Karl Racine was sworn in as Washington, D.C.'s first elected attorney general in 2015 and was reelected in 2018. For Racine, the job is the latest in a series of high-profile leadership roles that date back to his time as a student at the University of Pennsylvania. (As captain, he led the basketball team to two championships in the 1980s.) Racine went on to the University of Virginia School of Law and was named the managing partner at Venable in 2006, becoming the first black lawyer to hold the firmwide role at an Am Law 100 firm.

Under Racine, the D.C. Office of Attorney General has prioritized action in areas like consumer protection and juvenile justice system reform. The office also hasn't backed down from high-stakes litigation, even when the opponent is the president of the United States. Racine recently spoke with National Law Journal Editor-in-Chief Lisa Helem about his work as D.C. attorney general and his leadership path at Venable.

The Fourth Circuit, in October, granted an en banc rehearing of the emoluments lawsuit you and Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh filed against President Donald Trump. [At press time, oral arguments were set for Dec. 12.] What's the significance of that order and what's your strategy going forward?

I think it's a very significant granting of rehearing en banc. Those are rarely granted. What it means is that the issue is of significant constitutional import. What it means is that the issues are novel and complex and that the Fourth Circuit viewed the issues to be of such importance that the entire court should make a decision about it. The way that we'll approach the case is the way that we approached the rehearing en banc motions, which is bring to the court the history behind the emoluments clause, namely that our framers did not want to have foreign interference in our democracy and that's why they inserted the foreign emoluments clause—and there's obviously the domestic emoluments clause as well—and then painting the picture that what the president is doing by choice is a flagrant violation, as he's receiving money from foreign sovereigns literally every day.

As co-chair of the Democratic Attorneys General Association, you've discussed ways for states and the District of Columbia to pursue joint litigation. Why do you think these coalitions are important?

Offices of attorneys general around the country have differing levels of resources. Yet, oftentimes there are problems that occur that impact residents of so many states. So, one way to meet the problem[s] of lack of resources [and] impact on many states is to do things collectively. And it's always more persuasive to do things collectively on a bipartisan basis, where that is possible. For the District of Columbia, it's great to have the respect of the AG room nationally. We aspire to be a state, and we are a state for all intents and purposes in the AG space, so we might as well act like that.

President Trump, against whom you are litigating, thanked you by name and called you "fantastic" during his address to the National Association of Attorneys General at the White House in March 2019. What was that moment like?

[Laughs] You know, I've got to say that I thought that something was coming. As we got into the White House and were gathering to sit down, it struck me that I was getting favorable attention from the White House people. For example, Kellyanne Conway came over and said complimentary things about the work that we're doing in the district—she didn't mention the emoluments case—and then I was directed to sit in the front row. So, the wheels started spinning in my head. And I said, you know what, something could happen here. And once [Trump] got to the place where he was about to thank the National Association of Attorneys General for being advocates on the First Step Act, I said, "Oh my goodness, this guy is about to call me out."

There was no doubt that both Democrats and Republicans—my friend in the AG realm, [former attorney general of Florida] Pam Bondi and—worked really hard to get our AG colleagues on a bipartisan basis to be supportive of the First Step Act. So knowing all of that, feeling a different dynamic in the room, I just said, "OK, well if this guy says something, you need to just do what your mom and pop always taught you, which is be graceful, respectful and maybe throw a little bit of humor in there." [In the exchange, captured on video by CSpan and the Washington Post, the president, during his remarks, pointed to Racine and said, "Karl, I feel like I know you." Racine replied, "I feel like I know you as well, Mr. President" to laughter from Trump and the room.]

Juvenile justice reform and consumer protection have been key priorities for your office. Tell us about that work.

(l-r) Lorie Masters, Karl Racine, Edward Smith, Lateefah Williams, and Paul Zuckerberg, all candidates for the position of Attorney General for the District of Columbia, during a debate organized by the Women's Bar Association of the District of Columbia, at the offices O'Melveny & Myers. October 21, 2014. Photo by Diego M. Radzinschi/THE NATIONAL LAW JOURNAL.

The Office of the Attorney General has two primary responsibilities under the law: to provide the District of Columbia agencies, the mayor and the council with legal advice and to represent the district and defend it in court. The second objective is to use the law in the public interest. And I interpret that second mandate to be "use the law in a way that can have the greatest impact on our most vulnerable populations." In the juvenile justice realm, [we've] really focused on evidence-based practices that reduce the "schoolyard to jail yard" pipeline. I'm also proud of my colleagues who have worked on issues related to shutting down slumlords and protect[ing] vulnerable workers to ensure that they get what is owed to them under law for their work.

In another consumer protection matter, your office, in December 2018, sued Facebook over the Cambridge Analytica data disclosure issue. [At press time, a judge has ruled the case can advance, and the parties are in talks over discovery.] Why do you feel this lawsuit is important for the people of D.C.?

In the District of Columbia, roughly half of the residents had their personal information compromised by Facebook and the whole Cambridge Analytica matter. And we felt that that level of impact required action. We had grave concerns about their [Facebook's] privacy policies and implementations and of the measures that they represented that they took to protect user privacy. And so, we determined that the best thing to do was to conduct a thorough investigation. And if we couldn't reach an acceptable resolution then to go ahead and sue them.

As attorney general of D.C., how would you describe your leadership strategy?

I have been very fortunate to hire excellent people. My leadership strategy is about making sure that we have talented lawyers and talented managers. My chief deputy [Natalie Ludaway] is extraordinary. She is dynamic, she is indefatigable. She has extremely high standards and she is a large part of why I think the D.C. office of the attorney general has been successful. My strategy has been: bring in talent at the management level and let them do their thing.

Let's go back a bit to your time at Venable and before. Why did you want to become a lawyer? And what was your mindset like when you were a law student at the University of Virginia?

I realized that the powerful impact that lawyers who are working for the causes of vulnerable people can have on equality. [In law school,] my focus was on doing as well as I could. I recognized that the University of Virginia School of Law was a prestigious law school and that my fellow students were likely to be very talented. Part of the strategy for me was to work my butt off so I could gain the confidence in a demonstrative way that "I do belong."

Did you have a blueprint for what success looked like as a black lawyer at an Am Law 100 firm?

I can't say that I had a fully formed blueprint. I can say that the experience of being a summer associate at a law firm provided an up-close and personal "look see" of the industry and what it took to become a partner and be successful. I worked as a summer associate at Hogan & Hartson. [Hogan & Hartson merged with Lovells to form Hogan Lovells in 2010.] And Hogan had an extremely successful African American partner, Vincent Cohen Sr., [who had] a large book of business. It was a great fortune that I was able to work there and see what he did in order to achieve that level of success. I learned a lot by watching him work and benefited from conversations with him: "OK, this is how someone makes a partner. This is how someone gets himself into position to develop business, to maintain the business, to grow a practice."

People talk a lot about the barriers to success for diverse attorneys in Big Law. To what do you attribute your success in spite of those barriers?

I think those barriers are real, first of all. I look back, and I had extremely generous mentors who cared a ton about my development as a lawyer and would put me in positions to take on progressively challenging work. And they wouldn't hesitate to recognize if I did OK and they would promote that. So it was a stroke of great luck to be in a situation where the people with whom I worked most closely were totally invested in my becoming—commensurate with hard work—a really good lawyer.

When did you know firm leadership was in your future?

I sort of consistently thought as I went about doing business that I could lead in some way. It was never my aspiration to be the managing partner, but increasingly my mentors would put me in situations to exercise leadership and greater responsibility. When I returned to Venable from the White House back in 2002, it became clear to me that there were opportunities to go into management and leadership in addition to building a practice.

What has to happen for greater numbers of diverse attorneys to ascend to the highest levels of firm leadership?

That is a great question. I think it takes a commitment to law and a commitment to being in that law firm environment. Being successful in the way in which you do your work, but also understanding the business of law, which obviously means gaining clients, keeping clients, building a book of business. And it also takes [firm] leadership that is inspired beyond the comforts of the status quo. There's no way that I would have become the managing partner of Venable if the Venable leadership was leadership characterized by total satisfaction [with] the status quo.

Lisa Helem is the editor in chief of The National Law Journal. Contact her at [email protected].  On Twitter: @lhelemNLJ. Jacqueline Thomsen contributed to this report.