Skip to main content
Search
< All Topics
Print

Andrew G. Celli, Jr.

Updated
ByEpsteinWiki
Views18

Snapshot

FieldDetails
Full nameAndrew G. Celli, Jr.
Professional roleNew York trial and appellate lawyer and a founding partner of Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel LLP.
Documented clientAlan M. Dershowitz, a proposed intervenor in Giuffre v. Maxwell, when Celli entered his appearance on August 11, 2016.
Underlying caseGiuffre v. Maxwell, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 1:15-cv-07433.
AppealBrown v. Maxwell and the related Dershowitz appeals, decided July 3, 2019. Celli is listed for Dershowitz on page 4.
Representation endpointJune 24, 2020 substitution order replaced Celli’s firm with Aidala, Bertuna & Kamins, P.C., in this case.
Main limitThese records establish legal representation and positions on public access. They do not establish Celli’s participation in Epstein’s abuse.

Introduction

Andrew G. Celli, Jr. appears in the Epstein court record as a lawyer for Alan Dershowitz in disputes over sealed documents. His 2016 notice of appearance and the 2019 appellate opinion identify that client directly. His work concerned access to records in Virginia Giuffre’s defamation lawsuit against Ghislaine Maxwell.

This profile follows the documented representation from the district court through the appeal and the 2020 substitution of counsel. It also explains what the access ruling changed. A lawyer’s court appearance establishes a professional role. It does not, by itself, establish a social relationship with Epstein or involvement in his crimes.

Key Takeaways

  • Celli entered his appearance on August 11, 2016 for Dershowitz. His role began before the appellate proceedings.
  • A May 8, 2018 letter bearing Celli’s electronic signature supported the Miami Herald’s application to intervene and unseal records. It did not make him the newspaper’s lawyer.
  • The July 3, 2019 decision ordered access to the summary judgment record, with limited redactions, and individual review of the remaining sealed materials.
  • The June 24, 2020 order replaced his firm as Dershowitz’s counsel in this case.
  • Neither a lawyer’s argument nor the release of a court filing makes every allegation in that filing a proven fact.

Professional Identity

Celli’s official firm biography identifies him as a founding partner and a trial and appellate lawyer whose practice includes constitutional, civil rights, and commercial cases. The current firm name is Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel LLP. The filings discussed here use the earlier name Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP.

The identity match rests on the full name, firm, named client, and signature blocks in the court documents. The appellate counsel list names David A. Lebowitz on the brief with Celli for Dershowitz. Giuffre, Maxwell, Michael Cernovich, and the Herald had separate counsel.

Reuters also describes earlier work by Dershowitz for Epstein on the 2008 Florida nonprosecution agreement. That client relationship does not establish that Celli represented Epstein.

The Underlying Defamation Lawsuit

The appellate court’s account describes Giuffre’s September 21, 2015 defamation suit against Maxwell and the extensive discovery that followed. Discovery is the process through which parties exchange evidence. Some materials were later filed with the court in support of requests for rulings.

Maxwell and Giuffre settled in May 2017, but the dispute over access to their court filings continued. A public access question is separate from whether a disputed allegation is true. The distinction between private discovery and documents used in judicial decisions became central to the appeal. Opinion, pages 8 and 14 through 18.

Celli’s District Court Representation

The August 2016 appearance and motion

Document 365, filed August 11, 2016, is Celli’s notice of appearance for proposed intervenor Alan M. Dershowitz. An intervenor is someone allowed to take part in an existing lawsuit to protect a particular interest. The notice carries an electronic signature above Celli’s name.

The accompanying notice of motion, Document 362, sought permission for Dershowitz to intervene and to unseal selected documents or change the protective order that restricted their use. Its signature block names Celli and Lebowitz. Their September 15 reply memorandum, Document 436, renewed that request. These are requests made for a client, not findings by the court.

The May 2018 letter

Celli’s May 8, 2018 letter, Document 947, supported Julie Brown and the Miami Herald Media Company’s pending access application. A fuller public copy, Document 1296-16, explains a related request: if certain deposition testimony were released, Dershowitz wanted accompanying correspondence and an earlier letter released at the same time. Celli argued that the additional materials were needed to answer the testimony and avoid an unfairly selective release.

The letter records the client’s position and the relief his lawyer sought. It does not establish that the court accepted the letter’s assessment of a witness or its factual assertions. It also does not show that Celli represented Epstein, Maxwell, or the Herald in this dispute.

Questions Presented on Appeal

The Second Circuit opinion distinguishes the intervenors’ requests. Dershowitz initially sought three documents that he said would rebut accusations against him. Cernovich sought the summary judgment record, and Dershowitz joined that motion. The Herald later sought access to the full docket.

The common question was whether the district court had reviewed the records individually and properly weighed public access against privacy interests. The appeals were argued together on March 6, 2019. The opinion’s captions identify No. 18-2868-cv and related Nos. 16-3945-cv(L), 17-1625, and 17-1722. Opinion, pages 1, 2, and 9.

The July 3, 2019 Decision

The court vacated three sealing decisions, meaning it set aside the orders entered November 2, 2016, May 3, 2017, and August 27, 2018. It ordered the summary judgment record opened upon issuance of its mandate, the formal notice putting the appellate judgment into effect. Other sealed materials returned to the district court for individual review.

Pages 13 and 14, footnote 22, explain that release was subject to limited redactions. These protected personal identifying information, alleged minor victims’ names, and certain intimate deposition answers. Judge Rosemary Pooler agreed with the opinion except for opening the summary judgment record without first returning that task to the district court. That qualification appears on page 3.

The decision did not rule that every accusation in the documents was true. It expressly warned readers to assess allegations critically. Nor should the result be attributed to Celli alone: multiple intervenors brought the appeals, and the court decided their access claims together. Opinion, pages 21 through 25.

Responses and Later Developments

Courthouse News Service reported Celli’s response to the decision. He welcomed the opening of the court files and connected it to First Amendment interests and public trust. The same report included Giuffre’s lawyer David Boies welcoming greater access. Those reactions express the lawyers’ views, rather than a new judicial finding about the allegations.

Document 1066, ordered June 24, 2020, substituted Aidala, Bertuna & Kamins, P.C., for Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP as Dershowitz’s counsel in Giuffre v. Maxwell. Celli signed as outgoing counsel. The lawyers dated the stipulation June 23; Judge Loretta A. Preska’s approval is dated June 24. The order does not state a reason for the change.

A separate case, Giuffre v. Dershowitz, No. 1:19-cv-03377, later ended by agreement. Luc Cohen reported for Reuters on November 8, 2022 that the parties were dropping their competing defamation claims. Dershowitz had denied Giuffre’s accusations. Giuffre said she might have been mistaken in identifying Dershowitz; he welcomed her acknowledgment. The corrected dismissal stipulation filed November 9, 2022, provides for dismissal with prejudice, without costs or an award of fees, and waives appeals. It is a negotiated disposition, not a trial finding. This later outcome supplies context; it does not establish Celli’s role in arranging it.

Chronology

Evidence Appearances

  • Giuffre v. Maxwell, Document 365: August 11, 2016, one page. Celli’s notice of appearance and electronic signature directly identify Dershowitz as his proposed intervenor client.
  • Document 362 and Document 436: August 11 and September 15, 2016. The notice of motion, pages 1 and 2, and the reply’s PDF page 15, printed page 11, identify the requested intervention and disclosure relief and the lawyers’ signature block.
  • Document 947 and Document 1296-16: Copies of the May 8, 2018 letter, two pages each. The original public filing is partly redacted. The fuller later copy shows the simultaneous release request. The letter date is not the later copy’s filing date. Celli’s electronic signature is on page 2.
  • Second Circuit No. 17-1722, Document 187-1: July 3, 2019, 25 pages. Page 4 lists Celli for Dershowitz. Pages 8 and 9 describe the requests. Pages 13 and 14 explain redactions; pages 24 and 25 state the outcome. This is a court opinion, not a filing authored by Celli.
  • Giuffre v. Maxwell, Document 1066: June 24, 2020, one page. The signed substitution order identifies Celli as outgoing counsel. Its underlying stipulation is dated June 23.

Related Case Records

The following records provide context for the litigation. They should not be counted as personal appearances by Celli.

  • DOJ-OGR-00003556 through DOJ-OGR-00003599: A 44 page excerpt of Maxwell’s April 22, 2016 deposition. PDF page 1 gives the date; page 2 lists the attorneys present. It does not list Celli.
  • EFTA00794556: A transcript of March 31, 2017 oral argument before Judge Robert W. Sweet, case No. 15 Civ. 7433. The first page lists counsel for Giuffre and Maxwell. It is a case context source, not proof that Celli argued at that hearing.
  • DOJ-OGR-00002469: PDF page 3, transcript page 2, within the 33 page file DOJ-OGR-00002467 through DOJ-OGR-00002499. The hearing occurred January 19, 2021. The copy was filed February 4, 2021, as United States v. Maxwell, No. 1:20-cr-00330, Document 136-9. Judge Preska describes another round of review; the final transcript page emphasizes individual privacy decisions. This hearing followed Celli’s 2020 substitution.

Limitations and Open Questions

The reviewed records establish Celli’s client, court filings, appellate listing, and substitution in this case. They do not disclose a complete history of his private advice, fees, or work in other matters. The substitution order does not explain why counsel changed.

Representation is not proof of a client’s conduct, and an unsealing decision is not a verdict on the allegations released. Keeping information sealed does not establish that it is false or irrelevant. The deposition and hearing transcripts above do not establish that Celli attended those proceedings. The later dismissal in Giuffre v. Dershowitz should not be described as a factual finding in the earlier access appeal.

This profile is based on selected public court records, an official professional biography, and identified reporting reviewed through October 18, 2026. It is not a complete inventory of every mention in the Epstein files. Protected identities and private contact information are not reproduced.

Related EpsteinWiki Articles

Conclusion

Celli’s documented connection is his representation of Dershowitz in litigation over access to court records. His notice of appearance, signed correspondence, appellate listing, and substitution order provide a clear account of that role. The resulting access decisions made more material public while preserving specific privacy protections. They did not settle the truth of every statement in the files.

Questions and Answers

Who did Celli represent in the unsealing dispute?

His notice of appearance identifies Alan M. Dershowitz. The 2019 opinion confirms the same client. It lists separate counsel for the other parties and intervenors.

Did the appeals court open every document without redactions?

No. It ordered release of the summary judgment record with limited redactions and sent the remaining sealed materials back for individual review. Opinion, pages 13, 14, 24, and 25.

When did Celli’s firm leave this case?

Judge Preska approved replacement counsel on June 24, 2020. That date applies to the representation in Giuffre v. Maxwell; it is not a finding about every professional relationship Celli may have had.

Does his name in these records establish wrongdoing?

No. The cited records document legal work and arguments about access. They do not establish Celli’s participation in Epstein’s abuse or turn him into a witness to the underlying events.

Sources

Posted
ByEpsteinWiki
Tags:
Previous Allison Gill’s Epstein Training Video Lawsuit: MSW Media v. DOJ
Next Annie Farmer v. Ghislaine Maxwell and the Epstein Estate
Table of Contents