DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE — OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY Review of the Handling of the Jeffrey Epstein Matter Report Released November 2020
The Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) conducted a comprehensive review of the conduct of federal prosecutors in the Southern District of Florida who negotiated and executed the 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Jeffrey Epstein. The review focused primarily on the role of then-U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta.
SCOPE OF REVIEW: The OPR investigation examined the decisions made by Acosta and other prosecutors during the period from approximately 2006 through 2008, when the NPA was negotiated and finalized. The review assessed whether the prosecutors' conduct complied with department policies, professional standards, and the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA).
BACKGROUND — THE NPA: After an extensive FBI investigation led by Special Agent Nesbitt Kuyrkendall that identified 36 underage victims and resulted in a draft 53-page federal indictment that could have carried a life sentence, Acosta's office entered into negotiations with Epstein's defense team. That defense team included Alan Dershowitz, Ken Starr, Jay Lefkowitz, Gerald Lefcourt, and Roy Black — a roster of legal talent unusual for a case of this type.
The resulting NPA allowed Epstein to plead guilty to a single Florida state charge of solicitation of prostitution involving a minor. He received 18 months in county jail (of which he served 13 months), registered as a sex offender, and was granted a controversial work release arrangement. Most critically, the NPA granted immunity to "any potential co-conspirators," both named and unnamed.
OPR FINDINGS: The OPR report concluded that Acosta exercised "poor judgment" in several respects:
1. Failure to consult victims — The OPR found that the prosecutors' decision not to inform or consult with identified victims before finalizing the NPA was inconsistent with the requirements of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Judge Kenneth Marra had previously ruled in 2019 that the CVRA was violated. The OPR agreed with this assessment.
2. Breadth of immunity — The OPR questioned the decision to extend immunity to unnamed co-conspirators, a provision that went beyond what was necessary to secure the plea and that effectively foreclosed future federal prosecution of other individuals involved in Epstein's enterprise.
3. Secrecy of negotiations — The decision to keep the plea negotiations secret from victims and the public was criticized as inconsistent with the spirit of the CVRA and with department guidelines on victim notification.
4. Adequacy of the sentence — While acknowledging that Acosta faced legitimate concerns about the strength of the federal case (some victims were reluctant to testify, and there were evidentiary challenges), the OPR found that the resulting sentence was disproportionately lenient given the scale and severity of the alleged offenses.
PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT FINDING: Despite these criticisms, the OPR concluded that Acosta's conduct did not rise to the level of professional misconduct. The report distinguished between "poor judgment" — which reflects a failure to exercise appropriate discretion — and "professional misconduct," which requires a finding that the attorney intentionally violated a known obligation or acted with reckless disregard. The OPR determined that Acosta's decisions, while flawed, were made in the context of legitimate prosecutorial considerations and did not cross the threshold into misconduct.
ACOSTA'S RESPONSE: Acosta, who had resigned as Secretary of Labor in July 2019 amid renewed scrutiny of the NPA, stated through his attorneys that the OPR report confirmed that he did not commit professional misconduct and that his decisions were made in good faith based on the circumstances at the time. He maintained that the federal investigation and the threat of federal charges were what compelled Epstein to plead guilty to the state charge and register as a sex offender.
REACTIONS: Victims' advocates and members of Congress criticized the OPR finding as insufficient. Bradley Edwards, the attorney who represented Courtney Wild in the CVRA challenge, stated that the "poor judgment" finding was "an understatement of epic proportions." Several members of Congress called for further investigation and accountability.
SIGNIFICANCE: The OPR review provided the most detailed official accounting of the decision-making process behind the NPA. While it fell short of finding misconduct, its detailed criticism of the plea deal's terms, the breadth of the immunity provision, and the failure to notify victims contributed to the ongoing public reckoning with the institutional failures that allowed Epstein to avoid meaningful accountability for over a decade.