Commercial Awareness Digest - 6th February 2026

Paul Weiss chair resigns due to association with Epstein

By Esme Glover

The continuing release of documents linked to Jeffrey Epstein by the United States Department of Justice, has increasingly drawn public attention to the extensive professional and social networks surrounding the American financier. The most recent release of the Epstein files has had significant implications within the legal sphere, with international law firm Paul Weiss’ chairman having to resign.

Brad Karp, who served as chairman of Paul Weiss for 18 years following his appointment in 2008, has stepped down after documents revealed his personal communications with Epstein. Although Paul Weiss had previously been involved in matters connected to Leon Black’s fee dispute, ex-chairman of Apollo Global Management, where he paid approximately $170 million in fees to Jeffrey Epstein, the newly disclosed correspondence suggests a relationship between Karp and Epstein that extended beyond a purely legal context. The nature of these communications has raised questions about how individuals’ personal relations may be inherently connected to their professional life.

Paul Weiss is widely regarded as one of the world’s leading law firms, with a strong reputation across both contentious and transactional work, as well as its high-profile international clients including Google and Citigroup. In announcing his resignation, Brad Karp acknowledged that remaining in his position risked distracting from the firm’s notable work, however did not directly mention the Epstein files. M&A partner Scott Barshay has since assumed the position of chairman at the firm.

This is not the first time Paul Weiss has faced reputational scrutiny in recent years. In early 2025, the firm was among several other major law firms affected by executive action taken by the Trump administration, which threatened to revoke security clearances held by certain firms and their lawyers. Security clearances involve authorisation and access to government information, often critical to firms working in governmental matters. Resultantly, Paul Weiss entered into an agreement to provide $40 million (£29 million) worth of free legal services to the White House. Similar arrangements were reached by other prominent firms, including Skadden, Willkie Farr & Gallagher and Millbank, though these decisions attracted criticism from parts of the legal community concerned about law firm independence and political pressure.

While Brad Karp will remain at the firm in a client-facing role, this episode highlights the fine line senior lawyers must navigate between personal associations and professional responsibility. More broadly, this situation underscores the growing importance of reputational risk management within large law firms. Law firms are expected to anticipate how individual contact, associations and communications may be perceived by the media, clients and the public. With media scrutiny and document disclosures playing a decisive role in shaping global reputations, this case serves as a reminder that leadership in the legal industry carries ethical and reputational obligations that extend beyond the confines of legal work itself.

The Impact of AI on Law Firm Jobs

By Zuha Malik

In recent months, several major law firms have announced cuts to business services and support roles, often pointing to artificial intelligence as a key factor behind the decision. Most recently, Baker McKenzie confirmed that it is proposing changes to its global business services team, with less than 10% of roles - roughly 600 positions - likely to be affected. The firm cited a growing reliance on AI, alongside a broader restructuring aimed at reshaping how support functions operate.

Baker McKenzie is not alone. Clifford Chance announced plans to cut around 10% of its London-based business services staff, while other firms such as Freshfields and Irwin Mitchell have also made reductions affecting paralegals and support roles. Taken together, these announcements point to a broader trend across the legal sector, with firms reassessing how non-fee-earning work is delivered in an increasingly technology-driven environment.

From the firms’ perspective, clients are under pressure to control legal spend and are increasingly asking law firms to demonstrate efficiency. As firms invest heavily in AI tools, they are expected to show that this technology delivers leaner operations rather than higher margins.

This shift is already visible in how AI is being used across legal services. Thomson Reuters’ 2025 Generative AI in Professional Services report found that the proportion of legal organisations actively using generative AI rose from 14% in 2024 to 26% in 2025, suggesting a move toward technology-enabled workflows. Most commonly, firms deploy AI tools to assist with document review, allowing large volumes of contracts or disclosure materials to be processed far faster than by human reviewers alone. AI is also increasingly used in legal research and transactional work, supporting tasks such as identifying relevant legislation, producing initial summaries and flagging unusual clauses during due diligence. Beyond fee-earning work, AI is being introduced into business services to automate routine administrative tasks.

Despite this, there is growing scepticism about whether AI alone explains the recent wave of job cuts. Critics have pointed to the idea of “AI-washing”, where companies attribute layoffs to artificial intelligence before the technology is mature enough to fully replace human roles. In practice, AI systems still require significant oversight, and some affected staff argue that restructuring is driven as much by cost-cutting and the relocation of support work to lower-cost hubs as by genuine automation.

Importantly for aspiring lawyers, these developments have largely affected business services roles, not fee earners. Despite frequent predictions that AI will replace junior lawyers, there is little evidence of this happening. Trainee intake numbers remain stable, and newly qualified salaries continue to rise across the City and at US firms in London. Rather than eliminating junior roles, AI appears to be changing how junior lawyers spend their time - reducing repetitive tasks and allowing earlier exposure to more complex, client-facing work.

For future lawyers, the key takeaway is not that AI poses an immediate threat to legal careers, but that it is reshaping the economics of law firms. Commercial awareness now requires understanding how technology alongside client pressure and cost control, all interact - and why firms have to scrutinise which roles add the most value.