The Epstein Files’ Latest BigLaw Casualty
By Tom Borman, Legal Affairs Contributor
Brad Karp’s 18-year reign atop Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison ended Wednesday night not with a bang, but with a carefully worded statement about “distractions.” Translation: the Justice Department’s release of millions of Epstein-related documents last week made his position untenable faster than you can say “conflict of interest.”
The emails paint a picture that’s more uncomfortable than a BigLaw associate’s billable hours target.
In July 2015, Karp thanked Epstein for “an evening I’ll never forget,” describing it as “truly ‘once in a lifetime’ in every way, though I hope to be invited again.” Epstein’s response? A promise of “many many nights of unique talents” and assurances Karp would “be invited often.”
Spoiler alert: those invitations are now exhibit A in why being Chair of a white-shoe law firm and socialising with convicted sex offenders don’t mix well.
The Woody Allen Connection (Because Of Course)
But wait, there’s more. In 2016, Karp asked Epstein if he could help get his son a job on an upcoming Woody Allen film. Because when you need career advice for your aspiring filmmaker son, naturally you turn to… a registered sex offender? The optics alone could teach a masterclass in what not to do.
Karp wrote that his son “doesn’t need to be paid and he’s a really good, talented kid.” Epstein replied asking what role the son wanted to fill, admitting he knew “little about the movies.” At least he was honest about something.
“We Never Represented Him” (Except When We Did?)
Paul Weiss has spent days playing semantic whack-a-mole, insisting the firm never represented Epstein. The firm claimed Karp was only engaged in minimal social contact and attended “two group dinners in New York City and had a small number of social interactions by email, all of which he regrets.”
But then Bloomberg uncovered emails from March 2019 showing Karp reviewing draft legal motions for Epstein’s plea deal fight, writing “The draft motion is in great shape.”
He praised arguments suggesting victims had strategic motives and made a joke about the case name “Fokker.” Because nothing says “I wasn’t representing him” quite like editing his legal briefs and cracking wise about sexual assault litigation.
As reports indicate, this is more ‘lawyering’ than being casual observers of a situation involving a close friend in trouble.
The Successor: Meet the New Boss
Scott Barshay, (above) the former chair of Paul Weiss’s corporate department, was appointed as Karp’s successor. According to reports, Barshay informed Karp he had to resign; a conversation that was presumably less awkward than explaining those Epstein emails to the partnership.
Karp isn’t leaving the firm entirely. He “will continue to focus his full-time attention to client service,” which is law firm code for “we’re keeping him but removing him from the letterhead and hoping everyone forgets about this by next quarter.”
A Firm Already Under Fire
This isn’t Karp’s first controversy rodeo. Last year, he made headlines for signing a deal with the Trump administration that committed Paul Weiss to $40 million in pro bono work for Trump-backed causes while ditching DEI programs, which created more than a little disquiet from both the firm insiders and others.
The blowback was fierce enough that Trump eventually rescinded the executive order that prompted the deal.
Four top lawyers left the firm over that incident to start their own practice. Now this. One has to wonder what the recruitment pitch looks like these days at Paul Weiss recruiting events.
The Epstein Effect: A Growing Casualty List
Karp joins a growing list of resignations following the DOJ’s document release, including British politician Peter Mandelson, longevity expert Peter Attia, and multiple European officials. The files have become a professional minefield for anyone who thought their past associations with Epstein would remain buried.
For Karp, those “once in a lifetime” evenings have indeed proven unforgettable—just not in the way he intended when he wrote that thank-you note in 2015.
The lesson? When your social calendar includes dinners with convicted sex traffickers and your professional judgment extends to asking them for Hollywood favours, maybe “distraction” isn’t quite the right word. “Liability” might be more accurate.
