Breaking: Brad Karp has resigned as chairman of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton and Garrison, effective immediately. The abrupt change follows the surfacing of emails and texts that place Karp in contact with Jeffrey Epstein years ago. Karp is also a Union College trustee, a role now drawing urgent attention from the campus community and alumni.
What happened, and why it matters now
The communications, described to me today by people familiar with the materials, appear in recently released files tied to the wider Epstein record. They show exchanges between Karp and Epstein. The full context of those messages is not yet public. There is no indication that prosecutors have brought or are planning criminal charges against Karp.
This is a shock to Big Law. Karp has been one of the most visible law firm leaders in the country. His resignation signals how fast reputational risk can turn into firm governance action. It also shows how institutions react when old ties, even if lawful, collide with present expectations for ethics and transparency.
There are no criminal charges against Brad Karp. The materials, as described, do not themselves show criminal conduct.
Legal and governance implications for Big Law
For large firms, this is a stress test. The central questions are about oversight, risk controls, and disclosure. Firm leaders have duties to supervise, to vet conflicts, and to protect the enterprise. Under professional rules, leaders must ensure systems that prevent misconduct, and they must act when serious issues arise. A resignation at the top is one way to stabilize the firm. It is also a signal to clients, courts, and recruits that the firm will put institutional integrity first.
The lesson is simple, and hard. History lives forever. Emails and texts can reframe reputations overnight. Law firms need documented policies for leadership conduct, client intake, and personal relationships that could create conflicts. They also need a playbook for rapid, independent review when sensitive issues surface.
Higher education accountability at Union College
Karp’s trustee role now raises governing questions for Union College. Trustees owe a duty of care and loyalty to the institution. Even if no law was broken, perceived conflicts can damage trust. The board should move fast. It should assess whether continued service helps or harms the college’s mission. Students, faculty, and alumni deserve clear answers and a defined process.
A best practice here is the creation of a special committee of independent trustees. That group should hire outside counsel, preserve records, interview witnesses, and report findings on a set timeline. A measured response protects the college and protects the rights of everyone involved.
What firms and boards should do next
- Launch an independent review, led by outside counsel and a respected investigator.
- Issue a legal hold to preserve emails, texts, and chat logs.
- Communicate early and often with clients, employees, and stakeholders.
- Set a clear interim leadership structure and decision rights.
Transparency calms markets and campuses. Share what you know, what you do not, and when you will update again.
Citizen rights, due process, and public trust
This moment calls for balance. The public has a right to expect open, accountable institutions. People also have rights to fairness and due process. That means no rush to judgment, and no secrecy that hides key facts. It means careful language, respect for privacy where required, and strong protections for whistleblowers who raise concerns in good faith.
Clients and students should expect clear grievance channels and anti-retaliation policies. Employees should expect guidance on personal communications and outside affiliations. Donors and partners should see stronger diligence on reputational risk. Government may also take interest. Regulators often look at whether firms and boards had proper controls, and whether disclosures to investors, clients, or the public were timely and accurate.
The bigger signal
Karp’s exit marks a new chapter in post Epstein accountability. Institutions are showing less tolerance for any ambiguity around past ties, even when those ties were not criminal. The legal standard remains the same, but the governance standard is rising. That is healthy. It can also be messy. The path forward is clear communication, independent fact finding, and decisions that put duty first.
Today’s development is a warning to every boardroom and partnership. Build strong guardrails now. Assume old records will surface. Protect both fairness and transparency. If you do, you protect your mission, your people, and the public trust.
