The act of governing is an exercise of power. Part of the genius of the United States Constitution is that it does not place all the power in a single ruler, but distributes it across three branches – the legislative, which is Congress, the executive, which is the President and federal departments and agencies, and the judicial, which is the federal courts. This is what we call the separation of powers, a fundamental principle of American constitutionalism. And when we talk about checks and balances, we often are talking about how each branch, when necessary, exercises its own power to limit the power of the other two.

The last few years in American politics have given us an advanced course in these basic principles. We’ve seen the House of Representatives exert its impeachment power over the President, only to be stymied by the Senate’s unwillingness to convict. We’ve seen Presidents attempt to circumvent the power of Congress by issuing executive orders to accomplish what Congress was unwilling to do. And we’ve seen the courts exert their power over those Presidents by striking down executive orders that they believed exceeded the Presidents’ authority.

Ultimately, the United States Supreme Court is entrusted with the power to determine whether the legislative or executive branches and even the lower federal courts have exceeded the bounds of their Constitutional powers. In its last term, the Court issued several decisions that have arguably resulted in significant shifts in the balance of power among the three branches. A number of those decisions concern the allocation of power between administrative agencies on the one hand and the federal courts on the other. Another decision which is still making major headlines was the court’s decision in Trump v. United States. There, the Court, for the first time in American history, immunized a former President from criminal prosecution for official acts the former President engaged in during his Presidency.

Last year, Suffolk University Law Professor Renee Landers joined me as my guest on Higher Callings to unpack some of the major decisions from the Court’s 2022 Term. I’m pleased and honored to have Professor Landers back this year to discuss some of these cases from the Court’s most recent term, their implications for the separation of powers, and what they may portend as we enter a new era of single-party control over the federal government.

If you have enjoyed the Higher Callings podcast, you might also enjoy Don's Substack Newsletter, Reflections of a Boston Lawyer, which you can find here: https://donaldfrederico.substack.com/

When you hear the word “lawyer,” what adjectives come to mind? Obnoxious? Over-priced? Untrustworthy? Or maybe skillful? Smart? Respectable? How often when you think of lawyers do you think “loveable?”

Danny Karon is a Cleveland-based lawyer who has branded himself as “Your Loveable Lawyer.” To know Danny is to know that that description works. More familiar to some of us as an accomplished class action lawyer who for years ably led the American Bar Association’s national institute on class actions, Danny has also been teaching class actions and complex litigation to the next generation of lawyers at some of the country’s finest law schools and serving as a television news commentator discussing high profile legal cases.

As “Your Loveable Lawyer,” Danny Karon arms consumers with the knowledge they need to navigate the confusing web of laws that can affect their everyday lives, what Danny calls their “legal wellness.” He does so by packaging complex and often tedious material into short video vignettes that are both accessible and entertaining. And he is working on a book that will draw from his real-life experiences to inform and educate consumers about the same types of issues that are the subject of his helpful videos. What could be more loveable than that?

In this episode of Higher Callings, I talk with Danny about his career as a lawyer, his leadership of the National Institute on Class Actions, his experience as a law school professor, his foray into news commentary, and his “Higher Calling” as “Your Loveable Lawyer.” We also share some thoughts about the practice of law and Danny offers his advice to law students and young lawyers. As always, Danny’s insights reflect his wisdom and his sparkling personality.

Danny's law practice website can be found here, and his "Lovable Lawyer" website can be found here.

As a bonus, here is a link to a live version of "Emotional Weather Report" by Tom Waits, mentioned early in the episode.

If you have enjoyed the Higher Callings podcast, you might also enjoy Don's Substack Newsletter, Reflections of a Boston Lawyer, which you can find here: https://donaldfrederico.substack.com/

In some courts, when a judge retires, their law clerks or others get together and pay an artist to paint the judge's official portrait. When the portrait is ready, there is a ceremony at the courthouse attended by the judge and the judge’s family, the judge’s clerks, other courthouse staff, and the judge’s friends and colleagues. After a number of speeches honoring the judge, the portrait is unveiled and guests stay to get a close up look at it, congratulate the honoree, and indulge in light refreshments. After the event, the portrait is hung in one of the courtrooms where it will remain for many years to come.

A year or so ago I attended just such a ceremony for retired federal bankruptcy court judge Frank Bailey. I’d gotten to know Frank a bit through American Bar Association meetings we’ve attended in recent years, and monthly luncheons of a small group of active and retired Massachusetts lawyers and judges who enjoy each other’s company and lively conversation. Although it was easy for me as a relatively recent acquaintance to discover what a likeable person Frank is, I learned at the unveiling ceremony just how much he is loved and revered by those who have known him much longer and better than I.

At one of our luncheons, Frank told me about some of the work he now leads as President of the Pioneer Public Interest Law Center. The Center is a nonprofit and nonpartisan law firm that, as described in its mission statement, “defends and promotes educational options, accountable government and economic opportunity across the Northeast and around the country.” It does that, in part, by filing lawsuits and friend-of-the-court briefs in cases where Pioneer believes its participation would advance these values the organization was formed to promote. The Law Center is selective in the cases it takes, and only takes cases that it views as important to its public service mission.

A few weeks ago I asked Frank if he’d be willing to appear on the Higher Callings podcast, and he graciously agreed. The conversation you are about to hear gave me an opportunity to learn more about Frank’s background and career, including his work on the United States Bankruptcy Court, his significant roles with the American Bar Association, and the important efforts he now leads as President of the Law Center.

I’m pleased to share with you the delightful conversation I had with this exceptional role model and public servant, retired Judge Frank Bailey.

If you have enjoyed the Higher Callings podcast, you might also enjoy Don's Substack Newsletter, Reflections of a Boston Lawyer, which you can find here: https://donaldfrederico.substack.com/

When a person becomes a lawyer, they take an oath. The oath is often administered in a formal bar admission ceremony. Each year in Massachusetts, many such ceremonies take place at historic Faneuil Hall. The new lawyers and their families hear speeches from judges and bar leaders, and the oath they are required to recite dates back to colonial times. Through it, they pledge to “do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court”; not to participate in the pursuit of “any false, groundless or unlawful” claims; and to conduct themselves “in the office of an attorney with the courts according to the best of [their] knowledge and discretion,” faithful to the courts as well as to their clients. Most states’ attorney oaths also include a commitment to support that state’s constitution and the Constitution of the United States of America.

These promises new attorneys make are lifelong commitments. They are promises to abide by the rule of law, and are vitally important to the strength of our democracy. And they are only the first, but also the most fundamental, of the professional duties lawyers assume in exchange for the privilege of practicing law.

One person who takes the lawyer’s oath most seriously is Scott Harshbarger. Scott has practiced law in Massachusetts for more than 50 years. He has also held high office, including serving as the District Attorney for the largest county in the Commonwealth in the 1980s, and as the two-term Attorney General of Massachusetts in the 1990s.

In 2019, Scott co-founded a nonprofit organization called Lawyers Defending American Democracy, and he continues to chair LDAD’s board. Among other activities, LDAD seeks to hold lawyers accountable when they violate their professional oaths in ways that threaten to undermine democracy and the rule of law.

I recently spoke with Scott about his early influences, his decision to become a lawyer, and his career-long commitment to professionalism as reflected in the oath that lawyers take. Those topics are covered in the first portion of our conversation. At approximately the 56 minute mark, we turn to a discussion of the mission and work of LDAD. Throughout our entire conversation, I never tired of hearing Scott’s perspective of the role of the lawyer in defending our democracy and the work his organization is doing to protect the rule of law.

The following episode is our complete conversation. I encourage you to listen to it in its entirety, even if you need to do it in more than one sitting, as Scott’s inspiring description of his early influences at the beginning of the episode helps to place his values and ideals into an illuminating historical context and demonstrates the roots of his commitment to the work of LDAD that he describes later. And please consider sharing it with your friends, family, and other contacts.

This link will take you to LDAD's website, which sheds a great deal of light on what LDAD is and the extraordinary work it has been doing: https://ldad.org/

If you have enjoyed the Higher Callings podcast, you might also enjoy Don's Substack Newsletter, Reflections of a Boston Lawyer, which you can find here: https://donaldfrederico.substack.com/

Running the Marathon: A Conversation with Tom Grilk

Tom Grilk is a lawyer who began his career in private practice at a major Boston law firm, then worked as in-house counsel at several area tech companies, and, from 2011 until 2022, served as President and CEO of the Boston Athletic Association, the non-profit organization that runs the Boston Marathon. Tom was in that position on April 15, 2013, the day that two bombs exploded at the marathon, immediately killing three people and injuring many more.

In this episode of Higher Callings, Tom and I discuss his career path, the work and mission of the BAA, the history of the Boston Marathon, and the events of that tragic day. His story of how, in 2013, lives were saved by the emergency preparedness of the BAA and all of the agencies, hospitals, healthcare teams, and law enforcement officials responsible for public safety at the event, as well as by the heroics of strangers and passersby who ran towards danger to help the wounded, is both fascinating and inspiring. It’s a lesson in the importance of emergency preparedness, and in the virtues of kindness and self-sacrifice and the nobility of the human spirit.

Tom's essay published in Boston Magazine on the 10th anniversary of the 2013 Marathon bombing can be found here.

If you have enjoyed the Higher Callings podcast, you might also enjoy Don's Substack Newsletter, Reflections of a Boston Lawyer, which you can find here: https://donaldfrederico.substack.com/

The phrase “The Rule of Law” is one we often hear and many of us invoke, but do we have a shared understanding of what it means? And even if we can arrive at a common definition, why does the Rule of Law matter? If it does matter, how well is it faring today in the tumultuous times in which we find ourselves? And where it needs to be defended, who are its champions?

In this episode of Higher Callings, I talk with two champions of the Rule of Law, both of whom do that work through a nonprofit and non-partisan organization called the World Justice Project. Elizabeth (Betsy) Andersen is the Executive Director of WJP, and for several years has been leading WJP’s important and impressive work. Karen Green is a former guest on this podcast, a retired lawyer and judge, and now a mediator. She is a member of WJP’s Rule of Law Leadership Council, focused on bringing WJP’s work to the judiciary and the bar. Together, Betsy and Karen explain the work WJP does and why that work has become highly valued by organizations and governments throughout the world.

You can learn more about the World Justice Project at its website: https://worldjusticeproject.org/

If you have enjoyed the Higher Callings podcast, you might also enjoy Don's Substack Newsletter, Reflections of a Boston Lawyer, which you can find here: https://donaldfrederico.substack.com/

Renee Landers is a Professor of Law at Suffolk University Law School in Boston. She teaches Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, Health Law, and Privacy Law, among other academic pursuits. She also has served in a number of other impressive positions, including a term as President of the Boston Bar Association and another as Chair of the American Bar Association’s Section of Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice. Among her many volunteer activities, Professor Landers has played and continues to play a significant role in the area of judicial ethics in her home state of Massachusetts. And, perhaps most important, she happens to be a great role model for aspiring lawyers.

I’ve known Professor Landers for a number of years and could think of no one I’d rather talk with about some of the most significant decisions issued by the United States Supreme Court in the final weeks before its summer recess, and about the current controversy over whether the Justices should be bound by Congressionally-imposed rules of judicial conduct, as are all other federal judges. I learned a lot from the conversation and I hope you’ll enjoy it as much as I did.

If you have enjoyed the Higher Callings podcast, you might also enjoy Don's Substack Newsletter, Reflections of a Boston Lawyer, which you can find here: https://donaldfrederico.substack.com/

Lauren Stiller Rikleen is a force of nature. An accomplished lawyer and author, past President of the Boston Bar Association, and holder of several leadership positions in the American Bar Association, she now has her own leadership institute and serves as Executive Director of an organization of lawyers devoted to defending American democracy. Lauren also recently served as editor of an inspiring book, presenting the stories of 25 women judges, all of whom, like her, have received the ABA's prestigious Margaret Brent Women Lawyers of Achievement Award.

In this episode of Higher Callings, I talk with Lauren about some of her recent work, including the work of Lawyers Defending American Democracy and the publication of her new book.

You can find the Rikleen Institute website here.

You can find the website for Lawyers Defending American Democracy here.

You can learn more about, and order a copy of, Lauren's latest book, Her Honor: Stories of Challenge and Triumph from Women Judges, here.

If you have enjoyed the Higher Callings podcast, you might also enjoy Don's Substack Newsletter, Reflections of a Boston Lawyer, which you can find here: https://donaldfrederico.substack.com/