EXCLUSIVE: Coinbase’s Paul Grewal reflects on being a judge, working for Zuck & Big Tech’s influence

Well, I'm happy to do that, Robbie, especially since you forged your own path in a very unique way. It's always great to be with you. I am one of those people who have always been proud to practice law and have loved the privilege and honor of being a lawyer. I came to the profession now nearly 30 years ago and when I came into the law in the mid-90s, there weren't a lot of South Asians practicing here in the United States. And there wasn't a lot of conversation in the South Asian community about why the profession of law was such an important opportunity for the children and now grandchildren of so many immigrants. But with a lot of support from organizations and friends made at places like SABA and with a bit of an idea of trying to forge my own path independent of what others may have wanted, I've been very blessed and lucky to do some very interesting things in my three decades of practice.

Well, I don't pretend that I had a plan, Robbie. That's for sure. Look, after I graduated from college and law school and worked for a couple of federal judges, I did what a lot of young lawyers did at that time and still do today. I joined a large international law firm, worked my way through being an associate, became a partner, and then ultimately a leader of my practice area and my firm. But I had a calling in my own heart and in my mind to public service in some form or fashion. I didn't know exactly what that would look like, Robbie, but I knew that at some point in my career, I wanted to serve the public interest as well as my private clients. And so I was fortunate enough to be offered an appointment to the federal district court in Northern California. And so I served as a United States magistrate judge for nearly six years and enjoyed that privilege each and every day. It was frankly just a lot of fun trying cases on a bench in the Silicon Valley, working with jurors, defendants, public defenders, victims. It was just an absolute pleasure going into work every day, not knowing exactly what I would confront. But at some point I felt the calling to return to private life. I was watching as Silicon Valley was taking shape all around me. And because of my particular position in that court, I was involved in many of the most important disputes in Silicon Valley of my time and our time. And so I left the bench in 2016 and went to Facebook, what was then known as Facebook, a little social media company that was about to enter a very different phase of its trajectory. And from there ultimately found my way to Coinbase where I now serve as the chief legal officer of one of the biggest and most important digital asset or cryptocurrency companies of the world. Judge, Meta, and now Coinbase.

Unfortunately, a lot of the process for becoming a judge is politicized and overly so. But at the end of the day, I think the most important element of my path to the bench was that I was doing what I think was recognized as good work. And I was doing it in an ethical and honest way. And I think that, you know, in the process of becoming a United States magistrate judge, and this is true in the state court system, it's true for federal district and appellate and even Supreme Court justices, your reputation is everything. And so I followed a path of appointment that involved, at the behest of several sitting judges, applying formally for the position, going through a complete vetting process. There were no shortage of others who wanted the opportunity. I was very lucky frankly to be the one selected to serve in that capacity.

Well I do worry, Robbie, quite a bit that our best and brightest are looking at public service not as much as a privilege and an honor but as a burden and a burden that they may not necessarily want to take on. You know, I think most, if not all, who are called to serve either in the judiciary or as an elected official understand there will be sacrifices made. Sacrifices in terms of compensation, sacrifices in terms of time with family, sacrifices in terms of the particular work that they might be able to do. But what I think has increasingly become clear is that there are sacrifices often in terms of personal safety, sacrifices in terms of personal integrity and attacks on personal integrity. And so I do worry a lot that we are making it so hard and distasteful for people to serve that our best and brightest will choose not to. That said, I remain an optimist. I still see very, very talented people answering the call to service. And as someone who is still involved in the judiciary in that I serve on a screening committee for Governor Gavin Newsom in the state of California, I am seeing still very talented people walk away from lucrative practices and opportunities in the private sector because they want to make a difference.

Well, there's no question that the job has never been more demanding than it is today. Courts are very constrained in terms of resources. Cases are growing more complex and I think also that confidence and trust in the judiciary is perhaps waning and that of course makes all of the elements of being a judge that much harder. But I think especially for members of communities like ours, the South Asian community, it is refreshing and indeed inspiring that when they do have a close-up look at the work of the judiciary and what judges do and how courtrooms operate, by and large, people are not only impressed, they are taken aback at just how hard judges work to get it right. I don't pretend that every court and every judge is perfect, but I do think over and over again we see that judges in the state court system and in the federal system are trying to do the right thing and apply the law as it was constructed. And I think for members of our community who may be called to jury duty or perhaps find themselves tangled in a litigation, when they are first exposed to the work and life of the legal system and the legal process, they're seeing that for all of its flaws, for all of its shortcomings and limitations here in the United States, it is still a system that works.

judge. Well, you know, I used to share with my law clerks that almost by definition, Robbie, when I ever I made a decision or another judge in any court makes a decision, half the people are going to think you're brilliant and half are going to think you're an idiot. That's just the nature of winning and losing in litigation. But I think that most judges, almost all judges, and certainly this former judge, really tried to put aside all of the concerns about what people might think about a particular ruling or how they might react to a particular outcome and instead focus on what does the law require and what is my best judgment as to how to apply that law to the facts in front of me. In most cases, there is a dispute in the court where two sides have very different views on what the outcome should be and there is good faith in each of those positions. You think about it this way, Robbie, if everybody agreed that there was only one reasonable outcome, they probably wouldn't be in court in the first place. And so, you really have to embrace that your job as a judge is not to make friends or to win a popularity contest. It's to do the right thing. Yes, people should be treated with respect. And of course, yes, you should be listening to everyone involved in the dispute to give them a fair chance to make their case, but at the end of the day, your job as a judge is to make the tough call. And that's how I try to approach it each and every day.

Well, I do think that from the perspective of parties who of course are absolutely convinced that their position is the correct one, a decision or outcome that looks like it was simply a pin drop somewhere in the middle between the parties' positions can be unsatisfying and even frustrating. And look, I'm now a client of lawyers who often appear on behalf of my companies. And so I often have that same feeling when I don't get everything that I believe we're entitled to. But, you know, I think that arbitrators like judges are doing their best. They're reading complicated records. They're hearing diametrically opposed perspectives on what may have happened that are equally compelling. And in many cases, maybe most cases, the lawyers who are presenting these facts and arguing this law are very skilled advocates. Their entire training and experience and frankly value in the system is their ability to make their perspective seem like the only reasonable one. But again, I think the system depends upon arbitrators and judges recognizing all those challenges but ultimately being willing, able and committed to deciding things according to the law. And that's what I've seen over and over again in my nearly 30 years of experience.

Well, you know, when we started SABA 23 or 24 years ago as a national and now international organization, it really was a community of friends. We were all young law students and lawyers who were trying to find our way through this profession. We wanted to find a way to succeed and even excel at this work without abandoning our values and without abandoning our commitments to our family and our community. And so we grew up together. And so whether it's someone like Neil Katyal who's argued more than 50 cases at the Supreme Court, whether it's judges, whether it's captains of industry and chief legal officers, we are by and large rooting for one another's success and learning from one another. I think one of the powers and values of an organization like SABA is that it provides an opportunity to learn from elite practitioners of this craft in a context and setting that feels very familiar, with a level of comfort and a lack of judgment that's very hard to find anywhere else. And so I'm very proud of what this organization has grown into. I'm very proud of the very small part I've played in that. But I'm mostly proud of all the people who have been on this journey with me every step of the way. And seeing them all succeed, not only as lawyers, but as wives, husbands, parents, and in many other capacities is just something that I will always remember for as long as I'm on this earth.

challenge. Well, it, you know, there's a reason why very few people once appointed to a bench decide at some point short of full retirement to step off that bench. It's a wonderful experience. It's a great honor and as I said earlier, it's just a ton of fun, Robbie. For me though, I am ambitious. Lawyers by their very nature, I think, are extremely ambitious in what we do and I am no exception to that. And for me, you know, I always aspired to a career in the law that afforded me and allowed me a wide range of experiences and opportunities. I just didn't want to be one type of lawyer or a lawyer who became a judge and did one kind of case. I wanted to see through the law all of the different types of experiences and issues that we confront as a society every day. And so maybe I was a bit foolhardy. Maybe I was a bit naive about how challenging it would be to step off of a bench where everybody laughs at your jokes and tells you that you're brilliant, and have to go out and scratch and claw like a lawyer again, especially in a very competitive industry like technology. But it was always very natural to me and something I assumed I would do at some point. And I'm very glad that I did.

Well, I had a clue that as I said earlier, the company was about to enter a much more challenging phase of its history. I mean, you have to understand, Robbie, when I came to Facebook in the early summer of 2016, it was still a period of time where for the most part, the company could do no wrong. We had presidents and prime ministers, rap stars dropping by campus, coming into the cafeteria to rub up against the greatness of this important company. And yet the tides were turning pretty quickly into the fall with the election controversy and allegations of Russian interference. The Cambridge Analytica scandal broke not long after that. And so as the head of global litigation and regulatory affairs for the company, I was quickly thrown into the middle of all of that. I'm not going to lie, there was a lot of stress and a lot of strain helping the company along with many others navigate those challenges. But in many ways, Robbie, and I think this is an important lesson for others who may have these same ambitions that we were talking about, it was the professional opportunity of a lifetime to develop new skills, new talents that I had not had in private practice or as a judge. And it set me up tremendously for whatever I've been able to accomplish at Coinbase in ways that I could not have ever predicted.

Well, I would say that what they most sold me on was the chance to do things I had never done before and play at the highest level. You know, we do talk a lot of sports, you and I, and I do think there are a lot of analogies between elite athletics and elite performance as a professional, including as a lawyer. You know, for me, the chance at what was then Facebook, to work on the hardest problems at one of the most important companies in the world with a lot of controversy, let's be clear, surrounding all those issues was a chance to frankly level up my game and see just how good I was and whether I could meet or exceed that challenge as opposed to continuing to do work that was very important and meaningful, but that I had done for some time and that maybe I had grown pretty comfortable with. And so, I really want to encourage young lawyers and young professionals more generally that there's nothing wrong with taking comfort in your expertise in a particular area and the confidence that comes from that. But I think that some of the most rewarding moments of my career have come from when I have pushed all that to the side and decide, you know what, rather than just lean into things that I've been doing for some time and had some recognition as an expert in, it's time to learn something new, test different muscles, and hopefully prove to myself that I was still capable of ascending those challenges and demonstrating a new mastery in new subject matters.

I was the deputy general counsel so I was in charge of global litigation and regulatory affairs which of course included all the government investigations that were coming our way fast and furious over that period of time.

Well, you know, as an American lawyer trained in American law, I was quite comfortable even coming off the bench with commercial disputes, employment cases, securities law issues that all were very familiar in the American legal context. It's a very different thing altogether to confront governments from the UK to Germany to Singapore to you name it, to India in particular as I recall, and legal systems that I had no experience in whatsoever. Fortunately, Robbie, like a lot of companies but Facebook I think was particularly effective at this. We played a team sport. It was not left to any one individual to resolve these questions or address them on behalf of the company. We had a large group of very talented professionals all over the world who are focused on a common goal. And I think one of the most important lessons I learned from my own experiences from athletics is that when you play a team game as a team, you have a much higher likelihood of success and that was what largely we saw at Facebook. I was very proud of the work I did but I was much more proud of the work of my team.

Oh no, there's still very much that they have to sort out. I think their docket of cases that are pending even today could show that. And look, there were serious issues that the company was still addressing or even just beginning to address by the time that I left that very much called for much greater work, much greater effort and in some cases much more aggressive government enforcement. You know, and these issues range from everything to topics like teen mental health, to data privacy, to the coarseness, an increasing coarseness of our social dialogue in societies including the United States, but all over the world. So no, there were many issues to resolve even by the time I left Facebook that in many cases persist to this present day. But I'm still proud that we were able to begin to make a mark and make a dent in that during my tenure there. And I'm hopeful that the company will continue to focus on doing what's right. Obviously always protecting shareholder interest but also realizing that its community of interest goes far beyond just the shareholders and really includes the wider world.

I did see a lot. Look, I think that it's important to understand why the scale of these problems seem so massive. It's because the scale of the value that these technologies have brought to people all over the world is massive, right? We have billions of people who are now able to communicate and leverage this technology to personal, economic, and social benefit in ways that were unimaginable even a short while ago. That said, I do think I'm an optimist. I'll put it this way. I do think that we are going to see progress in this area. In certain cases, it's going to require governments to step up. I don't think governments get to wash their hands of their responsibility in allowing these industries to proliferate in ways that seemed utterly untethered to popular sentiment and the rule of law. But again, I think that although it can feel like we're still beating our heads against a collective rock on a lot of these topics, I think we're going to get it right and where the companies don't get it right, they should be held to account. I believe that very much. It's a rare situation where you have a man like Mark Zuckerberg, an individual with so much power, so much control over a major corporation, but he does. And so thus, he gets a lion's share of the criticism.

Well, to be fair, I have not worked with Mark now for a number of years. But what I can say from my time working under him and observing the company from a very unique vantage point is that we tend to think of companies not just like Facebook or Meta but Google, Apple and banks like JP Morgan and Citigroup and Goldman Sachs and other industries I could list all along. I could provide a long list of them. We tend to think of them as monolithic institutions. And yes, in certain cases, one person often has ultimate control over those organizations. But in every case, they are collections of thousands and thousands of people all making decisions day to day. And in most cases, I believe trying to do what they think is right. It doesn't mean they always get it right. It doesn't mean they don't need to be held to account where they get it wrong. But I think that the way these large human institutions work, much like governments and other large complicated human organizations, is that there is a drive towards doing what is efficient, there is a drive towards doing what is profitable, and even if there's a commitment to quality, even if there's a commitment always to the rule of law, occasionally things can go off the rails. I think it's incumbent upon companies and organizations of all types and complexities, whatever the industry or whatever the area of influence that they may have, that they put in place systems of checks and balances that drive towards correction, that they hire and promote and develop people of integrity that understand that the world goes far beyond just the four walls of any company. And I think if we look at most companies most of the time, we see that that is what happens. Doesn't mean again that we don't need to hold those that fall short of that standard to account. But I think it's important to have some perspective when weighing, on balance, how they have performed.

I got an A+ in hedging in law school.

Well, there's no question that their wealth and power is extraordinary by any measure and certainly by historical measure. And yet, I can't underscore enough that these are men and women who wake up every morning with bad breath and stubble on their face and need to put their pants on one leg at a time like everybody else. They are flawed even if they are brilliant, and they are conflicted even if they are tremendously accomplished. I think the important thing for regular folks to understand about these individuals is that even though they appear to be captains of industry and perhaps even seem untouchable by the traditional means of accountability, it's important that we not give up in trying. And it's important that we do so according to standards that are public, laws that are passed, and a process that is fair, or else we risk undermining so much of the benefits that come from their successes, even as it's important that we always keep our eye on the costs that are also there as well.

Well, I am still very proud of the work that I was able to do along with many others at Facebook. And yet when Coinbase came calling in 2020, I was in many ways in the perfect state of mind to say yes and accept the opportunity. I had long been intrigued by the notion of cryptocurrency. I had long ago read the original Bitcoin white paper and was taken by this dream and idea that we could have a decentralized currency that didn't rely upon formal institutions who can say yes or say no to who gets to participate and how they get to participate. And so because the technology was so compelling and because I saw Coinbase as playing a very different game from many others in crypto, I was immediately taken. Coinbase's main pitch to me was we're going to do crypto in a very different way. Unlike many of our competitors in the space then and sadly even now, we were going to follow the law. We were going to build an exchange that was licensed, that was regulated. We were going to not just call for the passage of rules and laws, we were going to advocate for it. We were going to even sue our own government where they refused to give us rules and law. And that was a very different approach that appealed to me not only because of my excitement about the technology and the potential, but also my own background in public service and my own interest in promoting the rule of law even as we promote a growing economy.

That might be fair because certainly my role at Facebook was to play defense. You know, in a lot of ways I was either a defensive end or a defensive coordinator, and so it would be unusual or even unnatural to expect there to be much offense happening. Although occasionally you pick up the fumble and you run it back.

It took us 27 minutes, but we finally got to the Browns. I'm very proud of that. But I think that Coinbase, because of where we were at when I joined in 2020 in our evolution as a company and where the industry and governments all over the world were in their understanding and attitudes towards crypto, it made sense that there would be much more of an opportunity to play offense, to bring cases where the government was falling short of its stated objectives and standards. To make the case not only to the governments but to the public at large that crypto was a force for good and that real competition in the financial system would serve all of us, whether crypto ultimately prevailed or traditional financial systems would continue to persist. And so that appealed to me as much as anything. And so like a lot of defensive coordinators who are given the opportunity to serve as head coach, yeah, I began to think about what plays I might run once they gave me the keys to the offense as well.

Well, I have no illusions that each and every day I ultimately serve at the pleasure and privilege of Brian Armstrong, our CEO. But I am grateful that over the course of our nearly six years together, he has given me a lot of autonomy, hopefully reflecting his trust and confidence in my judgment to do what I think needs to be done in order to win in the marketplace and in court and with regulators as needed. I will say one of the great lessons I learned from Facebook that I've applied at Coinbase is the concept of playing a team sport. We aspire to be a championship team. And I think Brian has expressed and articulated his vision for Coinbase in very similar terms. And so it was a very natural fit, and I've had no greater pleasure and privilege than serving as chief legal officer.

Yeah. Well, look, markets have cycles and crypto is no exception. And so there's no question that there have been peaks and valleys and summers and winters. But I think one of the things that has impressed me the most, Ravi, about the cryptocurrency or digital asset industry is that for all of the consistent calls of its demise, here we are in 2026 and we haven't gone anywhere. And in fact, not only have we not gone anywhere, we're now seeing traditional finance after fighting crypto for so many years embrace it. I think in many cases, the banks and financial institutions that were the loudest and most persistent critics of crypto have said, you know what, if we can't beat them, we're going to join them and compete. And at Coinbase, we welcome that competition. We've thought all along that the best way to advance the financial system and give people more opportunity and choice in how they save their money, how they invest their money, access to credit, all the things that make up a financial life, the best way to go about achieving that vision is let's compete on fair and level terms and see who has the better solution to the problem. And I think that's what you're going to see in the coming years now that so many traditional banks and other institutions have really decided that fighting crypto is a lost cause and it's time to compete on the playing field.

Yeah. Well, look, it's now been several years that more than 50 million Americans or more have owned a digital asset. And that number almost certainly is now closer to 60 or 70 million. That's a huge percentage of a country that has what, 330 million people at most. And so not only are we seeing more and more people invest in crypto, we're seeing people being able to do many more things with their crypto. Originally, people might have been drawn to crypto by the promise of Bitcoin and seeing that digital gold appreciate in value over time as a store of value. But now stablecoins, which are digital assets or cryptocurrencies that are not highly volatile the way that others are but backed by US dollars sitting in a reserve account, are doing all kinds of things to make payments, to make remittances to family members back home in India or wherever much more efficient and less costly, all in ways that we could not have imagined before. And so I'm as excited by the explosion in the uses for crypto that we're seeing as much as I am by the growing numbers of people who are engaging with this for the first time. But if I can make a small prediction, Ruby, I think what you're going to see from this point forward is that more and more people using crypto are going to be using it without even knowing it. They're going to be going to their JP Morgan account or to their account at Franklin Templeton and making a payment or sending money home to Pakistan or India or wherever, and they're going to be choosing an option that has crypto as the underlying plumbing. But it won't even matter to the end user or frankly be visible to them because it's just a cheaper, faster, better way to send money all over the world. That's how I think you're going to see adoption explode from here. And that's why I think you're going to see not only here in the United States but all over the world billions of people relying upon this innovation in ways that are going to be tremendously exciting but also important.

A huge concern to me. It's a huge concern to Coinbase. And what I have said over and over again to regulators in Washington, in London, and all over the world is if you're concerned about the potential for abuse, then the right way to address that is to pass rules, put laws in place, hold people accountable, but do so in ways that disincentivize bad behavior from happening in the first place. It's cold comfort to most victims of a fraud or any other kind of scam to learn that they have legal rights to go after the people who took advantage of them. Much better is to put in place rules, laws, and standards that encourage and indeed force cryptocurrency companies of all types and stripes to prevent that abuse from taking place in the first instance. So, I think you're going to see that happening. It's true that for many years many regulators and lawmakers were quite skeptical of crypto and even hostile to it. But as I have spoken to many lawmakers here in the US and all over the world, I have seen that with education comes an understanding that we need to address this whether we like crypto, hate crypto, or feel somewhere in between. Having rules in place serves not just the private interest of the industry but the public interest.

Trying to get the Indian regulators to grasp what's taking place there. Tell me about the difference between these two countries and your role in advocating to them both. Well, I'll first say what an honor I have to provide one voice among many in the dialogue between the country of my ancestors and my parents and all of that and the country of my birth and the country that I love, the United States. Coinbase does have tremendous interest in India in particular, and that has allowed me the opportunity to travel there many times to meet with important officials in the government, important officials at the Reserve Bank, and securities regulators and other important institutions in India to talk about the right way to think about crypto and the right way to enforce rules. And what I've learned, Ravi, in those many visits in Delhi and Mumbai and elsewhere is that Indian lawmakers and regulators want the same things as their American counterparts. They want to keep their citizens safe. They want to see their economies grow. And so they're trying to figure out how to strike a balance between protecting consumers and investors on one hand from being defrauded and promoting innovation that will allow more and more people to enjoy the benefits and fruits of a growing economy than has historically been possible.

Well, I think the US is much further along today in 2026 than we were even just a short while ago, in large part because Congress has now passed legislation in crypto here in the United States. We saw a bill on stablecoins enacted into law last year, and we are very close to seeing a market structure bill for crypto that is much more comprehensive being passed by the Senate and ultimately signed by the president of the United States in short order. India is in a different place. India has a very different legal system, and so I think the Indians also have still greater questions about how crypto can be used consistent with their financial system and under Indian law, and at the same time protected against important threats and risks to the Indian system and really to Indian society, whether it be in the form of terror finance or money laundering and the like. So I think each country, each community, each society ultimately has to arrive at the destination of sensible rules for crypto in their own way. But I think that's going to happen based on what I've seen, even if it may look very different in each of these two countries.

Yes.

Yes.

I give India a lot of credit. In many ways it is leaps and bounds ahead of the United States in facilitating and encouraging adoption of new forms of payment and technologies that make it very easy not just for people of influence to move money around, but the working man and woman. And I think it's important that Americans, including myself, have a bit of humility that we don't have all the answers here. It's not as if we have wisdom from on high and that our job is to bring it down to the masses that may not have yet received it. There's a lot we can learn from the example and experience in places like India that we can bring back to the United States so that it's just as easy to buy a cup of chai here in San Diego off the street as it is in Delhi or Mumbai or anywhere else in India.

We don't do business in China. So that's an easy one. But we do operate in many other countries all over the world, and each country is at a different stage in its evolution in terms of formal rules and laws that apply to crypto. But yes, our vision is for not just a handful of elites in the West to use crypto for one form or fashion. We want this to ultimately lead to economic freedom for billions of people all over the world. And that means if that's what our mission is, that's where our goal is, we need to be involved and on the ground in these places. And that's one reason why I have a lot of frequent flyer miles in my house probably.

Well, what I say to them is if something makes you nervous and uncomfortable, you shouldn't do it until you gain comfort and are confident that you know what you're getting into and that you understand the risks as well as the benefits. Now, with respect to learning about crypto, just like with respect to learning about artificial intelligence, I have found in my own personal experience with my own family and friends that the best way is to talk less and do more. And so maybe you start with a simple account on Coinbase or download a crypto wallet and you take $5 or $10 and convert it into a tiny bit of Bitcoin and learn how it works and what it means to be able to send value using these new tools. Maybe it means that once you gain comfort from that, you begin to think about what a more sizable investment in a particular crypto product or token could look like, and again understanding the risks but also the opportunity from it. The main thing I want to suggest to people, Ravi, is that simply refusing to learn how these things work and keeping them at arm's length is effectively keeping yourself veiled in ignorance. And I don't think in 2026 that serves anyone's interest. You don't have to love crypto or you don't have to love artificial intelligence. But I think it's important for all of us to understand them and to learn how these things work and then form an independent view on whether it makes sense for you in your personal and professional life.

Well, I think the main thing that we have pursued through legislation is getting clarity on what's the right way to think about crypto. In financial systems all over the world, there are one set of rules for assets that are more like traditional securities, stocks, bonds, those sorts of things, and another set of rules that apply to things that are better thought of as commodities, wheat, corn, or collectibles like Pokemon cards and the like. Legislation globally, but certainly here in the United States, will resolve that or at least make that much more clear to people who are involved in these issues. And then of course, it's important that we have standards in place for making sure that when people choose to buy these tokens or assets, they understand what they're getting. So that issuers of the tokens make clear disclosures of who's behind it, what are the rights that are involved when you buy one of these tokens and the like. And I think that over time and to varying degrees, we're seeing different countries and jurisdictions come to understand that. And then once they understand that, they move on to the hard business of legislating. And that's what I'm most excited to see come to pass here in the US in short order.

Roby, you're very kind. But before we go, I just want to say, you know, we're sitting here at Saba here in San Diego and you have been such a strong supporter of the South Asian community and the South Asian legal community and always being here giving us an opportunity to talk about the issues of the day. We really do appreciate all that you brought to this community as well.

I got a couple swings left in me, Rob, but well, don't count me out just yet.

I appreciate that. Good to see you, sir.