Pavillion Agency and Jeffrey Epstein: Staffing Searches, “Mr. Smith” Interviews, and the Recruitment Record
Snapshot
| Field | Details |
|---|---|
| Organization | Pavillion Agency, a household-staffing business associated with Keith and Clifford Greenhouse. |
| Verified correspondence period | February 21–March 21, 2014. |
| Named position | Director of Residences. Several applicants were considered; a second commissioned role has not been established. |
| Agency correspondence | Alisha Perrigoue, identifying herself as Keith Greenhouse’s executive assistant; Keith was copied and Richard Kahn reported speaking with him directly. |
| Epstein-side coordination | Richard Kahn and Lesley Groff, with candidate material and arrangements forwarded to Jeffrey Epstein. |
| Activities shown | Candidate submissions, Skype arrangements, “Mr Smith” instructions, interview feedback, follow-up and renewed sourcing. |
| Cross-agency overlap | Kahn reported receiving one applicant’s résumé from Pavillion and, previously, Peter Mahler. |
| Unresolved outcome | No completed Pavillion placement, fee, payment, signed engagement or start date is established by the reviewed records. |
What the Epstein records establish
Pavillion Agency appears in released correspondence concerning household recruitment for Jeffrey Epstein in early 2014. A February 21 email titled “Director of Residences” (EFTA02580974–75, pp. 1–2) transmits paperwork for two applicants from Alisha Perrigoue to Richard Kahn and identifies Perrigoue as Keith Greenhouse’s executive assistant at Pavillion. Kahn subsequently forwarded the material to Epstein.
The record develops beyond a name in a contact list. It contains candidate submissions, direct agency correspondence, appointment changes, requests for feedback and further candidates, and Kahn’s account of speaking with Keith. Those exchanges document a recruitment process. They leave the final employment and financial outcome open. Applicant initials are used here because private résumés, contact information and references are unnecessary to explain the agency’s role.
Key Takeaways
- The records establish a substantive recruitment process: agency submissions, direct coordination, interview feedback and further candidate searches.
- One named Director of Residences search is documented. Applicant counts and repeated email copies do not establish additional assignments.
- Kahn expressly attributed a February 24 Skype with an initial applicant to Epstein. Later scheduled calls have different, sometimes unresolved outcomes.
- “Mr Smith” was the name used in interview arrangements. By March 21, Kahn’s instruction to the agency explicitly identified Epstein while retaining that interview name.
- A résumé submitted through both Pavillion and Peter Mahler establishes overlapping candidate submissions, without establishing an agency partnership.
- The engagement’s origin, financial terms and any completed placement remain open questions. The separate 2005 civil investigation must retain its own legal chronology and outcome limits.
Who handled the recruitment?
| Person | Role supported by the relevant records |
|---|---|
| Keith Greenhouse | Pavillion principal in Kahn’s March 7 account; presenter on agency-branded candidate packets; copied on agency correspondence. Kahn reports speaking with him directly. |
| Alisha Perrigoue | Signs as executive assistant to Keith at Pavillion; sends candidate material, follows up at Keith’s request and coordinates availability. |
| Richard Kahn | Receives agency material, forwards it to Epstein, relays feedback and requests interviews and further candidates. |
| Lesley Groff | Receives agency confirmations, coordinates Skype appointments and forwards arrangements to Epstein. |
| Asma Alahiane | Appears in copied-recipient fields. Those fields alone do not establish authorship, decision-making or that a message was read. |
| Jeffrey Epstein | Receives candidate material and scheduling requests, expresses interest in Skype interviews and is identified by Kahn as having interviewed an initial applicant. |
The identifying headers and signatures are visible in the February correspondence, the March scheduling chain and Kahn’s March 7 message.
Chronology: February–March 2014
| Date | Documented event | Primary source |
|---|---|---|
| February 21 | Perrigoue sends two applicants’ paperwork for the Director of Residences search. | EFTA02580974–75, pp. 1–2 |
| February 22 | Kahn forwards résumés he says he showed Epstein the preceding day and asks whether to arrange Skype interviews. | EFTA00984258, p. 1 |
| February 24 | Kahn forwards two additional agency submissions, originally sent February 21. Four candidate submissions do not establish four jobs. | EFTA00983755, p. 1; EFTA01187755, p. 1 |
| February 24 | Kahn says he has not yet supplied the agency with the principal’s name or much other information. | EFTA00374136, p. 1 |
| February 24 | Groff forwards confirmed appointments and says the candidates have been told they will Skype with Mr Smith. Subsequent messages address a connection that has not yet been accepted. | EFTA01934031, p. 1; EFTA01934504, p. 1; EFTA01934733, p. 1 |
| February 25–26 | Kahn relays interview feedback; Perrigoue acknowledges it. She later forwards initial applicant M.F.’s post-interview note. | EFTA00374173, pp. 1–2; EFTA00622661, p. 4 / EFTA00622664 |
| March 7 | Kahn reports speaking with Keith that morning and expressly refers to Epstein’s February 24 Skype with M.F. | EFTA01932351, p. 1 |
| March 7 | Kahn says applicant B.G.’s résumé came from Pavillion and previously from Peter Mahler in October 2013. | EFTA00985285, p. 1 |
| March 12 | Kahn offers an in-person meeting, Skype or neither for applicant K.V.; Epstein replies “Skype.” | EFTA00676467, p. 1; EFTA00985842, p. 1 |
| March 13–14 | An appointment is repeatedly moved. Kahn reports an unsuccessful connection; Perrigoue disputes that the candidate failed to appear. | EFTA02581729–36, pp. 1–5 |
| March 17 | Perrigoue reports a successful test call and an old-account issue. Kahn proposes another attempt and asks for more résumés. | EFTA02517782, pp. 1–2 |
| March 17–18 | The agency promises further résumés and reminds Kahn about B.G.; Kahn again asks Epstein about interviewing K.V. An embedded Kahn-signed note reports lack of interest in a previously submitted profile, but its standalone header is incomplete. | EFTA02518190, pp. 1–2 |
| March 19–21 | Further candidate and interview arrangements continue. Kahn explicitly instructs Perrigoue to introduce Epstein as Mr Smith; the latest agency message still awaits final confirmations. | EFTA00372506–11, pp. 1–2, 4–5 |
Dates in this chronology refer to the messages, rather than release, scanning or indexing dates. Some displayed email headers omit time zones or render quoted times differently; they should not be silently converted into a single precise time sequence.
The Director of Residences search and candidate packets
The February correspondence names one formal search: Director of Residences. The initial submissions were followed by additional applicants, repeated scheduling and requests for further résumés. One applicant’s post-interview note (p. 4) describes an open family-office position. That wording does not, by itself, establish a separately commissioned job.
Agency-branded packets provide a second form of evidence. A fourteen-page packet identifies K.V.’s materials as presented by Keith Greenhouse; its fourth page contains Perrigoue’s February 21 transmittal. A three-page K.R.H. résumé carries a Pavillion header and the description “Multi-Property Estate Manager +.” These packet labels establish how applicants were presented. They do not identify the properties covered by Epstein’s prospective role or prove that an applicant was hired.
EFTA00301558 is the verified source for that K.R.H. résumé header. EFTA02580974 is an email chain, rather than the résumé itself. A connection between a separately released packet and a particular email attachment requires its own evidence.
What the Mr Smith instructions show
On February 24, Kahn wrote that he had not yet provided the agency with the principal’s name or much other information. Groff’s subsequent message to Epstein says the candidates were told they would Skype with Mr Smith. Those messages establish the name used for the appointments and Kahn’s account of what he had disclosed at that time.
The later correspondence is more explicit. On March 21, Kahn instructed Perrigoue (p. 2 / EFTA00372507) to introduce Epstein as Mr Smith. Consequently, February’s non-disclosure statement should not be treated as a description of every later exchange. The records do not explain the purpose of the alternate name or establish what every copied recipient knew.
Interviews, feedback and the missing placement outcome
There is evidence beyond appointment planning. Kahn’s March 7 email explicitly describes M.F. as someone Epstein had Skyped on February 24. The February 25 feedback and the candidate’s subsequent note (p. 4) provide additional contemporaneous accounts of an interview.
In the feedback relayed to Perrigoue (pp. 1–2), Kahn discussed preferences involving hands-on work and formality and used the wording “military background / Asian.” Perrigoue acknowledged receiving the feedback and anticipated discussing it with Keith. The wording belongs to this exchange; it should not be expanded into an undocumented agency-wide policy or an unstated purpose for the job.
The later K.V. episode has a different evidentiary endpoint. Groff moved the March 13 appointment twice. On March 14, Kahn said the candidate had been unavailable and the principal upset; Perrigoue said the candidate had waited online and disputed a no-show. Her March 17 follow-up described a test call and an old Skype-account issue. Kahn then proposed trying again. The reviewed chain does not confirm that the retry occurred.
No reviewed Pavillion record supplies an accepted offer, start date, placement invoice, payment or termination. Requests, interviews, reported lack of interest and pending confirmations should each retain their actual status.
The Peter Mahler overlap
Mahler Private Staffing is presented as a staffing business within Mahler Enterprises in its company materials.
Kahn’s March 7 email concerning B.G. states that the résumé had been received from Pavillion and also from Peter Mahler in October 2013. That is a specific documentary link between two recruiting routes through the same applicant. It does not show that the agencies coordinated, shared ownership or jointly charged a fee.
Mahler’s separate staffing activity has an earlier chronology. For example, a December 3, 2012 chain discusses an island general-manager search and seeks operational details about staffing, buildings and reporting lines. That earlier Mahler record does not extend the verified dates of Pavillion’s own correspondence.
Company principals and business background
Pavillion’s published biographies identify Keith Greenhouse as CEO and Clifford Greenhouse as president. A December 2000 WIPO decision also identified them in those roles and described Cliff as Keith’s brother. The same decision concerned a dispute with a competing business, Greenhouse Agency Ltd.; that competitor should not be confused with Greenhouse Domestics Inc.
Historical reporting goes further than job titles: a June 2004 Financial Times feature described Keith and Clifford as joint owners. That supports ownership as reported then, rather than a present-day share allocation. New York’s corporation record gives Pavillion Agency Inc. the identifier 782131 and an initial filing date of July 15, 1982. The company’s older trading history and the corporation’s filing date are different measures.
The Nanny Authority describes itself as a Pavillion affiliate. Pavillion’s own history also describes payroll and training operations. These business descriptions help identify the organization; they do not change the role named in the Epstein correspondence into a nanny search or establish that an affiliate participated in it.
The separate 2005 civil-rights investigation
Pavillion also appears in a public civil-regulatory record from almost nine years before the correspondence discussed above. On May 31, 2005, New York’s Attorney General announced that eight employment agencies had agreed to consent decrees following an investigation into discriminatory screening. The release said federal civil-rights suits had been filed against two agencies that declined agreements: “Pavilion Agency, Inc.”, using a single-l spelling, and Quality Domestic Help Agency. The eight settling firms collectively agreed to $118,000 in costs and penalties. That sum was not attributed to Pavillion.
In Matter of Pavillion Agency, Inc. v Spitzer, 2005 NY Slip Op 25317, decided August 3, 2005, the state court denied the requested quashing of investigative subpoenas while protecting domestic-service clients’ identifying information. The opinion identifies Clifford as an officer who had been deposed and discusses employee testimony sought from Seth Greenberg and Ira Weissman. Requests concerning Sonia Nayyar and Holly Rucki were withdrawn. This was a ruling about investigative process and disclosure, rather than a final finding on the discrimination allegations.
The 2005 court decision describes Pavillion as an employer-paid referral service: applicants were not charged referral fees, and the hiring household paid the worker’s salary directly. The court found applicant records, placement fees, hiring rates and requested job characteristics relevant to the investigation, while protecting clients’ identifying information. This describes the business model and investigative ruling in 2005. It does not establish the terms of Epstein’s later recruitment search or prove that he paid Pavillion.
A December 14, 2006 Wall Street Journal column reported, quoting an Attorney General spokesperson, that all ten agencies had settled. The passage does not identify Pavillion individually or reproduce its terms. A Pavillion-specific agreement, federal docket and definitive disposition have not been located in the records reviewed for this article. The 2005 opinion supplies no Epstein connection.
Evidence Appearances
These are the principal documentary anchors for the findings above. Page numbers refer to the linked released file; Bates labels identify individual released pages.
| Record or record group | Pages / Bates locator | What it shows | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| EFTA02580974–75 | pp. 1–2 | Initial Director of Residences submissions and forwarding chain. | Official DOJ release |
| EFTA00984258 | p. 1 | February 22 Kahn forwarding header and request for interviews. | Released PDF |
| EFTA00983755; EFTA01187755 | p. 1 of each | Two additional candidate submissions. | First forward; second forward |
| EFTA01205013–26 | pp. 1, 4; EFTA01205016 | Keith-presented packet and February 21 agency transmittal. | Official DOJ release |
| EFTA00301558–60 | p. 1 | Separate Pavillion-branded estate-manager résumé header. | Released PDF |
| EFTA00374136 | p. 1 | Kahn’s February 24 account of not yet disclosing the principal’s name. | Released PDF |
| EFTA01934031 | p. 1 | Named Groff forwarding header, agency confirmation and Mr Smith wording. | Released PDF |
| EFTA01934504; EFTA01934733 | p. 1 of each | February 24 connection difficulty and agency follow-up. | Epstein message; Groff reply |
| EFTA00374173–76 | pp. 1–2; EFTA00374174 | Kahn’s interview feedback and agency acknowledgment. | Released PDF |
| EFTA00622661–66 | p. 4; EFTA00622664 | Forwarded post-interview note. | Released PDF |
| EFTA01932351–52 | p. 1 | Kahn’s direct Keith contact and explicit February 24 interview account; ambiguous Dubin reference. | Released PDF |
| EFTA00985285 | p. 1 | Same applicant submitted through Pavillion and Peter Mahler at different times. | Released PDF |
| EFTA00676467; EFTA00985842 | p. 1 of each | March 12 meeting options and Epstein’s Skype choice. | Kahn request; Epstein reply |
| EFTA02581729–36 | pp. 1–8 | March scheduling chain and competing accounts of the failed connection. | Official DOJ release |
| EFTA02517782–85 | pp. 1–2 | Test-call explanation and proposed retry. | Released PDF |
| EFTA02518190–95 | pp. 1–2 | March 17–18 further-candidate follow-up; partially headed lack-of-interest report. | Released PDF |
| EFTA00372506–11 | pp. 1–2, 4–5; explicit instruction at EFTA00372507 | Further interviews and instruction to introduce Epstein as Mr Smith. | Released dataset copy |
| EFTA02154711 | pp. 1–2 | Separate December 2012 Mahler-route island general-manager specifications. | Released PDF |
Evidence limits and unresolved questions
| Question | Current documentary position |
|---|---|
| How did Kahn or Epstein first reach Pavillion? | The engagement’s origin is not established. The verified agency correspondence begins February 21, 2014. |
| Did Pavillion handle another Epstein assignment? | One formal Director of Residences search is named. Repeated applicants, packets and interview attempts do not establish additional commissions. |
| Which properties did the role cover? | The reviewed agency correspondence does not establish a definitive property list. Applicants’ past multi-property experience cannot supply it. |
| Was an applicant hired? | An interview is contemporaneously reported; a completed placement is not established. |
| What did Pavillion charge or receive? | No verified engagement contract, placement invoice or payment has been identified. |
| Does a March 7 Dubin reference establish a client relationship? | The relevant paragraph shifts between Keith and a candidate whose first name is misstated. Its pronouns do not support a definite Pavillion–Dubin client conclusion. |
The last ambiguity can be checked directly in EFTA01932351, p. 1. Candidate references to prior employers likewise do not establish those employers as Pavillion clients or participants in Epstein’s recruitment.
The correspondence has been examined through original page images, official releases and public copies of released documents. Search indexes and OCR were used to locate records, with candidate packets and repeated quoted messages grouped into related chains. Search coverage is incomplete; this article does not claim to account for every Epstein file. Public reviews and unverified social-media allegations are not substitutes for evidence about the recruitment documented here.
Conclusion
The primary record places Pavillion within a documented household-recruitment process for Epstein in February and March 2014. Perrigoue transmitted applicants and coordinated availability, Kahn handled requests and feedback, and Groff arranged interviews. Kahn’s written account supports an actual February 24 interview with one initial applicant. Later records show unsuccessful connections, renewed sourcing and instructions to continue using Mr Smith in introductions.
The evidence is strongest on the process and weakest on the final transaction. No reviewed document establishes how the engagement began, what the agency charged or received, whether an offer was accepted, or whether a worker started. A careful account can therefore describe the recruiting activity in detail while leaving the placement and financial outcome unresolved. Pavillion’s earlier civil-regulatory history is separately documented and does not resolve those missing facts.
Questions and Answers
Did Epstein use Pavillion Agency?
The correspondence establishes that Pavillion supplied candidate material to Kahn for a search whose arrangements and feedback reached Epstein. It also records Groff’s direct coordination with the agency and Kahn’s account of speaking with Keith Greenhouse.
Was this a nanny search?
The named position was Director of Residences. Pavillion’s involvement in the broader household-staffing industry, including its Nanny Authority affiliation, does not establish that these particular applicants were being recruited as nannies.
Did an interview actually take place?
Kahn expressly attributes a February 24 Skype with initial applicant M.F. to Epstein. Interview feedback and a forwarded candidate note provide additional contemporaneous accounts. Other entries describe proposed appointments or unsuccessful connections and should not all be counted as completed interviews.
Did the agency know Epstein’s name?
Kahn said on February 24 that he had not yet supplied it. By March 21, his written instruction to Perrigoue explicitly named Epstein while directing that he be introduced as Mr Smith. The records do not establish every individual’s knowledge through every channel.
Does the Mahler email prove the agencies worked together?
It establishes parallel submission of the same applicant’s résumé at different times. It does not establish coordinated business, common ownership or a joint placement.
Do these records establish knowing participation in Epstein’s crimes?
The cited records establish recruitment activity and instructions about interview identification. They do not themselves establish knowing criminal participation by Pavillion or its personnel.
What would resolve the largest remaining gaps?
An engagement agreement, the original referral correspondence, a placement invoice or payment record, an accepted offer and a confirmed start date would clarify origin, scope, fees and outcome. Those questions remain open in the reviewed record.
Sources
Released correspondence and candidate packets
- EFTA00301558 — released record; relevant pages and evidentiary use are specified above.
- EFTA00372506 — released record; relevant pages and evidentiary use are specified above.
- EFTA00374136 — released record; relevant pages and evidentiary use are specified above.
- EFTA00374173 — released record; relevant pages and evidentiary use are specified above.
- EFTA00622661 — released record; relevant pages and evidentiary use are specified above.
- EFTA00676467 — released record; relevant pages and evidentiary use are specified above.
- EFTA00983755 — released record; relevant pages and evidentiary use are specified above.
- EFTA00984258 — released record; relevant pages and evidentiary use are specified above.
- EFTA00985285 — released record; relevant pages and evidentiary use are specified above.
- EFTA00985842 — released record; relevant pages and evidentiary use are specified above.
- EFTA01187755 — released record; relevant pages and evidentiary use are specified above.
- EFTA01205013 — released record; relevant pages and evidentiary use are specified above.
- EFTA01932351 — released record; relevant pages and evidentiary use are specified above.
- EFTA01934031 — released record; relevant pages and evidentiary use are specified above.
- EFTA01934504 — released record; relevant pages and evidentiary use are specified above.
- EFTA01934733 — released record; relevant pages and evidentiary use are specified above.
- EFTA02154711 — released record; relevant pages and evidentiary use are specified above.
- EFTA02517782 — released record; relevant pages and evidentiary use are specified above.
- EFTA02518190 — released record; relevant pages and evidentiary use are specified above.
- EFTA02580974 — released record; relevant pages and evidentiary use are specified above.
- EFTA02581729 — released record; relevant pages and evidentiary use are specified above.
Company, corporate and administrative records
- Mahler Enterprises, company description of Mahler Private Staffing.
- Keith Greenhouse biography.
- Clifford Greenhouse biography.
- WIPO D2000-1221, factual background.
- New York official entity extract.
- The Nanny Authority, Our Story.
- Pavillion company history.
Civil-regulatory records and historical reporting
- New York Attorney General, May 31, 2005.
- 2005 NY Slip Op 25317, 9 Misc. 3d 626.
- Sarah Richards, Financial Times, author-hosted clipping, p. 1.
- Sue Shellenbarger, Wall Street Journal, p. D1, hosted clipping.
The Financial Times ownership description is historical reporting from June 2004. The Wall Street Journal settlement account is dated December 14, 2006 and quotes an Attorney General spokesperson; it is not the Pavillion-specific agreement. Current company biographies describe the company’s published positions and roles.