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 email 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.
The post Paul Weiss Partner Wrote Epstein On Sex Laws… But Was Just Passing Along Analysis From Alan Dershowitz appeared first on Above the Law.