Epstein's Legal Defense Team: The Lawyers Who Secured the 2007 Deal

A Formidable Defense

When Jeffrey Epstein faced a federal investigation in the Southern District of Florida in 2006 and 2007, he responded by assembling what the Washington Post described as one of the most formidable legal defense teams ever brought together for a criminal case. The team included some of the most prominent names in American law — attorneys who had argued before the Supreme Court, served as federal officials, and represented some of the highest-profile clients in the country.

According to court records, the Miami Herald's "Perversion of Justice" investigation, and reporting by the New York Times, this legal team employed an aggressive, multi-pronged strategy that ultimately resulted in the 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), widely regarded as one of the most favorable plea arrangements in modern American legal history.

This article examines the individual attorneys, their roles, the legal strategy they employed, and the ethical questions their representation has raised.

Important note: Representing a client in a criminal case is a fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution. The attorneys discussed in this article were exercising their professional role as defense counsel. Being part of Epstein's legal team does not, in itself, imply knowledge of or participation in criminal activity.

Alan Dershowitz

Role in the NPA Negotiation

Alan Dershowitz, then a professor at Harvard Law School and one of the most prominent criminal defense attorneys in the United States, played an active role in the NPA negotiations, according to court records and the Miami Herald. Dershowitz had a long career as an appellate defense attorney, with clients including O.J. Simpson, Claus von Bulow, and Mike Tyson.

According to the Miami Herald, Dershowitz engaged directly with prosecutors and senior DOJ officials during the NPA negotiation. His involvement lent significant weight to the defense team's arguments. Court records indicate that Dershowitz participated in communications with the U.S. Attorney's Office regarding the terms of the agreement.

Later Allegations and Denials

Dershowitz's role in the Epstein case took on an additional dimension when Virginia Giuffre accused him of sexual abuse in connection with Epstein's trafficking operation. According to court filings in Giuffre v. Dershowitz:

Giuffre alleged that Epstein directed her to have sexual encounters with Dershowitz on multiple occasions
Dershowitz categorically and strenuously denied all allegations of sexual misconduct
He filed countersuits against Giuffre, alleging defamation
In April 2024, Giuffre's attorneys filed a notice stating that she had been "mistaken" about some of her allegations against Dershowitz, according to court records reported by the Associated Press
Dershowitz characterized this development as a vindication of his position

The Dershowitz-Giuffre legal dispute generated years of litigation and extensive media coverage. Dershowitz maintained his innocence throughout and argued that the allegations were fabricated.

Ethical Debate

Legal ethicists have debated whether Dershowitz's dual role — as both Epstein's attorney in the NPA negotiations and later as a named individual in victim allegations — created conflicts of interest. Dershowitz has argued that the allegations against him were retaliation for his effective legal representation of Epstein, according to his public statements reported by the New York Times.

Kenneth Starr

Background

Kenneth Starr was among the most recognizable legal figures in America when he joined Epstein's defense team. His career included serving as a federal appellate judge on the D.C. Circuit, as Solicitor General of the United States under President George H.W. Bush, and as the Independent Counsel whose investigation of the Whitewater matter led to the impeachment of President Bill Clinton.

Role in Securing the NPA

According to the Miami Herald and the Washington Post, Starr's primary contribution to Epstein's defense was leveraging his relationships within the Department of Justice and the broader federal legal establishment. Court records and reporting indicate that:

Starr wrote letters directly to senior DOJ officials in Washington, arguing against federal prosecution of Epstein
His correspondence bypassed the local U.S. Attorney's Office and went to officials at Main Justice in Washington, D.C.
Starr argued that Epstein's case did not warrant federal prosecution and that a state-level resolution was appropriate
His stature as a former Solicitor General and Independent Counsel gave these communications significant weight

The strategy of appealing over the head of the local U.S. Attorney to senior officials in Washington was described by legal commentators as unusual and aggressive, according to the Washington Post.

Later Career and Death

Starr went on to serve as President of Baylor University, from which he was removed in 2016 amid a scandal involving the university's handling of sexual assault allegations against football players, according to reporting by the Associated Press. Starr died in September 2022 at the age of 76.

Jay Lefkowitz

Lead Negotiator

Jay Lefkowitz served as the lead negotiator with the U.S. Attorney's Office in the NPA discussions, according to court records and the Miami Herald. Lefkowitz was a prominent Washington attorney who had served in the George W. Bush administration as Special Envoy for Human Rights in North Korea and had held positions in the White House Domestic Policy Council.

According to the Miami Herald's reporting, Lefkowitz was the primary point of contact between Epstein's defense team and Alexander Acosta's office during the critical negotiation period in 2007. His Washington connections and experience in federal government gave him credibility with the U.S. Attorney's Office.

Negotiation Approach

Court records and reporting suggest that Lefkowitz's negotiation strategy included:

Arguing that the evidence against Epstein was weaker than the FBI believed
Presenting legal arguments for why federal prosecution was not warranted
Negotiating the specific terms of the state-level plea, including the sentence length and conditions
Working to secure the co-conspirator immunity clause that became the NPA's most controversial provision

Gerald Weinberg

Gerald Weinberg was a veteran criminal defense attorney based in south Florida who handled aspects of the local proceedings. According to court records and the Miami Herald:

Weinberg managed day-to-day aspects of the defense in the Palm Beach County proceedings
He coordinated with the broader defense team on strategy
His expertise in the local court system and relationships with Florida prosecutors complemented the Washington-focused approach of the other team members

Other Defense Team Members

According to court records, additional attorneys who participated in Epstein's defense at various stages included:

Gerald Lefcourt — A prominent New York criminal defense attorney who contributed to the legal strategy
Jack Goldberger — A south Florida attorney who participated in various aspects of the case
Martin Weinberg — An attorney who was involved in later stages of Epstein's legal matters

The combined hourly rates of these attorneys would have placed the cost of Epstein's defense in the millions of dollars, reflecting the resources Epstein could marshal in his own defense.

The Legal Strategy

According to the Miami Herald, the Washington Post, and court records, Epstein's legal team employed a multi-pronged strategy that included several coordinated elements:

Direct Engagement with Senior DOJ Officials

Rather than limiting their negotiations to the local U.S. Attorney's Office, Epstein's attorneys — particularly Starr — communicated directly with senior officials at DOJ headquarters in Washington. This "going over the head" approach was designed to apply pressure from above on the local prosecutors.

Attacking the Evidence

The defense team challenged the strength of the evidence, arguing that witness credibility issues and other evidentiary problems made a federal case uncertain. According to the Miami Herald, defense attorneys characterized the victims' accounts as inconsistent and argued that the witnesses would not hold up at trial.

Proposing the State-Level Resolution

The defense team actively proposed the framework that became the NPA — a state-level guilty plea to lesser charges in exchange for the dismissal of federal charges. This approach gave prosecutors the ability to claim that Epstein was being held accountable (through the state plea and sex offender registration) while avoiding the risk and resource commitment of a federal trial.

Securing Co-Conspirator Immunity

Perhaps the most consequential element of the strategy was the negotiation of blanket immunity for unnamed co-conspirators. According to the NPA text, this provision protected any individual who might have participated in or facilitated Epstein's activities from federal prosecution in the Southern District of Florida. The breadth of this immunity clause has been described by legal analysts as extraordinary.

Ethics Questions

The NPA negotiations have raised several ethical questions that continue to be debated within the legal profession, according to the Washington Post and legal commentators:

Access to Justice Concerns

The Epstein case illustrated how defendants with enormous financial resources can assemble legal teams of a caliber that most defendants cannot access. The defense team's ability to bypass local prosecutors and communicate directly with senior DOJ officials reflected a level of access that was available because of the attorneys' stature and connections.

Victim Representation

The NPA was negotiated without any input from the identified victims. While this was ultimately found to violate the Crime Victims' Rights Act, the ethical question of whether defense attorneys had any obligation to consider victims' interests in their negotiations remains a subject of debate.

The Dershowitz Dual Role

The allegations against Dershowitz raised questions about the ethical implications of an attorney who had negotiated immunity provisions later being identified as a potential beneficiary of those same provisions. Dershowitz has maintained that the allegations are false and that he had no personal stake in the immunity clause.

Post-Representation Conduct

Several of Epstein's attorneys continued to make public statements defending the NPA long after the case was resolved. Legal ethicists have questioned whether vigorous post-representation defense of a controversial deal crosses the line from client advocacy into personal reputation management.

The Legacy of the Defense

The work of Epstein's legal team in securing the 2007 NPA had consequences that extended far beyond the immediate case:

The NPA shielded potential co-conspirators from prosecution for over a decade
The lenient sentence and work-release arrangement allowed Epstein to resume his activities relatively quickly
The case became a benchmark example of how wealth can influence outcomes in the criminal justice system
The CVRA ruling established important precedent for victims' rights in federal plea negotiations
The political fallout contributed to Alexander Acosta's resignation from the Cabinet in 2019

Primary Sources

Non-Prosecution Agreement text — Miami Herald archive
Miami Herald, "Perversion of Justice" — miamiherald.com
New York Times, defense team reporting — nytimes.com
Giuffre v. Dershowitz filings — CourtListener
Associated Press — apnews.com
Washington Post, defense team reporting — washingtonpost.com

For a full analysis of the NPA itself, see The NPA: A Complete Breakdown. Learn about the prosecutors on the other side or explore the investigation timeline. Browse all records in the document library.