Richard A. Simpson
Snapshot
| Field | Documented information |
|---|---|
| Name | Richard A. Simpson, also identified as Rick Simpson in his official Wiley biography. |
| Professional role | Trial and appellate lawyer. Wiley identifies him as its deputy general counsel and describes his lead counsel role for Alan Dershowitz in the Florida defamation case. |
| Client in the reviewed filings | Alan Dershowitz in Edwards and Cassell v. Dershowitz, Broward County case No. CACE15-000072. |
| Directly documented work | Counsel listings, spoken deposition objections, discussion of a privilege log, and a contact role in the April 2016 settlement announcement. |
| Related federal record | Giuffre v. Maxwell, Document 76-2: Dershowitz is listed as a potential witness through Simpson as counsel. |
| Case resolution | An April 8, 2016 stipulation dismissed the parties’ claims against one another with prejudice. It was not a trial verdict. |
| Evidence limit | The documents identify legal representation and advocacy. They do not establish Simpson’s participation in Epstein’s abuse. |
Introduction
Richard A. Simpson represented Alan Dershowitz in civil litigation connected to allegations involving Jeffrey Epstein. Court papers identify him with Wiley Rein. Two January 2016 deposition volumes also record Simpson speaking as defense counsel, which provides stronger evidence of his work than a name on a service list alone.
This profile separates those roles from the underlying allegations. It follows the 2015 filings, the January 2016 examinations, a witness disclosure in Giuffre v. Maxwell, and the April 2016 resolution of Edwards and Cassell v. Dershowitz. A lawyer’s representation of a client does not establish personal involvement in the conduct being litigated.
Key Takeaways
- Simpson appears as counsel for Dershowitz. The deposition rosters separately identify Darren Indyke as counsel for Epstein.
- The January 12 and January 13, 2016 records are deposition Volumes 4 and 6, both afternoon sessions. They are not the first and second sessions.
- The transcripts record Simpson making objections and addressing a privilege log. Edward J. Pozzuoli is identified as the special master overseeing the examinations.
- The revised witness disclosure was dated and served March 11, 2016, then filed as an exhibit March 31. Dershowitz is the listed potential witness; Simpson is the contact lawyer.
- The April 8 dismissal, settlement statements, and April 27 appellate appendix are distinct records. Neither a party statement nor a request to dismiss an appeal is a judicial finding about the disputed allegations.
Professional Identity and Firm Affiliation
Wiley’s official profile, checked October 17, 2026, identifies Richard A. Simpson as Rick Simpson, a trial and appellate lawyer and the firm’s deputy general counsel. It describes him as lead counsel for Dershowitz in the Florida defamation litigation resolved in April 2016. These are attributed professional descriptions, not independent findings about the merits of that case.
The historical filings identify Simpson with Wiley Rein and list him as admitted pro hac vice, meaning admitted for that particular case. His current firm title should not be read back into the 2015 and 2016 documents. The name variation Rick does not identify a different lawyer.
The Civil Case and the 2015 Filings
The Florida action was brought by lawyers Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell against Dershowitz, who also pursued claims against them. Its caption and case number appear in the reviewed pleadings and deposition volumes. This state defamation litigation is separate from the federal Giuffre v. Maxwell action and the federal victims’ rights case Doe v. United States.
The House Oversight packet beginning HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014084 reproduces a federal exhibit filed March 24, 2015, as Document 319-1 in Doe v. United States. Within that exhibit, PDF page 16, HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014099, begins Dershowitz’s objections and responses to document requests in the Florida case. Page 27, HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014110, lists Simpson as Wiley Rein counsel for Dershowitz. Thomas E. Scott signs that response. The service certificate on page 28, HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014111, is dated February 23, 2015, and signed by Scott. March 24 is the later federal exhibit filing date.
EFTA01116468 contains Dershowitz’s reply supporting a motion to compel production of documents and answers to written questions. Its filing stamp is October 27, 2015. Simpson, Mary Borja, and Ashley Eiler appear in the Wiley Rein counsel block on PDF page 22, Bates EFTA01116489. Scott is again the signer. The reply presents the defense’s arguments; it is not an order granting the requested discovery or proof that Simpson wrote every passage.
January 2016 Depositions: Simpson’s Own Words
EFTA01137794 is Volume 4 of Dershowitz’s deposition, taken January 12, 2016, from 1:05 p.m. to 4:45 p.m. EFTA02726849 is Volume 6, taken January 13 from 1:05 p.m. to 3:06 p.m. Each identifies Simpson as counsel for the defendant, Dershowitz, on PDF page 2. Page 3 separately lists Indyke for Epstein and Pozzuoli as special master.
The transcripts record Simpson participating directly. In Volume 4, printed page 641, PDF page 180, Bates EFTA01137973, he objects to the form of a question that combines passages from another deposition as though they ran together. That shows a specific defense objection, not a finding that either passage was true or false.
In Volume 6, printed page 873, PDF page 92, Bates EFTA02726940, Simpson says material withheld as privileged would appear on the defense privilege log and could be addressed through counsel. Edwards replies that he is not asking about items on that log. A privilege log identifies withheld material and the claimed reason for withholding it. This exchange does not establish that every privilege claim was valid or that the log was complete.
At printed page 881, PDF page 100, Bates EFTA02726948, Simpson raises an objection concerning relevance and the length of questioning. Pozzuoli overrules it, and Edwards continues. This is a recorded procedural ruling during the examination, not a misconduct finding against Simpson. The reviewed transcripts identify Pozzuoli’s role, but do not supply the appointment order defining all of his powers.
The March 2016 Witness Disclosure
The public court copy of Document 76-2 in Giuffre v. Maxwell is a revised disclosure of potential witnesses under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. Page 5 of the PDF, printed page 4, lists Dershowitz as entry 19, with Simpson at Wiley Rein as the contact lawyer. It does not list Simpson himself as that witness.
The disclosure is dated March 11, 2016, on PDF page 20 and has a service certificate for March 11 on page 21. Those pages carry Sigrid McCawley’s signature block. The document was filed March 31 as Exhibit B to Laura Menninger’s declaration, Document 76. The declaration independently identifies the attachment and its earlier service date. These dates describe different steps and should not be collapsed into a single March 31 disclosure event.
The released grouping EFTA01182998 also reproduces this material. The public court PDF provides the clearest complete source for the disclosure itself. A potential-witness entry records a party’s disclosure position. It does not prove that Dershowitz later testified in the Maxwell case or that Simpson authored the disclosure.
The April Dismissal and Appellate Appendix
EFTA01085840 is an appendix to a motion asking that an appeal be dismissed as moot. The outer appeal is Epstein v. Edwards and Cassell, No. 4D15-4527. Its service certificate on PDF page 2, Bates EFTA01085841, is dated April 27, 2016, and signed by Philip M. Burlington. Page 3 separately lists lawyers for Epstein and lawyers for Dershowitz, including Simpson in the latter group.
The appendix contains a different document: the stipulation filed April 8, 2016, in Edwards and Cassell v. Dershowitz. On PDF page 7, Bates EFTA01085846, the parties dismiss their claims against one another with prejudice, with each side bearing its own attorney fees and costs. The following page lists Simpson among Dershowitz’s lawyers, but Scott signs for the defense.
A dismissal with prejudice ends the covered claims through that disposition rather than a trial verdict. The April 27 appendix is evidence that the stipulation was submitted in the appeal. It is not the appellate court’s final order. The final disposition of that separate appeal has not been verified for this profile.
The Settlement Announcement and Party Positions
The April 8, 2016 settlement announcement identifies Richard A. Simpson as its contact. In a separate statement within that document, mediator Jeffrey E. Streitfeld names Rick Simpson among the lawyers with whom he worked directly. This supports Simpson’s professional involvement in the resolution and announcement, without establishing sole authorship or the details of private negotiations.
The announcement contains Dershowitz’s denial and a joint statement preserving Edwards and Cassell’s account that they acted in good faith. Wiley Rein also distributed the material as a firm-issued news release. It is a set of attributed positions, not independent reporting or a court verdict.
A separate notice filed by Edwards and Cassell on April 8 withdrew their partial summary judgment motion and supporting papers. It expressly limited what that withdrawal meant: they did not concede that the underlying Giuffre allegations were mistaken. Jack Scarola signed the notice. That position, like Dershowitz’s denial, should be attributed to its speakers. The settlement documents do not turn either side’s account into a judicial finding.
Reading the Different Kinds of Evidence
These documents establish different things. A counsel block identifies a lawyer’s role. A signature identifies who signed a filing. A deposition speaker label records who spoke. A service list shows who was designated to receive a document, but does not make every recipient its author or a lawyer for the same client.
The same distinction matters when one case’s papers become exhibits in another. The House packet’s federal caption does not make Simpson counsel for the United States, and the appellate appendix’s Epstein caption does not make him Epstein’s lawyer. The specific counsel blocks identify Dershowitz as his client in these records.
Deposition objections are advocacy. Pozzuoli’s ruling on an objection is a procedural decision. Party and firm statements are attributed accounts. None should be substituted for a judicial finding on the underlying allegations.
Chronology
| Date | Documented event |
|---|---|
| February 23 and March 24, 2015 | State response served February 23; federal filing of Document 319-1 on March 24, containing that response and Simpson’s counsel listing. |
| October 27, 2015 | Defense reply supporting discovery motion filed; Simpson appears in counsel block and Scott signs. |
| January 12, 2016 | Deposition Volume 4, afternoon session, records Simpson’s objections. |
| January 13, 2016 | Deposition Volume 6, afternoon session, records privilege-log discussion and an overruled objection. |
| March 11, 2016 | Revised witness disclosure dated and served; Dershowitz listed through Simpson as counsel. |
| March 31, 2016 | Menninger declaration filed with that disclosure as Exhibit B. |
| April 8, 2016 | Mutual dismissal stipulation, motion-withdrawal notice, and settlement announcement are separate records of the resolution. |
| April 27, 2016 | Appellate appendix served, attaching the April 8 stipulation. |
Evidence Appearances
| Record and locator | What it establishes |
|---|---|
| HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014084 through 014116, PDF pages 16, 27, and 28 | Florida response, Simpson’s counsel listing, and Scott’s signature. February 23 service and March 24 federal filing are distinct. |
| EFTA01116468, PDF pages 1, 22, and 23 | October 27, 2015 reply, Wiley Rein counsel block, and Scott’s signature and service certificate. No ruling granting the motion. |
| EFTA01137794, PDF pages 1 through 3 and 180 | January 12, 2016 Volume 4; Simpson for Dershowitz, Indyke for Epstein, and Simpson’s form objection at printed page 641. |
| EFTA02726849, PDF pages 1 through 3, 92, and 100 | January 13 Volume 6; privilege-log exchange at printed page 873 and overruled objection at page 881. |
| Giuffre v. Maxwell, Document 76-2, PDF pages 5, 20, and 21; Document 76, page 1 | Potential-witness entry, March 11 date and service, and March 31 exhibit filing. Simpson is the contact, not entry 19’s witness. |
| EFTA01085840, PDF pages 2, 3, 7, and 8 | April 27 appellate service, separate client groups, and April 8 dismissal stipulation. Not a final appellate order. |
| April 8 settlement announcement, pages 1 and 2 of the six-page packet | Simpson as contact and mediator’s reference to Rick Simpson, alongside attributed party statements. |
| April 8 withdrawal notice, pages 1 and 2 | Edwards and Cassell’s explanation of the withdrawal’s limits; Scarola’s signature. Not a finding on the allegations. |
Limitations and Open Questions
- The reviewed records establish professional representation and advocacy. They do not establish Simpson’s personal participation in abuse or a social relationship with Epstein.
- A name in a counsel block or service list does not establish sole authorship, the full scope of a retainer, or participation in every private discussion.
- The January transcripts are two specified volumes, not a complete set of every examination. Highlighting in a released copy has not been treated as court-authored commentary.
- The special master’s appointment order, the final rulings on every discovery dispute, and the final order in appeal 4D15-4527 were not established by this review.
- A witness disclosure does not prove testimony occurred. A motion or party statement does not establish the truth of its factual assertions.
- Redacted information and private contact details have not been reconstructed or reproduced. This profile covers the identified records reviewed through October 17, 2026, not every later case or professional activity.
Conclusion
Simpson’s documented connection is his representation of Dershowitz. The strongest evidence includes his spoken deposition participation, the specific counsel blocks, and his identified role in the settlement announcement. Reading those sources together gives a more precise account than treating every name in an Epstein-related release as evidence of the same kind of connection.
Questions and Answers
Whom did Richard A. Simpson represent in these records?
The reviewed Florida filings and deposition volumes identify him as counsel for Alan Dershowitz. The transcripts separately identify Darren Indyke for Epstein.
Was Simpson listed as a witness in Giuffre v. Maxwell?
Entry 19 of the reviewed disclosure names Dershowitz as the potential witness and gives Simpson as the contact lawyer. It does not list Simpson himself as that witness.
When was that disclosure made?
It was dated and served March 11, 2016. It was filed as an exhibit on March 31. The dates refer to different procedural steps.
What did the special master decide in the cited exchange?
Pozzuoli overruled Simpson’s objection at printed page 881 of Volume 6. That allowed the questioning to continue. It did not resolve the underlying allegations.
What happened to the Florida defamation claims?
The April 8, 2016 stipulation dismissed Edwards and Cassell’s claims against Dershowitz and his claims against them with prejudice. The resolution was not a trial verdict on the underlying allegations.
Related EpsteinWiki Articles
Sources
- Wiley: Richard A. Simpson professional profile. Official firm source, checked October 17, 2026. Used for Richard/Rick identity, current firm role, and the firm’s description of his historical representation.
- House Oversight release, HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014084 through 014116. Reproduces Doe v. United States Document 319-1, filed March 24, 2015. Relevant PDF pages 16, 27, and 28, Bates HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014099, HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014110, and HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014111. The original response was served February 23.
- Reply supporting Dershowitz’s motion to compel. EFTA01116468; filed October 27, 2015. PDF pages 1, 22, and 23; counsel and service pages EFTA01116489 and EFTA01116490.
- Dershowitz deposition, Volume 4. January 12, 2016, afternoon. Counsel on PDF pages 2 and 3; form objection on PDF page 180, printed page 641, Bates EFTA01137973.
- Dershowitz deposition, Volume 6. January 13, 2016, afternoon. Privilege-log exchange on PDF page 92, printed page 873, Bates EFTA02726940; objection ruling on PDF page 100, printed page 881, Bates EFTA02726948.
- Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 1:15-cv-07433, Document 76-2. Public court copy of revised Rule 26 disclosure, 21 pages. Potential-witness entry on page 5; March 11, 2016 date and service on pages 20 and 21; filed March 31.
- Giuffre v. Maxwell, Document 76, Menninger declaration. Filed March 31, 2016. Page 1 identifies Exhibit B and its March 11 service.
- EFTA01182998 release grouping. Mirror page and reproduced document images used to match the release to the public court records above. The complete EFTA PDF was not retrieved; the actual CourtListener disclosure and declaration PDFs were reviewed.
- Appendix to motion to dismiss appeal as moot, No. 4D15-4527. April 27, 2016 service certificate on PDF page 2. April 8 dismissal stipulation and defense counsel block on pages 7 and 8, Bates EFTA01085846 and EFTA01085847.
- April 8, 2016 settlement announcement. Settlement announcement on pages 1 and 2 of a six-page packet, containing Simpson’s contact identification, mediator’s announcement, and party statements. Also distributed as a Wiley Rein news release.
- Edwards and Cassell notice withdrawing partial summary judgment motion. Filed April 8, 2016. Pages 1 and 2 explain the stated limits of withdrawal and identify Scarola as signer.