Order Barring Release of Records May Be Too Late

A federal judge yesterday barred Deborah Jeane Palfrey from releasing any phone records or documents that could identify the 10,000 clients of the upscale escort service she operated in the Washington area.

That should mean that the former customers of the escort business can breathe a little easier.

But wait.

Palfrey's attorney, Montgomery Blair Sibley, said yesterday that he already provided a copy of the client list to a "reputable international news organization" this week -- at no cost and with no strings attached. He said Palfrey's hope is that the unnamed media organization will soon use its reporting acumen and research tools to write a story identifying customers, and then the customers can describe Palfrey's services and clear her name.

Palfrey, 50, ran Pamela Martin and Associates for 13 years until it closed in August, and she claims that it provided legal sexual services. Federal prosecutors say it was an illegal prostitution ring that yielded $2 million in assets, including cash and homes.

U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler ruled yesterday that Palfrey cannot sell or give away that potentially revelatory information about her clients to a news organization because she may have to forfeit the list to federal prosecutors as part of the criminal prostitution ring case the government has filed against her. Kessler issued the restraining order after federal prosecutors read news reports about Palfrey's intentions to sell the list to raise money for her defense, and asked the judge to stop her.

Sibley said there's no problem, because the original list is still intact and can be viewed by prosecutors.

A hearing is set for Monday, which should prove interesting. Palfrey is now in a disagreement with her court-appointed criminal attorney. So it's not clear who will argue what on her behalf.

Kessler's order also barred Palfrey from taking further action in a civil suit she filed against a former escort and employee and 15 other unidentified female employees. The judge agreed with prosecutors that the suit could be interpreted as harassment of potential witnesses who may provide information against Palfrey.

In her civil suit filed March 9, Palfrey appeared to be fighting back. She claimed that the employee provided illegal services against Palfrey's wishes.

"Defendant . . . materially breached her Contract with Plaintiff by engaging in illegal sexual activities with customers of the escort service without the knowledge or consent of Plaintiff," according to Palfrey's suit.

Sibley said there's nothing dubious about Palfrey's effort to assert her rights in court.

"There's no problem because it's not harassment," he said. "It has a very good legal basis."