— Senior partners at the white‑shoe law firm Paul Weiss moved this week to remove Brad Karp from the firm’s leadership after a new tranche of Justice Department documents linked him more closely than colleagues had realized to Jeffrey Epstein. The disclosures included a 2019 email in which Mr. Karp offered a legal view about a plea deal Mr. Epstein reached roughly a decade earlier involving solicitation of a minor. After a Wednesday evening conference call by a small oversight group of partners, Mr. Karp resigned as chairman of Paul Weiss, ending a leadership tenure that many partners credited with building their practices.
Key Takeaways
- Brad Karp resigned as chairman of Paul Weiss the week of Feb. 6, 2026 after partners reviewed newly released Justice Department documents.
- The Justice Department release on Feb. 6, 2026 included a 2019 email showing Mr. Karp offered legal advice about a plea deal tied to solicitation of a minor, though Epstein was not a Paul Weiss client.
- Mr. Karp has been a long‑time lawyer for Leon Black, whose own ties to Epstein have been scrutinized; partners said that relationship partly framed their concern.
- A small committee called the “deciding group,” which controls hiring and firing at Paul Weiss, held a Wednesday night call to weigh leadership options.
- Several senior partners who acknowledged professional debt to Mr. Karp concluded the newly surfaced material indicated a deeper involvement with Epstein than they had known.
- The firm announced an internal response and faces potential reputational and client‑retention risks amid the disclosures.
Background
Paul Weiss is a leading New York law firm known for representing high‑profile corporate and private clients. Over decades the firm built a reputation for complex litigation, regulatory work and high‑stakes transactional advice; its leadership structure gives a small number of senior partners decisive authority over governance, hiring and discipline.
The Epstein archive, assembled in government files and publicized in recent years, has repeatedly drawn attention for connections between the financier and prominent lawyers, executives and advisers. Leon Black, a private equity founder long associated with Epstein, was previously represented by Mr. Karp, and questions about the scope of those professional ties have circulated for months.
In early February 2026 the Justice Department released additional materials from its Epstein files. The newly available documents renewed scrutiny across Wall Street and the legal community, prompting internal reviews at firms with any apparent links. At Paul Weiss, that process exposed a 2019 exchange that many partners had not previously seen or fully understood.
Main Event
When the week began, senior partners at Paul Weiss expected Mr. Karp to retain his chairmanship despite his name appearing in the Justice Department materials. As more pages were reviewed, colleagues said several items suggested Mr. Karp’s engagement with Epstein was broader than previously appreciated. The 2019 email — which discussed a past plea arrangement tied to soliciting a minor — was singled out as particularly consequential because it reflected Mr. Karp providing a legal opinion in a matter where Epstein was not his client.
On Wednesday evening a small group of senior partners, known internally as the deciding group and responsible for personnel decisions at the firm, convened a conference call to consider options. Participants weighed the reputational implications for the firm, the facts in the documents and whether the chair could continue to lead while questions remained about his judgment and external contacts.
By the end of that meeting the group informed Mr. Karp that his position as chair was untenable; he subsequently resigned from the chairmanship. The resignation did not, in reporting available at the time of publication, imply a firm finding of legal wrongdoing by Mr. Karp, but it marked a rapid shift in internal support among partners who had long benefited from his leadership.
Analysis & Implications
The decision to remove a longstanding leader illustrates how reputational risk can force swift governance actions in elite firms. For Paul Weiss, the immediate challenge is to stabilize client relationships and reassure stakeholders that the firm’s ethical and supervisory controls remain robust. Large clients sensitive to public perception may seek assurances or, in some instances, consider alternative counsel depending on how the firm frames its review and next steps.
Legally, the documents cited do not alone establish new criminal liability for Mr. Karp; the 2019 email reflects an expression of a legal view about an earlier plea rather than evidence of participation in criminal conduct. Still, the appearance of a senior partner advising about a high‑profile plea for a non‑client raises conflict‑of‑interest and professional‑responsibility questions that could prompt an independent review or referral to bar authorities if new facts emerge.
Institutionally, the episode will likely accelerate governance debates inside other white‑shoe firms about disclosure, escalation and the role of small leadership committees. Firms may revisit policies about how much outside counsel should engage in representations tied to clients’ associates and the thresholds that trigger internal investigation or removal from leadership.
Comparison & Data
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2019 | Email exchange in which Brad Karp offered a legal view about a prior plea in Epstein‑related matter. |
| Feb. 6, 2026 | Justice Department documents released publicly; reporting connects Mr. Karp to new material. |
| Early Feb. 2026 (week of Feb. 6) | Deciding group meets Wednesday evening; Mr. Karp resigns as chairman. |
The table above places the key items in chronological perspective. The critical inflection point was the 2019 email’s appearance in the Department of Justice files that were released in early February 2026, prompting an internal governance decision within days. That speed reflects both the sensitivity of the subject matter and the concentrated authority held by a handful of senior partners at Paul Weiss.
Reactions & Quotes
“The firm is taking the disclosures seriously and will review the relevant materials,” the firm said in a brief statement responding to inquiries.
Paul Weiss (firm statement)
“When documents change the factual picture, leadership decisions often follow swiftly — firms are protecting clients and reputations,” said a legal‑ethics scholar who has studied law‑firm governance.
Legal ethics scholar
Several senior partners who had advanced under Mr. Karp said they were surprised by the new material and concluded leadership change was necessary to preserve the firm’s standing.
Partner group (on background)
Unconfirmed
- Whether the 2019 email represented isolated legal commentary or part of a pattern of direct advice to Epstein beyond what is currently public remains unconfirmed.
- It is not yet confirmed if the firm will launch an independent external investigation or refer any matters to bar authorities.
Bottom Line
The resignation of Brad Karp as Paul Weiss chairman after newly released Justice Department documents underscores how reputational exposure can swiftly upend leadership at elite firms. The immediate fallout centers on governance, client confidence and whether further facts will emerge that change the legal or ethical calculations.
For corporate clients and the legal sector broadly, this episode highlights the importance of transparent escalation channels and the reputational cost when senior figures are linked—even indirectly—to high‑profile scandals. Expect other firms to reassess internal controls and disclosure practices to limit similar risks.
Sources
- The New York Times — News reporting on Paul Weiss, Brad Karp and Justice Department document release