frye v. Ironstone Bank, 69 So. 3d 1046 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). In Frye, a bank brought a deficiency action against the personal guarantor of a bank loan. Frye, 4 The text of these rules is attached as Exhibit C for the Court's reference. EFTA01112082 Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMI3AG Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Disqualify Page 9 the guarantor, filed a motion to disqualify the law firm representing the bank. The law firm had previously represented Frye's former lawyer in a legal malpractice action, and as a result had access to confidential communications between Frye and his former lawyer. The Court held that an unfair informational advantage accruing to law firm through its representation of Frye's former lawyer in a legal malpractice action disqualified it from further representing the bank in an action against Frye. Id. at 1050. It is important to note that the lawyer representing the bank was not the same lawyer which represented Frye's former lawyer. Id. at 1048-49. The Second District also held that the existence of an attorney-client relationship between Frye and his former lawyer gave rise to an irrefutable presumption that the lawyer obtained confidential information from Frye, thereby giving the law firm now representing that lawyer an unfair informational advantage against Frye in the deficiency action in which it also represented the adversary bank. Id. at 1052. Likewise in this case, the existence of an attorney-client relationship between Haddad and Adler gives rise to an irrefutable presumption that Haddad obtained confidential information from Adler despite Haddad's protests to the contrary. Additionally, the Second District noted that the ordinary conflict of interest analysis is not applicable to cases of disqualification based on an unfair informational advantage? Id. at 1053. Thus, the Frye Court held that there was no need to make an evidentiary showing that the matters 5 That analysis normally requires the movant to establish that an attorney-client relationship existed and that the matter subsequently represented the interest adverse to the former client was the same or substantially related to the matter in which it represented the former client. EFTA01112083 Case No.: 502009CA040800)OOOCMBAG Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Disqualify Page 10 were substantially related. Id. Thus, Haddad's argument that Edwards has not made such a showing is simply not applicable.6 Finally, in Armor Screen Corp. v. Storm Catcher Inc., 709 F.Supp.2d 1309 (S.D. Fla. 2010), the holder of a patent for a hurricane protection screen brought an action against competitors, alleging infringement and unfair trade practices. The defendant competitors moved to disqualify the plaintiffs counsel because a lawyer from the firm representing the plaintiff had previously discussed the case with the defendants as a potential expert. The District Court adopted the report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge which held that the attorney who had discussed case as a potential expert for the defendant competitors, but was never retained, would be disqualified from serving as counsel for holder of the patent in the same infringement case, despite the attorney's insistence that he did not obtain any confidential information when he was approached as a potential expert. The Magistrate determined that Fla. Bar Rule 4-1.9 (conflict of interest; Former Client) prohibited the attorney who had been privy to confidential information over the course of his discussions with competitors from now representing the patent holder. Id. at 1320-22. Importantly, the magistrate noted that "there is a real risk that Schneider has confidential information that could be unfairly used against Defendants." Id. at 1322 (emphasis added). A similar risk exists in this case which warrants disqualification, despite Mr. Haddad's insistence that no confidential disclosures have been made. First, there is an irrefutable presumption that disclosure of confidential and privileged information has been made 6 It should be noted that Edwards contends that such a showing has been made. Haddad does not dispute that an attorney client relationship exists between himself and Adler. Furthermore, it is clear that issues in the clawback lawsuit and with respect to investigation of Adler as an alleged co-conspirator in the Pont scheme directly overlap with many of the issues raised in this case. EFTA01112084 Case No.: 502009CA0408003OOOCMDAG Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Disqualify Page II based upon the attorney —client relationship between Mr. Haddad and Adler. See Frye, supra. Second, even if one accepts Haddad and Adler's contrary assertions, Edwards has clearly established that there is a risk that confidential information could be unfairly used against Edwards by Epstein in the future in his defense against Edwards' counterclaim. WIIEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, Counter-Plaintiff, Bradley J. Edwards, requests this Court to enter an Order granting his Motion to Disqualify Attorney Fred Haddad, from further participation in this proceeding. I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent via E-Serve to all Counsel on the attached list, this ig-frk day of L 20 /2 JACK S OLA Florida Bar No.: 169440 Primary E-mail: Mini Secondary E-ma DARRYL L. LEWIS Florida Bar No.: 818021 Primary E-mail: Secondary E-mail(s): Seamy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach Florida 33409 Phone: Fax: Attorney for Plaintiffs) EFTA01112085 Case No.: 502009CA040SOOJCXXXMBAO Memorandum of Law• in Support of Motion to Disqualify Page 12 COUNSEL LIST Jack A. Goldberger. Esquire Lill Ann Sanchez Es uire Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. e w inn 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 1441 Brickell Avenue, 15th Floor West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Miami FL 33131 Phone Phone Fax: Fax Attorneys or e rey pstein Attorneys ore eyEpstein Ton'a Haddad Coleman Es uire Fanner, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Tonja H , . . Lehrman, FL 315 SE 7th Street, Suite 301 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: Phone: Fax: Fax Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein Fred Haddad, P.A. One Financial Plaza, Suite 2612 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein Marc S. Nurik, Esquire Law Offices of Marc S. Nurik One E Broward Blvd., Suite 700 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Attorneys for Scott Rothstein EFTA01112086  12 1 A Yes. 2 Q Now, practically, if he's a co-counsel, I 3 guess he's also representing Mr. Epstein, too? 4 A Yes. 5 Q And Mr. Haddad is representing Mr. Epstein, 6 too? 7 A Right. 8 Q Do you have a concern at all that all 9 Mr. Haddad has got to do is say Mr. Goldberger, why 10 don't you ask him this, don't ask this, that they can 11 communicate things that you have asserted as 12 privileged in our case that he knows from 13 MR. GOLDBERGER: Judge -- 14 THE COURT: This is not closing 15 argument, counsel. Just ask the question. 16 MR. LEWIS: I apologize, Judge. I want 17 to get to the issue. 18 THE COURT: Ask your question. 19 BY MR. LEWIS: 20 Q Are you concerned about that? And can you 21 please explain to the court what your concern is? 22 A My concern is that any privileged information 23 that Mr. Haddad wants, if we invoke a privilege all he 24 has to do is ask Russ Adler. That's my concern. 25 That's it. t3 77MT PALM BEACH REPORTIN (561)471-2995 EFTA01112087  13 1 MR. LEWIS: Thank you, Judge. I don't 2 have any other questions for Mr. Edwards 3 right now. 4 THE COURT: Cross-examination, sir? 5 MR. HADDAD: Yes, sir. 6 CROSS-EXAMINATION 7 BY MR. HADDAD: 8 Q Mr. Adler is a very close friend of yours, 9 correct? 10 A That's true. 11 Q And Mr. Adler is the one who brought you 12 into RRA, correct? 13 A That's true. 14 Q And as a matter of fact, if Mr. Adler were 15 to testify for you, he would be a character witness, 16 would he not? 17 A I would think so. 18 Q He considers you one of the finest lawyers 19 around, does he not? 20 A I believe so. 21 Q He's expressed that to a number of people? 22 A I believe so. 23 Q Do you think that Mr. Adler is going to be 24 a witness adverse to you? 25 A I think that -- PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE, INC. (561)471-2995 EFTA01112088  31 (Pages 12/ to 124) Page 121 Page 123 ; 1 1 2 3 I mean In any way, just a hand shake In the lobby — A No, I understand. Q — someone named Thane Ritchey? 2 3 A I have never seen it, that's cared. Q I want to clarify a couple of things. Mr. Edwards has testified at his deposition - and I have I 4 A Thane, who? 4 it In the room If you want to see it - that he 5 Q Thane Ritchey. And it sounds like a movie 5 discussed the Epstein cases with you on a regular 6 star or something, but he's a guy. 6 basis, is that a true statement? 7 A No. 7 A in a general sense, yes. Specifically, as B Q I think It's your testimony this morning I said, there were issues that might have come up that you never know that Scott Rothstein was 9 where he would ask me about or bounce things off of 10 purporting to sell structured settlement investments, 10 11 is that correct? 11 Q And if I were to ask you those issues, you 12 A I always knew that Scott invested with 12 would say Its work-product? 13 other people. butt never knew that other ono* 13 A Correct. Although, I will la you that my 14 invested with Soot 14 answer applies to all of his cases and everyone 15 Q Did Scott, to your knowledge, or any of the 15 else's cases. I try to keep an overall understanding 16 investments that he said he was making, were they In 16 of what's going on with people's cases, because I 17 structured settlements? 17 always wanted to help and see where they were 18 A He never said that phrase to me, 18 Q He also testified - and, again, I can show 19 *structured settlements'- and he never got real 19 it to you If you like. I brought it so It would be 20 specific with me about his investments other than 20 convenient - that you worked on the Epstein files, is 21 those that were Just outwardly known to people. 21 that a true statement? 22 Q Like the watches? 22 MR. KING: Objection to form. 23 A The watch company, the Vodka company, you 23 A Welt ifs true to the extent that I 2; know, houses that ne owned. cars. 24 testified to today. If there is anything else 25 O Tangible things? 25 specifically that he said, I'd lice to know about Page 122 Page 124 1 A The restaurant. Just things that he made 1 Because you gotta remember that, I was responsible 2 it known about Gibraltar Bank towards the end, 2 for overseeing all of the cases in my division, over 3 things Ike that. Everybody knew that he invested in 3 nine lawyers. including class-action, mass tort, 5 those things, but he never sat down and told me the 4 general liability, premises liability, medical mat 5 specifics of all of his investments or other 5 All of those things. So when you ask me those 6 investments that weren't widely known. 6 questions, you know, that's one of the reasons vAni - 7 0 Did he ever invite you to join him in any 7 And, oh, by the way, I had a very large caseload 8 of those Investments? 8 myself. 9 A Did he ever invite me? Early on in 2005, I 9 Q Yes. 10 think it was It might have been 2006, there was a 10 A I personally worked on my own cases every 11 townhouse project I think I spoke about this in my 11 day. So, did 1 de some work on the Epstein case? 12 Trustee deposition. There was a townhouse project 12 rm sure I did. I told you the extent of what I 13 that had to be completes and he needed money, or 13 remembered. But you gotta also remember that. t was 14 whatever. And he said !would gel a tot of money 14 inquisitive about every lawyer's cases In my group 15 back. 1 actually took out a home equity fine on my 15 because I was a real take-charge person from an 16 house for 5100,000 and I gave him a check for the 16 administrative viewpoint just about making sure cases 17 5100,000. 17 were being litigated, that the lawyers had anything 18 So, the answer to that extent is yes. 18 they needed to do. that they were happy, that they 19 That's the only thing that I was ever realty invited 19 were well-staffed, and things like that. 20 to participate in. And I lost money on it, by the 20 Q Do you know whether the Epstein cases were, 21 way. I got bad* about 80,000 over time, so I was out 21 I'm not sure of the verb for this, whether that OTASK 22 about 20 grand. 22 was used for any of the Epstein cases? 23 Q I think you testified eadier that you had 23 A I'm sure it was used to some extent 24 not ever seen Brad Edwards' deposition that he had 24 Q Earlier) did ask you a question - and I 25 given In this cast? 25 think that Mr. King objected and nmybe you declined EFTA01112089  2 (Pages 5 to B) Page 5 Page 7 A What we were talking about? 1 in the middle of Page 6. 2 Q Yeah. 2 A I'm looking at It. 3 A Just the fact that mush of what we 3 0 Did you search for any documents that you 4 anticipate that you're going to ask is protected by 4 believe would be responsive to these requests? 5 the work-product privilege and I told him I would 5 A I'm reading It. Hold on. 6 invoke lt as I see necessary. 6 Q Well, let's go through it because it will 7 Q Mighty. Let me get down some basic 7 save time) think. Information. Is your full name Russell S. Adler? A Go ahead. 9 A Yes. 9 0 The first one: ri d you look to see if you 10 Q Can I get your current address? 10 had documents evidencing any and all written 11 A I'm presently residing at 2200 South Ocean 11 communications between you and Bradley Edwards 12 Lao in Fort Lauderdale. 12 regarding any pending and/or contemplating litigation 13 Q Are you currently employed? 13 against Jeffrey Epstein from September 2008 to the 14 A Sad-employed. 14 present? 15 • What is the name of your business? 15 A Let me save you some the and paint with a 16 A Russell S. Adler, PA 16 broad brush. My communications between myself or 17 O And where Is your business address? 1/ Brad Edwards - crises you even have Scott Rothstein 18 A 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400. 18 listed in another one of these requests - during the 19 O How long have you been with that firm as a 19 time that I was employed by the RRA firm is 20 self-employed attorney? 20 work-product privilege and I invoke that privilege 21 A Since November 2009. 71 and I will refuse to answer any questions concerning 22 • What's your date of birth, sir? 22 any such communications. That privilege extends to 23 A 11/26/61. 23 any of these documents that you're requesting that 24 • Are you taking any medications or anything 24 fits within those parameters. 25 that would impair your ability to testify truthfully 25 0 Well, let me — Page 6 Page 8 1 today — 1 A As to Number 1, there is absolutely nothing 2 A No 2 concerning this from, let's say, November or October 3 • - or Impair your memory? 3 31st, 2009 through the present 4 Did you see a Notice of Taking Deposition 4 As to anything from 2008 through November 5 with an attached subpoena for nits deposition? S of 2009. that would be the time that I was employed 6 A i saw the stopoenn. i don't know that i 6 by RRA and you are not entitled to those documents ever saw the notice. 7 if, In fact, they even exist because it's 6 Q Did you bring any documents with you today? 8 work-product privilege. 9 A No. 9 O Well, let me ask you this question. You ID Q Did you understand the subpoena to request 10 Just said lf, in fact they even exist What I'm 11 that you bring documents? 11 asking you is, let's go back to my earlier questions: 12 A Please show h to me. 12 Did you look to see If you have any documents, 13 CI I wilt 13 whether or not they would be work-product, for that 14 A I may have mad it. I don't recall what a 14 period of time? 15 says as I sIt bete now. 15 A I don't even have access to those documents 16 (WHEREUPON. the document was marked as an 16 any more. They're the property of the bankruptcy 27 Plaintiffs Exhibit No.1 for identification and 17 trustee — 16 attached). 18 (WHEREUPON, an off-the-record discussion 19 A I guess you ad me to look al the duces 19 was had). 20 team? 20 A First of aa, you interrupted me in the 21. CI Please. Do you recall seeing that. sir? 21 middle of my answer to the question. 22 A Briefly. 22 O rm sorry. She barged in. 23 Q Can you tail me on page - Well, It's 23 A Let me finish. 24 numbered Page 8 because it was numbered I guess as an 24 MRS. APRIL How about you read it back? 25 attachment to a notice, but where It says "requests" 25 (WHEREUPON, the requested testimony was United Reporting, Inc. 954-525-2221 EFTA01112090  27 (Pages 105 to 108) Page 105 Page 107 don't even know if that matters to you. Thali a not 1 Q Do you know If Jeffrey Epstein was at any 2 the kind of detail that I would have information 2 time under surveillance with respect to persons sent 3 about. 3 by your firm? 4 0 to If there was a company that was formed, 4 A I have no idea. S say, Blue Line investigations, did you ever hear of 5 0 Did you ever meet with any of the 6 that? 6 plaintiffs In the cases that Mr. Edwards brought over 7 A I've heard of h 7 that were against Jeffrey Epstein? 8 ODD you know If that was a company formed by 8 A I said 'hello' to one of them in the lobby 9 Scott Rothstein or others at his direction? 9 one lime. I don't remember her name. I remember she 10 A I don't know who termed it. 10 was one of Brad's clients. But that was it. th, how 11 Q But cfid Ken Jenne and Mike Elston have 11 we you? Nice to react you." 12 offices at dm firm? 12 Q What about with their family members or 13 A There was an office that Ken Jenne had at 13 parents? 14 some point. I don't know if Platen had his own 14 A Never met them. 15 office. 15 0 Did you ever tell anyone outside of the 16 0 Do you know if any other investigators who 16 firm - Well, let mo rephrase that. 17 were at the firm in 2008 or at some company as far 17 Did you ever tell anyone outside of the 18 as — 18 firm or within the firm In a non -privileged 19 A I dunk Pat Roberts wag One of them as 19 situation, meaning not speaking to a chent, that 20 well. 20 your firm was In the process of suing Jeffrey Epstein 21 MADAME COURT REPORTER: Can we take a 21 and would disclose embarrassing Information about Mr. 22 break? 22 Epstein or his friends, family, colleagues to drive 23 MRS. APRIL: Sure. 23 up the settlement value? 24 (WHEREUPON, a short break took place): 24 MR. KING: Objection. Foundation. 25 BY MRS. APRIL: 25 Predicate. Page 106 Page 108 1 Q All right I was asking you about 1 A Not to my reoffiection. 2 Investigators. 2 Q Did Brad Edwards over say anything like 3 A Yes. 3 that hi your presence? 4 Q Do you know If any of the firm 4 A Not to my recoeaction at at And even If 5 Investigators were assigned to work on the Epstein 5 he did, It would be work-product but - 6 case? 6 0 Do you know what the cause of action is 7 A I don't know if anyone was assigned to 7 that is brought by Jeffrey Epstein In the case that 8 it 8 we're hare on today? 9 Ct Do you know it they performed any services 9 A I think I was told in the beginning some 10 with respect to the case? 10 kind of RICO claim or something kke that. I don't 11 A I think so In the general sense, but 11 have a specific recolaction of it. but I think It 12 don't really recall any details about that. 12 was some kind of civil RICO or - 13 Q Do you know, did you ever hear of the tomb 13 Q Had you over heard that them was an abuse 14 "dumpster diving'"? 19 of process count? 15 A I have heard of that term. 15 A No. because I had never got into a 16 0 Do you know what it means? 16 discussion about what all the counts were with 17 A Yes. 17 anybody. 18 Q What does it mean? 18 O Have you ever worked on a case that was an 19 A When people go through other people's 19 abuse of process case? 20 garbage 20 A I don't think so. I have handled false 21 Q Do you know If any investigators, either 21 Imprisonment cases from time to time and sometimes we 22 the ones that were named or otherwise, went through 22 use abuse of proms& as a related tort. So maybe In 23 Jeffrey Epstein's trash? 23 one or two of those cases. but for the most part. 24 MR. KING: Objection. Work-product. 24 no. 25 A I have no idea. 25 MRS. APRIL: I think maybe now would be a United Reporting, Inc. 954-525-2221 EFTA01112091 • Wgiiaws West's F.S.A. Bar Rule 4-1.6 Page 1 C West's Florida Statutes Annotatcd Currentness Rules Regulating the Florida Bar (Refs & Annos) 91 Chapter 4. Rules of Professional Conduct (Refs & Amos) 4-1. Client-Lawyer Relationship -0. Rule 4-1.6. Confidentiality of Information (a) Consent Required to Reveal Information. A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to representation of a client except as stated in subdivisions (b), (c), and (d), unless the client gives informed consent. (b) When Lawyer Must Reveal Information. A lawyer shall reveal such information to the extent the lawyer rea- sonably believes necessary: (1) to prevent a client from committing a crime; or (2) to prevent a death or substantial bodily parr to another. (c) When Lawyer May Reveal Information. A lawyer may reveal such information to the extent the lawyer rea- sonably believes necessary: (1) to serve the client's interest unless it is i