By Malissa Eng
In Norman Jewison’s 1979 movie, “And Justice for All,” Al Pacino plays
defense attorney Arthur Kirkland. Unlike most attorneys, his main
concern isn’t with winning cases. He is much more interested in his
clients and the stories they have to tell. Through the movie, we
learn the extent of corruption within Maryland’s judicial system and
the noble steps that Kirkland takes to make moral changes within the
system.
The movie begins with Kirkland in jail for contempt of court after
punching Judge Fleming. The Judge, abiding by a Maryland statute,
refused to look at evidence that proved Kirkland’s client innocent
because it was submitted three days too late. Kirkland’s client asks
him why it should matter if it was a difference of three days or three
years if everyone is already convinced of his innocence. The truth is
that the legal system loves distinctions. It loves efficiency. And it
loves resolution. While these other values might interfere with the
search for truth, this is how the current system operates. By
punching the Judge, Kirkland was rebelling against the inherent
unfairness sometimes found within our system. His client eventually
loses all hope for justice, starts taking hostages in prison, and is
shot by a member of the SWAT team.
In another of Kirkland’s cases, he represents a client who was
involved in an armed robbery. He promises him that he will only face
probation for his crime. However, Kirkland is unable to represent his
client during the sentencing phase and asks another lawyer to fill in
for him. This lawyer fails to give new information to the judge, and
the client instead receives jail time. This client, really counting
on probation, hangs himself soon after sentencing. When Kirkland
hears this, he goes crazy and confronts the other lawyer. He smashes
his car’s windows and screams at him. Kirkland understands the
importance of a lawyer’s job–that people’s lives are at stake and
that lawyers often fail to see the human element involved.
After these difficult cases, Kirkland is asked to represent Judge
Fleming for allegedly raping and assaulting a young woman. Although
everyone knows Kirkland and the Judge greatly dislike one another,
Kirkland is told to put his personal feelings aside. We discussed in
class how lawyers are trained to be disinterested, to zealously
advocate on behalf of clients despite their personal feelings. Here,
Kirkland really has no other choice than to take the case. He’s being
blackmailed by higher authority to represent the Judge or face
disbarment.
Although inadmissible at court, Kirkland had the Judge take a
polygraph test. When the Judge passed, Kirkland felt that defending
him was the right thing to do. Shortly before trial, however,
Kirkland discovered that the test results were doctored and that an
eyewitness for the defense was lying. In fact, the Judge confessed to
Kirkland that he had raped and assaulted the victim and would do it
again. It is especially interesting because Kirkland knew the
prosecution’s case was weak and that he could probably win if he
wanted. After all, the Judge was highly-respected in the community,
the defense had numerous witnesses, and the prosecution’s only
evidence lied in the victim’s own testimony. But in a very memorable
opening statement, Kirkland tore his client to pieces. Once he knew
the truth–that the Judge actually performed the despicable
actions–Kirkland couldn’t bring himself to convince people otherwise.
For him, truth was more important than a legal victory. Although
there certainly wasn’t “justice for all” within the movie, Kirkland’s
opening statement provided a step in the right direction.
Kirkland was not THAT concerned with morality in the courtrooms. He was depicted as essentially a file-to-file attorney (many of whom fill the NY state courtrooms on a daily basis). Pacino’s character stands up to an ethics commission by saying that their mission “in theory, is commendable. But in practice, it sucks.” This is the great challenge to the American legal system. While we are envied by all, we still have so much to do. Doctorow’s Ascher spoke of civility and those who fall between the cracks of the system. While Kirkland’s colleague should have alerted the judge of his stand-in client’s issues, he did not. The reason is because many of the trial attorneys like Kirkland are so concerned with the file, that they do not look or listen to the person (much like “The Stranger”). An even better question should be “why was Kirkland three days late?”
Lawyers are no different than any other person walking down the street. The reason you do not remember the face of the delivery guy you order from every week is because you don’t look. This is the same reason lawyers like Kirkland last, day in and day out. It is only until he is confronted by a client he cannot ignore, that he digs deep to find out all about his misgivings.
We all cheer for what Kirkland does in the end. We applaud his candor and his indignity. It would be really easy to shit all over the lawyer client privilege and say that what Kirkland did was right. But it was not. This system, for better or worse, is designed to protect the masses. Sure it fails. After all, “in theory it’s commendable.” But this system is founded on trust. Attorney-client privilege is sacrosanct to the system. The system fails if the privilege fails. Perhaps our best shot at attaining justice and the truth can be ascertained when clients are most honest with their attorneys. However, the system will always fail when vigilante attorney’s take the facts into their own hands, There are enough mechanisms and individuals around to out the truth. Defense attorney’s cannot and should not hop on the bandwagon.