\u201cJeffrey Epstein never asked for my legal opinion or advice,\u201d Webber explained in a statement to Forward<\/em><\/a>, \u201cI never provided my legal opinion or advice to Jeffrey Epstein. I only relayed advice from his counsel, Professor Dershowitz.\u201d Why was the research assistant conversing with Epstein instead of the professor? Because Dershowitz apparently does not understand computers:<\/p>\n When asked by the\u00a0Forward<\/em>\u00a0about Webber\u2019s account, Dershowitz responded in an emailed statement that he has never used a computer, and that Webber\u2019s email to Epstein \u201crepresent[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.\u201d<\/p>\n He added, \u201cWebber 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\u2019s past conduct as part of my 6th amendment role in defending E against allegations of past misconduct,\u201d referring to the constitutional\u00a0right to legal counsel<\/a>\u00a0of criminal defendants. \u201cIt had absolutely nothing to do with advising him about future or then current conduct.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n He is absolutely correct about the context. Given the cozy conversations that Epstein had with other attorneys and luminaries about his \u201cgirls\u201d 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.<\/p>\n If you\u2019re representing someone accused of sex crimes, you\u2019re going to do research on the outer limits of sex crime laws. That\u2019s just common sense. It may seem unsavory as legal advice, but Epstein\u2019s defense counsel needed to be in a position to push back and say, \u201cWell, ACTUALLY, in this instance, he went to another jurisdiction with the intent to sleep with a 16-year-old and that isn\u2019t a crime.\u201d That takes this advice to a different level than the lawyers chit-chatting with Epstein about his \u201cgirls\u201d years after the fact. It\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n And like it or not, giving the accused a proper defense in an active criminal case requires this kind of research.<\/p>\n That said, it\u2019s not advice that fits neatly back in the toothpaste tube, right? Once you\u2019ve told a criminal \u201chere are the limits of what the government can charge you with,\u201d you\u2019ve inadvertently told the defendant what they can do going forward. It\u2019s even more skeevy when the advice isn\u2019t \u201chere\u2019s why your activity wasn\u2019t technically illegal\u201d but rather, as happens in a lot of plea negotiations, \u201chere are similar instances where it was illegal, but the defendant still got a favorable deal.\u201d In the former, at least what the defendant learns they can do will be, by definition, legal<\/em>. In the latter, they\u2019re just internalizing how to get away with illegality.<\/p>\n There\u2019s 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. <\/p>\n The public ire at seeing these messages in retrospect is understandable. But, folks, this<\/em> is not the problem.<\/p>\n The post Paul Weiss Partner Wrote Epstein On Sex Laws\u2026 But Was Just Passing Along Analysis From Alan Dershowitz<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n Back in September, Bloomberg flagged an email exchange between Paul Weiss partner Mitchell Webber and Jeffrey Epstein addressing \u201cThe question is: what would happen if one were to transport a minor for sex \u2014 or transport oneself with the intent to have sex with a minor \u2014 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)?\u201d Another email involves Epstein asking for research on sex tourism laws.<\/p>\n 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 \u2014 and that just lost its leader<\/a> \u2014 all over appearances in Epstein emails<\/a>. Social media posters have made the connection between Webber and Paul Weiss, thus dragging the firm into this story too. But Webber\u2019s 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\u2019t actually provide any legal advice, he merely passed along messages from his boss\u2026 Professor Alan Dershowitz.<\/p>\n \u201cJeffrey Epstein never asked for my legal opinion or advice,\u201d Webber explained in a statement to Forward<\/em><\/a>, \u201cI never provided my legal opinion or advice to Jeffrey Epstein. I only relayed advice from his counsel, Professor Dershowitz.\u201d Why was the research assistant conversing with Epstein instead of the professor? Because Dershowitz apparently does not understand computers:<\/p>\n When asked by the\u00a0Forward<\/em>\u00a0about Webber\u2019s account, Dershowitz responded in an emailed statement that he has never used a computer, and that Webber\u2019s email to Epstein \u201crepresent[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.\u201d<\/p>\n He added, \u201cWebber 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\u2019s past conduct as part of my 6th amendment role in defending E against allegations of past misconduct,\u201d referring to the constitutional\u00a0right to legal counsel<\/a>\u00a0of criminal defendants. \u201cIt had absolutely nothing to do with advising him about future or then current conduct.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n He is absolutely correct about the context. Given the cozy conversations that Epstein had with other attorneys and luminaries about his \u201cgirls\u201d 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.<\/p>\n If you\u2019re representing someone accused of sex crimes, you\u2019re going to do research on the outer limits of sex crime laws. That\u2019s just common sense. It may seem unsavory as legal advice, but Epstein\u2019s defense counsel needed to be in a position to push back and say, \u201cWell, ACTUALLY, in this instance, he went to another jurisdiction with the intent to sleep with a 16-year-old and that isn\u2019t a crime.\u201d That takes this advice to a different level than the lawyers chit-chatting with Epstein about his \u201cgirls\u201d years after the fact. It\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n And like it or not, giving the accused a proper defense in an active criminal case requires this kind of research.<\/p>\n That said, it\u2019s not advice that fits neatly back in the toothpaste tube, right? Once you\u2019ve told a criminal \u201chere are the limits of what the government can charge you with,\u201d you\u2019ve inadvertently told the defendant what they can do going forward. It\u2019s even more skeevy when the advice isn\u2019t \u201chere\u2019s why your activity wasn\u2019t technically illegal\u201d but rather, as happens in a lot of plea negotiations, \u201chere are similar instances where it was illegal, but the defendant still got a favorable deal.\u201d In the former, at least what the defendant learns they can do will be, by definition, legal<\/em>. In the latter, they\u2019re just internalizing how to get away with illegality.<\/p>\n There\u2019s 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. <\/p>\n The public ire at seeing these messages in retrospect is understandable. But, folks, this<\/em> is not the problem.<\/p>\n Back in September, Bloomberg flagged an email exchange between Paul Weiss partner Mitchell Webber and Jeffrey Epstein addressing \u201cThe question is: what would happen if one were to transport a minor for sex \u2014 or transport oneself with the intent to have sex with a minor \u2014 into a state in which the age of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":143662,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-143661","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/xira.com\/p\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Headshot-300x200-LRiU2h.jpg?fit=300%2C200&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/143661","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=143661"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/143661\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/143662"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=143661"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=143661"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=143661"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n
\n![\"Headshot\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/abovethelaw.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/2016\/11\/Headshot-300x200.jpg?resize=192%2C128&ssl=1\" "\\"\\"")
Joe Patrice<\/a>\u00a0is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. Feel free to\u00a0email<\/a> any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on\u00a0Twitter<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky<\/a> if you\u2019re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search<\/a>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/abovethelaw.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/2017\/12\/alan-dershowitz-300x199.jpg?resize=300%2C199&ssl=1\" "\\"\\"")
\n
\n![\"Headshot\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/abovethelaw.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/11\/Headshot-300x200.jpg?resize=188%2C125&ssl=1\" "\\"\\"")
Joe Patrice<\/a>\u00a0is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. Feel free to\u00a0email<\/a> any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on\u00a0Twitter<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky<\/a> if you\u2019re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search<\/a>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"