Our D.C. partner, Richard Ben-Veniste, is serving on the 9/11 Commission. Richard spoke at last year's Pro Bono luncheon and focused his remarks on the Commission's work. The Commission's report was released on July 22, so we thought that now would be a good time to follow up with Richard for an early look back on the experience.

Q: What's the biggest surprise you had in working with the Commission?

B-V: How well we were able to get along in a bipartisan way. Particularly under the leadership of our chairman, Tom Kean, not only did we work together cooperatively and constructively, we became friends.

Q: How did the commission work together - what was the plan for arriving at a consensus?

B-V: Each individual brought his or her particular strengths and experience to the job. I would say my particular strength was that of a litigator not easily distracted from pursuing a line of inquiry. I was particularly focused on fulfilling our responsibility to provide a full factual accounting of the 9/11 catastrophe, and why we failed to prevent it. My experience with the operation of our domestic law enforcement agencies and the Department of Justice proved very useful as was my experience with CIA on declassification of secret documents. We spent a considerable amount of time sitting down together, going over several drafts of the report and discussing the menu of recommendations. From the very beginning we recognized that there was a hunger in the nation for the kind of unity of purpose that brought America together in the aftermath of 9/11. We knew that if we could not reach unanimity, our efforts would count for little.

Q: Without naming names, did any commission members change from their initial positions?

B-V: All of us were affected by the developing evidence. I think we all modified any initial views we might have held.

Q: Was your own mind changed on any points?

B-V: Very definitely. When we started out, I took the view that this was a horrible tragedy - that it was essentially unpreventable, that we had been caught unaware by terrorists who exploited our vulnerabilities in a way that was unimaginable. The more I found out about the facts, the closer together "the dots" became - we had a great deal of intelligence that was not utilized in an effective way.

Q: Would you say that the single most persuasive point illustrating that it was preventable would be the August 6 PDB?

B-V: The August 6, 2001, Presidential Daily Brief was a very important document for the public to see, particularly in view of how it had been described by those who probably thought that there was no chance it would ever be made public. The issue of preventability is, of course, necessarily speculative and involves the benefit of hindsight. But had the FBI and CIA been more attuned to the possibility of an attack within the United States, as the PDB's author suggested, and had there been better communication and utilization of the information in our collective possession...it is possible that the plot could have been interrupted.

Q: What do you think will be the chief lessons of the hearings?

B-V: Primarily we need to be smarter and more resourceful than we have been in combating an agile, entrepreneurial and ruthless enemy who has patiently studied our vulnerabilities. Our intelligence and law enforcement agencies need to improve the box on the report card that says "works and plays well with others." The pre-9/11 grade was "F." Intelligence agencies must cooperate and understand that they're working for the American people - they are not working just for their own agencies; they do not "own" the intelligence information, but need to share it under appropriate, but reasonable, guidelines.

Q: What do you hope will change as a result of the hearings?

B-V: We've made a broad variety of recommendations as to reorganization of the intelligence community, intelligence gathering, intelligence sharing, while protecting constitutional rights and civil liberties, and streamlining Congressional oversight and improving the appropriations process. Given the broad mandate that our enabling statute provides, we tried to step up to the plate and make recommendations that, if enacted, will be transformative.

Q: How well did the media cover the commission's activities?

B-V: I'll give them a "B." Generally, the media is much too interested in trying to anticipate what was going to happen rather than straight news reporting. Of course, there are exceptions - the coverage by the New York Times, the Washington Post, public television and and radio was excellent. The media's appetite for trying to find and exaggerate conflict and controversy is insatiable, and often detracts from basic reporting.

Q: What reactions have you personally received?

B-V: Substantially positive. On the other hand there are legitimate critics, and a handful of "wack-jobs" and wing nuts whose e-mails provided me with the opportunity to exercise my constitutional right to press the delete button.

Q: How did this experience compare with your Watergate work?

B-V: Other than the fact that both involve matters that command the country's close attention, they are very different. I've been very fortunate to be involved in a number of important national events involving the intersection of law and politics. Watergate, Whitewater and the 9-11 Commission stand out as opportunities where my professional skills and practical experience allowed me to make a contribution to public service.

Q: You have recently finished an eight week bench trial in New Jersey on behalf of Starwood Hotels and are now in Miami opposing the SEC's motion for a preliminary injunction for Mutual Benefits. How have you been able to juggle your obligations to clients with your responsibilities on the 9-11 Commission?

B-V: We put together a great trial team in the Starwood case and won a complete victory. The firm has been very supportive of my service on the Commission both institutionally and on an individual basis, for which I would like to express my appreciation. Basically, I gave up all my other outside interests and activities for the last 18 months, knowing that the Commission's life is finite. I was aided by my longstanding fear of wanting to play golf. Most importantly, my wife, Donna, and our children provided a consistent source of encouragement and support. I'm hoping my life will become more normalized somewhere around September.