Kendall Coffey

Snapshot

Introduction

Kendall Coffey appears in the released Epstein records through legal representation and related professional work. His January 12, 2015 filing bears his electronic signature as counsel for Alan Dershowitz. Other records place him on service lists, describe his law firm’s billing, or discuss representation of Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler. These are different kinds of evidence, and they concern different clients and proceedings.

Key Takeaways

• Coffey’s signed January 2015 supplement sought limited intervention for Dershowitz. The January 21 opposition lists Coffey as a service recipient, not its author.
• The April 2015 court order denied intervention as moot after the court struck specified material on its own. This was not a judgment on the truth of the underlying allegations.
• The investigative correspondence and billing email document requests and limits on authorization. A request for funds does not prove that payment occurred.
• A released witness-list document names Coffey, but contains drafting annotations. It does not establish that he testified.

Professional Background

Coffey Burlington’s professional profile identifies Coffey as a partner and founding member of the Miami firm as of October 17, 2026. It describes litigation and government investigation work. His former federal role is separately documented by a May 30, 1996 Justice Department announcement naming an interim U.S. Attorney to replace him effective June 1, 1996.

In Reuters reporting published January 5, 2015 by Stabroek News, Dershowitz named Coffey among the attorneys on his legal team. The court filings below provide the more specific record of Coffey’s work. His earlier government office should not be confused with the private representation documented in 2015.

The January 2015 Federal Filings

EFTA00597098 is Alan Dershowitz’s Supplement to His Motion for Limited Intervention, Document 285, entered January 12, 2015 in Doe v. United States. The federal case concerned rights under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act in connection with the government’s handling of Epstein’s case. Dershowitz was a nonparty seeking permission to participate for a limited purpose.

The supplement disputed allegations against Dershowitz and asked for permission to seek their removal and a show cause order against the plaintiffs’ lawyers. These were his legal positions and requests, not judicial findings. PDF page 5, EFTA00597102, bears “/s/ Kendall Coffey” and identifies him, Gabriel Groisman, and Benjamin H. Brodsky of Coffey Burlington as counsel for Dershowitz. Thomas Scott is also listed. Page 6 contains Coffey’s filing and service certification.

By contrast, EFTA01191873 is the plaintiffs’ response, Document 291, entered January 21, 2015. Its last page, EFTA01191912, lists Coffey among those to be served as Dershowitz’s counsel. Bradley Edwards signed that certificate. A service entry does not establish Coffey’s authorship, agreement with the response, or personal reading of it.

The April 2015 Intervention Ruling

Judge Kenneth A. Marra’s order signed April 6 and entered April 7, 2015, Document 324, denied Dershowitz’s intervention motion and request to file a supplemental reply as moot. The court explained that it had considered his arguments but had itself struck specified material that was immaterial or impertinent to the issue before it. Pages 4 through 6 explain that reasoning; page 10 states the result.

The April 7 supplemental order, Document 325, addressed access to the affected docket entries and permitted specified documents to be refiled with the stricken passages omitted. These orders resolved procedural questions. They did not decide whether the underlying abuse allegations were true or false. The plaintiffs’ opposition, Document 291, should also be distinguished from its declaration attachment, Document 291-1, which was among the affected entries.

The Investigative Engagement Emails

EFTA00653271 preserves a January and February 2015 email chain with the subject “Dershowitz retainer.” On January 20, Steve Kiraly requested a $10,000 cost retainer. Coffey replied that his firm would guarantee payment for that day’s time and future services it authorized. He said he would review the advance request with his client, who had ultimate payment responsibility, and told Kiraly not to undertake additional investigative work pending approval.

On February 3, Coffey wrote that there was then no authorization to commit resources in Florida because his sources placed the subject in Colorado. He asked for a bill. The later forwarded chain copied Epstein. These messages document a proposed engagement, limited payment assurance, and instructions restricting further work. They do not establish that the requested advance was paid or identify every task eventually performed.

Legal Billing and the Payment Request

In EFTA01183077, a February 17, 2015 message from Coffey forwards a second bill to Dershowitz and says the firm had received payment for its first statement. On February 18, Dershowitz forwarded the message to Epstein and asked him to send the amount billed so that Dershowitz could pay Coffey. The one-page record supplies no amount and does not confirm payment of that second bill or establish the source of the first payment.

A separate February 28, 2015 Coffey Burlington statement, labeled Statement No. 3 for Jane Doe v. USA, records work on intervention papers. Its January 5 entry assigns Coffey work reviewing, revising, and finalizing the intervention motion. The timekeeper summary on page 3 names Kendall B. Coffey. These entries add detail about professional work, but this later statement should not be treated as the second bill attached to the February 18 email.

RRA Representation and Rothstein’s Testimony

A master contact list concerning a privilege log dated February 23, 2011 identifies Coffey as “Special Counsel to RRA on Epstein Case.” The page is marked HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012709 and names the Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman firm in its header. The accompanying cover letter is dated March 22, 2011. This is the list’s description of Coffey’s role for RRA, not an identification of him as Epstein’s lawyer.

The June 14, 2012 deposition of Scott Rothstein was taken in Epstein v. Rothstein, Palm Beach County case 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG. The public copy includes a notice submitting the transcript in support of Bradley Edwards’ summary judgment motion. Its cover identifies the deposition date, which is different from the earlier events Rothstein described.

On printed transcript page 120, PDF page 33, Rothstein said Coffey represented RRA when Rothstein fled the country. He also said Coffey was not his friend. This is Rothstein’s testimony about the law firm’s representation, not Coffey’s own account or a complete engagement record. It does not identify Coffey as Epstein’s lawyer or establish personal participation in the conduct discussed elsewhere in the transcript.

Witness Lists and Later Service Records

EFTA00691736 is a released trial-witness-list document in the state case brought by Epstein. Coffey appears as item 54 on PDF page 8, EFTA00691743. Its certificate bears June 20, 2013 and Tonja Haddad Coleman’s electronic signature. The copy contains unresolved drafting annotations, and the reviewed first page has no filing stamp. It cannot by itself establish that this was the final filed list, that Coffey was called, or what he would have said.

EFTA01085840 is an appendix bearing an April 27, 2016 service certificate in appeal 4D15-4527. It includes a notice of appeal filed November 23, 2015. The notice’s service list names Kendall B. Coffey on PDF page 5, EFTA01085844. The December 1 court receipt stamp is distinct from that filing date.

The appendix also includes the April 8, 2016 stipulation dismissing Edwards and Cassell’s claims against Dershowitz and his counterclaims against them with prejudice, with each side bearing its own fees and costs. That establishes the stated disposition of those claims. Coffey’s appearance in the packet is not evidence that he signed the stipulation or negotiated the settlement, and the appendix is not a final appellate ruling.

Chronology

Evidence Appearances

These direct source links open public copies of the records. Packet IDs, PDF page numbers, and printed transcript pages are distinguished below.

Limitations and Open Questions

This review covers the cited public records through October 17, 2026. It is not a full biography, retainer history, or review of every case involving Coffey. The records do not establish all work he personally performed, the final status of the annotated witness list, or whether every requested payment or investigative task was completed.

A document’s appearance in an Epstein release does not establish that its named lawyers represented Epstein. The filings here identify Dershowitz as Coffey’s client, while the privilege-log contact list and Rothstein’s testimony describe RRA representation. The reviewed materials do not establish criminal wrongdoing by Coffey. Later reproduction of a document is not a new professional act by everyone listed in it.

Conclusion

Coffey’s role is documented by more than a name on a list: he signed a federal filing for Dershowitz and exchanged messages about professional work and billing. The record also contains service entries, Rothstein’s testimony, and an annotated witness list. Keeping those categories separate explains his connection to the files without treating representation, a proposed payment, or a witness listing as proof of misconduct.

Questions and Answers

Whom did Coffey represent in the January 2015 filing?

The signature block identifies Alan M. Dershowitz as the client. The federal case itself was against the United States.

Did he write the January 21 opposition?

The reviewed document is the plaintiffs’ response. Coffey appears on its service list, not as its signer.

Was Dershowitz’s intervention granted?

No. The April 2015 order denied intervention as moot after the court acted on its own to strike specified material. That ruling did not decide the truth of the underlying allegations.

Did Epstein pay the second bill?

The February 18 email records Dershowitz asking Epstein for the amount billed. It does not confirm that the requested payment occurred.

Does the witness list prove Coffey testified?

No. It names him as a potential witness. The released copy has drafting annotations. No testimony from Coffey was verified in this review.

Related EpsteinWiki Articles

• Reading Epstein Files: Names and Evidence
• Jack Scarola
• Virginia Giuffre
• Riley Kiraly
• Alan Dershowitz and Jeffrey Epstein: The Arrangement Records

Sources

• Alan Dershowitz’s Supplement to His Motion for Limited Intervention. Doe v. United States, Document 285, January 12, 2015; EFTA00597098.
• Plaintiffs’ response concerning limited intervention. Document 291, January 21, 2015; EFTA01191873.
• Order denying joinder/amendment and addressing intervention. Document 324, signed April 6, entered April 7, 2015; EFTA00812477.
• Supplemental order. Document 325, April 7, 2015; EFTA02755716.
• Dershowitz retainer correspondence. January and February 2015; EFTA00653271.
• Second-bill correspondence. February 17–18, 2015; EFTA01183077.
• Coffey Burlington Statement No. 3. February 28, 2015; EFTA01196790.
• Master contact list concerning the February 23, 2011 privilege log. HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012709, with March 22, 2011 cover letter at HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012707.
• Scott Rothstein deposition and notice of filing. June 14, 2012 testimony; Epstein v. Rothstein, record 504.
• Released trial-witness-list document. Certificate dated June 20, 2013; EFTA00691736.
• Appellate appendix, case 4D15-4527. April 27, 2016 service certificate; EFTA01085840.
• Kendall Coffey professional profile. Coffey Burlington; accessed October 17, 2026.
• Interim United States Attorney named for Southern District of Florida. U.S. Department of Justice, May 30, 1996.
• UK’s Prince Andrew steps up denial of underage sex. Reuters report carried by Stabroek News, January 5, 2015. Used for Dershowitz’s identification of his legal team.