by
John
Lamparski/Getty
Images
for
Hulu)
Back
in
September,
Bloomberg
flagged
an
email
exchange
between
Paul
Weiss
partner
Mitchell
Webber
and
Jeffrey
Epstein
addressing
“The
question
is:
what
would
happen
if
one
were
to
transport
a
minor
for
sex
—
or
transport
oneself
with
the
intent
to
have
sex
with
a
minor
—
into
a
state
in
which
the
age
of
consent
is
below
eighteen
(assuming
the
minor
is
above
the
age
of
consent
in
the
given
state)?”
Another
email
involves
Epstein
asking
for
research
on
sex
tourism
laws.
Not
the
hypos
anyone
wants
to
see
their
name
attached
to
right
now,
especially
for
a
firm
with
a
number
of
other
attorneys
under
the
microscope
—
and
that
just
lost
its
leader
—
all
over
appearances
in
Epstein
emails.
Social
media
posters
have
made
the
connection
between
Webber
and
Paul
Weiss,
thus
dragging
the
firm
into
this
story
too.
But
Webber’s
emails
come
with
a
few
important
caveats.
First,
his
correspondence
with
Epstein
came
way
back
in
his
career,
to
2008
while
he
was
still
a
research
assistant
at
Harvard
Law
School.
And
the
year
will
matter
a
lot
here.
And
second,
Webber
didn’t
actually
provide
any
legal
advice,
he
merely
passed
along
messages
from
his
boss…
Professor
Alan
Dershowitz.
“Jeffrey
Epstein
never
asked
for
my
legal
opinion
or
advice,”
Webber
explained
in
a
statement
to
Forward,
“I
never
provided
my
legal
opinion
or
advice
to
Jeffrey
Epstein.
I
only
relayed
advice
from
his
counsel,
Professor
Dershowitz.”
Why
was
the
research
assistant
conversing
with
Epstein
instead
of
the
professor?
Because
Dershowitz
apparently
does
not
understand
computers:
When
asked
by
the Forward about
Webber’s
account,
Dershowitz
responded
in
an
emailed
statement
that
he
has
never
used
a
computer,
and
that
Webber’s
to
Epstein
“represent[s]
my
words
not
his.
I
would
never
advise
a
client
to
transport
anyone
for
improper
purposes.
To
suggest
such
a
thing
would
be
defamatory
and
wrong.”He
added,
“Webber
did
research
under
my
direction.
I
would
provide
him
my
interpretation
of
the
law
and
ask
him
to
find
cases
that
support
it.
This
research
was
directed
exclusively
to
Epstein’s
past
conduct
as
part
of
my
6th
amendment
role
in
defending
E
against
allegations
of
past
misconduct,”
referring
to
the
constitutional right
to
legal
counsel of
criminal
defendants.
“It
had
absolutely
nothing
to
do
with
advising
him
about
future
or
then
current
conduct.”
He
is
absolutely
correct
about
the
context.
Given
the
cozy
conversations
that
Epstein
had
with
other
attorneys
and
luminaries
about
his
“girls”
or
his
parties,
the
public
is
wound
up
and
ready
to
spring
on
wrongdoing
in
every
email,
but
given
the
timeframe,
this
email
reads
exactly
as
Dershowitz
frames
it.
If
you’re
representing
someone
accused
of
sex
crimes,
you’re
going
to
do
research
on
the
outer
limits
of
sex
crime
laws.
That’s
just
common
sense.
It
may
seem
unsavory
as
legal
advice,
but
Epstein’s
defense
counsel
needed
to
be
in
a
position
to
push
back
and
say,
“Well,
ACTUALLY,
in
this
instance,
he
went
to
another
jurisdiction
with
the
intent
to
sleep
with
a
16-year-old
and
that
isn’t
a
crime.”
That
takes
this
advice
to
a
different
level
than
the
lawyers
chit-chatting
with
Epstein
about
his
“girls”
years
after
the
fact.
It’s
even
markedly
different
than
representing
Epstein
in
a
mundane
transaction
years
after
the
fact.
Being
a
criminal
defense
lawyer
is
about
the
serving
the
judicial
system.
Helping
Epstein
make
more
money
that
he
can
then
put
into
his
trafficking
empire
is
a
choice.
And
like
it
or
not,
giving
the
accused
a
proper
defense
in
an
active
criminal
case
requires
this
kind
of
research.
That
said,
it’s
not
advice
that
fits
neatly
back
in
the
toothpaste
tube,
right?
Once
you’ve
told
a
criminal
“here
are
the
limits
of
what
the
government
can
charge
you
with,”
you’ve
inadvertently
told
the
defendant
what
they
can
do
going
forward.
It’s
even
more
skeevy
when
the
advice
isn’t
“here’s
why
your
activity
wasn’t
technically
illegal”
but
rather,
as
happens
in
a
lot
of
plea
negotiations,
“here
are
similar
instances
where
it
was
illegal,
but
the
defendant
still
got
a
favorable
deal.”
In
the
former,
at
least
what
the
defendant
learns
they
can
do
will
be,
by
definition,
legal.
In
the
latter,
they’re
just
internalizing
how
to
get
away
with
illegality.
There’s
no
way
around
this,
of
course.
But
providing
a
robust
defense
for
the
accused
is
more
important
than
the
risk
that
they
will
learn
all
the
wrong
lessons
from
their
lawyers.
The
public
ire
at
seeing
these
messages
in
retrospect
is
understandable.
But,
folks,
this
is
not
the
problem.
Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or
Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a
Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.