Cullen Group Logo
L4L Header
T Marshall Image
L4L Logo
  

A Conversation with Leon Panetta

This interview with Leon Panetta was held at the Panetta Institute, located on the campus of California State University, Monterey Bay, on October 9, 2006.

California State University Monterey, Panetta Institute
http://www.panettainstitute.org/index.html

____________________________________________________

Leon Panette PictureCULLEN:   The first thing I'd like to talk to you about is your background, how did your background shape your character?

PANETTA: It was very important, I was the son of immigrants.  Both my parents were immigrants.  They came from Italy in the early 1930s, like millions of others, with not very much money, very few skills, no language ability, but they were the kind that wanted to work hard.  They brought those values of family, hard work and dedication with them, and all of the values that sustain you when you're in a struggle to survive.  They managed to make it to Monterey, and my parents eventually opened a restaurant in downtown Monterey.  My earliest recollections were, as a young boy—about five years old—washing glasses in the back of that restaurant.  Then we moved down to Carmel Valley, bought a farm, and began working out there.  It was expected that you would work, and do your share.  I think a lot of that experience paid off; it gave me a work ethic, and it also made me focus on what’s important in life.

CULLEN:   You seem to focus on a work ethic… what else were important values? 

PANETTA: My parents always stressed the importance of honesty and integrity.  A better way to say it: your word counts for something, and people can trust what you say and what you do.  In the end, it really isn't about money.  It's not about how much you have in material goods.  It really is about whether or not you have the respect of the community and the respect of others.  That is how they phrased it.  My parents were important and so was my own faith.  The religious education I got, as an undergraduate at Santa Clara University, gave me a foundation as well.  It was important to be honest with others, and to be trustworthy, and to try to help others, as well.  All of that, those kinds of important values, were built into me.

CULLEN:   Having gone to Santa Clara Law School, were those values part of the education there? Encouraged there?  What was your law-school experience like?

PANETTA: My undergraduate education at Santa Clara University was particularly important because we took religion courses that were required.  I don't even know if they do it any more, but we took philosophy courses, as well.  We had to minor in philosophy, and those were very good courses.  They taught you not only about thinking critically, which ultimately is what education is about, but also they taught you to understand how to logically approach issues, and they were taught by leading experts in philosophy.  They taught you about syllogisms, how to work your way through those syllogisms; they taught you to build a system of rational approaches to certain problems and how to reach conclusions.  They helped you to become someone who thinks for himself or herself, to challenge issues, and to challenge ideas.  But I think the main message that I got from a Jesuit education was to challenge ideas—that in fact, you should challenge things, that you should question.  By doing that, it makes you think, and it helps to find truth in the issues.  It is not by just sitting there and absorbing it.  It's questioning things, and asking, is this the way things should work, or do work? 

And then, when I went to law school, it carried on, although there wasn't that much exposure to Jesuits in law school.  I think there was one Jesuit professor who taught in the law school, but it wasn't an ethics course.  I think it was crimes.  But, being in that atmosphere at Santa Clara, where you were part of the campus, you continued to have the influence of that kind of philosophy that said that when you attend Santa Clara, there is something different about going there.  This isn't like your basic take-your-legal-courses-and-move-on-and-take-the-bar.  There is something more to law school that carries a larger meaning about the role you are going to play in a larger pattern of life. 
 
CULLEN:   And focusing a little bit on the issue of leadership and some of the concepts you talked about with respect to values, honesty, and integrity.  I had the opportunity to read an interview of yours and there were some ideas that really stood out to me.  When you were a Congressman and also in the Clinton administration you dealt with the budget, and deficit spending, and you pointed out in the interview that one of the successful ways you were able to work on this issue, was to rely on leadership skills.  You indicate in the interview that leadership was an essential part of moving that process of government along.  You say that the forefathers “believed that a wise and virtuous people would elect wise and virtuous leaders.  But, leadership demands risks.  I think one of the problems in politics today is that leaders don't want to take those risks.”  What did you mean by that?  And what does the element of risk-taking—how does that relate to your views of leadership?

PANETTA: I'm a real believer that the essence of our democracy is based on the fundamental beliefs of our forefathers, that leadership is at the heart of making our democracy work.  They deliberately created a system that would not centralize power in any one branch of government.  That was their great fear, they did not want to have a king, or a king-parliament, or a star-chamber court, and so they created this remarkable system of three separate but equal branches of government, each a check and balance on the others.  But, while it limits power, it is also a formula for gridlock.  So how do you confront that?  You confront that by elected leaders being willing to sit down, debate, discuss, and ultimately find consensus—a willingness to find solutions to the issues.  It wasn't going to be everything that one wanted.  It wasn't going to be everything that one side might hope for, but it was a process of finding solutions, which meant that, to some extent, each side gave up a little as you tried to find that kind of consensual answer.  And that's what Philadelphia was all about; it was a group of people who had very different ideas about what this country should look like, but a willingness to compromise, to find consensus, and the result wasn’t one sided, it wasn't everything that a lot of people wanted, but it was a pretty remarkable document that they finally drafted and accepted.   

That's at the heart of what makes our system work.  It's a combination of that ability to debate, find consensus, and be willing to take risks on behalf of compromise.  The other idea that drives this process is a look to the future; making sure that your children have a better life, that there is a better future.  I've often said that.  When I used to ask my father, why did you come to this country, and travel thousands of miles—talk about taking risks!—why did you do that?  Why would you leave the comfort of family?  And he said it was because, "We wanted to give our children a better life."  And, in many ways, that's the principal driving force and purpose of leadership.  It isn't just to stroke your own ego.  The purpose of leadership isn't just to put money in your pocket, or to be able to acquire fame. The purpose of leadership is to improve the future.  It's to improve the lives of others for the future.  That's what it's all about.

CULLEN:   I'd like to have you make a slight transition, and talk about our legal system a little bit, because maybe there are some parallels.  You said that leadership is the process of finding solutions.  Leadership is the process of defining a better future.  And also you talk about the checks and balances, the debate, and finding consensus.  Do you think those same concepts are also the foundation of the legal system?

PANETTA: When students ask me how to get involved—because we have a lot of students here at the Panetta Institute, our whole purpose here, as I said, is to inspire people to get involved—I get a lot of questions about, what's the best education?  What should I do, in order to get involved with public policy?

I always recommend to them, "Go to law school.  Become a lawyer."  Whether you practice law or not, don't worry about it.  But I say, "Go to law school, because what law school does is it hones those skills.  It gives you the ability to think, not only about what your position ought to be, but what the position of the other side is going to be, so that you look at both sides." 

And, frankly, in public life, no issue is black and white.  It's gray, and you have to have the ability to listen to others, because especially today, politics seems to be saying:  "I've got all the right answers, and you're all wrong!"  If you get back to that basic principle that our forefathers talked about, it really is about talking with each other, understanding.  You may not agree with the other person, but the other person has a sincere view of the issue.  You may think it has no foundation.  Yet, if you listen, you'll find out, "Yes, there's some merit.  There is some merit to what that person is saying."  The ability to do that, to understand others, is what then gives you the ability to arrive at some kind of consensus. 

Those skills give you a process of thinking.  It gives you a process of thinking in which you say, "Okay.  Here is an issue. ...  These are the positions on that issue," and you then begin to evaluate what makes sense.  It gives you the ability to be an advocate, but, more importantly, it gives you the ability to figure out ultimately how to resolve that issue.

CULLEN:   So let's break that down just a little bit more, and, again, using some of your previous interviews.  In those interviews, you talked about the process of being persuasive with Congressmen, trying to get them to vote with you on your balanced budget concepts.  One of the things that you wanted to show them was that the politics of a balanced budget was “the right thing to do." 

In addition, the people with whom you were talking had their own interests and positions. They were politicians, so not only did you have to advocate the value in doing the right thing, but also you had to listen to them, and meet some of their own needs.  Is that what you were talking about with respect to understanding the other person’s views?

PANETTA: The skill is to be able to understand that person, their needs, and their concerns, and their beliefs, and when you evaluate that and understand that, you have the ability to then say, "Okay.  How can I respond to that person in a way that appeals to them, either to one of their beliefs, or in what they're trying to accomplish—and to the concerns that they have.   How do you appeal to that, and, at the same time, how do you appeal to their higher sense of what's good for the country?” 

The budget was always a good place to have that kind of debate.  If I'm talking to a conservative from the South, who represents a rural area, and I can say, "Look, we’ve got something here for your farmers; but, at the same time, we have to raise revenues, or we've got to take some of these other steps, in order to take care of the bigger picture that you care about.  Because in the end as a conservative, you care about whether or not the deficit goes down.  You care about whether we have fiscal responsibility.  We're trying to take care of your farmers, but, more importantly, we're trying to take care of that larger issue."  So you've got to find a way to appeal to that person. 

And you do the same thing on the left, which is, if somebody cares about funding for AIDS, if they care about funding for healthcare, you've got to provide some room for that; but, at the same time, you've got to make them understand that there is also this bigger picture that they've got to focus on for the sake of the country.  And, the people who are successful at doing that are the ones that can then bring people together and can build that consensus that you need.  People that aren't good at that basically say, "Oh, there's this side and there's that side, and to hell with you, and I'm going with this side."  Those are the ones that will always breed conflict.

CULLEN:   And do you see that there is a parallel to the legal system?  Do you have a view as to whether or not this is the direction of the legal system?  Is it going in the same direction that you talk about with respect to more conflict?  Do you see that more people are willing to argue positions and yet fail to listen to the other side’s interests?  Is there a breeding of conflict, perhaps, more and more in the legal system, as there might be in the political system?

PANETTA: I think the trends that you see in politics may be the same trends occurring in the legal area.  More and more, it's about the fight.  It's about the conflict, as opposed to whether or not you can resolve differences, and play a role in resolving differences.  And so, to a large extent, the growth of arbitration, the growth in the number of arbiters and mediators, is because, in many ways, the legal system is broken, and so you've got to turn to people who are willing to play that role.  But it always appeared to me—when I practiced law—that the role of both lawyers and the judge is to determine how to resolve conflict.  It's not so much who wins, who loses; it’s how do you resolve conflict in a way that the parties can walk away and say, "Well, the right thing happened." 

It doesn't mean you shouldn't advocate on behalf of your client; it means that, in the end, the interest of justice is served—best served.  You cannot simply take your client and go off a cliff with continued conflict, rather take the interests of your client, and try to see if there's a way that they are ultimately satisfied along with the other side’s.

CULLEN:   So, in your mind, then, a valuable element of our legal system is solving problems; and resolving problems is one of the important keys. 

PANETTA: Yes, of the legal system.

CULLEN:   And a value of the legal system.

PANETTA: Exactly, exactly.  Each side has a certain position.  You're fighting on behalf of your particular client, but I believe that a fundamental role of our judicial system is to provide a forum in which those issues can be debated, but ultimately, to develop a forum that resolves those issues.  And sometimes, it may be that one side "wins," and one side "loses," but it also can be that, ultimately, you look at the situation to compromise, and say,  "You know, in fairness, this is what ought to happen."

And that's a role that lawyers ought to play.  I don't think it's all about going to war. I feel the same way in politics.  It isn't just about going to war.  It's not about trench warfare.  Ultimately, it's resolution of these issues.

CULLEN:   In talking about challenging the system of conflict, and confronting the issues honestly, you believe resolution needs to take place.  In other words, when there's gridlock and conflict, it's the people who can be honest, deal with things directly, and resolve the conflict that is important to the system.  And you say this in one of your interviews "There is no question in my mind that it's the difference between what you learn in a political science class and what you learn when you actually go out and deal with the issues…" in any context… “it really does depend on the quality of the people that are there”.

PANETTA: That's right.

CULLEN:   Now I'm assuming that this has a similar parallel in the law schools.  In other words, there are some things you learn in law school, and then there is --

PANETTA: Yes.  There's the real world.

CULLEN:   So my question is this:  Have you thought about this in either the political-science setting, or with respect to law school?  Maybe there are some areas where we can, and you are an educator, make our lawyers, law students, political-science students, deal honestly and forthrightly with the problems, and learn to lead and problem-solve.

PANETTA: You know, again, looking back on my own law school experience, you spend a lot of time on different courses.  You spend a lot of time on crimes and constitutional law, and a lot of other things.  But there was very little that brought it all together and said, as a result of all of these courses, as a result of all the things you've learned, what the hell is it all about?  And one of the failures of law school, very frankly, is that it never really draws that final picture, as to what it really means.  Because you're so immersed in all this other stuff, you may lose context.  For example, for me, the experience that helped me a great deal as I went through law school is the fact that I was working in law firms.  I did background work, I did other things that gave me a practical sense of what I'm learning.  This is what's taking place out there in the real world. 

          I believe what's too often missing in law school is the transition to that larger role that's out there.  How do you deal with clients?  How do you best represent those interests?  I've often thought that the reason some lawyers, some law students, who get all As in all their courses, yet sometimes turn out to be lousy lawyers, is because they don't see that bigger picture.  As a lawyer, you're getting a license, not only to practice law; you're getting a license to be a leader.  When you go into the courtroom, there's a judge, there are two lawyers representing clients, and you have a responsibility to represent the interests of the client, but you have a greater responsibility to our system of justice to ensure that it is working to promote justice, and so that means you're more than just an advocate.  You really have a larger responsibility to make sure that, in the end, whatever comes out of that courtroom represents an example of the best of our judicial system.

CULLEN:   That seems to be consistent with the concept of compromise.  It is getting back to your view of being a lawyer, and being a leader, and the underlying value of reaching honest compromises.  Yet, it may not be happening enough. 

PANETTA: Yes, in the political world, the best example of that is what you see going on in Washington right now.  I see it every time I go back to Washington.  You've got two parties that are basically locked in trench warfare.  They're fighting each other.  They're throwing grenades at each other.  They're trying to blow each other up, and what's missing is why they're there in the first place, which isn't to just kick the hell out of each other.  It's to govern.  It's to govern the country.  When you have all of these major issues and crises that we're confronting in this country, whether it's the war, global warming, or energy, or whatever, immigration, these are all major issues.  The two parties are locked in such conflict that they don't have the time to try to resolve these issues.  And so, it's all about winning.  It's not about governing, and if you translate that to the courtroom, if it's all about winning, and not about what's good in the name of fairness and justice, then something is missing.

CULLEN:   Let me get your impression about those lawyers who are looking for solutions.  Successful lawyers always have an expertise.  It always takes credibility in the area in which you studied, in which you're a specialist, but the most successful lawyers, the ones that people are turning to, the ones most clients want, and the community respects, are those lawyers who are looking to the solution, who are looking to the compromise and try to understand and look at both sides.  So if we learn these skills, we're going to help all of our clients in the system.  

PANETTA: Yes.  When I practiced law, I always felt you owed it to your client to tell them about the real world, because many people that walk in are angry.  They're frustrated, they've been harmed in some way, and they want instant gratification for however they've been harmed.  But you have a responsibility to say, "Look.  Looking at the facts of this case, looking at the arguments of the other side, ultimately, this is where this issue can be resolved.  Whether you're dealing with the judge, whether you're dealing with the jury, the likelihood is that this is what's going to happen."  You have a responsibility to lay that out, and, in many ways, you do a disservice to your client if you don't do that, if you don't engage in that analysis.  I think the great lawyers are the ones that can say to their client, "Look.  This is the real world.  This is what you have to think about.  Now, there are several ways to deal with it.  There are strategies to deal with the issues, and we can do this, or we can do that, but, ultimately, let me tell you something.  This is where the likely resolution is"

I always felt you had a responsibility to lay that out.  In politics, it's the same way. In a party caucus, it isn't just about being a cheerleader and saying it's great to go to war.  As a member of that caucus, you have the responsibility to stand up and say, "Wait a minute!  This position is taking us in the wrong direction.  Look what's going to happen.  And ultimately, it's going to hurt us, and it’s going to hurt the country."  Now, if you're afraid to do that, then you lack leadership ability.

CULLEN:   We have talked about a list of skills and characteristics; you talked about integrity with respect to dealing with people.  You just talked about risk, your willingness, as a leader, to take a position that's risky, and perhaps require a level of courageousness, or courage.  Any other leadership traits or skill sets that are important for lawyers and leaders?  We talked about resolving problems, problem resolution, and leadership being a process by which people come to consensus, and come to resolution.  In your experience, just thoughts, any other key values that you can think about, or key traits or skills, that really jump out with respect to your history or the people that you've worked with?

PANETTA: Well, clearly, the qualities that I've always felt are the most important are the quality of trust, the quality of integrity; of what you see is what you get.  People who give you a sense of trust, when they speak to you, they're saying what's in their heart, and that is important.  The ability to relate to others is extremely important.  To understand others.  To understand where they're coming from.  To listen and not simply shotgun positions, but to really try to reach out and understand the other side.

There's an element of pragmatism that I think is important here as well.  That means that you've got to decide, in the end, what are the best ways to get where you want to go, and it involves a real sense of pragmatism, and perception.  To analyze how is this thing going to play out?  Where is this heading? 

And then, lastly, whether you're a lawyer, or whether you're a politician, you do have to think about ... what's in the larger interest of what you're trying to do?  In other words, what's in the interest, not only of the country, but what's in the larger interest of the judicial system?  And, to some extent, it goes back to that element that I talked about, that I thought was so important, which is, in the end, almost everything you do is about how do you make people's lives better.  It's true not only for a Representative –it's particularly true for a Representative—but also it's true for a lawyer, because, in many ways, what you're trying to do is to say "For all the hell that my client has been through, ultimately, how do I make this person's life better?" 

CULLEN:   This includes the concept of doing what's important for your client, but also, with respect to taking into consideration fairness and justice, does one have to consider what is good for the other side.  Oftentimes we, ... as lawyers --

PANETTA: We miss it.

CULLEN:   We miss that.  We miss the idea of what is best for the overall situation.  There has to be an element of fairness for my client, and to get what my client wants, but the big picture—with  respect to politics—is what's best for the country.  Sometimes as lawyers we lose a little bit of perspective…what's best for this situation.  How do we create some positive change for both sides?  Is that a consideration?

PANETTA: Yes.  It's hard to stay positive, if you're dealing with an accident at an intersection, and the other guy went through the stop sign, but your guy was speeding.  To some extent, then, you've got to take into consideration both sides and, ultimately, the responsibilities of both sides, and what represents a fair solution.  Often the simple approach is the easy approach.  Again, it's true in politics.  It's a much simpler life if all you do is say, "Forget it.  I don't have to think about that.  All I have to do is just basically fight for my client, or fight for my party.  That's all that really counts.  It keeps life simple.  I can vote with my party.  I don't have to think about different issues.  It's just a much simpler way."  But I also think it's wrong.

CULLEN:   It's not enough.

PANETTA: "It's not enough."  Exactly, in the end, you're really not serving the larger interests of what you're involved with, and in the end, I'm not sure that that produces the right result for your client.

CULLEN:   At a speech you gave at the Commonwealth Club, you talked about a pretty interesting concept, that in our world now, we may be in an age of paradox and contradiction.  For example, we have the largest military in the world—we spend more than 400 billion a year on the military—yet we are still very much at risk because of terrorism and other security risks.  You say “that power alone cannot answer those challenges… that it takes leadership and diplomacy and the ability to build alliances and coalitions so that we operate with unity and justice...”

Let's again try to transition this into the legal system, there may be a paradox inherent in the legal system as well.  It's a system that tries to resolve problems, yet it also seems to create a large level of conflict.  The theme throughout your ideas is that leadership, and leadership as a lawyer or a politician, is required in order to resolve the paradox that we sometimes find ourselves moving more towards, it's going to take leadership skills to break the conflict and deal with the challenges of conflict.   

PANETTA: Yes.  The paradox example, which is very real, because we have these paradoxes that present contradictory approaches to the challenges we're facing.  But, you know, you have the responsibility to basically break that paradox.  A leader needs to determine, if there is a side that you believe has the right issues and solutions, and another contradictory side that basically can undermine everything they’re arguing for, you have a responsibility to cut through that, and try to find where the resolution of the paradox is.  Because if you just allow the paradox to play out, then, ultimately, not only do you have a conflict, but you could very well undermine everything you're trying to do, and that's the danger.  I mean there's a danger in allowing that to play out.

Now, to inject yourself fairly into that conflict and paradox requires a lot of strength, and a lot of courage, and the ability to make some people angry at you.  That’s the toughest thing.  Ultimately, people don't want to do things that make others angrier, and yet, sometimes, that's inevitable.  You have to weigh that.  In politics, it's about whether or not, by doing the right thing, you might ultimately risk your survival.

CULLEN:   You practiced law.  Can you think of an example of a situation in a legal setting where you observed someone taking such a risk?  An example of someone whom you have recognized as having these leadership skills, as a lawyer, who had to take greater risks, had to go out beyond what you might consider to be their normal obligation to their client?  And seek a resolution that might not be what the average lawyer did?

PANETTA: When I was Director of the Office for Civil Rights, I had the responsibility to enforce the civil-rights laws under Title 6, which basically meant that if a school district was discriminating, that, ultimately, we were to cut off their federal money if they didn't repair the segregation.  As was the case at that time, most of the South had, by law, basically discriminated.  So you had a fairly easy case to make, but the solution, obviously, was always very tough.  You had to work hard to resolve it.  What schools do you close?  What schools do you try to combine? 

There was a lawyer from a school district; I believe it was in Georgia, who basically said to the district board, "We've got to move on.  We've got to move beyond this.  This isn't just about protecting the status quo, ultimately, not only is it going to jeopardize your funding, but, more importantly, it's not right for the kids."  So we began working out a plan with this lawyer that made sense.  But, within a couple of months, the lawyer got fired and we had to move to litigation.  But, I always remembered that, because I always thought the lawyer was right, ultimately what happened is that the district went to court, and the court finally told them what they had to do.  So they didn't win in the end.  If they had followed the lawyer's advice, they would have been in the right place.  I always admired that lawyer’s courage, because, particularly in that situation, he was someone who lived in that community.  He knew the people in that community, and he was willing to say, "You've got to do something different." 

CULLEN:   In your speech at the Commonwealth Club, you say we have a really exceptional constitutional system, and we're in the 21st century now.  You say "There are great opportunities, and there are great challenges, and I honestly believe that with the right kind of leadership, we can produce a new kind of hope, freedom, and justice."  That certainly is something, in the political world, that all of us hope to retain.  What might you say about the legal system, and where it's going, and some of your optimism that we have to have with respect to the legal system, as well?

PANETTA: As we've seen, we're living in a time of great challenge.  It's not only the challenges that confront our political system, and the crises that confront our political system, but, in a real way, there are also challenges that confront our judicial system, as well, and they're big challenges.  Understanding what our constitution is really all about.  Understanding what our rights are all about.  This whole issue with international prisoners, and how we treat people as prisoners.  These are big issues about what is our system of justice all about.  And I think the lawyers have to understand that they've got to engage in that kind of debate. Because of their training, because of who they are.  It's very much like saying, if a patient has got some serious heart problems, a cardiologist can't just walk away from that, and a cardiologist isn’t just going to say, “Well, send him to someplace else,” or “Send him to somebody else,” or just tell the person to take two aspirin and go to bed.  That person has a responsibility.  In many ways, a lawyer has the same kind of responsibility, which is to stand back, and say in every situation "I have a larger obligation to a system of justice that is essential to our democracy."  They need to be trained.  They need to have that—that larger set of values about what it is they have a responsibility for. 

I remember when I was in law school.  You always knew the people who would just be the guys who would just go out there and just simply make a buck.  You could tell, and, frankly, they did.  And you know what?  Some of them got in trouble.  The people who succeeded were the people who always had that higher view of their role as a lawyer, and I never forgot that.  When it comes to dealing with values, there is a whole set of players that affect your life.  Whether it's your parents, whether it's the church you go to, whether it's the teachers that you know, whether it's your friends.  All of these factors basically determine what your value set is going to be like; but if you can find a way in law school to say, "These are the sets of values that you ought to have, as an attorney, and this is right, and this is wrong, and this is how a problem should play out."  If you find a way to do that then law school and the practice of law can be a hell of a lot more meaningful.  But that's not easy.  A lot of this stuff sometimes is built in, even before a student gets to law school. 

But my sense is, from dealing with law students, is that it's never too late.  It really isn't.  And that is what they're struggling for.  One of my gripes is that most of these students are lost in their computers, and they're spending an awful lot of time alone, as opposed to dealing with others.  What I've found in talking to them, in dealing with law students, and in dealing with students, generally, is that if you can show them examples of the way it's supposed to work, they'll listen.  They'll listen.  Chances are, and, it's true for life itself, if you can light a few candles, then I think you've done the right thing.

CULLEN:   One last question, with respect to that process, to the role of educational systems, and I liked in our talk here you said that when one receives a license as a lawyer, you receive a license to be a lawyer and a license to be a leader.  Might you suggest that our law schools can focus more on values, skill sets, compromising skills, so that we teach lawyers to think like lawyers and think like a value driven leader?

PANETTA: Yes, I believe that can be done.  I really do.  I believe that you can in fact, teach law students that it isn't just about passing the bar.  It's not just about taking your required courses, and it isn't just about advocacy.  That when you go to law school, and you get a law degree, there is a higher responsibility, and it isn't just Judges, and it's not just Supreme Court Justices, but it's lawyers that play the major role in our system.  Particularly in today's world, where there are so many confusing signals, and so many confusing values, I believe you can get back to these basic values of leadership. 

CULLEN:   Well, thank you very much.