In a Jan. 5 essay in The Washington Post, Katherine Ku became the first former clerk of Alex Kozinski still in private practice to go on the record about the judge's alleged behavior. Ku, a corporate and securities partner in the Los Angeles office of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, who clerked for Kozinski from 2003 to 2004, wrote that Kozinski “regularly diminished women and their accomplishments” and once asked her to come into his office to look at a photo of a nude man.

“For the rest of my year-long clerkship, I closed the door to my office and communicated with the judge as little as possible,” she wrote.

In the essay, headlined “Pressuring harassers to quit can end up protecting them,” Ku voiced frustration that Kozinski's abrupt retirement essentially shut down the federal judiciary's investigation into his alleged conduct. Ku recently discussed her decision to write the essay in an email exchange with Ross Todd, San Francisco bureau chief of ALM's The Recorder. What follows has been edited for length and clarity.

Ross Todd: What was your reaction to the initial Washington Post story?

Katherine Ku: Relief that someone had finally spoken and admiration and respect for Heidi Bond for having the courage to describe her experience publicly on a named basis.

Did Kozinski's first public comments following that story—the “If this is all they are able to dredge up on me after 35 years, I'm not too worried” quote he gave to the LA TImes—surprise you at all?

No.

When and why did you decide to write the essay?

After Kozinski resigned. The legal profession's and general public's reactions to the allegations against the judge and to the likely consequences of his resignation for the federal judiciary's inquiry into his misconduct struck me as muted. That concerned me.

His behavior was not as shocking as what we've heard about figures like Harvey Weinstein, but the allegations concerned a highly regarded and influential Article III judge—someone with significant public duties. An investigation to fully uncover what had happened seemed critical, for the reasons I explained in the piece.

You are the first woman currently in private practice to publicly speak out about Kozinksi's alleged behavior. Why do you think that is?

The reasons why victims of sexual harassment and misconduct, and witnesses, remain silent have been covered in the recent public discourse, and I mentioned a few that are particularly applicable to this situation in the Washington Post piece. Also, those of us in private practice wish to be viewed by our clients and colleagues first and foremost as professionals and advocates. That can be hard to reconcile with voluntarily involving oneself in a situation like this as a victim or bystander, rather than as counsel.

What do you want to see happen next? What are you hoping to see out of coming forward and speaking out?

I hope others in private practice will add their voices to the conversation. The ongoing focus on speaking up is important, because it helps create space and validation for victims and witnesses who report sexual harassment and misconduct.

The current pivot toward prevention and remedies, with efforts like Time's Up, is equally important and yet more complicated and challenging. We need women (and men) to share their experiences and perspectives to help shape the next steps forward, as well as apply their legal skills.

What has the reaction been from those in your firm and others in the profession?

Lawyers who have read the piece and reached out to me, whether in my firm or from the broader profession, have been supportive.

Was the reaction any different from what you expected?

No, but I expect there are also people who disagree with some or all of what I've said or my decision to speak. It's in the nature of the current conversation.