Skip to content 
The chairman of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Brad Karp, has resigned his top leadership role after a newly released batch of Jeffrey Epstein-related records exposed years of email contact between the two men, including messages that blended social access with requests tied to Karp’s family.
According to Reuters report, the firm announced that Karp will be replaced by Scott Barshay, a senior partner and prominent deal lawyer inside the firm.
At stake is more than a leadership shuffle at a blue-chip Wall Street institution. The resignation lands amid an unusually chaotic government release of Epstein investigative materials, and it adds another data point to a recurring pattern, when long-buried connections reappear in public documents, reputational risk becomes operational risk, and the pressure hits the person at the top first.
What the Newly Released Emails Show
According to reporting based on a review of emails included in the latest Justice Department tranche, Karp’s communications with Epstein included both personal and business contact, and referenced social settings such as dinners.
The reporting also describes Karp seeking Epstein’s help in connection with his son pursuing a job tied to a Woody Allen film production.
The picture sharpened further in other major coverage. Financial Times reported that Justice Department documents show Karp communicating with Epstein in 2019 and described messages that included supportive language as Epstein tried to prevent the reopening of his 2008 plea deal, along with references involving access to film-related events and introductions.
How Paul Weiss Explained the Change
Karp said the recent reporting had become a distraction and that the attention on him was not in the firm’s best interests, according to accounts of the firm’s statements. The firm also said he “regrets” the interactions.
In leadership terms, it reads like a containment move: remove the daily flashpoint, stabilize client relationships, and signal internal control. In big-law governance, that can matter as much as any single fact in a document cache.
Why This Happened Now: The DOJ Release and Its Fallout
View this post on Instagram
The leadership change comes right after the U.S. Department of Justice published a massive collection of Epstein-related records under the Epstein Files Transparency Act framework.
The United States Department of Justice said it published millions of pages of responsive material, plus thousands of videos and a large volume of images, as part of a compliance release dated January 30, 2026.
The legal requirement itself is described in publicly available congressional text for the law, which directs the DOJ to publish unclassified records in a searchable, downloadable format.
The scale and speed of the release have become a story on their own. Associated Press reported that the publication drew criticism for redaction failures and exposed sensitive personal information and explicit material, prompting calls from victims and lawyers for stronger safeguards.
That broader backdrop matters for the Karp story because it explains the timing. When a release is large, messy, and headline-driven, individual threads get pulled fast, and prominent names become immediate targets for follow-up reporting and client questions.
The Leon Black Link and Why It Matters
The reporting also points to how Karp first connected to Epstein: through work involving Leon Black, the co-founder and former chair of Apollo Global Management.
That detail complicates the simple narrative that all relationships are purely social. In elite finance and legal circles, introductions often run through professional representation, philanthropy, and gatekeeping.
The reason it still becomes combustible is that Epstein’s criminal history and the public record around his network have made any extended private rapport difficult to defend, even when the initial contact began through business.
What Reuters Says About Karp’s Stature Inside the Firm
Reuters framed Karp as a major figure in Wall Street legal power, noting he had chaired the firm since 2008 and helped grow annual revenue to more than $2.6 billion in 2024.
That context matters because it clarifies why the resignation is not a routine succession. Leaders with that profile typically manage transitions on a long runway.
A sudden step-down, tied to document revelations and media scrutiny, signals that the firm judged the risk of prolonging the controversy as higher than the cost of removing a long-serving chair.
What Comes Next for Paul Weiss
Barshay’s appointment suggests a shift toward a leadership figure closely associated with corporate work and marquee transactions. That can reassure clients who prioritize stability and deal continuity, especially if they see reputational noise bleeding into staffing, retention, or recruitment.
The bigger question is whether the episode ends with a single resignation or becomes part of a longer wave as journalists and litigants keep mining the Epstein document trove.
The document release has already become technically and ethically contentious, with reporting emphasizing the difficulty of balancing transparency against victim privacy.
For Paul Weiss, the near-term test is straightforward: keep clients from viewing the leadership crisis as a proxy for institutional judgment.
For the wider legal industry, the lesson remains familiar: relationships that once functioned as status currency can later read like liability, especially when the archive becomes public and searchable.
