COMMENT | Will our legal professionals aspire to the Kneedler standard?

Editor's note: Malaysiakini has obtained permission to republish this article, which first appeared here.

COMMENT | The morning of April 23, 2025, saw the usual hushed atmosphere at the Supreme Court of the United States.

It was the turn of counsel for the United States to address the Supreme Court. The case had not been an easy one.

California’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had set stricter vehicle emission standards.

The fuel producers protested. They challenged the state’s right to set these stricter standards. The industry claimed that it had “suffered economic harm”; and that the decision had “favoured electric vehicles”. They complained it prejudiced their business.

When Edwin Kneedler, the deputy solicitor general of the US, rose to defend this state action, he was already pushing 79.

Calm and precise, he defended EPA’s actions. He spoke of the intent of the law. He pointed out that, in exercising its powers to intervene against state action, the Supreme Court had to respect certain limits.

After his arguments, as he gathered his notes and made to leave, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr stopped him and called him back to the lectern.

The chamber, usually so measured in its solemn dignity, witnessed a rare and moving scene.

The Chief Justice said: “You have just presented your 160th argument before this court, and I understand it is intended to be your last. That is the record for modern times. You have carried out your responsibilities with extraordinary care and professionalism, conscious of your role not only as an advocate but also as an officer of this court.”

“I recall that on two occasions, you and I argued on the same side here, me representing a private client and you, the US. We lost each of those cases. I’m sure it was my fault. Mr Kneedler, thank you for your outstanding service to court and country.”

What followed was extraordinary. The courtroom, including all nine judges, spontaneously broke into applause. The applause swelled into a standing ovation. It was a rare, almost unheard-of gesture in the Supreme Court.

Observers described it as a moment of “unanimity and spontaneous joy,” with the judges “all beaming.”

Kneedler, ever modest, accepted the honour with a small nod and a quiet smile. He did not linger. He did not bask in the moment. He simply gathered his papers and left the lectern, as he had so many times before - quiet, steady, and unchanged.

The law as a calling

Before entering law school in Virginia, Kneedler had worked on projects to alleviate poverty.

He witnessed the hardship of immigrant workers. His fascination for law developed as he watched lawyers acting for these groups. He saw that the law could either shield the powerless or fail.

He worked so hard in law school that he often referred to himself as a “law nerd.”

After law school, he clerked for the late Court of Appeals judge James Browning and then joined the Department of Justice. In 1979, he moved to the Office of the Solicitor-General, and there he stayed

Kneedler served under 10 presidents and argued before three chief justices. He mentored many. He did not seek the spotlight, and he did not chase headlines.

A young lawyer once asked him, “How do you win so many cases?”

He replied, “You do not ‘win’ cases. You serve the law. You do your best. That is all.”

He never hid the government’s weak points. He would say, “If we are wrong, we must say so. The law is not a game.”

A junior lawyer once knocked on his door. “Mr Kneedler, do you have a moment?”  When he was invited to sit, the junior hesitated. “I’m not sure how to frame this argument. The facts are… not strong.”

Kneedler nodded. “Then we must be honest about them. The court will see through any attempt to hide. Our duty is to the law, not to ourselves.”

The junior left, reassured.

Best possible argument

Supreme Court judge Samuel Alito once remarked, “Whenever Ed (Kneedler) is on the brief or is arguing, I know… we’re getting the best possible argument that can be made for the position that he is defending.”

A day in the life

Kneedler’s office was simple. A manual typewriter. Family photos. Piles of briefs. He worked quietly.

He arrived early, before the city stirred. He brewed his own tea, set his papers in order, and began. There was no rush. Each case received the same attention, whether it was a matter of national security or a question of local land use.

He never raised his voice, never boasted, and importantly, he never took credit for other people’s work.

The Kneedler way

He mentored many, and he taught them the need for integrity, and to be clear, he insisted that they “serve the law, not themselves”.

Often, he had to argue hard cases. Sometimes he won, and sometimes he lost.

Yet, he did not count victories. All he was concerned about was whether he had done right by the law.

After his 100th argument, the Chief Justice had congratulated him: “Mr Kneedler, our records reflect that you … are the first to reach this rare milestone this century…”

To celebrate the occasion, Kneedler’s wife, Lynn, hosted a quiet party at home. His colleagues presented him with a framed list of all 100 cases. Kneedler spent an hour looking at it, reflecting on the highs and lows.

He said, “It is not about the numbers. It is about the work.”

He then moved on to the next brief.

Industry and integrity

Kneedler worked long hours. He would read every case, write every brief himself, and check every citation. He read every word and checked every fact. He was always prepared.

He was never swayed by politics. He served under Republicans and Democrats, but would not change his core values for anyone.

He once said, “The law must be above politics. If we bend, the law breaks.”

He never used the law to serve his ego. He never sought to please those in power.

Once, a senior official suggested a “more aggressive stance” in a case. This was to please a political superior.

Kneedler listened quietly. Then he said, “We must argue only what the law allows. Nothing more.”

The matter was dropped.

In this way, he defended the Constitution and preserved the law.

When he received awards, he accepted them quietly. He would shrug and say, “Service is its own reward.”

Quiet honour

There were small acts, never spoken of. Once, a clerk made an error in a brief. Kneedler caught it, but did not upbraid him. He simply corrected it and left a note: “We all learn. Thank you for your work.”

He never spoke ill of others. He never blamed. Especially, he never excused himself.

A colleague remembered, “I was the youngest in the office. Ed spoke to me as if I mattered. He listened. He remembered my name.”

He lived with honour. He worked with care. He left a mark not by noise, but by example.

The law’s purpose is to shield

Kneedler believed the law was a shield, not a sword. He said, “The law exists to protect, not to punish. It is for the weak, not the strong.”

He taught that integrity matters more than victory; that honesty is not weakness, but strength. That the law is not a weapon, but a protector.

He never said these things to win praise. He did not need to: his entire life said it all.

A question for our times

In Malaysia, politicians are charged with corruption, but are then discharged. The words “DNAA” (discharge not amounting to an acquittal) echo in the courts.

The public wonders: “Are prosecutors too busy serving power, not justice? Are cases dropped for reasons unseen?”

The law seems to bend.

No one says it openly: to do so would be to anger many. But the question hangs.

Would a Malaysian court ever honour a quiet, honest lawyer in this way? Would it stand to applaud a man who served only the law, never himself? Would it celebrate a life of quiet, firm honour?

Kneedler’s example stands as an answer. He did not bend. He did not serve power. He served the law.

The standard we need

Kneedler’s portrait now hangs in the Justice Department, but his true legacy is not in awards or applause.

It is in the quiet way he lived, the way he worked, and the way he never wavered.

He showed that a lawyer can be industrious, honest, and honourable. And that the law can be a shield for the weak, not a tool for the strong. That service is not about winning, but about doing right.

If our politicians, prosecutors, lawyers and judges followed this example, the law would be safe. 

The public would trust the law and the courts again. For the courts would then stand for justice, not power.

Kneedler never asked to be honoured. He never asked to be followed.

But he left a path. Quiet. Clear. Straight.

It is a path worth taking. Will our lawyers, prosecutors and judges take it?

GK GANESAN is a lawyer and an international commercial arbitrator.

The author thanks UK Menon, G Naidu, KN Geetha, TP Vaani, JN Lheela and Lydia Jayanthi.

The content is the intellectual property of the author, protected by copyright laws. Contact gk@gkganesan.com for permission.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.

Papagomo apologises to IGP over defamatory remarks

COMMENT | Basic structure: Should M'sia not revert its position?

Puad: Najib faces uphill battle in courts over house arrest bid

Yusoff Rawther trial: Prosecution closes case, decision June 12

Royal addendum: Najib disappointed over another delay, says lawyer

Appeals court overturns Yasin's life imprisonment over drugs