Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 306 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2015 Page 15 of 19 Next, Jane Doe #3 claims that Prof. Dershowitz declined to defend his reputation in the Edwards v. Epstein lawsuit (Case no. 502009-CA-040800) in Palm Beach County Circuit Court. (Opp. to Mtn. to Intervene at 13.) In support of this allegation, Jane Doe #3 argues that her attorney in the instant matter, Bradley Edwards (through his attorney Jack Scarola) contacted Prof. Dershowitz to seek his voluntary cooperation in answering questions about Prof. Dershowitz’s client, Jeffrey Epstein’s conduct. Prof. Dershowitz responded by letter stating As you may know, I was Jeffrey Epstein’s attorney when he submitted his guilty plea. Accordingly, “any knowledge” I may have in connection with that plea is privileged information. If you would let me know what non-privileged information you would seek from me, I would then be able to decide whether to cooperate. (DE 291-11.) Dershowitz sent a second letter on or about August 29, 2011 explaining that he has “never personally observed Jeffrey Epstein in the presence of underage females,” and asking Edwards’ attorney to provide him with any alleged basis for his unfounded belief. Edwards’ attorney responded by stating that based on “sworn testimony and private interviews” he had “placed [Dershowitz] in the presence of Jeffrey Epstein on multiple occasions... when Jeffrey Epstein was in the company of underage females subsequently identified as victims.” (DE 291 at 13, 14.) Again, no allegations were made at that time by Edwards’ attorney, or by anyone else, that Prof. Dershowitz engaged in any inappropriate conduct or witnessed any inappropriate conduct related to Jeffrey Epstein and underage females. Instead, Edwards was incorrectly seeking Prof. Dershowitz’s cooperation for a civil suit between Dershowitz’s client, Jeffrey Epstein, and Edwards himself. Remarkably, because Prof. Dershowitz did not agree to compromise his ethical obligations to