Daniel Satinsky: Well, look, I’d like to begin with when did you first go and why?
Richard Conn: Well, I had learned Russian in college.
Daniel Satinsky: Okay, why?
Richard Conn: And I had done that because I already spoke several languages and wanted a hard one before my brain got fried. I was already a reasonably serious chess player, and I had in my mind that No. 1, I liked Russian literature, and I’d been raised during the Cold War, so I had a fascination with Russia. And also thought well, I’ll maybe eventually get to play some of the top chess players and be able to read the material in Russian, all of which ended up happening. So, those were the reasons I got into it originally.
Daniel Satinsky: Where did you go to university?
Richard Conn: I was at Dartmouth.
Daniel Satinsky: At Dartmouth, okay. So—
Richard Conn: So, I went on a program over to St. Petersburg, at the time Leningrad.
Daniel Satinsky: And so just to follow the chess for a moment, when did you end up playing against Russians in chess?
Richard Conn: You know, I ended up becoming good buddies with Kasparov, and so in ’92, ’93 I played him a couple times. And back in the ‘70s I played David Bronstein a couple, actually, maybe 10 or 15 times.
Are you a chess player at all yourself?
Daniel Satinsky: I’m not. I’m not, no.
Richard Conn: You wouldn’t know who he is, but—
Daniel Satinsky: I don’t know who he is, but—
Richard Conn: David Bronstein was, they say he was one of the strongest grand masters never to become world champion. But when I was in Costa Rica when I was 15, he had visited, and I had played chess against the guy he was going to play, and I was a 15-year-old kid, but I had beaten the guy he was going to play.
Daniel Satinsky: Oh, wow.
Richard Conn: He was playing the champion of Guatemala that day or something. So, the champion was a really nice guy. He introduced me to David. And Bronstein was maybe in his 60s at that time. And he was just—and he didn’t speak Spanish, but he spoke English, and so we chatted a bit. And then what he did was the most amazing thing at that age I’d ever experienced. He invited me into the circle to walk around with him as he played 40 or 50 people, and he would get my input on certain moves, and tell me what he was doing, and it was a dream, an absolute dream. And so that was… And then later we played chess together a few times. He let me have a draw once by saying if you do this you can take this knight, and then you can tell them you drew me. [Laughs.] A really nice guy.
But no, I mean, skipping way, way ahead, when I was in… In Moscow there, I would say the turning point in terms of really getting involved in chess was when I’d been working with the Kremlin, with some of the people there, and they introduced me to Kasparov, and I played at an event where I was one of 10 people playing him, and I lasted the longest, and so Garry and I spoke afterward for quite a bit, and I ended up representing him in a variety of things, and then being in part of his wedding, so we were friends for a while.
And then later, when I had indicated I wanted to help the chess world pro bono, and I had actually connected him and Karpov back together years after their match—a strange story where we met on the street. And Garry suggested I run as the running mate of Karpov to lead the World Chess Federation. And so, we had this worldwide campaign, which was great, great fun, and we were up against Putin and his guy, because it became known that Garry was behind it.
Although actually I did not view this as an anti-Russian campaign at all. Obviously, Karpov was going to be the president, and he’s anything but an anti-Russian. But I did view it as a way to try to bring chess sort of out of the…more mainstream into educating children how to play and out of some of the unsavory things that the World Chess Federation had historically been involved with. So, that’s how all that began and took off. And so through the years I played lots of the top players and am really able to lose to almost anyone.
Daniel Satinsky: But to be able to lose at that level is impressive.
Richard Conn: It’s fun. And the current world champion has allowed me to do commentary on a lot of his games, but that’s a whole different story. So, chess, to me, is a nice hobby. It’s just a hobby for me, but I enjoy it.
Daniel Satinsky: So, professionally you moved there in ’92, is that what you said?
Richard Conn: Yeah, I moved there to open Latham in ’92.
Daniel Satinsky: Right. So, tell me a little bit about Latham and why Latham was opening an office in Moscow.
Richard Conn: Well, to be candid, Latham opened an office in Moscow because I went to the head of the firm and said hey, this guy Boris Yeltsin is just coming into power, you may not know this, but I speak Russian fluently. I told him. Found out that he spoke some Russian, which was a good thing. And at the time we had an office in London. That was our only foreign office. But I basically said look, I think I can probably make some good things happen, we’ll have some clients here maybe in the U.S. who need support over there, Russia’s trying to transition, it seems to me, to a free market democratic structure, I’m sure that there will be some opportunities perhaps to be helpful in that. And basically, I’m crazy enough to do it. So, he was very supportive and let me do it.
Daniel Satinsky: Did you have a wife at that point?
Richard Conn: I did, and I give her points for being willing to leave California and go to Moscow. We took a trip or two for her to see it. And it was an adventure. It was a rough place, a complicated place.
Daniel Satinsky: Yeah, not an easy time in ’92.
Richard Conn: No, and she did not speak any Russian. And we had two kids. We had two young kids about five and seven or something at the time. You know, a lot to take care of in that. But I viewed it—I guess the way I thought of it—and you’ve talked to lots of people, so I’m sure you find as well that there are many other sort of self-selected types who had an idealistic view of what they could accomplish and why to do it—but I had a very conscious sort of period of thinking through the idea that there may not be a lot of equity partners in major law firms who speak fluent Russian, and I just thought that—I wouldn’t say it was an obligation, but I felt that it was the right thing to do to try to be helpful to a Russian government that, at least as I perceived it, was trying to move in a direction that I felt I wanted to support. And so—
Daniel Satinsky: As you were thinking about it, what kind of support did you think you would be able to give to the Russian government? Because usually people do it the opposite way: I’m going to help support my clients or my American companies to find a way. And you are expressing that you thought initially about helping the Russian government. I’m curious about that.
Richard Conn: Of course, as a partner in the firm I had an obligation and a desire for us to make money for the firm, and I did view that as a likely outcome of this. And the firm still has an operation over there, and I think it’s done fine. But no, I can’t say that at the forefront of my mind was gosh, our clients are dying to get our services in Moscow or St. Petersburg. That was an adjunct to it, and of course I took great care to spend a huge amount of my time building a client base and making sure I was doing that part of the job as well.
But in terms of my own personal interest, and what drove me to go there, it really did not have anything to do with the idea that it’s a good business decision for me personally, or that our clients desperately needed that. But the two things tended to go hand-in-hand. Building good relationships in a country generally allows you to function more smoothly. But no, I was running some of the largest litigations of our firm at the time at Latham, and frankly, particularly given the way Russia has gone, it was definitely more in my interest to stay there. I certainly annoyed a couple people by leaving, by going to Russia. It was not a small decision, but I just felt it was the right thing to do. And it’s still why I’m doing some of the projects we just discussed.
Daniel Satinsky: Right. And so, privatization was going on when you arrived there?
Richard Conn: Yeah, I guess privatization was going on. I wasn’t involved in privatization. And certainly, day one, when I got on the ground, I wasn’t working in an area even close to that. We had an operation, I think it was at 19 Novy Arbat, which was tied in with the Antimonopoly Committee. The firm had some different ties, and that was the original base, working with a guy named, I think it was, Chernogorodsky, who was the head of the Antimonopoly Committee, so part of our work was helping him with their activities dealing with the Supreme Soviet and the transition that was taking place from the Soviet structures to the new Russia structures.
Daniel Satinsky: So, you were helping drafting laws and regulations?
Richard Conn: Yeah, I did a fair amount of that. We did that. We gave them input. Like I remember the insurance industry came over and crafted a law that was about 12 pages long, 11 pages of which were obligations of the policyholder to the insurance company, and one page was the obligation of the insurance carrier to the policyholder. I remember working with them on the bankruptcy code, which, I’d written a book here on that for lawyers, and so gave input on that, and on countless different pieces of legislation that involved, as I said, I’ll call it the remnants of the Supreme Soviet, because it was all rather gray at that moment.
It was right in the transition, and we still had the Supreme Soviet down the street in what’s called the White House, but we had the Kremlin being occupied by people obviously who were anti the Supreme Soviet. It would be almost as if—it was not so unlike, I guess, the scenario where you had initially, say, a guy like Trump in power who at least I view as quite a corrupt figure, and fighting against the Justice Department. Until he ended up sort of taking that over, there was a conflict there. So, yeah, I never thought we would have examples of this in U.S. history, but we now do, so…
Daniel Satinsky: We’ve had a rich recent history to work with.
Richard Conn: Yeah, different types of philosophies of governance and of ethics. Sorry, I’ve gone on a long time. Go ahead.
Daniel Satinsky: So, at that point the person you were working with was part of the reform wing, right? He was a member of the government, and he was looking for assistance from foreigners about how to form new institutions, new relations?
Richard Conn: Yeah, it’s really hard to define it the way you are. It’s far more vague. I remember the first project I was working on was helping the Hoover Institute get all the records of the KGB. I don’t know if you remember that whole thing. But we got all that stuff. And that had nothing to do with the Antimonopoly Committee. So, the way I would think of it is the Antimonopoly Committee was providing us office space, and we were thanking them by doing pro bono work, but it wasn’t really a close relationship. It was a more formal relationship, and there was a vagueness to all of that. And at the same time, I was beginning to build some client relationships, and getting into the community, and essentially feeling my way around, so—
Daniel Satinsky: How did you do that in those days? How did you build a client base? The community was just under formation at that point, right?
Richard Conn: Yeah, there’s no one thing. I guess one, obviously, we had some organizations that were in town that I became active in. One was I joined the American Embassy Club. You could actually join the embassy, and I could take my kids there to swim on the weekends and stuff like that or rent videotapes. And so, part of it was getting to know the expat community, which could be accessed in part through the embassy, but also because there weren’t any other games in town. You didn’t really have other places for R&R for your family. Even the Slavyanskaya was just sort of getting going, the Radisson. And so we… But also, we had the American Chamber of Commerce, and so I became active in that pretty rapidly.
I had some contacts already. I’d been in Russia many times before through the studies over there. I’d had some small practice involving Russia when I was in California, but very small. And then trying to interact with—taking advantage of opportunities. For example, one of the early opportunities was to become the representative in Moscow of the U.S. Association for Economic Reform in Russia, or something like that it was titled, which Tom Kemp, Jack Kemp’s brother, was the head of. And so, Larry Kudlow was on that, some economist Jude Wanniski or something like that. I would have to look him up. There were various players in that. And it was through that, actually, that I had my first meeting in the Kremlin, where I sat across from Gennady Burbulis, and that’s where the initial contact took place.
The other thing was I hired a gentleman to work with me as an advisor, sort of a consigliere. I had really two of them. One was a young guy who was well connected, very good guy, and another was one of Russia’s leading playwrights, a guy named Alexander Gelman. And I can’t remember how the initial introductions took place, but we hit it off. He understood what I was trying to do. Gelman had tremendous ties throughout the power structures of Russia, and so as we became friends, I would take his advice of what to do, whom to meet with, and I learned that 99% of the success with a meeting is how you prepare it, who’s introducing you, how it’s being set up.
So, that would sometimes lead to client relationships, meeting with banks, meeting with other institutions. Some of it would be meeting different people in government who were playing different roles. And then there was the networking through the—we had sort of a bar association there which I became active in and eventually ended up leading for a couple of those key years. And we had a wonderful camaraderie among the law firms that were on the ground there.
Daniel Satinsky: So, it wasn’t, you weren’t competing with—I mean, you were competing with each other, but it wasn’t antagonistic competition?
Richard Conn: The way I would think of it, and I said it many times in our breakfast meetings, you know, we’d get together quite a bit, usually at the Radisson, I thought of us as one firm in the sense of the work we were doing to help the Russian government eventually. I mean, that was an undercurrent of the organization. That’s why a lot of us were there.
Yes, we competed for clients, but it lets—I mean, you’ve lived it to some degree—but it’s a bit of a frontier mentality. You’re all in there dealing with a lot of complications, and you form very strong friendships. We talked about Randy Bregman. We didn’t know each other that well then, but we knew each other. And I think there’s just an understanding that of course that friendship goes far beyond business, right? And so whether we were talking about how to create opinion letters together, or the standards for that, or I remember conducting discussions of which laws we were going to obey and which ones we were not.
And I know that sounds like a strange thing, but there was a period where orders would come down from a specific government ministry, and during the transitional period you had to decide was that a real thing or was that a Mafia group basically trying to get information on your clients, trying to shake them down. There were all sorts of complications that we lawyers in the West would never have to even consider. If you get an order from the SEC, you comply with it, right? You never think to yourself gosh, I wonder if those guys are being paid off to try to seize bank accounts. But in those days there was a lot of that. And the Russians would educate me and others on these games that were being played, and how to be savvy about those. Sorry for going on so much, but that’s a long answer.
Daniel Satinsky: No, this is great. It’s very interesting. It’s part of the dynamics of that period. And how big an association of lawyers was it at that point?
Richard Conn: I think the early meetings there were maybe a dozen or so of us who were present, and then pretty quickly, though, we’d have a room of 30, 40 people having breakfast, maybe 50 people having breakfast. Because we also would have a representative or two from the accounting firms. We included them in it. You know, the Big Six or Big Eight, depending on when, before they imploded.
So, yeah, there was, at least during the years when I had the privilege of sort of leading the group, we really had a sense of camaraderie. We would actually have meetings where we would talk about the different projects we were doing where the government people would team up, would give thoughts, give suggestions. We were not reviewing one another’s work, but we were not playing the game of trying to—at least I don’t think anyone was—of trying to sort of hide the ball on that. And then the other competition for regular clients, yeah, that of course went on, but it was not what I would describe as cutthroat at all.