I threw a bit of a fit on LinkedIn three weeks ago when the KM&I for Legal conference published their speaker list and agenda for this year’s conference, happening today and tomorrow in Manhattan. The issue for me was the inclusion of Brad Karp, Chairman of Paul Weiss, to speak on a panel with some fellow BigLaw chairpersons. If that panel was billed as being about the difficulties facing law firm leadership as they attempt to stand up to authoritarian overreach, or even about the importance and role that Knowledge Management and Innovation can play in supporting firm leadership as they face authoritarian policies, or maybe if it was simply billed as an “Ask Me Anything” session affording attendees a chance to better understand Brad Karp’s recent decisions, THEN I would probably have been first in line to pay the $6500 to attend KM&I this year.
Instead the panel is entitled, “Innovation and the Executive Mandate: How Law Firm Leaders Are Reimagining the Future of Law Firms.”
In my original rant, I suggested that Patrick J. McKenna, the consultant who will be moderating the panel, should ask Mr. Karp “what do you believe will best prepare future leaders to defend the rule of law against intense political pressure from an authoritarian executive?”
Mr. McKenna responded to my post and said that “Brad has advised me that he’s prepared to answer that question.” Bravo Mr. McKenna and thank you Mr. Karp.
I will not be attending KM&I this year, but I strongly encourage my friends and colleagues who will be in attendance to hold Mr. McKenna and Mr. Karp to their word.
Why does it matter?
- I do not believe that Brad Karp is a bad man.
- I do not believe that he intended for his actions to precipitate the authoritarian collaboration of other firms, or indeed, the collapse of the rule of law this country.
- I firmly believe that he thought he was saving his firm from the wrath of a vengeful president through rhetorical appeasement, rather than by giving the administration anything of substance. I have heard that Mr. Karp has argued in other venues that Paul Weiss has only agreed to perform work that they would have done anyway.
- I believe that Mr. Karp was in a remarkably difficult position and had to make a hard choice and he did the best he could.
None of that excuses his actions.
Our lawyers and law firms are a bulwark against tyranny; the steadfast line of defense against abuses of power and attacks on the rule of law. Mr. Karp failed to understand that the president wanted his rhetorical appeasement more than he wanted $40 Million in pro bono work. The president has since used Mr. Karp’s rhetorical appeasement to brow beat other firms into promising even greater sums of pro bono work for his pet causes. (BTW, isn’t pro bono work intended for people who can’t afford to pay?)
Mr. McKenna, in the comments of my LinkedIn post, said that “Firm Leaders are often called upon to face unprecedented situations.” That is absolutely true and they are well compensated for exactly that contingency. However, that is not the scenario that Mr. Karp faced in March. Eight days prior to the Executive Order targeting Paul Weiss, Perkins Coie faced an almost identical order. Perkins said to the president, in effect, 1) we think your executive order is illegal, 2) we know some pretty good lawyers, and 3) we will see you in court. So which part of that was Mr. Karp unwilling or unable to say?
In fact, every firm that has stood up to the administration has won in court. Maybe those firms are just better law firms, or are willing to hire better law firms. Maybe their leaders are more courageous, or have less to lose. Or maybe they learned in elementary school that appeasement of a bully, even if it’s rhetorical, only leads to more bullying.
If Brad Karp stands up at KM&I and says, “I had good reasons at the time to justify the decisions that I made, but I was wrong. And here is how I, and Paul Weiss, are going to lead the charge to shore up the rule of law in this country in the face of what I now understand to be extreme executive overreach that has consequences far beyond me and my firm.” Then, I will await with bated breath, each and every word that he utters. If his plan is legitimate, even if foolhardy, I will stand beside him in that fight. I will offer MY services pro bono to him and Paul Weiss to “face this unprecedented situation” together.
Brad Karp is not my enemy, but his cowardice in the face of tyranny is not worthy of veneration. His actions to date have disqualified him, in my opinion, from the privilege of waxing poetic on the future of law firm leadership that his colleagues at other firms should enjoy. We don’t need to attend a panel session, to know what “signals” he is watching or what “bets” he is making on behalf of Paul Weiss. He has already made that abundantly clear.
If you attend KM&I on Thursday, and these issues are addressed to your satisfaction before the pontification begins, then enjoy the session and let me know (publicly or privately) what you think, what you learned, and how you feel about Mr. Karp and his decision after hearing his perspective. If it is not addressed right up front or if you do not find his explanation satisfying, then I would encourage you to stand up, and walk out, and use that session time to go meet with the sponsors of the conference, or go get coffee, or go to the bathroom, or do something else more worthy of your time.