Laura A. Menninger

Snapshot

Introduction

Laura A. Menninger represented Ghislaine Maxwell during civil discovery, disputes over public access to court records and the later federal criminal trial. Her individual role is documented by signatures and speaking appearances, as well as attorney lists. The record includes a subpoena to journalist Sharon Churcher, a request to compel a prospective trial witness to appear, and Maxwell’s defense summation. The subpoena, the witness motion and the trial transcript show those different activities.

This profile follows the requests through their documented outcomes. A lawyer’s advocacy is evidence of work for a client. It does not by itself establish participation in the client’s alleged or proven offenses.

Key Takeaways

• Menninger represented Maxwell in both Giuffre’s civil case and the federal criminal prosecution.
• The May 2016 Churcher subpoena has a blank service panel in one released copy. A later court opinion nevertheless records service on June 4 and quashes the subpoena.
• Menninger’s December 2021 request for a warrant concerning Kelly Bovino was opposed by prosecutors and withdrawn in court the same day. The attached unsigned proposed order is not an issued warrant.
• The trial transcript identifies Menninger examining defense witnesses and giving the December 20 closing argument.
• Maxwell’s conviction and later appeals concern her criminal liability. They do not establish wrongdoing by her attorneys.

Civil Representation and Discovery

At Maxwell’s April 22 and July 22, 2016 depositions in Giuffre v. Maxwell, Jeffrey S. Pagliuca identified himself and Menninger as counsel for Maxwell. Giuffre had separate counsel. These appearances place Menninger on the defense side of the civil proceeding, not among witnesses to the earlier events being discussed. April transcript, page 4; July transcript, page 4.

Menninger signed Maxwell’s June 6, 2016 response opposing Giuffre’s request to exceed the usual limit of ten depositions. The released reproduction appears as criminal Document 285-8, filed May 20, 2021; the underlying civil filing is Document 189. Judge Robert W. Sweet’s June 20 discovery opinion granted one requested additional deposition and denied two others. It also denied the defense request for costs and fees. This was a mixed discovery ruling, not a finding that all defense objections were correct. Response, PDF pages 2 and 11; opinion, PDF pages 17, 18 and 21.

Her separate June 20 declaration identified exhibits supporting opposition to an extended deposition deadline and a request for sanctions. Its final page bears her electronic signature. It was later reproduced as Document 1090-25, released as EFTA02782527. The declaration should not be confused with Pagliuca’s separate filing in the Edwards subpoena dispute. Document 229, pages 1 and 3; released reproduction.

The Churcher Subpoena and Its Outcome

The subpoena dated May 31, 2016 sought Sharon Churcher’s testimony on June 16 and documents described in an attachment. It identifies Menninger as the lawyer issuing or requesting it for Maxwell. In the seven page released copy, EFTA02798260, the subpoena is on PDF page 2 and the blank proof of service panel is on page 3. That blank panel alone cannot establish whether service occurred. Document 217-1, pages 2 and 3.

The later opinion supplies the missing context. Judge Sweet expressly recorded that Churcher was served on June 4, 2016. In an opinion signed September 1, he granted her motion to quash, meaning to cancel, the subpoena under the reporter’s privilege analysis. The publicly filed copy is Document 503, dated November 21, 2016 on the filing header. Opinion, PDF pages 2 and 21.

The court addressed protections for confidential sources and other reporting material, including whether the defense could obtain the information elsewhere. The resulting order does not establish that Churcher was forced to disclose sources or completed the proposed deposition. It establishes that this subpoena was quashed. Opinion, pages 6 through 21.

Settlement and Continued Unsealing Litigation

Giuffre and Maxwell settled the civil case in May 2017. A joint stipulation was filed May 24, and Sweet approved dismissal with prejudice on May 25, with each side bearing its own fees and costs. Pagliuca, rather than Menninger, signed that stipulation for Maxwell. Settlement did not resolve every later dispute over public access to the case files. Document 916; Document 919.

Menninger introduced herself for Maxwell at Judge Loretta A. Preska’s January 19, 2021 unsealing hearing. The transcript explains a document by document assessment of public access and competing privacy interests. The court allowed some intimate adult material to remain redacted rather than treating every page alike. The hearing was reproduced as criminal Document 136-9, filed February 4. PDF pages 2 through 8, transcript pages 1 through 7.

A joint letter dated April 1, 2021 and publicly filed April 19 bears Menninger’s signature. It separately states the parties’ shared position, Maxwell’s requested redactions and the government’s objections. Prosecutors opposed sealing language already contained in the public indictment while accepting other proposed redactions. The letter records those positions, not a judicial decision accepting all of them. Document 217, pages 1 and 6.

Criminal Motions and Individual Attribution

Menninger appears on the defense team’s memorandum seeking dismissal for delay before indictment and on its memorandum seeking to suppress civil deposition evidence. Both were dated January 25, 2021 and publicly filed February 4. Their signatures are Pagliuca’s. A co-counsel listing supports her team role, but does not establish that she personally signed each brief. Document 138, page 25; Document 140, page 21.

Judge Alison J. Nathan rejected the delay motion on April 16, finding no sufficient showing of improper government delay or harm to Maxwell’s ability to defend the case. She separately denied the suppression motions on June 25. Those rulings should accompany the defense arguments rather than leaving the requests as if they were unresolved. Document 207, pages 17, 18 and 33; Document 307, pages 20 and 21.

Menninger did sign the second Rule 17(c) application, which sought permission to obtain records through four subpoenas. It was dated March 19, 2021, although its public filing stamp is September 7. Nathan’s August 13 opinion denied the request without prejudice, allowing a renewed application supported by the required showing. A September 2 order, filed September 3, directed public filing with approved redactions. Document 336, pages 1 and 10; Document 334, page 10; Document 333.

The Bovino Warrant Request Was Withdrawn

In a letter motion dated December 17, 2021, Menninger asked Nathan to authorize an arrest warrant for prospective defense witness Kelly Bovino. Her supporting affidavit described the defense’s efforts to secure testimony. These were the defense’s assertions about the witness and its request for court action. The copies now numbered Documents 702 and 702-3 bear July 12, 2022 public filing headers. Motion, pages 1 through 4; affidavit, pages 1 and 2.

The prosecution opposed the application. Among other points, it questioned whether Bovino was under an enforceable subpoena because the stated appearance date preceded the reported service date. That objection is a prosecution argument, not a separate finding that Bovino committed an offense. Document 713, page 1 and footnote 1.

The actual trial transcript resolves the application’s status. On December 17, Nathan asked whether it had been withdrawn, and Menninger confirmed that she was withdrawing the request to have marshals arrest Bovino. The exchange is at transcript page 2720, lines 8 through 19, PDF page 179 of Document 763. Trial transcript.

The attachment numbered 702-4, released as DOJ-OGR-00011205, is an unsigned proposed order. Its printed language granting the motion does not establish that a judge issued or executed a warrant. The motion’s documented outcome is withdrawal. Proposed order, one page.

Witness Examinations and Closing Argument

Menninger’s trial role extended beyond filing motions. The December 17 transcript records her directly examining FBI case agent Amanda Young about interview documentation and later examining defense witness Michelle Healy. These are identifiable speaking roles, rather than an inference from an attorney roster. Document 763, PDF pages 64 and 131, transcript pages 2605 and 2672.

On December 20, she delivered the defense summation. It begins on transcript page 2915 and ends on page 2990, PDF pages 81 through 156 of Document 767. She urged acquittal, challenged the reliability of the prosecution’s evidence and argued that memories and financial motives affected witness accounts. These were arguments for Maxwell, not findings that the witnesses had fabricated their testimony. Defense summation.

Before trial, Luc Cohen’s November 24 Reuters report, republished by Euronews, described the defense’s planned credibility challenges. It also reported legal experts’ concerns about attacking alleged victims and their expectation that prosecutors had assessed whether witnesses could withstand questioning. That reporting provides context for the strategy; the transcript supplies the direct record of Menninger’s argument. Reuters report.

Verdict, Sentence and Later Proceedings

On December 29, 2021, the jury found Maxwell guilty on five of six counts tried. After the court addressed overlapping conspiracy counts, judgment was entered on three counts. Nathan imposed a 20 year sentence on June 28, 2022. The separate perjury counts were dismissed on the government’s motion at sentencing; they did not produce a perjury conviction. The 2026 opinion recounts the verdict, sentencing and perjury history at pages 3, 6, 50 and 51; appellate opinion, pages 2 and 3.

The Second Circuit affirmed on September 17, 2024 and denied rehearing on November 25. The Supreme Court declined review on October 6, 2025. On August 25, 2026, Judge Paul A. Engelmayer denied Maxwell’s separate petition for relief under 28 U.S.C. §2255, which she pursued without a lawyer. These are outcomes of Maxwell’s case. The cited later records do not identify Menninger as counsel for those proceedings. Opinion and rehearing order; Supreme Court docket 24-1073; 2026 opinion, pages 1 and 67.

Chronology

Evidence Appearances

The following locators distinguish document dates, later filing stamps and the lawyer’s individual role. Public archive copies reproduce court records; multiple copies of the same filing are not independent corroboration.

Limitations and What the Evidence Does Not Establish

• A subpoena, affidavit or motion records a request or the submitting party’s account. The court’s ruling or a later withdrawal must be checked separately.
• The blank Churcher service panel does not negate the later opinion’s explicit account of service.
• The unsigned Bovino attachment does not establish an issued warrant, an arrest or criminal conduct by the prospective witness.
• Menninger’s counsel appearances, objections and signed filings do not establish participation in Epstein’s or Maxwell’s offenses.
• The selected records do not establish a personal relationship with Epstein or identify Menninger as the lawyer for every later appeal or petition.
• This review does not cover every docket entry or archival mention. The latest merits decision checked is August 25, 2026; the sources do not establish that no later filing exists.

Public pseudonyms and redactions remain intact. Private contact information, unnecessary intimate detail and identifying clues about protected people are not reproduced.

Related EpsteinWiki Articles

• Ghislaine Maxwell
• Virginia Roberts Giuffre
• Ghislaine Maxwell Evidence Record
• What a Name in the Epstein Files Proves

Conclusion

Menninger’s documented connection is her legal representation of Maxwell. The primary records show substantial work in civil discovery, public access disputes and criminal trial advocacy. Reading the outcome alongside each request is essential: Churcher’s subpoena was quashed, the Bovino warrant request was withdrawn, and the defense’s arguments must remain distinct from the jury’s verdict and later court decisions.

Questions and Answers

Whom did Menninger represent?

She represented Ghislaine Maxwell in Giuffre’s civil case and Maxwell’s federal criminal prosecution. The cited records do not make her Giuffre’s lawyer or establish that she represented Epstein.

Was the Churcher subpoena served?

The released subpoena copy has a blank service panel, but Sweet’s later opinion records service on June 4, 2016. He then quashed the subpoena.

Did Menninger obtain a warrant for Bovino?

The record shows a request followed by withdrawal on December 17, 2021. The attached proposed order is unsigned. It should not be described as an issued warrant.

What did she do at trial?

The transcript records individual witness examinations and her December 20 defense summation. Her arguments were advocacy for Maxwell and must be distinguished from evidence and findings.

Do the records establish wrongdoing by the lawyer?

The records cited here establish professional actions. Representation, motions and courtroom argument do not by themselves establish participation in a client’s crimes.

Sources

• April 22, 2016 Maxwell deposition, released excerpt, pages 2 and 4.
• July 22, 2016 Maxwell deposition, Document 204-11, page 4.
• Civil Document 189, June 6, 2016, reproduced as criminal Document 285-8.
• June 20, 2016 discovery opinion, reproduced in Document 1328-9.
• Menninger declaration, civil Document 229, June 20, 2016.
• Released declaration reproduction, EFTA02782527.
• Churcher subpoena, Document 217-1, EFTA02798260.
• Sweet’s Churcher subpoena opinion, Document 503, signed September 1, 2016.
• Settlement stipulation, Document 916, May 24, 2017.
• So ordered dismissal, Document 919, May 25, 2017.
• January 19, 2021 hearing, reproduced as Document 136-9.
• Joint redaction letter, dated April 1, publicly filed April 19, 2021.
• Delay memorandum, Document 138, dated January 25, 2021.
• Nathan’s April 16, 2021 opinion, Document 207.
• Suppression memorandum, Document 140, dated January 25, 2021.
• Nathan’s June 25, 2021 opinion, Document 307.
• Second subpoena application, Document 336, dated March 19, 2021.
• August 13, 2021 subpoena opinion, Document 334.
• September 2, 2021 public filing order, Document 333.
• December 17, 2021 Bovino warrant application, Document 702.
• Menninger supporting affidavit, Document 702-3.
• Unsigned proposed order, Document 702-4.
• Government opposition dated December 17, 2021, Document 713.
• December 17, 2021 trial transcript, Document 763, filed August 10, 2022.
• December 20, 2021 trial transcript, Document 767, filed August 10, 2022.
• Luc Cohen, Reuters, November 24, 2021, republished by Euronews.
• Second Circuit opinion and rehearing order, September 17 and November 25, 2024.
• Supreme Court docket 24-1073, denial of review October 6, 2025.
• Engelmayer’s August 25, 2026 opinion, Maxwell v. United States, Document 10.

CourtListener, Roll Call and the identified archive host public reproductions of the cited court records. The Supreme Court hosts its docket and appellate appendix. These source links identify the copies checked; their availability does not authenticate every assertion made within a filing.