Podcasts about aba journal

This month, we're revisiting some standout conversations from our archives. In this episode, three seasoned trial court judges reflect on the cases that have stayed with them throughout their years on the bench. ----- All judges have cases that stick with them and linger in their memories. Sometimes it was because of the high profile of the case, and sometimes an obscure case had personal resonance because of the people or issues involved. In this episode of the Modern Law Library, the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles speaks with Judges Russell F. Canan, Gregory E. Mize and Frederick H. Weisberg, who all sit on the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. The three judges were contributors to and the editors of “Tough Cases: Judges Tell the Stories of Some of the Hardest Decisions They've Ever Made.” Canan, Mize and Weisberg share their own stories, including why Canan's well-meant gesture to avert an injustice in a gun case still troubles him. Mize explains why a child-custody case haunted him for decades, and what happened when he tracked down the now-grown child as he was deciding whether to write about it for “Tough Cases.” Weisberg talks about dealing with the emotional fallout from overseeing a case where a mother had murdered her four children.

This month, we're revisiting some standout conversations from our archives. In this episode, three seasoned trial court judges reflect on the cases that have stayed with them throughout their years on the bench. ----- All judges have cases that stick with them and linger in their memories. Sometimes it was because of the high profile of the case, and sometimes an obscure case had personal resonance because of the people or issues involved. In this episode of the Modern Law Library, the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles speaks with Judges Russell F. Canan, Gregory E. Mize and Frederick H. Weisberg, who all sit on the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. The three judges were contributors to and the editors of “Tough Cases: Judges Tell the Stories of Some of the Hardest Decisions They've Ever Made.” Canan, Mize and Weisberg share their own stories, including why Canan's well-meant gesture to avert an injustice in a gun case still troubles him. Mize explains why a child-custody case haunted him for decades, and what happened when he tracked down the now-grown child as he was deciding whether to write about it for “Tough Cases.” Weisberg talks about dealing with the emotional fallout from overseeing a case where a mother had murdered her four children. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This month, we're revisiting some standout conversations from our archives. In this episode, three seasoned trial court judges reflect on the cases that have stayed with them throughout their years on the bench. ----- All judges have cases that stick with them and linger in their memories. Sometimes it was because of the high profile of the case, and sometimes an obscure case had personal resonance because of the people or issues involved. In this episode of the Modern Law Library, the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles speaks with Judges Russell F. Canan, Gregory E. Mize and Frederick H. Weisberg, who all sit on the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. The three judges were contributors to and the editors of “Tough Cases: Judges Tell the Stories of Some of the Hardest Decisions They've Ever Made.” Canan, Mize and Weisberg share their own stories, including why Canan's well-meant gesture to avert an injustice in a gun case still troubles him. Mize explains why a child-custody case haunted him for decades, and what happened when he tracked down the now-grown child as he was deciding whether to write about it for “Tough Cases.” Weisberg talks about dealing with the emotional fallout from overseeing a case where a mother had murdered her four children.

Laura Cowan started her career in finance, earning a CPA and working at Ernst & Young and Goldman Sachs. When she decided to go to law school at 35, she knew that she wanted to launch a boutique firm with a practice area that complemented that financial background. Estate law seemed a good fit—but fate threw her a curve ball just as she launched her firm.“I had to turn my entire practice virtual overnight in 2020 in New York City because of COVID,” Cowan tells the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles in this episode of the Modern Law Library. “I moved to Rhode Island to shelter in place with my dad. During that couple of months that I was sheltering in place, I still had to get my law firm running. I had a business to run and bills to pay. So I made everything virtual, and I really streamlined everything. And what I found was that I could make pretty easily $10,000 a month, working just a couple of hours a day.” She has now leveraged the experience of launching an all-virtual estate-planning practice into a coaching program, 2-Hour Lifestyle Lawyer, to help other lawyers launch similar practices. Her new book, Lifestyle Lawyer Revolution: Live a Life You Love (Without Leaving the Law), is full of tips and advice for building a personalized practice to provide work-life balance for attorneys. “Now, what we found is that there's a lot of lawyers who are happy working a lot more than that and are happy earning a lot more, but the name of the business really comes from just this idea that you can still be a really great attorney without working 10 hours a day, and you can make a nice living without working 10 hours a day,” says Cowan. A key part of not working too many hours is to hire appropriate assistance, even as a solo just starting out, says Cowan. “What I see a lot of is lawyers that spend too much time in the weeds of executing and doing all these different things that an admin could be doing, and not spending enough time doing what the lawyer should be focusing on,” says Cowan. “So they're both working too much and not making enough money, which is the worst possible combination.” Cowan encourages estate attorneys to hold community workshops to help people understand the importance of wills and trusts. She says it's an excellent way to establish connections that can lead to further business. “The real reason that people hire us is because of the connection,” Cowan tells Rawles. “And I firmly believe this. People don't hire you because you're the best drafter in the world. They hire you because of the way that you make them feel. So use AI and technology behind the scenes to help you get your work done and deliver a really great client experience, but never forget that it's going to be that that makes them hire you.” In this episode, Cowan also discusses the benefits of value-based pricing versus the billable hour; attracting the client base you want to target; and how to deal with your biggest frenemy: technology.

Laura Cowan started her career in finance, earning a CPA and working at Ernst & Young and Goldman Sachs. When she decided to go to law school at 35, she knew that she wanted to launch a boutique firm with a practice area that complemented that financial background. Estate law seemed a good fit—but fate threw her a curve ball just as she launched her firm.“I had to turn my entire practice virtual overnight in 2020 in New York City because of COVID,” Cowan tells the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles in this episode of the Modern Law Library. “I moved to Rhode Island to shelter in place with my dad. During that couple of months that I was sheltering in place, I still had to get my law firm running. I had a business to run and bills to pay. So I made everything virtual, and I really streamlined everything. And what I found was that I could make pretty easily $10,000 a month, working just a couple of hours a day.” She has now leveraged the experience of launching an all-virtual estate-planning practice into a coaching program, 2-Hour Lifestyle Lawyer, to help other lawyers launch similar practices. Her new book, Lifestyle Lawyer Revolution: Live a Life You Love (Without Leaving the Law), is full of tips and advice for building a personalized practice to provide work-life balance for attorneys. “Now, what we found is that there's a lot of lawyers who are happy working a lot more than that and are happy earning a lot more, but the name of the business really comes from just this idea that you can still be a really great attorney without working 10 hours a day, and you can make a nice living without working 10 hours a day,” says Cowan. A key part of not working too many hours is to hire appropriate assistance, even as a solo just starting out, says Cowan. “What I see a lot of is lawyers that spend too much time in the weeds of executing and doing all these different things that an admin could be doing, and not spending enough time doing what the lawyer should be focusing on,” says Cowan. “So they're both working too much and not making enough money, which is the worst possible combination.” Cowan encourages estate attorneys to hold community workshops to help people understand the importance of wills and trusts. She says it's an excellent way to establish connections that can lead to further business. “The real reason that people hire us is because of the connection,” Cowan tells Rawles. “And I firmly believe this. People don't hire you because you're the best drafter in the world. They hire you because of the way that you make them feel. So use AI and technology behind the scenes to help you get your work done and deliver a really great client experience, but never forget that it's going to be that that makes them hire you.” In this episode, Cowan also discusses the benefits of value-based pricing versus the billable hour; attracting the client base you want to target; and how to deal with your biggest frenemy: technology. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Laura Cowan started her career in finance, earning a CPA and working at Ernst & Young and Goldman Sachs. When she decided to go to law school at 35, she knew that she wanted to launch a boutique firm with a practice area that complemented that financial background. Estate law seemed a good fit—but fate threw her a curve ball just as she launched her firm.“I had to turn my entire practice virtual overnight in 2020 in New York City because of COVID,” Cowan tells the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles in this episode of the Modern Law Library. “I moved to Rhode Island to shelter in place with my dad. During that couple of months that I was sheltering in place, I still had to get my law firm running. I had a business to run and bills to pay. So I made everything virtual, and I really streamlined everything. And what I found was that I could make pretty easily $10,000 a month, working just a couple of hours a day.” She has now leveraged the experience of launching an all-virtual estate-planning practice into a coaching program, 2-Hour Lifestyle Lawyer, to help other lawyers launch similar practices. Her new book, Lifestyle Lawyer Revolution: Live a Life You Love (Without Leaving the Law), is full of tips and advice for building a personalized practice to provide work-life balance for attorneys. “Now, what we found is that there's a lot of lawyers who are happy working a lot more than that and are happy earning a lot more, but the name of the business really comes from just this idea that you can still be a really great attorney without working 10 hours a day, and you can make a nice living without working 10 hours a day,” says Cowan. A key part of not working too many hours is to hire appropriate assistance, even as a solo just starting out, says Cowan. “What I see a lot of is lawyers that spend too much time in the weeds of executing and doing all these different things that an admin could be doing, and not spending enough time doing what the lawyer should be focusing on,” says Cowan. “So they're both working too much and not making enough money, which is the worst possible combination.” Cowan encourages estate attorneys to hold community workshops to help people understand the importance of wills and trusts. She says it's an excellent way to establish connections that can lead to further business. “The real reason that people hire us is because of the connection,” Cowan tells Rawles. “And I firmly believe this. People don't hire you because you're the best drafter in the world. They hire you because of the way that you make them feel. So use AI and technology behind the scenes to help you get your work done and deliver a really great client experience, but never forget that it's going to be that that makes them hire you.” In this episode, Cowan also discusses the benefits of value-based pricing versus the billable hour; attracting the client base you want to target; and how to deal with your biggest frenemy: technology.

The American Bar Association (ABA) was founded in 1878 on a commitment to set the legal and ethical foundation for the American nation. Today, it exists as a membership organization and stands committed to its mission of defending liberty and pursuing justice. In August 2024, William "Bill" Bay became president of the ABA for the 2024-2025 term after more than 20 years in various leadership roles. His leadership thus far has been widely applauded due to his firm stance in support of the rule of law and defense of judicial independence.rnrnIn a June 1, 2025, President's Letter in the ABA Journal, Bill Bay did not mince his words: "Attacks on the rule of law, judges, lawyers, and the profession. The apparent disregard of due process. And now attacks on the ABA. All of this from our own government. The frequency and intensity show no sign of lessening." How are American lawyers standing up for the foundational principles that have served our country for 250 years?

Since it was seized from the Knights Templar in the 14th century, the Inner Temple in London has housed acolytes of a different sort: men (and eventually women) who serve as advocates of the law. Sally Smith spent her legal career—and now is spending her retirement—inside the 15 acres that comprise the Inner Temple, now one of the four Inns of Court. Smith has previously written non-fiction books about historical crimes and legal figures. When she decided to turn her hand to writing fiction, the familiar setting of the Inner Temple was the perfect setting for her new mystery novel, A Case of Mice and Men. Set in 1901, mere months after the death of Queen Victoria, A Case of Mice and Men introduces a new (and very reluctant) sleuth to the literary scene. Sir Gabriel Ward KC is happiest either when holed up in his Inner Temple lodgings with his books, or when making a compelling case in front of the High Court judges. A solitary, particular and cerebral man, Ward is not looking for excitement beyond the intellectual. But he finds it early one morning when he trips over the body of the Lord Chief Justice of England, which has been left on the doorstep of his professional chambers. The ancient privileges afforded to the Inner Temple mean that no policeman is allowed to enter without permission, and an aghast Ward is told he will conduct the investigation himself or be at risk of being kicked out of his lodgings. Unused to the world outside the Temple walls, or of conversing with any women apart from his old nanny or his mother, Ward must stretch himself to discover who killed Lord Norman Dunning. All the while, Ward is also wrestling with a knotty legal issue involving the rights to a bestselling children's book, and will need to exercise all his skills on behalf of his client, the publisher of Millie the Temple Church Mouse. Written by a mysterious author, the book has been a runaway success, bringing throngs of children to the Temple Church and spawning toys, games and an American publishing deal. Now that the author has reportedly surfaced and is demanding her share of the money and control of the intellectual property, what will happen to Millie the Temple Church Mouse? In this episode of the Modern Law Library, Smith and the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles discuss the launch of this new series, which will contain at least three books following Ward's adventures. Smith describes her own career as a barrister, and why she chose to set the series at the beginning of the Edwardian era. She also discusses the issues of class, gender and the complex world within the walls of the Inner Temple.

Since it was seized from the Knights Templar in the 14th century, the Inner Temple in London has housed acolytes of a different sort: men (and eventually women) who serve as advocates of the law. Sally Smith spent her legal career—and now is spending her retirement—inside the 15 acres that comprise the Inner Temple, now one of the four Inns of Court. Smith has previously written non-fiction books about historical crimes and legal figures. When she decided to turn her hand to writing fiction, the familiar setting of the Inner Temple was the perfect setting for her new mystery novel, A Case of Mice and Men. Set in 1901, mere months after the death of Queen Victoria, A Case of Mice and Men introduces a new (and very reluctant) sleuth to the literary scene. Sir Gabriel Ward KC is happiest either when holed up in his Inner Temple lodgings with his books, or when making a compelling case in front of the High Court judges. A solitary, particular and cerebral man, Ward is not looking for excitement beyond the intellectual. But he finds it early one morning when he trips over the body of the Lord Chief Justice of England, which has been left on the doorstep of his professional chambers. The ancient privileges afforded to the Inner Temple mean that no policeman is allowed to enter without permission, and an aghast Ward is told he will conduct the investigation himself or be at risk of being kicked out of his lodgings. Unused to the world outside the Temple walls, or of conversing with any women apart from his old nanny or his mother, Ward must stretch himself to discover who killed Lord Norman Dunning. All the while, Ward is also wrestling with a knotty legal issue involving the rights to a bestselling children's book, and will need to exercise all his skills on behalf of his client, the publisher of Millie the Temple Church Mouse. Written by a mysterious author, the book has been a runaway success, bringing throngs of children to the Temple Church and spawning toys, games and an American publishing deal. Now that the author has reportedly surfaced and is demanding her share of the money and control of the intellectual property, what will happen to Millie the Temple Church Mouse? In this episode of the Modern Law Library, Smith and the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles discuss the launch of this new series, which will contain at least three books following Ward's adventures. Smith describes her own career as a barrister, and why she chose to set the series at the beginning of the Edwardian era. She also discusses the issues of class, gender and the complex world within the walls of the Inner Temple. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Since it was seized from the Knights Templar in the 14th century, the Inner Temple in London has housed acolytes of a different sort: men (and eventually women) who serve as advocates of the law. Sally Smith spent her legal career—and now is spending her retirement—inside the 15 acres that comprise the Inner Temple, now one of the four Inns of Court. Smith has previously written non-fiction books about historical crimes and legal figures. When she decided to turn her hand to writing fiction, the familiar setting of the Inner Temple was the perfect setting for her new mystery novel, A Case of Mice and Men. Set in 1901, mere months after the death of Queen Victoria, A Case of Mice and Men introduces a new (and very reluctant) sleuth to the literary scene. Sir Gabriel Ward KC is happiest either when holed up in his Inner Temple lodgings with his books, or when making a compelling case in front of the High Court judges. A solitary, particular and cerebral man, Ward is not looking for excitement beyond the intellectual. But he finds it early one morning when he trips over the body of the Lord Chief Justice of England, which has been left on the doorstep of his professional chambers. The ancient privileges afforded to the Inner Temple mean that no policeman is allowed to enter without permission, and an aghast Ward is told he will conduct the investigation himself or be at risk of being kicked out of his lodgings. Unused to the world outside the Temple walls, or of conversing with any women apart from his old nanny or his mother, Ward must stretch himself to discover who killed Lord Norman Dunning. All the while, Ward is also wrestling with a knotty legal issue involving the rights to a bestselling children's book, and will need to exercise all his skills on behalf of his client, the publisher of Millie the Temple Church Mouse. Written by a mysterious author, the book has been a runaway success, bringing throngs of children to the Temple Church and spawning toys, games and an American publishing deal. Now that the author has reportedly surfaced and is demanding her share of the money and control of the intellectual property, what will happen to Millie the Temple Church Mouse? In this episode of the Modern Law Library, Smith and the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles discuss the launch of this new series, which will contain at least three books following Ward's adventures. Smith describes her own career as a barrister, and why she chose to set the series at the beginning of the Edwardian era. She also discusses the issues of class, gender and the complex world within the walls of the Inner Temple.

When Arizona changed its ethics rules in 2020 opening the door for alternative business structures and nonlawyer ownership for law firms, it sent shock waves throughout the legal industry. Nicole Miller, the chief legal officer of LegalZoom, speaks to the ABA Journal's Victor Li about LegalZoom's experience in Arizona thus far, as well as general issues relating to regulatory reform and alternative business structures. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

When Arizona changed its ethics rules in 2020 opening the door for alternative business structures and nonlawyer ownership for law firms, it sent shock waves throughout the legal industry. Nicole Miller, the chief legal officer of LegalZoom, speaks to the ABA Journal's Victor Li about LegalZoom's experience in Arizona thus far, as well as general issues relating to regulatory reform and alternative business structures.

When Arizona changed its ethics rules in 2020 opening the door for alternative business structures and nonlawyer ownership for law firms, it sent shock waves throughout the legal industry. Nicole Miller, the chief legal officer of LegalZoom, speaks to the ABA Journal's Victor Li about LegalZoom's experience in Arizona thus far, as well as general issues relating to regulatory reform and alternative business structures.

In Chambers v. Florida and the Criminal Justice Revolution, historian and former ABA Journal reporter Richard Brust lifts the veil on a case that laid the groundwork for some much more famous civil rights victories. On May 13, 1933, shopkeeper Robert Darsey was robbed and murdered in Pompano, Florida. Four Black migrant farm workers—Izell Chambers, Walter Woodard, Jack Williamson and Charlie Davis—were seized and pressured by the local sheriff into confessing to the murder under threat of lynching. Their appeals eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court through the efforts of some dedicated African American attorneys, and succeeded in 1940. In Justice Hugo Black's written opinion for the majority, the justice drew parallels between the Jim Crow regime in the American South and the rise of authoritarianism and fascism in Europe. Chambers v. Florida forbade the use of psychological coercion—such as threatening to turn prisoners over to lynch mobs—as well as physical abuse to extract confessions. The court's ruling declared that the protections of the Bill of Rights extended into states' criminal cases, and began to change the kinds of cases that made it onto the Supreme Court docket.Brust sees it as part of a trio of cases, which includes Moore v. Dempsey (1923) and Brown v. Mississippi (1936), that led to a “criminal procedure revolution,” he tells the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles. In this episode of The Modern Law Library, Brust discusses the lawyers who worked on the case, most prominently Simuel D. McGill, a Black attorney in Jacksonville. He delves into the generational differences between the Floridian defense lawyers and the attorneys of the NAACP's Legal Defense Fund who would go on to win key civil rights battles. He explains why Justice Black would have been considered an unlikely author for this opinion. And he shares what he could discover about the fates of Chambers, Woodard, Williamson and Davis after the trial.

In Chambers v. Florida and the Criminal Justice Revolution, historian and former ABA Journal reporter Richard Brust lifts the veil on a case that laid the groundwork for some much more famous civil rights victories. On May 13, 1933, shopkeeper Robert Darsey was robbed and murdered in Pompano, Florida. Four Black migrant farm workers—Izell Chambers, Walter Woodard, Jack Williamson and Charlie Davis—were seized and pressured by the local sheriff into confessing to the murder under threat of lynching. Their appeals eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court through the efforts of some dedicated African American attorneys, and succeeded in 1940. In Justice Hugo Black's written opinion for the majority, the justice drew parallels between the Jim Crow regime in the American South and the rise of authoritarianism and fascism in Europe. Chambers v. Florida forbade the use of psychological coercion—such as threatening to turn prisoners over to lynch mobs—as well as physical abuse to extract confessions. The court's ruling declared that the protections of the Bill of Rights extended into states' criminal cases, and began to change the kinds of cases that made it onto the Supreme Court docket.Brust sees it as part of a trio of cases, which includes Moore v. Dempsey (1923) and Brown v. Mississippi (1936), that led to a “criminal procedure revolution,” he tells the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles. In this episode of The Modern Law Library, Brust discusses the lawyers who worked on the case, most prominently Simuel D. McGill, a Black attorney in Jacksonville. He delves into the generational differences between the Floridian defense lawyers and the attorneys of the NAACP's Legal Defense Fund who would go on to win key civil rights battles. He explains why Justice Black would have been considered an unlikely author for this opinion. And he shares what he could discover about the fates of Chambers, Woodard, Williamson and Davis after the trial. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In Chambers v. Florida and the Criminal Justice Revolution, historian and former ABA Journal reporter Richard Brust lifts the veil on a case that laid the groundwork for some much more famous civil rights victories. On May 13, 1933, shopkeeper Robert Darsey was robbed and murdered in Pompano, Florida. Four Black migrant farm workers—Izell Chambers, Walter Woodard, Jack Williamson and Charlie Davis—were seized and pressured by the local sheriff into confessing to the murder under threat of lynching. Their appeals eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court through the efforts of some dedicated African American attorneys, and succeeded in 1940. In Justice Hugo Black's written opinion for the majority, the justice drew parallels between the Jim Crow regime in the American South and the rise of authoritarianism and fascism in Europe. Chambers v. Florida forbade the use of psychological coercion—such as threatening to turn prisoners over to lynch mobs—as well as physical abuse to extract confessions. The court's ruling declared that the protections of the Bill of Rights extended into states' criminal cases, and began to change the kinds of cases that made it onto the Supreme Court docket.Brust sees it as part of a trio of cases, which includes Moore v. Dempsey (1923) and Brown v. Mississippi (1936), that led to a “criminal procedure revolution,” he tells the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles. In this episode of The Modern Law Library, Brust discusses the lawyers who worked on the case, most prominently Simuel D. McGill, a Black attorney in Jacksonville. He delves into the generational differences between the Floridian defense lawyers and the attorneys of the NAACP's Legal Defense Fund who would go on to win key civil rights battles. He explains why Justice Black would have been considered an unlikely author for this opinion. And he shares what he could discover about the fates of Chambers, Woodard, Williamson and Davis after the trial.

OA1160 - Sheryl Weikal is an Illinois trial lawyer with a name-your own-price practice representing marginalized people facing eviction, foreclosure, discrimination, and incarceration--which is all incredibly cool unto itself, but she also has a story like no one else you've heard. Sheryl won an incredible victory three years ago against the Illinois state bar for trans attorneys throughout the state in the face of years of open prejudice which she suffered from fellow lawyers, court staff, and even judges from the bench, and has written the story of her personal and professional life in a memoir which will be out June 3rd. This isn't one to miss! Preorder I Was an Abomination: A Story of Trans Survival in Conservative America by Sheryl Weikal (to be released 6/3/2025) “Transgender lawyer wins suit for declaration that trans discrimination violates attorney ethics rules,” ABA Journal (4/18/2022) Follow Sheryl on Bluesky To support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law! Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do! This content is CAN credentialed, which means you can report instances of harassment, abuse, or other harm on their hotline at (617) 249-4255, or on their website at creatoraccountabilitynetwork.org.

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.”

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.” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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.

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. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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.

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. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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.

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. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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.

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. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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.

For one thing, it marks the 40th annual iteration of the show. For another, it promises to be the biggest of all time—emanating for the first time from the McCormick Place Convention Center in Chicago. Techshow co-chair Stephen Embry talks to the ABA Journal's Victor Li about what to expect from this year's show. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

For one thing, it marks the 40th annual iteration of the show. For another, it promises to be the biggest of all time—emanating for the first time from the McCormick Place Convention Center in Chicago. Techshow co-chair Stephen Embry talks to the ABA Journal's Victor Li about what to expect from this year's show.

For one thing, it marks the 40th annual iteration of the show. For another, it promises to be the biggest of all time—emanating for the first time from the McCormick Place Convention Center in Chicago. Techshow co-chair Stephen Embry talks to the ABA Journal's Victor Li about what to expect from this year's show.

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.

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. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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

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 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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

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.

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. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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.

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. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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.

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. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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.