Matthew Dixon, co-founder of DCM Insights, is a researcher who’s spent the bulk of his career looking into the shared characteristics and behaviors of successful B2B salespeople. In 2011, he released a study called “The Challenger Sale.” when giving a keynote on his findings at an annual partner retreat, when an audience member stood up and challenged him.

“He said, ‘Dr. Dixon, you’ve been talking now 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 work 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 from the fields of law, public relations, accounting and investment banking. About 39% of respondents were lawyers. Each received a score for their 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 an effective seller.

After doing a vector analysis on the data, “what we found was that every one of those 3000 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 your personality. While personalities are immutable, behaviors can be changed.

“These are about the things that we can all learn to be better at,” says Dixon. “It’s about the way we spend our time, it’s about the way we engage our clients, it’s about how we use resources, about how we collaborate with our 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 terms of business development were found to be the activators.

Law firms acquire or merge with one another all the time. But when it comes to technology companies, firms usually keep it in-house or enter into a partnership with an outside vendor. They rarely go ahead and just buy a tech company. So when Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton announced in March that it had acquired artificial intelligence products developers Springbok AI, it made headlines.

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.

"May you live in interesting times." For immigration lawyers, that old proverb is now a reality. Ever since the start of the second Trump administration, immigration lawyers have been busier than ever, and they have plenty on their plates.

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.

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.

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