Careers
Paul Weiss partner, ‘a skilled handler of high-ego politicians,’ is helping Harris with debate prep
Karen Dunn in May 2022 in Washington, D.C. Dunn, a partner at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, helped Vice President Kamala Harris prepare for Tuesday’s presidential debate with former President Donald Trump. (Photo by K98wld, CC-BY-SA-4.0, via Wikimedia Commons)
A partner at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison helped Vice President Kamala Harris prepare for Tuesday’s presidential debate with former President Donald Trump, even as she prepared as lead attorney for Google in an antitrust trial based on alleged online advertising dominance.
Since 2008, partner Karen Dunn has helped prepare Democratic presidential and vice presidential candidates for debates, the New York Times reports. She helped Harris prepare for her 2020 debate with then-Vice President Mike Pence. And she also helped former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former President Barack Obama prepare for presidential debates.
Dunn “is described by candidates she has coached and other people who have worked with her as a skilled handler of high-ego politicians,” according to the New York Times. “By all accounts, she possesses the rare ability to tell them what they are doing wrong and how to fix it—and how to inject humor and humanity to sell themselves to voters watching the debate.”
Dunn, co-chair of the Paul Weiss litigation department, is one of the attorneys who obtained a verdict for injured plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the organizers of the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. A graduate of Yale Law School, she is a former clerk for now-U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland when he was a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and a former clerk for then-U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer.
The New York Times credits Dunn for spurring Clinton during a 2016 debate to bring up a Trump comment disparaging a beauty pageant contestant’s weight. Here is a portion of the debate transcript published by the New York Times:
Clinton: “And one of the worst things he said was about a woman in a beauty contest. He loves beauty contests, supporting them and hanging around them. And he called this woman ‘Miss Piggy.’ Then he called her ‘Miss Housekeeping’ because she was Latina. Donald, she has a name.”
Trump: “Where did you find this? Where did you find this?”
Clinton: “Her name is Alicia Machado.”
Trump: “Where did you find this?”
Clinton: “And she has become a U.S. citizen, and you can bet … ”
Trump: “Oh, really?”
Clinton: “ … she’s going to vote this November.”
Trump: “OK, good. Let me just tell you … ”
(Applause)
In a 2019 interview with the New York Times, Dunn said debate contestants have to engage the other person in a way that challenges them if they want to win the debate.
“If somebody comes after you and you counterpunch effectively, you can win that moment,” Dunn said.
Dunn was in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia, on Monday representing Google in a Department of Justice suit alleging that the online search company’s acquisition of DoubleClick, an advertising software company, gives it dominance in technology that auctions off online ads, allowing Google to crush the competition. Dunn countered that Google is “one big company among many others” that also sell advertising, the New York Times reports.
Critics have alleged that Dunn’s debate preparation creates a conflict of interest because helping Harris would make the presidential candidate reluctant to stand up to Big Tech, the New York Post reports.
But ethics experts who spoke with the New York Times and Law.com said there was no ethics problem.
“Of course, Ms. Dunn cannot reveal confidential client information concerning Google to anyone. But she is not precluded from giving Ms. Harris advice about how to conduct herself in the debate,” said Leslie Levin, a professor at the University of Connecticut School of Law, in an interview with Law.com.
“Lawyers in private practice volunteer on political campaigns all the time,” said Steven Lubet, a professor emeritus at the Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, in an interview with the New York Times. “There’s no conflict between coaching debate prep and representing a client in a case opposed to the government.”