In law schools, professors of legal ethics, in giving their students general guideposts to

solve bar questions, are fond of uttering the aphorism In case of doubt, think whether
the action involved serves the ends of justice, improves the administration of justice and
protects the rights of the individuals. If not, then it must be unethical. However, in reality
this is easier said than done because in the practice of law, lawyers are faced not only
with the application of the nuts and bolts of ethical rules but also of other aspects such
as their clients advocate and their own interest, which often times give them a hard time
to hold on the appropriate standards that legal ethics requires. The two films that will be
discussed in this paper perfectly depict that ethics is not just something you can learn at
your mothers knee, that it is not just a matter of choosing what is ethical and what is
not, and that to be ethical in the practice of law, the principle must be deeply rooted not
only in your head but also in your heart.
Movie 1: The Verdict
Frank Galvin used to be a promising lawyer but he got sacked by the law firm with
which he was working and was almost disbarred for trying to do the right thing. He
ended up a boozer and had become an ambulance chaser. His former associate,
Mickey Morrissey, got him a malpractice suit which would make Galvin earn enough
money to get him back on his feet if the suit ended up in a settlement. The case was
brought on behalf of Ann Kaye by her sister against Doctor Towler, who allegedly used
the incorrect anesthetic which led to her permanent brain damage, and the hospital
owned by the Archdiocese.
Frank had only a very few cases in the last few years all of which he had lost and so
Mickey was flabbergasted when he learned that Frank refuses a $210,000 settlement
offer from the Archdiocese, and the hospital to settle the case. He was determined to try
the case because as he was working his way through the preliminaries, his frequent
visit with Ann Kaye, who was in a vegetative state in the aftercare home, he suddenly
realized that perhaps the case should go to court to punish those who are liable, to get
a decent settlement for his clients, and to restore his standing as a lawyer.
For the most part of the trial, it was an uphill battle for Frank as the defense team knew
his every move because they had him tailed. But just when he was on the verge of
giving up, he discovered a witness in the person of Kaitlin Costello. Before she was put
on the stand, Dr. Towlers testified that a doctor is criminally liable if such doctor gives
anesthetic to a patient who has just eaten an hour before the operation. However,
Kaitlin testified that she had admitted Ann Kaye and noted that she had eaten only one
hour before the operation on the admitting record. Under heavy cross examination by
Ed Concannon, she testified that she has a photocopy of the record that proves that she
had put 1 hour on the form, but that it had been altered by Dr. Towler who claimed that
he had been too busy that day to read the record before he went into the operating

room. Concannon asked the judge to have the photocopy suppressed, and to instruct
the jury to disregard all of Kaitlin's testimony, which the court granted.
Surprisingly, the Jury brought in a verdict of guilty, and asked permission to increase the
amount to be awarded to the plaintiffs.
Legal ethics issues
That Frank was framed up and eventually lost his job in the firm because he was going
to expose their corrupt practice, does not justify his act of preying on the weak and
vulnerable as he ambulance chased in different places such as funeral homes.
Ambulance chasing has spawned evils such as defrauding of injured persons having
proper causes of action but ignorant of legal rights and court procedure by means of
contracts which retain exorbitant percentages of recovery and illegal charges for court
costs and expenses and by settlement made for quick returns of fees and against the
just rights of the injured persons.1
Concannon, the defense lawyer gave a comment that Youre not being paid to do your
best. Youre being paid to win! Because of this principle, he became oblivious that he
is a servant of the law and whichever side he is on, he should aid in the dispensation of
justice and shall not directly or indirectly assist in the unauthorized practice of law.
Because of Concannons desire to win, he suppressed the facts and concealed it by
having Galvin tailed and by making one of Galvins witnesses not to testify. Much worse
was in the final part of the movie, after Kaitlin testified of the fact that hospital record of
the victim was altered by Dr. Towler, though Concannon knew it to be true, he asked the
court to have the evidence be excluded and disregarded by the jury. The court allowed it
which should not be the case because Concannons right to do so had been waived
when he cross-examined Kaitlin.
To see that justice is done, winning is not or must not be the end goal. In People v.
Madera, the court, in reiterating that the primary duty of a prosecutor is not just to
convict but to see that justice is done, stated that For his finest hour is not when he
wins a case with the conviction of the accused. His finest hour is still when, overcoming
the advocates natural obsession for victory, he stands up before the court and pleads
not for the conviction of the accused but for his acquittal. For indeed, his noble task is to
prosecute only the guilty and to protect the innocent. 2 Applying the same principle in
this movie, Concannon should have been valiant enough to represent his client only
within the bounds of law and should not have employed improper means to secure the
1 Agpalo, Legal and Judicial Ethics, 2009
2 People v. Madera, 57 SCRA 349, 356 (1974)

winning of his client. Though he is not permitted to admit the guilt of his client, he should
have only defended them by fair and honorable means that the law would permit to the
end that the other parties may not be deprived of their right but by due process of law. 3

Movie 2: A Civil Action

This film is based on a true story of families living in Woburn, Massachusetts
represented by their lawyer Jan Schlichtmann who filed a case against giant companies
for leukemia deaths and other health problems caused by the dumping of poisonous
chemicals that seeped into their community's water supply.
Schlitchtmann was an airhead lawyer, living a life of luxury as he was cited as one of
Bostons top 10 most eligible bachelors. At the beginning of the story, it is apparent that
Schlitchtmann is not a lawyer whose devotion is to serve justice but his devotion is to
the temporal gains he could get from each case as he made the remark that "A dead
plaintiff is rarely worth as much as one who's alive, and in the calculus of personal injury
law, a dead child's worth least of all." Hence, he initially shunned the Woburn case, and
cold-heartedly rejected the families as there were apparently no "deep pockets of big
corporations to sue. However, upon knowing that giant chemical companies and food
conglomerates, were involved in the case, he began to pursue the case to the surprise
of his associates.
It was not really clear in the movie what provoked his sudden change of heart but
Schlichtmann lost his business-like rationality. When his associates informed him of the
opponents desire to settle, he did not appear enthusiastic as he would always be.
During the meeting of the parties to discuss the settlement, he unexpectedly demanded
they be paid $320 million which the opponents were not amicable to do as the amount
was far too high as compared to what they were willing to give. Though Schlichtmanns
firm were no longer financially capable to go through a long trial, he became totally
married to the case on moral grounds to the point that he and his associates had to
mortgage their homes in order to finance the case and they eventually all ended up
bankrupt as they had exerted all that they had only in Woburn case.
The trial ended with Beatrice Foods being dropped from the case and each of the family
got their share of $375,00 from the $8 million paid by W.R. Grace for settlement with no
admission of wrongdoing. It was Schlichtmanns letter to the Environmental Protection
Agency that caused the lawsuit against the giant companies which forced them to pay
the cleanup of the contamination in the town amounting to $69.4 million, the largest
most expensive clean up project in the history of New England.
3 Canon 5, Canons of Professional Ethics; Rule 128, Sec. 20 (i), Rules of Court

Legal Ethics Issues

The first ethical issue I see in this movie is how Schlitchmann and his opponent during
the first part of the film haggle inside the court room as to amount by which they could
settle the case. The court room is the place where justice is administered as a matter of
right and not a market place where one can obtain justice at a discount.
Schlitchmanns pushed his business card into the hand of an accident victim on the
street is considered as soliciting legal business, which taints the integrity and effective
of the legal profession.
Another glaring ethical issue is when Schlitchmann and his associates first discussed
about the Woburn case. In their desire to ditch it, they reasoned that it is not a good
investment. They pointed out that the whole idea of a law suit is to earn a lucrative
income and not for justice to be served.
When Schlitchmann finally met the families in Woburn, he blatantly told them that they
cannot accept their case for there was no defendant with deep pockets to pay them,
which is not a justifiable reason to reject the cause of the defenseless and the
oppressed.
Comparison
In both movies, the protagonists were both offered settlement by their opponents, and
though both of them refused to settle, each of them have their ulterior motive of doing
so. As for Galvin, the almost lifeless condition of his client coupled by this desire to
retrieve his honor as lawyer is what made him put his heart and soul into the case.
With Schlitchmann, initially, his mind-set about a law suit is that .to settle or compel
the other side to settle. You do that by spending more money than you should which
forces them to spend more money than they should; whoever comes to their senses
first loses, and so for the Woburn case, he was really willing to settle, but his change
of mind was brought about by partly of his concern for his clients and partly because of
the cutting remark that Cheeseman, the counsel of one of the defendants said during
their meeting for the settlement. He hated the idea that the opponents were patronizing
them, thought of them as blackmailers and that they could buy them. These became his
driving force to fight tooth and nail against the giant companies and reject the
settlement.
There are indeed, complexities in a lawyers motivation, thus, it is not always easy to do
the right thing, but at the end of the day, no matter how complicated things might be, it is
always a lawyers moral and legal obligation to do what is ethical.