From: "-(USAFLS)" </O=USA/OU=FLS/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN= To: ‹ > Subject: Re: Epstein Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 21:23:30 +0000 Importance: Normal 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 Original Message From: Ja Lefkowitz To: (USAFLS) Cc: Acosta, Alex (USAFLS); Sent: Mon Oct 22 17:10:00 2007 Subject: Re: Epstein (USAFLS) -- 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 (USAFLS)" 10/22/2007 04:40 PM To "Jay Lefkowitz" < cc "Acosta, Alex (USAFLS) < >, (USAFLS)" > Subject Epstein 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. EFTA00013515