Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
efta-efta00189078DOJ Data Set 9Other

Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS)

Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 9
Reference
EFTA 00189078
Pages
5
Persons
4
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: MAIL <[email protected]> Tuesday, November 04, 2008 12:22 PM : eqt RPMMMitten ta Opinion ATTN Elizabeth Clark Tarbert; Logbook # 28386 graycol.git 28386gef denial.doc Florida Bar Ltr re Ethics Opinion.pdt Final Victim Notification -- Sample.pdf, Final Victim Notification Represented Sample.pdf Dear My letter in response to your inquiry is attached below. This letter will he faxed and mailed to you later today. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call me at Sincerely, Gail E. Ferguson Assistant Ethics Counsel (See attached file: 28386gef denialdoc) on 09/29/2008 12:05:05 PM To: "Ethics Opinions" <etoninionetlabar.orte cc: Subject: FW: Request for Written Staff Opinion ATTN Elizabeth Clark Tarbert; Logbook # 28386 Staff: Gail Ferguson/The Florida Bar Dear Ms. Tarbert — Here is my earlier e-mail. Thank you. Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach,

Tags

eftadataset-9vol00009
Ask AI about this document

Search 264K+ documents with AI-powered analysis

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: MAIL <[email protected]> Tuesday, November 04, 2008 12:22 PM : eqt RPMMMitten ta Opinion ATTN Elizabeth Clark Tarbert; Logbook # 28386 graycol.git 28386gef denial.doc Florida Bar Ltr re Ethics Opinion.pdt Final Victim Notification -- Sample.pdf, Final Victim Notification Represented Sample.pdf Dear My letter in response to your inquiry is attached below. This letter will he faxed and mailed to you later today. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call me at Sincerely, Gail E. Ferguson Assistant Ethics Counsel (See attached file: 28386gef denialdoc) on 09/29/2008 12:05:05 PM To: "Ethics Opinions" <etoninionetlabar.orte cc: Subject: FW: Request for Written Staff Opinion ATTN Elizabeth Clark Tarbert; Logbook # 28386 Staff: Gail Ferguson/The Florida Bar Dear Ms. Tarbert — Here is my earlier e-mail. Thank you. Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-015234 17 EFTA00189078 From: Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 7:21 PM To: [email protected] Cc Su Dear Sir or Madam: Please see the attached correspondence. Thank you for your assistance. «Florida Bar Ltr re Ethics Opinion.pdf>> «Final Victim Notification — Sample.pdf» «Final Victim Notification Represented Sample.pdf» Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (See attached file: Florida Bar Ltr re Ethics Opinion.pdf)(See attached file: Final Victim Notification -- Sample.pdf)(See attached file: Final Victim Notification Represented Sample.pdf) 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-015235 18 EFTA00189079 November 4, 2008 VIA FACSIMILE (561) 820-8777 & U.S. MAIL Assistant United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Re: Ethics Inquiry 28386 Dear I received your request for an advisory ethics opinion dated September 18, 2008. You ask whether you violated Rule 4-7.4, Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, by complying with your statutory obligation to contact victims to inform them of the resolution of their matters and by complying with a court order to advise them that the services of an independent attorney- representative would be offered to them free of charge. Unfortunately, I cannot provide the opinion you requested, because you are asking about your past conduct and legal questions that relate to your obligations under federal statutes and a court order. Florida Bar ethics attorneys are only authorized to provide opinions regarding an attorney's own future conduct. We are not authorized to render opinions concerning an attorney's past conduct or legal questions. See Procedures 2 (aX1)(B) and 2(aX1)(D), Florida Bar Procedures for Ruling on Questions of Ethics (www.floridabar.org). Although I cannot provide an opinion, I can discuss the relevant rules. Generally speaking, Rule 4-7.4 (a), prohibits an attorney from soliciting clients in person or through an agent, or in writing without complying with the attorney advertising rules, if the lawyer's primary motive is pecuniary gain, and states: (a) Solicitation. Except as provided in subdivision (b) of this rule, a lawyer shall not solicit professional employment from a prospective client with whom the lawyer has no family or prior professional relationship, in person or otherwise, when a significant motive for the lawyer's doing so is the lawyer's pecuniary gain. A lawyer shall not permit employees or agents of the lawyer to solicit in the lawyer's behalf. A lawyer shall not enter into an agreement for, charge, or collect a fee for professional employment obtained in violation of this rule. The term "solicit" 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-015236 EFTA00189080 Ms. A. Marie Villafana November 4, 2008 Page 2 includes contact in person, by telephone, telegraph, or facsimile, or by other communication directed to a specific recipient and includes (i) any written form of communication directed to a specific recipient and not meeting the requirements of subdivision (b) of this rule, and (ii) any electronic mail communication directed to a specific recipient and not meeting the requirements of subdivision (c) of rule 4-7.6. Emphasis added. If your contact with victims is neither motivated by pecuniary gain nor to assist another lawyer whose significant motive is pecuniary gain, then it is unlikely that your contact with victims could be characterized as improper solicitation in violation of Rule 4-7.4 (a). Although your letter does not reference Rule 4-4.2 ("Communication with Person Represented by Counsel"), this rule prohibits a lawyer from communicating directly with a person the lawyer knows is represented in a particular matter, and states: (a) In representing a client, a lawyer shall not communicate about the subject of the representation with a person the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer. Notwithstanding the foregoing, an attorney may, without such prior consent, communicate with another's client in order to meet the requirements of any court rule, statute or contract requiring notice or service of process directly on an adverse party, in which event the communication shall be strictly restricted to that required by the court rule, statute or contract, and a copy shall be provided to the adverse party's attorney. Emphasis added. It would be prudent for you to comply with this rule by limiting your contact to the lawyers of represented victims. Whether or not you were required to comply with this rule in the past, or whether you would be required to comply with it in the future, given your obligations under the federal statutes and the relevant court order involves legal questions beyond the scope of an ethics opinion. Finally, Rule 4-3.4, prohibits a lawyer from deliberately violating a court's order, and states: A lawyer shall not: (c) knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists; Emphasis added. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-015237 EFTA00189081 Ms. A. Marie Villafana November 4, 2008 Page 3 Thus, Rule 4-3.4 (c), requires you to comply with any orders issued by the court. Again, I can provide no opinion on how to accomplish compliance, because interpretation of the court order requires legal advice beyond the scope of an ethics opinion. If you disagree with my denial of your request for an advisory ethics opinion, you have thirty (30) days to request that the Professional Ethics Committee review the denial. A request for review must be addressed to Elizabeth Clark Tarbert, Ethics Counsel, at 651 E. Jefferson Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399. The request must be postmarked no later than thirty (30) days from the date of this letter, not the date of receipt. The request must contain the original inquiry number and clearly state the issues for review. You may include a written argument explaining why you believe you should be issued an advisory ethics opinion. Procedures governing your request for review and committee procedures may be found in Procedures 3(d), 4 and 6, Florida Bar Procedures for Ruling on Questions of Ethics (available on The Florida Bar's website at www.floridabar.org). The Professional Ethics Committee meets approximately four times per year. You will be notified of the committee's decision promptly. If you have any questions, please call me at Sincerely, Gail E. Ferguson Assistant Ethics Counsel GEF/gef 28.386gef denial 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-015238 EFTA00189082

Related Documents (6)

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. PLEA AGREEMENT The United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida ("the United States"), and Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") enter into the following agreement: 1. The defendant agrees to plead guilty to the Information which charges the defendant with two counts of knowingly and intentionally violating the privacy protection accorded to child victims by 18 U.S.C. § 3509; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 403. 2. The defendant is aware that the sentence will be imposed by the Court after considering the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and Policy Statements (hereinafter "Sentencing Guidelines"). The defendant acknowledges and understands that the Court will compute an advisory sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines and that the applicable guidelines will be determined by the Court re

82p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 216 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2013 Page 1 of 2

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 216 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2013 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Matthewman JANE DOES #1 AND #2, Petitioners, I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. UNITED STATES' NOTICE OF FILING SUPPLEMENTAL PRIVILEGE LOG Pursuant to the Court's June 18, 2013 Omnibus Order (DE 190), the Respondent, United States of America, by and through the undersigned Assistant United States Attorney, hereby gives notice of its filing of its Privilege Log, which is attached hereto. The documents referenced in the Privilege Log are being delivered today to the Chambers of U.S. District Judge Kenneth A. Marra for ex pane in camera review, pursuant to the Court's Omnibus Order. Respectfully submitted, WIFREDO A. FERRER UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: I I I I a EFTA00209306 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 216 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2013 Page 2 of 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIF

16p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-CI V-Marra/Matthewman JANE DOE # I and JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO PETITIONERS' FIRST REOUEST FOR ADMISSIONS TO THE GOVERNMENT The United States (hereinafter the "government") hereby responds to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's First Request for Admissions to the Government Regarding Questions Relevant to Their Pending Action Concerning the Crime Victims Rights Act (hereinafter the "Request for Admissions"), and states as follows:' I. The government admits that the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO") conducted an investigation into Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") and developed evidence and information in contemplation of a potential federal prosecution against Epstein for many federal sex offenses. Except as otherwise admitted above, the government denies Request No. I. The government's res

65p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

CM/ECF - Live Database

CM/ECF - Live Database r Page 1 of 3 U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida (West Palm Beach) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 9:08-cv-80736-KA M Doe'. United States of America Assigned to: Judge Kenneth A. Marra Cause: no cause specified Date Filed: 07/07/2008 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant LRJ Date Filed # Docket Text 07/07/2008 1 EMERGENCY PETITION for Victim's Enforcement of Crime Victim's Rights Act 18 USC 3771 against United States of America Filing fee $ 350. Receipt#: 724403, filed by Jane Doe. (rb) (Entered: 07/07/2008) 07/07/2008 2 CERTIFICATE OF EMERGENCY by Jane Doe re 1 Complaint (rb) (Entered: 07/07/2008) 07/07/2008 3 ORDER requiring U.S. Attorney to respond to 1 Complaint filed by Jane Doe by 5:00 p.m. on 7/9/08. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 7/7/08. (ir) (Entered: 07/07/2008) 07/09/2008 4 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Dexter Lee on behalf of United States of America (

204p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 312-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/23/2015 Page 1 of 25

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 312-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/23/2015 Page 1 of 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. RESPONDENT'S OPPOSITION TO JANE DOE NO. 1 AND JANE DOE NO. 2's PROTECTIVE MOTION PURSUANT TO RULE 15 TO AMEND THEIR PETITION TO CONFORM TO EXISTING EVIDENCE AND TO ADD JANE DOE NO. 3 AND JANE DOE NO. 4 AS PETITIONERS Respondent United States, by and through its undersigned counsel, files its Opposition to Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2's Motion pursuant to Rule 15 to Amend their Petition to Conform to Existing Evidence and to Add Jane Doe No. 3 and Jane Doe No. 4 as Petitioners, and states: I. THE CAREFUL BALANCE THAT CONGRESS STRUCK WITH THE CVRA COUNSELS AGAINST THE EXPANSION OF THESE CVRA PROCEEDINGS TO INCLUDE ADDITIONAL CLAIMS OR PARTIES. Petitioners have filed their "protective" motion to amend their petit

25p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Dear Mr. Starr:

Dear Mr. Starr: I write in response to your November 2811' letter, in which you raise concerns regarding the Non-Prosecution Agreement between this Office and your client, Mr. Epstein. I take these concerns seriously. As your letter focused on the Section 2255 portion of the Agreement, my response will focus primarily to that issues as well. I do wish to make some more general observations, however. Section 2255 provides that "any minor who is a victim of a violation of [enumerated sections of Title 18] and who suffers personal injury as a result of such violation may sue in any appropriate United States District Court and shall recover the actual damages such minor sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee." Thus, had this Office proceeded to trial, and had Mr. Epstein been convicted, the victims of his actions would have been entitled to relief under this Section. The Non-Prosecution Agreement entered into between the Southern District of Fl

6p

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.