Dangerous Leaders
How and Why Lawyers Must Be Taught to Lead
Anthony C. Thompson



A New Vision of Leadership for Lawyers

TAYLOR MATTHIAS WILLIAMS could not breathe at birth. Born three months premature, Taylor depended on a ventilator to keep him breathing and a heart monitor to track his vital signs. This is not unusual for premature babies. But Taylor’s situation was particularly precarious. Taylor was born in Flint, Michigan, in 2016. His mother had bathed in Flint’s contaminated water throughout her pregnancy; she had contracted listeria, which caused the premature birth. Following the delivery, doctors tested Taylor and detected lead in his bloodstream. Children are especially vulnerable to lead poisoning because it attacks the developing brain and central nervous system. Exposure can cause behavioral disorders, cognitive difficulties, and other developmental problems. Right now, it is still too soon to say whether Taylor will experience these health effects,1 but he and his family will face, at a minimum, years of worry and possibly a lifetime of suffering. It is a heartbreaking story but one among thousands arising from the water crisis in Flint. And these stories move from heartbreaking to disturbing to infuriating as we realize that they are all rooted in the financial decisions and leadership failures of men and women who not only should have known better but should have done better.

The political choice to prioritize budget cuts over citizens’ health returns as a theme throughout the events triggering the water contamination in Flint. In 2011, an audit conducted by the State of Michigan’s Department of the Treasury projected a $25 million budget deficit for the city of Flint, inciting the State of Michigan to place Flint’s finances under the control of an emergency manager answering to the governor. The emergency manager’s mandate was to cut the budget at any cost. Flint’s water supply alone accounted for $9 million of the deficit. Officials had been using some of that money to cover shortfalls in the general fund. To reduce the water fund shortfall, the city switched in 2014 from paying Detroit for water supplied from Lake Huron to drawing water from the Flint River. The state treasurer, Andrew Dillon, applauded the decision, saying it would bring “desperately needed” savings.2 Government officials intended this move as a stopgap measure until a pipeline connecting Flint to water from Lake Huron could be completed.

But the Flint River, running through town, was known to local residents for the filth and waste polluting it. Almost immediately after the changeover occurred, residents noticed a murky color and odor to their water and complained to city officials, who insisted the water was safe. Soon after, the city detected bacteria and other disease-causing organisms contaminating the water and took steps to add chlorine to the system. Five months after the chlorine “fix,” experts discovered a buildup of a cancer-causing byproduct of mixing chlorine and organic matter. Then, in June 2015, an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report warned of high levels of lead in Flint water, and a study conducted by the Hurley Medical Center revealed that the number of children with elevated lead levels in their blood had nearly doubled after the city altered its water source. In July, a spokesperson for the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality stated in a media interview that “anyone who is concerned about lead in the drinking water in Flint can relax.”3 Later that month, the governor’s chief of staff sent an email to the state health department indicating that Flint residents were rightfully concerned about lead in the water and “they are basically getting blown off by us (as a state we’re not sympathizing with their plight).”4 The health department responded that their data showed no increase in lead poisoning.5

In October, the local General Motors plant refused to use the river water because it was rusting car parts.6 So the city arranged for the company to tap into a different water line. Meanwhile, Flint residents still had to drink the river water.7 In December 2015, the city of Flint and the county of Genesee declared a health emergency.8 One month later, the governor’s office finally issued a statement declaring a state of emergency.9 Later in January, the state attorney general opened an investigation to uncover whether any Michigan laws had been violated that resulted in the contamination crisis.10 When details of the inquiry surfaced, the story made national headlines.11 And the nation demanded answers.

Given the choices made and the stakes involved, everyone was eager to hold someone liable. There is plenty of blame to assign. With the benefit of hindsight and careful investigation, it seems clear that the responsibility for this failure to safeguard the Flint population falls both on technical experts (engineers and environmental officials) who did not sound the alarm or recommend appropriate solutions and on the elected officials in Flint who neglected their duty or failed to respond quickly enough to the crisis. As of August 2016, the attorney general for Michigan charged state and local officials with offenses ranging from neglect of duty to conspiracy to withhold information.12 Closing out the year, the attorney general charged four more officials—two of Flint’s former emergency managers who reported directly to the governor, and two water plant officials—with felonies of false pretenses and conspiracy.13

One group of leaders has thus far escaped both criticism and charges: the lawyers who were involved throughout this crisis. Why should we think of lawyers and their responsibilities when this seems to be a matter of failing government? Ask yourself: Where were the lawyers who worked for the water companies paid to advise Flint officials whether the water was safe to drink? Where were the lawyers in the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality who allowed their department spokesperson to assure the general public that there was no reason for concern over water from the Flint River? Where were the lawyers from the city attorney’s office who failed to help local officials make the case to state authorities once health professionals began to document the contamination problems? Sitting atop this crisis was Governor Rick Snyder—a lawyer by training. Governor Snyder did, in the end, acknowledge that he was ultimately responsible as governor, but only after he had blamed “career bureaucrats” for the water crisis. He never acknowledged that those same career bureaucrats were serving in his administration and executing what they perceived to be his priorities. The governor as the leader of his administration sets the tone and priorities that will guide the choices of state employees. The tone that Governor Snyder set, at a minimum, enabled the state officials to perceive fiscal controls as the most pressing priority.

Why bother asking where the lawyers were? Certainly, where individual officials broke the law, lawyers had a role to play advising their clients not to take such steps. But the lawyers in both the public and private sectors had leadership obligations that they failed to exercise: to step up and raise critical questions about the decisions that state officials were making. Lawyers recognizing and embracing that leadership role might have asked, “What are the risks involved in the options we are considering?” “What do these financial choices say about who we are as a state?” “What are the competing stakes in this decision?” If lawyers had seen themselves as part of a larger ecosystem, situated to see conflicting vantage points and interests—as an engaged leader would—these events would likely not have occurred. This was not a question of professional ethics or a violation of governing rules of professional conduct. This was a question of leadership. Lawyers were intimately aware of the events and decisions that led to a crisis endangering countless lives. That awareness triggered a leadership responsibility beyond asking the technical legal question—“Can we do this?” They had the responsibility to ask, “Should we do this?”

Flint offers one recent example of a catastrophic event where lawyers played a role. But if we were to examine the major events or key decisions made in any industry in the world, we would likely find lawyers involved. Lawyers are often positioned to make or advise others on many of the most critical decisions in today’s world. Given that reality, their ability to lead effectively in those positions matters. The world has become infinitely more complex, dangerous, and connected. In our current culture, we face great uncertainty. Surprise and volatility that occur even in remote parts of small regions can produce unexpected outcomes that reverberate around the world.14 This vast unpredictability has become relentless largely because of global connectedness. Assessing the range of uncertainties happening around us and figuring out the best course of action requires a breadth of perspectives and a quickness in insight that are elusive for any single leader. Indeed, this new normal demands a new kind of leader. But a disjunction exists between the ways that we prepare our best minds to lead and the demands of a volatile world. When we look at the one profession from which we often draw our political, business, and organizational leaders—the legal profession—we find a deep chasm between what law schools teach lawyers to do and what the world expects of these lawyers who so often become leaders. Legal education ignores leadership as a subject of study and as an inevitability and responsibility for many law school graduates. The legal profession is sending the next generation of likely leaders into a dynamic world dangerously unprepared.

Some discernible global trends—a continuing shift in economic power away from the West, greater global connectivity driven by technology, and growing social unrest given a widening gap between the “haves” and “have-nots”—have shifted the expectations and forces at work in the populations that leaders will need to activate and guide. The interdependent nature of these challenges, coupled with the need to develop multidimensional solutions, has proven to be quite disorienting. Unpredictability has become a mainstay, but we expect leaders to foresee and prepare for problems even in this chaotic environment. The next generation of leaders requires new tools and methods to lead effectively. They will need to be adept at leveraging a range of voices and perspectives to generate effective approaches and viable solutions for their ever-changing context. They will need to recognize and read nascent trends. To enable their organizations and institutions to withstand and move through massive challenges, they will need to bring people together at various intersections and manage their understanding of each other as well as what may seem to be competing interests. Effective leadership will require both focused attention and new forms of learning.

Business schools have recognized the need to address questions of leadership as they prepare their graduates for potential positions of authority. But even their efforts have come up short. As the 2008 global financial crisis underscored, an overreliance on static models and Western case studies will not effectively prepare leaders for the world that they will encounter. For too long, leadership training has been preoccupied with—and premised on—dangerously outdated models.15 The operating assumption has been that businesses (even global companies) are functioning within the context of relatively stable developed economies. But that is not today’s reality. New, powerful players are coming from emerging markets rather than solely from developed economies. Markets are changing rapidly and unexpectedly, so experience with turbulence may prove more important than lessons gleaned from historical success in more stable contexts. Of course, with the benefit of hindsight, it is easy to debate and criticize the effectiveness of leadership training that business schools have provided to date. But, at least, business schools have acknowledged that they are in the business of developing and preparing leaders.

Law schools have not yet recognized that they are in a similar business; they have fundamentally misunderstood their task. Law schools are preparing law students to become practitioners of the law in various forms but are not accounting for the leadership positions our culture fills from the pool of legal professionals. A surprising proportion of political leaders, leaders of industry, and global influencers have been legally trained. Given the cultural tendency to place lawyers in these key positions, law schools must acknowledge that likely role and prepare lawyers for it. Effective leadership today means adapting to context. The problem is that legal education looks backward by definition: it is precedent driven. The legal system privileges prior interpretations of the law to create a stable and predictable legal framework for decision making. Those characteristics arguably enable a large legal system to operate effectively. However, a retrospective view as well as an insistence on stability can prove dangerously narrow when contemplating new issues in an otherwise dynamic environment. The world that law graduates are stepping up to lead is not a static scene of precedent and deductive reasoning.

Research in the past few decades has debunked the notion that leadership cannot be learned.16 But law schools seem to have ignored the discussion as well as the evidence. Despite the danger and full-throated claims to the contrary, legal education does not equip its graduates to lead in today’s dynamic environment. They are simply not teaching leadership as a substantive focus. Why? Some law schools actively reject the notion that law schools should teach leadership because they believe the purpose of a legal education is to immerse students in the law. This anachronistic thinking typically characterizes those law schools that maintain that lawyers either will possess innate leadership traits or will somehow develop the necessary skills on the job. Other law schools fail to prepare law students for leadership out of laziness or ineptitude. They see the trend and the need but do not know how to teach the skills necessary for leadership. Others still pay lip service to their preparation of the next generation of leaders but somehow fail to update their approach or pedagogy. The numbers reveal the importance as well as the enormity of the task. There are 205 ABA-approved law schools and about 32 non-ABA-approved law schools. That means there are roughly 237 law schools in the United States.17 Those law schools have produced over 1.22 million lawyers in the United States.18

While the development and honing of leadership skills ought to be part of a continuous process of learning throughout a professional trajectory, the thinking and approaches that one adopts at the launch of a career can help shape habits that will develop into more effective leadership behaviors over time. Student reflection prior to the start of a career—on ways that he or she will engage with colleagues, address professional challenges, and ultimately exercise leadership, even in the absence of an official title or organizational recognition—is a necessary first step toward effective leadership. Still, some law schools attempt to rationalize their failure to teach leadership by arguing insufficient student interest. But the role of legal education is to recognize and then make the case for leadership training for law students who may not yet see its value. Even if law students cannot imagine themselves assuming leadership roles, they likely will at some point over the course of their career. Even those who will not assume formal leadership roles will find that they will become more effective lawyers if they adopt leadership behaviors. But instead of embracing this reality, legal education sidesteps its responsibility to guide and enhance students’ learning at this formative stage.

Dangerous Leaders exposes the risks and consequences of these lapses. It also hopes to provide law schools, law students, and the legal profession with tools and models to help build a better foundation for leadership acumen. Dangerous Leaders examines real problems that arise in a contemporary context and proposes real solutions. Through the use of case studies, the book explores catastrophic political, business, and legal failures that have occurred precisely because of a lapse in leadership, specifically from those with a background primarily in the legal profession. These failures range from corrupt practices in business and politics to the smaller yet equally toxic failures in judgment that affect countless individuals and communities but escape notice because they occur out of view. To the extent that the public or pundits have addressed such failures, they have misinterpreted them as personal ethical lapses. The premise of this book challenges that view: these failures are the result of chronic practices that not only could have been addressed but also could have been avoided.

Dangerous Leaders proposes a fundamental rethinking of legal education and leadership training aimed specifically at preparing lawyers to assume the types of roles that the emerging world requires. To that end, Dangerous Leaders offers a new leadership model that brings divergent sets of experiences and styles together to enable individuals to lead given what the world has become. This new leadership framework—intersectional leadership—challenges leaders to see the world through a different lens and expects a form of inclusion and respect for other perspectives and experiences that will prove critical to maneuvering in an environment that is at once complex and uncertain. This new form of leadership can and must be taught and experienced in law schools to prepare the next generation of leaders. The book also offers tools to lawyers currently in practice, enabling them to fill gaps in learning and perform more effectively as leaders in the current environment.

I come to this work through a cross section of experiences in the law and in executive education focused on leadership and strategy execution. I spent a decade as a public defender in Northern California. I have been a law professor for the past twenty-two years. In that capacity, I have also developed and taught a course specifically focused on leadership. Over the last fifteen years, I have consulted with Fortune 100 and Global 100 companies on a range of issues related to leadership and strategy execution. This work has focused on developing leadership capabilities in those already at the top of the house and in executives exhibiting high potential for greater responsibility. I have worked with countless leaders as they have grappled with the reality that transforming an organization and equipping it for today’s challenges involves changing themselves at an individual level, only to then develop and hone skills to energize and inspire the collective actions of their teams. These executive education programs have often included lawyers such as executives in general counsel offices, regulatory offices, or other legal units. More often than not, these lawyer participants have expressed surprise that they too have gleaned critical lessons from these programs, largely because they tend to see their roles as separate and distinct from other executives in the company.

This is a fair assumption on their part; the lawyer’s role is usually distinct. In thinking about that distinctive role, I recognized that lawyers often face unique leadership challenges. Whether they work in a legal unit in a global company, as a partner in a law firm, or as an elected or appointed official in government, lawyers have obligations that often create an inherent tension in their role as a leader. In a business, leading as a lawyer means understanding the economic and industry imperatives, not just thinking through the lens of the legal unit. Leading as a lawyer means taking part in collaborative efforts not as the person who says “no” at the end of the process but as the person who helps to guide the process of innovation and collaboration by saying, “Here’s how we can do this and not run afoul of any regulatory constraints or legal barriers.” Lawyers need to become arbitrators rather than the arbiters they were taught to be in law school. And, in government, lawyers as leaders are not just advocates, as their leader-peers from other backgrounds might be able to be; they have greater responsibilities to issues of justice and fairness. Far too frequently, we see lawyers as leaders making poor decisions because they have failed to appreciate and navigate the pervasive, specific tensions in their roles. This book seeks to highlight the fact that lawyers who lead without significant and focused exposure to leadership lessons often make the sort of judgments that can derail organizations or pervert entire systems, which makes them dangerous. Many of the leadership issues that Dangerous Leaders examines are ones that all leaders face. But the book uses case studies that feature lawyers, and will work through them with lawyers in mind, to help lawyers begin to see how leadership challenges affect them.

Many talk about the need for leadership, but these discussions too often suffer from narrow definitions of the term. First, some authors frame leadership in terms of the position or title an individual assumes. If your position authorizes you to make certain decisions and to have individuals reporting to you, then, functionally, you are a leader. Or so the argument goes. But leadership is not role-specific. Today’s leaders must learn to lead with—and without—formal authority. Second, others suggest that a leader is someone who possesses the skills necessary to run a meeting, to set expectations for subordinates, and to define and delineate outcomes for the enterprise that he or she leads. These skills, while operationally important, conflate leadership with management and fundamentally misunderstand the concept and goals of leadership—developing a shared vision and engaging others in the achievement of a shared goal. Third, some authors contend that leadership involves the ability to align a group’s thinking to whatever the leader considers important. This definition proceeds from a flawed premise: the presumption that the leader is somehow all-knowing and simply needs to articulate and impose his or her view.

My definition of leadership takes issue with these conventional views. Simply put, exercising effective leadership does not depend on hierarchy or position. The best leadership involves engaging others in a collaborative process of imagining, defining, and working toward a common cause or greater mission that is meaningful for the enterprise and for its stakeholders. To lead effectively, the individual does not have to be omniscient or heroic. Quite frankly, no single individual can have all of the answers to the range of problems leaders will likely encounter in our complex environment. The most influential leader may not even sit at the top of the organization. Instead, such leaders will place themselves in the middle of intersecting and often competing attitudes, listening to and learning from them. Through the creative tension that emerges when cultures and experiences collide, effective leaders begin to see problems differently and engage in a process of addressing them that is inclusive, collaborative, and, ultimately, more effective.

This is intersectional leadership.

My vision of intersectional leadership has five key components. The first involves developing—and relying on—a team that brings traits, styles, and experiences dissimilar to the leader. The complexity of the world and the leadership challenges it poses places the leader in unexpected and unfamiliar settings. To thrive in that environment, the lawyer as leader needs to engage with individuals whose perspectives have been born from a different set of experiences and life lessons. The leader’s role does not involve promoting harmony above all else in the team. Instead, the leader must help teams live and thrive in the dilemma of collective action and robust debate.

The second component is related but distinct. The intersectional leader must recognize that learning often comes from unlikely sources. Seeking out viewpoints from the least experienced individuals in an organization or from people outside the expected set of experts can create a learning juncture that expands the thinking of all involved. Embracing diversity in all of its dimensions and actively looking to derive insights from individuals whose interests, needs, and expectations diverge from those of the lawyer-leader distinguishes the intersectional leader.

The third component expects leaders to engage in genuine collaboration where they expect to subordinate their own interests in the service of a greater goal. Collaboration is to be distinguished from teaming, where groups function as a team operating collectively because they have shared goals and incentives. Collaboration hurts—in a good way—when it is done right. It often involves working across units and functions to achieve a goal that may not be immediately apparent to all members of the group. It also means giving up something meaningful to the lawyer-leader—such as credit, time, and talent—to help advance a larger objective. The leader must subordinate his or her agenda and power for the greater good.

Fourth, the intersectional leader adopts a mind-set that insists on being suspicious of agreement. Some roles create both the opportunity and necessity for dichotomous thinking. But even when the lawyer-leader’s role does not demand it, he or she needs to question, seek out alternate views as a way to challenge assumptions, and push his or her thinking.

Finally, the intersectional lawyer-leader must act with moral courage, even behind closed doors. The global financial crisis offered glaring examples of the corrosive effect of elevating personal ambition and gain above all else, and how much easier it may be to let this happen when one’s choices are hidden from scrutiny. Lawyer-leaders must develop processes and disciplines that force them to question their own judgment rigorously and to put checks in place to elevate the good of the enterprise over personal ambition.

The lawyer-leader will operate in environments that are far less homogenous than those met by leaders in the past. Intersectional leadership can be learned, practiced, and developed. Indeed, teaching leadership early in a career can better position individuals to exercise leadership as they move through their career trajectory. Education in leadership is particularly important for lawyers because conventional legal training may interfere with their ability to lead well in business, political, and legal settings. Legal education emphasizes cognitive skills almost to the exclusion of emotional skills that will be critical to a leader’s effectiveness and influence. Law students learn that they can rely on the rigor of their training to reach a conclusion, then trust in their own judgment. This singular focus on an individualized rather than a collaborative approach to issue identification and problem solving sits at the core of what is distorting and dangerous about legal education. The operative premise is that the critical and analytical skills that law students acquire and develop will prepare them better than their non-legally-trained counterparts to detect and resolve a wide range of legal, social, and political challenges. Law school then teaches law students to develop and assert a point of view with a degree of confidence that brooks no objection. What too often flows from this confidence is a degree of arrogance about one’s personal expertise that can lead lawyers to underestimate and misread the value and contributions of others who may not be legally trained. Such lawyers afford greater weight to their personal abilities and judgment and, in the process, often distance themselves from nonlawyers. This insularity blinds the lawyer-leader to the need to collaborate, to listen, and to make room for competing views and ideas.

Dangerous Leaders starts with the challenge that law schools are failing to prepare lawyers to assume leadership roles in the dynamic world unfolding around us. This failure can be traced to basic structural problems with legal education. Law schools have misunderstood that their central task—preparing law students for the practice of law—also involves training lawyers to lead. Many critics of the legal profession have sounded the alarm that legal education needs to identify and demonstrate its relevance in the world, yet far too many law schools are ignoring that call. Second, the pedagogical methods law schools typically employ reinforce outdated and limited approaches to problem solving that reinforce the mistaken view that change is principally incremental. Recent world events continue to expose the limitations of this perspective. What we have come to see through experience and have been reminded of, particularly lately, is that change is constant and involves periods of incremental adjustments punctuated by quite disruptive transformation. Leaders need to be ready for both. Third, the experiences and missteps of lawyers in leadership positions offer law schools an opportunity to examine their mistakes, to learn from them, and to pivot. To make the case for change, I analyze a series of case studies that highlight the types of skills contemporary lawyers need and the leadership pitfalls these skills will help to avoid. These case studies alternate between large and small failures. The examples of dangerous behaviors and choices by lawyer-leaders offer not only cautionary tales but concrete lessons that the reader can learn to avoid similar missteps. These case studies also lead to specific suggestions to educators regarding ways that leadership training can address and prevent such failures. In the final chapters, the book lays out the ways that law schools and lawyers in practice can implement the intersectional model of leadership as a new framework in the emergent world. This chapter will emphasize the need to engage adult learners differently so they enhance learning this form of leadership. It will examine various approaches to engage individuals in the experience of leadership as a way of helping them practice, reflect on, and adopt the behaviors of the intersectional model.

The bottom line is simple: lawyers routinely hold key decision-making positions and unless they understand the leadership components of those roles, they will continue to be dangerously ill-prepared for the world in which they are expected to perform. The examples offered in Dangerous Leaders are tailored to lawyers to highlight the varied challenges and tensions that arise both for leaders generally and specifically for lawyers as leaders. This book examines not just the failings of law schools but how things can be set right. We have reached a point in the maturation of the discipline and the profession where it is high time for legal educators to develop and teach leadership frameworks to prepare lawyer-leaders for their likely roles in order to reduce the danger they currently pose.


1. Jake May, Still Standing: Flint Residents Tell Their Stories About Living with Poisoned Water, MLIVE, (last visited Dec. 20, 2017).

2. Matt Pearce, A “Man-Made Disaster” Unfolded in Flint, Within Plain Sight of Water Regulators, L.A. TIMES (Jan. 22, 2016),

3. Flint Water Crisis Fast Facts, CNN (Nov. 28, 2017),

4. Kevin Monahan, Hannah Rappleye, Stephanie Gosk, & Tim Sandler, Internal Email: Michigan “Blowing Off” Flint over Lead in Water, NBC NEWS (Jan. 6, 2016),

5. Id.

6. Ron Fonger, General Motors Shutting Off Flint River Water at Engine Plant over Corrosion Worries, MLIVE (Oct. 13, 2014),

7. Ron Fonger, GM’s Decision to Stop Using Flint River Water Will Cost Flint $400,000 per Year, MLIVE (October 14, 2014),

8. State of Emergency Declared in the City of Flint, CITY OF FLINT, MICHIGAN, (last visited Dec. 20, 2017).

9. Id.

10. How the Flint Water Crisis Investigation Led to Manslaughter Charges, MLIVE (June 15, 2017),

11. Jessica Durando, How Water Crisis in Flint, Mich., Became Federal State of Emergency, USA TODAY (January 19, 2016),

12. Paul Egan, These Are the 15 People Criminally Charged in the Flint Water Crisis, DET. FREE PRESS (June 14, 2017),

13. Brady Dennis, Four More Officials Charged with Felonies in Flint Water Crisis, WASH. POST (Dec. 20, 2016),

14. Bain Insights, The Potential Impacts of Brexit on the Global Economy, FORBES (June 29, 2016),; Greece’s economic debt crisis affecting global economies,

15. Mike Myatt, 30 Outdated Leadership Practices Holding Your Company Back, FORBES (July 28, 2013),; Chuck Bayne, 3 Key Aspects of Leadership Training for the Modern World, WYO. L. ENFORCEMENT ACAD. (Feb. 6, 2015),; Timothy B. Corcoran, Ten Things I’d Do Differently as a Law Firm CEO, CORCORAN CONSULTING GROUP (March 28, 2013),; Claire Warren, Employers Held Hostage by Outdated Management Model, Warns Hamel, CHARTERED INST. PERSONNEL & DEV. (June 27, 2014),

16. Daniel Goleman, What Makes a Leader?, HARV. BUS. REV. (Jan. 2004),; William Gentry, Jennifer J. Deal, Sarah Stawiski, & Marian Ruderman, Are Leaders Born or Made? Perspectives from the Executive Suite, CTR. FOR CREATIVE LEADERSHIP (Mar. 2012),; Stanford GSB Staff, Colin Powell: “Never Show Fear or Anger,” STAN. GRADUATE SCH. BUS. (Nov. 1, 2005),; Ekaterina Walter, 5 Myths of Leadership, FORBES (Oct. 8, 2013),; “. . . leaders are made, not born, and made more by themselves than by any external means. Second . . . that no leader sets out to be a leader per se, but rather to express himself freely and fully.”—Warren Bennis, On Becoming a Leader. Bennis, one of the leading executive educators of our time, concludes that leadership is a body of skills and knowledge that can be learned and developed, as opposed to some “preordained set of attributes.”

17. How Many Law Schools Are in the US?, MAGOOSH LSAT BLOG (Sept. 26, 2016),

18. Jeff Jacoby, US Legal Bubble Can’t Pop Soon Enough, BOSTON GLOBE (May 9, 2014),