Paul Weiss' Kannon Shanmugam Takes Refuge in 1970s Safe Corporate Rhetoric: Claims Lawyers' First Duty Is to Clients (Gasp)

In the 1970s, I wrote speeches for Fortune 50 executives which had the tone and word choice of Kannon Shanmugam's recent remarks about decisions made by both the Trump administration and law firms. They were low-key and embedded with safe language. Shanmugam heads the US Supreme Court practice at Paul, Weiss. 

Bloomberg Law reports:

“'These attacks are regrettable,' he [Shanmugam] said at Pepperdine University’s Caruso School of Law in Malibu, California, last month. 'If institutions have problems, we should try to fix those problems rather than destroy the institutions.'”

Those institutions, he noted, include not only law firms but also universities and the courts.

Recall when in that seminal BBC interview Prince Andrew described his involvement with Jeffrey Epstein as "not something that was becoming of a member of the Royal family. ” The world gasped. What about Shanmugam's leveraging the term "regrettable." 

In essence, Shanmugam didn't seem to move the needle in the global conversation about those issues. The strong terms are "attacks" and "destroy." But aren't those remarks boxed in so much linguistic caution as not to be actionable? Suppose I posted on a neighborhood social media platform that a certain breed of dog attacked me and that was regrettable. What action are neighbors directed to take?

Think also about this: He positions the actions which had been taken as "very hard decisions." But most decisions in careers and in life are typically very hard. Should I change jobs? Should I get a divorce? 

But the Bloomberg coverage is long-form probably because it's unusual for a partner of an elite law firm such as Paul, Weiss to say anything these days that isn't directly associated with a practice. The issues embedded in macro developments since the coming of the second Trump administration have been establishing flashpoints. Not good for business. 

One remark this Paul, Weiss heavyweight made, though, does take a stand. And do we hear, yes, a collective gasp? Here it's quoted by Bloomberg:

“Your obligations [as lawyers] are first and foremost to your clients and, second, to your employees, the people who work for your firm ..."

But, there are those who might not agree with that. Actually, the first duty of lawyers is to serve the law and the administration of justice. See the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct for specific details. 

A bit of linguistic history: The old-line measured corporate rhetoric was blown up by Chrysler turnaround hero Lee Iacocca. Thousands of good jobs in North America were saved. 

Iacocca introduced a conversational tone and street word choices such as contractions and words like "gonna." There was also candor. An abundance of it. When introduced as "having left Ford," Iacocca piped in that he didn't leave. He said that he had been fired. 

When I wrote for Iacocca and other members of the turnaround team they took a risk which worked out spendidly: Creating a direct verbal bond with all Americans. That included catchy one-liners. The American public bought Chrysler cars. They also wanted Iacocca to run for US President.

Is Shanmugam doing the issues a disservice by taking refuge in what has been so heavily scripted? More seriously, has he done a disservice to the law per se in contending that the first obligation of lawyers is to clients? 

Puzzling: So why did Shanmugam "speak out" at all? 

In coaching I guide clients on how to engage with those hiring, those promoting and, if self-employed, those buying. It's obvious and tends to be a deal killer if they're not fully present, doing plain-speak.

Thrown off your game, maybe the first time since you started working? You made all the right moves and then the world moved in another direction.

Intuitive Coaching. Special expertise with transitions, reskilling and aging. Psychic/tarot readings, upon request. Complimentary consultation with Jane Genova (Text 203-468-8579, janegenova374@gmail.com). Yes, test out the chemistry. Zero risk.