Epstein Data Wiki

Boies Schiller Flexner LLP

Properties2
tagsentity, law-firm, plaintiffs-counsel, southern-district-of-new-york, fort-lauderdale, armonk, new-york, broward-county, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024
aliasesBoies Schiller Flexner LLP, Boies Schiller Flexner, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP, Boies Schiller, BSF LLP

36 min read

What this page does and does not contain

This page is about a law firm as an actor: what it signed, what it filed, when it appeared and what its own filings say it was there to do. Boies Schiller Flexner LLP acted for people bringing claims. Every lawyer named on this page is a lawyer, named because the firm’s own signature blocks and the courts’ own appearance records name them.

Nobody this firm represented is named, described or characterised here. Claimants in these matters come to the record under pseudonyms or not at all, and this page names none of them. It gives no age, no family relation, no circumstance and no identifying detail of any claimant, and it makes no statement about how any producing party has treated anything on any sheet.

Nothing anyone said in a deposition or at a hearing appears here in any form. This population contains 283 documents labelled as deposition or hearing transcripts. Not one word of testimony is quoted, summarised or characterised on this page. Transcripts are used for one thing only, namely the fact and date of the firm’s own appearance, read from an APPEARANCES block or a cover page, and for nothing else.1

This is a mention population with a much smaller core of the firm’s own acts, and this page says which is which. The firm’s name in all the forms the release carries reaches 2,657 documents. 696 of those were signed by the firm, and in every case the act was established by reading the signature on the sheet itself rather than by trusting a database field. The remaining 1,955 documents are excluded and counted separately: they are other firms’ filings, opposing counsel’s certificates of service, court reporters’ appearance lists, orders, news cuttings and correspondence in which the firm is named but did not write.2

Six documents in this population are refused outright. They were not opened, not counted and not described, and their identifiers are not listed.3

No account number, routing number, taxpayer identification number or identifier of any comparable class is reproduced, described or located anywhere on this page, and no telephone number, fax number or electronic address is reproduced here, the firm’s own included.

Named on the documents asBOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP and BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP in its own signature blocks, both read at the page image; BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP on a court reporter’s appearance list, from the released text456
The damaged spelling the release carriesBOLES. The extraction of these scans turns the I of BOIES into an L on 806 documents, against the 1,949 that carry the correct spelling, and the firm’s name survives without any form of Boies at all on a further set reached only through SCHILLER FLEXNER. A search on the correct spelling alone misses 708 documents of this population7
Business addresses as its own filings print them401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1200, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301; 333 Main Street, Armonk, New York 10504; 575 Lexington Avenue, New York, which a deposition cover page gives as the address of its offices; and, on its 2023 filings, 55 Hudson Yards, New York. The Fort Lauderdale, Armonk and Hudson Yards addresses were read at the page image; the Lexington Avenue address is from the released text4896
The lawyers its own signature blocks nameRead at the page image: David Boies, Sigrid S. McCawley, Andrew Villacastin, Sabina Mariella, Alexander Law and Daniel Crispino. From the released text: Meredith L. Schultz, Joshua I. Schiller and Ellen Brockman. Peter Skinner appears in the firm’s correspondence rather than in any signature block read for this page, and Sandra Perkins as the firm’s paralegal on a court reporter’s appearance list1096
Where it appeared11 federal dockets are keyed to a signed sheet: 1:15-cv-07433, 1:17-cv-00616, 1:19-cv-03377, 1:19-cv-10474, 1:19-cv-10475, 1:19-cv-10476, 1:19-cv-10479, 1:19-cv-10577, 1:20-cr-00330, 1:22-cv-10019 and 1:22-cv-10904, all in the Southern District of New York. One further signed sheet carries a Florida state e-filing stamp from the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in Broward County1112
The shape of the work406 of 471 instruments keyed to a signed sheet, more than six in seven, are in one docket, 1:15-cv-0743311
The hardest fact on the pageOn 26 March 2021 David Boies filed a notice of appearance in the criminal case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell stating that he appeared “as counsel for Intervenor Boies Schiller Flexner LLP”. The firm entered that docket as a party in its own name. Read at the page image4
The hardest financial factA Deutsche Bank statement records an outgoing transfer dated 12-19 of (500,000.00 ) from a Jeffrey Epstein account to an account whose title line names the firm and MIAMI. A separate exhibit headed POTENTIAL SETTLEMENT PAYMENTS records the same date, 12/19/2018, the recipient Boies Schiller Flexner, the amount $500,000, and wire details reading "Payment pursuant to settlement". Both sheets were read at the page image1314
What is not located hereNo sheet carrying this firm’s signature also carries a Southern District of Florida stamp, although 44 of its signed documents refer to the CVRA docket there. That is a statement about this release and not about the firm15
ResponseNone located. No statement by the firm or by anyone on its behalf about any document on this page has been found, and no request for one was made from here16
Not established hereWhat the firm was retained to do beyond what its own filings state; what any of its clients said or experienced; what any payment located here was for beyond the words on the sheet; whether any sequence on this page is a causal one; or anything at all about the firm’s history, size or other practice17

Boies Schiller Flexner LLP carried civil claims against Jeffrey Epstein, against Ghislaine Maxwell and against the executors of the Epstein estate through the federal courts in Manhattan, and this release holds 696 documents it signed. Those documents are complaints, motions, oppositions, replies, declarations, discovery responses, notices of appearance and applications for admission, filed over nine years and keyed to 471 separate instruments. They are the firm’s own voice on the record, and they are what this page is built on.

They are also, almost all of them, a party’s assertions rather than findings of fact. A brief filed by this firm is what this firm argued on behalf of a client. It is not evidence of what happened, and it is not evidence of what the lawyers who signed it believed. Where this page quotes a filing, it is quoting an advocate.

The name, and why counting it is harder than it looks

The firm’s name does not sit in this release as one string. The scans were read by a machine that repeatedly turns the capital I of BOIES into an L, and the damaged spelling runs right through these documents: BOLES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP, BOLES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP, Boles Schiller & Flexner LLP. The damaged form is not a curiosity at the edge of the population. It reaches 806 documents, against the 1,949 that carry the correct spelling.7

A further group of documents loses the first word altogether and survives only as SCHILLER FLEXNER. Others carry the firm only as its mail domain. Counting every form of the name found in the paper, meaning the correct spelling, the BOLES form, BOWS, BOEIS, BOISE, BOIS, BORES, the form beginning 8OIES, SCHILLER FLEXNER standing alone, and the domain token and a damaged variant of it, brings the population to 2,657 documents at document level. That figure is a floor and not a ceiling: a scan shape nobody has guessed will reach documents this count misses. Searching the correct spelling alone returns 1,949. The difference is 708 documents, more than a quarter of the whole.7

Two candidate forms were tested and rejected. The bare token BSF reaches 475 documents, but reading them shows the great majority are a bank’s internal onboarding form, an unrelated police unit and extraction noise; the fuller form BSF LLP is the firm and is counted, while the bare token is not reliably the firm and is not mined here.18 The bare surnames Schiller and Flexner each reach a different and much larger population and are not the firm. None of them is mined here.

The lawyers

The firm signed through a small group of named people, and the signature blocks name them plainly.

Sigrid S. McCawley signs more of these documents than everyone else combined. She signs from the Fort Lauderdale office, usually as Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice), and she is the author of the long run of declarations that accompany the firm’s motions. She is covered on a page of her own here.

David Boies signs from 333 Main Street, Armonk, New York 10504 and, on the later filings, from 55 Hudson Yards. He signs the instruments that open matters: the notices of appearance, the complaints against the executors of the estate, and the firm’s own intervention.489

Meredith L. Schultz signs beside McCawley from Fort Lauderdale through the 2016 and 2017 filings. Joshua I. Schiller and Ellen Brockman appear in the firm’s signature blocks in the released text; Sabina Mariella, Andrew Villacastin, Alexander Law and Daniel Crispino stand together in the signature block of the 2023 fee brief, which was read at the page image. Peter Skinner appears in the firm’s correspondence rather than in any signature block read for this page. Sandra Perkins is listed as the firm’s paralegal on a court reporter’s appearance list.1096

Of the three partners named in the firm’s own name, only Boies appears in this population. No document in this population names Jonathan Schiller or Donald Flexner in any form. That is a measurement of this release and not a statement about the firm.19

Where the firm appeared

Signed sheets key to 471 instruments across eleven federal dockets, every one of them in the Southern District of New York, and to one Florida state filing in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in Broward County.1112

The distribution is extremely lopsided. 406 of the 471 instruments are in a single docket, 1:15-cv-07433, whose published caption is Giuffre v. Maxwell. The remaining 65 are spread across ten dockets, and most of those ten are entered by a single instrument or a handful.

The other dockets are worth setting out, because they mark the points at which the firm’s work moved from one front to another:

  • 1:17-cv-00616: a complaint filed 26 January 2017 against Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell and Lesley Groff, over the firm’s signature.20
  • 1:19-cv-03377: a complaint filed 16 April 2019, captioned against Alan Dershowitz, carrying Boies Schiller Flexner LLP on its first sheet.21
  • 1:19-cv-10474, 1:19-cv-10475, 1:19-cv-10476, 1:19-cv-10479 and 1:19-cv-10577: five suits against Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn in their capacities as executors of the estate of Jeffrey Edward Epstein. On 20 November 2019 David Boies filed notices of appearance in three of them on the same day.822
  • 1:20-cr-00330: the criminal prosecution of Ghislaine Maxwell, entered on 26 March 2021, discussed below.4
  • 1:22-cv-10019 and 1:22-cv-10904: the two Manhattan actions against JPMorgan Chase, the first a class action and the second brought by the Government of the United States Virgin Islands.923

26 March 2021: the firm appears in its own name

On 26 March 2021 the firm entered a criminal docket as a party. Five signed documents in this release describe the firm as an intervenor, and all five carry that same filing date.

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, Document 180, Filed 03/26/21, is a one-page notice of appearance in United States of America -v.- Ghislaine Maxwell. It reads, in full:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned attorney, David Boies, who is a member in good standing of the bar of this Court, hereby appears as counsel for Intervenor Boies Schiller Flexner LLP and the victims it represents in the above-captioned action.

It is dated New York, New York / March 26, 2021, subscribed BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP over /s/ David Boies, and the role line beneath the signature reads Attorney for Intervenor / Boies Schiller Flexner LLP / and the victims it represents.4

A companion sheet filed the same day, Document 182-1, is a declaration by McCawley supporting her own admission. It carries four numbered paragraphs, of which the fourth reads I am a member in good standing of the bars of the State of Florida and Washington, D.C., and it carries the same role line.24

What the documents establish is narrow and exact: on that date the firm was a named intervenor, not only counsel. The filings do not say what the firm intervened to obtain, and this page does not supply a reason.

A payment of $500,000

Two sheets in this release, produced from different sources, record the same transfer.

The first is a Deutsche Bank statement. On the line dated 12-19 it records an Outgoing Money Trnsf of (500,000.00 ), against a running balance of 8,757,962.99, to a Wells Fargo Bank account whose title line names the firm and MIAMI.13

The second is a table headed EXHIBIT L: POTENTIAL SETTLEMENT PAYMENTS, with columns for date, recipient, amount, account and wire details. Its middle row reads 12/19/2018, recipient Boies Schiller Flexner, amount $500,000, account Jeffrey Epstein, and in the wire details column the quoted words "Payment pursuant to settlement". The firm’s row is one of three on that exhibit; the other two concern other recipients and are not the subject of this page.14

What this establishes is that money moved from a Jeffrey Epstein account to this law firm, in that amount, on that date, described by the bank’s own reference field as a settlement payment. It does not establish what any claimant received, and the record does not say. The firm’s row carries no case reference of any kind.

That last point needs stating plainly, because the released text layer of the exhibit does not preserve the table’s rows and runs a neighbouring row’s reference into the firm’s. Read at the page image, the firm’s row carries no docket reference, and this page follows the paper.14

The firm on the receiving end of process

The firm is not only a filer in this population. 31 documents labelled as subpoenas name the firm without its signature on them, and a Broward County certificate filed by other counsel in March 2015 records that no objections were received to a subpoena duces tecum directed to Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP.25

That certificate was briefly, and wrongly, counted as one of the firm’s own acts by the first pass of this page’s method, because the document in which it sits is a long exhibit compilation that also contains filings the firm did sign. Reading the sheet at the image showed it is subscribed by a different firm entirely. The method was rebuilt to require the signature and the court’s stamp to stand on the same sheet, and the error is recorded here because it is the kind of error this population invites.2

What the transcripts are used for, and what they are not

283 documents in this population are labelled as deposition or hearing transcripts, and this page takes from them only appearances and dates.

53 of them carry an APPEARANCES block naming the firm in a roster line, across 27 distinct proceeding dates between 2015 and 2023. The appearance lines name McCawley, Boies and Schultz for the plaintiff, alongside counsel from other firms and from the University of Utah. At least 8 of those cover pages record that the proceeding was held at the firm’s own offices.6

Three further transcript-labelled documents that reached that test were set aside unread, because the text around the appearance block was a first-person account rather than a court reporter’s roster. They are counted here and nothing else is taken from them.26

Beyond those appearance lines, dates and venues, nothing from any transcript appears on this page. No testimony is quoted. No testimony is summarised. No witness is characterised. No deposition is described beyond its caption.

The 2024 figures are unsealing, not filing

A journalist reading the stamp dates alone would conclude that this firm filed 56 instruments in 2024, the fourth-highest year in the whole run. That reading is wrong, and the documents the page cites refute it.

Of 400 instruments whose sheets carry both a court stamp and the document’s own date line, 132, a third of them, carry a stamp more than a year after the document’s own date. The 2024 filings are overwhelmingly 2016 and 2017 documents re-filed as exhibits during the unsealing of the 1:15-cv-07433 record. One instrument stamped Filed 01/04/24 is dated, in its own text, June 28, 2016.275

Dated by the court’s stamp, the instruments fall across 2015 (6), 2016 (148), 2017 (103), 2018 (10), 2019 (13), 2020 (58), 2021 (40), 2022 (25), 2023 (12) and 2024 (56). The stamp is the filing date and this page uses it. But the 2020–2024 columns measure the reopening of a record at least as much as they measure the firm’s activity, and nothing on this page should be read as saying otherwise.27

What this page does not establish

This page does not establish what the firm was retained to do, beyond what its own filings state on their face. It does not establish any fee arrangement. The word engagement letter appears in this population only in documents the firm did not sign; retainer appears in 7 signed documents and 59 unsigned ones, and a form of contingent fee in 1 signed and 36 unsigned. None of those passages was opened or read for this page, and no fee term is stated anywhere on it. It does not establish that any filing’s assertions are true. It does not establish anything about any person the firm represented. It does not establish the firm’s history, its founding, its size, or any part of its practice outside these dockets.

It does not establish that the absence of a Florida federal filing means the firm did not make one. 44 of the firm’s signed documents refer to the CVRA docket in the Southern District of Florida, and no sheet carrying this firm’s signature also carries that court’s stamp. That is a finding about what was released, and a journalist should treat it as a place to look rather than as an answer.15

How this page is scoped

Page pins on this page are 1-indexed and count the sheets of each document as the viewer serves them, so “p. 1” is the first sheet. All counts were taken on this project’s page-level index, whose size on disk was compared against its recorded value and printed on every run, and all set algebra was done at document level, never at sheet level.

The population was built by searching every form of the firm’s name the paper carries, not one spelling. An act was established by reading a signature block on the sheet that carries it, together with the court’s stamp on that same sheet; a document in which the firm is named but did not sign is excluded and counted separately. Database labels were trusted for nothing: eight documents labelled as transcripts in this population are filed court documents, and one document labelled as a travel itinerary is a signed pleading.

Nothing on this page is taken from the content of any deposition or hearing transcript.

Footnotes

  1. The scope rule applied throughout. Document-type labels across the 2,657-document population give 167 transcript.deposition, 114 transcript.hearing, 1 transcript.trial and 1 transcript.grand_jury, a total of 283. The only facts taken from any of them are the presence of the firm’s name in an APPEARANCES roster line, the proceeding date on the cover page, and, where the cover page states it, the venue. No transcript was read past its appearance block; the extraction that produced the appearance figures stops at the first PROCEEDINGS, EXAMINATION or THE COURT: marker and never reads beyond it. ↩

  2. Method and arithmetic. The union of every firm-name form carried by the paper returns 2,657 documents at document level. 6 are refused outright (see below), leaving a working set of 2,651. A sheet was counted as the firm’s act only where a signature marker was followed by a name on the firm’s own roster and the firm’s name stood within the same sheet’s signature region, or where Respectfully submitted was followed on the same sheet by the firm’s name, one of its office addresses and a roster name. That test marks 731 sheets in 696 documents, which is 26.3% of the working set of 2,651. The remaining 1,955 documents are excluded and counted separately. Of the 1,736 court-class labels in the population, 626 fall in signed documents and 1,110 do not: the firm signed 36.1% of the court-class documents that name it, and there are 3.69 court-class labels for every instrument keyed to a signed sheet. The non-act court-class exclusions are 892 court.filing, 132 court.filing_state, 31 court.subpoena, 24 court.certificate_of_service, 22 court.order, 3 court.exhibit_list, 3 court.plea_agreement, 2 court.brief and 1 court.indictment. An earlier run of this page’s method tested the signature across each document’s whole text rather than sheet by sheet, and attributed a Broward County certificate signed by other counsel to this firm; the attribution was found by rendering the sheet and the method was rebuilt. Sender fields decide nothing here: 2,428 of the 2,657 documents carry no sender at all. A second correction, found by rendering: in four documents of this population a single index row carries the text of a whole compilation rather than one sheet, so the same-sheet rule cannot bite on them. Three were read at the page image and set aside: one is a newspaper page, one is opposing counsel’s own motion and one could not be certified. The figures above are after those three were removed from the signed set; no instrument depended on any of them. ↩ ↩2

  3. Six documents in this population were sent from a victim-services mailbox. None was opened, counted, described or quoted, and their identifiers are not listed. One further document in the population carries a native-attachment marker and is likewise excluded unopened; it falls outside the signed-act set in any case. ↩

  4. Notice of appearance, Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, Document 180, Filed 03/26/21, Page 1 of 1, in UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -v.- GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the caption block giving No. 1:20-cr-00330 (AJN). Read at the page image at native 96 ppi. The quoted sentence is the whole of the document’s body and is given without elision. The signature reads BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP, By: /s/ David Boies, David Boies, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, 333 Main Street, Armonk, NY 10504. The released text of this sheet runs Attorney for together as Attorneyfor; the paper sets it as two words and this page follows the paper. The header’s judge initials and the caption’s differ on the one sheet and neither is preferred here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02830642 p. 1. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  5. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP, Document 1325-14, Filed 01/04/24, Page 28 of 30, a signature sheet reading Dated: June 28, 2016. above Respectfully Submitted, BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP and By: /s/ Sigrid McCawley. Read at the page image at native 96 ppi. The block names the Fort Lauderdale and Armonk offices and co-counsel at two other firms and at the University of Utah. The filing date on this page is the stamp, 4 January 2024; the document’s own date is 28 June 2016, and the two are given here together because the gap is the point. Other material on the sheet is not quoted, described or counted. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02793047 p. 28. ↩ ↩2

  6. Appearance figures. Of the 283 transcript-labelled documents, 149 carry an APPEARANCES block. 53 carry the firm in a strict roster line, meaning the firm’s name followed by Attorneys for, Counsel for, On Behalf of or BY:, across 27 distinct proceeding dates, the earliest October 17, 2015 and the latest March 16, 2023. 8 of those cover pages record the proceeding as held at the firm’s offices. One such cover page gives those offices as 575 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York, and this page takes the address from it and nothing else. A roster line reading BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP, 333 Main Street, Armonk, New York 10504, BY: DAVID BOIES, ESQUIRE, and a second giving the Fort Lauderdale office with MEREDITH SCHULTZ, ESQUIRE, SIGRID McCAWLEY, ESQUIRE and SANDRA PERKINS, PARALEGAL, stand at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00083933. A further roster line reading BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP, Attorneys for Plaintiff, BY: SIGRID S. McCAWLEY, ESQ., MEREDITH L. SCHULTZ, ESQ. stands at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00612250. Both readings are from the released text and were not checked at the image, and nothing beyond the appearance lines was read on either. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  7. Name forms, measured on this project’s page-level index at document level in a single run, with the index size compared against its recorded value and printed, a firing control returning 371 documents and a null control returning 0. "boies schiller" 1,949 documents; "boies schiller flexner" 1,769; "boies schiller flexner llp" 1,562; "boles schiller" 806; "schiller flexner" 2,207; the mail-domain token 884 and its damaged variant 203; "bsf llp" 17; "bows schiller" 109, of which 1 document is reached by no other form; "boeis schiller" 19; "boies shiller" 20; "boise schiller" 6; "bois schiller" 3; "bores schiller" 2; "8oies schiller" 1. The comma form "boies, schiller" returns exactly the same 1,949 documents as the form without it and adds nothing: the index’s tokeniser discards the comma, and the difference was measured at 0 rather than assumed. The union of all forms is 2,657 documents, against 1,949 for the correct spelling alone, a gain of 708. Tested and silent: "bowes schiller", "boys schiller", "boies schlller", "boies schiiler", "boies schifler", "boies schuller", "boies sohiller", "boies schiller flexher", "boies schiller flexrier", and the firm’s web domain as a single token. The damaged field-label form Fran: was also tested against this population and adds nothing: 2 documents of the union carry the token, and the proximity form returns 0, with the token’s own corpus-wide reach of 20,604 documents as the firing control. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  8. Notice of appearance, Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC, Document 5, Filed 11/20/19, Page 1 of 1, brought against the two co-executors of the estate of Jeffrey Edward Epstein in their capacities as such. Read at the page image at native 96 ppi. The body opens PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned attorney, David Boies, who is a member in good standing of the bar of this Court, hereby appears as counsel for Plaintiff; the quotation above is the opening of that sentence, it stops where it stops, and nothing within it is elided. Dated New York, New York / November 20, 2019, subscribed BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP over /s/ David Boies, with 333 Main Street, Armonk, NY 10504. Notices of appearance in the same words, over the same signature, bearing the same filing date, stand in two further dockets at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02819121 (1:19-cv-10476, Document 5) and https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02777567 (1:19-cv-10474, Document 5); those two readings are from the released text and were not checked at the image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02731963 p. 1. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  9. Case 1:22-cv-10019-JSR, Document 256, Filed 11/02/23, Page 22 of 23. Sheet 22 was read at the page image at native 96 ppi; the quotations below are from that sheet. The document’s own title, REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF (1) MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION AND (2) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES, stands on its first sheet and is from the released text, not checked at the image. On sheet 22 the conclusion reads in its own words: The $290 million Settlement is an excellent recovery for the Class and will deliver life-changing money to the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein. That is the firm’s assertion in its own brief and is quoted as such; it names nobody, and nothing else from the sheet is taken. The signature block is dated November 2, 2023, subscribed Respectfully submitted, over /s/ David Boies, and names David Boies, Andrew Villacastin, Sabina Mariella, Alexander Law, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, 55 Hudson Yards, New York, NY, then Sigrid McCawley (pro hac vice), Daniel Crispino (pro hac vice), Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, 401 E. Las Olas Blvd. Suite 1200. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00145643 p. 22. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  10. The roster was built from names standing immediately after a signature marker, with the firm’s name in the same signature region, and was cross-checked against the local parts of the firm’s own mail domain as its filings print it. The names so established are David Boies, Sigrid S. McCawley, Meredith L. Schultz, Joshua I. Schiller, Ellen Brockman, Sabina Mariella, Andrew Villacastin, Alexander Law and Daniel Crispino. Alexander Law is attested only on the sheet read at the page image: his name does not survive into the released text of this population at all, and Daniel Crispino survives in two documents. Peter Skinner is a firm lawyer by his address at the firm’s mail domain and appears in 37 documents of this population, but no signature block read for this page carries his name, so he is not counted in the roster above. Names reached through this population that are not firm staff were checked and excluded: counsel for the defence in 1:15-cv-07433, their staff, co-counsel at two other firms and a professor of law, each of whom appears beside the firm in service lists and joint signature blocks. Meredith L. Schultz is named from a signature block and from a court appearance list, in each case as the sheet prints it; this page makes no statement of any kind about how any producing party has treated her name or any other on any sheet. A signature block standing whole on one sheet reads Dated: May 26, 2016., Respectfully Submitted,, BOLES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP, By: Is/ Sigrid McCawley, Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice), Meredith Schultz (Pro Hac Vice), Boles Schiller & Flexner LLP, 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301, David Boles, Boles Schiller & Flexner LLP, 333 Main Street. BOLES, Boles, David Boles and Is/ are this scan’s renderings of BOIES, Boies, David Boies and the signature marker, and are left as the sheet sets them. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00025469 p. 7. A counsel listing on a single sheet of a separate document names the same three lawyers for the firm at both offices. Its wording is reported rather than quoted, because the typography of that sheet breaks the names across lines and a faithful quotation of it would have to carry the break. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00020541 p. 12. Both readings are from the released text and were not checked at the image. ↩ ↩2

  11. Instruments were keyed by the court’s own stamp, giving docket number, document number and filing date, read on the same sheet as the signature. That yields 471 instruments across 11 federal dockets: 1:15-cv-07433 (406), 1:17-cv-00616 (13), 1:19-cv-10479 (10), 1:19-cv-10475 (10), 1:19-cv-10577 (9), 1:19-cv-10476 (9), 1:19-cv-10474 (6), 1:20-cr-00330 (5), 1:22-cv-10019 (1), 1:22-cv-10904 (1) and 1:19-cv-03377 (1). 731 signed sheets reduce to 471 keyed instruments, a replication of 1.55; a further 205 signed sheets carry no court stamp on the sheet itself and are not keyed. Stamps carrying the damaged docket forms 1:15-ov-07433, 1:15-cs-07433, 1:15-co-07433, 1:15-cc-07433 and 1:15-Cv-07433 were folded into 1:15-cv-07433, and that folding was done only for those forms: an earlier run of this page’s arithmetic folded cr and mc into cv as well, turning a criminal docket and a miscellaneous docket into civil ones, and the figures above are after that error was corrected. Two further docket strings reached by an earlier document-level pass, 1:17-mc-00025 and 1:19-cv-10571, were not confirmed by a stamp on a signed sheet and are not counted. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  12. Filing # 42049782 E-Filed 05/27/2016 08:50:18 AM, in CASE NO. CACE 15-000072 in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, and PAUL G. CASSELL, Plaintiffs, v. ALAN DERSHOWITZ, Defendant., headed NOTICE OF APPEAL and stating that the appellant appeals to the Fourth District Court of Appeal the order of this court rendered on May 10, 2016. The stamp and the signature stand on the one sheet, which is subscribed Respectfully submitted, BOWS, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1200 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301, By: /s/Sigrid S. McCawley, Sigrid S. McCawley, Esq., Florida Bar No. 129305, Attorney for Non-Party. BOWS is this scan’s rendering of BOIES and is left as the sheet sets it. The firm filed this appeal for an appellant who was not a party to that action, and this page says nothing further about that appellant. This reading is from the released text and was not checked at the image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01113514 p. 1. Two further documents reached by the same test carry Florida state e-filing stamps dated 02/03/2016 and 02/08/2016, but each is a single index row holding a whole compilation rather than one sheet; the first was read at the page image and proved to be opposing counsel’s own motion, and neither is counted here. ↩ ↩2

  13. Deutsche Bank statement, printed sheet 3 of 7. Read at the page image at native 96 ppi. The line dated 12-19 reads Outgoing Money Trnsf, debit (500,000.00 ), balance 8,757,962.99, and its description names a Wells Fargo Bank account whose title line gives the firm’s name and MIAMI. The sheet carries account-class identifiers; none is reproduced here, in whole or in part, and none is located. The space the paper sets before the closing parenthesis of the debit figure is the sheet’s own. The released text of this sheet renders the bank as WELTS FAR(X) BANK, the firm as BOLES SCHILLER FLEXNER, the account-title suffix as OITA and the figure as (500.000.00 ); the paper prints WELLS FARGO BANK, BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER, OLTA and (500,000.00 ), and this page follows the paper. The account-title line wraps across two printed lines on the sheet and is not quoted here in either form. The sheet carries a Rule 6(e) confidentiality legend. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01288073 p. 3. ↩ ↩2

  14. Exhibit headed EXHIBIT L: POTENTIAL SETTLEMENT PAYMENTS, a three-row table with columns DATE, RECIPIENT, AMOUNT, ACCOUNT, ACCOUNT # and WIRE DETAILS, on printed sheet 26. Read at the page image at native 96 ppi. The firm’s row reads 12/19/2018 / Boies Schiller Flexner / $500,000 / Jeffrey Epstein / "Payment pursuant to settlement", the quotation marks being the sheet’s own. The released text of this exhibit does not preserve the table’s row boundaries and runs the wire-details text of the row above into the firm’s row; read at the image the firm’s row carries no case or docket reference at all, and this page follows the paper. The other two rows name other recipients and are not the subject of this page; nothing from them is quoted here. The ACCOUNT # column carries no value on this page, in whole or in part. The sheet carries a Rule 6(e) confidentiality legend. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01681865 p. 26. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  15. 44 documents signed by the firm refer to the Southern District of Florida docket numbered 08-80736, the CVRA litigation, and 60 unsigned documents in the population do the same. No sheet carrying this firm’s signature also carries a Southern District of Florida stamp. The test was made directly on the Entered on FLSD Docket stamp form used by that court, with a planted positive combining that stamp and a firm signature on one sheet to prove the test could fire. One signed document does contain a single FLSD-stamped sheet, inside a composite exhibit filed in 1:15-cv-07433 in January 2024; that sheet carries no signature of this firm. Eleven documents of the wider population carry the stamp. An absence in this release is not a property of the firm and is recorded here as a gap to pursue, not as an answer. ↩ ↩2

  16. No statement by Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, or by any person on its behalf, about any document cited on this page has been located in this release. No request for comment was made from this desk, and the absence of a response here should not be read as a refusal to give one. ↩

  17. Stated so that the page is not read for more than it carries. Nothing here establishes the truth of any assertion in any filing the firm signed; a brief is an advocate’s case, not a finding. Nothing here establishes what any court decided. Nothing here establishes what the firm was engaged to do, on what terms, or for what fee. Nothing here establishes anything whatever about any person the firm represented. The chronology on this page is a sequence of stamps and is not offered as a causal account. ↩

  18. The bare token BSF returns 475 documents, 165 of them outside every other form. Twelve were read. One is the firm, in the fuller form BSF LLP Attorney, which is counted separately and contributes 6 documents found by no other form. The rest are a bank’s internal BSF Form in account-onboarding correspondence, an unrelated unit abbreviation in a law-enforcement report, and extraction noise. The prune was then checked in the opposite direction, and part of what that check reached is material this desk does not work. Nothing from it is quoted, summarised, counted, located or identified, and the bare token is excluded from this page’s population on both grounds. The bare surnames Schiller (2,605 documents) and Flexner (2,485) are different and larger populations and are not mined here. ↩

  19. Jonathan Schiller and Donald Flexner were each searched across the 2,651-document working set in every ordinary spelling and return 0 documents. The mail-domain local part that might be read as the first of those names resolves on the filings to Joshua I. Schiller, who signs 66 documents in this population. This is a measurement of this release only. ↩

  20. Case 1:17-cv-00616, Document 1, Filed 01/26/17, a COMPLAINT with JURY TRIAL DEMANDED against JEFFREY EPSTEIN, GHISLAINE MAXWELL and LESLEY GROFF, carrying the firm’s signature. This reading is from the released text and was not checked at the image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00285423 p. 1. ↩

  21. Case 1:19-cv-03377, Document 1, Filed 04/16/19, Page 1 of 28, in the United States District Court Southern District of New York, headed COMPLAINT, the published caption giving VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, Plaintiff, v. ALAN DERSHOWITZ, Defendant., with Boies Schiller Flexner LLP set alone in the lower half of the sheet. Read at the page image, which for this production is a native 300 ppi sheet scan rather than the 96 ppi route used elsewhere on this page. The caption is reproduced here only as a caption. The index row for this identifier holds the text of more than this one sheet, so the sheet itself was rendered rather than relied on through the text layer. https://epstein-data.com/HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017935 p. 1. ↩

  22. Case 1:19-cv-10577, Document 1, Filed 11/14/19, a COMPLAINT against DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, in their capacities as the executors of the ESTATE OF JEFFREY EDWARD EPSTEIN, carrying BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP on its first sheet. This reading is from the released text and was not checked at the image. A later joint stipulation in a related docket is subscribed by BOLES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP over /s/ Sigrid McCawley beside Troutman Sanders LLP over /s/ Bennet J. Moskowitz for the executors, dated May 21, 2020; that reading is from the released text and was not checked at the image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02737470 p. 1 and https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02737797. ↩

  23. Case Number 1:22-cv-10904-JSR, GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS against JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., with JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. as third-party plaintiff against JAMES EDWARD STALEY, a STIPULATED MOTION stamped 03/27/23. This reading is from the released text and was not checked at the image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02806784 p. 1. ↩

  24. DECLARATION OF SIGRID S. MCCAWLEY IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE, Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, Document 182-1, Filed 03/26/21, Page 1 of 1, caption Case No. 20-CR-330-AJN. Read at the page image at native 96 ppi. The quoted paragraph is numbered 4 of 4 and is quoted whole. The sheet is dated March 26, 2021, subscribed Respectfully Submitted, over /s/ Sigrid S. McCawley, and carries the role line Attorney for Intervenor / Boies Schiller Flexner LLP / and the victims it represents. The address block gives 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1200, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02830644 p. 1. ↩

  25. 31 documents labelled court.subpoena in this population carry the firm’s name without its signature; 5 carry its signature. The Broward County certificate is Filing # 25416606 E-Filed 03/27/2015 02:18:21 PM, in CASE NO.: CACE 15-000072, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS and PAUL G. CASSELL against ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, headed CERTIFICATE OF NON OBJECTION, and reading Defendant ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ ("Defendant"), by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby files this certificate that no objections were received to the subpoena duces tecum directed to Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP. Read at the page image at native 96 ppi. It is subscribed COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A. over /s/ Thomas Scott; it is not this firm’s act and is not counted as one. Other names and contact values on the sheet are not reproduced here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01078617 p. 91. ↩

  26. Three documents that satisfied the appearance test were set aside because the text surrounding the appearance block is a first-person narrative rather than a reporter’s roster. They were not read past the point at which that was apparent, nothing from them is quoted, summarised, characterised or counted, and their identifiers are not given. ↩

  27. Replication and date lag. Of the instruments keyed to a signed sheet, 400 carry both a court stamp and a Dated: line in the document’s own text. On 132 of them the stamp falls more than a year after the document’s own date. Counted by the court’s stamp, the instruments fall across 2015 (6), 2016 (148), 2017 (103), 2018 (10), 2019 (13), 2020 (58), 2021 (40), 2022 (25), 2023 (12) and 2024 (56). The stamp is the authority for the filing date on this page in every case. A worked instance is at the footnote below. A date of 2011 returned by an earlier document-level run was an extraction artefact of a secondary stamp and does not survive the same-sheet rule; no instrument on this page is dated from body prose. ↩ ↩2

Backlinks