Lesley Groff

Role in Epstein’s Organization

Lesley Groff was one of a small group of personal assistants who formed the administrative core of Jeffrey Epstein’s personal operation. While Ghislaine Maxwell served as a social director and gatekeeper at the highest level of Epstein’s world, the day-to-day logistics of Epstein’s life — travel arrangement, scheduling, communication with contacts, and coordination of his properties — fell to a group of assistants that included Groff, Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross, and Johanna Sjoberg.

Groff’s specific responsibilities centered on scheduling and communication. Victims have described receiving phone calls from women in Epstein’s office — including individuals identified as Groff — arranging appointments and travel, coordinating what was described to victims as massages or other services at Epstein’s properties. This phone-based coordination was a documented part of how Epstein’s trafficking pipeline operated administratively.

What Victims Said

Court documents and depositions from Epstein victims describe the assistants as integral parts of the recruitment and delivery system. Girls and young women were often contacted by phone or in person by the assistants, who relayed instructions from Epstein or Maxwell, arranged transportation to his residences, and in some cases were alleged to have been present during encounters. The degree to which Groff personally participated in versus merely facilitated these arrangements was a question that investigators pursued but that was ultimately resolved by the grant of immunity before any charges were filed.

Virginia Giuffre and other victims referenced the role of Epstein’s female assistants in their accounts, describing a system in which these women served as intermediaries who normalized contact and entry into Epstein’s world for younger girls.

The 2008 Non-Prosecution Agreement

Groff is specifically named as one of four women — alongside Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross, and Nadia Marcinkova — who received immunity from federal prosecution under the terms of the non-prosecution agreement negotiated in 2008 between Epstein’s legal team and then-U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta. The NPA granted Epstein himself a highly favorable plea to state charges and extended immunity to named co-conspirators without requiring any cooperation or acknowledgment of wrongdoing from those individuals.

When the NPA’s contents were revealed through Freedom of Information litigation pursued by the Miami Herald’s Julie K. Brown and through legal challenges by Brad Edwards and Paul Cassell, the inclusion of immunity provisions for the four women became one of the most criticized aspects of the agreement. Victims argued that the women who had facilitated their abuse were being protected from accountability without any obligation to testify or provide information.

Legal Consequences and Public Profile

No charges were ever brought against Groff in connection with Epstein’s activities. She maintained a very low public profile before, during, and after the case. Unlike some of Epstein’s other associates, she has not appeared in civil litigation depositions that became publicly available, nor has she given press interviews. Her immunity from federal prosecution extended to conduct that investigators had documented as part of their case.

Significance

Groff’s role represents the administrative infrastructure that made Epstein’s operation possible at scale across multiple properties and over many years. The trafficking pipeline that investigators documented could not have functioned without the logistical support provided by individuals in her position. The decision to immunize her and her colleagues without requiring cooperation left victims without answers about how the operation was organized and who else may have had knowledge of it.