Tonja Haddad Coleman
Snapshot
| Field | Documented information |
|---|---|
| Name and profession | Tonja Haddad Coleman, a Florida civil litigation attorney identified in the 2015 appellate opinion. |
| Firm in the records | Law Offices of Tonja Haddad, P.A., as shown in her 2012 signature block. |
| Documented client | Jeffrey Epstein in the Palm Beach County civil action involving Bradley Edwards and Scott Rothstein, case No. 50 2009 CA 040800. |
| Verified work | Signed motions and service certificates, a proposed witness list, and direct correspondence about discovery and privilege from 2012 through 2017. |
| Counterclaim outcome | An agreement dated November 29, 2018, a settlement announcement and Epstein apology on December 4, and a January 7, 2019 dismissal with prejudice. |
| Evidence limit | Coleman’s advocacy establishes a professional role. A motion is not a ruling, and Epstein’s apology is not her personal statement. |
Introduction
Tonja Haddad Coleman represented Jeffrey Epstein in a Florida civil lawsuit involving Bradley Edwards and Scott Rothstein. Her signatures and correspondence document discovery requests, proposed witnesses, privilege disputes, and efforts to delay proceedings while an appeal was pending. The Fourth District Court of Appeal’s November 12, 2015 opinion also names her as one of Epstein’s lawyers.
This profile follows the records that identify Coleman’s own work. It separates her requests from court decisions and explains the later resolution of Edwards’s counterclaim. Legal representation alone does not establish participation in Epstein’s abuse.
Key Takeaways
- Coleman signed discovery and scheduling papers for Epstein and corresponded with Edwards’s lawyer Jack Scarola.
- The June 2013 witness list is an annotated copy. It does not establish that every proposed witness testified or that its editorial markings were filed with the court.
- The September 2013 motion sought to prevent Edwards from acting as co-counsel in his own case because he was a material witness.
- The March 2016 stay request concerned appellate review of litigation privilege. The scheduling burdens discussed in September 2017 belong to a different motion.
- Epstein’s apology accompanied a settlement. The counterclaim was dismissed in January 2019; the reviewed outcome records do not establish the final disposition of every claim in the larger action.
Professional Role and the Record
Coleman’s 2012 amended motion, page 5, carries her signature above a Law Offices of Tonja Haddad, P.A., block. The 2015 appellate opinion, page 1, lists her and Paul Morris for Epstein as appellee, the party defending the appealed ruling. Those documents identify her client and firm during this litigation. They do not establish her current professional position.
Different document features carry different weight. A signature shows responsibility for a submission. A certificate records service on other lawyers. A recipient list alone does not show that everyone listed helped write the paper or represented the same side.
The Underlying Civil Action
The original complaint’s first page bears a December 7, 2009 filing stamp and names Epstein as plaintiff, with Rothstein and Edwards among the defendants. The action proceeded in the Palm Beach County Circuit Court. Later papers identify Epstein as plaintiff and counter-defendant because Edwards brought a claim against him within that case.
The 2015 appellate opinion identifies the disputed counterclaim as malicious prosecution. In this setting, that claim challenged Epstein’s use of civil litigation. The appellate court addressed whether litigation privilege barred the claim; it did not decide that every required element had been proved. This state civil action is separate from Epstein’s criminal prosecutions and the federal victims’ rights litigation.
2012 Discovery: The Order, Motion, and Email
The 16-page discovery filing numbered 494 contains several distinct records. Its first page shows a June 5, 2012 filing stamp for Epstein’s amended motion to compel discovery and for sanctions. Coleman’s signature and May 30 service certificate appear on page 5. The service date and filing date should not be treated as the same event.
An attached order by Judge David Crow, dated April 10, 2012, appears on pages 13 and 14. It directs production of nonprivileged documents and preserves the parties’ ability to object based on privilege, with a privilege log. A privilege log identifies withheld material and the stated reason for withholding it. The order does not rule that all requested communications must be disclosed.
Page 16 contains a May 29 email excerpt from Coleman addressed to Scarola, disputing the adequacy of production and the privilege log. Her statements are an advocate’s position, not a judicial finding of noncompliance. The email is marked page 1 of 2; the second page is absent from this copy.
2013 Witness List and Disqualification Request
EFTA00655529 is a list of trial exhibits, trial witnesses, and expert witnesses prepared for Epstein. Its service certificate is dated June 20, 2013, and bears Coleman’s electronic signature on PDF page 7, Bates EFTA00655535. The copy includes highlighted passages and editorial questions. Their author and timing are not established, so this copy should not be described as an exact, unmarked court filing. A proposed witness list also does not prove that anyone named actually testified.
The motion to disqualify Edwards as co-counsel carries Coleman’s signature and a September 9, 2013 service certificate on page 5, Bates EFTA01112633. Epstein’s side argued that Edwards should not serve as a lawyer at his own trial because he was a material witness. This was a request about Edwards’s own role, not a request to choose who could represent him. The reviewed motion does not establish the court’s eventual decision.
The 2015 Appeal and March 2016 Stay Request
On November 12, 2015, the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a summary judgment that had barred Edwards’s malicious prosecution counterclaim on litigation privilege grounds. The court held that the privilege did not bar such a claim when its required elements were present and sent the matter back. It did not decide that Edwards had already proved the claim. The opinion noted unresolved factual issues.
Coleman’s motion served March 7, 2016 sought a stay of trial court proceedings or, alternatively, a later trial date while the Florida Supreme Court considered the privilege issue. Her signature and service certificate are on page 4, Bates EFTA00611634. The motion refers to a separate appellate stay and an Exhibit A, but the six-page release does not include that exhibit. It does not establish that the trial court granted this request.
The Florida Supreme Court’s June 9, 2017 order, SC15-2286 later declined jurisdiction and denied discretionary review. That procedural order was not a trial verdict on Edwards’s allegations. The litigation privilege issue concerned protection from civil claims arising from litigation conduct. It was different from the attorney-client privilege dispute over confidential communications described below.
September 2017 Correspondence and Privilege
EFTA01003639 contains an email chain from September 20 through September 26, 2017. Coleman raised privilege concerns about proposed depositions of current or former lawyers. Scarola replied that calling lawyers as witnesses while restricting cross-examination would create a problem and asked whether Epstein intended to waive attorney-client privilege.
In her September 26 response, Coleman said two lawyers were listed as possible rebuttal witnesses on probable cause to bring the civil action. Rebuttal testimony responds to evidence offered by the other side. She also sought dates for other depositions. The exchange records both sides’ positions. It does not establish that Epstein waived privilege, that any deposition occurred, or that a judge resolved the dispute.
2017 Service Notice and Extension Request
The August 15, 2017 notice certifies electronic service of answers to Edwards’s interrogatories, which are written questions in civil discovery. Coleman signed the notice. The two-page document contains the notice and service information, not the actual answers. It cannot be used to assess their truth or completeness.
The motion served September 27, 2017 sought more time to respond to Edwards’s September 25 motions and asked to continue an October 3 hearing. On page 3, Bates EFTA00589737, the filing describes Coleman as lead counsel responsible for drafting pleadings and documents. It cites hurricane disruption and other litigation commitments as reasons for more time. These are grounds presented by Epstein’s counsel, not independent findings by the judge.
Coleman’s signature and service certificate appear on page 5, Bates EFTA00589739. The six-page copy lacks the referenced Exhibit A and contains no order granting or denying the extension. These scheduling arguments should not be assigned to the separate March 2016 stay motion.
Settlement, Epstein’s Apology, and Dismissal
The settlement agreement, EFTA00804054, is dated November 29, 2018. Its Exhibit A, on page 13 at Bates EFTA00804066, is Epstein’s apology to Edwards. The statement acknowledges that Epstein’s allegations against Edwards were false and that his lawsuit was an attempt to harm Edwards’s business and reputation and stop his work against Epstein. Those acknowledgments are Epstein’s words, not Coleman’s personal admission or a judge’s findings.
The agreement also contains an express no-admission-of-liability clause on page 6, Bates EFTA00804059. That provision and the separate apology are both part of the record. Neither should be replaced with a claim that a jury found liability.
The December 4, 2018 clerk minutes record a settlement announcement and identify Scott Link as addressing the court for Epstein when the apology was announced. They do not identify Coleman as the speaker and are not a verbatim transcript. WPTV’s contemporaneous report likewise reported that the settlement and apology were announced in court.
A notice filed January 7, 2019, signed by Jack Scarola, voluntarily dismissed the counterclaim with prejudice. That closes the counterclaim through a dismissal, rather than a trial verdict. It does not by itself establish the disposition of every claim involving every party in the larger action.
Chronology
| Date | Documented event |
|---|---|
| December 7, 2009 | Original complaint filed in Palm Beach County. |
| April through June 2012 | Discovery packet: April 10 order; May 29 email excerpt; May 30 service certificate; June 5 filing stamp. |
| June 20, 2013 | Service date on the annotated proposed witness list signed by Coleman. |
| September 9, 2013 | Service date on Coleman’s motion to disqualify Edwards as co-counsel. |
| November 12, 2015 | Fourth District opinion reverses the litigation privilege ruling and remands. |
| March 7, 2016 | Service date on Coleman’s stay or continuance request. |
| June 9, 2017 | Florida Supreme Court declines jurisdiction and denies review. |
| August 15, 2017 | Notice certifies service of interrogatory answers; answers are not included. |
| September 20 through 26, 2017 | Coleman and Scarola correspondence addresses attorney witnesses and privilege. |
| September 27, 2017 | Service date on request to extend response time and continue the hearing. |
| November 29 and December 4, 2018 | Agreement dated November 29; court minutes record announcement on December 4. |
| January 7, 2019 | Voluntary dismissal with prejudice filed as to the counterclaim. |
Evidence Appearances
| Record and locator | What it establishes |
|---|---|
| Discovery filing 494, PDF pages 1, 5, 13, 14, and 16 | Coleman’s signed amended motion, distinct service and filing dates, an attached order preserving privilege objections, and a partial email. |
| EFTA00655529, pages 1 through 3, 6, and 7 | An annotated witness list with Coleman’s June 20, 2013 service certificate. No proof that proposed witnesses testified. |
| EFTA01112629, pages 1, 4, and 5 | September 2013 request to disqualify Edwards as co-counsel. It is not an order granting disqualification. |
| Edwards v. Epstein, 4D14-2282, pages 1 and 2 | November 12, 2015 appellate decision, including Coleman’s counsel listing and unresolved factual issues. |
| EFTA00611631, pages 1, 2, and 4; SC15-2286 order, page 1 | The March 2016 stay request and June 2017 denial of discretionary review are different documents and procedural events. |
| EFTA00812320, page 1 | Coleman’s August 15, 2017 notice of service, not the underlying interrogatory answers. |
| EFTA01003639, pages 1 and 2 | September 20 through 26 correspondence giving both Coleman’s and Scarola’s positions. |
| EFTA00589735, pages 1 through 5 | September 2017 extension request, description of Coleman’s drafting role, and signature. No disposition is included. |
| EFTA00804054, pages 1, 6, and 13 | The dated settlement agreement, no-admission clause, and Epstein’s separate apology. |
| EFTA02768954, page 1; EFTA02768955, page 1 | December 4 announcement in clerk minutes and January 7 counterclaim dismissal notice. Neither is a jury verdict. |
Limitations and Open Questions
- The cited records establish Coleman’s work as a lawyer. They do not establish personal participation in abuse or a social relationship with Epstein.
- Service-certificate dates do not independently prove when a motion was filed. Only identified filing stamps are described as filing dates.
- The witness list includes unexplained editorial markings. The 2012 email is incomplete, and two motions lack referenced exhibits. Missing or redacted text has not been reconstructed.
- The reviewed set does not establish the final rulings on the disqualification, trial court stay, privilege, or September 2017 extension requests.
- The settlement and dismissal concern the counterclaim. They should not be used to declare every claim against every party resolved on the same date.
- This profile covers the specified records reviewed through October 17, 2026. It is not an exhaustive account of every filing, private communication, or later professional activity.
Conclusion
Coleman’s documented connection to Epstein is her civil legal work. The strongest evidence consists of her own signatures, direct emails, and an appellate opinion identifying her as counsel. Reading those records alongside the actual orders and counterclaim outcome makes clear what she requested, what courts decided, and which statements belong to Epstein.
Questions and Answers
Whom did Tonja Haddad Coleman represent?
The cited filings and appellate opinion identify her as counsel for Jeffrey Epstein in the Florida civil action involving Edwards and Rothstein.
Did her September 2013 motion concern Edwards’s own lawyer?
It sought to prevent Edwards himself from serving as co-counsel at trial because he was a material witness. The reviewed motion does not establish whether the court granted that request.
Do the 2017 records prove that Epstein waived privilege?
No. The emails record a dispute about proposed attorney witnesses and the scope of questioning. They do not contain a waiver or a court ruling resolving it.
Did Coleman deliver Epstein’s apology?
The apology is attributed to Epstein. The December 4 clerk minutes identify Scott Link, not Coleman, as addressing the court for him when it was announced.
When was the counterclaim dismissed?
The agreement is dated November 29, 2018, and the settlement was announced on December 4. The voluntary dismissal with prejudice was filed January 7, 2019.
Related EpsteinWiki Articles
Sources
- Original civil complaint. EFTA00729404, page 1; filing stamp December 7, 2009. Used for case identity and filing date.
- Amended motion to compel discovery and for sanctions, filing 494. Filed June 5, 2012; service certificate May 30. Pages 1, 5, 13, 14, and 16.
- Proposed trial exhibit and witness list, annotated copy. EFTA00655529 through EFTA00655537. June 20, 2013 service certificate at PDF page 7.
- Motion to disqualify Edwards as co-counsel. EFTA01112629 through EFTA01112634. September 9, 2013 service certificate at page 5.
- Edwards v. Epstein, No. 4D14-2282. Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal, November 12, 2015, pages 1 and 2.
- Motion to stay proceedings or continue the trial. EFTA00611631 through EFTA00611636. March 7, 2016 service certificate at page 4.
- Epstein v. Edwards, No. SC15-2286. Florida Supreme Court order declining jurisdiction, June 9, 2017, page 1.
- Notice of serving interrogatory answers. EFTA00812320 and EFTA00812321. August 15, 2017; notice on page 1.
- Coleman and Scarola email chain. EFTA01003639 and EFTA01003640, September 20 through 26, 2017.
- Motion for more response time and a continued hearing. EFTA00589735 through EFTA00589740. September 27, 2017 service certificate at page 5.
- Settlement agreement and release. EFTA00804054 through EFTA00804066, dated November 29, 2018. Pages 1, 6, and 13 distinguish the agreement, nonadmission clause, and Epstein apology.
- Clerk trial minutes. EFTA02768954, December 4, 2018, one page; copy marked as not certified.
- Notice of voluntary dismissal of counterclaim with prejudice. EFTA02768955 and EFTA02768956, filed January 7, 2019. Signed notice on page 1.
- Settlement reached in Jeffrey Epstein civil lawsuit. WPTV, December 4, 2018. Contemporary reporting on the court announcement.
- Epstein Data Wiki case guide. Used to locate records. The primary documents above, rather than the guide’s analysis, support the factual account.