ABA Journal: Modern Law Library

Matthew Dixon, co-founder of DCM Insights, is a researcher who's spent much of his career studying the shared characteristics and behaviors of successful B2B salespeople. In 2011, he released a study called “The Challenger Sale.” While giving a keynote on his findings at an annual partner retreat, an audience member stood up and challenged him. “He said, ‘Dr. Dixon, you've been talking for 45 minutes about sales effectiveness and salespeople and selling and sales process, and it's all very fascinating and I'm sure our clients would be very interested in this,'” Dixon recounts to the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles in this episode of The Modern Law Library. “‘And after all, we do a lot of consulting around go-to-market strategy. But what maybe you don't recognize is that we are partners at our firm. We are not salespeople. In fact, there's not a single salesperson in this audience. I might go so far as to say we don't sell anything here.'” Dixon was taken aback. “What I realized was this world of partnerships, of professional services, of doer-sellers is actually quite a bit different from the world of sales and what we had written and all this research we'd done over the years.” In 2022, he tackled this population with the Rainmaker Genome Project, a study that became the basis for The Activator Advantage: What Today's Rainmakers Do Differently, co-written by Dixon, Rory Channer, Karen Freeman and Ted McKenna. The Rainmaker Genome Project surveyed 3,000 partner-level professionals in 41 firms across law, public relations, accounting and investment banking. About 39% of respondents were lawyers. Each received a score for effectiveness in business development and were analyzed for how they provided client services. And it turns out that partner was correct: What makes a lawyer an effective rainmaker is not necessarily what makes a salesperson effective. After doing a vector analysis on the data, “what we found was that every one of those 3,000 professionals could be placed into one of five business development profiles,” says Dixon. The five profiles were the expert, the confidant, the debater, the challenger and the activator. Dixon stresses that the five categories are not about personality. While personalities are immutable, behaviors can be changed. “These are about the things we can all learn to be better at,” says Dixon. “It's about how we spend our time, how we engage clients, how we use resources, how we collaborate with colleagues—and those are things we can all get better at with the right training, coaching and support from our firms.” In this episode, Dixon expands on each type, but the most effective performers in business development were the activators. “The reason we chose the term ‘activator' instead of ‘connector'—people have asked—is that they're not about collecting business cards and letting them collect dust or just hoarding LinkedIn connections,” Dixon tells Rawles. “What these folks do is try to turn these relationships into paying client relationships. They activate those relationships by proactively bringing new ideas—ways to mitigate risk, make money, save money—to clients.” Dixon offers practical advice on how to behave like an activator, including the most effective ways to use LinkedIn. Lawyers and other client-servicing professionals can't just sit back and wait for business to find them, he warns. “Whether we like to admit it or not, clients are less loyal today than they once were,” he says. “They're less likely to come back automatically to their incumbent provider. No matter how great the relationship or the value you've delivered, they're forcing us to compete in ways we didn't have to in the past. So activators want a backup plan. They know today's great client might not be a client tomorrow, no matter what you've done. So you need a backup plan.”

For nearly 30 years, Richard Susskind has written books asking lawyers to envision the future of the law and the legal profession in ways that stretch the imagination. Susskind has been one of the foremost proponents of the transformative potential of technology in legal services. Now, he's asking us to imagine larger transformation still: a world in which AI reigns and humanity faces being sidelined.  Susskind was an early and enthusiastic booster of the development of artificial intelligence, he tells the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles in this episode of the Modern Law Library. He first became enamored of its potential as a law student in the 1980s, and wrote his doctorate at the University of Oxford on AI and the law in 1986. But the speed and direction of recent advances have given him pause. Will AI be a tool for humanity, or its destruction?  In his new book, How to Think About AI: A Guide for the Perplexed, he hopes to help the layperson navigate the issues raised by artificial intelligence, and provoke a global discussion about the ethical and legal implications. Technology is too important to be left only to the technologists, he says.  While most people are able to see the promise of AI for professions other than their own, Susskind sees a phenomenon he calls "not-us thinking" when most people are asked if their own work could be taken over by an AI system. Lawyers should be careful not to overestimate clients' attachment to having a human lawyer if their goal is simply to avoid legal pitfalls and they can rely on an AI system to accomplish that.  In this episode, Susskind discusses the promise of AI for increasing access to justice, and talks about some of the ethical decisions that will have to be made with Rawles, who is more of an AI skeptic.

Execution by lethal injection is seen by many Americans as a less barbaric alternative than older methods like hanging, firing squads and electrocution. It is easy to assume that the process must resemble euthanasia procedures for terminally ill people or pets. The reality is very different, says Corinna Barrett Lain, a law professor and death penalty expert.   Lain didn't initially intend to make the death penalty her primary area of study, she tells the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles in this episode of the Modern Law Library. A former prosecutor in Virginia, Lain did not begin her work out of opposition to the death penalty. But the more she discovered about the realities of the administration of lethal injections, the more she was compelled to demystify the process.   In Secrets of the Killing State: The Untold Story of Lethal Injection, Lain upends a lot of conventional wisdom about lethal injections. For example, the three-drug protocol used by most states was not a drug cocktail arrived at through scientific research. Rather, in 1977, after the U.S. Supreme Court allowed executions to resume after a 10-year hiatus, Oklahoma medical examiner Dr. Jay Chapman was asked by a state legislator to come up with an alternative to the state's rickety electric chair. Though Chapman admitted he was “an expert in dead bodies but not an expert in getting them that way,” he proposed combining sodium thiopental, pancuronium bromide and potassium chloride. “You wanted to make sure the prisoner was dead at the end, so why not add a third drug,” the book quotes Chapman as saying. “Why does it matter why I chose it?” In contrast, an overdose of a single drug, pentobarbital, is what is commonly used by veterinarians in animal euthanasia.   “Lethal injection is not based on science,” Lain writes. “It is based on the illusion of science, the assumption of science.”   In this episode, Lain and Rawles also discuss botched executions, shady sources used by states to procure the drugs used for lethal injections, and how Lain's scholarship has impacted her views of capital punishment as a whole.

Jorge Goldstein entered the fields of science and law at a time of immense change for them both. In the 1970s, huge strides were being made in biogenetics and microbiology, and in the 1980s, the intellectual property community was being asked to answer some giant questions they raised, like: How can you describe life, legally? Can a living being be patented? Who owns the material from your body?   The 45 years since the groundbreaking 1980 case of Diamond v. Chakrabarty, in which the U.S. Supreme Court decided that living organisms could be patented, have been an intensely busy time for microbiologists, biochemists, genetic researchers, and the patent lawyers who serve them. Goldstein, who holds a PhD in chemistry from Harvard University and a JD from George Washington University Law School, has been on hand to witness and help shape many of the resulting debates.   In Patenting Life: Tales from the Front Lines of Intellectual Property and the New Biology, Goldstein weaves stories from his own life and practice with the fascinating histories behind some well known medications, lesser known scientists, and groundbreaking court cases that will shape future scientific ventures. In this episode of the Modern Law Library, he and the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles discuss the book and the fascinating career he's had.   In the book, Goldstein explains many of the scientific developments behind technologies like CRISPR in a way that lay people can understand, while offering humanizing looks at the quirky and sometimes flawed scientists who made those discoveries. Large moral and ethical questions are raised about how technologies are developed, commercialized and put into practice, and he does not shy away from the discussions. He also offers his perspective on how patent law can be improved to fund further scientific advancements while also protecting innovation.   Goldstein and Rawles discuss key cases that helped shape genetic research, and some of the major changes he's seen in legal theory over his career. They also discuss tikkun olam, a concept in Judaism about how our actions can repair and improve the world. It's something Goldstein feels is a proper focus for science and for law, and they discuss two of the pro bono projects he has worked on with indigenous communities in which he can use patent law to protect their rights.   Finally, Goldstein offers advice to young scientists and attorneys who are interested in practicing in these fields, and shares his opinion on what artificial intelligence could mean in the patent law sphere.

Peak performance in high-stress environments. It's the goal for the basketball players taking the court during March Madness, but just as much for players on a different kind of court. Lawyers can and should learn a lot from elite athletes, says Dr. Amy Wood.   In this episode of the Modern Law Library, Wood shares her insights with the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles. Wood, a clinical psychologist, has focused her career on attorney wellness. She is the author of the new book Lawyer Like an Athlete: How to Up Your Game at Work and in Life, published by the ABA's GPSolo Division. Wood first developed Lawyer Like an Athlete as a CLE program, sharing tips on achieving physical and mental wellness, as well as preparing lawyers to maximize their work performance.   There are four characteristics Wood identifies as being shared by star athletes and star attorneys: exquisite self-care, a grounded perspective, “nourishing diversions” and thriving relationships. Without attending to those elements, she says, it's difficult for lawyers to sustain themselves in a high-stress profession.   Many lawyers enjoy extreme solo sports, like marathon running. But don't forget about team sports. There's much you can learn about personal performance from elite athletes, but it's just as important to integrate lessons about team performance, Wood says. Are the people on your “team” helping you perform at your peak?   Wood and Rawles also discuss the importance of striving for a “fan's perspective”; the importance of visualization; the cycle of workouts and recovery days; and five signs that it's time to reach out for professional assistance.

What if we are asking the wrong questions when selecting American judges? Mark Tushnet thinks our current criteria might be off. “We should look for judges who are likely to display good judgment in their rulings … and we shouldn't care whether they have a good theory about how to interpret the Constitution as a whole—and maybe we should worry a bit if they think they have such a theory,” the Harvard Law professor writes in his new book, Who Am I to Judge? Judicial Craft Versus Constitutional Theory. In looking at what qualities were shared by great Supreme Court justices, Tushnet identified five he thinks were of especial importance: Longevity and age Location in political time Prior experience in public life NOT A JUDGE (“I put this in capital letters because it's common today to think that justices have to have been judges,” Tushnet wrote. He doesn't see having a past judicial career as disqualifying, but points out that many great justices were not sitting judges when appointed.) Intellectual curiosity In this episode of The Modern Law Library, Tushnet and the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles discuss how he thinks people should be evaluated for judicial positions; his experience as a clerk for former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall; what makes a well-crafted opinion; and why he thinks any overarching theory about the Constitution will fall short.

Should you need a license for that? For law professor and antitrust expert Rebecca Haw Allensworth, there are huge problems with professional licensing in America—and her solutions might not make anyone completely happy.  In her new book, The Licensing Racket: How We Decide Who Is Allowed to Work, and Why It Goes Wrong, Allensworth takes a deep dive into the history and function of licensing in the United States. While licensing boards are put forth as a way to protect consumers, Allensworth says that in practice, their decisions can be arbitrary and their disciplinary functions flawed. In this episode of the Modern Law Library, Allensworth and the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles chat about a range of professions that currently require licenses, from hairdressing to law and medicine. While disciplinary procedures for lawyers are not open to the public, she was able to attend a number of proceedings for health care workers accused of wrongdoing, and what she found sometimes shocked her—and even shocked some of the people responsible for making those disciplinary decisions. She shares some of those stories in the episode. The Licensing Racket argues that licensing should be done away with for many professions. For those that remain, however, Allensworth believes much more must be done by government agencies rather than allowing professions to self-police themselves through volunteers and licensing boards

For some people, retirement is an opportunity to kick back and finally relax. But for Roger M. Witten, it was a chance to finally tackle that book he'd been thinking about writing. With a little help from longtime friends and colleagues, Legal Briefs: The Ups and Downs of Life in the Law was born.   Witten's aim was to reach a general audience and given them an idea about what a life in the law could look like outside the most well-known bounds of a criminal justice, Law & Order career. The result is a series of short, digestible anecdotes from 20 attorneys, talking about memorable cases, clients and conundrums they had. A reader could flip to any chapter in Legal Briefs and spend an enjoyable 5-10 minutes getting a snapshot from a contributor's career.   Witten himself shares how he became an assistant special prosecutor for the Watergate Special Prosecution Force in the 1970s. In this episode of the Modern Law Library, he tells host Lee Rawles about defending a wise guy client code-named Ted, who nicknamed Witten "Witless" and threw a party with a banner reading "Ted - 1, FBI - 0" when they reached a successful plea agreement.   Many of the contributors to the book of essays were involved in government litigation and complex corporate matters. Witten himself was one of the foremost litigators handling Foreign Corrupt Practices Act cases, and before his retirement was a senior litigation partner in WilmerHale's New York office.   In this episode he also shares his perspective as a former Watergate prosecutor on current events within the federal government since the Trump Administration began, and recounts his experience with the late Sen. John McCain while defending campaign finance reforms.

A federal judge's new book is giving readers a rare inside glimpse at how a judge determines which prisoners deserve to have their sentences overturned.   In his memoir, Disrobed: An Inside Look at the Life and Work of a Federal Trial Judge, Judge Frederic Block introduced readers to his colorful life and career. In Crimes and Punishments: Entering the Mind of a Sentencing Judge, he explained the rationale judges use when deciding sentences, and the human toll it can take. And now, in A Second Chance: A Federal Judge Decides Who Deserves It, he's shining a light on how judges consider resentencing and compassionate release.   Without the passage of a key federal law in 2018, A Second Chance would not have been written. A bipartisan piece of legislation signed by President Donald Trump and supported by the ABA, the First Step Act was one of the biggest criminal justice reforms in the past decade. Among its sentencing reforms, it allows federal judges to reconsider sentences given out during tough-on-crime crackdowns, and for prisoners to petition for compassionate release.   Block, who is a senior judge on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, soon found himself asked to reconsider sentences under the First Step Act. In the book, he outlines the crimes and rehabilitations (or lack thereof) of six federal prisoners. From a former police officer who assaulted an innocent Haitian immigrant to a trio of mobsters, Block selected an array that represents the types of cases he's being asked to consider. Later in the book, he reveals the fate of each—whether life sentences were overturned or unrepentant prisoners were returned to their cells.   In this episode of the Modern Law Library, Block tells ABA Journal's Lee Rawles how his own views on sentencing have changed since he ascended to the bench in the 1990s. In a case that made the news after A Second Chance went to press, Block overturned a sentence he gave out 27 years ago, during his second year on the bench. Block had imposed a quintuple life sentence on Walter Johnson after the man was convicted of robbery, cocaine possession and witness tampering. At 61, Johnson has now been released from prison, and Block discusses that decision in the episode.   Block sees a moral imperative for all strata of the justice system to work together to address mass incarceration. In addition to calling on judges to be open-minded when considering resentencing offenders, he encourages criminal defense attorneys to go through their lists of former clients to see whether any would be eligible for relief under the First Step Act. Most importantly, Block is calling upon citizens to lobby for sentencing reforms like the First Step Act on the state level, since the legislation only applies to federal prisoners. He points out that only about 200,000 of the approximately 2 million incarcerated Americans are federal prisoners; the vast majority are overseen by state courts.   Block also discusses the public response to President Joe Biden's recent clemency decisions, and how collateral consequences have influenced his initial sentencing decisions.

It's the time of year when The Modern Law Library likes to look back on the media that we've enjoyed: our annual pop culture picks episode. This year, host Lee Rawles is joined by the ABA Journal reporters Danielle Braff and Anna Stolley Persky, and Victor Li, an assistant managing editor and host of the Legal Rebels Podcast.   Naturally, their favorite books are discussed. But they also have movies, TV shows, podcasts and even Broadway musicals to recommend. From presidential histories to wicked witches, listeners will find ways to occupy the holiday season and the new year.

Ami Cullen grew up loving horses and competing in hunter/jumper events. But when it came to her career, she decided that law would be her calling. She graduated from law school and began work with a firm in Maryland working on medical malpractice cases. Then a visit to a Colorado dude ranch changed everything.  In Running Free: An Incredible Story of Love, Survival, and How 200 Horses Trapped in a Wildfire Helped One Woman Find Her Soul Cullen shares a lightly fictionalized version of the journey she's been on for more than a decade. Just as Cullen once did, Running Free's main character Emme Muller visits the C Lazy U Ranch in Granby, Colorado, on a girl's trip and falls in love with the wrangling way of life. She decides to leave her life as an East Coast lawyer to work at the ranch—initially planning it as a six-month sabbatical from her career. Instead, she stays, eventually becoming head wrangler and marrying another employee at the dude ranch. But in October 2020, the East Troublesome Fire, the second-largest wildfire in Colorado history, imperiled the C Lazy U Ranch. Muller has to work with her employees and horse-loving community members to evacuate the ranch and save 200 horses from a relentless and rapidly shifting fire.  That part of Running Free is also true, Cullen tells the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles in this episode of The Modern Law Library. Now the director of equestrian operations at the C Lazy U Ranch, it was Cullen's responsibility to save the herd of horses through two harrowing wildfire evacuations and an ice storm that sent fleeing horse trailers careening off the roads back in 2020. After the fire was out and recovery had begun, Cullen felt a compulsion to put down her experience in writing. The first attempt produced 80 pages that read like a legal brief, she tells Rawles. By fictionalizing her experiences and creating some composite characters, she was able to write Running Free, her first novel. In this episode of The Modern Law Library, Cullen discusses what it was like to decide to leave the law, what it's like to help run a dude ranch, leadership skills she learned from working with horses, and why you're never too old to take up equestrianship.

J. Craig Williams believes empathy is an important quality to be a trial lawyer. It's served him in his profession, and it's a tool he has also been using as an author trying to get into the minds of people from past eras. In How Would You Decide? 10 Famous Trials That Changed History, Book One, Williams examines cases and trials from history through the lens of a modern trial lawyer. He uses the accounts of the historical proceedings to illustrate current principles of litigation and civil rights, and explains what each can tell us about the rule of law.  In this episode of The Modern Law Library, Williams tells the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles that empathy was key in trying to understand the people involved in events like the Salem Witch trials, and figuring out how injustices could be perpetrated. He realized there were parallels to be drawn between society in late-17th century Salem and American society today. The 10 trials featured in this first volume of How Would You Decide? are: The Trial of Jesus The Salem Witch Trials Boston Massacre Trial Civil War Tipping Point and Aftermath Trials (Dred Scott, John Brown, Plessy v. Ferguson) O.K. Corral Shootout Trial of Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday The Black Sox Trial The Scopes “Monkey Trial” The Lindy Chamberlain Trial The McMartin Preschool Trial The O.J. Simpson Murder Trial The case that most readers bring up when speaking with Williams is the Boston Massacre trial. Williams, who grew up in New England, says he was surprised to find during his research that there was much he hadn't known about the case himself. Founding Father and future president John Adams was the attorney who successfully defended the British soldiers who fired into the Massachusetts crowd, an extremely risky professional and social decision. Williams and Rawles discuss Adams's representation and what it meant for the establishment of the rule of law in the United States. Listeners might best know Williams from his Lawyer2Lawyer podcast, which he launched in 2005, making him a pioneer in legal podcasting. Since Williams was already familiar with audio production, How Would You Decide? was a natural fit for multimedia. He launched a companion website, 10FamousTrials.com, making available more of the source material he relied on to write the book. He also partnered with Legal Talk Network to release a miniseries podcast, which is currently in production. In Dispute covers one of the 10 trials each episode, featuring commentary and reenactments drawn from trial transcripts and historical documents. In this episode, Williams and Rawles discuss his research process, how he selected which trials to feature, and what might make it into Book Two. They also get into the holiday spirit by talking about The Sled, a Christmas story Williams and his wife wrote for their grandchildren.

Glenn Fine's career-long crusade against corruption might have its roots in his college days. As a point guard for the Harvard basketball team, Fine had his personal best game on Dec. 16, 1978, the same day he interviewed for–and received–a Rhodes scholarship. He put up 19 points against Boston College, including eight steals, and the team nearly eeked out a win against the favored Boston players. A remarkable day.   What Fine would later discover was that mobsters had bribed Boston College players to play worse to keep the game tight and not cover the point spread. Henry Hill and Jimmy Burke–later portrayed by Ray Liotta and Robert De Niro in the movie Goodfellas were part of the point-shaving scheme.   Fine would later be drafted in the 10th round of the NBA draft by the San Antonio Spurs, but it was the anti-corruption law that stuck, not basketball.   Fine took a job out of law school as a prosecutor in Washington, D.C., and joined the Office of the Inspector General at the Department of Justice in 1995. He would go on to serve as Inspector General at the DOJ from 2000 to 2011, then at the Department of Defense from 2015 until 2020. He was one of the five inspectors general fired by then-President Donald Trump in what the Washington Post referred to as the "slow-motion Friday night massacre of inspectors general."   But what do inspectors general do? It's a question Fine wants to answer with his book, Watchdogs: Inspectors General and the Battle for Honest and Accountable Government. In this episode of the Modern Law Library, Fine and the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles discuss the function, history and importance of the position, along with ways Fine believes government oversight can be improved.   As of the book's publication in 2024, there are 74 inspector general offices at the federal level, with more than 14,000 employees. As the IG for the Department of Defense, Fine oversaw the largest office, with some 1,700 employees. Inspectors general conduct independent, non-partisan oversight investigations into waste, fraud, misconduct and best practices, and deliver their reports and recommendations to Congress and the agencies involved. The IGs cannot enforce the adoption of recommendations, but their work acts as the "sunshine" for disinfection, Fine says.   One major recommendation Fine makes in Watchdogs is that an inspector general be established for the U.S. Supreme Court and the federal judiciary, who could perhaps file their reports to the chief justice or the head of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. Fine points to judicial ethics concerns and polls finding public trust in the Supreme Court at historic lows, and argues one way to increase public trust is through the transparency provided by an inspector general.   Also in this episode, Fine offers advice for anyone considering a career in public service. Rawles and Fine discuss stories of his own investigations, including evaluating the claims of a whistleblowing scientist at the FBI laboratory and looking into how the infamous double-agent spy Robert Hanssen was able to fool his FBI superiors and pass intel to Soviets and Russians.

The first image conjured in your mind by the word “sheriff” might be the protagonist of a Wild West movie or Robin Hood's foe, the Sheriff of Nottingham. But unless you're a resident of Alaska, Connecticut, Hawaii and Rhode Island, there's likely an elected law-enforcement official in your area who holds that title. In The Highest Law in the Land: How the Unchecked Power of Sheriffs Threatens Democracy, lawyer and journalist Jessica Pishko takes a deep dive into the history of this position in American life, and at a far-right movement hoping to co-opt the role of sheriff to advance extreme conservative policies. There are some 3,000 sheriffs in the United States, one per county (or county equivalent). In this episode of The Modern Law Library, Pishko and the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles discuss how the rural/urban divide impacts the demographics of sheriffs. Ninety-seven percent of the land area in the United States is considered rural, but only 20% of the people live in those rural areas. In the 2020 census, Greene County, Alabama, had 7,730 residents and one sheriff. Cook County, Illinois, which contains the city of Chicago, had 5,275,541 residents and one sheriff. This leads to a larger proportion of sheriffs representing a rural and more conservative demographic, Pishko says. Pishko explains the “constitutional sheriff” movement, including its similarities to other fringe movements like the sovereign citizens. Adherents claim that sheriffs alone have the power to interpret how the Constitution and the first 10 Amendments should be enforced in their counties. They claim that state governments, the federal government, the president and the U.S. Supreme Court have no power over sheriffs, and that as elected officials, sheriffs are answerable only to their constituents. In this episode, Pishko also describes the large role sheriffs have in incarcerations, how their enforcement powers differ or overlap with police, and what disciplinary or oversight measures are available when a sheriff abuses their office. Pishko and Rawles also discuss the roles sheriffs might have in local elections, and whether they might have an impact on the 2024 presidential election.

Most—though not all—of the 13 short stories in Company deal with members of the Collins family. Three generations of narrators bear witness to the changing fortunes of the family, and as with any witness statement, everyone has a different perspective on what actually happened. Also, there are ghosts—and at least one witch.  The matriarch and patriarch of the Collins family ran a jazz club in Atlantic City. Their four daughters and eight grandchildren face issues of race and class, fecundity and infertility, marriage and divorce. In this episode of The Modern Law Library, the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles speaks with author Shannon Sanders about the similarity between crafting a perfect brief and a short story, and its differences from novel writing. They discuss the ways families are built, through biology, shared experiences and legal paperwork. Sanders shares how she balances her full-time legal work, her family life and her work as a writer. She also offers tips for people looking to publish their short stories in magazines and literary journals. The hardback version of Company is available now, and the paperback will be released on Nov. 12.

Jill Barton spent the first decade of her career working as a journalist, with the Associated Press Stylebook always at hand to determine word usage and punctuation choices. But when she became an attorney, she says, she realized that there was no single equivalent style guide when it came to legal writing—and she had to adjust to using the Oxford comma. As a professor of legal writing at the University of Miami, she also began to notice a contrast between the classic 19th and 20th century court opinions her students were being given to read and the style of writing coming out of the U.S. Supreme Court in the 21st century. Standards were changing at the highest court of the land, but the wider legal community wasn't necessarily aware of it. Barton spent five years analyzing more than 10,000 pages from Supreme Court opinions, and The Supreme Guide to Writing is the result. In this episode of the Modern Law Library, Barton and the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles discuss her findings, and what some of the bigger surprises were. One of her biggest takeaways is that the justices are not a conservative bunch when it comes to writing style. For example, during most of Justice Antonin Scalia's tenure on the court, he was a strident opponent of contractions—can't, don't, shouldn't were always cannot, do not, should not. But in his final years, Scalia did sprinkle in a few contractions, and his replacement, Justice Neil Gorsuch, is “King of the Contractions,” Barton says. The justices were willing to depart from grammar rules if adhering to them caused stilted writing, Barton found. Chief Justice John Roberts uses commas based on cadence rather than simply following strict English grammar guidance. All the justices showed a marked preference for active verbs and shorter, simpler phrases. They have adapted to using pronouns that match litigants' gender identities, and to using the singular “they” rather than “he or she.”  The Supreme Guide to Writing notes when the court shows unanimity in a usage rule, and when there is disagreement. While each justice shows internal consistency with how they show a possessive when a singular noun ends in “s,” there is no group consensus on apostrophe-s versus a single apostrophe. Barton discusses her research process, offers more insight into the way legal language is evolving, and shares how practitioners can use her book to modernize their own writing.

Justice David W. Ellis has served on the Illinois Appellate Court for the 1st District for nearly 10 years. But readers may know him better as author David Ellis, writer of more than a dozen legal thrillers. Ellis had enjoyed creative writing as a youth, he tells the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles in this episode of The Modern Law Library. But during his college and law school years, he was focused solely on his legal career path. It wasn't until he had been in practice for a few years that this changed. During a vacation at the beach, he suddenly decided that he was going to write a novel—and once that goal was set, he worked relentlessly towards it. And in 2002, he won a prestigious Edgar Award from the Mystery Writers of America for that first novel, Line of Vision.  Both branches of Ellis's career have seen tremendous returns. He made national news in 2009 as the prosecutor of the impeachment of Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich before the state senate. He was the youngest-serving justice in 2014 when he joined the Illinois Appellate Court for the 1st District, which serves Chicago and Cook County. And along the way, he published 11 novels, including the four-book Jason Kolarich series. He was a finalist for the ABA Journal-sponsored Harper Lee Prize for Legal Fiction in 2012 and 2013. He has also co-written nine books with James Patterson, the latest of which (Lies He Told Me) will be released in September. In this episode, Ellis and Rawles discuss his July release, The Best Lies. The germ of an idea that became The Best Lies started off with the notion of a main character who was a diagnosed pathological liar. When the book opens, Leo Balanoff, a criminal defense attorney in Chicago, has just been arrested for murder. Police have collected DNA and fingerprints at the scene that are a match for a college-era bar fight Leo was charged for, and the victim had an ugly history with one of Leo's clients. Over the course of The Best Lies, twists and turns across multiple timelines and through multiple points of view begin to reveal what really happened. Ellis weaves a tale combining corporate espionage, violin concertos, police corruption and the Estonian mob.  Ellis also discusses his writing process, his 3:30 a.m. wake-up time, the similarities in his creative and legal writing, and how his judicial ethics concerns sometimes impact his editorial decisions.

The goal of the bar exam is to be a gatekeeper for the legal profession and protect the public. But the current system, dominated by the Uniform Bar Examination, gets a failing grade from Joan Howarth, an academic, an attorney and the author of Shaping the Bar: The Future of Attorney Licensing.

Do you need some distractions during vacation travel or while lying directly under your A/C unit and sweating? It's time for The Modern Law Library's summer recommendations episode, in which host Lee Rawles shares her pop culture picks with you, plus a re-airing of one of our older episodes with current relevance. As states navigate a post-Dobbs world, a series of federal and state regulations known as Comstock Laws are being discussed as avenues to further restrict access to abortion drugs and birth control. In 2018, with Roe v. Wade still the law of the land, Rawles and Amy Werbel discussed the fiery namesake of those laws and Werbel's book Lust on Trial: Censorship and the Rise of American Obscenity in the Age of Anthony Comstock. It sheds light on how a 19th-century U.S. Postal Service agent funded by the Young Men's Christian Association created obscenity restrictions so sweeping that medical textbooks were seized and destroyed for displaying anatomical diagrams. Rawles also shares some favorites from what she's been reading and listening to since our 2023 year-end pop culture picks episode. If you have your own favorite reads so far in 2024, send your recommendations to books@abajournal.com with a brief description, and we may choose to highlight them on our social media. Mentioned in the episode: BOOKS The Three Dahlias, A Very Lively Murder and Seven Lively Suspects by Katy Watson The Appeal and The Mysterious Case of the Alperton Angels by Janice Hallett Buried in the Sky: The Extraordinary Story of the Sherpa Climbers on K2's Deadliest Day, by Peter Zuckerman and Amanda Padoan Scurvy: How a Surgeon, a Mariner, and a Gentlemen Solved the Greatest Medical Mystery of the Age of Sail, by Stephen J. Bown PODCASTS Cocaine & Rhinestones Beyond the Breakers Reformed Rakes Talk Justice

Finances are a fraught area for many attorneys. Despite a high earning potential, new lawyers often start out with a financial disadvantage due to the opportunity cost of the years devoted to school and bar prep, coupled with high student loans. People who chose to get JDs instead of MBAs often find themselves having to operate as entrepreneurs to launch a small firm or solo practice. In The Lawyer Millionaire: The Complete Guide for Attorneys on Maximizing Wealth, Minimizing Taxes, and Retiring With Confidence, Darren P. Wurz addresses both personal finances and firm finances. “A financial plan starts with goals,” writes Wurz, who has a master's degree in financial planning and is a certified financial planner. “Be aware that money itself is not the ultimate goal of this plan. Rather, it is what that money can do for you that is the goal.” In this episode of The Modern Law Library, Wurz gives advice for attorneys at the beginning, middle and end of their working careers and tells the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles about the seven biggest money mistakes attorneys can make.  Wurz, who also hosts The Lawyer Millionaire Podcast, says retirement often looks different for attorneys than other professionals. Many lawyers would like to continue to practice at least part-time even past the age most other people retire. He says the goal of many of his clients is to have the financial security to have a “work-optional lifestyle” that will allow them to take on only the cases that really interest them.  One of the messages Wurz wants to convey to older attorneys is that their most important asset might be something they didn't realize could be sold: their practice itself. The time and effort put into building a book of clients can also pay off at the end of your career, not just during your active years of practice. While it might take more time and planning to arrange than selling a piece of real estate, selling your practice to a younger attorney can provide continuity for your clients and a financial boon to your retirement. While Wurz offers tips for how newly minted attorneys can start off on the right financial foot, he and Rawles also discuss options for mid-career professionals who are only now getting a handle on their finances. He also shares what his general advice would be for the thousands who have recently had their student debt unexpectedly erased through programs like Public Service Loan Forgiveness.

Originalism is the ascendant legal theory espoused by conservative legal thinkers, including the majority of U.S. Supreme Court justices. But far from being an objective framework for constitutional interpretation, says author and attorney Madiba Dennie, its true purpose is to achieve conservative political aims regardless of the historical record.  In The Originalism Trap: How Extremists Stole the Constitution and How We the People Can Take It Back, Dennie traces the roots of originalism as a legal theory back to Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, though the Supreme Court rejected the arguments in the 1954 case. Its adherents argue the meaning of the Constitution must solely be determined by “the original public meaning of the Constitution at the time it was drafted,” and that there is a discernible correct answer to what that meaning would have been. The theory gained popularity in the 1980s, with the late Robert Bork and Justice Antonin Scalia as two influential proponents. Scalia famously said the Constitution is “not a living document. It's dead, dead, dead.” Today, originalism has formed the basis for decisions such as Justice Samuel Alito's Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization opinion overturning Roe v. Wade. “Despite originalism's reputation as a serious intellectual theory, it's more like dream logic: It seems reasonable at first, but when you wake up, you can recognize it as nonsense,” Dennie writes. “Originalism deliberately overemphasizes a particular version of history that treats the civil-rights gains won over time as categorically suspect. The consequences of its embrace have been intentionally catastrophic for practically anyone who isn't a wealthy white man, aka the class of people with exclusive possession of political power at the time the Constitution's drafters originally put pen to paper (or quill to parchment).” In this episode of The Modern Law Library, Dennie and the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles discuss how conservative originalists prioritize the time period of the Founding Fathers over the Reconstruction Era that produced the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. “We can't fulfill the Reconstruction Amendments' radical vision of full equality and freedom if we can't be attentive to the ways in which we have been made unequal and unfree,” Dennie writes in The Originalism Trap. While Dennie believes there are portions of the historical record that support broad civil liberty protections, she says she does not think originalism is a useful tool for progressives to use as a legal framework.  In place of originalism, Dennie has a bold proposal: inclusive constitutionalism. “Inclusive constitutionalism means what it says: the Constitution includes everyone, so our legal interpretation must serve to make the promise of inclusive democracy real. When the judiciary is called upon to resolve a legal ambiguity or when there are broad principles at issue, the application of which must be made specific, it is proper for courts to consider how cases may relate to systemic injustices and how different legal analyses would impact marginalized people's ability to participate in the country's political, economic and social life.”  Rawles and Dennie also discuss how lawyers and judges can push back against originalism; the legal rights and protections achieved by groups like Jehovah's Witnesses and the LGBTQ+ community; why she dropped Jurassic Park references into the book; and how she keeps an optimistic outlook on the expansion of civil liberties. “Justice for all may not be a deeply rooted tradition,” Dennie writes, “but fighting for it is.”

Networking is something that comes naturally to some people. But if the idea of talking to strangers makes you break out into a cold sweat, there's help and hope, says Deb Feder, author of the book After Hello: How to Build a Book of Business, One Conversation at a Time. “You have picked a profession that is never finished meeting people,” Feder writes of lawyers. A practicing lawyer for many years, Feder now works as a business development coach. In this episode of The Modern Law Library, Feder explains to the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles that her goal is to help attorneys have “curious, confident conversations.” They discuss conversation stoppers v. conversation starters; how not to panic when targeting the “cool client”; and how young attorneys can get past “the kids table.” Lining up a roster of ideal clients doesn't start at cocktail party mingling, Feder warns. A key to building relationships with the clients you actually want to work with lies in identifying what legal work you're looking to do, and that requires some inner work. It also involves owning your value, Feder says, and she shares a story about how a partner in her firm impressed that lesson on her when she was a young attorney. In After Hello, she says she meets people who feel too overwhelmed by keeping up with their legal work and personal lives to contemplate business development. “How do you balance the chaos of the day and allow technology to be the support and solution, rather than part of the challenge; how do you let it serve, not destroy you?” Feder asks. She lays out strategies to organize and cope, including how to stop letting your email inbox overwhelm you. Feder and Rawles also discuss After Hello's “30 Conversations in 30 Days Challenge” and the most common mistakes Feder sees lawyers making on LinkedIn."

From COVID-19 response to the overturning of Roe v. Wade, the results of 50 states having individual approaches to public health, medical outcomes and healthcare access raise troubling questions. A husband-and-wife team of University of Utah professors dig into the ethics of the American healthcare system in States of Health: The Ethics and Consequences of Policy Variation in a Federal System. Leslie P. Francis is a professor of law and philosophy with a background in bioethics, and John G. Francis is a professor of political science with a focus on European comparative politics, federalism and comparative regulatory policy. The spouses had partnered on three previous books together. When looking for their next project, they decided to examine the consequences of states opting out of Medicaid expansion and what power federalism could have in protecting American citizens' health. But soon more news events and landmark cases expanded their focus. The result is States of Health. The book examines the tensions between state and federal powers in a number of areas, including reproductive rights; gender-affirming care; medical marijuana; public health and pandemics; right-to-try laws; patient confidentiality; and care quality and life expectancies. In this episode of The Modern Law Library, the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles speaks with the Francises about their collaborative writing process, and what conclusions they have drawn about the benefits of federalism and states' rights. The Francises argue that since it is the federal government that determines citizenship and census decisions, state differences go too far when they make “basic decisions about who counts at all, and what it means to count.” They add, “Movement is a critical aspect of who counts: the ability to come and go, or to leave one state more permanently for another.” The Francises argue that freedom of movement for the purpose of medical treatment is crucial for patients, but also point out when states control licensure for medical providers, that too can restrict freedom of movement. The value of 50 individual laboratories of democracy can be appealing to a scientific mind. But at what point can it be argued in the healthcare space that a federal government needs to step in, if the outcomes in some of those laboratories are decreased lifespans and higher mortality?

When the Trump administration's policy of separating families at the country's borders was announced, opposition from the public and the legal community was swift. The outcry and judicial decisions led to a reversal of the administration's stated policy. But detention and family separation have a long history in this country, history professor Ana Raquel Minian says. Minian, who immigrated from Mexico to the United States right before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, has made an academic career studying immigration, incarceration and detention. As a young adult, Minian followed the news of Guantanamo Bay Naval Base being used to detain people who might be connected to those attacks. But in researching their new book, In the Shadow of Liberty: The Invisible History of Immigrant Detention in the United States, Minian discovered the base was first used as a detention center under President George H.W. Bush to hold Haitian refugees. Minian uses the personal experiences of four immigrants to walk readers through the history of immigrant detention in the United States: Fu Chi Hao, a Chinese Christian attempting to escape the Boxer Rebellion in 1901; Holocaust survivor Ellen Knauff, a war bride of an American GI who arrived at Ellis Island in 1948; Gerardo Mansur, a Cuban who joined the Mariel boat lift in 1979; and Fernando Arredondo, a Guatamalan asylum seeker who was separated from his daughter by border officials in 2018.  In this episode of The Modern Law Library, Minian shares details of these stories with the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles. They also discuss the shifting motivations behind changes in the immigration system, parole versus detention, and how attorneys can help immigrants currently in detention.

“Trespassing plus time equals adverse possession,” Paul Golden writes in his new book, Litigating Adverse Possession Cases: Pirates v. Zombies. When someone has occupied or used a piece of property as though they own it for long enough, a court could determine that they are the rightful owner—regardless of what the paperwork says. It's a concept more popularly discussed as squatter's rights. In this episode of The Modern Law Library, Golden speaks with the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles about the ancient concepts underlying modern adverse possession law; some quirky state laws; and why societies would allow land to be transferred in this way. They also discuss how the plain meaning of terms like “hostile” are changed when used in adverse possession cases, and Rawles raises a hypothetical—taken from real life—of a neighbor's crooked fence. During Golden's first appearance on The Modern Law Library, he explained how the lack of a written contract could be navigated by a savvy lawyer. In his new book, Golden guides attorneys and their clients through the finer points of arguing for and against adverse possession claims. He shares some of the errors he's seen pop up in adverse possession cases, and offers advice for how to avoid common pitfalls. Modern Law Library listeners have been given a promotional discount code for Litigating Adverse Possession Cases: Pirates v. Zombies through May 10, 2024. For 20% off, go to the ABA's online shop and enter LAPC2024 at checkout.

James Patterson has written bestsellers in many genres. But as he tells the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles in this episode of The Modern Law Library, he has always been fascinated by legal thrillers, courtroom dramas and crime novels. He even considered becoming a lawyer, before his literary career took off. In his newest release, The #1 Lawyer, James Patterson partnered with co-author Nancy Allen to tell the story of Stafford Lee Penney, a criminal defense attorney in Biloxi, Mississippi, who's never lost a case. But after handing a high-profile murder trial involving the son of a mobster, Penney finds himself on the other side of the bench as a defendant himself, charged with murdering his own wife. Patterson has written and co-written more than 300 books, including bestselling series like Alex Cross, Women's Murder Club and Maximum Ride. He had some writing tips for attorneys, particularly on how to work collaboratively. As Patterson tells listeners in the podcast, he is open about working with other writers on many of his books, and he finds tools like outlining absolutely essential. He also shares with Rawles how he thinks co-writers should handle interpersonal communication while working together. Patterson says one of the major benefits of working with co-authors is pulling from their experiences to make his books more accurate and true to life. When he wrote The President is Missing with Bill Clinton, the former president could tell Patterson the inside details of how a Secret Service detail worked. When he wrote Run, Rose, Run with Dolly Parton, she walked him through the production cycle for a song. Allen, who conducted more than 30 jury trials as a prosecutor in Missouri and taught law for 15 years at Missouri State University, contributed her firsthand courtroom experience to The #1 Lawyer. Patterson says they worked to make everything as accurate as possible—while still allowing for a good story. It's the pair's second book together, following a previous standalone novel, Juror #3. In this episode of The Modern Law Library, Patterson shares some of his favorite law-related pop culture picks; news about new and ongoing projects; and describes a very special birthday event with Dolly Parton. He also discusses how his children's series Maximum Ride got caught up in Florida book bans in 2023. For fans of Patterson's breakout success, the Alex Cross series launched in 1993 with Along Came a Spider, the author shares updates about what's next for the intrepid detective—including details about the upcoming Amazon Prime TV series Cross, starring Aldis Hodge.  

Three high-profile cases of sexual assault in 2012 followed a basic pattern: A teenage girl was sexually assaulted at a house party by one or more teenage boys while she was incapacitated by alcohol. The attacks were recorded and the photos, videos and stories were shared on social media or via texts. The photos and videos were used to ridicule the victims among their peers. Those texts and posts later became evidence in criminal cases. These incidents took place in Steubenville, Ohio; Maryville, Missouri; and Saratoga, California, and sparked national conversations about youth, technology and sexual assault in 2013. “The question gnawing at everyone, myself included, was: What were these kids thinking?” writes Anna Gjika, a sociology professor who studies crime and gender issues. More than 10 years later, Gjika has attempted to answer that question in her new book, When Rape Goes Viral: Youth and Sexual Assault in the Digital Age. She took a close look at the three attacks in 2012, but identifies a number of similar instances that have happened more recently. One of the elements the public found shocking about the cases was how many bystanders filmed or photographed the unconscious girls or the sexual assaults as they were occurring, without intervening. In talking to people involved in the cases and to teens in general as part of her research, Gjika found that the young people did not think of their social media as archival so much as “of the moment.” They filmed and posted what was happening around themselves because they were used to doing that. “Sharing an experience has become an integral part of the experience,” Gjika writes. In this episode of The Modern Law Library, Gjika and the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles discuss her research into generational attitudes towards social media and sexual assault; the promises and pitfalls of digital evidence in sexual assault cases; how social media can be empowering or degrading for survivors; the social responsibility held by the legal community and the tech industry; and what interventions could be effective to prevent such assaults from taking place. Digital evidence like cellphone videos and texts can be extremely beneficial to prosecutors looking to prove incidents of sexual assault, particularly when victims are unable to recount their experience because they were unconscious or impaired during the attacks. But Gjika explains that this kind of evidence is not uncomplicated. The way juries perceive the evidence will still be filtered through societal expectations and prejudices. Defense attorneys do not have the same access to digital evidence from tech companies, and usually lack capacity to process immense amounts of data. The expertise, willingness and resources of police departments and prosecutors' offices to seek out this evidence also vary widely. And the victims can be further traumatized by the use in court of images and video of their assaults, and the knowledge that the images continue to be disseminated on the internet. In closing, Rawles and Gjika discuss what actions can be taken by schools, the legal community and the tech industry to prevent such attacks or to assist victims whose assaults have been digitally documented. Gjika believes educational programs and trainings for teens need to focus on peer groups and norms, rather than emphasizing individual responsibility, and “must be grounded within adolescents' lived experiences, rather than on adult fears and anxieties.” She also argues that adults as well as teens would benefit from “ethical digital citizenship initiatives,” where concepts like privacy and online decision-making could be discussed. And she suggests the creation of government-funded organizations to assist survivors with removing digital content from the internet.

Ray Brescia, a law professor at Albany Law School, has taken a hard look at the country's legal system in his new book, Lawyer Nation: The Past, Present and Future of the American Legal Profession. In this episode of The Modern Law Library, Brescia tells the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles about the efforts in the late 19th and early 20th century to exclude people from the legal profession who were not part of the dominant social class, and how access-to-justice issues persist today as a result of some of those measures. The early American Bar Association is one of the organizations he names as a participant in the exclusionary efforts through its law school accreditation program, and he and Rawles discuss the ABA's current efforts to increase diversity, equity and inclusion. As someone who has worked in academia, the non-profit world, legal aid organizations and as a clerk at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, he says he's come across many people who care deeply and want the justice system to function better. But without fundamental changes to the ways legal services are delivered, he does not think the access-to-justice issues can be solved. A large part of Brescia's concern that he expresses in Lawyer Nation is for legal professionals themselves. Brescia says the mental illness and substance-use levels within the profession demonstrate that greater care has to be shown for lawyers' well-being and work-life balance. He shares his advice for making the profession more sustainable for the incoming generation. He also discusses how law schools and legal education can change.

In Police & the Empire City: Race & the Origins of Modern Policing, Matthew Guariglia looks at the New York City police from their founding in 1845 through the 1930s as “police transitioned from a more informal collection of pugilists clad in wool coats to what we can recognize today as a modern professionalized police department.” From the beginning, race and ethnicity had a major impact in the policing of New York City. In a city where the top echelons of power were held by Anglo-Dutch Protestants, the streets were patrolled by Irish and German immigrant police officers, sometimes enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act by snatching Black people off the streets and sending them back to enslavement in the South. In this episode of the Modern Law Library, Guariglia and the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles discuss what the early period of policing in New York City can tell us about policing today. Rawles shares her own ancestor's path from immigrant to police court judge on the West Side of Chicago (though the dates she cites in the interview are incorrect–Michael J. O'Donoghue emigrated from Ireland in the 1874 and was appointed to the police court in 1901.) For Irish and German immigrants, a job on the police force was a path out of poverty and towards whiteness and political power, but you would be asked to prove yourself by visiting violence on your own community. African American community leaders hoped the appointment of Black policemen would curb police brutality, but the city was slower than other metropolises like Chicago, who hired James L. Shelton as the city's first Black officer in 1871. Samuel Battle became the NYPD's first Black police officer in 1911, eventually rising to the rank of lieutenant and being appointed a parole commissioner. Meanwhile, in neighborhoods like Chinatown, entire communities went without police officers who spoke the same language as inhabitants. The first Chinese-speaking officer was hired in 1904. That same year, the General Slocum disaster sent the city administration scrambling for German-speaking police officers to locate relatives in Kleindeutschland to identify bodies of the thousand victims of the burned shipwreck. Fears of “the Black Hand” led to the creation of the Italian Squad, and Guariglia shares the story of how the Italian Squad's founder, Joseph Petrosino, ended up assassinated while on assignment in Sicily. “Empire City” is an apt name for New York City, as it had international reach and drew on former colonial administrators. One influential police commissioner, Gen. Francis Vinton Greene, had been involved in the U.S. occupation of the Philippines after the Spanish-American War. Tactics first used to subjugate colonists were put to use in the city. As the Progressive Era led to a preoccupation with eugenics, the New York City police were involved in international conversations about the characteristics of criminals and race science. The idea of molding the perfect police officers also caught hold. In this episode, Guariglia shares how the police departments decided they had to teach their officers how to stand and chew properly.

After 50 years as a professor at Yale Law School, Owen Fiss says his students are still idealistic and passionate about the rights won in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965. As a young lawyer in the late 1960s, Fiss worked with the Department of Justice to implement those laws. A classroom discussion in the spring of 2020 prompted him to draw upon his legal expertise and decades of experience to produce his new book, Why We Vote. In this episode of The Modern Law Library podcast, Fiss speaks with the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles about the paradox of the court system–the least democratic branch of government–having the responsibility of safeguarding the right to vote. He looks back on his work with the DOJ in southern states, and his time as a clerk for Justice Thurgood Marshall (then on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York) and Justice William Brennan.  Rawles and Fiss also discuss recent threats to the electoral system and right to vote, including the insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021. Fiss shares his thoughts about Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, and whether former President Donald Trump should be removed from the ballot on that basis. While every book he writes is for his students, Fiss says, he hopes Why We Vote can impress upon a broader audience the privilege and duty of voting and participating in a democracy.

In 2013, the ABA Journal named Renee Knake Jefferson a Legal Rebel for her work co-founding the Michigan State University's ReInvent Law Laboratory and rethinking how legal services could be delivered to consumers. In 2024, she's taking a look back at more than a decade of research and experimental programs aimed at improving access to justice–the successes and the failures. On this episode of the Modern Law Library, Jefferson and the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles discuss her new book, Law Democratized: A Blueprint for Solving the Justice Crisis. The scale of the issue is daunting: Jefferson cites a study finding that 87% of American households facing legal issues don't even attempt to seek legal assistance. “Civil legal disputes—think child support, citizenship, consumer complaints, custody, divorce, employment, guardianship, housing, medical needs—make their way to more than fifteen thousand courts throughout the United States each year,” Jefferson writes. “Whatever the root cause, a massive delivery problem clearly exists for personal legal services.” Jefferson shares examples of alternative business structures and access-to-justice projects from around the world that challenged old client models. Some–like offering legal services inside British grocery stores–were not successes. “In theory, consumers could pick up a will with a loaf of bread or a gallon of milk, allowing them to resolve legal problems in a place they already regularly transact,” Jefferson writes. “But grocery store law never flourished.” Other ventures fared better, and Law Democratized compiles a number of suggestions based on research findings and real-world experiences. Jefferson says she intends the book to not only be a record of what's been tried, but to also serve as a user-friendly way for the public to learn about changes they could be advocating for at local, state and national levels. Much of the discussion around improving access to justice involves regulatory reform, and Jefferson shares what has been discovered in states like Utah and Texas through the establishment of regulatory sandboxes. Jefferson also shares ideas about how law schools can be serving their communities as well as their students. Law Democratized suggests ways antitrust law and the First Amendment could be used to expand the public's access to civil legal services without the direct use of lawyers. Jefferson and Rawles also discuss her expertise in legal ethics, and what she thinks about the use of artificial intelligence by legal professionals. Jefferson, who writes the Legal Ethics Roundup newsletter on Substack, explains why she doesn't see the need for an immediate rewriting of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct to address the new technology.

There are lawyers who love the practice of law so much, they'll only leave it feet first, in a box. But for those who'd prefer to exit the bar before closing time, Kevin McGoff has advice on planning that next chapter. In his book, Finding Your Landing Zone: Life Beyond the Bar, McGoff describes his dawning realization that he was missing out on experiences while his life was dominated by his legal practice. He approached his law firm management team with a proposal to gradually decrease his hours and hand off his client work to younger successors. A big believer in purposeful planning, McGoff offers a series of worksheets to help readers kickstart their own plans for what a life after the practice of law might look like. For McGoff, one of the big dreams of his life—which began while he was stationed in Europe with the U.S. Army—was to spend more time traveling, and to one day live in France. He studied French and even sponsored a club at his children's school to promote the French language. He and his wife, Patty, loved their trips to France. So when they discussed what the next chapter of their lives would look like, they decided to finally make it happen. A major goal for McGoff in writing Finding Your Landing Zone is to help readers identify what their own equivalent dream would be, and how to find their own France. In this episode of the Modern Law Library, McGoff and the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles discuss his motivation to write the book, his advice for planning a financial future, the importance of mentoring younger attorneys, and how he and Patty finally made their dream of living in France happen. He shares tips on building a succession plan and getting your firm on board, and how to actually (mostly) cut down on your hours.

It's the time of year when The Modern Law Library hosts like to look back on the media we've enjoyed, our annual pop culture picks episode. This year, host Lee Rawles is joined by three ABA Journal reporters: Julianne Hill, Amanda Robert and the Journal's newest employee, Anna Stolley Persky. Naturally, the four discuss their favorite books, but they also have movies, TV shows, podcasts and even a play to recommend. From documentaries to audiobooks, listeners will find ways to occupy the holiday season and the new year. For the full list of recommendations, go to ABAJournal.com/2023picks.

Human beings have told stories about violence and victims from our earliest records. In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, newspapers and magazines flourished on crime coverage. Hollywood has churned out crime movies and TV shows, based both in fiction and non-fiction. But after the incredible success experienced by the podcast Serial in 2014 and the documentary series Making a Murderer in 2015, a new wave of popular media exploring real cases of potential wrongful convictions burst upon the scene. While Diana Rickard didn't consider herself a “podcast person,” her interest as an academic was piqued. The criminology professor began listening to Serial, and became fascinated by what she saw as a new expression of the true crime genre, dubbing it the “New True.” “These series deserve our attention for what they reveal about our societal understanding of crime and punishment,” Rickard writes in her book The New True Crime: How the Rise of Serialized Storytelling Is Transforming Innocence. “Through them, audiences are receiving ideological messages about punishment. They are also sites where inequality, power and racism are openly examined, playing a role in our public conversations about who is and is not deserving of punishment and who is and is not protected by law. In addition, by using the term ‘New True,' I am also suggesting these series indicate a new way of constructing truth itself. Questioning the finality of verdicts, framing facts as in the eye of the beholder, the new series unmoor our faith in what is knowable.” In this episode of the Modern Law Library, Rickard explains how she sees the New True podcasts and documentary series as differing from older media. She and the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles discuss the differences between crime reporting and this serialized storytelling, and whether the New True series are managing to avoid some of the ethical pitfalls of traditional crime reporting. They also delve into whether debunking things like flawed forensic science or false confessions for the general public may have shifted the way people think about wrongful convictions. Rickard shares what she has heard from legal experts in the innocence community about the benefits—and drawbacks—of cases catching the eyes of New True producers. She also reveals what surprised her most when she researched the Reddit communities that gather to discuss New True cases.

Like many others, Jon Kung figured law school would be a safe harbor to weather the storms of the Great Recession. But after emerging from the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law in 2011, Kung changed course.Kung, who is non-binary, says the realization the practice of law was not for them hit after they helped the local prosecutor's office achieve a conviction in a murder trial. They received a full-time job offer with that office, but decided to turn down the job offer and look for other work. Over the next several years, they established themselves in the Detroit culinary scene, hosting secret pop-up dinners and dumpling classes, and honing their take on “Third Culture cuisine.” Kung was born in Los Angeles, and spent their childhood in Hong Kong and Toronto before landing in Michigan for college and law school. Their recipes combine elements of Chinese and North American cuisines and cooking techniques. “This new fusion that I'm referring to as ‘third culture' takes a more thoughtful approach to the genre,” Kung writes in the introduction to their new cookbook, Kung Food: Chinese American Recipes from a Third-Culture Kitchen. “Third culture embraces each side as equal, drawing from a lived experience that is immersed in both or multiple cultrues, once again taking the mentality of the American culinary renaissance that came around in the 2010s and granting the rest of us the ability to take part in it.” In this episode of the Modern Law Library, Kung discusses their new cookbook with the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles—who made the Beef & Broccoli Potpie, the Shrimp Paste Dumplings and the Parmesan-Curry Egg Fried Rice from the book—and shares their favorite meal tips for starving law school students. Kung also shares how they went from word-of-mouth pop-ups to social media fame. In 2020, when the pandemic made their pop-up meals impossible and the murder of George Floyd prompted massive protests in their home state, Kung began using their TikTok account @jonkung as a place to find community and share recipes. They quickly began gaining followers, and started being approached to partner with brands on projects like developing recipes based on anime series. Kung shares the story of how they were offered the publishing deal for Kung Food, and what it's like to be a social media influencer.

“You can't think yourself out of trauma,” the introduction to Trauma-Informed Law: A Primer for Lawyer Resilience and Healing warns. “An analytical response is insufficient. As lawyers and law students, we have been trained to learn only with our minds. But there are other epistemologies—other ways of knowing and interacting with the world.” Trauma-Informed Law, published by the ABA Law Practice Division, arose as a collaborative effort between Canadian lawyers Helgi Maki and Myrna McCallum and American lawyers Marjorie Florestal and J. Kim Wright. It seeks to suggest not only how lawyers can provide better client service to traumatized people, but also how lawyers, law students and judges can deal with their own traumas. Maki points out many people say that while the initial incident that brought them into contact with the court system was difficult—be it a divorce, an assault or a contract dispute—their experiences once inside the judicial system were harder to bear and caused more emotional damage. What other profession, she asks, would accept that as an outcome for its clients? In this episode of the Modern Law Library, Maki and the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles discuss the impact of trauma on the legal profession, and the ways researchers have seen it impact people on a personal and systemic level. Lawyers may be reluctant to label their own experiences trauma, but Maki explains vicarious trauma, and how burnout is a “cousin” to trauma. One element the book stresses is how important it can be for judges to become aware of how trauma can impact everyone in a courtroom, and basic measures that can be taken to decrease the risk of causing further harm during courtroom proceedings. The ABA House of Delegates recently called for more research to be done on how court workers are impacted by what they see at work and by threats to their personal security. Maki and Rawles also discuss ways legal professionals can build support systems without endangering client confidentiality, and how law schools can prep law students for the inevitable challenges they will face in the profession.

Moving from a “win-lose” mentality to a “win-win” mentality has been a central focus of the field of negotiation and conflict resolution since the 1980s, says Sarah Federman. Working to walk away with a deal that pleases both sides was a huge departure from the idea that one side of a transaction will necessarily lose. But Federman, author of Transformative Negotiation: Strategies for Everyday Change and Equitable Futures, proposes that we can and should adapt our framing to encompass a “win-win-win” mentality. A win-win mentality “attends to the interests only of the signatories, not of those who live out the consequences of the agreement,” Federman writes. “A win-win-win model requires paying attention to those usually not at the negotiation table.” In this episode of the Modern Law Library, Federman discusses with the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles how traditional advice around negotiations—from salaries and corporate contracts to landlord disputes and personal lives—makes assumptions based on what's worked for people who have traditionally held positions of power. Those assumptions could be outdated, unhelpful or actually harmful to minorities and others who have been economically or socially disadvantaged. Transformative Negotiations was written with four goals, Federman tells Rawles: To help people move “from precarity to stability;” to expose the blind spots in the field of negotiation studies; to propose a new approach to negotiations that addresses oppression; and to show people who do have bargaining power how they can use it to “create more equitable futures.” Advice Federman shares in this episode includes how woman can approach salary negotiations, how to achieve more economic stability through “inbox colonics,” and why being the nosy neighbor can get people through tough times. She also discusses why bonding events like firm happy hours can actually backfire on employee morale, and how firms can not only hire diverse workforces but successfully retain them.

Admittedly, Tara M. Stringfellow became an attorney simply because her first book of poetry didn't sell and she needed an income. But after a few years at Crown Castle in Chicago doing family and real estate law, she left, heading straight to the Master of Fine Arts program in creative writing at Northwestern University to get back into the writing game—this time with a lawyer's sharpened pencil.

As both an attorney and judge, Thomas Moukawsher has spent the majority of his career dealing in complex litigation. And the Connecticut Superior Court judge would like to make the legal system—well, less complex.   In this episode of the Modern Law Library, Moukawsher and the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles discuss his ideas and his new book, The Common Flaw: Needless Complexity in the Courts and 50 Ways to Reduce It. Instead of advocating for legislation to simplify the court process, Moukawsher says many of his ideas could be immediately put into practice by judges.   Many of Moukawsher's theories were developed in the wake of having to make changes in court proceedings during the COVID-19 pandemic while court buildings were closed. He says being forced to reexamine the habitual ways cases were heard was actually beneficial. Realizing how much could be conducted remotely gave him confidence that broader systemic changes in that direction are worth trying. One such suggestion is to conduct more jury trials remotely to increase juror numbers and diversity.   The Common Flaw contains many concrete suggestions for lawyers and attorneys to streamline trials, but it was also written to be enjoyed by the public, Moukawsher tells Rawles. To that end, concepts are liberally illustrated with cartoons, and despite having 51 chapters, the book is not doorstopper-length.   Speaking of length, one of Moukawsher's largest concerns is that the length of time many cases drag on decreases public confidence in the legal system as a whole. He says he sees this often in family court, where conflicts that could be handled in weeks stretch out through months or years and can lead to bankruptcy.   He and Rawles also discuss his thoughts on the billable hour; how his ADHD helped him prune away unnecessary flummery in court processes; how he would rethink the job duties of law clerks; and his top tips for not fumbling cross-examinations.

It's time for the Modern Law Library's summer recommendations episode, in which host Lee Rawles shares her pop culture picks with you, plus a re-airing of one of our older episodes with current relevance. This year, that episode is our 2018 interview with Kathryne M. Young about How to Be Sort of Happy in Law School. Young used her background in sociology to gather data from students, alumni, faculty and law-school dropouts on their experiences during and after law school. Based on her findings—and her own experiences as a law student and professor—she offers advice on protecting your mental health; choosing courses and activities to pursue; managing the practical aspects of your household and budget; and forming relationships with mentors and peers. She also discusses how to decide when if it's time to leave law school altogether. Rawles also shares some favorites from what she's been reading, watching and listening to since our 2022 year-end pop culture picks episode. If you have your own favorite reads so far in 2023, send your recommendations to books@abajournal.com with a brief description, and we may choose to highlight them on our social media.

The year was 1961. Freshly minted attorney James J. Brosnahan had been on the job as a federal prosecutor in Phoenix for two days when he was handed his first trial: a capital murder case. Twelve days into the job, he'd won his first jury trial, and caught the trial bug. (Though to his relief, the two young defendants escaped the death penalty.) For the next six decades, Brosnahan chased every opportunity to present to a jury, in both civil and criminal court. In his new memoir, Justice at Trial: Courtroom Battles and Groundbreaking Cases, Brosnahan selected 19 of the more than 150 cases he brought before a jury. Each case reflects an issue he sees as being critical to current cultural events, and he feels the losses are as important to share as the victories. He's fought for press freedom, a woman's religious right to give sanctuary to undocumented migrants, and for a female corporate chairperson unfairly targeted because of her gender. His international experiences include trying to prevent a client from being framed by dictator Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines, and fighting for justice for assassinated lawyers in Northern Ireland.   In this episode of the Modern Law Library, Brosnahan shares some of these stories with the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles, elaborating on the most important lessons he's learned about juries, offering tips for aspiring litigators, and sharing what it was like to be Ruth Bader Ginsburg's classmate at Harvard Law.

Jane M. Spinak did not set out to write a book arguing for the abolition of family court. She thought she would be making the case for a set of sensible reforms. But the more she dug into the history of the family court system, the previous attempts at reform, and the examples of real world harms the system had caused, the more she began to believe there was no saving it. In this episode of the Modern Law Library, Spinak speaks with the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles about her philosophical journey and the writing of her new book, The End of Family Court: How Abolishing the Court Brings Justice to Children and Families. Spinak walks Rawles through the origins of the family court system at the turn of the 20th century. The movement began with Northern and Midwestern progressives, usually white middle- and upper-class women, who felt there needed to be a way to make the children of recent immigrants into “real Americans.” They also believed, as Spinak does, that adult court was not a place for juvenile offenders. Over the next century, the purpose and purview of family courts expanded and changed. Today, family court judges may consider juvenile criminal offenses, status offenses, custody cases, adoption, the removal of children from their parents and truancy cases. What has remained constant is the uneven enforcement of child safety laws, which fall primarily on poor and minority families. “It is doubtless true that many children of the well-to-do are saved from coming before the courts because their families have greater resources and are often able to obtain special care for their children,” reads a report from the Children's Bureau in the 1930s cited in The End of Family Court. “Whereas the children of the poor are more likely to be referred to courts or committed to institutions when they develop serious behavior problems.” In this episode, Spinak shares experiences from her four decades in the family law arena, discusses how the children and families impacted by family court are leading movements for change, and explains how family court jurisdictions could shrink as communities step up to support families.