This paper replies to portions of an article authored by Professor William Simon (The Kaye Scholer Affair: The Lawyer's Duty of Candor and the Bar's Temptations of Evasion and Apology, 23 Law & Soc. Inquiry 243 (1998)) in which he condemned the response of the organized bar to the Kaye, Scholer matter as irresponsibly evasive and apologetic because of the failure to come to grips with what Kaye, Scholer had done in connection with its representation of Charles Keating and Lincoln Savings & Loan, Irvine, California. The reply focuses on three themes. First, the unproved allegations brought against Kaye, Scholer by the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) were so unusual - interference with an examination, and the OTS's theory that Kaye, Scholer, by its conduct, became the alter ego of the client (and thereby assumed the client's responsibilities as a regulated entity) - and so unlikely to be repeated that detailed study was not likely to have been a particularly fruitful expenditure of the bar's time and resources. Second, the OTS's Notice of Charges alleged violations of widely accepted and well-understood professional obligations and, if proved, would have been unexceptionable. Third, the focus of the bar's concern, while also unique, was decidedly capable of repetition and potentially quite toxic to lawyers' abilities to stand up to governmental overreaching - namely, the assertion by an agency of the federal government of novel and dubious professional duties and the unprecedented freeze of an entire law firm's assets (including assets of partners completely innocent of any wrongdoing) that arguably compelled the firm to capitulate without an opportunity to defend itself against the allegations.