Trust lost needn’t be lost forever

Friday’s fiasco: departures that don’t fix the damage

Brad Karp stepped down as chair of Paul Weiss  this week after US Department of Justice (DOJ) documents revealed his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. The DoJ emails show Karp discussing legal strategy with Epstein in March 2019, describing arguments as "in great shape" and noting "I particularly liked the argument that the 'victims' lied in wait." He told Epstein "hope you're staying calm" and asked "what can I do to help." Epstein replied: "your judgment and friendship."

These conversations happened four months before Epstein's arrest. Years after his 2008 conviction. Whilst Karp chaired a major law firm.

Paul Weiss partners moved fast. Scott Barshay takes over as chair. The firm emphasises neither Karp nor Paul Weiss ever represented Epstein directly; they worked for Leon Black on fee disputes. So with that legal proviso, Karp stays on as partner focusing on client work. The firm's statement called recent reporting "a distraction” and their action addresses the immediate reputational crisis, uncomfortable headlines, and difficult client conversations.

But the fiasco is about what enabled Karp to provide strategic counsel to a convicted child sex offender, outside any formal retainer, with apparently nobody questioning whether this was appropriate. Because what his departure doesn't address is how this was able to transpire in the first place.

Critical questions

The critical question isn't "did anyone know?" It's "should anyone have known?" When relationships are subject to DOJ scrutiny revealing extensive correspondence, they ought to have been visible enough for partners to notice. When nobody notices, you have an oversight problem. If people notice but say nothing, you have an accountability problem. If people raise concerns and nothing happens, you have a challenge problem.

When a firm moves this quickly to quell a storm, it is unlikely these questions have been asked. Paul Weiss' damage sits externally beyond professional oversight or formal billing structures, in unclear boundaries between personal and professional relationships with clients and former clients, insurance risk, accountability vacuums where partner conduct goes unchallenged, potential criminality for juniors and support staff, and an inability for anyone to raise concerns about senior leadership perceived as untouchable.

Scott Barshay faces a choice that every incoming leader faces after a crisis: fix the optics or fix the damage.

Elite professional firms consistently treat cultural damage as individual problems. When a partner does something problematic, the partner leaves and the firm moves on. But the chair hasn't left the firm. Which means the firm is leaning into the idea that Brad Karp really is untouchable. The conflict between existing billing relationships when the rainmaker holds the cards emphasises the accountability tussle that is going on here.

What would we advise Paul Weiss?

Quantify the damage internally before it costs you more than reputation externally. This is a controversial approach for a US law firm where money talks. But you can't restore client confidence when your own people don't trust that accountability applies to rainmakers. Fix the culture inside the firm first. Then you'll have something credible to say externally.

Our Organisational Repair Index™️(ORI) measures damage across nine factors to show precisely where cultural failures create risk. With diagnostic data, you know where to focus resources and can track whether repair work is addressing risk rather than managing headlines. Then we would advise the following:

Acknowledgement: Partners need to hear what actually happened and how it was possible. Not statements about "distractions," but examination of how the chair maintained advisory relationships with a convicted sex offender whilst nobody questioned it. What made this possible? Who knew? Who should have known? What stopped anyone from raising concerns?

Apology: The partnership owes its people acknowledgement that leadership failed them. That junior lawyers and support staff were potentially exposed to criminality risk. That the culture allowed this to continue unchallenged.

Accountability: Establish measurable accountability where oversight collapsed. Create challenge mechanisms that function for everyone, not just those without billing relationships. Make clear partnership status doesn't create untouchability, especially when Karp remains at the firm.

Amends: Rebuild feedback loops that should have surfaced concerns. Implement structural changes preventing informal advisory relationships operating outside oversight. Demonstrate the internal culture has changed before making external promises to clients.

The alternative is hoping swift leadership transition solves the problem whilst the chair remains as a billing partner. Which sends a clear message to everyone watching: some people really are untouchable. That's not repair. That's preservation of exactly the culture that created this fiasco. And when the next scandal surfaces, you'll be doing this again. Only this time, you won't be able to claim you didn't see it coming.

Leah Brown FRSA is the UK's leading specialist in organisational repair and founder of The WayFinders Group.

Fixer files: three questions for ExCo

Friday poll