The New York Times has published a detailed account of turmoil inside Paul, Weiss, revealing how the firm became entangled in political pressure and internal disputes.
Scott Barshay, now running the firm, allegedly decided that having trans partner Lex Korberg work on his clients was bad for business, according to the report.
The claim has drawn significant attention, raising questions about inclusion and internal culture at one of the most prominent law firms in the United States.
Beyond the Korberg situation, the firm reportedly discussed whether Boris Epshteyn should have approval over the Paul, Weiss website, a detail that underscores concerns about outside political influence.
The Times account also references a dropped Pentagon client, suggesting the firm’s relationship with government work became increasingly complicated under pressure.
According to the report, the firm also talked itself out of pursuing a lawsuit, further illustrating a pattern of decision-making shaped by external forces rather than the firm’s own interests.
The picture painted by the Times is of a firm that, in the words of the report, “stopped being its own master,” a significant charge against an institution long regarded as fiercely independent.
Separately, Jeanine Pirro declined to further pursue the Reflecting Pool theory, a move the report suggests may cost her a role she had been seeking.
The report notes that Pirro made the decision apparently to avoid further imperilling her law licence, stopping short of pushing what was described as the “insane Reflecting Pool theory.”
Senators Cornyn and Tillis received a written commitment related to a slush fund order, though sceptics have questioned whether such commitments carry any meaningful weight.
The revelations come at a moment of broader scrutiny of how major law firms navigate political relationships in Washington, particularly as pressure from powerful figures intensifies.
Paul, Weiss has long been considered one of the premier corporate law firms in the world, making the alleged compromises described in the Times report particularly striking to legal observers.
The internal dynamics described, ranging from partner disputes to questions of political approval over firm communications, suggest the pressures facing elite law firms have grown considerably more complex.
How the firm responds publicly to these detailed allegations is likely to shape its reputation among both clients and the broader legal community in the months ahead.