Jeffrey S. Pagliuca

Snapshot

Introduction

Jeffrey S. Pagliuca represented Ghislaine Maxwell in civil litigation brought by Virginia Giuffre and in Maxwell’s later federal criminal case. The records connect his work across those proceedings: civil depositions became the subject of criminal evidence disputes, and he signed a memorandum asking the criminal court to exclude that material. He also took an active role at trial. The deposition transcript, his signed memorandum and the trial transcript document those different activities.

This profile follows identifiable professional actions and the courts’ responses. A lawyer’s representation of a client, including objections or confidentiality requests, does not by itself establish participation in that client’s crimes.

Key Takeaways

• Pagliuca introduced himself and Laura Menninger as Maxwell’s counsel at both the April and July 2016 civil depositions.
• His electronic signature appears on a June 2016 sealed-exhibit notice and the May 2017 stipulation ending the civil case.
• Judge Alison J. Nathan denied Maxwell’s suppression motions in June 2021. The defense request and the ruling must be read separately.
• The second subpoena application was dated March 19, 2021 and signed by Menninger. Its September public filing followed an August denial without prejudice.
• The later conviction, appeals and post-conviction decision concern Maxwell. They do not establish that Pagliuca handled every later proceeding.

Civil Representation and the 2016 Depositions

In Giuffre v. Maxwell, Pagliuca represented the defendant. The April 22, 2016 deposition’s counsel page lists him with Menninger. On transcript page 4, he identifies both lawyers as appearing for Maxwell. The continued deposition on July 22 contains the same introduction. These passages establish his presence and speaking role, rather than merely a name added to a filing’s attorney list. April transcript, pages 2 and 4; July transcript, page 4.

The opposing sides must remain clear. Giuffre’s lawyers pursued her civil claim; Pagliuca and Menninger represented Maxwell. An attorney’s appearance at a deposition does not establish that the attorney witnessed the earlier events discussed in the testimony.

The Edwards Subpoena and Sealed Exhibits

Related litigation concerned a subpoena to Bradley J. Edwards, a lawyer for Giuffre. In a June 29, 2016 notice bearing Pagliuca’s electronic signature, Maxwell’s side reported that exhibits A, G, H, I and N to his declaration had been filed under seal. A separate motion bearing his signature asked for leave to keep those exhibits sealed under the civil case’s protective order. Notice, Document 7, pages 1 and 2; sealing motion, Document 6, pages 1 and 2.

The original caption was in the Southern District of Florida, No. 0:16-mc-61262. The dispute was later transferred to New York, where it carried No. 17-mc-25. A June 2017 closing order states that the motion to quash had been resolved by a sealed opinion dated April 4, 2017. That closing order does not explain the full disposition. Transfer order, Document 29; closing order, Document 38.

These records support a filing and confidentiality history. They do not establish destruction of evidence or acceptance of every position advanced by the defense. A separate released declaration, EFTA02782527, is authored and signed by Laura Menninger. It should not be treated as Pagliuca’s declaration or as another copy of his June 29 notice.

Summary Judgment and the Civil Settlement

Judge Robert W. Sweet denied Maxwell’s summary-judgment motion in an opinion signed March 22, 2017. The redacted version was publicly filed on April 27 as Document 872. Its first page lists Pagliuca among Maxwell’s counsel; its final page carries the earlier decision date. Denial meant that Maxwell had not obtained judgment without trial. It was not a jury verdict resolving every underlying allegation. Opinion, pages 1 and 76; Brown v. Maxwell, page 8.

Pagliuca’s electronic signature appears on the joint stipulation filed May 24, 2017 after settlement. Judge Sweet approved it May 25. The action was dismissed with prejudice, with each side bearing its own fees and costs. The order does not supply a basis to describe the settlement as a criminal finding or an admission by either party. Joint stipulation, Document 916; so-ordered stipulation, Document 919, pages 1 and 2.

The Criminal Suppression Request and Its Denial

Pagliuca signed a memorandum dated January 25, 2021 and publicly filed February 4 as Document 140 in the criminal case. It invoked the Fourth and Fifth Amendments and the Martindell protective-order doctrine. The requested relief included excluding evidence obtained through a government subpoena, alternatively excluding the two 2016 depositions and evidence derived from them, and dismissing the then-numbered counts five and six. It also requested an evidentiary hearing. Document 140, pages 1, 5 and 21.

Judge Nathan rejected the suppression motions in her June 25, 2021 opinion. She concluded that obtaining the civil-case material had not violated Maxwell’s constitutional rights and that neither suppression nor an evidentiary hearing was warranted. The order expressly denied motions 133 and 139. The defense memorandum records the arguments made for Maxwell; the opinion records their rejection. Document 307, pages 20 and 21.

Subpoena Requests and Individual Attribution

The second Rule 17(c)(3) application sought permission to serve four subpoenas for records and other material. Pagliuca appears among counsel, but the signature on the final page is Menninger’s. The application is dated March 19, 2021, although its public docket stamp is September 7. Document 336, pages 1 and 10.

The dates reflect unsealing, not a request first made in September. Judge Nathan’s August 13 opinion denied the requests without prejudice, allowing renewal upon a proper showing under the rules governing relevance, admissibility and specificity. A September 2 order, filed September 3, directed public filing of the motion with approved redactions and unsealed the August opinion. Document 334, pages 1, 2 and 10; Document 333, page 1.

A similar attribution distinction applies to the memorandum seeking to strike surplusage, meaning unnecessary allegations in the indictment. Document 146 lists Pagliuca but bears Mark S. Cohen’s signature. Co-counsel listings establish membership of the defense team, not individual authorship of every argument. Document 146, page 15.

Trial Work and Later Criminal Outcomes

The December 17, 2021 trial transcript records Pagliuca calling Eva Andersson Dubin as a defense witness and beginning her direct examination. Later in that examination, he used redacted flight records admitted in evidence. This documents courtroom advocacy; it does not place him on any of the flights. Document 763, PDF pages 90, 91, 111 and 112.

The jury returned five guilty verdicts on December 29, 2021. After the court addressed overlapping conspiracy counts, judgment was entered on three counts. Judge Nathan sentenced Maxwell to 20 years on June 28, 2022. The separate perjury counts were dismissed on the government’s motion at sentencing, rather than producing a perjury conviction. The 2026 opinion recounts this history at pages 3, 6, 50 and 51; the appellate opinion describes the judgment at pages 2 and 3.

The Second Circuit affirmed on September 17, 2024 and denied rehearing on November 25. The Supreme Court denied review on October 6, 2025; that was not a new merits affirmance. On August 25, 2026, Judge Paul A. Engelmayer denied Maxwell’s separate petition for post-conviction relief under 28 U.S.C. §2255. She filed that petition without a lawyer. These later records describe the case’s history and do not identify Pagliuca as counsel for those proceedings. Appellate opinion and rehearing order; Supreme Court docket 24-1073; 2026 opinion, pages 1 and 67.

The Firm’s 2022 Fee Dispute

On August 22, 2022, Haddon, Morgan and Foreman filed a fee lawsuit in Denver District Court, No. 2022CV32430. Its complaint alleged an unpaid balance of $878,302.66 as of June 27, 2022, excluding interest. The firm was the plaintiff, and Christopher P. Montville signed the complaint. It was not a personal lawsuit signed by Pagliuca. The amount is the firm’s claim, not a finding established by the complaint. Complaint, pages 1, 13 and 18.

Luc Cohen’s Reuters report said Pagliuca, Menninger and other lawyers did not immediately respond to requests for comment. It also said a family representative told the Associated Press that the family would not comment. Reuters, August 24, 2022.

BusinessDen reported a December 2022 judgment for the firm against Ghislaine and Kevin Maxwell. The underlying judgment and any later payment record were not inspected for this profile.

Chronology

Evidence Appearances

These locators identify the records and the kind of participation they establish. PDF page numbers below refer to the linked file. Archive copies are reproductions of court records, not separate corroborating events.

Limitations and Open Questions

• This is a review of specified public filings and selected transcript passages, not every archival mention or every action by the defense team.
• The linked records include public court repositories and identified media or research mirrors. Their contents were checked, but current byte-for-byte identity with DOJ-hosted copies is not asserted.
• The detailed sealed April 4, 2017 Edwards ruling and a later operative order resolving the firm’s fee suit were not verified. No precise outcome is assigned to those missing records.
• The latest criminal merits ruling verified here is dated August 25, 2026. This does not establish that no later filing or appeal exists.
• The profile does not reconstruct protected identities, endorse allegations within defense filings, or equate a client’s conviction with wrongdoing by counsel.

Related EpsteinWiki Articles

• Ghislaine Maxwell
• Virginia Roberts Giuffre
• Reading Epstein Files: What a Name Does and Doesn’t Prove
• Ghislaine Maxwell: Sexual Abuse Allegations and the International Evidence Record

Conclusion

The verified record shows Pagliuca representing Maxwell in civil depositions, signing specific filings and conducting a defense examination at trial. It also records court rulings rejecting important requests made by Maxwell’s lawyers. Reading those acts alongside their outcomes gives a more accurate account than treating every defense document as Pagliuca’s individual work or every confidentiality request as misconduct.

Questions and Answers

Who did Pagliuca represent in these proceedings?

He represented Ghislaine Maxwell. The April and July 2016 deposition introductions identify that role directly.

Did the court grant the suppression request he signed?

No. Nathan’s June 25, 2021 opinion denied the two suppression motions and an evidentiary hearing.

Why does a March subpoena motion have a September filing date?

The March 19 application was part of sealed litigation. After an August denial without prejudice, the court ordered a redacted public filing in September.

Did Pagliuca sign every filing that lists him?

No. The second subpoena motion was signed by Menninger, and the surplusage memorandum by Cohen. His own signature appears on other identified records.

Does this professional role establish involvement in Epstein’s crimes?

No. The cited appearances and filings establish legal representation and advocacy. They do not establish participation in the conduct for which his client was prosecuted.

Sources

• April 22, 2016 deposition excerpt. Giuffre v. Maxwell; DOJ-OGR-00003556 through 00003599; PDF pages 1, 2 and 4.
• July 22, 2016 deposition excerpt. Criminal Document 204-11; DOJ-OGR-00003600 through 00003620; PDF pages 1 and 4.
• June 29 sealed-exhibit notice and motion to seal. Edwards subpoena proceeding, Documents 7 and 6; pages 1 and 2.
• Transfer order and closing order. Edwards Documents 29 and 38; signed December 22, 2016 and June 5, 2017 respectively.
• Menninger declaration, EFTA02782527. Civil Document 1090-25, filed July 30, 2020; three pages.
• Summary-judgment opinion, Document 872; existing Justia case page. Signed March 22, publicly filed April 27, 2017; pages 1 and 76.
• Brown v. Maxwell. Second Circuit, July 3, 2019; page 8 confirms civil decision and settlement chronology.
• Joint stipulation, Document 916 and settlement dismissal, Document 919. May 24 and 25, 2017; two pages each. Filing stamps and service date resolve an apparent year typo in the stipulation’s body.
• Suppression memorandum, Document 140. Dated January 25, filed February 4, 2021; released identifier DOJ-OGR-00002549; signature at PDF page 21.
• Suppression decision, Document 307. Nathan, June 25, 2021; DOJ-OGR-00004785; pages 20 and 21.
• Second subpoena motion, Document 336. Dated March 19, publicly filed September 7, 2021; DOJ-OGR-00005043; pages 1 and 10.
• Subpoena decision, Document 334 and unsealing order, Document 333. August 13 and September 2, 2021; the latter filed September 3.
• Surplusage memorandum, Document 146. Dated January 25, filed February 4, 2021; DOJ-OGR-00002676; signature and counsel list at PDF page 15.
• December 17, 2021 trial transcript, Document 763. Filed August 10, 2022; PDF pages 90, 91, 111 and 112.
• Haddon, Morgan and Foreman fee complaint. Denver District Court, 2022CV32430, August 22, 2022; pages 1, 13 and 18. Public media reproduction.
• Ghislaine Maxwell sued by her lawyers over unpaid fees. Reuters, August 24, 2022; syndicated by MarketScreener. Contemporary reporting and responses.
• BusinessDen judgment report. December 8, 2022.
• Second Circuit opinion and rehearing order. No. 22-1426; September 17 and November 25, 2024; Supreme Court docket reproduction, PDF pages 1 through 27.
• Supreme Court docket 24-1073. October 6, 2025 entry denies certiorari.
• Maxwell v. United States, Document 10. No. 25-cv-10468, August 25, 2026; pages 1, 3, 6, 50, 51, 66 and 67. Signed opinion reproduced by Justia.