Modern Law Library

As both an attorney and judge, Thomas Moukawsher has spent the majority of his career dealing in complex litigation. And the Connecticut Superior Court judge would like to make the legal system—well, less complex.

In this episode of the Modern Law Library, Moukawsher and the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles discuss his ideas and his new book, The Common Flaw: Needless Complexity in the Courts and 50 Ways to Reduce It. Instead of advocating for legislation to simplify the court process, Moukawsher says many of his ideas could be immediately put into practice by judges.

Many of Moukawsher's theories were developed in the wake of having to make changes in court proceedings during the COVID-19 pandemic while court buildings were closed. He says being forced to reexamine the habitual ways cases were heard was actually beneficial. Realizing how much could be conducted remotely gave him confidence that broader systemic changes in that direction are worth trying. One such suggestion is to conduct more jury trials remotely to increase juror numbers and diversity.

The Common Flaw contains many concrete suggestions for lawyers and attorneys to streamline trials, but it was also written to be enjoyed by the public, Moukawsher tells Rawles. To that end, concepts are liberally illustrated with cartoons, and despite having 51 chapters, the book is not doorstopper-length.

Speaking of length, one of Moukawsher's largest concerns is that the length of time many cases drag on decreases public confidence in the legal system as a whole. He says he sees this often in family court, where conflicts that could be handled in weeks stretch out through months or years and can lead to bankruptcy.

He and Rawles also discuss his thoughts on the billable hour; how his ADHD helped him prune away unnecessary flummery in court processes; how he would rethink the job duties of law clerks; and his top tips for not fumbling cross-examinations.

It’s time for the Modern Law Library’s summer recommendations episode, in which host Lee Rawles shares her pop culture picks with you, plus a re-airing of one of our older episodes with current relevance.

This year, that episode is our 2018 interview with Kathryne M. Young about How to Be Sort of Happy in Law School. Young used her background in sociology to gather data from students, alumni, faculty and law-school dropouts on their experiences during and after law school. Based on her findings—and her own experiences as a law student and professor—she offers advice on protecting your mental health; choosing courses and activities to pursue; managing the practical aspects of your household and budget; and forming relationships with mentors and peers. She also discusses how to decide when if it’s time to leave law school altogether.

Rawles also shares some favorites from what she’s been reading, watching and listening to since our 2022 year-end pop culture picks episode.

If you have your own favorite reads so far in 2023, send your recommendations to [email protected] with a brief description, and we may choose to highlight them on our social media.

The year was 1961. Freshly minted attorney James J. Brosnahan had been on the job as a federal prosecutor in Phoenix for two days when he was handed his first trial: a capital murder case. Twelve days into the job, he’d won his first jury trial, and caught the trial bug. (Though to his relief, the two young defendants escaped the death penalty.) For the next six decades, Brosnahan chased every opportunity to present to a jury, in both civil and criminal court.

In his new memoir, Justice at Trial: Courtroom Battles and Groundbreaking Cases, Brosnahan selected 19 of the more than 150 cases he brought before a jury. Each case reflects an issue he sees as being critical to current cultural events, and he feels the losses are as important to share as the victories. He’s fought for press freedom, a woman’s religious right to give sanctuary to undocumented migrants, and for a female corporate chairperson unfairly targeted because of her gender. His international experiences include trying to prevent a client from being framed by dictator Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines, and fighting for justice for assassinated lawyers in Northern Ireland.

In this episode of the Modern Law Library, Brosnahan shares some of these stories with the ABA Journal’s Lee Rawles, elaborating on the most important lessons he’s learned about juries, offering tips for aspiring litigators, and sharing what it was like to be Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s classmate at Harvard Law.

Jane M. Spinak did not set out to write a book arguing for the abolition of family court. She thought she would be making the case for a set of sensible reforms. But the more she dug into the history of the family court system, the previous attempts at reform, and the examples of real world harms the system had caused, the more she began to believe there was no saving it.

In this episode of the Modern Law Library, Spinak speaks with the ABA Journal’s Lee Rawles about her philosophical journey and the writing of her new book, The End of Family Court: How Abolishing the Court Brings Justice to Children and Families.

Spinak walks Rawles through the origins of the family court system at the turn of the 20th century. The movement began with Northern and Midwestern progressives, usually white middle- and upper-class women, who felt there needed to be a way to make the children of recent immigrants into “real Americans.” They also believed, as Spinak does, that adult court was not a place for juvenile offenders.

Over the next century, the purpose and purview of family courts expanded and changed. Today, family court judges may consider juvenile criminal offenses, status offenses, custody cases, adoption, the removal of children from their parents and truancy cases. What has remained constant is the uneven enforcement of child safety laws, which fall primarily on poor and minority families.

“It is doubtless true that many children of the well-to-do are saved from coming before the courts because their families have greater resources and are often able to obtain special care for their children,” reads a report from the Children’s Bureau in the 1930s cited in The End of Family Court. “Whereas the children of the poor are more likely to be referred to courts or committed to institutions when they develop serious behavior problems.”

In this episode, Spinak shares experiences from her four decades in the family law arena, discusses how the children and families impacted by family court are leading movements for change, and explains how family court jurisdictions could shrink as communities step up to support families.

“If you don’t have it in writing, you’re out of luck.” That’s the common wisdom you’ll hear from TV judges, helpful uncles, well-meaning friends and even lawyers in your life. But while getting an agreement in writing is a best practice, in some cases you—or your clients—might have more options than you think to enforce a unwritten agreement.

While the foundational principle of the Statute of Frauds holds that contracts must be written and signed to be enforced, there is a tool to create an exception. This tool is laid out in detail by Paul Golden in his new book, Litigating Constructive Trusts: The Last Resort in Fighting Inquity and Inequity. Golden, who has extensive experience in real estate and trust and estate law, believes far too few attorneys are aware of the potential benefits of constructive trusts.

In this episode of the Modern Law Library, Golden explains the concept of a constructive trust to the ABA Journal’s Lee Rawles. A constructive trust is a “legal fiction,” where (broadly speaking) a judge decides that between two parties with a relationship where trust could be assumed, there has been an egregious betrayal of that trust and an unjust enrichment to the betrayer. The judge can then retroactively declare that even without a written contract, a defendant had a fiduciary duty to the victim, and victim’s property must be returned to them.

“Traitorous partners, gold-digging girlfriends, old ladies being tricked out of preparing a fair will, and plain old murder,” writes Golden in the book. “These have been, and will continue to be, the subjects of constructive trusts. The facts in some constructive trust cases are so outrageous, one often feels like a voyeur, but without the shame.”

Golden explains the special benefits of a constructive trust, as well as defenses that can be made if your client is the subject of a constructive trust claim. Different jurisdictions have different standards for constructive trusts, and Golden and Rawles discuss the state of New York’s 4-prong test in detail. Most constructive trusts are based on case law, but some states do have civil code about them. Golden offers advice to lawyers looking to use a constructive trust argument, and lists common trial issues they might face, including how to convince a judge they have the power to act to avert a deep injustice from continuing.

While directed at young children, a lawyer's book also speaks to lawyers who are moms, letting them know that being both can be a busy but fulfilling life.

As Michelle Browning Coughlin, of counsel at ND Galli Law in Louisville, Kentucky, was raising her two daughters, she wanted her kids to understand what lawyers do. She worried that children only knew the type of lawyers who commonly appeared in courtrooms on television shows.

In his new book, The Supermajority: How the Supreme Court Divided America, Michael Waldman identifies three times the U.S. Supreme Court caused a public backlash against itself—and warns the court may be well along the path to a fourth massive public backlash.

In this episode of the Modern Law Library, Waldman walks the ABA Journal’s Lee Rawles through the prior episodes of backlash, starting with the fallout from the Dred Scott decision in 1857. He explains the “switch in time that saved nine,” when in 1937 the court narrowly avoided President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s plan to change the makeup of the court by unexpectedly upholding the constitutionality of New Deal legislation. And he posits that much of the contentious legal wrangling of the past half-century can be seen as a backlash to the Warren Court’s decisions like Brown v. Board of Education.

Waldman, a constitutional lawyer who is the president and CEO of the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law and a former speechwriter for President Bill Clinton, says that over the period of three days in June 2022, “the Supreme Court changed America.” With decisions overturning Roe v. Wade, loosening gun restrictions and reducing the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency, Waldman argues that the court’s six conservative justices signaled a sea change for the court. He warns that the change from a 5-4 ideological balance to what he terms a “supermajority” of conservative justices will mean a more turbulent relationship between the public and the Supreme Court.

In this episode, Waldman shares his thoughts on the position of Chief Justice Roberts in the new balance, his advice on how the public can respond when the Supreme Court acts in opposition to the public will, and a counter-intuitive theory on why having more former politicians on the Supreme Court might have made the court less politically divisive.

In The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic, University of Texas law professor Stephen Vladeck argues the U.S. Supreme Court is expanding its powers at the expense of the rule of law and public transparency.

A case ordinarily comes before the U.S. Supreme Court after a long appellate process; receives a public hearing where the case is argued before the justices; then a signed opinion or series of opinions and a majority ruling are issued, which generally comes months after oral arguments—and years after a matter first entered the court system. Given the limited length of each Supreme Court term, there has always been the need for an alternative form of response when the court is not in session or a swift response was absolutely necessary. The vast bulk of those occasions have been in capital cases, where a last-minute appeal might be the difference between life and death.

But since 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued many more emergency orders than at any time previously, and on matters ranging from election law to immigration bans, from abortion access to COVID-19 restrictions on public gatherings.

By issuing unsigned majority emergency orders rather than signed majority opinions, Vladeck says the court is establishing precedents without supplying the legal reasonings behind its rulings. During a time when the U.S. Supreme Court and individual justices are being criticized for not abiding by a clear judicial code of ethics, Vladeck argues the secretive nature of the shadow docket will only further undermine public trust in the rule of law.

In this episode of the Modern Law Library, Vladeck discusses with the ABA Journal’s Lee Rawles the origin of the term “shadow docket,” the dangers he sees for the court and the country, and what remedies may be available to the republic.

As chunks of the Berlin Wall were being torn down by jubilant crowds on November 9, 1989, James Silkenat was serving his term as chair of the ABA International Law Section. But he is the first to admit he did not immediately anticipate what that event would mean for the Cold War, or that monumental changes that soon be taking place across Europe and Central Asia. It was that event, however, that spurred discussions within the section about the need to help support countries working to establish a new rule of law. And those discussions would lead to a global volunteer effort spanning more than 100 countries over the next three decades.

In Building the Rule of Law: Firsthand Accounts from a Thirty-Year Global Campaign, dozens of those volunteers share their experiences from what began as the ABA Central European and Eurasian Law Initiative (known as CEELI) in the 1990s to the expansion into the ABA Rule of Law Initiative (known as ROLI), which now operates with five divisions covering Africa; Asia and the Pacific; Europe and Eurasia; Middle East and North Africa; and Latin America and the Caribbean. From fighting gender-based violence in Jordan to advising on judicial ethics in Kazakhstan to advocating for the rights of journalists in Indonesia, ROLI is involved in a myriad of efforts that have been supported by hundreds of volunteers as well as staff.

The first-person narratives in Building the Rule of Law range from heart-rending accounts of helping to catalog war crimes to slapstick misunderstandings in foreign taxi cabs, and were compiled by editors Silkenat and Gerald W. Libby, who is also a past chair of the International Law Section. In this episode of the Modern Law Library, Silkenat speaks about the project of compiling these histories and personal photographs, but also about how he has been changed by his work with ROLI. Silkenat, who served as ABA president from 2013-2014, is still heavily involved in ROLI, and returned from a volunteer trip to Zambia the day before the recording.

 As for why so many lawyers, judges, and even U.S. Supreme Court justices wanted to volunteer their time for ROLI initiatives, Silkenat says there were a number of motivations. "Many saw a chance to help shape legal systems of countries that would later become leading players on the global stage," he told the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles. "Many were motivated, in part, by the interest in public service that originally caused them to go to law school. Other volunteers wanted the chance to experience life abroad with a specific professional goal to accomplish, and finally, many were encouraged to participate by the very persuasive views of CEELI/ROLI's early leaders. If Justice [Sandra Day] O'Connor and Secretary of State [Madeleine] Albright thought this was a good activity, then maybe it was something to be pursued seriously."

In this episode, Silkenat and Rawles also discuss concerns about the strength of the rule of law in the United States, the World Justice Project's tracking of the rule of law around the world (the United States was ranked 26th out of 140 in the group's last report), and opportunities for other legal professionals to become involved in ROLI or other rule of law projects.

Heather Terrell, who writes under the pen name Marie Benedict, has written about novelist Agatha Christie in The Mystery of Mrs. Christie, and in Lady Clementine, she looked back on the life of Winston Churchill’s wife, Clementine Churchill. Now, in her historical novel The Mitford Affair, she has turned her attention to three English sisters—Unity, Nancy and Diana Mitford—with the rise of Nazi Germany as a backdrop.