Catherine Crier was elected the youngest state judge in Texas in 1984 in addition to serving as a civil litigation attorney, Felony Chief Prosecutor, and Assistant District Attorney. Crier now serves as an anchor for Court TV News. Crier has received numerous awards, including an Emmy from her work “The Predators” which covered mistreatment and violence in nursing homes. During her career in journalism, Crier has worked for CNN, ABC, and Fox News and currently hosts Catherine Crier Live while also working as the Executive Editor and Legal News Specialist for Court TV.

Catherine Crier is the author of the New York Times Bestsellers The Case Against Lawyers and A Deadly Game:The Untold Story of the Scott Peterson Investigation. Crier is passionate about defending America from the extremes of the right wing. She expands on these ideas in her book Contempt:How the Right is Wronging America.Crier is an independent voter who argues for middle ground and the ideals of America’s founding fathers.

You have been extremely successful in your life. You were elected the youngest state judge ever appointed in Texas, won numerous awards for your journalism accomplishments, and wrote two New York Times Bestsellers. What personal characteristics would you most credit for your ability to accomplish what you have?

As a little girl, my parents would tell me, “There is no such thing as can’t”. That was a pretty powerful thought for a child. Years later, I moderated a seminar entitled “Courage to risk—Freedom to fail”. Those two statements sum up my personal attitudes about challenges in life. That and my inability to see over the hill, so fear of the future is somewhat obscured!

Your passion for justice is apparent, what were the key factors in your decision to study law?

I wanted to be a lawyer from the time I was a child. I have always had an extraordinary passion for justice. Like the boy who saw his mother flush his goldfish down the toilet and became a marine biologist, I have my reasons. But maybe something else drove me. My mother used to say “You’d argue with a post. You need a profession that will pay you to do that.” Guess I found it!

What unique challenges did you face being a young, successful, female judge?

I remember a young prosecutor telling me I should be out shopping rather than taking a job from some man who needed to support his family, or the senior partners at a civil firm where I interviewed, asking “If we hire you, what will we tell our wives?”, but by the time I ran for the bench, most of those conversations had disappeared (or I couldn’t hear them any longer). I do remember a law school classmate telling me I was only studying law to find a husband. I reminded him of that the first time he appeared before me in my court. I did it with a big grin. He, however, went quite pale. All I wanted as a judge was to be evaluated on the merits. Once you’re making rulings, the lawyers don’t have much choice.

The career path you have taken is inspiring, what influenced your shift from being a judge to a journalist?

I met a fellow at a Christmas party shortly after I was reelected for my second term on the bench. He was a former recruiter for CBS News. We talked politics all night; my pre-law study was international affairs, government and politics. He called a few weeks later and asked if I might be interested in hosting a political issues show. He thought one of the big ones was about to lose its host. I fell for it. We set up a camera in my living room, and I interviewed two friends of mine who recently had written books. He sent out the tape and within a month, I was doing pilots for two news organizations. Several months later, CNN offered me the evening news with Bernie Shaw. It’s my Schwab drugstore story!

What advice would you offer to those starting out in the field of law?

I sound old fashioned with this advice. Strive to be a counselor to clients. Advise them about resolving their disputes and minimizing their problems. Help them work out difficulties rather than run to the courthouse. Finally, hold on to idealism about doing justice, no matter how much the actual system will try to beat it out of you.

What or who was your biggest motivator starting out? As a child, I was enamored with Atticus Finch (what future lawyer was not?)

Later, my first boss, legendary Dallas District Attorney, Henry Wade, was certainly the motivator. Judge R. T. Scales (yes, that was his name), was justice personified. Later, Gail Evans, the head of programming at CNN, took me under her wing, but I always kept my law license in my back pocket, figuratively speaking, so I could return to the practice if need be.

Obviously being a an Assistant District Attorney, Felony Chief Prosecutor and State District Judge have influenced your journalism and writing successes. Please tell me about how this foundation influenced your later endeavors.

Years in the field of litigation are good preparation for anyone wanting to use organization, rational thought and (aggressive) argument to pursue issues, goals and ideals. I have witnessed many social and legal injustices. My political activities have shown me many others. I have no doubt that this foundation gave me the courage to speak out about issues that concern me. My passions have been consolidated in the field of journalism, and this prior experience has helped immensely.

Congratulations on both your New York Times Bestsellers, The Case Against Lawyers and A Deadly Game. Please tell me what prompted you to write your latest, A Deadly Game?

During the Scott Peterson case, I was leaked an amazing amount of material. The case captured the attention of the nation, yet so much would never come out during the trial process. I realized I had to write a book that would give people a truly inside look at this murder investigation.

Of your many awards and achievements, which was the most impacting for you?

Another saying I remember from earlier years is essentially, “What have you done for me today?” When something wonderful occurs, an award or recognition, my first thought is, “what next?” Time to move on. I must admit that when my first book, The Case Against Lawyers, hit the New York Times Bestseller list, it was a truly exhilarating experience. This was ’my first child’, and this book really sums up who I am, and what my personal philosophy is all about.

Please tell me a little about your motivation for your last book Contempt: How the Right is Wronging American Justice.

I am devoted to this amazing justice system handed down by our founding fathers. I have been horrified to see the politicization of this institution. When the far right attempted to thwart every legal step during the Terri Schiavo case, I decided to write Contempt. I wanted people of all political persuasions to understand what they were endangering by using elected officials to manipulate the court system for political gain. This fear has not diminished.

You have expressed that you see our country shifting from the intentions of our founding fathers, what do you see as the most prominent alteration?

The Rule of Law was meant to insure that all Americans were protected within our justice system. In Contempt, I addressed attacks on the judiciary. In The Case Against Lawyers, I talked more about how lawyers, lobbyists and legislators were abusing this principle for their own benefit. Those who can make, manipulate and selectively enforce the law can become ’King George’. If we do not return to a democracy designed to serve all the people, we will abdicate to an oligarchy. If we do not recall the broad guarantees of rights for a diverse population that reside in our Bill of Rights, we may verge on a theocracy.

What do you see America looking like if the Far Right takes over?

If any religious or philosophical group were to rewrite the Bill of Rights we would be in serious trouble. Democracy can be messy. Freedom is sometimes unruly. But it is spectacular in all that chaos. The Far Right has a clear vision of how they see this country, her people and our future. Unfortunately, it leaves little room for those who disagree with this group to express themselves. Tolerance is more than a shake of the head that some poor soul will go to Hell for not accepting its doctrines. Tolerance is the act of making room for different points of views and practices as an integral part of a single society. I wrote a ’modified’ Bill of Rights in Contempt that set out the changes I imagine if the Far Right succeeds in the political and judicial changes they are seeking.

What do you see as the key component in halting this occurrence?

People need to reread the Bill of Rights and Constitution. This Democracy is sustained not by elected officials, but by an active citizenry. As long as those documents are still in play, we can use the power of the ballot box to insure that our representatives respect and actively defend this system of government. If we, and I must include the media, refuse to wield the power granted us, we will get the government we deserve. The empowering of the executive branch in the last six years is of great concern to me. The Congress has abdicated its stated powers in many respects. The media has been cowed to some degree, and the judiciary is becoming increasingly politicized. I can only hope it is not too late to reverse these frightening trends. The vast majority of citizens are a tolerant, moderate people who do not condone extreme agendas from the far right or left. It would serve the country well if this ’Silent Majority’ would reenergize itself politically.

What book or project is occupying your time now?

I am writing a book on the Susan Polk murder case called ’Final Analysis’.This case was particularly intriguing because of the extraordinary psychological family dynamic. As a young girl, Susan became a therapy patient of a much older Felix Polk. She later became his wife. After twenty-five years of marriage, she stabbed him to death. She represented herself at trial wherein two sons testified for the State, and the third stood by her. Susan was recently convicted of second degree murder. This book is almost finished, and I have another political book in the making which I hope to have on the shelves by late 2007.

What is an important piece of advice you would give to Americans today?

Every American cherishes the dream passed on to us by the brave men and women that created this glorious experiment in governance. We must understand that there are no guarantees that this young country will forever reflect the amazing principles in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. We must be as willing today, as our founders were so long ago, to defend vigorously the freedoms we now so often take for granted. •

“Linda Greenhouse is the nation’s preeminent authority on the thinking and actions of the U.S. Supreme Court.” declared Alex Jones, director of the Shorenstein Center announcing that she would receive the Goldsmith Career Award for Excellence in Journalism from the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government.

Ms. Greenhouse began her career at The New York Times in 1968. She has been reporting on the Supreme Court since 1978 with the exception of a two-year period in which she reported on Congress. She writes about the fascinating and diverse topics at the forefront of America’s justice system such as: abortion, death row issues, assisted suicide, gun laws, use of hallucinogenic tea by a religious group, eminent domain, medical marijuana use, trial of terrorist detainees, the court in transition, and individual justices.

Ms. Greenhouse won a Pulitzer Prize in 1998 for her “consistently illuminating” coverage of the Supreme Court. She graduated from Radcliff College and received a Master of Studies in Law from Yale Law School. She also received an honorary Doctor of Humane Letters from Brown University. Among other awards, she has received the John Chancellor Award for Excellence in Journalism from the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania.

She has been a regular panelist of Washington Week on PBS since 1980. Additionally, she has been an invited lecturer at such prestigious venues as Duke University Law School, State University of New York, Harvard Law School, Indiana University School of Law, Brown University, and Columbia.

In 2005 she published her first book, Becoming Harry Blackmun: Harry Blackmun’s Supreme Court Journey to acclaim such as this from Vernon Ford in the American Library Association’s Booklist:

Greenhouse, a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter with the New York Times, was the first print reporter to have access to the personal and official papers of Justice Blackmun, who died in 1999, five years after retiring from the Supreme CourtGreenhouse draws on personal papers to show Blackmun’s personal journey, from entries in a childhood diary to the musings of a young lawyer hungering for partnership. This is an absorbing look at the personal and official concerns of a man who helped to shape American law and society.

and from Harvard legal scholar Laurence Tribe:

Greenhouse, in a jewel fully worthy of her reputation as the best journalist ever to have covered the work of the Supreme Court, proves to be as able a biographer as she is a reporter. ’Becoming Justice Blackmun’ is a brilliant and penetrating study of how unsought challenge and controversy can, in the most modest of men, bring out a measure of true greatness.

How did you initially become interested in journalism? Did you grow up among readers and writers?

I did not grow up among writers, but I certainly did grow up among readers. I grew up in Hamden, Conn., outside New Haven. My household was somewhat unusual in receiving the New York Times every day. My mother was a New Yorker with a lively interest in public affairs. My father was a doctor who was also interested in what was going on in the world. So I certainly got the idea early on that journalism was an honorable and interesting activity. I started writing for a school newspaper in junior high school.

You have been an insider with a fascinating view of an entity that affects the lives of us all. You are engaged in scholarly and serious business. Have you found instances of humor along the way?

Humor – I’m sure I’ve heard the occasionally witty quip, but I don’t think of myself as working in particularly humor-filled surroundings. Justice Antonin Scalia has a reputation as a wit, but I find that his wit too often comes at the expense of the lawyers who are just trying to get through their arguments; I don’t find it particularly amusing.

How did you join “The New York Times” and what led you to begin covering the Supreme Court in 1978?

I joined the New York Times as an intern right out of college in 1968. James Reston, the columnist, hired a new college graduate every year to do research and other tasks for him. I was lucky enough to get hired. After my year, I became a reporter on the metropolitan desk in New York. I was eventually sent to our Albany bureau, covering the governor and legislature in the New York State capital. I was bureau chief for two years there, 1976 and 1977, and then asked for a transfer to Washington. I thought I might cover Congress, but the paper needed someone at the court, so that was my new assignment.

Please tell us about your book “Becoming Justice Blackmun: Harry Blackmun’s Supreme Court Journey.”

My book grew out of a series of articles I wrote for the Times in March 2004, when Justice Blackmun’s voluminous collection of papers opened to the public at the Library of Congress. The Blackmun family had given me a two-month head start in the collection so that I could write a coherent account of his life without having to go through 500,000 documents on a daily deadline.

Did you discover anything that surprised you about Justice Blackmun’s personality or how he reached his decisions?

There was much that surprised me, because he left a very lengthy diary that he started at the age of 11 and wrote in until he was in his 30’s. So I got a pretty intimate look at the man and his personality. I was particularly surprised by the intensity of his friendship with his childhood friend, Warren Burger, who later became chief justice.

You lecture about the Supreme Court and its relationship to modern culture. How do the Supreme Court justices gain their perceptions of everyday life and an understanding of the effects of their rulings?

The justices don’t necessarily have a very astute view of the impact of their rulings. But they live pretty normal lives – they drive their own cars and live in their own houses; their salaries are not huge, and they live on the economy in an expensive city. So in that sense, they are not as sheltered as some of our more political policy-makers. But basically they learn about the cases from the briefs.

Being a long time scholar and observer of the Supreme Court, how do you feel the events of September 11 and the subsequent anthrax threat affected the Supreme Court Justices and their view of the world?

Certainly the events of 9/11 had an impact on the justices but as we can see from their decisions in cases like Hamdi, Rasul, and last month, Hamdan, they retained the ability to assess the situation as judges in our constitutional tradition.

There have been drastic changes in the makeup of the Court recently. What is your analysis of the change, and changes to come, in the dynamics and style of the Court?

I wouldn’t say there have been “drastic” changes. Two new justices arrived during the last term – the first time since 1971 that there have been two new members of the court during a single term. The Roberts court is obviously a work in progress. It will evolve over time. I wrote in the Times in my assessment of the term that John Roberts is in charge but not yet in control, because Justice Kennedy holds the balance of power on many important cases. Stylistically, the arguments are a bit more relaxed and I think the justices are talking to one another more at conference than they did under the tight leadership of Chief Justice Rehnquist.

What do you perceive to be the hottest issues coming up to the court and can you give us any predictions?

The hottest issues are abortion and affirmative action. The court will revisit the “partial birth” abortion issue in the new term, and will hear two cases, one from Louisville and the other from Seattle, on the permissible use of race in drawing district lines in public school systems. I don’t make predictions.

How do you feel televising Supreme Court hearings would impact the court?

I think the biggest impact television would have would be to make the justices recognizable to the general public. That’s why I don’t think it will happen.

How do you prepare for your sessions as a panelist on PBS ’s Washington Week?

I don’t prepare specifically for Washington Week. I am invited on the show to talk about something that I have covered that week, so it doesn’t take extra preparation.

Please tell us about the Schlesinger Library on the History of American Women at Harvard’s Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study and your work on the advisory committee.

The Schlesinger Library holds the most extensive collection on women’s history in the United States. It is used by researchers from around the world, and is a wonderful institution. It is part of the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, the successor institution to Radcliffe College, my alma mater. As a member of the library’s council (as it is now called, no longer the advisory committee) I go to meetings twice a year at which we discuss issues facing the library, including priorities in collecting and trends in current scholarship.

What prompted you to write about the recent tragic incident involving Barbero at the Preakness Stakes?

The editors of the Week in Review section, knowing that I am a longtime racing fan, had the idea of inviting me to write a little essay on that sad event, and I was happy to be able to accept.

What do you do when you find yourself with “free” time?

I like to spend time with my husband and 20-year-old daughter. We are visiting friends in the Adirondacks in upstate New York this summer. My sister, who is an anthropology professor at Princeton, has a house on Martha’s Vineyard, and we always try to get there as well. I enjoy travel and go to Mexico every winter with a group of women friends. We go to a spa and have a good time for a week.

With the success of your first book, what book might we look forward to next?

I don’t have another book in the works. My day job covering the court is quite consuming. If another fascinating project fell into my lap, I would certainly consider it, but I’m not out looking for one. •

by Kathleen M. Reade

Dr. Earl E. Hansen, CIE , is an Associate Professor at Northern Illinois University. He teaches Safety Studies in the Department of Technology, College of Engineering and Engineering Technology in DeKalb, Illinois.

He is a safety professional in the broad field of occupational safety with concentrations in ergonomics, risk management, crisis management, and transportation.

He has been very active in the American Society of Safety Engineers, National Association of Industrial Technologists, the National Safety Council and the American Driver and Traffic Education Association for many years. He is a Certified Industrial Ergonomist, Certified Hazard Control Manager, and Certified Safety Executive. He is author of many study guides and journal articles and is in great demand as a professional association seminar presenter. As founder of Ergonomics and Human Factors Associates, he has extensive experience as a consultant in the areas of safety and ergonomics.

His vitae lists the following courses that he has developed and taught: Systems Analysis in Safety, Legal Aspects of Safety, Ergonomics, Mine Safety Management, Applied Ergonomics, Toxicology for Industry, Industrial Ventilation, Agriculture Safety, Plant Layout & Material Handling, Institutional Safety, Fire Safety Engineering, Ethics, Safety Engineering Analysis, Transportation Systems, Design and Administration of Industrial Safety Programs, Human Factors in Industrial Accident Prevention, Behavioral Factors in Safety, Risk Management and Disaster Preparedness. He also teaches a variety of courses in the areas of safety and security, compliance, regulation, etc.

Question: Please identify your primary audience, or student population.
Response: The largest number we have are undergraduate students majoring in the area of occupational safety. The graduate (MS) population; for the most part, are working full time (usually in safety or a related area such as health care, Human Resources, etc) and take one or two courses a semester in their pursuit of a Master’s Degree. On occasion we will get a PhD candidate from Psychology that takes a graduate level course in Human Factors. NIU has an extensive out reach program and numerous courses are offered off campus in the greater Chicago area, on line or via TV as well as on the main campus in DeKalb.

Question: What type of work do your students go on to do?
Response: It runs a wide spectrum from sales, compliance (EPA, OSHA ), consulting, to companies and organizations in the following industries: insurance, transportation, agriculture, construction, retail as well as on to higher education such as going on to PhD and university teaching, military civilian employment (DOD), health care, and have job specific functions in industrial hygiene, ergonomics, risk management, loss control, safety engineering, etc.

Question: How does the study of legal issues benefit in their careers?
Response: It gives them a bigger picture of the legal ramifications of doing business. It takes them past basic worker compensation and product liability issues and on to ethical considerations in doing their job. Consequently they are better prepared to move into upper management and corporate positions related to the broad field of Occupational Safety, Health, Industrial Hygiene, Ergonomics and Security.

Question: Please provide a description of your classes and how you incorporate legal issues into class material and discussions.
Response: This is a tough one, as we teach such a wide area of courses in the broad area of Occupational Safety. I will try to present this in both a broad concept and a course specific concept. From the broad perspective point of view one’s need to understand that the areas listed below are the broad areas of concentration a student (undergraduate as well as a graduate) can concentrate in. They are:

1. Occupational Safety in the broadest perspective that includes a wide variety of courses selected from the other areas below. The areas that follow are specific in content and students in these areas will take a higher concentration of courses in the area of choice then those in this area.
   
2. Industrial Hygiene
   
3. Ergonomics
   
4. Homeland Security, Disaster Preparedness and Crisis Management
   

The following courses are required of all majors: Standards and Regulations and the introduction to Occupational Safety and Health. Both courses are sophomore level.

The Human Factors and Accident Prevention course is required of all Technology majors and is a senior level course. This course touches on Worker Compensation, Product Liability, and Legal Issues that relate to occupational safety in the work place. The major concentration is in human error as it relates to accidents with specific content in the in the risks found in general industry, construction, health care and transportation.

“Legal Aspects of Safety” goes in depth into the legal issues related to worker compensation and product liability. It also covers other legal issues that are common in the work place.

The courses that are in the Risk Management area (Risk Management and the Crisis Management, Homeland Security and Disaster Preparedness related courses) cover points of law that relate to specific content areas in the various courses.

Question: Do you teach regulation compliance? If so, how do you balance teaching regulation compliance and legal responsibility because an industrial site can be in compliance and still have a lawsuit filed against it?
Response: While compliance standards are covered, the emphasis is on “Best Practices” and it is noted that standards are only minimum requirements. The role of the organization and its management is covered from a legal point of view in the Risk Management content courses as well as in the “Legal Aspects in Safety “course.

Question: How do human factors enter into an engineering and safety curriculum?
Response: Human Error is by far the leading cause of injuries, illness, and fatalities in industry. Consequently students receive instruction in the cybernetics aspects of accidents, etc. in order to give the students an understanding of how accidents and incidents occur.

Question: In your experience with human factors do you see a need for the plethora of warnings seen on virtually every consumer or commercial product?
Response: From the CYOA perspective that exists because of a suit happy society yes. The one thing that has to be kept in mind that no matter how “idiot proof” one makes something, there is always a better idiot that will come along and by pass the system.

Question: If not, how would you change the system of warnings?
Response: Until society in the USA begins to hold individuals accountable for the actions and ceases to continually go after the “deep pocket” groups, it is best to warn and hope that such a warning is deemed adequate in protecting the individual from injury if the instructions and warnings are followed. While training, education, and physical barriers along with no go systems are used, constant supervision of workers is almost impossible. I have stories of how workers have gone out of their way to break safety rules and regulations and how the organization they work for has paid dearly for stupid and deliberate unsafe behavior of workers. The misuse of products by users continues to be an issue. That is not to say that there are not products on the market that should be withdrawn or redesigned. One example of a manufacturer’s ignorance (I prefer the term to that of stupidity) was the lawn dart game with pointed metal points on the tip of the dart that was to be thrown into plastic circles placed in the yard. There were numerous cases of children being injured while playing the game.

Needless to say, the legal ramifications of the design of equipment, tools, machines, vehicles, furniture, toys, and health care products have improved due to the legal ramifications of producing unsafe items.

Question: What industry trends have you seen in response to legal issues?
Response: Better warning signs, improved working conditions, ergonomically and human factor consideration in design and communications of potential hazards and dangers in using/misusing an item.

Question: Please give us an overview of Safety Engineering.
Response: First of all the term is used in various applications. The majority of the members of the American Society of Safety Engineers are not engineers. In essence the broad field of safety uses the terms engineer and technician as one and the same until they get to very technical aspects. An example of having and using ones degree in engineering to examine a safety issue would be the amount of stress it takes to have a material collapse. That engineer may be a material engineer, mechanical engineer, or a technician (depending upon the latter’s training and experiences).

Question: What is your opinion on the recent Sago mine incident?
Response: Management exposing workers to risk due to the drive to turn a profit and not take the time to perform the appropriate risk assessments for the environment they were working in. In essence, management not wanting to spend money on basic safety needs. This opinion is based on the cursory amount of information that has come out at this time. Upon the completion of the MSHA investigation one will have a better grasp of what has occurred and why. •

Paul Levine’s life has been one adventure after another, affording him ample writing material. His edge and humor pervade his work. He has been a trial lawyer, law professor, and newspaper reporter, and is now a full time crime thriller novelist. Additionally, he has written for television, most notably, over 20 episodes for the hit series JAG . He was also a creator and producer of First Monday, a television series based on his Supreme Court thriller, 7 Scorpions.

His latest book, Kill All the Lawyers is to be published in September. His current book, The Deep Blue Alibi is the second in a series featuring lawyers Victoria Lord and Steve Solomon, who draw much of their personality and chemistry from Paul and his wife Rene, a trial lawyer. They met in court and even though they were representing the same client, Paul says they bickered constantly. Publishers weekly has proclaimed The Deep Blue Alibi, “A smart, enjoyable page-turner, Levine once again supplies plenty of quirky characters and witty banter.” The characters have drawn comparisons in their relationship and contentious interaction to Katherine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy as well as Cybil Sheperd and Bruce Willis of Moonlighting fame. Paul has written a pilot script for a possible series.

In describing the impetus for his work, Paul was quoted in an interview for his Alma Mater, Penn State, “Even though ’The Deep blue Alibi’ and ’Solomon vs. Lord’ are fiction, real events and real people inspire the work. I practiced law in front of curmudgeonly judges, and I knew lawyers who could shake your hand and pick your pocket at the same time. There were also judges who were absolutely hilarious, some without meaning to be.”

Paul has also written 7 novels featuring Jake Lassiter, “a second-string linebacker turned night school lawyer.” The first one, To Speak for the Dead, inspired an NBC movie, and the novels have been published in 23 countries. They were touted by The New York Times Book Review as “Irreverent genuinely clevergreat fun.”

1. Please tell us about your litigation experience and how it shaped your writing.

I practiced law for 17 years in Miami. I was a trial lawyer, mostly in the gargantuan firm of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius. Before I went to law school, I was a newspaper reporter for The Miami Herald, where I covered criminal court. I think both experiences contributed to my general cynicism about what Steve Solomon calls the “so-called justice system.” I make a distinction between “justice,” which is an ideal—and one seldom realized—and the “law,” which is the mechanism for attempting to achieve that idea.

2. Did your experience as a legal professional enhance your research and writing endeavors?

A trial lawyer is a storyteller. To that extent, trying cases is excellent preparation. Just ask John Grisham and Scott Turow. Or Lisa Scottoline and Linda Fairstein. Or James Grippando and Steve Martini. Or, if he’ll respond from the beyond, Erle Stanley Gardner.

3. Would you encourage more legal professionals to write, either non-fiction or fiction?

I would discourage all lawyers from writing courtroom novels laced with humor…as I would like to corner that field for myself. Non-fiction is another story. But please, not another dozen books about the Scott Peterson trial.

4. Please tell us about your television and screenwriting experience.

I wrote 22 episodes of “JAG,” the Navy show on CBS . I got to land on an aircraft carrier and steer a submarine (for about 30 seconds). All told, I figure I’ve spent more time in the military than President Bush. I also co-created “First Monday,” the Supreme Court show that was a spectacular failure. We had a great cast (James Garner, Joe Mantegna, Charles Durning), but we couldn’t make the show both realistic and interesting. The reason why may be that the Supreme Court is not, in reality, a very dramatic place. I just co-wrote the “Solomon vs. Lord” pilot for CBS …but in an obvious oversight, the network did not pick up the series. I get the rights back in September and will take the books out again. Fun, though writing the pilot. Challenging, too. Boiling down a 500 page book to a 60 page script that would play in 44 minutes.

5. Please describe the Authors at Sea experience. Are you involved in book signings and other author/reader activities?

Great time. Twenty-five authors, 450 readers. Lots of panels, signings, three ports in Mexico. I do a lot of speaking, including some lawyers’ groups. Last week, I did a panel at the Edgars Week symposium in New York. The subject was “Let’s Kill All the Lawyers…Before They Write.” The title was serendipitous. My next book is “Kill All the Lawyers,” out in September from Bantam. After the panel, I appeared on Catherine Crier Live on Court TV. As you probably know, Catherine was a fine trial lawyer and judge in Texas.

6. Early in your writing career did you practice law and write, if so how did you divide your time?

I didn’t start writing until the waning days of my legal career. I started as therapy, creating a pro football player turned lawyer, Jake Lassiter. He’d do things I wouldn’t do…like punch out a witness. Not that I haven’t wanted to.

7. When and how did your first writing become published? Did you have an agent from the beginning of your writing career?

1990 “To Speak for the Dead” was my first novel. Yes. I sent query letters, then the manuscript to lasso an agent.

8. Please tell us about how you became interested in law and in writing.

Covering the courts for The Miami Herald directly led to my going to law school. Trying cases looked like fun. Of course, I didn’t see the prep work. Once I became disenchanted with the practice, writing funny courtroom mysteries was cheaper than a shrink.

9. Please tell us about your characters Steve Solomon and Victoria Lord, featured in SOLOMAN VS LORD and your new book, THE DEEP BLUE ALIBI.

Here’s the set-up for the series in a nutshell: “Solomon vs. Lord” is a character-driven, battle-of-the-sexes romantic mystery featuring two young lawyers who love/hate each other. Steve Solomon, 33, and Victoria Lord, 28, can’t agree on “good morning,” much less the definition of due process. But life sizzles when they’re together and fizzles when they’re apart. In short, a 21st Century “Moonlighting in the Courtroom,” a courtroom novel with pizzazz and spark, but grounded in the realities of the legal system.

10. Please tell us about some of the humorous experiences you encountered while practicing law.

Here’s one. In my first year of practice, I was trying a case before a colorful old judge in Miami. A civil case…something so boring a juror fell asleep in my closing argument. I whispered to the judge: “Your Honor. Number three is snoring.” And the judge replied. “So? You put him to sleep. You wake him up.”

11. Where do your plot and character ideas come from?

Imagination. Experience. Delusions.

12. What resources do you use for research?

Lexis. General Internet. Los Angeles Public Library.

13. What advice would you give aspiring writers?

Read everything you can. And start writing write, write, write.

Scott Turow is considered by some as the father of the modern legal thriller. He achieved literary fame in 1977 with the publication of "One L: An Inside Account of Life in the First Year at Harvard Law School". Before attending Harvard, he earned a master's degree in creative writing at Stanford University.

In 1987 Turow burst onto the literary scene with "Presumed Innocent", which became an international bestseller and is often credited with creating popular demand for legal thrillers. Later this book was made into a hit movie starring Harrison Ford as the prosecutor Rusty Sabich. Turow has followed this breakout success with a string of best sellers.

Turow served as an assistant U.S. Attorney in Chicago in the 1980’s when the FBI and Justice Department conducted Operation Greylord. This operation was a massive undercover investigation into judicial corruption in Chicago's Cook County. Fifteen local judges, and 49 lawyers were convicted. Turow prosecuted one of the most notorious judges, who received an 18-year prison sentence. After service in the Attorney General's office, he entered private practice with the Chicago law firm of Sonnenschein, Nath, and Rosenthal.

The action in Turow's most recent project, "Ordinary Heroes", moves from the courtroom to the battlefields of World War II. When retired newspaperman Stewart Dubinsky (last seen in 1987’s Presumed Innocent) discovers letters his deceased father wrote during his tour of duty in WWII , a host of family secrets come to light. The characters and situations portrayed in Turow's newest suspense novel are inspired in part by stories and letters shared by his father, who was an army physician.

Recently, Mr. Turow took time to visit about his career, and his thoughts on the modern judicial process.

Please tell us about your law practice and how you divide your time between the law firm and writing.

Turow: These days I am more writer than lawyer. I have practiced part time since roughly 1990, but I spend only about 300 hours a year now in legal work. Most days I write in the mornings, and as that peters out, turn my attention to the phone, or email, or else go into the office downtown. My practice is divided between criminal representation and my work as chair of the Illinois Executive Ethics Commission, A quasi-judicial agency involved with regulation and discipline of state executive branch employees.

Please tell us about your background and when you first realized you wanted to write, and practice law.

Turow: I realized I wanted to write and practice law when I realized I wasn't going to support myself as a writer. In 1974 I had the choice of teaching, going to Hollywood for a studio staff job, going into advertising, or going to law school, with the promise that I'd find some way to continue to write. I chose the latter path.

You do pro bono work, and have had fund raising book events; what types of charitable activities are you involved in, and what is your philosophy?

Turow: I'm involved in a variety of charitable activities. I'm a trustee at Amherst College, a member of the Council of the Author's Guild, and active with several local charities, including Literacy Chicago.

As a “baby boomer” born in 1949, how do you feel the events of the 60's may have shaped you, and possibly the “boomer” generation?

Turow: The 60’s were basically a statement that our parent's world would not do and that there had to be fundamental changes. I am one of those who thinks those years changed our way of life so much that for those who come later it's impossible to even understand it. There was, to use a term that came much later, a paradigm shift.

Please tell us about some of your favorite characters, and if you have a favorite among your books.

Turow: No favorite book B it is like naming a favorite child, truly impossible – but I'm especially attached to Sandy Stern and Sonny Klonsky.

Your latest book, Ordinary Heroes, is a novel about a man’s decisions and actions during World War II. Please tell us a little about researching and writing material for the military versus civilian life and systems.

Turow: "Ordinary Heroes" was a gigantic research project that began with my father's letters home from the European front and went in a zillion different directions; histories of the OSS , of Negro troops, or the JAG department, to reading the 1943 Edition of the Rules of Court-Martials and literally hundreds of narratives of the war, ranging from Robert Kotlowitz's "Before Their Time" to many internet postings.

Can you explain how you achieve the balance of thoughtfulness and mystery to achieve the compelling scenarios?

Turow: There's no formula. I love the plot, so forward movement is essential, but reflection is also indispensable in creating a believable world, at least one that's believable to me.

How do you organize your writing, from beginning to end, or in certain segments, and approximately how long does it take to craft each one of your manuscripts?

Turow: Each novel since "Presumed Innocent" has been published three years after its predecessor, but that time has not always been spent the same way. For example, I finished a non-fiction book about the death penalty, "Ultimate Punishment", in the interval between "Ordinary Heroes" and "Reversible Errors". But I always start by just letting myself go and writing something different each morning. I'll write "all over the book" as I put it, at first snatches of dialogue, a scene I like, a character's background. Nothing organized. Eventually it becomes more whole in my mind. I do a "draft" which involves inserting blocks of the previously written material in some order. Then I write a continuous draft.

Have you ever actually tried a big case? What did you like the most about such trials? What did you like the least?

Turow: There's a question that makes me laugh, since there was a time when I was a relatively prominent trial lawyer in this city. As an Assistant U. S. Attorney, I tried dozens of jury cases, the best known probably being the prosecution of a Reginald Holzer, a sitting judge, and former candidate for the Illinois Supreme Court, who was convicted of extortion and bribery. I was also the Junior Prosecutor on the trial of William J. Scott, then the Attorney General of Illinois.

Trial is the most consuming activity I have ever been involved in, which is what's so great and what's so awful about it. Life has few moments, aside from a birth, that are more dramatic than the instant before the jury renders a verdict in a major case; history is about to be made.

What did you do to prepare your self mentally for the trial of the case?

Turow: I haven't tired a case in five years now, but I was by my own admission a maniac. I tried to imagine every conceivable permutation of events that might occur at trial and then be ready for it.

What role do paralegals play in your practice of law?

Turow: Large. I've worked with some great ones. Carolyn Dixon at the U.S. Attorney's Office. Mary Kramer and Lynette Johnson at Sonnenschein. I – and several thousand documents – would have been lost without those great professionals.

What do you think of the jury system in America, if you could make any changes, what would you think would make for a better jury system?

Turow: I'm mildly skeptical about juries, but I'm not really sure that judges are any better. It might be interesting to try the system in Vermont, a Judge and two jurors to decide a case.

What role should redemption play in applying a death sentence?

Turow: The defendant's capacity for redemption has traditionally been recognized as a prime consideration in determining whether a death sentence is warranted.

Do you think there is a constitutional right for the government to spy on US citizens without court oversight?

Turow: I had thought it was established by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1972 that the Government could not eavesdrop on private conversations within the United States without a warrant. Then again, I also thought that the Government could not take an American citizen into custody on our soil and hold him incommunicado, including without counsel – until I heard about Jose Padilla.

Perhaps I am wrong about the Constitution, but I doubt it. I think this will be remembered as a shameful period, in which we allowed Osama Bin Laden to diminish our freedoms, a victory he never deserved.

This project would not have been possible without input from the many attorneys and paralegals across the US who contributed ideas and suggestions for this article, in particular Susan Whatley, attorney with Nix Patterson and Roach.