ABA Journal: Modern Law Library

Law professor Kim Wehle is used to helping her students begin to think like lawyers. But the methodology behind making tough decisions as a legal professional can also benefit the general public. It’s why How To Think Like A Lawyer—and Why: A Common-Sense Guide to Everyday Dilemmas was a natural follow-up to her two previous books, How to Read the Constitution—and Why and What You Need to Know About Voting—and Why. Wehle’s previous books attempted to fill in civics education gaps for the general public. With her newest book, Wehle is hoping to give the general public alternatives to kneejerk or strictly partisan decision-making by encouraging a more methodical approach. In How to Think Like a Lawyer—and Why, Wehle shares what she calls the B-I-C-A-T Method. The five steps to the B-I-C-A-T Method are: 1. Break the problem down. 2. Identify your values and your aim. 3. Collect lots of information. 4. Argue both sides of each point. 5. Tolerate the fact that people may disagree with your choice and that you might feel conflicted about your decision. In this episode of the Modern Law Library, Wehle and the ABA Journal’s Lee Rawles discuss how she chose the five different spheres of life highlighted in her book as areas where a lawyerly mind could be particularly useful: work, family life decisions, civic life, health care and when it’s time to hire an actual lawyer. They also take the B-I-C-A-T Method for a spin in a hypothetical situation that’s a real-life dilemma for many parents around the world: How to approach masking in school. Special thanks to our sponsor,Posh Virtual Receptionists.

Hilary J. Allen isn't sorry if you find her new book scary. In fact, she's hoping thatDriverless Finance: Fintech's Impact on Financial Stabilitycan spook enough people to create momentum for change. Allen was involved in the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission that was formed by Congress to study the causes behind the 2008 financial crisis. Now she sees the possibility of financial collapse on an even greater scale with AI technology being used in the financial industry; "smart contracts" that could bring down banks before human intervention is possible; cryptocurrency and non-fungible token sales being made for the purpose of speculation; and tech giants like Apple, Facebook, Amazon and Google contemplating offering financial services. In the future, she warns, banks might not be the only entities that become "too big to fail." While the public is concerned about the safety of driverless cars, there's much less awareness about driverless finance, and the dangers it could pose to the global financial system are real, says Allen. In this episode of the Modern Law Library, Allen speaks with the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles about the promise and downsides of some "cutting-edge" financial products, and why innovation is not inherently good. She suggests some avenues for regulation and oversight, urges that regulators be given the technology and access to expertise they need to keep up with new financial products and markets, and explains what an NFT is–and what it isn't. Special thanks to our sponsor,Posh Virtual Receptionists.

There's plenty of conventional wisdom about what makes a good legal brief or court opinion. Judge Robert E. Bacharach of the Denver-based 10th Circuit Court of Appeals says that when judges socialize, their conversations often devolve into discussions about language and pieces of writing they enjoy or revile. But Bacharach decided he wanted to dive deeper, to see what the science of psycholinguistics could teach lawyers and judges about how written words persuade an audience. The result was his new book,Legal Writing: A Judge's Perspective on the Science and Rhetoric of the Written Word, published by the ABA. Legal Writingis a slim volume, but it's packed with tips. It considers details as microscopic as a serif on a letter and as macroscopic as how to create an outline for an argument. In this episode of the Modern Law Library podcast, Bacharach chats about his own writing process; shares his top takeaways from the psycholinguists he consulted; and offers his advice for young litigators looking to hone their skills.

Most of the spotlights are on the U.S. Supreme Court when it comes to legal cases that impact civil rights. But state supreme courts are the final arbiters of what each state's own constitution dictates. They can have enormous influence on Americans' civil rights and daily lives—and there isn't nearly as much scholarship available on them, particularly when it comes to civil rather than criminal cases. Political scientists James L. Gibson and Michael J. Nelson hope to change this with their new book,Judging Inequality: State Supreme Courts and the Inequality Crisis. When Gibson and Nelson set themselves the task of analyzing civil cases and the court makeups of all 50 state supreme courts, they realized without additional manpower it would be a daunting one, they tell Lee Rawles in this episode of the Modern Law Library podcast. With the help of students, they created a database to track the outcomes of seven kinds of civil cases that would come before each court, and looked to see which courts tended to support the "haves" against the "have nots." They also analyzed the backgrounds of each justice, to the best of their ability. One of their most important findings? It's not as facile as a red state/blue state divide. In this episode, Gibson and Nelson discuss the work that went into their study, the results they found most surprising, and what they as political scientists think that the legal profession should be discussing when it comes to the highest courts in each state.

In her debut novel,All Her Little Secrets, attorney Wanda M. Morris has written a legal thriller full of corporate intrigue and small-town secrets. Morris takes readers inside Atlanta boardrooms and back into the past of her heroine, Ellice Littlejohn. What would possess someone to react to the sight of her boss (and longtime married lover) shot to death in his office by closing the door and walking away without alerting anyone? The trauma behind Littlejohn's actions becomes clearer as readers discover more about her background, and they may have a hard time putting down the novel as Littlejohn tries to discover the real reason behind her subsequent promotion at work. Is she a pawn, a token or a fall guy? Can she protect the people she loves and make sure her long-buried secrets don't rise from the grave? In this episode of the Modern Law Library, Morris discusses her 13-year journey towards publication, tips she has for fellow lawyers who want to write books, and the motivations behind her characters' actions with the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles. While this interview remains spoiler-free, Morris reveals the backstories behind some of the characters in her book, and shares her thoughts on the real-life racism that is reflected in Littlejohn's experiences as the only Black woman attorney in an executive suite.

In our annual year-in-review episode, Lee Rawles speaks to her ABA Journal colleagues Blair Chavis, Matt Reynolds and Amanda Robert to find out how they spent their free time in 2021. Like many people, we've found it more difficult during the pandemic to read for pleasure, so this year we're also sharing what TV shows, movies and podcasts we would recommend, in addition to our favorite books and audiobooks. We also share what we're adding to our to-read and to-watch lists in 2022. Have your own favorites? Email them to us [email protected], and you may hear them featured in a future episode.

Like the legal profession, the practice of medicine in the United States is highly regulated. But it hasn't always been, and the idea that a person has the right to try the medical therapies of their choice has a much longer history. InChoose Your Medicine: Freedom of Therapeutic Choice in America, law professor Lewis A. Grossman introduces readers to a fractious history with some unexpected combatants–and comrades. From his research, Grossman discovered that skepticism towards medical authorities has been the historical attitude Americans have held through the majority of the country's history. Instead, the deviation was the confidence and trust in science that held sway in the 1930s through the 1960s. In this episode of the Modern Law Library, Grossman discusses these historical attitudes with the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles, and what these attitudes could mean for the country's public health. Grossman points out that views on medical choice don't map directly onto political views. During the AIDS crisis in the 1980s and 1990s, liberal gay activists teamed up with anti-regulation conservatives to demand the FDA change its policies and let HIV-positive people try drug treatments that hadn't yet completed the approval process. During the COVID-19 pandemic it appears conservatives are more likely to demand unproven drugs and treatments like hydroxychloroquine (touted by former President Trump) and the anti-parasitic drug Ivermectin, but there are numerous instances of vaccine hesitancy on either side of the political spectrum. Choose Your Medicinetakes readers back to the time of "heroic medicine," where doctors advocated for extreme (and sometimes deadly) treatments like purgatives and bloodletting in the hope that some progress would be made towards cures. The book looks at pre-Civil War efforts to regulate the practice of medicine, and shows how they failed. It illuminates once-popular movements like Thomsonianism, practiced by followers of a 19th century herbalist named Samuel Thomson. One chapter of the book deals with the changes brought by the 1970s health movements. A cautionary tale from that time is Laetrile–a "medicine" made from apricot pits–which was touted as a wonder drug that could fight cancer. In practice, Laetrile did no such thing. But not all lobbying for alternative treatments has been a failure: Supporters of medical cannabis have been able to completely shift laws and attitudes towards marijuana over a relatively short amount of time. Other alternative treatments like acupuncture and chiropractic practices have become mainstream and successful. In this episode, Grossman–who started writing the book long before the COVID-19 pandemic began–discusses what it's been like to see a new field of battle develop over medical choice. He talks about the constitutional theories advocates have used to push for therapeutic choice. He also shares a story he tells his students at the beginning of every semester: the story of a college student named Abigail Burroughs, who was dying from cancer and seeking an experimental drug.

Whenever the ABA Journal has conducted a survey to find the best legal movies or the best legal plays, Twelve Angry Men has made the list. The black-and-white 1957 film about a deadlocked jury coming to a consensus in a murder trial has become a classic, one of Henry Fonda's most striking tales. As a play, Twelve Angry Men is performed around the world, in many languages, in theaters large and small. But the path to becoming a classic was not a simple one, and the man behind the script was not a simple man. InReginald Rose and the Journey of 12 Angry Men, author and business professor Phil Rosenzweig has written the first biography about the man who brought 12 Angry Men to screen, first as a television program and then as a film. Rosenzweig has long used the film in his classes to discuss group dynamics. Delving deeper into Rose's work, he uncovers the background of one of the unsung pioneers of the television age. In addition to 12 Angry Men, Rose also wrote The Defenders, a seminal television show that has also been named by the ABA as one of the most important legal TV series ever. One of the striking things Rosenzweig has observed about Twelve Angry Men is the ownership that two industries feel towards it. For legal professionals, this is a script about the law and a commentary on justice; business management circles feel equally certain that this is a script about the art of persuasion and getting buy-in. Rose claimed that the idea to write about a jury stemmed from an experience he had when called for jury service himself. Through careful examination of the criminal dockets during the time, Rosenzweig has identified the real-life (but little-known) case he believes gave Rose that inspiration. In this Modern Law Library episode, he discusses his discovery with the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles, and shares his opinion about why this script has stood the test of time.

Since World War II, more than two million service members have been discharged from U.S. military service with a status other than "honorable discharge." Having a discharge that falls below a certain level can impact a veteran's access to pensions, GI Bill education benefits, health care, insurance or home loans, as well as carrying a stigma. But when a veteran's circumstances are given another look, there may have been mitigating factors that weren't considered at the time of their discharge. As we've gained more understanding of conditions like post-traumatic stress disorder and addiction, it's become clear that some behaviors once seen as prompted by malice or poor character might instead have been a symptom of mental illness or a rational response to trauma like military sexual assault. A discharge status could also have been given as an act of retaliation, or because of bias and discrimination. There can be a possible remedy: requesting a military discharge upgrade. For the first time in 30 years, there is a new manual to help guide veterans and their legal counsel through the process of requesting an upgrade, giving a fully updated look at a process that can be challenging to navigate. In this episode of the Modern Law Library, the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles speaks with Dana Montalto, one of the authors of theMilitary Discharge Upgrade Legal Practice Manualand an attorney and instructor with the Veterans Legal Clinic at Harvard Law's Legal Services Center. Getting a discharge upgrade can be life-changing for a veteran, and the work can be done by a pro bono attorney, says Montalto. It's not an area of the law that features in law school classes, which is one of the reasons there was a push to create this new resource. In this episode, Montalto shares how she became involved in veterans legal services, answers some common questions lawyers have when considering pro bono work in this area, and talks about the many people and organizations who took part in the yearslong process of creating this resource.

Much has been said about police officers and departments who violate civil rights or enforce the law in discriminatory ways. But not as much attention has been paid to the ways in which the U.S. Supreme Court has enabled police excesses and insulated police from civil or criminal responsibility, says Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California at Berkeley School of Law and author of the new book Presumed Guilty: How the Supreme Court Empowered the Police and Subverted Civil Rights. In this episode of the Modern Law Library, Chemerinsky discusses why the Supreme Court did not address police powers during the first century of its existence; why the Warren Court was an aberration when it came to curtailing police powers; and what his experience was like when he investigated the Los Angeles Police Department’s notorious Rampart Division in 2000. While Chemerinsky is not in favor of abolishing police, he also suggests several pathways for the American people to reform policing systems and buttress Fourth Amendment protections without relying on the Supreme Court to hold police accountable. He also shares how he was able to finish his book on an accelerated deadline while juggling his work as an ABA Journal columnist and a dean of a law school during the COVID-19 pandemic.