Epstein Files Fallout Deepens as Goldman Sachs GC Steps Down Amid Controversial Correspondence

The ripples from the partial release of the Jeffrey Epstein documents continue to widen, with the general counsel of Goldman Sachs—one of the world’s most powerful financial institutions—becoming the latest high-profile figure forced to resign over ties to the disgraced financier.

Kathryn Ruemmler, who served as White House counsel under President Obama before entering private practice, stepped down from her position at Goldman Sachs following scrutiny of her correspondence with Epstein between 2014 and 2019. The revelation marks the second significant departure in as many weeks, following Brad Karp’s exit from his leadership role at Paul Weiss—the law firm that notably became the first to capitulate to Trump administration demands.

**The Ruemmler Case**

According to recently released DOJ files, Ruemmler exchanged communications with Epstein during a period when she was in private practice at Latham & Watkins, a prominent Los Angeles-based law firm. The correspondence reportedly included advice on how Epstein should discuss his legal troubles with the media—guidance coming after his 2008 conviction for sex crimes.

Perhaps more troubling to ethics experts was the nature of gifts Ruemmler accepted from Epstein during this period. Records indicate she received approximately $10,000 in gift cards to luxury retailer Bergdorf Goodman, a Hermès bag valued at around $10,000, first-class airline tickets, and even frequent flyer miles. So substantial were the gifts that Ruemmler reportedly referred to Epstein as “Uncle Jeffrey.”

Legal ethics specialists note that such gift-giving raises significant red flags, particularly when combined with the provision of advice. Under professional responsibility rules, an attorney-client relationship can be established without a formal retainer if the client reasonably believes such a relationship exists based on interactions.

“Whether or not Epstein was a formal client misses the point,” said one legal ethics professor who asked not to be identified. “When you’re giving someone strategic advice about how to handle criminal charges and accepting substantial gifts in return, the appearance—and arguably the reality—of an attorney-client relationship is difficult to dismiss.”

Ruemmler has since stated that she now views Epstein as “a monster” and regrets any association, maintaining he was never a formal client. The distinction proved insufficient to preserve her position at Goldman Sachs, where she served not only as general counsel but also on the firm’s reputational committee.

**The Karp Connection**

The Epstein fallout has ensnared another major legal figure: Brad Karp, former chairman of Paul Weiss. Karp’s connection to Epstein came through his longstanding client, Leon Black, the Apollo Management co-founder who reportedly paid Epstein approximately $160 million—payments Black characterized as tax and estate planning advice, though U.S. Virgin Islands prosecutors alleged they helped facilitate Epstein’s criminal enterprise.

Karp reportedly reviewed a 2008 draft prosecution agreement involving Epstein and provided input, though he similarly maintains no formal attorney-client relationship existed. His position became increasingly untenable when Ghislaine Maxwell, in habeas corpus filings, explicitly named Black as a client of Paul Weiss and Karp specifically—part of what she suggested were 25 confidential agreements between wealthy men and Epstein victims.

The situation took on additional political dimensions when Paul Weiss became the first major law firm to capitulate to Trump administration demands rather than challenge them legally—a decision publicly associated with Karp’s leadership.

**A Pattern of Accountability—or the Beginning?**

Representative Thomas Massie, who along with Representative Ro Khanna led discharge petition efforts resulting in the Epstein Transparency Act, views these resignations as significant but insufficient.

“This is bringing down the British government and the British monarchy. It’s bringing down countries and elites across the world,” Khanna said in recent comments. “Where’s the outrage at the billionaires in Silicon Valley, in finance, in Hollywood, the ones going to Epstein’s island? We need moral accountability in the United States just like they’re having in so many other countries.”

Indeed, international repercussions have been swift. The head of a Dubai-based international pork company has stepped down. Governments from the United Kingdom to Norway are investigating their citizens’ interactions with Epstein. Yet in the United States, accountability has moved more slowly—until now.

**What Comes Next**

The resignations of Ruemmler and Karp may represent a turning point. Both held positions of enormous influence at institutions that shape global finance and legal practice. Their departures signal that Epstein associations, once considered manageable by powerful figures, now carry professional consequences.

Attention is already turning to other figures named in Epstein documents. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick faces renewed scrutiny after emails reportedly contradicted his earlier statements about the extent of his interactions with Epstein—including allegations he visited Epstein’s island with family members, including a nanny.

Pam Bondi, questioned this week about government failures toward Epstein survivors, declined to offer the apology many survivors seek. For advocates, accountability remains the only meaningful response.

“Nobody has been held to account prior to this except Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell,” noted one legal analyst. “Whether or not there was literal quid pro quo in terms of facilitating abuse, if you’re helping to prop him up while he’s committing these crimes, you’re part of the problem.”

As more documents potentially emerge and public attention remains fixed on Epstein’s extensive network of associates, the resignations at Goldman Sachs and Paul Weiss may prove to be not an endpoint, but an opening chapter in a broader reckoning. For survivors and advocates, that reckoning is long overdue.