Two fronts opened against Miami Herald reporter Julie K. Brown over her Epstein reporting and book. First, multiple defamation suits were filed by people portrayed in her work: Epstein survivors Courtney Wild and Haley Robson alleged Brown misrepresented their experiences and, in Robson’s case, cast her as a collaborator rather than a victim; and Ghislaine Maxwell’s former assistant Emmy Tayler filed her own defamation action over claims that she “organized” Epstein’s massages. The Tayler matter proved especially damaging to Brown’s publisher: HarperCollins issued a formal apology in 2024 acknowledging Tayler was defamed in the UK edition and wrongly inserted into the narrative—an extraordinary concession that undercut the book’s editorial due diligence and handed ammunition to critics who said Brown’s project sometimes sacrificed precision for impact.

Second, Brown became embroiled in a contractual fight with private investigator Michael (Mike) Fisten, who said he’d been cut out of a promised collaboration and sued for compensation tied to the book deal. That dispute showcased the commercial tug-of-war behind high-profile “accountability” bestsellers: Fisten’s early winless turn in arbitration (rejecting his $350k claim) didn’t end the saga, which spilled into Miami-Dade court and later reached Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal. The upshot is a messy, credibility-draining litigation trail: while Brown’s reporting helped reignite scrutiny of Epstein, the courtroom aftermath—defamation claims from survivors, a publisher’s apology to Tayler, and a protracted fight with a key investigator—has raised uncomfortable questions about methods, attribution, and whether the rush to own the narrative came at the expense of accuracy and fair dealing.



to contact me:

[email protected]