Roy Black

UpdatedOctober 6, 2026

ByEpsteinWiki

Snapshot

Field	Documented information
Public identity	Roy Eric Black, Miami criminal defense and civil trial lawyer
Born	February 17, 1945
Died	July 21, 2025, aged 80
Firm in the Epstein records	Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf, P.A.
Connection to Epstein	Defense representation documented from 2005, followed by negotiations and litigation over the federal agreement
Principal documented actions	Directed investigators, contested production of computer evidence, participated in federal negotiations, disputed work release restrictions and opposed disclosure of plea correspondence
Final agreement signature	Black was not a signatory to the executed September 24, 2007 agreement
Key court outcome	The Eleventh Circuit rejected the intervenors’ privilege claims and affirmed disclosure in April 2014
Evidentiary limit	The cited records establish legal and investigative activity; they do not establish Black’s participation in Epstein’s sexual abuse
Last checked	October 6, 2026

The 2014 appellate record identifies Roy Black as one of Jeffrey Epstein’s criminal defense attorneys. Roy Eric Black was a Miami lawyer who represented Jeffrey Epstein during the original Palm Beach investigation, the federal investigation that ended in the September 2007 nonprosecution agreement, and subsequent litigation over that agreement. His documented work included directing private investigators, contesting efforts to obtain computer evidence, participating in negotiations with prosecutors, defending Epstein’s work release, and fighting disclosure of the correspondence that produced the federal resolution.

Biographical reporting records Black’s birth on February 17, 1945 and death on July 21, 2025, aged 80. He was a founding partner of the firm known in the Epstein records as Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf, P.A. His connection to Epstein was substantial and professional. The records require scrutiny of particular decisions and actions; representation itself does not establish participation in a client’s crimes.

Key Takeaways

Black’s work for Epstein is documented by 2005, before the federal investigation and the eventual nonprosecution agreement.
An October 9, 2005 memorandum from investigator William Riley says Paul Lavery removed potentially evidentiary items from Epstein’s Palm Beach residence on October 7 at Black’s direction. The inventory includes three computers.
Federal prosecutors sought the computers in 2007. The Justice Department’s later review found that litigation over their production was abandoned as the nonprosecution agreement took effect.
Black participated in the defense effort, but he was not a signatory to the final September 24, 2007 agreement. The defense signatures were those of Gerald Lefcourt and Lilly Ann Sanchez, alongside Epstein’s own signature.
When a federal prosecutor accused Epstein of breaching the agreement through work release, Black disputed the accusation and argued that the agreement permitted ordinary state and county administration of his sentence.
Black and Martin Weinberg became intervenors in the victims’ litigation to resist disclosure of plea negotiations. The Eleventh Circuit rejected their privilege claims in April 2014.

A Prominent Miami Defense Lawyer

Black Srebnick’s biography records Black’s graduation from the University of Miami in 1967 and its law school in 1970. The Florida Bar records his admission in 1970. Before private practice, he spent five years as a public defender in Miami, representing defendants in felony and capital cases. University of Miami course records document his decades of teaching criminal evidence. These were the professional foundations he brought to Epstein’s defense.

The Associated Press obituary describes how his national reputation grew after William Kennedy Smith’s acquittal in a televised 1991 rape trial. His other clients included Rush Limbaugh, Justin Bieber and race car driver Hélio Castroneves. An interview after Black’s death quoted fellow Epstein lawyer Martin Weinberg saying Black would have been Epstein’s choice as chief trial lawyer if the Florida federal investigation had resulted in an indictment. That account explains the trial expertise he supplied without making him the sole architect of a defense involving numerous lawyers and firms.

The First Palm Beach Investigation

The Palm Beach Police Department incident report documents the investigation that began in 2005. It records attorney Guy Fronstin’s account of how the defense came together: Epstein initially contacted Alan Dershowitz, who recommended Black, and Black asked Fronstin to assist. This is a police record of Fronstin’s explanation, rather than a statement personally supplied by Black.

The same police report describes a witness saying that an investigator from Black’s law office contacted him around November 11, 2005 to discuss what he would tell police. Detective Joseph Recarey also recorded allegations that private investigators were presenting themselves as police officers. Fronstin said he did not know about that allegation and said the investigators were operating under Black’s direction.

ABC News’s July 28, 2006 report recorded Black’s public rejection of allegations of investigator misconduct. The report said he acknowledged using investigators to examine the allegations against Epstein, but denied claims that they had harassed or followed girls and their families. He said supporting material had been submitted to the state attorney and grand jury. The police allegations and Black’s response belong together in the record; neither should be converted into an unreported court finding.

EpsteinWiki’s account of Barry Krischer explains the initial state charging decisions made by the Palm Beach State Attorney’s Office. The later federal decision belonged to the United States Attorney’s Office. Black represented Epstein against those authorities.

The Computers Removed Before the Police Search

William Riley’s memorandum dated October 9, 2005 provides the clearest contemporaneous account of Black’s role in removing property. It states that investigator Paul Lavery went to Epstein’s residence at 358 El Brillo Way on October 7 and, at Black’s instruction, removed items of potential evidentiary value. Riley wrote that the property was transferred to him for inventory and safekeeping. The dates are distinct: October 7 is the removal date recorded in the memorandum; October 9 is the memorandum’s date.

The memorandum’s inventory lists three computers, 29 bound telephone directories, photographs, recordings and other personal property. It predates the police search later that October. It documents Riley’s reported custody, without establishing the computers’ contents.

A July 2007 declaration supplies evidence about forensic copying. A Palm Beach County deputy reported that computer specialist David Kleiman told him Black had hired Kleiman to make three bitstream copies and an EnCase image of each of three computers. Kleiman reportedly said the machines had not been used since 2005. The declaration records what the deputy was told; it is not itself a completed forensic examination.

Riley’s August 2009 email provides corroboration. In an August 23, 2009 email to attorney Robert Critton, copied to Black and Epstein, Riley said he still held computers and paperwork taken before the search warrant in storage. He asked whether to transfer the material to Critton, Darren Indyke or Epstein. He also said Black had directed that the drives be cloned, identified Kleiman as the specialist and said Black would have the results. The forwarding chain is dated August 24 in UTC.

The Federal Fight to Obtain the Computers

An FBI declaration in the subpoena litigation explains how federal investigators traced the removed computers through interviews and sought them through grand jury subpoenas in 2007. The declaration records Lavery saying that he collected equipment already boxed at the house, kept it briefly and delivered it to Riley. Lavery said he did not tamper with the computers. The declaration also describes Riley Kiraly as an independent investigative firm, rather than one working exclusively for Black.

The Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility report documents Black’s challenge to the government’s effort to obtain the material. OPR reconstructed the dispute and found that his legal action halted production pending a judicial decision. That decision never arrived because prosecutors postponed the dispute during negotiations and ultimately abandoned it under the nonprosecution agreement. The report discusses the subpoena dispute in its factual chronology and evaluates the consequences at printed pages 175 through 179.

The agreement’s preservation provisions, reproduced in OPR’s report, suspended the investigation and pending legal process. The agreement required preservation of the affected evidence, expressly including computer equipment, until Epstein satisfied the agreement’s terms. The pending legal process would then be treated as withdrawn. Preservation in private custody and examination by investigators were therefore separate questions under the agreement.

OPR’s analysis at printed pages 175 through 179 criticized the prosecution’s choice to stop pursuing potentially important evidence without adequately considering what the computers might reveal. Its assessment was that obtaining the material could have changed the decision to resolve the federal investigation through a state plea or supported additional charges. That is a documented institutional failure. The report does not establish what was on every drive, and a defense motion asserting privilege is not by itself a criminal obstruction finding.

The government surreply preserved in EFTA00178967 also cautions against simplifying procedural disputes. In a government surreply, prosecutors expressly said they were not alleging that Riley intentionally disobeyed his subpoena. They described an agreement excusing appearance if a motion addressing the subpoenas was filed, followed by a dispute about whether the motion covered testimony as well as documents.

Public Relations Alongside the Legal Defense

Sitrick and Company’s November 4, 2005 engagement letter to Black shows his firm serving as a point of contact for outside communications work. It describes public relations and communications services connected with legal matters the firm was handling for Epstein, with an effective date of October 21, 2005. The record is preserved with subsequent correspondence and litigation over Sitrick’s fees.

The engagement places professional communications advisers alongside lawyers and investigators in Epstein’s defense effort from its early stages.

Federal Negotiations and the September 2007 Agreement

The OPR record identifies Black among the attorneys who met federal prosecutors on June 26, 2007. The other defense participants included Dershowitz, Gerald Lefcourt and Lilly Ann Sanchez. The presentation addressed legal theories, federal jurisdiction and alleged investigative improprieties. On July 31, Black, Lefcourt and Sanchez attended the meeting at which prosecutors presented terms for ending the federal investigation through a state resolution. The proposed terms included imprisonment, registration as a sexual offender and a mechanism for victim compensation.

The judicial history of the negotiations identifies additional attorneys, including Kenneth Starr and Jay Lefkowitz, and federal officials led by Alexander Acosta. On September 24, 2007, Epstein entered the federal nonprosecution agreement. It conditioned the government’s commitment on a Florida guilty plea and other obligations, including a binding recommendation for 18 months in county jail. The agreement also contained protection for potential coconspirators within its stated scope.

The final agreement’s signatories establish a distinction between Black’s involvement and execution of the agreement. The executed document’s defense signature lines were for Epstein, Lefcourt and Sanchez. Black’s name appears on some proposed documents, but a draft signature line is not proof that he signed the final instrument. Judge Hull’s dissent in the Eleventh Circuit’s April 2020 decision identifies the final signatories at page 72, footnote 5. The panel’s legal disposition was subsequently replaced by the en banc ruling discussed below. The signatory information describes the historical document.

A June 19, 2008 prosecutor email records Black’s continuing involvement as the state plea approached. The email records his inquiry about resolving the federal and state matters together. The response insisted on performance of the existing federal agreement and warned that a different state plea could be treated as a breach. Epstein pleaded guilty in state court on June 30, 2008. The federal agreement was made in 2007; the guilty plea implementing it occurred in 2008.

Work Release and the Breach Dispute

A November 24, 2008 letter from Assistant United States Attorney A. Marie Villafaña addressed Black directly, asserting that Epstein’s participation in the Palm Beach County work release program materially breached the nonprosecution agreement. The letter demanded that Epstein leave the program. It described the government’s position as requiring continuous incarceration and recounted earlier discussions in which Black allegedly assured prosecutors that Epstein would not seek or receive work release.

The letter also recalled Black and Sanchez raising the possibility of paying sheriff’s deputies to guard Epstein as an alternative equivalent to imprisonment. According to Villafaña, Acosta had rejected that proposal. Her letter treated the arrangement actually adopted during work release as inconsistent with the bargain. These are the prosecutor’s contemporaneous assertions about the agreement and prior conversations.

Black’s November 26 reply disputed the prosecutor’s position. He acknowledged that Epstein was in the county work release program but denied a breach. He argued that the agreement did not prohibit work release, that Florida law treated the program as part of a county jail sentence, and that the agreement entitled Epstein to benefits available to other inmates. He also invoked the sheriff’s authority and the government’s earlier references to possible work release.

OPR’s account of the continuing dispute documents arguments over both the intended punishment and the wording of the agreement. It was not a court judgment that Black had personally committed misconduct. Epstein ultimately left the stockade in July 2009 after almost 13 months and began home confinement. OPR also records Black asking in September 2009 to transfer supervision to the United States Virgin Islands, a request the federal prosecutor opposed as inconsistent with the agreement. These exchanges show his continued role in the administration of Epstein’s sentence.

Black Became an Intervenor in the Victims’ Case

The 2014 appellate opinion recounts two Epstein victims’ proceedings against the United States under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act. Their lawyers sought the communications exchanged between prosecutors and Epstein’s defense to establish how the agreement had been negotiated and concealed from victims. Black’s role in this litigation was unusual because he became a party asserting his own claimed interest in protecting the correspondence.

The opinion’s procedural history records that Black, Weinberg and Epstein intervened in 2011 for the limited purpose of opposing disclosure and use of the plea correspondence. They asserted work product protection, rules governing plea discussions and other confidentiality arguments. After the district court rejected protective relief, Black, Weinberg and Epstein appealed. The published appellate caption identifies them as intervenors and appellants.

The Eleventh Circuit’s April 18, 2014 judgment affirmed disclosure. It held that Federal Rule of Evidence 410 concerns admissibility, rather than a general privilege against discovery. It also upheld the conclusion that any work product protection had been waived when the lawyers voluntarily sent the material to their adversary, the United States. Finally, it declined to create a new common law privilege for plea negotiations. The court lifted the stay that had prevented production.

This decision made the negotiations available to the victims through litigation. It did not declare all communications between Epstein and his lawyers public, abolish attorney client privilege, or find Black guilty of a crime. Its importance lies in the specific documents the defense had exchanged with prosecutors and the unsuccessful attempt to keep those documents from the victims.

The Litigation Continued After Epstein’s Death

An August 14, 2019 filing bearing Black’s signature shows him continuing to defend the agreement’s legal effect. The filing argued that remedies designed to enable Epstein’s prosecution had become moot. It also opposed altering protections affecting other people without giving those people notice and an opportunity to be heard. Other defense counsel joined the submission.

The 2021 en banc decision resolved the victims’ broader statutory case before the full Eleventh Circuit. In April 2021, the court held that the Crime Victims’ Rights Act did not authorize the freestanding civil action they had brought when no federal criminal proceeding had been initiated against Epstein in the relevant case. The majority sharply criticized the treatment of the victims while denying the petition on that statutory basis. The Supreme Court’s February 22, 2022 order declined review. These later outcomes are necessary context for the earlier litigation and should not be described as an endorsement of the secret agreement.

The Justice Department’s November 2020 statement reported OPR’s conclusion that Acosta exercised poor judgment in resolving the federal investigation through the agreement and in handling victim notification. It did not find professional misconduct by the Department attorneys under review. That review concerned federal prosecutors; it was not a disciplinary clearance or criminal adjudication of every lawyer who represented Epstein.

Black’s Death and Renewed Scrutiny in 2026

Contemporary biographical reporting records that Black died at his home in Coral Gables on July 21, 2025. His law partner confirmed that he had suffered a serious illness. The Florida Bar memorial independently records the date of death.

Representative Robert Garcia’s March 26, 2026 letter to Paul Lavery reflects renewed attention to the computers after further records were released. Garcia, the ranking Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, sought interviews with investigators and preservation of material associated with Epstein. His letter to Lavery expressly cited Riley’s 2005 memorandum to Black and asked about the removal, storage and location of the property. These were investigative requests, not criminal judgments.

Spectrum News’s March 2026 reporting adds an important qualification to claims about the computers. It reported that a serial number in the 2005 inventory appeared to match a photographed drive associated with the Maxwell trial evidence. That observation does not supply a complete custody history, but it makes a blanket claim that law enforcement never obtained any relevant drive or copy unsafe. The established OPR finding concerns the abandonment of the original Florida effort to obtain the computer evidence.

Independent Reporting and Document Trails

American Freakshow’s June 30, 2026 examination of Epstein’s legal circle, by Nina Burleigh and Katie Chenoweth, places Roy Black among the lawyers associated with the Florida resolution. The court records and OPR chronology above independently establish that role. Much of that article’s later discussion concerns financier Leon Black and other attorneys, whose conduct must not be attributed to Roy Black because they share a surname.

The Butterfly Bureau’s August 17, 2026 account of the Florida agreement distinguishes original defense participants from advisers who became involved years later. Julie K. Brown’s March 29, 2026 reporting focuses specifically on the computer evidence and the prosecutorial decisions surrounding it. These investigations provide context for the primary record without replacing the documents needed to attribute a particular action to Black.

What the Record Establishes

Black’s documented significance extends beyond his inclusion on a list of prominent defense attorneys. The records connect him to investigators who handled physical evidence, litigation that delayed its production, federal negotiations, arguments over the meaning of incarceration and a sustained effort to keep plea correspondence confidential.

Each category carries a different evidentiary weight. Riley’s memorandum and email describe what an investigator reported doing. Police and FBI declarations record investigative accounts. Defense filings state legal positions. The 2014 opinion establishes what the court decided about disclosure. OPR evaluates prosecutorial decisions. Reading these sources together supports a detailed account of Black’s professional role without converting a disputed assertion, an adverse ruling or a lawyer’s representation of Epstein into proof of participation in sexual abuse.

Evidence Appearances

EFTA01733753. Riley memorandum dated October 9, 2005, describing the October 7 removal at Black’s direction and inventorying the property.
EFTA00007157. Palm Beach police incident report. Printed pages 58 and 59 record investigator contacts and Fronstin’s account of the defense referrals.
EFTA00229744. Archived ABC News report dated July 28, 2006, including Black’s denial of investigator misconduct. This is a news clipping within the release, not an investigative finding.
EFTA00222943. FBI declaration describing how investigators traced the removed computers through Lavery and Riley.
EFTA00222965. July 2007 deputy’s declaration reporting Kleiman’s account of Black’s instructions to copy three computers.
EFTA00178967. Collected subpoena litigation, including the government’s clarification concerning Riley’s scheduled grand jury appearance. Individual filings within this collection must be read in their procedural context.
EFTA01121316. Sitrick engagement letter addressed to Black, followed by later correspondence and fee litigation. The engagement letter occupies the opening pages.
EFTA00013968. June 19, 2008 prosecutor email recording discussions with Black about resolving the state and federal matters.
EFTA00014110. November 24, 2008 letter to Black asserting that Epstein’s work release breached the agreement.
EFTA00014038. Black’s November 26, 2008 response denying a breach and explaining his interpretation of work release.
EFTA00884246. August 2009 email chain recording Riley’s storage of computers and paperwork and his statement that Black directed forensic copying.
Eleventh Circuit No. 13 12923. April 18, 2014 opinion naming Black as an intervenor and appellant and affirming disclosure of the plea correspondence.
Doe v. United States, Document 476. August 14, 2019 filing signed by Black and other counsel concerning remedies after Epstein’s death.

Source List

Black Srebnick, Roy Black biography.
The Florida Bar, September 2025 memorial notices.
University of Miami, criminal evidence workshop.
Associated Press, Roy Black obituary.
Adam Nossiter, New York Times obituary republished by WLRN.
DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility report, filed in United States v. Maxwell as Document 293 1, with a searchable archival copy.
Justice Department statement on the OPR findings, November 12, 2020.
Jane Doe No. 1 v. United States, Eleventh Circuit, April 18, 2014.
In re Wild, Eleventh Circuit panel opinion, April 14, 2020, historical account of the signed agreement.
In re Wild, Eleventh Circuit en banc decision, April 15, 2021.
Supreme Court denial of review, February 22, 2022.
House Oversight Democrats, Garcia letter to Paul Lavery, March 26, 2026.
Spectrum News, reporting on the investigators and computer evidence, March 27, 2026.
ABC News, evidence removal reporting, February 25, 2026.
Julie K. Brown, The Search for Epstein’s Missing Computers, March 29, 2026. Further reporting on the computer evidence and the decisions that prevented its examination during the original investigation.
Nina Burleigh and Katie Chenoweth, American Freakshow, The Epstein Lawyers Association. June 30, 2026 contextual reporting on the legal circle.
The Butterfly Bureau, Jeffrey Epstein’s Florida Deal Had Enablers. August 17, 2026 overview separating the original agreement from later advisory activity.

PostedOctober 6, 2026