Thursday, December 10, 2009

Parsing the Epstein v. Rothstein Suit


Palm Beach lawyers Robert Critton and Michael Pike have filed suit on behalf of Palm Beach billionaire Jeffrey Epstein against Rothstein and former RRA attorney Bradley J. Edwards in Palm Beach state court.

You can read the complaint here.

Much of the suit is a rehash of the Ponzi scheme allegations, and how Rothstein would talk up all the victims his firm represented that were reaching settlements with Epstein, except for some reason Epstein always had to pay out over time, even though the victims wanted the money right now.

In actuality, according to the suit, RRA only represented three victims in pending litigation -- one in federal court, and two in state court. The complaint alleges that Epstein has been harmed in his defense of these suits, for a number of reasons.

In particular, the suit really goes after Edwards, alleging that he knew or should have known that Rothstein was using the existing cases for purposes of promoting the Ponzi scheme. The complaint alleges that the RRA "Litigation Team" served discovery that was unrelated to the three claims they were handling but with the sole purpose of "pumping" the Ponzi Scheme and luring new investors.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that RRA went after records of flights aboard Epstein's private jet where high-profile celebrities were allegedly on board when sexual assaults supposedly took place, and that the Litigation Team sought the depositions of these celebrities.

Edwards allegedly took unnecessary depositions of the pilots, and asked inflammatory questions allegedly for the purpose of "pumping" the attractiveness of the Ponzi scheme.

The witnesses allegedly on Edwards' deposition list included The Donald, Alan Dershowitz, Bill Clinton (of course), Tommy Mottola, and illusionist David Copperfield(?). Allegedly Rothstein would then go on to tell potential investors that Epstein is settling all these cases in order to protect his high-profile friends.

The complaint goes on to detail other alleged discovery irregularities, including a deposition of Epstein (in which Russell Adler was in attendance), where lots of inflammatory questions were allegedly asked so the video of the deposition could be shown to new investors.

The complaint also alleges that Edwards went overboard at hearings, and wildly overstated the extent of Epstein's alleged crimes again just to pump the scheme. Further, the complaint alleges that confidential client files of the three existing RRA cases against Epstein were shown to potential investors to induce them to invest, and that as a result the attorney-client privilege has been waived.

The claims sound in Florida RICO, fraud, abuse of process etc.

What to make of all this?

Since the alleged discovery abuses occurred in the context of pending civil suits, Epstein's complaint raises the obvious question why the presiding judge in those cases should not be dealing with the alleged lawyer misconduct?

Moreover, the allegations against Edwards all involve serving allegedly outrageous discovery, making outrageous statements in court hearings, or doing outrageous things in pleadings. That places the allegations of the complaint at odds with the traditional protections afforded attorneys in the performance of their legal duties.

I have no idea whether the allegations against Edwards are meritorious, or perhaps Epstein is trying to leverage the Rothstein revelations to assist him in defense of his pending suits.

Either way the case is likely not going very far, and Epstein probably will have to seek his remedies if any in the pending cases where the alleged discovery misconduct took place.

The more interesting jurisprudential question is what remedy, if any, could investors (as opposed to Epstein) have if they were induced to invest as a result of the lawyer activities detailed in the complaint?

When you step back, the entire Rothstein saga, with its many sad and pathetic twists, should cause the courts and policymakers to define a bit more clearly the extent to which lawyers should be afforded protection when they practice law -- which in the normal circumstance certainly makes sense -- as opposed to allegedly misusing and abusing the law and a Bar license in order to execute an incomprehensibly massive (not to mention illegal) moneymaking fraud.

10 comments:

  1. detention center junkieDecember 10, 2009 at 2:40 PM

    Epstein's suit is a crock KIDDZZZ,leave the lawyers alone LOVE YA!!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Where did SFL find the Robert Critton wall sticker set?

    ReplyDelete
  3. The complaint talks about Judge Berger too.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Who is the presiding federal judge?

    ReplyDelete
  5. The Donald? You mean...

    The Donald who had Marla airhead Maples on a ski slope in front of his family? The Donald who just married off his daughter to the son of a criminal? The Donald who advised his daughter to denounce her Christian rearing and convert in essence going backwards to Judaism? Is that the SAME Donald you are ref to?

    I like Scribd.

    ReplyDelete
  6. So, now Epstein, a convicted child molester, has suddenly found his moral compass??? Come on people!!!

    I personally know Brad Edwards. I can attest that he knew nothing about Rothstein's deal or the alleged selling of the lawsuit. As a matter of fact, he was at the firm for only about 6 months prior to the Rothstein fiasco unravelling and never work with him on any case. The alleged discovery issues and so-called inflammatory statements in court are nothing but a red herring created by Epstein's lawyers to cover up the truth-that Epstein molested numerous children! After all, he did plead guilty and even served a prison sentence for the molestations! Before you attack Brad, look at who you are dealing with on the other side-a degenerate, wealthy child molester trying to evade a monetary judgment based on the fact that he molested kids! Now ask yourself if you were in one of the vicim's shoes, wouldn't you want someone like Brad, a former prosecutor, to use everything he has on Epstein to effectively advocate for and represent you? Nothing futher...

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thanks 5:38. It's telling that Epstein elected to not go back before the judges presiding over the discovery process about which he complains.

    ReplyDelete
  8. nmkkxzrn, xrumer mod , lrzLNKW.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thank you for your article, quite effective information.
    check here | generic viagra | weight loss tips

    ReplyDelete