Ronald S. Sullivan, Jr., the first African-American faculty dean at Harvard, has joined Harvey Weinstein’s defense team, a decision that has landed him in an escalating controversy. Photograph by Carlo Allegri / Reuters

Ronald S. Sullivan, Jr., a clinical professor at Harvard Law School, is among the most high-profile criminal-defense lawyers in the country. Sullivan represented Aaron Hernandez in his acquittal for a double homicide and helped the family of Michael Brown reach a $1.5-million wrongful-death settlement with the city of Ferguson, Missouri. Sullivan has also devoted much of his career to representing less-privileged defendants: he is the director of the Criminal Justice Institute at Harvard Law School and previously served as the director of the Washington, D.C., Public Defender Service. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, he helped free thousands of Louisianans who had been incarcerated without due process.

Sullivan is also the first African-American faculty dean at Harvard, and this position, combined with his latest case, has landed him in an escalating controversy. In January, Harvey Weinstein announced that Sullivan had joined his defense team. Some students revolted in anger, protesting Sullivan’s decision and signing an online petition saying that he should resign as the faculty dean of Winthrop House. In response, Sullivan wrote an e-mail to Winthrop residents, describing the importance of representing “unpopular defendants”; he went on to appoint a new point person in the residential college for conversations about sexual assault. This did little to quell students’ concerns, and last week Harvard College announced that it would conduct a “climate review” of Winthrop House, which could lead to administrative action.

I recently spoke twice by phone with Sullivan to discuss his career and his decision to represent Weinstein. During our conversations, which have been edited for length and clarity, we also discussed the state of campus debate and his belief that racism contributed to Harvard’s decision to conduct the climate survey.

Why did you decide to represent Harvey Weinstein?

I have been a criminal-defense lawyer since I started as a public defender in Washington, D.C., in the mid-nineties. I represent any number of people charged with crimes across the country.

Is there some reason you chose him? I imagine you get a lot of opportunities.

I had some discussions with lawyers who represented Mr. Weinstein and then had a discussion with Mr. Weinstein. As a result of those discussions, I decided that this case was sufficiently important to the rule of law that I decided to take it on.

It was something about its importance to the rule of law that you feel like you can’t get into? Is that what you’re saying?

Correct.

O.K. I assume you are being paid for this.

I don’t discuss fees with respect to any client.

I talked to someone who’d done work with public defenders, who obviously knew of your work and looked up to you. She texted me, “The main question I have is, public defenders are clear that they represent people without power in the system.” What is your response to that?

I think that is accurate. Public defenders represent people without power in the system. I’m not aware of any criminal defendant who has power in the system. That is particularly true with respect to criminal defendants who are very unpopular. They tend to be the least powerful people in the system. In that respect, this representation is consonant with the representation I’ve engaged in all my life.

Do you think that is true even with white, rich, powerful defendants who are unpopular? Do you think they are still at a disadvantage?

Absolutely, because they walk into the court with the presumption of guilt, as opposed to the presumption of innocence. And it is important to note that, even with rich defendants, their resources pale in comparison to the resources of the government, which has an entire prosecutorial office and law enforcement at its disposal. Even rich people are at a resource disadvantage walking in, so the popular mythology that you can buy justice really doesn’t apply in the criminal context.

If someone said to you, “Harvey Weinstein could get a public defender, just like anyone else, if he can’t get anyone to represent him,” what would be your response to that?

That is true.

And/but?

No, it is true. Anyone who cannot afford counsel can get a public defender. I’m not making any representations as to what he can or can’t afford.

Maybe I should rephrase the question: What do you say to people who say Harvey Weinstein should just get a public defender rather than having great lawyers sign up to work for him?

I personally have difficulty with that formulation, because I think that public defenders are among the best in the country in trying very difficult cases. They’re trained to do it. They do it all the time. I don’t think there’s a necessary dichotomy between public defenders and great lawyers. To the extent that your question is “Am I the only lawyer who can represent Mr. Weinstein,” the answer is clearly no. That’s never been the argument I have made. I have respectfully suggested that I have represented people, both indigent and non-indigent, who are accused of very serious crimes. I think the system as a whole is better for such representation. But you are correct that criminal defendants have choices in their lawyers.

Do you have concerns about representing people accused of sexual misconduct, because the defense of these people so often takes the form of disputing women’s stories, making women out to be liars, calling their credibility into question?

A hypothetical case could have that potential. I do not see that sort of conflict in this case. And that’s as far I can go.

Does it bother you that these types of accusations are often responded to in this way?

It’s hard to answer that in the abstract. It’s unethical for a lawyer to make that sort of insinuation without a good-faith basis. So if the question is whether one can willy-nilly attack credibility of complainants, that answer is no. There are a range of potential defenses in any sort of case, including sexual-assault cases, all of which do not rely on contesting credibility of complainants. Some clearly do, but others do not.

I know you are going to be resistant to talking about Weinstein, but other lawyers of his have said women were not telling the truth. [Ben Brafman, who no longer represents Weinstein, wrote in a letter to the judge that “many of these women have lied,” in December.]

I don’t have any comment on what other lawyers have said. I only represent him on this case, and I can’t comment on trial strategy.

When did you get a sense that this would be controversial with a lot of people at Harvard?

I’m not sure if it’s a lot of people, and I think that’s important to note. You have the numbers at your disposal of protesters versus the seven-thousand-student undergraduate population. I’ll leave that to you. I got a sense that people were genuinely aggrieved at the decision after the media broke the story.

You’re saying that you don’t think this was an organic controversy but that the media whipped it up? Obviously no one’s going to find out until it’s reported, so what do you mean by that?

You asked me when did I become aware that people were upset. I became aware when people voiced displeasure. The point in time when that happened was after the media broke the story. No, I was not suggesting that the media whipped it up.