Brad
Karp
is
back
in
law
school.
The
former
Paul,
Weiss
chair,
you’ll
recall,
became
notorious
in
the
world
of
Biglaw
when,
under
Karp’s
leadership,
the
firm
became
the
first
to
cut
a
deal
with
the
Trump
administration,
agreeing
to
eliminate
DEI
programs
and
pledge
$40
million
in
pro
bono
services
to
Trump
initiatives
in
exchange
for
relief
from
an
executive
order
targeting
the
firm.
And
the
hits
just
kept
coming:
Karp
stepped
down
in
February
after
the
Epstein
files
revealed
a
relationship
with
the
late
sex
trafficker
that
went
well
beyond
the
firm’s
carefully
maintained
“adverse
parties”
talking
point.
But
he
isn’t
hiding
under
a
rock
and
he
recently
appeared
as
a
guest
in
Harvard
Law
School
professor
Annette
Gordon-Reed’s
“Legal
Professions”
course.
And
if
you
were
hoping
Karp
had
developed
some
new
self-awareness
well…
not
exactly.
Let’s
take
the
Trump
deal
first,
since
Gordon-Reed
apparently
gave
Karp
some
cover
on
the
Epstein
front
(more
on
that
in
a
moment).
According
to
the
Harvard
Crimson,
Karp
told
students
that
Paul,
Weiss
partners
unanimously
agreed
to
attempt
a
settlement
with
the
Trump
administration
because
of
concerns
that
other
major
firms
would
poach
the
firm’s
clients
and
partners.
This
is,
at
bottom,
the
same
finger-pointing
we
saw
when
his
internal
email
was
published,
blame
the
competitors,
not
the
cowardice.
The
partners
were
scared
of
being
picked
clean,
so
they
kissed
the
ring.
Got
it.
Karp
also
told
students
he
had
considered
resigning
from
leadership
over
the
deal
but
stayed
on
at
his
wife’s
urging.
Touching.
He
also
apparently
argued
that
only
firms
that
failed
to
settle
ended
up
in
court
with
the
administration.
Here’s
the
thing
about
that:
the
firms
that
fought
back
in
court
are
winning.
Perkins
Coie,
WilmerHale,
Jenner
&
Block,
Susman
Godfrey
—
they
lawyered
up
and
pushed
back
against
executive
orders
that
federal
judges
have
repeatedly
found
unconstitutional.
The
firms
that
took
the
principled
stand
and
let
the
courts
do
what
courts
are
supposed
to
do
are
doing
just
fine.
So
when
Karp
frames
the
capitulation
as
the
pragmatic
path,
he’s
doing
so
in
a
world
where
the
evidence
increasingly
suggests
the
opposite
was
true.
Paul,
Weiss
remains
the
cautionary
tale;
the
firm
that
surrendered
first,
lost
a
wave
of
litigators,
watched
partner
after
partner
head
for
the
exits,
and
set
the
template
that
made
it
easier
for
every
subsequent
firm
to
fold.
And
yet,
here’s
Karp
at
Harvard
Law
telling
a
room
full
of
future
lawyers
that
fighting
a
winning
battle
in
court
is
the
real
problem.
Interesting
interpretation.
Now,
about
the
Epstein
questions
—
or
rather,
the
lack
thereof.
Gordon-Reed
told
students
there
were
“no
limits
on
questions
save
for
questions
involving
his
interactions
with
Epstein
on
behalf
of
firm
clients.”
That’s,
erm,
quite
the
carve
out.
Listen,
a
Legal
Professions
course
is
a
fine
place
to
discuss
the
limits
of
professional
judgment,
the
pressures
of
institutional
leadership,
and
what
it
looks
like
when
a
lawyer’s
personal
conduct
becomes
a
matter
of
public
concern.
But
threading
that
needle
by
preemptively
taking
Epstein
off
the
table
means
students
were
engaging
with
a
curated
version
of
Karp’s
story,
not
the
whole
one.
To
be
clear,
what
the
Epstein
files
showed
was
not
a
picture
of
arm’s-length
lawyering.
There
were
fawning
emails.
There
were
social
engagements.
There
was
Karp
asking
Epstein
to
help
his
son
get
a
job
on
a
Woody
Allen
production.
There
was
a
2015
exchange
in
which
Epstein
asked
Karp
about
revoking
a
woman’s
visa
and
Karp
replied,
“Both
good
ideas;
will
work
on
this.”
And
there
were
2019
emails
in
which
Karp
reviewed
a
draft
filing
related
to
Epstein’s
plea
deal
—
praising
arguments
that
characterized
the
sex
trafficking
victims
as
having
strategically
“lied
in
wait”
—
which
is,
to
put
it
mildly,
not
what
you
do
for
someone
you’re
adverse
to.
Not
all
the
students
were
satisfied
with
the
Epstein
embargo.
“I
think
Mr.
Karp’s
association
with
this
University
and
its
leadership
from
the
highest
levels
is
very
difficult
to
square
away
with
its
stated
values
of
egalitarianism
and
respect
for
all
individuals,”
third-year
student
Jackson
S.
Faulkner
told
the
Crimson.
“Anyone
who
helps
try
to
deport
somebody
on
behalf
of
a
private
individual
to
cover
the
sexual
abuse
case,
as
the
records
in
the
Epstein
files
indicate,
should
cause
anyone
serious
alarm.”
And
one
student
was
able
to
lodge
their
protest
in
real
time.
Throughout
the
Zoom
session,
someone
projected
a
photo
of
Jeffrey
Epstein
on
their
laptop
—
positioning
it
in
view
of
the
camera
—
in
silent
protest
of
Karp’s
presence.
It’s
the
2026
version
of
the
“For
Trump?”
heckle
at
the
New
York
Bar
Foundation
gala,
and
honestly,
that
heckler
also
had
a
point.
For
a
man
who
spent
nearly
two
decades
atop
one
of
the
most
prestigious
law
firms
in
the
world,
who
cultivated
a
reputation
as
a
giant
of
the
profession,
who
once
spoke
grandly
about
moral
courage,
being
reduced
to
the
guy
someone
silently
Epstein-posts
at
on
a
Zoom
call
is
a
remarkable
fall.
Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of The
Jabot
podcast,
and
co-host
of Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
AtL
tipsters
are
the
best,
so
please
connect
with
her.
Feel
free
to
email her with
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments
and
follow
her
on
Twitter @Kathryn1 or
Bluesky @Kathryn1