| For
Enabling
Epstein JPM
Chase Is Sued
Now Motion to
Disqualify
WilmerHale Is
Denied
By Matthew
Russell Lee, Patreon Maxwell
book
SDNY COURTHOUSE,
May 11 –
J.P. Morgan
Chase and
Deutsche Bank
were sued for
their enabling
of Jeffrey
Epstein, in
lawsuits filed
on
Thanksgiving
in the U.S.
District Court
for the
Southern
District of
New York,
where Inner
City Press
found them in
the docket.
The separate
lawsuits
allege that
"without
exorbitantly
large amounts
of cash,
Epstein's
operations
could not run,
as newly
recruited
victims were
each paid
hundreds of
dollars in
cash
immediately
after Epstein
sexually
abused them,
as hush
money."
The
JPM Chase
complaint is
on Patreon, here.
On March
20, 2023 Judge
Jed S.
Rakoff in a
bottom line
order
dismissed some
but not
all claims,
in the Epstein-related
cases against
JPMC and Deutsche
Bank.
Inner
City Press put
the order on
its
DocumentCloud
here.
On
April 28, a
motion seeking
class certification
of
Epstein-related
claims against
JPMC was
filed; filing
on Patreon here.
On May 3,
Judge Rakoff
docketed:
"Minute Entry
for
proceedings
held before
Judge Jed S.
Rakoff:
Telephone
Conference
held on
5/1/2023,
without
transcription
or recording.
Counsel for
Bradley
Edwards, Jane
Doe, the
United States
Virgin
Islands, JP
Morgan, and
Jes Staley
were present.
With respect
to Bradley
Edwards motion
to disqualify
WilmerHale,
initial moving
papers are due
by no later
than 5:00 PM
on 5/4/2023,
answering
papers by no
later than
5:00 PM on
5/8/2023, and
reply by no
later than
5:00 PM on
5/9/2023."
On May
4, the basis
for the
request to
disqualify
WilmerHale was
made clear in
the filing:
the firm was
previously in
a "common
interest
agreement"
with Epstein
victim
Courtney Wild,
including
access to her
confidential
information -
and now
represents JPM
Chase against
Epstein
victims: "Having
previously
represented
ECPAT in in a
common legal
effort with
Ms. Wild to
attempt to
hold
accountable
those involved
in the Epstein
sex-trafficking
organization,
WilmerHale now
has a conflict
of interest in
advancing
directly
opposing
arguments
here. And
WilmerHale and
counsel for
Ms. Wild were
operating
under a common
interest
agreement—an
agreement
which gave
WilmerHale
access to Ms.
Wild’s
confidential
information. Full
27 page filing
on Patreon here.
On May
11, Judge
Rakoff denied
the motion,
stating inter
alia that "the
Court notes
that neither
ECPAT nor Ms.
Wild have
joined the
instant
motion. That
alone likely
suffices to
warrant
denying the
motion. See
United States
v. Rogers, 9
F.3d 1025,
1031 (2d Cir.
1993) ("As a
general rule,
courts do not
disqualify an
attorney on
the grounds of
conflict of
interest
unless the
former client
moves for
disqualification.").
***
Your
support means a lot. As little as $5 a month
helps keep us going and grants you access to
exclusive bonus material on our Patreon
page. Click
here to become a patron.
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA
Mail: Box 20047, Dag
Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017
Reporter's mobile (and weekends):
718-716-3540
Other, earlier Inner City Press are
listed here,
and some are available in the ProQuest
service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright 2006-2023 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com
|
,
