法网边缘

   Civil Action is, I think, one of the best movies about how American law really works. The movie is based on a book (the same name)—and the book is based on a true story.
The movie tells the story of pollution in a small town in Massachusetts. In this town young children get sick and die of cancer. The mothers and fathers think that maybe they are dying because a factory’s polluting the water in the town. A young lawyer (played by the actor John Travolta) becomes the lawyer for the families.
The lawyer brings a lawsuit to ask a U.S. court to order that companies that were responsible for the pollution stop the pollution and pay the families damages. The kind of lawsuit is called a “toxic tort” lawsuit—because the plaintiffs say that they were harmed (tort) by poisonous chemicals (you du de).
There are many interesting and important things that we can learn about and discuss from the movie. These things include:
(1) Career Model: “Plaintiffs” John Travolta is a “plaintiffs lawyer.” He represents people who do not have the money to pay for lawyers. He spends his own (and his small law firm’s) money to do the work. In exchange he hopes to get paid well if the lawsuit is won.
 
In watching the movie, think about: (1) why is John Travolta being a plaintiffs lawyer (to become rich or famous, to help people, both?) (2) what strategy do the lawyers for the defendant companies use to oppose John Travolta? (3) what are the moral issues John Travolta has when the lawsuit becomes very expensive and John Travolta’s law firm has little money left?
 
(2) Tool: Discovery.
 
As we have discussed, one of the most important and special features in American law is “discovery.” The American rules of civil procedure (Federal and state) provide that before the parties go to trial, they should be able to get all the information they need about the case. In many cases, including probably the most complicated civil cases , the parties do not go to trial—they settle the case after they take discovery and find out how strong (or weak) their case is, and how strong (or weak) the case for the other side is.
 
Basically, in discovery, a party can get information from the other side in three ways:
 
a) Deposition. In a deposition a party gets to ask questions of people. The people can be the defendant (including officials of a company or of the government, if the defendant is company or government) or a “third party.” The testimony is like court testimony—the witness has to tell the truth, and a record is kept. But there is no judge or jury present.
 
  Depositions can be very very useful and powerful. The court can order that even the most important people (government or companies) have to make themselves available for deposition. (As you may recall, when he was being sued by a woman, President Bill Clinton had to testify at a deposition). In depositions about environmental pollution by a company, a plaintiff’s lawyer can find out things that the government (or the newspapers or public) do not know.
 
b) Documents. In addition to asking questions of witnesses, parties conduct “documentary” discovery. They can ask the other side (or a third party, though court approval may be needed)) for documents that may be related to the case. (Today, of course, documents include emails and other “e-documents.”)
 
c) “Interrogatories.” Finally, in discovery parties can ask each other to answer—in writing-written questions.
 
In the movie we will see how depositions work. You will see how John Travolta tries to get information from the company witnesses, and how the company lawyers try to depose the families of the children who died. This is an example of the way it really is.
 
(3) Tool: Expert witnesses.
                The families live near polluted water. The children die. The families and John Travolta have a simple argument-- the companies polluted the water, the children drank the water, the children died.
The companies have lots of money for lawyers and experts. They argue that it is much more complicated. The companies did not pollute the water. If they polluted the water, the children did not get sick and die from the water –the children had many other reasons to get sick.

(4) Strategy. I will not tell you how the movie ends, but the movie—again based on a true story—shows that in real life sometimes things work out differently than what lawyers plan for.
 
(5) Settlement and settlement strategy. As the Movie explains, most cases do not go trial—but are settled before the judge or jury has to decide. In many cases this is because in discovery the parties can learn about each other’s case, and see how strong or weak the cases are. A good part of the movie is about the way in which both sides go about trying to settle the case. Watch carefully
 
(6) Lawyer personalities. A great part of the movie is watching the differences between the key lawyers-“Jan,” “Mr. Cheeseman” and Mr. Facher. In America lawyers have many different styles. Watch these different styles-see what you like and what you don’t. Is what you like most effective-or maybe what you don’t like?
 
(7) Moral Questions
   The movie presents very good examples of moral questions. They include:
~~What kind of methods can or should lawyers who oppose “public interest” lawyers use?
~~What should a “public interest” lawyer do when his/her interest in survival (having enough money) comes in conflict with client interest?
~~What should public interest lawyers and clients do when the defendant offers to settle the case—and the settlement may help lawyer or client, but maybe not the larger public interest.

从电影角度很有价值。镜头的拍摄，对话的表现方式。情节设计很巧妙，猜不透最后的结果。很爱financial advisor~最好笑的一段是：勇敢点，把脚放上来~

表现出很多。社会等级，律师道德观职业观，measure of life，是与非对与错。

老师让我们看的时候prepare answers for three questions:
1. Would you have taken the case?
2. Would you have settled? When? How would you have addressed this issue with your clients?
3. Would you want John Travolta's character or Robert Duval's character to be your lawyer? Why?

My answers would be:
1. Yes. Because the case is definitely profitable, given the fact that two large companies: Beatrice Food and W. R. Grace are involved.
2. Yes. Out of the court room, waiting for the jury's decision. I would say that I have tried my best, but I can no longer afford the huge expenses of investigation. This amount of money is a result of cost-and-benefit analysis. Though monetary value can never compensate and redeem your loss, we have tried our best to match up.
3. Robert Duval. I don't know how much a degree says, but in this movie, a lawyer from and teaches at Harvard is certainly more chill. He knows the rules, and manipulates them sometimes. He adjusts well and 扮猪吃老虎 in the legal world. 食物链中的上游. His personality and versatility speaks for everything. I don't like a lawyer who is too easy to read, and who is too eager for cases. His ignorant pride, so to speak. 身段不够柔软。

片子不知道好坏，喜欢约翰屈伏塔。
另外，看了之后又一个观点，正义的维护也要通过商业的手段。
实际上，古时候的絃高就收过这样的批评。

        每次看这样的法律片都能把人看得热血沸腾，如同前段时间看的《因父之名》也是一样。但是恰恰法律是不能热血沸腾的，庭审尤其如此，不能因为情感而控制自己的理性思维。律师不能这样，法官更不能这样。而律师尤其永远不是正义的化身。经验丰富的确是律师的一大优势，这是年轻律师无法相比的。

     看完以后，一边感慨，一边也在警醒自己。很多人在接触法律的时候，都心怀远大理想，可法律实际上呢，真和医生，技工一样只是掌握技术的专业人才而已，把律师来当做救世主，很多时候也许是不行。但是作为民众，作为观众，当然还是希望正义得到伸张。看电影的时候看到许多非常警醒的话，想来编剧竟然如此厉害，最后发现原来也是由原著改编。也许看完原著，会有更深的体会吧。