Brad Karp resigns as Paul Weiss chairman; Scott Barshay takes over

Brad Karp stepped down as chairman of Paul Weiss this week after newly released emails showed years of communications and interactions with Jeffrey Epstein. The leadership change, announced Wednesday, Feb. 4, 2026 (ET), puts one of Wall Street’s most influential law firms into an immediate transition as it tries to contain reputational damage and keep client work insulated from the controversy.

Karp said he was resigning to avoid becoming a distraction to the firm, and Paul Weiss emphasized it did not represent Epstein. Scott Barshay, previously the head of the firm’s corporate department, assumed the chairman role effective immediately.

Why Brad Karp’s resignation happened now

The trigger was a fresh public release of Epstein-related records that included email exchanges referencing Karp. The emails did not accuse Karp of criminal wrongdoing, but they showed a level of rapport and recurring contact that quickly became the focus of public and political attention.

Karp’s decision to relinquish the chairman title reflects a reality that has become common for elite institutions facing reputational shocks: even without allegations of illegality, the visibility and velocity of a controversy can become operationally disruptive. For a law firm whose business depends on trust, discretion, and crisis management for clients, the optics can be as damaging as the underlying facts.

What the emails show, and what remains unclear

The released material portrays communications that blended professional and social proximity over time, including conversations that touched on legal strategy and introductions. The records circulating publicly do not establish that Paul Weiss served as Epstein’s counsel, and the firm has stated it did not represent him.

Several details that people often leap to online are still unclear at this time: the full context of specific email threads, whether any messages were selectively excerpted from larger chains, and what—if any—corroborating documentation exists beyond the emails themselves. Those uncertainties matter because the public tends to treat any “name appears in the files” moment as a verdict, even when the documents do not support that leap.

Paul Weiss in the Karp era

Karp led the firm from 2008 through this week’s transition, a period in which Paul Weiss expanded significantly and climbed to annual revenue exceeding $2.6 billion. He also became closely associated with the firm’s modern identity: heavyweight litigation, high-stakes corporate work, and prominent crisis matters for major institutions.

That history cuts both ways now. A long tenure can steady a partnership culture, but it also concentrates institutional identity in one leader—making the departure feel less like a routine handoff and more like a rupture.

Scott Barshay’s mandate as new chairman

Barshay is a well-known corporate deal lawyer and has been a central figure in the firm’s M&A and boardroom advisory practice. His immediate task is not to “rebrand” the firm overnight, but to stabilize three things at once:

• Client assurance: keeping major matters from drifting to competitors amid uncertainty.

• Partner cohesion: preventing internal factionalism or blame cycles from spreading.

• Process credibility: demonstrating that the firm can manage sensitive issues without looking defensive or evasive.

Barshay’s advantage is that he inherits a firm with deep benches across practices. His risk is timing: leadership transitions are easiest when they are planned; this one is unfolding under a harsh spotlight and on a compressed clock.

What comes next: governance, clients, and the wider Epstein fallout

Expect the next phase to be procedural and incremental rather than dramatic. The firm’s public messaging is likely to stay tight, while internal governance focuses on continuity: client team stability, conflict checks, and internal communications designed to keep staff focused on day-to-day work.

At the same time, the broader Epstein-related disclosures remain a moving target. Additional releases can create fresh rounds of scrutiny for anyone mentioned, even tangentially, and can pull in adjacent political narratives. That makes “one-and-done” crisis containment difficult: leadership and communications teams often have to prepare for repeated waves.

Key dates and milestones (ET)

Why this matters beyond one firm

Paul Weiss is not just another Big Law brand; it sits at the intersection of finance, corporate power, and politics. When a leader of that stature steps aside, it becomes a signal event for how elite professional institutions handle reputational exposure in the “document dump” era.

For now, the practical measure of success will be quiet: whether major clients stay put, whether recruiting and retention hold steady, and whether the firm can keep the controversy from defining its next chapter.

Sources consulted: Reuters, Associated Press, Bloomberg, PR Newswire