AND JUSTICE FOR ALL is getting to be a bit long in the tooth nowadays, but unfortunately it still rings all too true in America today. Every day we see another example of the film's basic truth; if you have enough money or influence, you can do almost ANYTHING and walk away clean. Jewison's film is just one in a long line of protests against a system where justice is a two tiered affair; from Bob Dylan's THE LONESOME DEATH OF HATTIE CARROLL, through grousing newspaper editorials about corporate criminals walking away, through grumbling in the Vox Populi (and subsequent rioting) about the handling of the O. J. Simpson case, and the currently impending travesty that will probably allow those responsible for the Enron debacle to avoid responsibility for the lives they've destroyed.
The ending of AND JUSTICE FOR ALL, although fictional, gives us all a bit of welcome relief from a sea of corruption that seems to be drowning us all... but is the film really an accurate reflection of what's going on in the legal system? I decided to find out.
I have a friend who is an attorney who seldom watches movies of any sort; he doesn't even own a television set. He's never seen AND JUSTICE FOR ALL, so I sent him a cut rate DVD of it (which he played on his PC's DVD drive). I asked him for comments from the point of view of a real, working lawyer.
He enjoyed the film, but I found his comments fascinating... from a technical standpoint, the film had a few flaws, but also had some rather neat plot twists that, for odd reasons, ring true.
First off... I was very surprised to hear that Arthur Kirkland's opening statement to the jury would be VERY UNLIKELY to get him disbarred! In fact, given the circumstances, it was about the only course open to him, and if he HADN'T sunk Fleming, Kirkland COULD have been disbarred! Under the canons of legal ethics, once Kirkland knew FOR CERTAIN that Fleming was guilty of the accusations (and he knew that from Fleming's own admission of guilt), he had only two options. Failure to exercise one of both of them IS grounds for disbarment.
1- He would have to go to the judge and request to be relieved as Fleming's defense attorney. If he were to defend Fleming, KNOWING that he's guilty, it would necessarily require him to LIE in open court, a clear violation of legal ethics. In real practice, a lawyer will often tell a prospective defendant FLAT OUT "If you're guilty, I DON'T WANT TO KNOW ABOUT IT". Unfortunately for us all, Kirkland's probing for the truth (and Fleming's confession) are totally unrealistic. As we know from the film's plot, the option of walking away from the case was neatly cut off for him. Even if he had been able to exercise it, he was still on shaky ethical ground, and could possibly have been hauled before the Bar Association at a later date.
2- Kirkland's other option in this situation involves his role as an Officer of the Court. Once he knew for certain that Fleming was guilty, he was OBLIGATED to report that fact to the court. If he had dropped the case and it could be proved later that he knew about Fleming's guilt but hadn't taken this whistle blowing action, he was disbarment bait. The failure to report Fleming's confession constitutes the deliberate withholding of evidence.
In the end, Kirkland fulfilled this requirement with his outburst, thus covering his ass from an ethical standpoint. However, due to the unconventional way he did it, one of two things would probably happen in a real court.
First, Judge Rayford would reprimand him in open court for his unseemly performance, and possibly find him in contempt.
Second, even tho it was a VERY touchy situation, it's possible that the State Bar Association would probably also issue a reprimand, falling short of disbarment proceedings, again on the basis of unseemly conduct in court.
My attorney friend was also critical of Kirkland's handling of the Jeff McCullough case. Repeatedly, Kirkland tells Jeff "I'll get you out".
Lawyers may sometimes seem like all powerful miracle workers to the general public, but they're not. With his "I'll get you out" statements, KIRKLAND WAS MAKING A PROMISE THAT HE DIDN'T HAVE THE POWER TO KEEP, and thus was lying to Jeff. The proper statement would have been "I'll do everything that I can to get you out".
Another criticism... when the charges were first filed against Fleming, he should have been suspended from the bench IMMEDIATELY until such time as the charges were disposed of. If found eventually guilty, EVERY case that Judge Fleming decided from the time of being charged had an almost automatic appeal loophole.
These things seem like minor technicalities, just the nitpicking of a few words and concepts. That may be true, but the law itself IS nothing but a few words and concepts... words and concepts that we're supposed to be living by.
One final thing the lawyer said, and this is, to me, the most ominous comment of all.
He doesn't deal with Kirkland's sort of practice... in his own words, criminal law is far too sleazy for his tastes.
The lies, back-room deals, corruption, and as he put it, "Playing Penalty Poker" with prosecutors are all too accurately portrayed in this film, and he wants no part of it.
The ending of AND JUSTICE FOR ALL, although fictional, gives us all a bit of welcome relief from a sea of corruption that seems to be drowning us all... but is the film really an accurate reflection of what's going on in the legal system? I decided to find out.
I have a friend who is an attorney who seldom watches movies of any sort; he doesn't even own a television set. He's never seen AND JUSTICE FOR ALL, so I sent him a cut rate DVD of it (which he played on his PC's DVD drive). I asked him for comments from the point of view of a real, working lawyer.
He enjoyed the film, but I found his comments fascinating... from a technical standpoint, the film had a few flaws, but also had some rather neat plot twists that, for odd reasons, ring true.
First off... I was very surprised to hear that Arthur Kirkland's opening statement to the jury would be VERY UNLIKELY to get him disbarred! In fact, given the circumstances, it was about the only course open to him, and if he HADN'T sunk Fleming, Kirkland COULD have been disbarred! Under the canons of legal ethics, once Kirkland knew FOR CERTAIN that Fleming was guilty of the accusations (and he knew that from Fleming's own admission of guilt), he had only two options. Failure to exercise one of both of them IS grounds for disbarment.
1- He would have to go to the judge and request to be relieved as Fleming's defense attorney. If he were to defend Fleming, KNOWING that he's guilty, it would necessarily require him to LIE in open court, a clear violation of legal ethics. In real practice, a lawyer will often tell a prospective defendant FLAT OUT "If you're guilty, I DON'T WANT TO KNOW ABOUT IT". Unfortunately for us all, Kirkland's probing for the truth (and Fleming's confession) are totally unrealistic. As we know from the film's plot, the option of walking away from the case was neatly cut off for him. Even if he had been able to exercise it, he was still on shaky ethical ground, and could possibly have been hauled before the Bar Association at a later date.
2- Kirkland's other option in this situation involves his role as an Officer of the Court. Once he knew for certain that Fleming was guilty, he was OBLIGATED to report that fact to the court. If he had dropped the case and it could be proved later that he knew about Fleming's guilt but hadn't taken this whistle blowing action, he was disbarment bait. The failure to report Fleming's confession constitutes the deliberate withholding of evidence.
In the end, Kirkland fulfilled this requirement with his outburst, thus covering his ass from an ethical standpoint. However, due to the unconventional way he did it, one of two things would probably happen in a real court.
First, Judge Rayford would reprimand him in open court for his unseemly performance, and possibly find him in contempt.
Second, even tho it was a VERY touchy situation, it's possible that the State Bar Association would probably also issue a reprimand, falling short of disbarment proceedings, again on the basis of unseemly conduct in court.
My attorney friend was also critical of Kirkland's handling of the Jeff McCullough case. Repeatedly, Kirkland tells Jeff "I'll get you out".
Lawyers may sometimes seem like all powerful miracle workers to the general public, but they're not. With his "I'll get you out" statements, KIRKLAND WAS MAKING A PROMISE THAT HE DIDN'T HAVE THE POWER TO KEEP, and thus was lying to Jeff. The proper statement would have been "I'll do everything that I can to get you out".
Another criticism... when the charges were first filed against Fleming, he should have been suspended from the bench IMMEDIATELY until such time as the charges were disposed of. If found eventually guilty, EVERY case that Judge Fleming decided from the time of being charged had an almost automatic appeal loophole.
These things seem like minor technicalities, just the nitpicking of a few words and concepts. That may be true, but the law itself IS nothing but a few words and concepts... words and concepts that we're supposed to be living by.
One final thing the lawyer said, and this is, to me, the most ominous comment of all.
He doesn't deal with Kirkland's sort of practice... in his own words, criminal law is far too sleazy for his tastes.
The lies, back-room deals, corruption, and as he put it, "Playing Penalty Poker" with prosecutors are all too accurately portrayed in this film, and he wants no part of it.