|
Erin Brockovich and A Civil Action |
|
Each of these movies is about a civil action by a group of individuals against large, wealthy businesses who allegedly polluted the environment, to the severe detriment of the plaintiffs' (or their family members') health. In both, lawyers or their assistants, play a prominent role in moving the case forward. Sometimes the lawyer's or assistant's actions seem to be contrary to their clients' best interests or their clients' specific instructions. Whether "justice" is truly done in either case is not particularly important. Both cases terminate without a court judgment. (In A Civil Action a judgment is later entered - that is stated in the "subsequent history" printed at the end - but the original plaintiffs are not parties to that case.). In both movies, the lawyers agree to represent the plaintiffs on a "contingent fee" basis, which means if the plaintiffs lose, the lawyers receive no fees. Among the often-heard criticisms of lawyers, one hears: they make too much money; they prey on the suffering of people for their own personal benefit; contingent fees "rob" the injured plaintiff of a too-large portion of the judgment; lawyers promote litigation so they can make money, not for the benefit of the client. One could go on. The writing assignment relating to these two movies has two parts, one about the role of attorneys, one about the resolution of legal controversies "outside of court". Whether the plaintiffs or defendants received "justice" is not really relevant to either part. In the depicted cases, what "proactive" roles do the attorneys or their assistants play in moving the case forward? Are those consistent with what a lawyer "should" do in representing her or his clients? Are those actions intended (by the acting persons) to benefit themselves or their clients? If one were to view those actions from the viewpoint of an outside person with a less-than-sympathetic opinion about lawyers, what might that person conclude about motivations? What are the fundamental reasons behind the fact that neither case proceeded through a complete, "normal" court trial? How do those reasons relate to the underlying legal issues? If those reasons are not ideally part of what an injured party "should" consider when deciding to proceed to trial, what changes in legal rules could be made to eliminate those "improper" considerations? In all of that, the result should be an objective, logical analysis. |