Skip to main content
Search
< All Topics
Print

Mary E. Borja

Updated
ByEpsteinWiki
Views4

Snapshot

FieldDetails
Name and roleMary E. Borja, an attorney identified as counsel for Alan M. Dershowitz in the March 2015 court filing.
Firm in the cited recordsWiley Rein LLP. The September 8, 2015 filing lists Borja as admitted pro hac vice, meaning for this particular case.
Main Florida caseBradley J. Edwards and Paul G. Cassell v. Alan M. Dershowitz, Broward County Circuit Court, CACE 15-000072.
Documented workCourt appearances, document production, deposition questioning, and counsel communications. The January 16, 2016 deposition identifies her client directly.
Case outcomeAn April 8, 2016 stipulation dismissed the parties’ claims against each other with prejudice. A later notice identified a remaining sanctions motion.
Evidence limitThe cited records establish professional legal work. They do not establish participation by Borja in Epstein’s abuse.

Introduction

Mary E. Borja appears in Epstein related court records through her work for Alan Dershowitz. The records place her at Wiley Rein LLP and identify concrete legal tasks, including addressing a court about discovery and questioning Virginia Roberts Giuffre at a deposition. This profile focuses on that professional role in the 2015 and 2016 Florida litigation, related filings in Giuffre v. Maxwell, and a later insurance decision.

The filed counsel list identifies Dershowitz as Borja’s client. A lawyer’s representation, court appearance, or inclusion on a service list does not establish personal involvement in a client’s alleged conduct.

Key Takeaways

Identity and Representation

Document 319-1 in Doe v. United States, filed March 24, 2015, contains a discovery response from the Florida case. On PDF page 27, marked HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014110, Mary E. Borja and Richard A. Simpson appear under Wiley Rein LLP as counsel for Alan M. Dershowitz. Ashley E. Eiler is separately listed as of counsel on the same page.

Dershowitz’s September 8, 2015 motion to compel again lists Borja, Simpson, and Eiler at Wiley Rein. The filing seeks documents and fuller answers to written questions from Edwards and Cassell. Its arguments are the defendant’s positions, not findings by the judge. The counsel block lists Thomas E. Scott’s electronic signature; it does not identify Borja as the sole author.

The April 2015 Hearing and Document Production

The April 10, 2015 hearing transcript names Borja as defense co counsel in Edwards and Cassell v. Dershowitz. On pages 39 and 40, she tells Judge Thomas M. Lynch IV that she has had calls with Harvard’s general counsel’s office about access to university documents and has another call planned with its technology office and the defense document vendor.

She describes a proposed process for extracting electronic records, allowing Harvard to review protected student material, and then reviewing the available documents for the litigation. She also says a rolling production had begun the previous day. These are Borja’s statements to the court about work underway. They do not establish that the proposed extraction or the complete production later occurred.

Questioning Giuffre in January 2016

Giuffre’s January 16, 2016 deposition was taken in the Florida case brought by Edwards and Cassell against Dershowitz. Giuffre was the witness, not a plaintiff in that case. The appearances page lists Borja for the defendant. On printed page 5, which is PDF page 6, Borja identifies herself as representing Dershowitz and begins the direct examination.

The copy cited here was filed in Giuffre v. Maxwell as Document 1335-3 on January 9, 2024. That later filing date is not the deposition date. The record establishes that Borja conducted questioning; it does not turn the lawyer’s questions into testimony or findings of fact. This profile does not repeat unrelated personal or graphic details from the examination.

The April 2016 Dismissal and Related Appeal

The April 8, 2016 stipulation states that Edwards and Cassell’s claims against Dershowitz, and his claims against them, were dismissed with prejudice, with each side bearing its own legal fees and costs. With prejudice means those claims could not simply be brought again. Borja is listed with Dershowitz’s counsel in the filing.

The stipulation was included in an April 27 appellate appendix in Jeffrey Epstein v. Bradley J. Edwards and Paul G. Cassell, Fourth District Court of Appeal case 4D15-4527. The appendix supported the appellees’ request to dismiss Epstein’s appeal as moot. It is a request and supporting record, not an appellate decision.

An April 11 notice said Giuffre’s remaining sanctions motion was pending after the joint stipulation. Its service certificate, on PDF page 18 and marked EFTA00592805, lists Borja as Dershowitz’s counsel. The certificate states that the filing was served on the listed lawyers, not that Borja wrote it. The dismissal papers do not amount to a trial judgment deciding the truth of every underlying allegation.

Communications Listed in the Maxwell Privilege Dispute

Document 1320-16, page 3, row 23 lists emails between Mary Borja and Laura Menninger under a claim of attorney work product protection. This is a legal protection claimed for material prepared for litigation. The date column says various, and the row supplies no individual email dates or document numbers. It does not reveal what the emails said.

Giuffre’s motion dated August 9, 2016 challenged the withholding of those communications. On page 15, the motion describes Borja as Dershowitz’s attorney and states that Maxwell had not claimed Borja represented her. That is Giuffre’s legal argument. It should not be presented as a ruling that the emails were improperly withheld or as proof that Borja represented Maxwell. The copy cited here was filed as Document 1219-1 on July 15, 2021.

The Later Insurance Decision

A January 19, 2018 federal opinion provides another specific account of Borja’s work for Dershowitz. In Privilege Underwriters Reciprocal Exchange v. The Hanover Insurance Group, case 0:16-cv-61742, the court described an insurance dispute arising from the settlement of the Edwards and Cassell litigation.

Page 8 identifies Borja as defense counsel and states that on November 25, 2015, she sought permission from three insurers to share their policies with one another. Page 18 directs entry of judgment for Hanover because PURE failed to establish its claim for reimbursement and had waived recovery by contributing settlement funds without preserving that right. That ruling concerns the insurers’ dispute. It is not a finding of wrongdoing by Borja or a decision on the underlying abuse allegations.

Chronology

Evidence Appearances

  • HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014110: PDF page 27 of Document 319-1 in case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM. Counsel list establishes full name, firm, and client.
  • EFTA01203823: April 10, 2015 hearing, 46 pages. Page 2 lists counsel; pages 39 and 40, marked EFTA01203861 and EFTA01203862, contain Borja’s statements about discovery.
  • EFTA00603608: September 8, 2015 motion to compel, 129 pages including exhibits. Page 17, EFTA00603624, identifies Borja as counsel admitted pro hac vice.
  • Giuffre v. Maxwell, Document 1335-3: filed January 9, 2024, containing the January 16, 2016 deposition. PDF pages 2 through 6 establish the date, original case, represented parties, and start of Borja’s examination.
  • EFTA01085840: April 27, 2016 appellate appendix, 11 pages. Page 3 lists counsel; pages 7 through 11 reproduce the April 8 stipulation. Page 7 bears EFTA01085846.
  • EFTA00592788: declaration and exhibits filed April 21, 2016 in Giuffre v. Maxwell. Document 117-2, page 3, is PDF page 18, EFTA00592805, with the April 11 service certificate.
  • Giuffre v. Maxwell, Document 1320-16: filed January 3, 2024. Page 3, row 23, appears at PDF page 422 in the combined archive and lists the claimed protection for Borja and Menninger emails.
  • Giuffre v. Maxwell, Document 1219-1: filed July 15, 2021. Pages 15 and 17 contain the relevant argument and the underlying August 9, 2016 date.
  • Privilege Underwriters v. Hanover, Document 46: January 19, 2018 findings and conclusions, pages 1, 2, 8, and 18. Describes the insurance dispute, Borja’s communications, and the court’s ruling.

Limitations and Open Questions

This review covers the specific records cited below. It is not a complete search of all Epstein files or of Borja’s career. Historical court rosters establish her affiliation at that time; they do not establish her current employment.

The privilege log does not disclose the emails’ contents, and the cited motion does not establish the final ruling on that particular protection claim. A service certificate does not identify who drafted or personally read a filing. The appellate appendix does not supply the appeal’s final disposition. These limits prevent conclusions about private instructions, undisclosed relationships, or personal knowledge of abuse.

The records reviewed here identify Borja’s role as counsel for Dershowitz. They do not establish that she participated in Epstein’s abuse. Private contact information and unnecessary personal details from the source files are omitted.

For related background, see How to Read Epstein Files and Virginia Roberts Giuffre.

Conclusion

The record supports a concrete account of Borja’s legal work: she was listed as Dershowitz’s counsel, discussed document production in court, questioned Giuffre at a deposition, and appeared in related service and privilege records. A later judicial opinion also records her work coordinating insurance information. These professional acts should be described precisely, without treating representation or documentary presence as evidence of personal wrongdoing.

Questions and Answers

Whom did Borja represent in the cited Florida case?

The counsel list identifies Alan M. Dershowitz as her client. Edwards and Cassell were the opposing parties.

Was she merely named on a mailing list?

No. The hearing transcript records her speaking about document production, and the deposition transcript records her questioning Giuffre. Other records identify only service or counsel listings.

Did the privilege log establish that she was Maxwell’s lawyer?

No. The log lists communications with Laura Menninger and a protection claim. It does not establish a lawyer and client relationship with Maxwell.

Did the April 2016 stipulation decide all underlying allegations?

No. The stipulation dismissed the parties’ civil claims against one another. It was not a trial judgment resolving every allegation, and the later notice identified a remaining sanctions motion.

Sources

Posted
ByEpsteinWiki
Tags:
Previous M.J. v. Epstein, No. 9:10-cv-81111 (S.D. Fla. 2010)
Next Maxwell v. Estate of Jeffrey Epstein, No. ST-20-CV-155
Table of Contents