Jeffrey Herman

Snapshot

Introduction

Jeffrey Marc Herman appears in the Florida Epstein court record as a lawyer for civil plaintiffs. His 2008 affidavit, letters and electronic signatures document specific acts: identifying his client, addressing service of legal papers, seeking coordinated testimony and proposing a discovery schedule. These records help explain how the early lawsuits developed.

This profile focuses on that work and the later procedural outcomes of four cases. It separates allegations, statements by lawyers and court orders. The cited representation records do not establish that Herman participated in Epstein’s crimes.

Key Takeaways

• Herman’s affidavit identifies him as Jane Doe No. 2’s attorney and dates the filing of her case to February 6, 2008.
• The affidavit was signed June 10, 2008. June 11 is its docket entry date.
• His July 21 declaration sought to correct a point about service of process that he said favored his client.
• The September 25 joint report carries his electronic signature for Jane Does 2 through 5. Its proposed dates are not evidence that the planned events occurred.
• Later discovery motions, court orders and service lists must be attributed to their actual authors. The four cases ended in June 2010 through stipulated dismissal orders that retained jurisdiction to enforce settlements.

Identity and Professional Background

The contemporary Doe No. 4 docket lists Jeffrey Marc Herman, Stuart S. Mermelstein and Adam D. Horowitz for the plaintiff. It identifies Herman & Mermelstein as Herman’s firm. The September joint report uses both Jeffrey M. Herman in the electronic signature and Jeffrey Marc Herman in the counsel list on the same page. That combination verifies the name used here.

Herman Law’s current biography describes Jeff Herman as a trial lawyer for survivors of sexual abuse and the firm’s founding and managing partner. This is a first party description of his practice. The older court filings establish his role in the Epstein cases independently of that biography.

The June 2008 Sworn Affidavit

The affidavit in Jane Doe No. 2’s case is Doc. 9-1 in 9:08-cv-80119-KAM. In paragraph 1, Herman identifies himself as attorney of record. In paragraph 3, he states that the case was filed on February 6, 2008, and that he attended a press conference in West Palm Beach that day.

The signature and notarial statement on page 3 date the affidavit to June 10, 2008. The filing header dates its docket entry to June 11. Paragraph 2 expressly presents the sexual abuse account as allegations in the complaint. Herman’s sworn account of the litigation is not a judicial finding on those allegations.

The attached letters are dated March 13 and March 20, 2008. The first notifies Epstein’s criminal lawyer, Jack A. Goldberger, of representation. The second requests a single deposition usable in the civil and criminal matters. It says agreement from the State Attorney’s Office would also be needed. The letters establish the request, not consent or a completed deposition. Their redactions are preserved.

Court Dockets and the Plaintiff Attorney Roster

Doe No. 4’s docket exhibit is Doc. 27-1 in 9:08-cv-80380-KAM. Its filing header says July 16, 2008, while the report itself displays an “As of” time on July 17. It lists Herman, Mermelstein and Horowitz for Jane Doe No. 4 and records an April 14, 2008 filing date for that case.

The September joint report identifies the four related cases individually: Doe No. 2, 9:08-cv-80119; Doe No. 3, 9:08-cv-80232; Doe No. 4, 9:08-cv-80380; and Doe No. 5, 9:08-cv-80381. A shared filing does not erase their separate case numbers or prove that they were consolidated at that time.

The July 2008 Service Declaration

Herman’s July 21, 2008 declaration in Doe No. 3, Doc. 21, addresses service of process, the formal delivery of lawsuit papers. He says he is correcting an apparent factual error in a July 16 order, even though the error favored the plaintiff.

Herman states that the process server had not mailed the summons and complaint to Epstein’s New York address. He also states that the plaintiff had not claimed mailing or argued that service was valid under New York law. Page 2 bears his electronic signature under penalty of perjury. This establishes his correction to the court; it is not, by itself, a later ruling on whether service was valid.

The September 2008 Discovery Plan

The Joint Scheduling and Discovery Report was entered September 25, 2008, as Doc. 52 in Doe No. 4. Page 6 carries Herman’s electronic signature for Jane Does 2 through 5. Defense lawyers also signed the report. It sets out both shared proposals and points of disagreement.

Pages 2 and 6 propose a November 2009 trial and estimate ten trial days. They do not establish that such a trial occurred. A footnote on page 2 says submitting one report was not an agreement to consolidate the cases. Page 5 records the plaintiffs’ request for coordinated discovery and Epstein’s opposition at that stage.

Coordinated Depositions and Survivor Protections

The privacy positions in the joint report show why procedure mattered. The plaintiffs requested continued anonymity and redaction or sealing of identifying material. Epstein’s position reserved an objection based on his claimed need to conduct discovery. These were competing litigation positions, not a ruling that either side had obstructed the case.

The later April 28, 2009 order in Doe No. 4, Doc. 93, was entered April 29. It granted protection against repeated plaintiff depositions and initially consolidated the cases of Jane Does 2, 3, 4 and 7 for discovery. Six other cases, including Doe No. 5, were ordered to address whether they should be included. The May 14 order in the master case, Doc. 98, then coordinated discovery and procedural motions involving multiple cases while leaving individual substantive motions in their own cases.

The May order limited the defendant to one deposition of each plaintiff. It also allowed defendants and other witnesses common to multiple cases to be deposed only once. It also waived the usual one day, seven hour limit while warning against abuse. Those limits describe the court’s management of the cases. They do not establish who attended a particular deposition.

The Attorney’s Role in the Wider Civil Record

The March 2, 2009 motion to compel is a plaintiff filing in Doe No. 2, Doc. 57. It challenges Epstein’s discovery objections. Its electronic signature is Adam D. Horowitz’s. It should not be attributed to Herman merely because it concerns the same plaintiff or appears in a related document collection.

A June 10, 2009 defense response, master case Doc. 152, includes a service list naming Mermelstein and Horowitz for the related plaintiffs. That list does not name Herman in their entry. It documents the counsel designated for service in that filing, not Herman’s authorship or participation.

Later docket reports and compilations repeat Herman’s name. EFTA00226849 contains docket sections retrieved in 2011, while EFTA01660040 is a master docket report retrieved March 4, 2015. Such lists can preserve historical entries. They do not establish uninterrupted representation or the date of a firm affiliation.

Responses, Disputes and Case Outcomes

The joint report records both sides’ positions on the effect of Epstein’s plea agreement. The plaintiffs argued it established liability on their amended claims. Epstein disputed that reading. The report documents the disagreement, not a decision resolving it.

On June 25, 2010, Judge Kenneth A. Marra entered final dismissal orders in Doe No. 2, Doc. 573, Doe No. 3, Doc. 149, Doe No. 4, Doc. 164 and Doe No. 5, Doc. 147. Each dismissed the action with prejudice under the parties’ stipulation, denied pending motions as moot and retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.

These orders establish the procedural outcomes and the existence of settlements. They do not state settlement amounts, describe admissions, decide each allegation at trial or identify Herman’s role in the final negotiations.

Documented Chronology

Evidence Appearances

A document’s release number identifies a copy. It does not turn a party’s statement, a service list or a later summary into a court finding.

Limitations and Open Questions

• The affidavit documents Herman’s account of his work and litigation history. Its account of abuse remains attributed to the complaint.
• A requested deposition, proposed trial date or estimated trial length does not establish a completed event.
• A lawyer’s presence on a later docket list does not establish continuous representation. The sources here do not fix every withdrawal, substitution, negotiation or fee arrangement.
• The four final orders do not disclose settlement terms or establish an admission of liability. A complete audit of other clients or cases would require their separate dockets and dispositions.
• The published records preserve pseudonyms and redactions. Neither counsel lists nor deposition logistics justify identifying a protected plaintiff.
• Some sources are archived copies of released court records, and several EFTA files are later compilations. They are identified as such rather than counted as independent accounts of the same event.

Related EpsteinWiki Articles

• Jane Doe No. 3 Court Case
• Jane Doe No. 2 Civil Litigation
• The Federal Epstein Investigation

Conclusion

Herman’s documented connection is plaintiff representation in the early Florida civil cases. His signed affidavit, attached letters, service declaration and joint discovery report provide direct evidence of that work. Later motions and orders show how the litigation continued, but they must be credited to the correct lawyers and court. The four core cases ended in stipulated dismissals, with the court retaining jurisdiction to enforce settlements. The 2008 report’s proposed trial date does not itself establish a trial.

Questions and Answers

Was Herman Epstein’s lawyer in these records?

No. The cited affidavit and joint report identify him as counsel for plaintiffs suing Epstein. Defense lawyers appear separately.

Why do June 10 and June 11 both appear?

The affidavit was signed and notarized June 10, 2008. The court header shows it was entered on the docket June 11.

Does every later counsel list prove Herman was still working on the case?

No. Later reports can repeat historical attorney entries. Signed filings and case specific records provide a stronger basis for attributing a particular act.

Did the four cases reach the proposed November 2009 trial?

The report only proposed that date. The final orders reviewed here dismissed the cases under the parties’ stipulations on June 25, 2010, and retained jurisdiction to enforce settlements. They do not record trial verdicts.

What do the settlements prove?

The final orders establish that the cases ended and that the court retained authority to enforce settlements. They do not disclose payments or determine each underlying allegation.

Sources

• Jeffrey M. Herman, Affidavit, June 10, 2008; entered June 11. Doe No. 2, 9:08-cv-80119-KAM, Doc. 9-1, five pages. Archived DOJ copy.
• U.S. District Court docket exhibit, July 2008. Doe No. 4, 9:08-cv-80380-KAM, Doc. 27-1, three pages. Archived DOJ copy.
• Jeffrey M. Herman, Declaration Regarding Service of Process, July 21, 2008. Doe No. 3, 9:08-cv-80232-KAM, Doc. 21, two pages. Archived DOJ copy.
• Parties’ Joint Scheduling and Discovery Report, September 25, 2008. Doe No. 4, 9:08-cv-80380-KAM, Doc. 52, seven pages. Archived DOJ copy.
• Judge Kenneth A. Marra, discovery order, April 28, 2009; entered April 29. Doe No. 4, Doc. 93, four pages. Archived DOJ copy.
• Judge Kenneth A. Marra, coordination order, May 14, 2009. Doe No. 2 master case, Doc. 98, five pages. Archived DOJ copy.
• Judge Kenneth A. Marra, Final Order of Dismissal With Prejudice, June 25, 2010. Doe No. 2, Doc. 573, one page. Archived DOJ copy.
• Judge Kenneth A. Marra, Final Order of Dismissal With Prejudice, June 25, 2010. Doe No. 3, Doc. 149, one page. Archived DOJ copy.
• Judge Kenneth A. Marra, Final Order of Dismissal With Prejudice, June 25, 2010. Doe No. 4, Doc. 164, one page. Archived DOJ copy.
• Judge Kenneth A. Marra, Final Order of Dismissal With Prejudice, June 25, 2010. Doe No. 5, Doc. 147, one page. Archived DOJ copy.
• EFTA00226849. Collection of later retrieved civil docket reports; Doe No. 4 and Doe No. 5 sections on pages 25 and 51.
• EFTA00222291. Epstein’s response concerning sealing, June 10, 2009, Doc. 152; service list on page 7.
• EFTA00728201. Plaintiff’s motion to compel and exhibits, March 2, 2009, Doc. 57; motion begins on page 1.
• EFTA01481978. NEPTUNE LLC / JP Morgan Chase due diligence compilation, report 104749084A; executive summary refers to a May 30, 2013 request. Cover on page 1; counsel entry on page 49.
• EFTA01377939. Single publisher formatted attorney list page from 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139535; printed page 3.
• EFTA01660040. Master case docket report retrieved March 4, 2015; counsel list on page 1.
• Herman Law, “Jeff Herman”. First party professional biography, accessed October 18, 2026. Used only for current professional background.