---

Americans have decidedly mixed feelings about lawyers. On one hand, they deplore what they perceive as a morality wed to the almighty dollar, but at the same time, regardless of how much they complain and feign disgust, they understand many of the profit-motivated decisions that lawyers must make. The first few scenes of A Civil Action mines this schism of attitudes with remarkable skill and insight. Attorney Jan Schlichtmann narrates these scenes while explaining the "calculus" of personal injury law, where a white male, 40-years-old, "at the height of his earning potential," is the most prized client--and where a dead child is the least prized. The bluntness of this message and how easily it is to understand its economics is genuinely unsettling.

Schlictmann becomes everything Americans hate in attorneys, especially as sarcasm drips from his lips while he says this about his clients: "I wish I could find some way not to empathize. It'd be a lot easier." However, in spite of the opportunism that motivates him, it is impossible not to have a glimmer of respect for a man who commands his occupation like a master artist wields a paint brush. In addition, there is some uncertainty about Schlictmann; while initially he seems to be little more than a debonair land shark, there are traces of humanity about him which make it difficult to discard the possibility that his narration is indeed sincere--that he really does empathize with his clients.

When a group of parents in a rural community suspects that chemical-laced tap water has caused the deaths of several children, they attempt to enlist Schlictmann. The parents aren't interested in receiving monetary compensation; they just want a company to accept responsibility. However, when Schlictmann meets the parents, he insists that he can't help them without someone to sue--someone with "very deep pockets." But something happens to him during this encounter, and he begins to dig for more information about the companies that might have poisoned the water.

"From a financial standpoint, this is not a sound investment," warns James Gordon, Schlictmann's partner. However, Schlictmann continues to investigate until he finds a company that has been polluting the river. At this point, whether or not this company is in fact guilty of poisoning the drinking water is irrelevant. All Schlictmann sees is a multi-million dollar company to sue. But as he sticks with the case and the resources of his law office begin to dwindle, Schlictmann becomes so attached to the case he won't let go--even if his firm is destroyed in the process.

A Civil Action isn't really concerned with the pain of the parents. The film is fundamentally about economics: the economics of funding expensive pre-trial investigation and discovery by an undercapitalized small firm working on a contingency fee basis where the firm can only recover expenses as a result of a settlement with the other side. There is also the economics of disposing of the environmental waste which is the basis for the suit:  it's cheaper just to dump it in a hole in the ground. Along the way, viewers are treated to the tension of the high stakes poker and puffery that inevitably accompanies big ticket law suits, with deceit, unethical behavior, and bad judgment on both sides.

A Civil Action doesn't unfold like a thriller. Many of the ingredients of a Hollywood trial drama thriller are present, but the filmmakers thwart those expectations. None of the main characters go down in flames. There is no clear cut enemy.  There are no big climactic court revelations.

In fact, the most noteworthy aspects of the film occur at the very end as the credits roll. The first is a single sentence as the terms of the settlement are read in court. The settlement terms call for secrecy. A provision as tragic as it is commonplace. Defendants in civil suits routinely buy the silence of those they injure by conditioning settlement on the plaintiff's inability to discuss the case with anyone else. This means that if a corporation or an entire industry has done something to injure people, information gained in a suit by one victim cannot be shared with others. The general public never learns about the wrongdoing and thus the wrongdoers face no public scorn for their actions.  Such purchased silence, which most plaintiffs and their attorneys reluctantly agree to out of either need or greed, has the effect of forcing each new plaintiff to reinvent to wheel, and each new plaintiff's lawyer to have to finance that reinvention.

The second important aspect mentioned in the end credits was the government's intervention and rescue of the case. Although civil defendants can buy secrecy as to other litigants, they cannot shield themselves from criminal liability. The film ends with Schlictman sending the case files to the Environmental Protection Agency. After an extensive EPA investigation, the defendants were forced to pay eight times the amount of the civil settlement in fines and clean-up costs. This is a very rare occurrence, very few meritorious civil suits gone awry are taken over and successfully prosecuted by the federal government.

So, in the end, justice was done.

But the film is compelling not for the climax, but because it tells the story of a group of people trying to do the right thing, correct the harm done by a polluter, gain an apology for the victims, and inflict a monetary punishment that will deter future wrongdoing. In spite of greed, horrific tactical miscalculations, and bureaucratic incompetence, the image of the plaintiff's attorney and the government is generally positive. Schlictman is portrayed as an underdog gambler, whose obscene profits in one case are justified by knockdown punches and financial losses he will take in many other suits. It's a dirty business, but how else is justice to be achieved?

---

ASSIGNMENT