Hi everyone, I'm Robbie Gapor. I'm joined today by Paul Grewal. He is the chief legal officer of Coinbase, but he has so many other roles in his past and I want to get into that actually beyond we'll talk about Coinbase and all the work, all the legislation you're creating around the world, which I think is fascinating in his own right, but your legal story is tremendous. Your pathway in the law and we happen to be at the South Asian Bar Association, their national conference where you were once the national president and still a huge supporter of this organization that has had so many attorneys, so many mentored so many young people to become real leaders in the law. So tell me about your pathway getting into law as a young person. It wasn't exactly a pathway for most, you know, Indian-Americans or South Asians certainly of your generation and it's still a more limited crowd than, you know, say being a doctor or some other professions. But tell me how you ended up in the law.
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.
So you were just a traditional lawyer but then you decided to get, you know, and put on the full garb and you had the robe on and I first met you when you were a judge in Silicon Valley. So tell me about that pathway. Was that something that you wanted to pursue? Was that accidental? Because that's also a unique path in the law.
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.
Unbelievable pathway just those three positions, but I do want to hone in on being a judge for a while, especially in Silicon Valley. First of all, how do you land that position? I know some states judges are elected, some venues they're appointed. You had a kind of very interesting position as a magistrate judge. Tell me how you got in that role because you know seems like everything's political and even being a judge seems to be political these days as well.
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.
Given how polarizing the environment has been over say the last decade. I mean I think that's one of the challenges that I see is that are people willing to take on these kind of roles to be in public service. It's a sacrifice. I mean the talent of this man is prodigious. You don't just become a judge and then help to run Meta's legal department and then go to Coinbase. So you had many opportunities. But given the fact that people are talking about the Supreme Courts and all these different judges that are appointed by both administrations and the way this whole process works, I mean are we seeing a dearth of really talented people that have many opportunities that were willing to make that sacrifice to get into public service?
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.
That's wonderful to hear because obviously that's a challenge as someone I've covered court cases for many years. I've seen litigation at different angles and usually I've seen no issues with the judges. I've been honestly blown away and impressed with how you're able to navigate complex information, especially now with the way things are today. And we'll get into that because we talk about the debates of transparency of information and putting cameras in the courtroom and now you're dealing with AI and so many things. I've been very impressed, but I know people are getting pushed to the limit.
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.
And tell me about the checks and balances. Obviously, you know, we have a system, but hey, maybe you don't like the outcome. You're able to appeal it. When you're dealing with your fellow judges and you have these very difficult cases, I think most famously, I think Samsung and Apple's, I think, one of the highlights. I mean, what is that like for you personally when you're dealing with all this information? You have people making very valid, candid arguments, tremendous advocates on both sides. What is that like? And then, of course, obviously the natural course is, okay, someone doesn't like the outcome, they appeal it. Tell me about that process from the mind of a former
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, thanks to SABA, I've been exposed to some of this legal nuance and the difference between having a case in an actual court versus an arbitration. I know a lot of people tell me with arbitrations, some of these folks, these arbitrators like to split the baby, so to speak. I mean, did you find that concept in traditional court or is that something you're willing to navigate and do the nuance work required?
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.
So, as you guys can all tell, I mean, Paul is one of these elite attorneys, very humble by nature, but he's been involved in all of these different cases, and many people here at SABA are at this level. Neil Katyal, another guy that I sat down with here at SABA years ago, he was arguing before the Supreme Court. Tell me about the relationship of those of you kind of the OG attorneys in the South Asian community. I'm sure you're looking on some of the caseloads that some of these other folks are doing when they're arguing for the Supreme Court. Do you guys trade notes? Are you guys rooting for one another? And tell me through that process, when did you look at other people's arguments and see how they're navigating the system?
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.
So when you decided to step away from being a judge and go on to what is now known as Meta, I had one person tell me a decade ago saying Paul is very ambitious and this is something that I think he has maybe an itch to scratch and to take this on. So tell me about that decision to leave what was obviously a very attractive position, very highly respected. You were certainly one of the most respected judges in Silicon Valley to leave that behind and taking on a new
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.
Tell me about what challenges you faced when you walked in the door. Did you know what you were getting into when you walked into Facebook that first day?
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.
I mean, how much did they tell you up front? I mean, were you talking to Mark Zuckerberg himself? Was he trying to recruit you? I mean, tell me about the pitch because you had a heck of a job. I mean, most judges don't leave that job. So, what did they sell you on? And then wait, was it exactly what you expected?
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.
And so I think were you like the number two position there and in charge of litigation globally?
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.
So what is that as a, again, you're working there trying to defend the company to the best of your ability. What is that like? Because you're not just talking about the American government. This is a global company. It was navigating that. Obviously you're doing that in your current role as well at Coinbase. So tell me about that going from Silicon Valley disputes to now dealing with government disputes on a level that very few encounter.
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.
Do you feel that Facebook at that time resolved all the issues, all the inquiries, or is there still much that they have to sort out?
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.
Well, social media has gotten a really bad rap especially in recent years certainly from that era. I think it was tremendous to get people connected in such a way we had never done before globally. That being said, your impression being behind the curtain, are things as bad as they seem? I mean, what you probably saw a lot.
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. Tell me about how you saw him deal with this and your interactions. Has he, I imagine, I mean, he was a very
Young man when he started the company. I imagine he's matured greatly. He certainly seems his public persona has changed, at least for those of us on the outside looking in. Tell me about working with him, what you observe personally and, you know, how he's had to handle these issues. Has he addressed it in all the best way possible?
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.
That was a really good hedge there. But I mean I expect nothing less. I mean you know what you're doing.
I got an A+ in hedging in law school.
Amen. Amen. Listen, I don't want to put you on the spot like that, but obviously he's got enormous influence.
He does. I think that's uncontroversial. And with that influence comes a ton of responsibility, but I would argue that governments also have a tremendous amount of influence even to this day. And so even though there are real questions being asked about the ability of these very powerful people to influence governments, we still have ultimate control as citizens here in the United States and all over the world. And I think it's critically important that we hold our leaders in each of these spheres accountable when they fall short of what we expect.
So you've been sitting at this fascinating intersection of public service and big tech, and right now the billionaire class, whatever you want to call them, they are getting assailed by politicians of all stripes. Tell me about what you've seen. I mean, are these folks as powerful as they seem? It does seem like they have extraordinary power, extraordinary wealth, extraordinary access. They can shape our culture in ways that I think most people can't explain.
