Brad Karp Resigns as Paul Weiss Chairman Amid Epstein Fallout – The New York Times

Feb. 4, 2026 — Brad Karp, the longtime chairman of Paul Weiss, unexpectedly resigned on Wednesday evening after Department of Justice-released emails showing interactions between him and Jeffrey Epstein drew public scrutiny. The firm’s brief statement did not explain the resignation but quoted Mr. Karp saying recent reporting had become a distraction and placed undue focus on him. The disclosures follow a wider wave of attention this winter on figures who exchanged communications with Mr. Epstein long after his 2008 guilty plea. The move removes a high-profile leader from one of the United States’ most prominent corporate law firms at a moment of heightened reputational risk.

Key Takeaways

• Resignation: Brad Karp stepped down as chairman of Paul Weiss on Feb. 4, 2026, citing that media reporting had become a distraction to the firm.
• DOJ release: Emails and related materials released by the Department of Justice the prior Friday included messages and records showing Mr. Karp visited Mr. Epstein’s New York residence and exchanged multiple emails with him.
• Client context: Some exchanges occurred beyond Mr. Karp’s known representation of client Leon Black, according to the released materials.
• Prior scrutiny: Paul Weiss and Mr. Karp faced heightened attention after the firm negotiated a 2025 settlement with the Trump administration over an executive order that had threatened firm business.
• Broader pattern: Several business leaders, academics and public officials have faced renewed scrutiny this winter for communications with Jeffrey Epstein after his 2008 conviction.
• Firm statement: Paul Weiss issued a short announcement including Mr. Karp’s line that the reporting had become a distraction; no further explanation or timeline for an internal review was provided.

Background

Jeffrey Epstein, the financier whose conduct sparked long-running investigations, pleaded guilty in 2008 to soliciting prostitution from a minor and subsequently registered as a sex offender. That conviction did not prevent later scrutiny when released records and communications surfaced, prompting reassessments of people who stayed in contact with him. Over the past months, law firms, corporations and public figures have faced reputational fallout as authorities and media outlets sifted through historical emails and message logs.

Paul Weiss, founded in 1916 and widely known for handling complex corporate litigation and high-stakes matters, has been led by Mr. Karp for many years. The firm’s client roster and political engagements have made it a frequent subject of public attention; in 2025 the firm reached a deal with the Trump administration to resolve an executive order that had posed potential operational risks. That episode had already put Mr. Karp and the firm under a spotlight within legal and corporate circles.

Main Event

The Department of Justice released a batch of materials last Friday that included emails and visitor records involving Jeffrey Epstein and a range of correspondents. Among those documents were exchanges showing Brad Karp had been a guest at Mr. Epstein’s Manhattan residence and had several email exchanges with him. According to the released materials, some of those communications appear to extend beyond Mr. Karp’s known role representing Leon Black, a Paul Weiss client.

On the evening of Feb. 4, 2026, Paul Weiss issued a statement announcing Mr. Karp’s resignation as chairman. The short firm release offered no independent explanation for the decision; it included a one-line comment attributed to Mr. Karp that said recent reporting had become a distraction and placed a focus on him not in the firm’s best interests. The statement did not specify whether the firm would open an internal review or whether clients or partners had pressed for immediate leadership change.

The timing of the resignation — days after the DOJ disclosure — sparked immediate questions among clients, peers and regulators about whether the firm anticipated further reputational damage or wanted to signal decisive action. Firm partners and in-house counsel at major corporations typically weigh continuity of legal representation heavily; Paul Weiss will need to manage client concerns while addressing media and regulatory attention.

Analysis & Implications

Leadership turnover at a top law firm during an investigation or revelations of this nature can have multifaceted consequences. For clients, the primary near-term concern is stability: whether ongoing representations, appeals and transactional work will proceed without disruption. Paul Weiss’s brand rests on continuity and senior partner involvement; losing a longtime chairman raises short-term questions about client confidence and partner governance.

Reputationally, the firm must balance transparency with legal risk management. A measured public posture — outlining a fact-finding process while protecting privileged information — is a common approach, but it risks being perceived as opaque if stakeholders demand fuller disclosure. Regulators and opposing counsel may probe whether any conduct crossed ethical or legal lines, which could lead to separate inquiries or heightened civil scrutiny.

Politically and economically, the episode arrives at a sensitive time for major law firms increasingly judged on governance and public responsibility. Firms that advise corporations and governments are vulnerable to nonlegal reputational shocks because clients often prioritize conflict-free representation and perceived probity in outside counsel. The Paul Weiss episode may prompt other firms to revisit record-keeping, guest policies and escalation procedures for senior partners.

Finally, the broader pattern of renewed scrutiny over communications with Epstein suggests a continuing ripple effect: institutions and individuals once thought only peripherally connected may face renewed examination as historically private records enter the public sphere. That dynamic elevates the stakes for proactive ethics reviews and for clear messaging to clients and the public.

Comparison & Data

The table places the resignation in the context of earlier milestones that shaped public perceptions of both Epstein and Paul Weiss. While the firm has navigated reputational challenges before, the proximity of these events — a 2025 regulatory settlement followed by newly released 2026 materials — compressed the firm’s window to respond and manage stakeholder expectations.

Reactions & Quotes

Paul Weiss’s public announcement was terse and focused on the firm’s interests; it did not outline an investigation or timeline for further action. Observers in the legal world reacted quickly, noting the potential implications for the firm’s governance and client relationships.

“Recent reporting has created a distraction and has placed a focus on me that is not in the best interests of the firm.”

Brad Karp / Paul Weiss statement

Legal commentators emphasized that leadership changes often aim to limit collateral damage while allowing the firm to continue client work. Industry analysts said the firm will likely prioritize client outreach and an internal assessment of governance practices.

“The released materials indicate Mr. Karp had interactions with Mr. Epstein that extend beyond a narrow client matter.”

Department of Justice release (summarized)

Unconfirmed

• Whether Paul Weiss has opened a formal internal investigation into the circumstances behind the emails and visits is not publicly confirmed.
• It is not publicly established whether any firm clients have sought to terminate Paul Weiss engagements in direct response to the disclosures.
• The motives for Mr. Karp’s interactions with Jeffrey Epstein, and whether any communications contained actionable impropriety, have not been independently verified in public records.

Bottom Line

Brad Karp’s resignation on Feb. 4, 2026, leaves Paul Weiss facing immediate reputational and governance questions at a sensitive moment for the firm. The Department of Justice release that precipitated the resignation is part of a larger pattern of renewed scrutiny over historical ties to Jeffrey Epstein; that pattern is likely to produce further inquiries and reputational reviews across sectors.

For clients, partners and regulators, the near-term priorities will be clarity about continuity of representation, a transparent process for any internal review, and careful communications that balance legal constraints with stakeholders’ demand for information. How Paul Weiss proceeds — whether it conducts and publishes the results of an internal review, how it manages partner governance, and how it reassures clients — will determine whether the firm can restore confidence quickly or face longer-term fallout.

Sources

• The New York Times — news reporting (article detailing Karp’s resignation and DOJ-released materials)