Episoder
-
J. Craig Williams believes empathy is an important quality to be a trial lawyer. It’s served him in his profession, and it’s a tool he has also been using as an author trying to get into the minds of people from past eras.
In How Would You Decide? 10 Famous Trials That Changed History, Book One, Williams examines cases and trials from history through the lens of a modern trial lawyer. He uses the accounts of the historical proceedings to illustrate current principles of litigation and civil rights, and explains what each can tell us about the rule of law.
In this episode of The Modern Law Library, Williams tells the ABA Journal’s Lee Rawles that empathy was key in trying to understand the people involved in events like the Salem Witch trials, and figuring out how injustices could be perpetrated. He realized there were parallels to be drawn between society in late-17th century Salem and American society today.
The 10 trials featured in this first volume of How Would You Decide? are:
The Trial of Jesus
The Salem Witch Trials
Boston Massacre Trial
Civil War Tipping Point and Aftermath Trials (Dred Scott, John Brown, Plessy v. Ferguson)
O.K. Corral Shootout Trial of Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday
The Black Sox Trial
The Scopes “Monkey Trial”
The Lindy Chamberlain Trial
The McMartin Preschool Trial
The O.J. Simpson Murder Trial
The case that most readers bring up when speaking with Williams is the Boston Massacre trial. Williams, who grew up in New England, says he was surprised to find during his research that there was much he hadn’t known about the case himself. Founding Father and future president John Adams was the attorney who successfully defended the British soldiers who fired into the Massachusetts crowd, an extremely risky professional and social decision. Williams and Rawles discuss Adams’s representation and what it meant for the establishment of the rule of law in the United States.
Listeners might best know Williams from his Lawyer2Lawyer podcast, which he launched in 2005, making him a pioneer in legal podcasting. Since Williams was already familiar with audio production, How Would You Decide? was a natural fit for multimedia. He launched a companion website, 10FamousTrials.com, making available more of the source material he relied on to write the book. He also partnered with Legal Talk Network to release a miniseries podcast, which is currently in production. In Dispute covers one of the 10 trials each episode, featuring commentary and reenactments drawn from trial transcripts and historical documents.
In this episode, Williams and Rawles discuss his research process, how he selected which trials to feature, and what might make it into Book Two. They also get into the holiday spirit by talking about The Sled, a Christmas story Williams and his wife wrote for their grandchildren. -
Glenn Fine's career-long crusade against corruption might have its roots in his college days. As a point guard for the Harvard basketball team, Fine had his personal best game on Dec. 16, 1978, the same day he interviewed for–and received–a Rhodes scholarship. He put up 19 points against Boston College, including eight steals, and the team nearly eeked out a win against the favored Boston players. A remarkable day.
What Fine would later discover was that mobsters had bribed Boston College players to play worse to keep the game tight and not cover the point spread. Henry Hill and Jimmy Burke–later portrayed by Ray Liotta and Robert De Niro in the movie Goodfellas were part of the point-shaving scheme.
Fine would later be drafted in the 10th round of the NBA draft by the San Antonio Spurs, but it was the anti-corruption law that stuck, not basketball.
Fine took a job out of law school as a prosecutor in Washington, D.C., and joined the Office of the Inspector General at the Department of Justice in 1995. He would go on to serve as Inspector General at the DOJ from 2000 to 2011, then at the Department of Defense from 2015 until 2020. He was one of the five inspectors general fired by then-President Donald Trump in what the Washington Post referred to as the "slow-motion Friday night massacre of inspectors general."
But what do inspectors general do? It's a question Fine wants to answer with his book, Watchdogs: Inspectors General and the Battle for Honest and Accountable Government. In this episode of the Modern Law Library, Fine and the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles discuss the function, history and importance of the position, along with ways Fine believes government oversight can be improved.
As of the book's publication in 2024, there are 74 inspector general offices at the federal level, with more than 14,000 employees. As the IG for the Department of Defense, Fine oversaw the largest office, with some 1,700 employees. Inspectors general conduct independent, non-partisan oversight investigations into waste, fraud, misconduct and best practices, and deliver their reports and recommendations to Congress and the agencies involved. The IGs cannot enforce the adoption of recommendations, but their work acts as the "sunshine" for disinfection, Fine says.
One major recommendation Fine makes in Watchdogs is that an inspector general be established for the U.S. Supreme Court and the federal judiciary, who could perhaps file their reports to the chief justice or the head of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. Fine points to judicial ethics concerns and polls finding public trust in the Supreme Court at historic lows, and argues one way to increase public trust is through the transparency provided by an inspector general.
Also in this episode, Fine offers advice for anyone considering a career in public service. Rawles and Fine discuss stories of his own investigations, including evaluating the claims of a whistleblowing scientist at the FBI laboratory and looking into how the infamous double-agent spy Robert Hanssen was able to fool his FBI superiors and pass intel to Soviets and Russians. -
Manglende episoder?
-
The first image conjured in your mind by the word “sheriff” might be the protagonist of a Wild West movie or Robin Hood’s foe, the Sheriff of Nottingham. But unless you’re a resident of Alaska, Connecticut, Hawaii and Rhode Island, there’s likely an elected law-enforcement official in your area who holds that title.
In The Highest Law in the Land: How the Unchecked Power of Sheriffs Threatens Democracy, lawyer and journalist Jessica Pishko takes a deep dive into the history of this position in American life, and at a far-right movement hoping to co-opt the role of sheriff to advance extreme conservative policies.
There are some 3,000 sheriffs in the United States, one per county (or county equivalent). In this episode of The Modern Law Library, Pishko and the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles discuss how the rural/urban divide impacts the demographics of sheriffs. Ninety-seven percent of the land area in the United States is considered rural, but only 20% of the people live in those rural areas. In the 2020 census, Greene County, Alabama, had 7,730 residents and one sheriff. Cook County, Illinois, which contains the city of Chicago, had 5,275,541 residents and one sheriff. This leads to a larger proportion of sheriffs representing a rural and more conservative demographic, Pishko says.
Pishko explains the “constitutional sheriff” movement, including its similarities to other fringe movements like the sovereign citizens. Adherents claim that sheriffs alone have the power to interpret how the Constitution and the first 10 Amendments should be enforced in their counties. They claim that state governments, the federal government, the president and the U.S. Supreme Court have no power over sheriffs, and that as elected officials, sheriffs are answerable only to their constituents.
In this episode, Pishko also describes the large role sheriffs have in incarcerations, how their enforcement powers differ or overlap with police, and what disciplinary or oversight measures are available when a sheriff abuses their office. Pishko and Rawles also discuss the roles sheriffs might have in local elections, and whether they might have an impact on the 2024 presidential election. -
Most—though not all—of the 13 short stories in Company deal with members of the Collins family. Three generations of narrators bear witness to the changing fortunes of the family, and as with any witness statement, everyone has a different perspective on what actually happened. Also, there are ghosts—and at least one witch.
The matriarch and patriarch of the Collins family ran a jazz club in Atlantic City. Their four daughters and eight grandchildren face issues of race and class, fecundity and infertility, marriage and divorce.
In this episode of The Modern Law Library, the ABA Journal’s Lee Rawles speaks with author Shannon Sanders about the similarity between crafting a perfect brief and a short story, and its differences from novel writing. They discuss the ways families are built, through biology, shared experiences and legal paperwork.
Sanders shares how she balances her full-time legal work, her family life and her work as a writer. She also offers tips for people looking to publish their short stories in magazines and literary journals. The hardback version of Company is available now, and the paperback will be released on Nov. 12. -
Jill Barton spent the first decade of her career working as a journalist, with the Associated Press Stylebook always at hand to determine word usage and punctuation choices. But when she became an attorney, she says, she realized that there was no single equivalent style guide when it came to legal writing—and she had to adjust to using the Oxford comma.
As a professor of legal writing at the University of Miami, she also began to notice a contrast between the classic 19th and 20th century court opinions her students were being given to read and the style of writing coming out of the U.S. Supreme Court in the 21st century. Standards were changing at the highest court of the land, but the wider legal community wasn’t necessarily aware of it. Barton spent five years analyzing more than 10,000 pages from Supreme Court opinions, and The Supreme Guide to Writing is the result.
In this episode of the Modern Law Library, Barton and the ABA Journal’s Lee Rawles discuss her findings, and what some of the bigger surprises were. One of her biggest takeaways is that the justices are not a conservative bunch when it comes to writing style.
For example, during most of Justice Antonin Scalia’s tenure on the court, he was a strident opponent of contractions—can’t, don’t, shouldn’t were always cannot, do not, should not. But in his final years, Scalia did sprinkle in a few contractions, and his replacement, Justice Neil Gorsuch, is “King of the Contractions,” Barton says.
The justices were willing to depart from grammar rules if adhering to them caused stilted writing, Barton found. Chief Justice John Roberts uses commas based on cadence rather than simply following strict English grammar guidance. All the justices showed a marked preference for active verbs and shorter, simpler phrases. They have adapted to using pronouns that match litigants’ gender identities, and to using the singular “they” rather than “he or she.”
The Supreme Guide to Writing notes when the court shows unanimity in a usage rule, and when there is disagreement. While each justice shows internal consistency with how they show a possessive when a singular noun ends in “s,” there is no group consensus on apostrophe-s versus a single apostrophe. Barton discusses her research process, offers more insight into the way legal language is evolving, and shares how practitioners can use her book to modernize their own writing. -
Justice David W. Ellis has served on the Illinois Appellate Court for the 1st District for nearly 10 years. But readers may know him better as author David Ellis, writer of more than a dozen legal thrillers.
Ellis had enjoyed creative writing as a youth, he tells the ABA Journal’s Lee Rawles in this episode of The Modern Law Library. But during his college and law school years, he was focused solely on his legal career path. It wasn’t until he had been in practice for a few years that this changed. During a vacation at the beach, he suddenly decided that he was going to write a novel—and once that goal was set, he worked relentlessly towards it. And in 2002, he won a prestigious Edgar Award from the Mystery Writers of America for that first novel, Line of Vision.
Both branches of Ellis’s career have seen tremendous returns. He made national news in 2009 as the prosecutor of the impeachment of Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich before the state senate. He was the youngest-serving justice in 2014 when he joined the Illinois Appellate Court for the 1st District, which serves Chicago and Cook County. And along the way, he published 11 novels, including the four-book Jason Kolarich series. He was a finalist for the ABA Journal-sponsored Harper Lee Prize for Legal Fiction in 2012 and 2013. He has also co-written nine books with James Patterson, the latest of which (Lies He Told Me) will be released in September.
In this episode, Ellis and Rawles discuss his July release, The Best Lies. The germ of an idea that became The Best Lies started off with the notion of a main character who was a diagnosed pathological liar. When the book opens, Leo Balanoff, a criminal defense attorney in Chicago, has just been arrested for murder. Police have collected DNA and fingerprints at the scene that are a match for a college-era bar fight Leo was charged for, and the victim had an ugly history with one of Leo’s clients. Over the course of The Best Lies, twists and turns across multiple timelines and through multiple points of view begin to reveal what really happened. Ellis weaves a tale combining corporate espionage, violin concertos, police corruption and the Estonian mob.
Ellis also discusses his writing process, his 3:30 a.m. wake-up time, the similarities in his creative and legal writing, and how his judicial ethics concerns sometimes impact his editorial decisions. -
Do you need some distractions during vacation travel or while lying directly under your A/C unit and sweating? It’s time for The Modern Law Library’s summer recommendations episode, in which host Lee Rawles shares her pop culture picks with you, plus a re-airing of one of our older episodes with current relevance.
As states navigate a post-Dobbs world, a series of federal and state regulations known as Comstock Laws are being discussed as avenues to further restrict access to abortion drugs and birth control. In 2018, with Roe v. Wade still the law of the land, Rawles and Amy Werbel discussed the fiery namesake of those laws and Werbel’s book Lust on Trial: Censorship and the Rise of American Obscenity in the Age of Anthony Comstock. It sheds light on how a 19th-century U.S. Postal Service agent funded by the Young Men’s Christian Association created obscenity restrictions so sweeping that medical textbooks were seized and destroyed for displaying anatomical diagrams.
Rawles also shares some favorites from what she’s been reading and listening to since our 2023 year-end pop culture picks episode. If you have your own favorite reads so far in 2024, send your recommendations to [email protected] with a brief description, and we may choose to highlight them on our social media.
Mentioned in the episode:
BOOKS
The Three Dahlias, A Very Lively Murder and Seven Lively Suspects by Katy Watson
The Appeal and The Mysterious Case of the Alperton Angels by Janice Hallett
Buried in the Sky: The Extraordinary Story of the Sherpa Climbers on K2’s Deadliest Day, by Peter Zuckerman and Amanda Padoan
Scurvy: How a Surgeon, a Mariner, and a Gentlemen Solved the Greatest Medical Mystery of the Age of Sail, by Stephen J. Bown
PODCASTS
Cocaine & Rhinestones
Beyond the Breakers
Reformed Rakes
Talk Justice -
Finances are a fraught area for many attorneys. Despite a high earning potential, new lawyers often start out with a financial disadvantage due to the opportunity cost of the years devoted to school and bar prep, coupled with high student loans. People who chose to get JDs instead of MBAs often find themselves having to operate as entrepreneurs to launch a small firm or solo practice. In The Lawyer Millionaire: The Complete Guide for Attorneys on Maximizing Wealth, Minimizing Taxes, and Retiring With Confidence, Darren P. Wurz addresses both personal finances and firm finances.
“A financial plan starts with goals,” writes Wurz, who has a master’s degree in financial planning and is a certified financial planner. “Be aware that money itself is not the ultimate goal of this plan. Rather, it is what that money can do for you that is the goal.”
In this episode of The Modern Law Library, Wurz gives advice for attorneys at the beginning, middle and end of their working careers and tells the ABA Journal’s Lee Rawles about the seven biggest money mistakes attorneys can make.
Wurz, who also hosts The Lawyer Millionaire Podcast, says retirement often looks different for attorneys than other professionals. Many lawyers would like to continue to practice at least part-time even past the age most other people retire. He says the goal of many of his clients is to have the financial security to have a “work-optional lifestyle” that will allow them to take on only the cases that really interest them.
One of the messages Wurz wants to convey to older attorneys is that their most important asset might be something they didn’t realize could be sold: their practice itself. The time and effort put into building a book of clients can also pay off at the end of your career, not just during your active years of practice. While it might take more time and planning to arrange than selling a piece of real estate, selling your practice to a younger attorney can provide continuity for your clients and a financial boon to your retirement.
While Wurz offers tips for how newly minted attorneys can start off on the right financial foot, he and Rawles also discuss options for mid-career professionals who are only now getting a handle on their finances. He also shares what his general advice would be for the thousands who have recently had their student debt unexpectedly erased through programs like Public Service Loan Forgiveness. -
Originalism is the ascendant legal theory espoused by conservative legal thinkers, including the majority of U.S. Supreme Court justices. But far from being an objective framework for constitutional interpretation, says author and attorney Madiba Dennie, its true purpose is to achieve conservative political aims regardless of the historical record.
In The Originalism Trap: How Extremists Stole the Constitution and How We the People Can Take It Back, Dennie traces the roots of originalism as a legal theory back to Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, though the Supreme Court rejected the arguments in the 1954 case. Its adherents argue the meaning of the Constitution must solely be determined by “the original public meaning of the Constitution at the time it was drafted,” and that there is a discernible correct answer to what that meaning would have been.
The theory gained popularity in the 1980s, with the late Robert Bork and Justice Antonin Scalia as two influential proponents. Scalia famously said the Constitution is “not a living document. It’s dead, dead, dead.” Today, originalism has formed the basis for decisions such as Justice Samuel Alito’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization opinion overturning Roe v. Wade.
“Despite originalism’s reputation as a serious intellectual theory, it’s more like dream logic: It seems reasonable at first, but when you wake up, you can recognize it as nonsense,” Dennie writes. “Originalism deliberately overemphasizes a particular version of history that treats the civil-rights gains won over time as categorically suspect. The consequences of its embrace have been intentionally catastrophic for practically anyone who isn’t a wealthy white man, aka the class of people with exclusive possession of political power at the time the Constitution’s drafters originally put pen to paper (or quill to parchment).”
In this episode of The Modern Law Library, Dennie and the ABA Journal’s Lee Rawles discuss how conservative originalists prioritize the time period of the Founding Fathers over the Reconstruction Era that produced the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. “We can’t fulfill the Reconstruction Amendments’ radical vision of full equality and freedom if we can’t be attentive to the ways in which we have been made unequal and unfree,” Dennie writes in The Originalism Trap.
While Dennie believes there are portions of the historical record that support broad civil liberty protections, she says she does not think originalism is a useful tool for progressives to use as a legal framework.
In place of originalism, Dennie has a bold proposal: inclusive constitutionalism. “Inclusive constitutionalism means what it says: the Constitution includes everyone, so our legal interpretation must serve to make the promise of inclusive democracy real. When the judiciary is called upon to resolve a legal ambiguity or when there are broad principles at issue, the application of which must be made specific, it is proper for courts to consider how cases may relate to systemic injustices and how different legal analyses would impact marginalized people’s ability to participate in the country’s political, economic and social life.”
Rawles and Dennie also discuss how lawyers and judges can push back against originalism; the legal rights and protections achieved by groups like Jehovah’s Witnesses and the LGBTQ+ community; why she dropped Jurassic Park references into the book; and how she keeps an optimistic outlook on the expansion of civil liberties.
“Justice for all may not be a deeply rooted tradition,” Dennie writes, “but fighting for it is.” -
Networking is something that comes naturally to some people. But if the idea of talking to strangers makes you break out into a cold sweat, there’s help and hope, says Deb Feder, author of the book After Hello: How to Build a Book of Business, One Conversation at a Time.
“You have picked a profession that is never finished meeting people,” Feder writes of lawyers. A practicing lawyer for many years, Feder now works as a business development coach.
In this episode of The Modern Law Library, Feder explains to the ABA Journal’s Lee Rawles that her goal is to help attorneys have “curious, confident conversations.” They discuss conversation stoppers v. conversation starters; how not to panic when targeting the “cool client”; and how young attorneys can get past “the kids table.”
Lining up a roster of ideal clients doesn’t start at cocktail party mingling, Feder warns. A key to building relationships with the clients you actually want to work with lies in identifying what legal work you’re looking to do, and that requires some inner work. It also involves owning your value, Feder says, and she shares a story about how a partner in her firm impressed that lesson on her when she was a young attorney.
In After Hello, she says she meets people who feel too overwhelmed by keeping up with their legal work and personal lives to contemplate business development. “How do you balance the chaos of the day and allow technology to be the support and solution, rather than part of the challenge; how do you let it serve, not destroy you?” Feder asks. She lays out strategies to organize and cope, including how to stop letting your email inbox overwhelm you.
Feder and Rawles also discuss After Hello’s “30 Conversations in 30 Days Challenge” and the most common mistakes Feder sees lawyers making on LinkedIn." -
From COVID-19 response to the overturning of Roe v. Wade, the results of 50 states having individual approaches to public health, medical outcomes and healthcare access raise troubling questions. A husband-and-wife team of University of Utah professors dig into the ethics of the American healthcare system in States of Health: The Ethics and Consequences of Policy Variation in a Federal System.
Leslie P. Francis is a professor of law and philosophy with a background in bioethics, and John G. Francis is a professor of political science with a focus on European comparative politics, federalism and comparative regulatory policy. The spouses had partnered on three previous books together. When looking for their next project, they decided to examine the consequences of states opting out of Medicaid expansion and what power federalism could have in protecting American citizens’ health. But soon more news events and landmark cases expanded their focus.
The result is States of Health. The book examines the tensions between state and federal powers in a number of areas, including reproductive rights; gender-affirming care; medical marijuana; public health and pandemics; right-to-try laws; patient confidentiality; and care quality and life expectancies.
In this episode of The Modern Law Library, the ABA Journal’s Lee Rawles speaks with the Francises about their collaborative writing process, and what conclusions they have drawn about the benefits of federalism and states’ rights.
The Francises argue that since it is the federal government that determines citizenship and census decisions, state differences go too far when they make “basic decisions about who counts at all, and what it means to count.” They add, “Movement is a critical aspect of who counts: the ability to come and go, or to leave one state more permanently for another.” The Francises argue that freedom of movement for the purpose of medical treatment is crucial for patients, but also point out when states control licensure for medical providers, that too can restrict freedom of movement.
The value of 50 individual laboratories of democracy can be appealing to a scientific mind. But at what point can it be argued in the healthcare space that a federal government needs to step in, if the outcomes in some of those laboratories are decreased lifespans and higher mortality? -
When the Trump administration's policy of separating families at the country's borders was announced, opposition from the public and the legal community was swift. The outcry and judicial decisions led to a reversal of the administration's stated policy. But detention and family separation have a long history in this country, history professor Ana Raquel Minian says.
Minian, who immigrated from Mexico to the United States right before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, has made an academic career studying immigration, incarceration and detention. As a young adult, Minian followed the news of Guantanamo Bay Naval Base being used to detain people who might be connected to those attacks. But in researching their new book, In the Shadow of Liberty: The Invisible History of Immigrant Detention in the United States, Minian discovered the base was first used as a detention center under President George H.W. Bush to hold Haitian refugees.
Minian uses the personal experiences of four immigrants to walk readers through the history of immigrant detention in the United States: Fu Chi Hao, a Chinese Christian attempting to escape the Boxer Rebellion in 1901; Holocaust survivor Ellen Knauff, a war bride of an American GI who arrived at Ellis Island in 1948; Gerardo Mansur, a Cuban who joined the Mariel boat lift in 1979; and Fernando Arredondo, a Guatamalan asylum seeker who was separated from his daughter by border officials in 2018.
In this episode of The Modern Law Library, Minian shares details of these stories with the ABA Journal’s Lee Rawles. They also discuss the shifting motivations behind changes in the immigration system, parole versus detention, and how attorneys can help immigrants currently in detention. -
“Trespassing plus time equals adverse possession,” Paul Golden writes in his new book, Litigating Adverse Possession Cases: Pirates v. Zombies. When someone has occupied or used a piece of property as though they own it for long enough, a court could determine that they are the rightful owner—regardless of what the paperwork says. It’s a concept more popularly discussed as squatter’s rights.
In this episode of The Modern Law Library, Golden speaks with the ABA Journal’s Lee Rawles about the ancient concepts underlying modern adverse possession law; some quirky state laws; and why societies would allow land to be transferred in this way. They also discuss how the plain meaning of terms like “hostile” are changed when used in adverse possession cases, and Rawles raises a hypothetical—taken from real life—of a neighbor’s crooked fence.
During Golden’s first appearance on The Modern Law Library, he explained how the lack of a written contract could be navigated by a savvy lawyer. In his new book, Golden guides attorneys and their clients through the finer points of arguing for and against adverse possession claims. He shares some of the errors he’s seen pop up in adverse possession cases, and offers advice for how to avoid common pitfalls.
Modern Law Library listeners have been given a promotional discount code for Litigating Adverse Possession Cases: Pirates v. Zombies through May 10, 2024. For 20% off, go to the ABA’s online shop and enter LAPC2024 at checkout. -
James Patterson has written bestsellers in many genres. But as he tells the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles in this episode of The Modern Law Library, he has always been fascinated by legal thrillers, courtroom dramas and crime novels. He even considered becoming a lawyer, before his literary career took off.
In his newest release, The #1 Lawyer, James Patterson partnered with co-author Nancy Allen to tell the story of Stafford Lee Penney, a criminal defense attorney in Biloxi, Mississippi, who’s never lost a case. But after handing a high-profile murder trial involving the son of a mobster, Penney finds himself on the other side of the bench as a defendant himself, charged with murdering his own wife.
Patterson has written and co-written more than 300 books, including bestselling series like Alex Cross, Women’s Murder Club and Maximum Ride. He had some writing tips for attorneys, particularly on how to work collaboratively. As Patterson tells listeners in the podcast, he is open about working with other writers on many of his books, and he finds tools like outlining absolutely essential. He also shares with Rawles how he thinks co-writers should handle interpersonal communication while working together.
Patterson says one of the major benefits of working with co-authors is pulling from their experiences to make his books more accurate and true to life. When he wrote The President is Missing with Bill Clinton, the former president could tell Patterson the inside details of how a Secret Service detail worked. When he wrote Run, Rose, Run with Dolly Parton, she walked him through the production cycle for a song.
Allen, who conducted more than 30 jury trials as a prosecutor in Missouri and taught law for 15 years at Missouri State University, contributed her firsthand courtroom experience to The #1 Lawyer. Patterson says they worked to make everything as accurate as possible—while still allowing for a good story. It’s the pair’s second book together, following a previous standalone novel, Juror #3.
In this episode of The Modern Law Library, Patterson shares some of his favorite law-related pop culture picks; news about new and ongoing projects; and describes a very special birthday event with Dolly Parton. He also discusses how his children’s series Maximum Ride got caught up in Florida book bans in 2023. For fans of Patterson’s breakout success, the Alex Cross series launched in 1993 with Along Came a Spider, the author shares updates about what’s next for the intrepid detective—including details about the upcoming Amazon Prime TV series Cross, starring Aldis Hodge.
-
Three high-profile cases of sexual assault in 2012 followed a basic pattern: A teenage girl was sexually assaulted at a house party by one or more teenage boys while she was incapacitated by alcohol. The attacks were recorded and the photos, videos and stories were shared on social media or via texts. The photos and videos were used to ridicule the victims among their peers. Those texts and posts later became evidence in criminal cases. These incidents took place in Steubenville, Ohio; Maryville, Missouri; and Saratoga, California, and sparked national conversations about youth, technology and sexual assault in 2013.
“The question gnawing at everyone, myself included, was: What were these kids thinking?” writes Anna Gjika, a sociology professor who studies crime and gender issues. More than 10 years later, Gjika has attempted to answer that question in her new book, When Rape Goes Viral: Youth and Sexual Assault in the Digital Age. She took a close look at the three attacks in 2012, but identifies a number of similar instances that have happened more recently.
One of the elements the public found shocking about the cases was how many bystanders filmed or photographed the unconscious girls or the sexual assaults as they were occurring, without intervening. In talking to people involved in the cases and to teens in general as part of her research, Gjika found that the young people did not think of their social media as archival so much as “of the moment.” They filmed and posted what was happening around themselves because they were used to doing that. “Sharing an experience has become an integral part of the experience,” Gjika writes.
In this episode of The Modern Law Library, Gjika and the ABA Journal’s Lee Rawles discuss her research into generational attitudes towards social media and sexual assault; the promises and pitfalls of digital evidence in sexual assault cases; how social media can be empowering or degrading for survivors; the social responsibility held by the legal community and the tech industry; and what interventions could be effective to prevent such assaults from taking place.
Digital evidence like cellphone videos and texts can be extremely beneficial to prosecutors looking to prove incidents of sexual assault, particularly when victims are unable to recount their experience because they were unconscious or impaired during the attacks. But Gjika explains that this kind of evidence is not uncomplicated. The way juries perceive the evidence will still be filtered through societal expectations and prejudices. Defense attorneys do not have the same access to digital evidence from tech companies, and usually lack capacity to process immense amounts of data. The expertise, willingness and resources of police departments and prosecutors’ offices to seek out this evidence also vary widely. And the victims can be further traumatized by the use in court of images and video of their assaults, and the knowledge that the images continue to be disseminated on the internet.
In closing, Rawles and Gjika discuss what actions can be taken by schools, the legal community and the tech industry to prevent such attacks or to assist victims whose assaults have been digitally documented. Gjika believes educational programs and trainings for teens need to focus on peer groups and norms, rather than emphasizing individual responsibility, and “must be grounded within adolescents’ lived experiences, rather than on adult fears and anxieties.” She also argues that adults as well as teens would benefit from “ethical digital citizenship initiatives,” where concepts like privacy and online decision-making could be discussed. And she suggests the creation of government-funded organizations to assist survivors with removing digital content from the internet. -
Ray Brescia, a law professor at Albany Law School, has taken a hard look at the country’s legal system in his new book, Lawyer Nation: The Past, Present and Future of the American Legal Profession.
In this episode of The Modern Law Library, Brescia tells the ABA Journal’s Lee Rawles about the efforts in the late 19th and early 20th century to exclude people from the legal profession who were not part of the dominant social class, and how access-to-justice issues persist today as a result of some of those measures. The early American Bar Association is one of the organizations he names as a participant in the exclusionary efforts through its law school accreditation program, and he and Rawles discuss the ABA’s current efforts to increase diversity, equity and inclusion.
As someone who has worked in academia, the non-profit world, legal aid organizations and as a clerk at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, he says he’s come across many people who care deeply and want the justice system to function better. But without fundamental changes to the ways legal services are delivered, he does not think the access-to-justice issues can be solved.
A large part of Brescia’s concern that he expresses in Lawyer Nation is for legal professionals themselves. Brescia says the mental illness and substance-use levels within the profession demonstrate that greater care has to be shown for lawyers’ well-being and work-life balance. He shares his advice for making the profession more sustainable for the incoming generation. He also discusses how law schools and legal education can change. -
In Police & the Empire City: Race & the Origins of Modern Policing, Matthew Guariglia looks at the New York City police from their founding in 1845 through the 1930s as “police transitioned from a more informal collection of pugilists clad in wool coats to what we can recognize today as a modern professionalized police department.”
From the beginning, race and ethnicity had a major impact in the policing of New York City. In a city where the top echelons of power were held by Anglo-Dutch Protestants, the streets were patrolled by Irish and German immigrant police officers, sometimes enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act by snatching Black people off the streets and sending them back to enslavement in the South.
In this episode of the Modern Law Library, Guariglia and the ABA Journal’s Lee Rawles discuss what the early period of policing in New York City can tell us about policing today. Rawles shares her own ancestor’s path from immigrant to police court judge on the West Side of Chicago (though the dates she cites in the interview are incorrect–Michael J. O’Donoghue emigrated from Ireland in the 1874 and was appointed to the police court in 1901.)
For Irish and German immigrants, a job on the police force was a path out of poverty and towards whiteness and political power, but you would be asked to prove yourself by visiting violence on your own community. African American community leaders hoped the appointment of Black policemen would curb police brutality, but the city was slower than other metropolises like Chicago, who hired James L. Shelton as the city’s first Black officer in 1871. Samuel Battle became the NYPD’s first Black police officer in 1911, eventually rising to the rank of lieutenant and being appointed a parole commissioner.
Meanwhile, in neighborhoods like Chinatown, entire communities went without police officers who spoke the same language as inhabitants. The first Chinese-speaking officer was hired in 1904. That same year, the General Slocum disaster sent the city administration scrambling for German-speaking police officers to locate relatives in Kleindeutschland to identify bodies of the thousand victims of the burned shipwreck. Fears of “the Black Hand” led to the creation of the Italian Squad, and Guariglia shares the story of how the Italian Squad’s founder, Joseph Petrosino, ended up assassinated while on assignment in Sicily.
“Empire City” is an apt name for New York City, as it had international reach and drew on former colonial administrators. One influential police commissioner, Gen. Francis Vinton Greene, had been involved in the U.S. occupation of the Philippines after the Spanish-American War. Tactics first used to subjugate colonists were put to use in the city. As the Progressive Era led to a preoccupation with eugenics, the New York City police were involved in international conversations about the characteristics of criminals and race science. The idea of molding the perfect police officers also caught hold. In this episode, Guariglia shares how the police departments decided they had to teach their officers how to stand and chew properly. -
After 50 years as a professor at Yale Law School, Owen Fiss says his students are still idealistic and passionate about the rights won in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965. As a young lawyer in the late 1960s, Fiss worked with the Department of Justice to implement those laws. A classroom discussion in the spring of 2020 prompted him to draw upon his legal expertise and decades of experience to produce his new book, Why We Vote.
In this episode of The Modern Law Library podcast, Fiss speaks with the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles about the paradox of the court system–the least democratic branch of government–having the responsibility of safeguarding the right to vote. He looks back on his work with the DOJ in southern states, and his time as a clerk for Justice Thurgood Marshall (then on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York) and Justice William Brennan.
Rawles and Fiss also discuss recent threats to the electoral system and right to vote, including the insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021. Fiss shares his thoughts about Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, and whether former President Donald Trump should be removed from the ballot on that basis.
While every book he writes is for his students, Fiss says, he hopes Why We Vote can impress upon a broader audience the privilege and duty of voting and participating in a democracy. -
In 2013, the ABA Journal named Renee Knake Jefferson a Legal Rebel for her work co-founding the Michigan State University’s ReInvent Law Laboratory and rethinking how legal services could be delivered to consumers. In 2024, she’s taking a look back at more than a decade of research and experimental programs aimed at improving access to justice–the successes and the failures.
On this episode of the Modern Law Library, Jefferson and the ABA Journal’s Lee Rawles discuss her new book, Law Democratized: A Blueprint for Solving the Justice Crisis. The scale of the issue is daunting: Jefferson cites a study finding that 87% of American households facing legal issues don’t even attempt to seek legal assistance.
“Civil legal disputes—think child support, citizenship, consumer complaints, custody, divorce, employment, guardianship, housing, medical needs—make their way to more than fifteen thousand courts throughout the United States each year,” Jefferson writes. “Whatever the root cause, a massive delivery problem clearly exists for personal legal services.”
Jefferson shares examples of alternative business structures and access-to-justice projects from around the world that challenged old client models. Some–like offering legal services inside British grocery stores–were not successes.
“In theory, consumers could pick up a will with a loaf of bread or a gallon of milk, allowing them to resolve legal problems in a place they already regularly transact,” Jefferson writes. “But grocery store law never flourished.”
Other ventures fared better, and Law Democratized compiles a number of suggestions based on research findings and real-world experiences. Jefferson says she intends the book to not only be a record of what’s been tried, but to also serve as a user-friendly way for the public to learn about changes they could be advocating for at local, state and national levels.
Much of the discussion around improving access to justice involves regulatory reform, and Jefferson shares what has been discovered in states like Utah and Texas through the establishment of regulatory sandboxes. Jefferson also shares ideas about how law schools can be serving their communities as well as their students. Law Democratized suggests ways antitrust law and the First Amendment could be used to expand the public’s access to civil legal services without the direct use of lawyers.
Jefferson and Rawles also discuss her expertise in legal ethics, and what she thinks about the use of artificial intelligence by legal professionals. Jefferson, who writes the Legal Ethics Roundup newsletter on Substack, explains why she doesn’t see the need for an immediate rewriting of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct to address the new technology. - Vis mere
