Recent Posts:

Archive for April, 2011

« Older Entries

Sleepers

Friday, April 29th, 2011

Sleepers is a law movie that tells the story of four best friends growing up in Hell’s
Kitchen whose lives change forever on a summer day in 1967. A prank on
a hotdog vender goes wrong and the boys end up almost killing a man.
Forced to face punishment for their actions, the boys are sentenced to
one year in the Wilkinson Home for Boys. There, the boys suffer
through nightmarish conditions as they are physically, verbally, and
sexually abused by the guards.

Over 10 years later we find out that two of the boys, Tommy and John,
have grown up to become gang members, drug users, and murderers. The
other two, Shakes and Michael, are a newspaper columnist and an
assistant district attorney, respectively. Tommy and John walk into a
bar one night and realize that the ring leader of the guards, Nokes,
who abused them at the Wilkinson Home for Boys is sitting just feet
away. The two friends walk up to Nokes, introduce themselves, and
shoot him dead. This is where the legal and moral dilemma we are faced
with begins. Michael, the assistant district attorney, takes the case
as the prosecuting attorney and hatches a plan to get justice on the
guards. He plans to lose the case and in the process reveal the
corruption and abuse that took place at the Wilkinson Home for Boys.
He even goes as far to convince their childhood priest to lie on the
stand and create an alibi for Tommy and John. Michael is successful,
but as the viewer we are left to question really how good we feel
about the result. Certainly we want to see the guards pay for the
horrible abuses that they committed, but at the same time Tommy and
John are cold blooded killers that have committed many crimes before
this one. We know that if they go free they will be back on the
streets and an extreme danger to society. Watching the movie, I wanted
to root for and sympathize with Tommy and John but these potential
ramifications held me back.

The guards ultimately got what they deserved, but at what cost?

- BER

Tags:
Posted in Movie Review | No Comments »

Philadelphia: Beyond a Courtroom Drama

Thursday, April 28th, 2011

Philadelphia, starring Tom Hanks and Denzel Washington, is not only a
great legal film, but also a groundbreaking one.  While the film’s courtroom
setting and underdog story are familiar to Hollywood films, these
familiarities only serve to provide a context for the film’s greater
purpose.  Philadelphia is Hollywood’s first exploration of AIDS, its
impacts, and the stereotypes and fears that surround it.

Philadelphia follows the story of Andy Beckett (Tom Hanks) an up and
coming young lawyer at the most prominent firm in the city. Unknown to
the firm is that Andy Beckett is a homosexual and that he has AIDS.
Upon discovering this, the law firm fires Andy, claiming that the
cause was incompetence.  Andy then sues his former employer for
discrimination, hiring Joe Miller (Denzel Washington) a small time
personal injury lawyer and the only lawyer willing to take his case.
The film then proceeds along the typical courtroom drama as the facts
unfold.

While the courtroom helps to create an entertaining film, the progress
of the lawsuit is not nearly the most important storyline.  Instead,
there are two underlying storylines that fully explore the impacts of
AIDS.  The first follows the impact of the disease on Andy Beckett and
those close to them.  The viewer can watch both Andy’s physical and
mental transformation and the equally damaging social impacts that
AIDS causes.  One scene does the best job of presenting these social
impacts.  As Andy sits in a public library, he is repeatedly starred
at as others move seats to distance themselves from him.  Finally Andy
is asked to move to a private room.

The other storyline follows the growing relationship between Andy
Beckett and his attorney Joe Miller.  Miller begins the film as both
anti-gay and fearful and ignorant about AIDS.  Initially, Miller’s
fear leads him to refuse the case and immediately visit his doctor
fearing he contracted the disease through a simple handshake.
Throughout the film Miller’s attitude transforms as he witnesses
Andy’s physical and social death.

Philadelphia captures the fear, confusion and stereotypes surrounding
AIDS in the 90’s while allowing us to see the physical and social
impacts of the disease.  Overall, Philadelphia does an excellent job
of exploring an important topic in an interesting and enjoyable way.

Author: Matthew Devack

Tags: ,
Posted in Movie Review | 1 Comment »

“Wall Street as a Legal Film”

Thursday, April 28th, 2011

For over two decades Oliver Stone’s classic “Wall Street” has
been a beacon calling young, energetic men and women to careers on
Wall Street.  Since its 1987 premier slicked back hair, suspenders,
and contrast-collar shirts became the banker’s fashion staples and a
“greed, for lack of a better word, is good” attitude their mantra.
“Wall Street” focuses on economic boom times in New York City and
America, illustrating a career in finance as the gateway to a
glamorous life where money, women, and prime real estate are there for
the taking and consequences are minimal.

“Wall Street” primarily focuses on corruption in the financial
industry.  The story follows Bud Fox, a junior stockbroker eager to
claw his way to the top of the financial world.  After presenting
insider information about Bluestar Airlines, company that employs his
father, Fox is taken under the wing of ruthless corporate raiser
Gordon Gekko.  Gekko uses Fox to learn inside information about
companies and then acts on the information making himself significant
money and passing perks onto Fox.  Fox has a change of heart when he
learns that Gekko is planning on dissolving Bluestar, rather than
expand the company as he had promised Fox.  Fox engineers a scheme to
manipulate Bluestar’s stock downward so Gekko will dump his stock and
the majority of the shares will be purchased by Gekko’s rival.  The
movie closes with an SEC investigation of Fox who is able to bring
Gekko down while also admitting his own crimes.

While “Wall Street” clearly depicts the consequences of the illegal
acts performed by Gekko and Fox, it is not this punishment, or the
message of the story, that moral character ultimately cannot be
bought, that has remained the legacy of “Wall Street” in the past two
decades.  It is the power hungry, money craving, I make the rules
attitude encapsulated by Gordon Gekko that captivated audiences and
remains the film’s legacy at the end of the day.

“Wall Street” is an example of a legal film on two levels.  First, the
movie is about securities fraud.  It depicts insider trading through
Fox’s spying on company executives and use of a lawyer friend who
provides inside information in exchange for kickbacks.  It also shows
a fraud on the market in the market manipulation scenario with
BlueStar Airlines.  While the movie breezes over the process of an SEC
investigation for securities crimes it clearly shows there are severe
criminal penalties for violation of the Securities Act and the
Exchange Act.

The second, perhaps more subtle, reason “Wall Street” is a compelling
legal movie is its treatment of moral judgment.  In the movie Bud
experiences a change of heart and a moral breakthrough when he
realizes he cannot destroy the lives of his father’s union members for
any amount of money.  His need to do the right thing, the fair thing,
caused him to take the law into his own hands in a sense.  By hatching
the scheme to get back at Gekko, Fox was acting outside the legal
scheme to get retribution for himself and the prospective victims of
Gekko’s plan of corporate raiding.  Additionally, Fox chose to comply
with government officials by confessing to his crimes and helping to
trap Gekko into admitting his crimes on tape.  It is implicated at the
end of the film that Fox will receive a reduced sentence for his
compliance with the system.  Therefore, it can be argued that Fox’s
moral epiphany and service of justice outside the legal system was
rewarded within the conventional legal system as well.  “Wall
Street”’s perspective on the interplay between the financial and legal
industries is particularly timely now and hopefully the true moral of
the story will be remembered above the admittedly enticing glitz and
the glamour of Gordon Gekko.

Samantha Lawson

Tags: ,
Posted in Movie Review | No Comments »

…And Justice for All – A Movie Review

Wednesday, April 27th, 2011

There’s certainly something funny going on in Norman
Jewison’s film “…And Justice for All.” It is no doubt strange, as the
film’s story revolves around a colorful cast of characters including a
suicidal judge, a deeply depressed attorney, a cross dressing mugger,
and a young hippy experiencing the worst year ever. But perhaps what
viewers will find funny is that there is something disturbingly true
about this black comedy courtroom drama, starring Al Pacino as a
defiant defense attorney struggling to make the most out of an immoral
and woefully ignorant legal system. Based in Baltimore, Maryland
during the late 1970’s, the film follows Pacino’s character, Arthur
Kirkland, a man who relentlessly pursues justice, even to his own
professional detriment. Openly critical of his profession and the
individuals and factions found therein, Kirkland shines as the moral
attorney of this tale.  Through his eyes, the audience comes to
understand his growing bewilderment, frustration, and anger with the
justice system. What’s obvious to Kirkland, the filmmakers, and
(hopefully by the end) the audience is that the justice system is
seriously messed up. As Kirkland ironically sums it up early in the
film, “Being honest doesn’t have much to do with being a lawyer…”

The film opens with Kirkland patiently sitting in a
dimly lit, filthy prison cell awaiting his release as his cellmate
urinates on him. Funny, right?  Well, not quite. Earlier, Kirkland was
found in contempt of court for throwing a punch at Judge Fleming
(wonderfully portrayed by John Forsythe). And why would a highly
educated, well dressed, 30-something attorney attempt to derail his
career in this fashion? Well, because it was simply the right thing to
do. It turns out Kirkland spent countless hours pulling together
evidence to exonerate his young client who had spent the better part
of the year falsely imprisoned for two crimes he didn’t commit, and
Judge Fleming subsequently threw out the evidence due to tardiness. So
begins the exploration of the legal system’s obliviousness to the
backstory and emotional complexity of those subject to its wrath.

Over the course of the movie, Kirkland observes how
none of the attorneys or judges really care about the people they
represent and rule over. To the judges, most are guilty until proven
innocent, regardless of where they come from or what they have been
through. And to the attorneys, their clients simply represent dollar
amounts which dictate the amount of effort and quality time put into
each case. Those with money can afford to dictate their desires to
their attorneys, while the young (likely broke) men in the courtroom
hallways are urged by their lawyers to cut a deal and cop a plea. And
for the lawyer, it’s on to the next one. The film also takes time to
consider the consequences of each role. Judge Fleming, for instance,
quickly finds himself on the other side of the bench as a defendant
after he is accused of rape. Ironically, he chooses to hire Kirkland,
even though they share a mutual disdain for one another. And
Kirkland’s partner, a brilliant defense attorney, falls into a deep
depression after a former client accused of murder that gets acquitted
murders again. Again, Kirkland astutely notes that even though defense
lawyers defend guilty people daily, only the lawyer who is profoundly
affected by the negativity of it all gets threatened by the ethical
committee with sanctions and possible disbarment.

Jewison spends quite a bit of time illustrating the
many contradictions present in this legal system. Disturbing as it may
be, in the end, to be a moral attorney may mean to choose not to be an
attorney at all. Forced to represent a guilty judge or face
disbarment, Kirkland decides on the latter, sacrificing his
professional career for his soul. “You’re out of order! You’re out of
order! The whole trial is out of order! They’re out of order!” Are
Kirkland’s accusations as he gets dragged out of the courtroom
directed at the legal system, the legal professionals, or society (and
by extension the audience) for allowing justice to be hampered by
technicalities, politics, and the incessant bureaucracy of it all?
This seminal question is one that law students and practitioners need
to contemplate and continually ask themselves, which is why this is
such an important film to see. Funny as it may be, I couldn’t help
feeling shaken up by the portrait painted in this film. Kirkland
summed it up best when he stated, “What this committee is doing, in
theory, is highly commendable. In practice, it sucks.” I couldn’t
agree more.

- Matthew R. Taylor

Tags: ,
Posted in Culture Forum Blog, Movie Review | 1 Comment »

The Firm: What is the Cost of a Good Deal?

Wednesday, April 27th, 2011

I don’t know whether The Firm is one of the best legal movies of all
time, but I do think that it speaks to a situation that is all too
familiar to some law students and graduates who have encountered the
phenomenon of the big firm. In The Firm, Tom Cruise, as a recent
Harvard Law graduate, is given an offer that seems too good to be
true: in exchange for working as a lawyer at a firm, Cruise gets a lot
of money, a house, a car, and a Memphis-style barbecue thrown in his
honor (frankly, the ribs did look really good). But, huzzah! There is
a catch. Somewhere down the line, he realizes why he is getting paid
so much (he has to represent the mafia).

One of the most interesting parts of the movie for me occurs after
Cruise returns home to his wife with his offer letter from the law
firm of Bendini, Lambert & Locke. He hasn’t opened the envelope yet.
He’s already stunned the firm’s partners by guessing the precise
number of the offer, apparently a telltale sign of a superstar
litigator in training. But what I love about this whole scene occurs
when it’s over and Cruise allows his wife, who is from the beginning a
bit more clued in to reality than Cruise, to open the envelope. She
opens it, sees the presumably gigantic offer, and immediately wants to
know: Why?

This turns out to be the key question of the movie. What is the catch?
In the movie, the catch is probably a whole lot more dramatic than any
law student these days will experience. But something is still out
there to some extent. The movie hit a little too close to home when
Cruise works on an assignment for his mentor, who politely requests
that he bend the law “as far as possible without breaking it.” This
made me cringe, reflecting back on many legal research assignments
where I was encouraged to put aside the eighty cases that made an
opposing argument in favor of the one or two that, if twisted
properly, might just do the trick. The Firm, in all of its slightly
unrealistic drama, may have a lesson for us all. Always ask yourself:
Why?

- Leslie Cohen

Tags: ,
Posted in Culture Forum Blog, Movie Review | 2 Comments »

50th Anniversary of Eichmann’s Trial, Case Still Brands Israel

Wednesday, April 27th, 2011

The early 1960s was more than simply the revelry of TV’s “Mad Men.” It was also a time when international justice held court, and a certifiable madman found himself at the center of the world’s judgment.

In 1961, a young American president read James Bond novels, while high-stakes espionage dominated popular culture and fed global anxieties. Neighbors suspected one another of being double agents. Meanwhile, down in Argentina, Adolf Eichmann, the Nazi with the most Jewish blood on his hands, was one of those neighbors leading a double life. One day, while living in a suburb of Buenos Aires under an alias, Eichmann was spirited away from his street, drugged and dressed up as an El Al flight attendant and smuggled to Israel to stand trial. Suddenly, the CIA and the KGB had competition. The Mossad and Shin Bet, Israel’s secret intelligence agencies, instantly became the new rage in cloak-and-dagger.

Read more: http://www.forward.com/articles/137259/#ixzz1KjsHvPXM

-Thane Rosenbaum

Tags:
Posted in Culture Forum Blog, News | No Comments »

Lessons for New Law Graduates

Friday, April 22nd, 2011

The Rainmaker is one of the best legal movies of all time, providing
profound lessons for newly minted attorneys. Graduation for the Class
of 2011 is near. Young law graduates, such as me, should enhance
their legal education by viewing the story of young Rudy Baylor
(played by Matt Damon), a jobless graduate of a Tennessee law school
who beat the odds, winning a $50 million judgment against a corrupt
insurance company in his first trial. The lesson is not how to become
rich or famous. Rudy Baylor’s story demonstrates that a young
attorney who encounters early success does not have to sell-out and
spend the rest of his or her career pursuing money and fame.

Baylor’s story is familiar. He pursued his law degree after reading
cases from the civil rights era and dreaming of making a significant
difference in the world. Baylor is an idealist, a dreamer. Upon
graduation, he finds himself begging for a job as an ambulance-chasing
plaintiff’s attorney. He literally studies for the bar at the
hospital in order to solicit newly injured potential clients. The
first lesson that we can learn from Mr. Baylor is one of resilience.
Even though the deck is stacked against him, he retains his soul. He
cares about his clients and does not view them as a means to an end
like the rest of his associates. Rudy has an opportunity to settle
his first case against an insurer for $175,000, of which he would
receive 30%. His fellow associate tells him to take the money and
run, but Rudy decides to turn down the settlement because his client
wants the opportunity to tell his story at trial.

The second lesson that we can learn from Mr. Baylor is one of hard
work and confidence. Rudy works hard for his clients and does the
best that he can in court. He makes plenty of mistakes in court, but
he is not afraid to learn from his mistakes and press on, even after
he receives a verbal lashing from the judge and gets scoffed at by the
opposing counsel. Rudy goes head to head against one of the best
litigators in Tennessee, Leo F. Drummond. Leo thinks that he can
manipulate Rudy, and he also violates many ethical rules during the
trial. Rudy stands up to the powerful attorney many times, does his
job, and refuses to back down.

Finally, Mr. Baylor teaches a lesson in maintaining proper priorities.
After he wins the $50 million lawsuit for his client, the insurance
company files Chapter 11 bankruptcy and he receives nothing for his
representation. In deciding what to do next with his young, promising
career, Rudy admits that he can make a fortune as a plaintiff’s
attorney by assuring new clients that he could obtain similar results
for them. He thought that he could, in fact, achieve similar magic
for future clients, but that he would have to resort to the tactics
employed by Leo F. Drummond to do so. Instead, Rudy decides to forgo
fortune and fame, pursue a career as a law professor, and focus on his
new relationship with a young woman, Kelly Riker (played by Claire
Daines), who he met at the hospital.

The Rainmaker is a great story. I hope new graduates will enter the
workforce with confidence and work hard to achieve success, the
success of Rudy Baylor and not that of Leo F. Drummond.

WJH

Tags: ,
Posted in Culture Forum Blog, Movie Review | 5 Comments »

Be a Good Little Widow

Thursday, April 21st, 2011

Jill Eikenberry, an American actress best known as the lawyer Ann Kelsey in L.A. Law, will star in Bekah Brunstetter’s Be a Good Little Widow, which will be performed at Ars Nova.  Previews run from April 20 through May 1, 2011.  The opening is scheduled for May 2, 2011, and the show will run through May 14, 2011.  Ms. Eikenberry plays Hope, a seasoned mourner and mother-in-law to Melody, a young wife turned widow.   As Melody, played by Wrenn Schmidt, confronts the difficult “mourning” terrain, Hope guides her through, using her experience in mourning to shepherd the younger woman.

Ars Nova describes the show in the following manner: “Melody thought being a young wife was hard, until she became a widow. Luckily her mother-in-law, Hope, is a professional ? mourner, that is. Navigating the prickly terrain of pressed black dresses, well-intended advice and inappropriate outbursts, Melody stumbles toward understanding what it means to find someone through losing them in this new sad comedy about handling loss like a grownup.”

Ms. Brunstetter’s other plays include House of Home, Miss Lilly Gets Boned and OOHRAH!  The play is directed by Stephen Brackett, and also stars Chad Hoeppner and Jonny Orsini.

Ars Nova is located in Manhattan at 511 West 54th Street. For tickets phone (212( 35203101, or visit Ars Nova’s website: http://www.arsnovanyc.com/beagoodlittlewidow.

By Michelle Silva Fernandes

Tags: ,
Posted in Broadway Review, Culture Forum Blog, Forum Guests | 1 Comment »

“The Practice”, reality or far away from the true…

Wednesday, April 20th, 2011

Bobby Donnell (played by Dylan McDermott) and his team of lawyers representing an unusual defense lawyers which
constantly straggle with ethical and moral themes while defending murderers,
rapists etc. The twist is that they almost always win the cases and this is a surrealistic
representation of reality. The author of the TV series is well aware of this
conflict, giving his characters to face the cold, cynical emotionless court
room as it is in reality. While Bobby Donnell and his team try to bring into
court moral arguments and emotional point of view, against them standing Helen from
the D.A.’s office; cold, strong woman who is emotionally detached from the defendant
side of the story. What makes the series interesting is that the viewers fall
in the charm of the defense almost forgetting that they actually represent the
“Bad guy” in the story. Humans apparently are moral and ethical
creatures. But the reality of the legal system of today is pretty much like
Helen’s side of the story, emotionless, cold, and clean from moral issues. Lawyers
speak only in legal terms trying to avoid as much as they can moral issues and
moral approach. So why we all losing ourselves in the world of Bobby’s firm,
while reality leads us in a different road?
Sivan Duani

Tags: ,
Posted in Courtrooms as TV Entertainment, Culture Forum Blog, Forum Guests | No Comments »

The Lincoln Lawyer: Law as Art and Law in Art

Wednesday, April 20th, 2011

The law itself can be a character in a film that plays as important a role as the star himself. The law can be context, protagonist or, sometimes, villain. In The Lincoln Lawyer it features as all three. It is the backdrop in which the plot occurs. It is also its own subject that the film explores and showcases.The film depicts the seedier side of the criminal justice system and its roleas a mechanism of justice. These different aspects of the law make it a compelling genre for artists to explore and utilize.

As we have seen throughout this semester, the legal system as manipulated by its practitioners in real life is less than perfect. Frank Galvin is such a character. Like the Lincoln Lawyer, he is jaded and mercenary. The Rules of Professional Responsibility are meant to be broken; particularly when doing so is financially advantageous to him.

The Lincoln Lawyer is Mickey Haller, a fast moving and fast-talking criminal defense attorney who is shuttled around town collecting clients and fees. It seems as though the criminal element he caters to has rubbed off on him and hehas long ago abandoned adherence to the Rules of Professional Responsibility. For example, in the opening scene he delays the release of one of his client’sfrom jail because the client hasn’t paid him enough. This is a violation of Rule 1.5 which prohibits a lawyer from making a fee agreement that could interfere with services in the middle of the relationship and put the client at a bargaining disadvantage. It is like extorting fees from a client. Haller tells the judge that a material witness, a “Mr. Green”, can’t be located.

The Rules of Professional Responsibility come up often in the film. The essential plot of the film involves a wealthy new client who is charged with the assault of a prostitute. Haller comes to realize that this new client is not only guilty, but is responsible for the murder of a prostitute for which a former client is now serving a life sentence. Haller recalls how the former client insisted on his innocence and did not wish to accept a guilty plea but Haller strong-armed him into it in order to avoid the death penalty. It is always a client’s right to decide how they wish to plea and Haller did not discharge his obligations to this client ethically. This haunts him as the film progresses and his conscience kicks in.

The film also misstates certain rules. For example, when Haller first meets his new client, the client’s mother hands him his retainer fee. Haller does not accept it and, incorrectly, says that the fee must come from the client himself inorder to avoid a conflict of interest. This is not the case. Fees may come froma third party so long as the client gives informed written consent and this arrangement does not interfere with the lawyer’s ability to represent the client. Of course it is just a movie and does not have to be completely realistic. This shows how artistic license is often relied upon in portraying the law. We saw this in To Kill a Mockingbird during the trial where many questions Atticus asked were subject to hearsay objections. The law is used not so much as an accurate representation of itself, but as a foil for a discussion about society and human nature.

The drama of the trial is a great example of law as art. Trial techniques, which the film shows brilliantly, are a form of art. The art of telling a story to asample of our peers is showcased beautifully in the film. The difference instyle between the opening statements of the conservative and inexperienced young prosecutor as compared with the casual battle hardened defense attorney was very clear. The zealous young prosecutor relies on the testimony of a witness who has a history of serving this purpose dishonestly and the case is dismissed because of the seriousness of presenting testimony that is probably false.

The Lincoln Lawyer is an excellent example of both law as art and law in art. It shows the value of the law as dramatic tool and how the law is represented in art as a flawed tool wielded by flawed people.

Tags:
Posted in Culture Forum Blog, Movie Review | 2 Comments »

« Older Entries